Dr Brandenburg Show

[The Pair of Cats]

But, you know what? It doesn't matter here. Whatever explanation Chris chooses to put forward (even if he sticks to the original miracle) will be defended by many of the posters here. Come on, you know who you are! Stand by your man! Stand by the man who has stated on this forum that the concept of the Trickster makes as much sense as science. Not one of you took him to task for that. It almost doesn't matter what he says, many on this forum will hang on his every word. Whatever he chooses to report about the San Luis Valley will be taken as gospel by many of you. And believe this: there will be some mighty strange reports and photos and video coming out of the SLV in the very near future. The photos and video will not be conclusive, but the reports will be vivid and mind-boggling and totally unexplainable and oh so much fun to read, especially if there's a ghost of chance that they might really be true. I'm literally hugging myself with anticipation!

I know, Angelo, I'm being a dick again. Just can't help it. Nobody here ever addresses the obvious and it gets irritating. I'm feeling better now, though.

What do you mean again? If you were any more of a dick you would have to walk around with a condom rolled on over you!
You bet we'll stand by our man. Chris was just pointing out the typical pseudosceptical type of response that Angel gives at times. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with you and your other science fundamentalist mates being pseudosceptical, nothing at all. If Angelo is a critical, critical thinker, does that make you a critical, critical, critical thinker? Sorry if i missed a critical or two there. Yeah critical thinking, as long as the thinking suits your way of thinking.
I don't know about you, my paranormal pimp friend, but I love the trickster. A great archetypal concept. Much more to offer than science currently does. You should slip your shoes off, relax in your big ole armchair, strip down to your James Randi boxers pick up a copy of "Stalking the Trickster" and embrace it more. I know you will just love it!!!
It's actually great that you turn up now and again with your biting wit and you well thought out, critically thought out responses . Gives us real sceptics someone to poke fun at.
Oops! Sorry! I'm just addressing out the obvious.
Poor Angelo. He tries so hard to appear to be a truly sceptical person but every now and then he trips himself up and falls back into debunker land. Lucky for him he has the loving arms of lancemoody sorry Ronald MacDaddy to fall into before he nestles, lovingly in the beard of the great protector, Uncle James.

 

[Decker]

avvy?

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------

Here's the Wikipedia entry on ad hominem:

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,<sup id="cite_ref-one_1-0" class="reference">[2]</sup> but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

Not exactly what I'm doing, but I'll own it a little. People here do it all the time, though. People advocating Billy Meier or Stephen Greer are often ridiculed here, and are accused of, in dB's immortal words, "poisoning the well." If you'll just give me a list of those people who can't be questioned here, I'll see what I can do to comply.

Well allow me to own up a bit. I was put off by your snotty tone to one of our respected members. Shoot, you can talk to anybody, hell I have been known to talk to most. Hey, I am even speaking to you. Let me guess, you must be in Angelo's Skeptic group, is that close? And, I do believe that is savy not savvy.

Decker

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Well allow me to own up a bit. I was put off by your snotty tone to one of our respected members. Shoot, you can talk to anybody, hell I have been known to talk to most. Hey, I am even speaking to you. Let me guess, you must be in Angelo's Skeptic group, is that close? And, I do believe that is savy not savvy.

Decker

Spot on, Don! If you look at MaDaddys posts 90% of them are an attack either on the show, the hosts or other forum members. He has yet to provide anything useful or interesting for discussion or perusal. Except for the fact that he went to Bentwaters and now believes what Col. Halt, Penniston, Warren and Burroughs saw was a lighthouse.

 

[MacDaddy]

And, I do believe that is savy not savvy.

Nope. It's savvy, not savy. But I wasn't even trying to correct your spelling at the time. If you'd like me to have a go at your spelling or grammar, I charge $80 per hour. If you will review my posts on this forum, I have never once pointed out errors in spelling or grammar unless you count requesting clarification of certain statements. Since you brought it up:

From the Merriam-Webster site:
savy

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

• savvy
• Sava
• Savo
• savoy
• Suva
• saeva
• Saiva
• Save
• Safi
• sieva
• Soave
• suave
• sofa
• Savaii
• salvo
• slavey
• civvy
• USVI
• salve

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 AM ----------

Let me guess, you must be in Angelo's Skeptic group, is that close?

