Difference between revisions of "24th November 2010 - A trip to a Ufology-related forum"
(Created page with "Recently Michael Horn and I visited a typical [http://www.alien-ufos.com Alien and UFO-related free forum] or message-board and discussed the ''Meier Case'' with the inhabitants...") |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Recently Michael Horn and I visited a typical [http://www.alien-ufos.com Alien and UFO-related free forum] or message-board and discussed the ''Meier Case'' with the inhabitants for a few days. Unfortunately the discussion did not go very well because whenever evidence was presented by myself or Michael, the other participants in the forum kept changing the subject onto the more ''challenging'' aspects of the case. It was as if they were held the philosophy of ''"if one piece of evidence supporting the claims made by Meier was likely to be falsified, in any shape or form, then everything Meier has claimed must be also held to be false"''. This is completely illogical when one considers that when a murderer is found guilty by 9 out of 10 jurors, for example, then we must accept the decision of the 9 jurors, not the decision of the 10th juror. Multiple witness statements and the current scientific and other '''logical''' evidence was deemed to be completely and utterly unconvincing for them. Such is the primitive thinking and closed mindedness of our people at this point in time (2010). Yet it is not unsurprising looking at mankind's historical track-record of illogical and perhaps even idiotic thinking. Yet I will | + | Recently Michael Horn and I visited a typical [http://www.alien-ufos.com Alien and UFO-related free forum] or message-board and discussed the ''Meier Case'' with the inhabitants for a few days. Unfortunately the discussion did not go very well because whenever evidence was presented by myself or Michael, the other participants in the forum kept changing the subject onto the more ''challenging'' aspects of the case. It was as if they were held the philosophy of ''"if one piece of evidence supporting the claims made by Meier was likely to be falsified, in any shape or form, then everything Meier has claimed must be also held to be false"''. This is completely illogical when one considers that when a murderer is found guilty by 9 out of 10 jurors, for example, then we must accept the decision of the 9 jurors, not the decision of the 10th juror. Multiple witness statements and the current scientific and other '''logical''' evidence was deemed to be completely and utterly unconvincing for them. Such is the primitive thinking and closed mindedness of our people at this point in time (2010). Yet it is not unsurprising looking at mankind's historical track-record of illogical and perhaps even idiotic thinking. Yet I will not explore it here right now. Perhaps another time. |
''James Moore'' | ''James Moore'' | ||
Revision as of 23:08, 24 November 2010
Recently Michael Horn and I visited a typical Alien and UFO-related free forum or message-board and discussed the Meier Case with the inhabitants for a few days. Unfortunately the discussion did not go very well because whenever evidence was presented by myself or Michael, the other participants in the forum kept changing the subject onto the more challenging aspects of the case. It was as if they were held the philosophy of "if one piece of evidence supporting the claims made by Meier was likely to be falsified, in any shape or form, then everything Meier has claimed must be also held to be false". This is completely illogical when one considers that when a murderer is found guilty by 9 out of 10 jurors, for example, then we must accept the decision of the 9 jurors, not the decision of the 10th juror. Multiple witness statements and the current scientific and other logical evidence was deemed to be completely and utterly unconvincing for them. Such is the primitive thinking and closed mindedness of our people at this point in time (2010). Yet it is not unsurprising looking at mankind's historical track-record of illogical and perhaps even idiotic thinking. Yet I will not explore it here right now. Perhaps another time.
James Moore
