The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Stalked by a Saucer Skeptic by Anthony Bragalia

skeptic.jpg

The "will to disbelieve" in the extraterrestrial can be disturbingly strong. I know this because I am being stalked by a UFO skeptic. The secrets learned from this "extreme skeptic" provide telling insight into just how far some will go when they feel compelled to defend their doubt. A UFO skeptic who fashions himself as the new incarnation of the late arch-skeptic Phillip Klass has revealed why such doubters are so rabid. He provides keen insight into the mind of the "morbidly skeptical." He helps us to define the essential difference between a "critical thinker" and a "cynical skeptic."

In the most recent edition of Mr. Tim Printy's skeptical e-newsletter entitled SUNlite, he attempts to "deflate" or "demolish" recent UFO and Roswell-related research by this author. He has devoted pages upon pages to skeptical rants about my work. This commentary appears in current and past issues of his newsletter; within his blog; on various internet forums; and in endless, scathing emails to this author and to others within the UFO research community. But the backstory on Mr. Printy reveals a skeptic who does not wish to arrive at truth. Instead he fears it. And like his predecessor Phil Klass- he will obfuscate the truth by any means necessary. Like a child unable to accept something that he does not like, Printy protests too much. In his vehemence, he reveals his real concern: the evidence that I have brought forth on Roswell may be true. Printy has been compelled to resort to misrepresentation, omission and assumption. Exasperated, he has finally degenerated to name-calling and outright lying.

In Printy's latest issue of SUNlite, he offers his skeptical "solutions" to three of my recent stories about UFOs and Roswell. These stories have appeared on the UFO Iconoclast blog and have been reproduced on websites worldwide:

FAMOUS LIFE PHOTOGRAPHERS ROSWELL CRASH REVELATION

life-logo.jpg

Famed LIFE photographer Allan Grant related to this author that he had been flown by military from LA to New Mexico on July 7, 1947 to photograph what he was told by military was a "big meteor crash." When he got there, he was issued a gun by his Air Force pilot escort. They searched and found nothing. When he returned, he realized that he that had either "landed in the wrong place at the wrong time" - or that the military had used him as a potential cover and diversion for the crash that he had learned was a disc near Roswell.

Full Story Here

THE SKEPTIC'S "SOLUTION"

Printy "solves" the case by telling his readers that Allan Grant and his widow were old people who were confusing dates. Printy makes the "discovery" that the Grants are really referring to a documented trip to Shiprock, NM during a November, 1947 "meteor hunt" that Grant had made, meeting with Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and Boyd Wettlauffer. The Grants somehow confused this as being associated with Roswell.

THE TRUTH

Printy makes much about this "solution" by reproducing a page from an archived Albuquerque newspaper that mentions Grant and this November 1947 meteor hunt. He pretends that it is an original "finding." He implies that this is "the answer to the mystery." The Grants were simply confused about dates.

What Printy did not know is that this author had already discussed this very Shiprock, NM visit with the Grants in email correspondence over two and a half years ago! Once he was provided this correspondence, Mr. Printy was stunned silent. He had tried to play a game of "Gotcha!" and it had backfired. This is because in a March 17, 2007 email to this author, the Grants had already explained what Printy had thought had never been discussed. The Grants clearly state in that email: "Just four months after Roswell, Allan was sent to Shiprock, N.M." Printy now admits his error and has assured me he will add this clarifying information in his next newsletter.

In follow-up correspondence I asked the Grants if there was any way possible that they were confusing the Shiprock, NM meteor hunt in November with Allan's flight to the Roswell area in July of 1947. I asked this because I had known that Allan was involved in many photography assignments to New Mexico over the years. It was important to know if he could make the distinction between the two trips and events. Grant remained clear and steadfast- that these were in fact separate events that had occured at two distinctly different times and places- one in July and one in November of 1947. During the July flight, Grant indicated that he went alone with a pilot- and that he was not met by others. He also was issued a gun. In the Shiprock visit in November, Grant explained that he was not alone- he was met by Dr. Lincoln LaPaz and Boyd Wettlauffer. And he was not issued a gun, as he was in July. Grant was very aware of the Green Fireball phenomena and of the Meteor Hunt and Balloon projects of the time period. He had confused nothing.