Nope. Belonging to groups isn't really my thing, although I do keep up my VFW membership. Thanks for asking, though!

---------- Post added at 01:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 AM ----------

He has yet to provide anything useful or interesting for discussion or perusal.

Objection, your honor! That's clearly an opinion rather than a statement of fact. In fact, many of my contributions to the threads have triggered interesting and useful discussions. Look 'em up!

---------- Post added at 01:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 AM ----------

Except for the fact that he went to Bentwaters and now believes what Col. Halt, Penniston, Warren and Burroughs saw was a lighthouse.

In fact, no one knows what they saw but there's real good evidence that Halt was describing the flashing of the nearby lighthouse. And I actually held out some hope for Penniston's account about touching the warm object, but he keeps remembering new stuff and now claims to have received binary code messages from time travelers. Goddammit, just when I was starting to have hope.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Objection, your honor! That's clearly an opinion rather than a statement of fact. In fact, many of my contributions to the threads have triggered interesting and useful discussions. Look 'em up!

Objection overruled! The accused has yet to offer any proof of the usefulness of those discussions.

 

[MacDaddy]

I don't know about you, my paranormal pimp friend, but I love the trickster

I don't think you're allowed to call a Paranormal Master that. Moderator!

---------- Post added at 01:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 AM ----------

Objection overruled! The accused has yet to offer any proof of the usefulness of those discussions.

Your honor, I have been thanked 37 times in 74 posts, a somewhat better ratio than 'Cats. The defense rests.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

fact, no one knows what they saw but there's real good evidence that Halt was describing the flashing of the nearby lighthouse. And I actually held out some hope for Penniston's account about touching the warm object, but he keeps remembering new stuff and now claims to have received binary code messages from time travelers. Goddammit, just when I was starting to have hope.

Yes, no-one but those who were there really knows what they saw. Although it's disingenuous to think that the base commander and his men, most who had been stationed there for some time, would not be able to tell the difference between a lighthouse (which they would have been familiar with) and something anomalous and then go chasing through the woods after it. Out of the two explanations, the lighthouse one is the most absurd. And if you are looking for a quick and easy answer to use for debunking purposes with no real critical thinking to be applied, then i guess the lighthouse answer is for you.

 

[MacDaddy]

I love the trickster. A great archetypal concept. Much more to offer than science currently does.

OK, that's more like it! One vote for the trickster! Anybody else want to chime in? I'm being serious here. If you think the trickster offers more than science, stand up and be counted!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I don't think you're allowed to call a Paranormal Master that. Moderator!

I'll allow it in this case!

Your honor, I have been thanked 37 times in 74 posts, a somewhat better ratio than 'Cats.

The defence is making a mockery of this court!

OK, that's more like it! One vote for the trickster! Anybody else want to chime in? I'm being serious here. If you think the trickster offers more than science, stand up and be counted!

The prosecution calls Christopher O'Brien!

 

[MacDaddy]

Out of the two explanations, the lighthouse one is the most absurd.

Listen to the Halt tape. The timing of the flashes exactly matches the timing of the lighthouse. It is very probable, I'd say, that he was looking at the lighthouse. I had high hopes for this case until that bit of evidence. I have been a soldier and I know that they are human beings who make mistakes, sometimes really really big ones. It's part of being human.

---------- Post added at 01:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------

The prosecution calls Christopher O'Brien!

So does the prosecuted!

 

[Ron Collins]

He also wrote that the concept of the Trickster makes as much sense as science. My simple question: WTF? As a side question, I asked the rest of the forum to what degree, if any, they supported such a statement. No response from anybody yet, but I live in hope...

Let me be the first. No, I do not think that a concept like the trickster is as good as testable science. However, it is equally as unprovable as many pure flights of theoretical fancy that fall out of "current knowledge" when ample hindsight is applied. Scientists said it was impossible to send a rocket to the moon on account of the energy it would require to get there. Today, we laugh at that. Theory is theory. Now, will Chris's theory be proven right? Maybe so or maybe not. I don't yet have the advantage of hindsight.

