Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Magical Realist, Apr 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Well, I guess the Bible is wrong then because it said the flood was caused by raining for 40 days, and happened all over the earth and destroyed all life. I thought you said you believed in the Bible. Are you backpeddling now?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    And if you're scared of the scientific method, you should stay out of a science forum.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Because that is more plausible?


    It took you around 2 pages of arguing that it was real, before you had to finally admit that it was fake..

    Because when James pointed out just how badly photoshopped/fake that image was, you came out with the excuse that the reason the power lines looked like they had been cut in two places, right in front of where the "UFO" happened to be (ie no where else in the image), was because of "pixelation".. You again argued that it was not photoshopped.. And you even did so after that article was posted and it was clearly pointed out that the image you had spent pages arguing was real, was in fact fake and you still didn't believe it.. When you had no choice but to admit it was fake, because it clearly was, you disappeared from the thread - after all, you were once again caught out posting fake rubbish - only for you to then crop up again, with yet another UFO thread..

    Rinse and repeat.

    This is what you do.

    The issue is that you refuse to acknowledge that your arguments and sources are wrong. You refuse to acknowledge all evidence that clearly shows you are wrong. You twist and turn your claims and argument to make it fit into what you want it to be, despite irrefutable proof that it is wrong.

    But you aren't posting actual evidence.

    At all.

    If you were posting evidence, people would not scoff. Do you understand this yet? If you posted actual evidence or proof of aliens visiting this planet in spacecrafts, no one would argue against you. Even people who study and/or believe as you do admit there is no actual evidence for UFO's being alien space craft.

    For decades, they have been scanning the skies for signs of alien activity.

    But having failed to establish any evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life, Britain’s UFO watchers are reaching the conclusion that the truth might not be out there after all.

    Enthusiasts admit that a continued failure to provide proof and a decline in the number of “flying saucer” sightings suggests that aliens do not exist after all and could mean the end of “Ufology” – the study of UFOs – within the next decade.

    Dozens of groups interested in the flying saucers and other unidentified craft have already closed because of lack of interest and next week one of the country’s foremost organisations involved in UFO research is holding a conference to discuss whether the subject has any future.

    Dave Wood, chairman of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (Assap), said the meeting had been called to address the crisis in the subject and see if UFOs were a thing of the past.

    “It is certainly a possibility that in ten years time, it will be a dead subject,” he added.

    “We look at these things on the balance of probabilities and this area of study has been ongoing for many decades.

    “The lack of compelling evidence beyond the pure anecdotal suggests that on the balance of probabilities that nothing is out there.

    “I think that any UFO researcher would tell you that 98 per cent of sightings that happen are very easily explainable. One of the conclusions to draw from that is that perhaps there isn’t anything there. The days of compelling eyewitness sightings seem to be over.”


    David Clark, a Sheffield Hallam University academic and the UFO adviser to the National Archives, said: “The subject is dead in that no one is seeing anything evidential.

    “Look at all the people who now have personal cameras. If there was something flying around that was a structured object from somewhere else, you would have thought that someone would have come up with some convincing footage by now – but they haven’t.

    And you view anyone who looks at what you are touting as evidence critically as a troll. To wit, you spend your time in that sub-forum, posting images and videos and you take their authenticity at face value. You're treating it like it is your personal blog and you become offended when anyone dares to counter what you are posting with actual explanations or evidence that you are posting something fake or with evidence that you are posting something that has been clearly misrepresented.

    You don't post evidence. You just post stories and videos and pictures you believe in. This place isn't a blog site. If you cannot actually support your arguments with actual evidence, we aren't interested and would prefer if you did not post as you are.

    It might be in the Fringe section, but you are still expected to comply with this site's rules when it comes to 'evidence'. And you aren't.

    The "proof" actually shows something else..
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I fail to see how evidence of a flood is somehow evidence against a flood; certainly you aren't simply being dishonest again (oh, wait, when did you ever stop)
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    LOL! Duh...ofcourse it's more plausible than what you lied about.

    What I did was dismiss James' claim of photoshop because of pixellation, and then admitted Baldee's claim of photoshop when he showed me pics of the same ufo in other photoshopped photos. So you lied. This is what you do.

    BTW, you're violating your own policy again of not talking about ufo evidence outside of the fringe section. What is wrong with you? You infract me for discussing it, but you obsess about it like it was the only topic being discussed here. It isn't and it is offtopic. Go away liar. I want nothing to do with you. The evidence is there for anyone to peruse.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016
  9. Bells Staff Member

    But I didn't lie.