Printy fails to tell the Grant's complete account. Mrs. Grant confirmed that throughout the decades of their marriage they had identified Allan's flight in July of 1947 as the "Roswell flight." Allan remembered the fuss about the press release of the RAAF finding a crashed "disc" and then later stating that it was a balloon. This was precisely when Grant remembers being flown by military out to a site he was told was near Roswell.

Nor does Printy tell his readers the Grant's true feelings about what had happened in July of 1947. In emails in 2007 they write: "The Feds knew all along that it was something more than a meteor, and what better way to deal with it than to invite the prestigious LIFE magazine to come in and take a look. You take them to the spot and show the world there's nothing there. Everybody is happy and relieved, and you can go about your business. Additionally, you can keep all other media out by saying that LIFE had already been there and found nothing." Printy omits what the Grants belief that meteor hunts -like balloons- could be used as a very effective diversionary tactic. As a photographer for America's leading pictorial, Allan Grant lived by the clock for a living. He was very detail-oriented and even maintained a website late in life chronicling his long career. He knew what he did, when and where he did it- and for whom. Mrs. Grant allows that the photograph of her husband on their website that pictures him in a volcanic-looking terrain may not be of the Roswell visit. Printy -even after being forwarded Mr.and Mrs. Grant's 2007 emails to me- stubbornly maintains that they are gravely mistaken.

Mr. Printy never makes his readers aware that Allan Grant wrote about his July 7, 1947 trip to the Roswell area over two decades ago! In 1997 Mr. Grant's story was published in the Los Angeles Times. Grant is very clear about the specific date and the circumstances surrounding the event. Twenty years later he and his wife repeated the same details to me. Mr. Printy purposely omits such details so that his analysis "fits" - even if he has to force it.

Printy believes that the Grants were mistaken about Roswell in 2007. He believes that they were mistaken two decades prior and throughout their decades of marriage. Printy has a penchant for belittling the elderly. In numerous emails to me he has implied that the elderly are weak-minded and that they are "easily led." This is especially interesting in that Printy has privately admitted to me that he has never himself conducted even a single interview of a witness - elderly or otherwise - during his entire "career" as a skeptic!

ROSWELL FIREMAN CONFESSES- IT WAS A FLYING SAUCER!

fire-department.jpg

In 2008 this author spoke with the last-living 1947 Roswell Fire Department fireman. This was done because numerous Roswell crash accounts relate the involvement of the Roswell firemen, including of fireman Dan Dwyer. Witness Frankie Rowe is the daughter of Dan Dwyer. She and her sisters confirm Dan's story of going to the crash site and viewing a crashed disc and non-human corpses. Because Dwyer is now deceased, I wanted to see what the remaining Roswell fireman would say about the crash event. The fireman (now 90) confirmed to me -and in a later conversation- with author Kevin Randle, several stunning things about the Roswell crash in 1947. He said that: 1) An intimidating Colonel from the Roswell Army Air Field visited the Roswell Fire Department after the crash. They were told that an unknown aerial object had crashed outside of town (the Fireman said that it was "unidentified- a flying saucer.") They were told not to respond to any calls about it or to go out there- that it was to be handled by military 2) The Roswell City Manager also came to the Department to warn them it was serious military business and not to get involved. 3) Dan Dwyer did go out to the crash on his own and saw strange activity near the site, including armed guards.

Full Story Here

THE SKEPTIC'S "SOLUTION"

Printy "solves" this case by simply comparing the Fireman's testimony to acknowledged fraudulent Roswell "witnesses" such as Frank Kaufmann and Gerald Anderson. Printy just decides to "lump" together any witness testimony that is troubling to his skeptical analysis with unrelated witness testimony that has been proven not credible. In other words, if one witness lied or embellished about Roswell- then every single witness before or since has done the same.

THE TRUTH

For Printy, it does not matter if you were a world-class photographer or if you are were a life-saving fireman. If you are old and you are telling a Roswell story- then you are either misguided or a liar. As mentioned before, Printy has admitted to me that in his many years of "skeptical analysis" he has never himself interviewed a single witness. In an email to this author, Printy said that only if you were with an organization such as the CIA would you have the ability to conduct such interviews to determine if a witness was telling the truth! Mr. Printy analyzes those of us who interview witnesses, but he admits that he has himself never conducted such an interview!

