I try to keep an open and civil mind when it comes to UFOs.
After all, the topic is hamstrung by all the nuts who engage in it.
But this gets my goat (as we used to say)…
Gilles Fernandez provides a magnificent, if fraudulent, assessment of the 1896 Airship Wave about which I point out some egregious errors and some malapropos psychology.
Asking skeptics to weigh in, in my previous post here, only brought some forgiving and senseless support for Gilles’ endeavor.
When David Rudiak provides like-kind commentary at Kevin Randle’s blog, Lance Moody and CDA are all over him like stink on a monkey.
But here, Lance Moody is a no-show and CDA strokes Gilles’ with sycophantic encomium.
Tim Printy adds a soporific note, as he also likes skepticism that is rife with error and misused psychological argot.
I applaud Gilles’ effort. It is a piece of splendid propaganda.
Even The Anomalist found it here and noted its skeptical salience.
But no one has taken a stab at correcting Gilles’ illogic and many errors, which I attempted to do with the posting below this one.
Skeptics circle the wagons when one of their own is under attack, and truth is set aside for a kind of irrational bonhomie.
It’s shameful skepticism and while I’m more agnostic that skeptical about UFOs, I find the reticence to correct or condemn nonsense, like that in Gilles’ piece, to be a flaw that encapsulates the UFO matter, and makes it even dicier than it intrinsically is.
So, Mr. Printy, CDA, and no-show Lance, I’m embarrassed for you guys.
You’ve shown your true colors and they aren’t prism-clean.