    You can keep claiming I lied, when it is clear I did not.

    You fought tooth and nail that it was not fake or photoshopped. When it became clear that you were wrong, you left the thread and then simply opened another thread on UFO's.. Which also contained false claims and stories that are not actually backed by fact. You went back and forth about the so called evidence you provided, were unable to substantiate any of it. This is a common theme with you.

    I am merely pointing out the issues with your posts. As I have repeatedly said, you wanted to know why traffic is so low, problem posting like yours is a reason.

    I have issued you with an infraction for discussing it in this thread?

    *Raise eyebrows*

    And you accuse me of lying?

    Again, what evidence?

    This website isn't your personal blog. If you wish to simply just spam posts about the supernatural, perhaps you should start a blog where you can happily do so as you please. This website:

    Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument.

    You fail to comply with even this basic requirement. What part of that hasn't sunk in yet?
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    I will continue to post threads containing compelling evidence for ghosts, monsters, and ufos in the forum designated for it. Just as I have for 5 years now. Get used to it liar.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    No, actually, you won't be.

    When you fail to comply with:

    Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument.

    Your thread will be closed and you could find yourself facing further moderation. It might be the forum designated for UFO's and the like, but you are still required to comply with the above.. If you persist in posting fake images and videos or misrepresentations as you have been doing and claiming they are real or fact, your thread will be closed.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016
    exchemist and Daecon like this.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    On the thread topic of "traffic"...

    sciforums was here before twitter. Before Facebook. Before the thousands of clickbait websites that now exist. It was here when blogging seemed like a cool new thing to try and MySpace was a new idea the young ones were dabbling in.

    In short, there are more distractions on the interwebs now than there used to be. And lots of people, it seems, don't really want to read anything that they can't skim-read in a few seconds. Read the first paragraph and skip the rest.

    Could it be that sciforums is for a certain type of connoisseur these days? Or is reading text on a screen just a little boring now (for some)?

    Hey! Look at this photo of what I ate for lunch!
    Bells likes this.
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I think James "nailed it." I mainly post here now to correct errors I noticed. I am fighting prostate cancer for more than 8 years now and spend more time at Us Too than here now. I just completed 37 secession of radiation a week ago (2Gy/ day) - yes some of us are seduced to other sites.

    Many of my post here are replies to Plasma's new threads, showing that the new break thru is not really all that new. I probably should stop that as Plasma is doing a lot to keep this site going.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member


    Nobody can deny that the ufo threads stimulate discussion and debate. They stir everyone up and get people posting. That's probably good for the board. (Arguing is fun.) What's more, they represent fascinating epistemological problem-cases and they illustrate no end of important issues regarding 'critical analysis' and 'evidence based argument'. So it's educational too.

    And once again, whoever wrote that little bit of text was confusing "the scientific method" with clear thinking, logic and epistemological soundness and apparently using the former as a synonym for the latter. Just because a tendentious philosophical assertion is enshrined in Sciforums' rules doesn't make the idea true or even defensible.

    And how does everyone know that MR's evidence are "fake images, videos or misrepresentations"? That's just an assumption. There's rarely any convincing evidence supporting those dismissive conclusions, they are typically just speculations. Speculations that I share more often than not, but I don't have any smoking-gun evidence either.

    Here on Sciforums, the argument seems to be that if somebody is capable of producing a speculation about a possible mundane interpretation of an image, then the more exotic interpretation necessarily has to be bullshit. But that doesn't logically follow. That's why elsewhere I've tried to inject the idea of likelihoods into the arguments about anomalies and inquired into where our assessment of those likelihoods comes from. (From our prexisting worldviews, I think, from how we conceive of the universe around us behaving.)
  15. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I frequent several discussion boards like this one and all of them have experienced a gradual decline in traffic. All of them were a lot busier ten years ago. It isn't just Sciforums, it's internet wide.

    If millenials want to communicate with their peers, they haul out their cell phones (they don't use laptops) and go to the social-media sites they frequent. I'm not sure if it's Facebook or Twitter any more, there must be cooler places than those. (The fact that people like me can't name them is part of what makes them cool, I guess.)

    Right. Kids don't read books any more. A full paragraph is a long piece of text and an imposition on them. I've heard that university professors are less apt to assign kids entire books to read than they once were, probably because the kids won't do it.

    But kids can kind of mimic knowing about a subject by Googling it and acquiring a collection of unconnected factoids. It's logical reasoning, understanding general principles and general context where they seem to me to fall short.

    Probably both.