Unlike such frauds as Kaufmann and Anderson as pointed out by Printy, the Firemen is unquestionably who he says he was. And the Fireman was sought out - he did not come forward- to tell his story. These are essential differences.

And what Printy also does not tell his readers is that the Fireman was referred to me by the son of Rue Chrisman, the Fire Chief at the time of the Roswell crash. Chrisman's own son not only confirmed that the crash was that of a UFO (his words) but that the last-living Fireman knew much more. Author Kevin Randle also spoke with the Fireman. I wanted another person to confirm what the Fireman had told me. The story was confirmed by Randle, but this time the Fireman said that he would prefer not to be identified or to be bothered about the matter again. Living out the remainder of his life at age 90, this is understandable. But strangely, Printy seems to find this to be an indication of fraud.

Printy makes much of the fact that Karl Pflock had briefly contacted this Fireman many years ago. What Printy does not tell his readers is that I was the one who made Printy aware of that very fact! I made Printy aware of this because I wanted him to know that the Fireman was not fictitious (as Printy also implied.) In fact, Printy's own friend had interviewed him! And what Printy fails to explain is that the Fireman remembered this interview. It was Karl Pflock who kept hammering the Fireman with different variations of the same question. Pflock was obsessed that fireman Dan Dwyer would not have gone out to the crash site because the Roswell Fire Department did not make runs outside of city limits. The Fireman (a man of few words by nature) did not offer anything that Pflock did not ask.

Two decades later, I located this same Fireman and mentioned to him that I was referred to him by Rue Chrisman's son. I knew that Chrisman and the Fireman's family went to the same church. A brief but friendly dialog ensued. I asked him very specific questions as well as more open-ended ones. The Fireman told his story sparsely, somewhat reluctantly and without elaboration. He knew that I had already talked with the son of his former Fire Chief- and what the son himself knew about the reality of Roswell. There was not a hint of misdirection or embellishment. The Fireman was of clear mind and told the story as he remembered it. And he remembered it well.

ROSWELL MEMORY METAL RESEARCH

nitinol18.jpg

In a multi-part series of articles the case was made that in the months immediately following the Roswell crash, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base contracted Battelle Memorial Institute to begin studies on Roswell-like "memory metal."

These articles can be read through the links below:

Roswell Debris Confirmed As Extraterrestrial
Roswell Metal Scientist: The Curious Dr. Cross
The Final Secrets of Roswell's Memory Metal Revealed
Scientist Admits to Study of Roswell Crash Debris

THE SKEPTIC'S "SOLUTION"

Printy believes that all of the timing, events, documents and individuals identified in the Battelle-Roswell article series are "coincidental." He maintains that I have "connected dots" where they should not be connected and that I "read into things." He believes that I confuse standard aeronautical metals research with non-existent ET metals research.

THE TRUTH

Printy lacks even a sophomore-level understanding on researching the history of science. He admits that his critique of my work is limited to simple "Googling" -something that he had accused me of doing. Unlike him, I have engaged the expert opinion of metallurgists, utilized FOIA and subscription-based technical databases and I have contacted archivists of DoD and their contractors.

His skeptical "analysis" dances around several fundamental facts:

1) Backtracking the history of scientific literature on shape-memory alloys leads to work done by Battelle in the late 1940s under contract to Wright-Patterson AFB (where the Roswell debris was reportedly flown.) Memory metal reports conducted by military years later reference a once-restricted Battelle 1949 report on novel Titanium alloys (including on Nickel-Titanium, the basis for today's Nitinol memory metal)
2) A former General at Wright-Patterson implicates "specially-processed Titanium alloy" as part of what comprises the Roswell debris.
3) Another General (after the Roswell crash) states in a Secret Memo that a lightweight intermetallic material of unusual fabrication is a "material of construction" of UFOs.
4) A Battelle scientist named Elroy Center (whose story was publicly told in 1992) claimed in 1960 to have analyzed ET metal when at the Institute.
5) The Battelle 1949 report (obtained under FOIA this year) suspected to be related to Roswell was found to have been co-authored by Elroy Center. Center is the very same scientist who confessed decades earlier to having studied crash disc material. Another of the report's co-authors reported to Battelle Titanium scientist Howard Cross. Cross was found to have conducted secret UFO studies on behalf of the US government.
6) The official "co-inventor" of Nitinol (Nickel-Titanium) memory metal conducted "mind over matter" tests on the material to see if a psychic could "morph" it.
7) The official history of Nitinol memory metal is riddled with holes and contradictions.
8) There exists clear evidence that Battelle (and NASA) continue to "seed" shape-memory technology.