    I've noticed it right here on Sciforums. Some of us tend to write longer posts (though not like Tiassa's stream-of-consciousness things). Others habitually post little one-liners, seemingly shooting for being 'witty'. I think that the latter style is something more suited to cell-phone messaging chat.
  16. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I thank so... so how do you suggest that Sciforums deal wit that issue.???
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    It's not just that arguing is fun. The various pseudosciences themselves are fun. Fantasies of aliens visiting Earth, paranormal powers, ghost stories, the Loch Ness monster - what's not to like about those things?

    But what really interests me is why some people confuse these fantasies with reality. Even (some) otherwise intelligent people do it. And the reasons are many: an absence of critical thinking or in some cases a real appreciation of what it means to think critically, the desire to believe, the desire to think oneself in possession of "special" knowledge and/or power, and so on and so forth.

    I plead guilty to writing that little bit of text. Would you care to explain why you think it is tendentious and indefensible?

    It is, of course, conceivable that some of MR's videos actually show alien craft, ghosts and the like. But if so, those ones are almost certainly buried among a very large heap of fakes and misapprehensions.

    For my part, I've found that MR is not really interested in a detailed examination of any of the evidences he provides. He prefers to go looking for the next new shiny shell that he can find, never stopping to properly look at the ones he already has. I have rarely come across somebody who believes such a wide range of disparate dubious claims. MR is fun to chat to, until you realise that there's this huge blind spot there that prevents him from ever appreciating just how unreasonable his strongly-held beliefs are in light of the extremely weak nature of the available evidence. I don't think the evidence is the important thing for him, though, when it comes down to it. If I had to guess, I'd say it's the stories that really push his buttons, along with the thrill of thinking that all those things might be real.

    The exotic interpretation sometimes remains a possibility. That should not be confused with it being likely.

    It's always good, I think, to look at these things in context. If this claim is true, then what else must be true? And if this claim doesn't fit what we think we already know, what then? Are we wrong about this, or wrong about everything else? It's a big step to conclude the latter rather than the former. We'd better be sure it's the right step before we make it.
  18. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Speaking for myself...I make the effort to read long posts if the poster is someone I think knows what there talking about, and I feel there's a chance of learning or a better understanding of something. You learn very quickly the ones worth the effort. And, I don't think I need to give names of those worth reading...sweetpea
    After thought, are certain sections slowing down in hits?
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    There's nothing in the sci forum rules that forbids anyone from posting threads in the fringe forum and you know it. Typically I post well-documented accounts by first hand credible witnesses of a phenomenon in video or text form. That is not fake. That is compelling evidence whether you like it or not. So you know what you can do with your pathetic threats. Stand by for more compelling evidence and engaging thought-provoking threads. You should be thanking me for all the increases in site traffic my threads generate.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    I find the petulant denialism of so-called skeptics just as curious. What's at stake for someone that they would spend days tediously trying to disprove or invalidate evidence for an anomalous phenomena ?Why the offputting hubris and posing as one well versed in "critical thinking", all the while condescending to the believer as if they are some wretched and inferior being? Why now the attempt by Bells to ban all discussion of anomalous phenomena even in the fringe section, as if that discussion were harmful to the astute minds visiting this forum? Does the reality of anomalous phenomena threaten science in any way? No..Electrons will keep spinning, cells dividing, and stars blazing whether there are ufos or not. Science will only have one more interesting territory to explore and describe in its pursuit to understand what makes the universe tick.

    "As a scientist I must be mindful of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."
    J. Allen Hynek
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I'm inclined to agree. But what explains the anger and hostility that they generate here on Sciforums, in organizations like CSICOP, and in the so-called "skeptical" community generally? I'm reminded of the inquisition trying to stamp out medieval heresy. I love exploring the boundaries, but most people seem to find it threatening and much prefer intellectual conformity.

    Everybody has beliefs. Few of us take the time and effort to justify all of them up to some arbitrary standard. (Even if we could.) The idea that heretical ideas are fantasies, distinct from reality is itself a belief, one that probably needs better justification than it's so far received.

    It works both ways. I think that the "skeptics" are often trying to defend their own worldviews as well.

    My biggest complaint is the common tendency here on Sciforums to collapse "the scientific method" together with 'logic and epistemology' as synonyms.

    I'm not convinced that there is a single 'scientific method', I'm more inclined to think that it's a modern myth. Scientists have a whole bag full of methods that they employ as situations demand. (Logical and mathematical derivations, mathematical, evolutionary and causal models, countless experimental and observational techniques, all manner of statistics, classification schemes, phylogenies and cladistics...) Deploying that stuff appropriately is part of what scientific skill and creativity means. A few scientists even invent new methods to address new problems. In other words, scientists can use any method that they damn well please, provided only that it's justifiable in logical, epistemological and purely scientific terms.