Printy has specific "gripes" about certain aspects of this research. They include:

Battelle Scientist Confessor Elroy Center:

Printy says that the story of Elroy Center is second-hand. He states that the person who related Center's story was the boyfriend of Center's daughter. He also says that Elroy's involvement in the Battelle metals report does not prove anything. What Printy does not tell readers is that the Center family friend was a middle-aged adult professional when he told Dr. Irena Scott about Center's confession. Printy also does not make clear that Dr. Scott was herself a PhD scientist employed at Battelle! Though he acknowledges that Center's family confirmed Elroy's intense interest in UFOs and ET, he does not explain what I had told him- that this is an ongoing investigation and that others may be coming forward to affirm Elroy's confession.

Printy fails to comprehend that a Battelle scientist related a story of ET metal analysis. And that it was this same scientist who authored the very report that was long suspected to relate to Roswell metal analysis. It was not known that Center was the co-author of this report until August, 2009 when his report was released under FOIA. Center made his confession in 1960. Center's report is later referenced in four military-sponsored studies on memory metal. These are "coincidences" that Printy simply cannot handle.

Earlier Titanium Research "Disproves" the Roswell Metal Thesis:

Printy offers up Titanium technical reports completed before the Roswell crash. He wants his readers to believe that I think that it was only after the crash that Titanium became of interest to military. What I actually maintain is that a novel Titanium alloy comprised some of the debris found at Roswell.

Wright Patterson Air Force Base Commander General Arthur Exon implicated "specially processed" Titanium as part of the debris composition. Battelle's chief Titanium expert (Dr. Howard Cross) was proven to be a secret UFO researcher for the US government. Elroy Center, who confessed to ET metal analysis, is shown to have been expert in Titanium purity. General George Schulgen wrote that the "materials of construction" of UFOs were of lightweight intermetallics of "unusual fabrication." Memory metal (such as Nitinol) is a lighweight, specially-processed Titanium intermetallic.

I am keenly aware that Titanium was being explored for its application in jets and aeronautics, with strictly terrestrial inspiration. But I am also aware that such Titanium alloys (like Nitinol) can comprise material that closely resembles the kind reported at Roswell. That a unique Titanium alloy should be part of an ET craft should not be that surprising. Titanium is one of the most abundant elements in the universe.

Skeptics have said that Titanium and Nickel were used as early as 1939. But I acknowledge in the very first article in this series that "the earliest known combination of Titanium and Nickel reported in the scientific literature was in 1939 by two Europeans." But this crude sample was a by-product of entirely unrelated research. Any unique alloy work was not performed or noted. No tensile tests for "maximum bend radius" or "elongation" were conducted (as they were for the Battelle report.) And the 1939 scientists would not have been able to melt and purify the Titanium to sufficient levels at that time (as they did at Battelle when the report was written) and they would not have known about the energy requirement needed to create the effect.

In the months after the crash the Battelle report shows- they began to conduct first-ever, sudden and intense development of these new Titanium alloys. This included chemical tests and phase diagramming. Swiftly -and all at once- they started a veritable obsession with "intermetallics." They were examining ways to melt these novel alloys effectively; increase their purity and "mixability" levels; and analyze their crystalline structures.

The "Nickel Ratio" of the Battelle Report Does Not Equate to the "Nickel Ratio" for Nitinol:

Printy says that because the Nickel content of Titanium-Nickel alloy found diagrammed in the Battelle report is not at 50% (as it is with Nitinol) that this proves my thesis is incorrect. What Printy does not inform his readers is that in my very first article on this subject I specifically note: "Although Nitinol is not identical to the Roswell debris material, it represents our best attempts at recreation of the found memory metal." I explain that shape-memory alloys are Roswell-inspired. But they are not themselves the morphing metal found at Roswell.

I even had emailed Printy new NASA research showing that by varying the Nickel content of shape memory alloys (and by including small amounts of other elements) certain desired characteristics can be brought out in shape memory material. The Roswell material was likely a specially processed material. Perhaps it was fabricated in the gravity-free vacuum of space where ultra-high levels of purity and "mixability" can be achieved. It was a highly-novel intermetallic that incorporated Titanium as one of its elements.