    The idea that science possesses a single wonderful procedure that all scientists employ in all proper examples of scientific practice, that serves to distinguish science from non-science, that accounts for the amazing success of Western science since the scientific revolution, and that should serve as a model for all of the rest of human cognition (about matters of fact at least) isn't convincing in my view and the last is a clear prescription for scientism.

    I thoroughly agree. That's my view too. I'm not entirely sure why I feel that way though, or how I could justify the assertion.

    MR wants to believe that the universe is amazing. He doesn't like the idea that everything is known, understood and confined to a little intellectual box labeled "science" that pre-defines what is and isn't possible (and even dictates how one must think). MR used to be religious, and I think that he's desperately seeking a sense of transcendence to replace his lost belief in God.

    I'm not dissimilar myself, which is probably why I can sympathize with where MR is coming from. I've never believed in God though and feel no sense of loss in that regard. With me, I locate my source of transcendence in the pervading intuition of mystery that I've always sensed all around me. The sense that I am surrounded by philosophical mysteries at every moment is all the transcendence I need, so I don't grasp after gods, ghosts or ufos: I don't know what consciousness is. I don't know what word meanings are. I don't know how words acquire reference to extralinguistic reality. I don't know what logic is. I don't know how we come to know about logic. I don't know why reality seems to conform to it. I don't know what kind of reality numbers and mathematical relationships might have. I don't know what the present, future and past are or how they work. I don't know what kind of reality unrealized possibilities have. I don't know what substances and properties are. I don't understand necessity and contingency. I don't know how parts and wholes are related. I don't know how some kinds of beings and events can be reduced to others. I don't know what 'laws of nature' are or why they exist. I don't even know how evidence justifies conclusions. And most ultimately and fundamentally, I don't know why reality exists at all, why there is something rather than nothing.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016
  22. Bells Staff Member

    I never said you are not allowed to post in the Fringe forums.

    I am saying that when you do post there, you need to comply with:

    Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument. Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty.

    Pay particular attention to the part that is bolded. Because this is something you have consistently failed to adhere to when posting on the Fringe forum.

    I don't know why you believe I said that you weren't allowed to post in the Fringe forum. I never said any such thing. All I said was that you will need to comply with the above when posting.

    When you post in the Fringe subsection, you will need to do your research first. As such, you will need to stringently research to make sure that what you are posting is not fake and is not a misrepresentation of fact. This pretty much applies to everyone who posts on this whole site. Not just you. But you seem to believe that the Fringe sub-forum is open to you posting anything you believe like it is your own blog, even when what you are posting is fake and simply not real. I'll put it this way, I can pretty much find reasonable explanations for what you post in about 30 seconds and/or I can pretty much find evidence that what you are posting is fake in less time than that. To wit, you are finding stories and posting them as though they are fact and you are not doing any research, or more to the point, you are not critically analysing what you are posting to make sure it isn't fake or a misrepresentation. And as a result, your threads and post in there are not "evidence based". Worse still, you then claim that these are fact.

    As I have said to you repeatedly, I don't particularly care what you believe in. But if you are going to claim that your beliefs are fact, then you need to be able to back that up and to do that, you need to apply even the most rudimentary form of the scientific method. Let's face it, what you are passing off as fact in those sub-forums would not even get a passing grade in the first grade of primary school. And that is the problem. And it is why so many people revolt against what you post in there. You're a nice guy, MR and you are intelligent and insightful. I would like you to apply that intelligence to what you post instead of copying whole articles as your posts without any research or background into what you are posting and claiming them as fact and real. You need to be able to discount all of the mundane things it could be and you need to have evidence to support your argument of why it is not something mundane. Simply saying it is technology not known to mankind, for example, is not going to cut it.

    Frankly, I cannot understand why you find this so objectionable. This is a requirement we all live with when we post on this site and pretty much every other science forum out there. If you cannot back it up with irrefutable proof, don't post it. If you can back it up with irrefutable proof, post it. What I am asking you to do is to comply with this site's rules and don't treat it like your personal blog. It actually isn't a hard request or an unfair one.

    If you actually did do that, MR, we would not be having this conversation.