Psychic Uri Geller Was The Psychic Tested by Nitinol Scientists:

The "official" co-inventor of Nitinol (Dr. Fred Wang) was proven to have conducted bizarre "mind over matter" Nitinol experiments in the early 1970s. His associate at the US Naval Lab (Eldon Byrd) confirms there was a report generated on psychic influence to morph Nitinol. When I included the report's title, author and year of publication, I did not name the specific psychic who was tested. Printy feels that because the psychic (Uri Geller) was not named, that I in some way do not really believe the report. But Printy misses the point: I do not need to "believe" or "disbelieve" Uri Geller. The point is that -at that time- government scientists did conduct these strange tests and they wanted to see if Geller could influence a morph in Nitinol metal using mental energy. During this same time frame Geller was also documented to have been psychically tested at the government think-tank Stanford Research Institute. I knew that the inclusion of Geller's name in my article would a distraction that would be "hopped on" by skeptics as a reason to disbelieve the Nitinol tests, and I was right.

The Battelle Report Doesn't Mention ET:

Printy points out that the FOIA obtained document does not mention ET material. There is nothing to indicate that anything other than terrestrial materials were being studied.

But such comments show a complete lack understanding of the two fundamental concepts of military intelligence- and of how such science would be reported. These are the concepts of "Compartmentalization" and "Need to Know." "Compartmentalization" of sensitive information assures that fewer people know the details or scope of a particular mission or task. "Need to Know" is a security criterion that requires an individual to establish the need for such information in order to complete an assigned activity. You only reveal parts of the story- and never give the backstory. Or tell them a plausibly deniable story. For instance, tell them that the ET material was "Russian or German." Blend the information so that it does not appear to be anything other than part of existing areas of research. And it is clear that the release 1949 Battelle report is part of a larger study. Prior work on the material may have been finely "segmented" out to various groups so that no one group knew the full story. This is precisely how captured enemy MIG aircraft, for instance, were reverse-engineered. These science reports never mention the "backstory" of the craft's "who, what, when or why."

CRITICAL THINKER vs CYNICAL SKEPTIC

head-in-sand.jpg

Never have your head in the sand- you'll only get your ass kicked. Printy's morbidly skeptical approach has come back to bite him. In a prior SUNlite newsletter, Printy implies that I conduct this research for "fame and fortune." What Printy does not know is that I have never taken (nor sought) any compensation for any of my research. He speaks without knowing. He says that I am motivated by a want for notoriety. He does not tell his readers that for many years I have quietly provided UFO researchers with leads and stories without receiving or seeking attribution or credit.

thinker.jpg

Critical thinkers are welcome. They encourage us to view all aspects of a problem to arrive at solutions and truth. Cynical skeptics are another matter. As Maya Angelou wisely observes, "There is nothing so pitiful as a cynic- because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing."

8 Comments:

  • Dear Tony,
    Fabulous stuff...oh by the way sorry for the stalker. I really think that this happens to stop researchers from going on. They end up with most of their time answering these morons. I hope you continue on Mr. Bragalia and not let these people tire you out. Do you know how long skeptics have been using compacted memory as an excuse to put doubt on a story. I know someone who has Alzheimer and still remembers his UFO experience in the military like he did when he was well. This Stalker is not a skeptic he is a debunker who comes from a place of "this is bunk" to start off with.
    Just be well and understand his audience already have their minds made up. I call them "Debunker Groupies"

    Thanks
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Sunday, September 20, 2009  

  • Tony Bragalia's blast at Tim Printy calls for comment. Regarding the Allan Grant affair, Bragalia's statements are puzzling. In his letter to the LA Times in 1997 (written after he had seen the AF Case Closed book published that year), Grant makes no mention of any date that he was sent to Roswell. He merely says it was "some 50 years ago". So the "July 7" date was, presumably, added by Bragalia. Since the first news of the Roswell case was made public on July 8, it follows that the July 7 date is wrong anyway. There is no way LIFE magazine would have had some magical 24-hour advance notice of Roswell.

    Grant also relates that the event he was sent to photograph was a meteor crash. In all the press reports of Roswell never once is a meteor mentioned. So if Grant was genuinely recalling the Roswell event there is no way the LIFE editor would have referred to it as a meteor crash. It would have been a 'flying disc' crash possibly, but certainly not a
    'meteor' crash.Nor need we suppose the AF ever informed LIFE of this 'crash' at all. The whole object of the exercise was, so we are constantly told by ETHers, for the AF to keep the affair top secret, not to go telling everyone about it, especially the day before Haut issued his famous press release! This is clearly a mistake by either Grant or his widow. Bragalia should have the courage to admit this.

    I am also puzzled by Bragalia's repeated claim that the Grants told him this and that. Who exactly was it - Allan or his wife Karin? When did she first relate her story to Bragalia. She addresses him as "Tony" in a March 2007 email, whereas Tony said on this blog that he only became aware of Grant's LA Times letter in 2008 and had to track down Grant. Why did Tony need to track down Grant in 2008 when he had already made contact with his wife about one year earlier?

    Tony is also confused on other dates. Grant did not write his LAT letter 20 years ago but 12 years ago. It is obvious to me that Grant, upon reading the AF Report, suddenly had a memory flash and assumed he was involved in those distant events, but confused the dates. I do not deny he may have made two or more visits to NM, maybe in quick succession. But there is no reason to suppose he was ever involved with Roswell. For instance, did he ever once mention this involvement BEFORE reading the 1997 AF Report? Is there any confirmed pre-1997 letter or document to support such?

    Yes, memories are very fallible in old age. Let us not pretend otherwise. (They can be equally fallible in younger people). The fact that someone was a famous photographer (or even a famous "life-saving" fireman) does not in any way reduce that fallibility.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, September 20, 2009  

  • CDA-

    The date of July 7, 1947 was provided to me in emails from the Grants. And CDA, have you actually been to the Allan Grant Life website? You might gain some insight into who is saying what about dates. Your comment, "the date was persumably added by Bragalia" is a wrong presumption. I suggest that you consider refraining from presumption in the future. Printy did and see where it got him.

    Relative to your question about the Grants: I make it very clear in the article that Mr. Grant was in very ill health when I began emailing. Mr. Grant answered directly once. In later emails, Mr. Grant was unable to use the computer keyboard due to his illness. Mrs. Grant would ask him the questions and she would type his answers. She also related what Allan has told her throughout the decades of marriage about the event. They even used to call it his "Roswell Flight."

    Incidentally, after I read Printy's SUNlite article on this, I forwarded to him the original email from the Grants discussing the July 7 flight and the later November flight.

    And relative to the LA Times Grant letter- I meant 12 years ago, not 20, thanks for pointing that out.

    Tony

    P.S. I am not going to get in to a "tit for tat" with you CDA.

    One "morbidly skeptical" stalker is enough to deal with. I will not exhaust myself with
    another.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 20, 2009  

  • Sorry Tony Bragalia, but there was NO July 7, 1947 flight made by Grant to Roswell. None. This is because the very first the press, or in fact anyone, knew of Roswell was on July 8, i.e. the day Haut made his (in)famous press release.
    You have indirectly confirmed that there is nothing in writing to confirm Grant ever flew to Roswell in July 1947. Nothing but fading memories 50 years later.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, September 20, 2009  

  • An insightfull post. Will definitely help.

    Thanks,
    Karim - Positive thinking

    By Blogger karim, at Monday, September 21, 2009  

  • The believers and the skeptics don't like being labeled as being didactic while having this this overwhelming compulsion to unwittingly label themselves by their behavior as such, to an observer less invested in
    the minutia of a zero sum game.

    The ironic twist in this frozen landscape is they provide ample examples that they are are both wrong as they beat the bones of the dead horse into pulp.

    Was Richard The Third behind the murder of the twins or was he the victim of propaganda? Footnotes to an alleged scheme in a vast appendix of details remind me of T.S Elliott's poetic epitaph, "dust in the air suspended, mark the place, where a story ended."

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, September 21, 2009  

  • Tony,

    I think your being very kind, as the definition of "skeptic" is as follows:


    1. One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is
    looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after
    facts or reasons.
    [1913 Webster]

    Printy's repetitive behavior exhibits the fact that he does not fall under this description.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Monday, September 21, 2009  

  • You must be reading a different version of Sunlite than I am. In the version I read Mr Printy's articles are thoughtful, incisive and thought provoking.

    By Blogger Steve M, at Wednesday, August 22, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home