    Your videos are either fake or something else that has been misrepresented as being something that it is not. Your eyewitness testimony are only ever posted on UFO websites that sensationalise and dramatise it and often misrepresent what it is. To wit, people see a strange light and you take this and declare it is a UFO or alien origin or aliens with absolutely no proof to support the claim that it is aliens. You declare this as fact without any proof whatsoever. When challenged, you become abusive and combative. You want to post these things unchallenged and you refuse to even acknowledge that what you are posting may be made up or fake or photo-shopped or a misrepresentation. Which is why it is clear that you treat that sub-forum like it is your personal blog. It isn't. And when you post there, you need to be able to back it up with actual evidence. It needs to be irrefutable. If you are posting fake things or misrepresentations and claiming it as fact, that is dishonest and yes, it will be shut down.

    13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions.

    15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.

    21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).

    22. Propaganda wars are similar to flame wars, except in that they ostensibly involve argument about a topic. They are typically characterised by zealots on both sides of the argument who have no intention of listening to the opposing point of view, let alone possibly changing their minds. The result is invariably that members become frustrated and spin-off complaints to the moderators become rife.

    23. Propaganda also includes material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, which demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include article which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an argument.

    24. Preaching is giving a sermon, often but not always of a religious nature, stating how people should or should not act, as if the sermon itself were self-evidently true.

    25. Proselytising is attempting to convert others to one’s own beliefs, often with threats of adverse consequences if one refuses to convert.

    26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.

    27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.

    All of this pretty much applies to you (except the threats part in 25.. although your repeated threats of reporting others and then reporting them when they challenge your beliefs could apply here) and how you post in the Fringe sub-forum.

    Hence the problem.

    And stand by for moderation if you fail to apply even basic standards of posting on this site. If you persist in treating like your personal blog, if you persist in not applying any form of critical analysis or doing even basic research to make sure what you are posting is not fake, you will face moderation in one form or another. So you can tell me to do whatever with what you deem are threats. I am telling you that if you fail to abide by even the most basic standards we all have to comply with when we post here, you will face moderation for it. This isn't a hard ask of you, MR. I am asking you to make sure that what you post here is not fake or a misrepresentation and this will mean that you will have to do some of your own research before posting and you will need to prove - with supporting evidence - that what you are posting is real and to do that, you will need to be able to eliminate the more mundane things it could be - again with supporting evidence.

    Your threads don't generate traffic nor are they compelling. What they do do, however, is generate reports and they become a drain on moderator time because you fail to apply even rudimentary skills in researching that what you post is not fake or made up or a misrepresentation.
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Clearly you are lying again. I can refer you to the 18 videos I all got from Youtube as well as texted articles from Wikipedia that are documented multiple witnessed accounts of ufo encounters. Anyone here can confirm this by looking at the "Why is the govt hiding ufos" thread. You're claiming the videos are faked? Prove it then. Show that they're faked accounts made up by people for whatever reasons, or show that they are misperceptions of mundane causes. If you're going to make claims about my evidence, you need to support them with some facts. It isn't my job to debunk the evidence for you. And you certainly don't get to make up shit about the accounts and pass that off as expert debunkery. Not that you'd know how to do that anyway. Like with the Iraq airforce sighting of 1976, where you responded with a clip from a skeptic website about Phillip Klass's "explanation" of it being the planet Jupiter. Then you left that thread never to be heard from since. Or like how you supposedly debunked the Levelland ufo sightings as ball lightning by cherry picking out one paragraph from the Wikipedia article hoping noone would read down further where two scientists dismissed that explanation because there was no thunderstorm that night. When I posted the actual account of those sightings, showing how they could never have been ball lightning, you mod hatted and infracted me in order to win the argument. So don't dare tell me about what evidence is and how to objectively analyze it. You are the last person here to preach that sermon. Your record of confirmation bias, outright lies, and abuse of moderator power speaks louder than any of your long-winded lectures about the spurious "scientific method."

    Bullshit they don't. Some of my threads generate 20 plus pages in a matter of a week. And if you are too lazy to respond to reports for flaming and insulting, then you should consider another job. That's your job as moderator. To moderate. And it is NOT my job to prove a video or piece of text isn't faked or made up. That's the kind of crazy assed paranoid claim that I'll leave you to support. Which you will never do because there is no massive conspiracy of ufologists just making up accounts and creating fake documentaries of ufo encounters. Not in the real uncensored world outside this nerd treehouse.Wake up and smell the coffee Bells. UFO's are a very real and recurrent phenomenon, and have been for over 70 years now. Noone is making up shit. I may even post a new thread on Australian ufo hotspots--places near you where people have witnessed ufos for many years. Would you like that? I'll even provide you with directions on how to get to them. Imagine having your whole worldview changed for you in one clear moonless night.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jun 7, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page