-- Dictionary Quote --

Not exactly what I'm doing, but I'll own it a little. People here do it all the time, though. People advocating Billy Meier or Stephen Greer are often ridiculed here, and are accused of, in dB's immortal words, "poisoning the well." If you'll just give me a list of those people who can't be questioned here, I'll see what I can do to comply.

Chris is in no way similar to Meir or Greer. To imply otherwise is bullshit and you should know that. Those guys are proven charlatans and complete bastards, in my opinion. Oh and I top the list of people that cant be questioned! now, if I can just get my wife to agree to that....

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------

Listen to the Halt tape. The timing of the flashes exactly matches the timing of the lighthouse. It is very probable, I'd say, that he was looking at the lighthouse. I had high hopes for this case until that bit of evidence. I have been a soldier and I know that they are human beings who make mistakes, sometimes really really big ones. It's part of being human.

Halt has addresses this. So have others. Also, there is the plate that stops light from shooting inland. The last time I checked, light houses didnt hover over fields and shatter into smaller bits that fall toward that field. Or, is it your contention that he is making that stuff up? In short, is he a liar?

========

OH, and one more thing. Lets cut the pissing contest here. We need to get this back on to presenting valid arguments without name calling, snotty tones, and intentionally incendiary quips.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

This was a fun show. I do have one question for Christopher O'Brien, though. At one point in the show you mention that you know someone whose hair turned white virtually within a week. Did you see this personally? Did all of her hair really turn white within a week?

No I didn't know her when this happened but I believe her story as she has been a good friend for many years and is not a liar or fantasy-prone. Since Lance whooz yer daddy has become insultingly snippy and hemorrhoidal , I went ahead and emailed her to get verification of my memory of her story. Here is her reply--don't shoot the messenger, OK?:

"The first spot was white the next morning [after her car accident where she clinically died]. I woke up with a circle of white hair and it grew like a forest fire! This area still continues to be my "whitest" spot! Within a week the whole top and sides. I'm talking root to tip. Underneath is still darker. I feel it was 'traumatized' somehow? Phil and my family were all witness to this. Hope this helps."

 

[crabtown]

No I didn't know her when this happened but I believe her story as she has been a good friend for many years and is not a liar or fantasy-prone. Since Lance whooz yer daddy has become insultingly snippy and hemorrhoidal , I went ahead and emailed her to get verification of my memory of her story. Here is her reply--don't shoot the messenger, OK?:

No problem. I just wanted to know if you had actually witnessed the hair turning white in a week. I am given to understand that such is impossible and wanted to explore a counter-example with an eyewitness. Forgive me if I do not have the same faith in her that you do, though. I don't know her and cannot take her word on something that so contradicts normal experience. That's all.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Poor Angelo. He tries so hard to appear to be a truly sceptical person but every now and then he trips himself up and falls back into debunker land. Lucky for him he has the loving arms of lancemoody sorry Ronald MacDaddy to fall into before he nestles, lovingly in the beard of the great protector, Uncle James.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If I don't take someone's word for it, I'm a debunker? I'm not proving anyone wrong, which is what a debunker does. And why is that a negative thing? I wish I was a true debunker outing fraudsters like Sylvia Browne. I'm not telling you what you should and shouldn't believe. If you think astrology has it's merits, good for you. I don't think it works.

Thanks

 

[CandleGirl]

Nope. It's savvy, not savy. But I wasn't even trying to correct your spelling at the time. If you'd like me to have a go at your spelling or grammar, I charge $80 per hour. If you will review my posts on this forum, I have never once pointed out errors in spelling or grammar unless you count requesting clarification of certain statements. Since you brought it up: From the Merriam-Webster site: savy The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

mac you always make me laugh. you just took on the biggest nazi here and laid one upside his head. savy? i fully admit that i don't care which way something is spelled but his arogance was priceless! he can expell one or both of us but he cant undo his nazi rant. its there for all to see. i am still in the wings cheering you on babe.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Let me guess, you must be in Angelo's Skeptic group, is that close?

What are you insinuating Don? If someone doesn't buy into the same stuff you think is true, we're one of the bad guys? I'm still waiting for that mindblowing Moon anomaly stuff you brought up on the Paracast ages ago.
It's ridiculous that as soon as someone is critical in this forum, they get jumped on, be they new members or not.

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

No I didn't know her when this happened but I believe her story as she has been a good friend for many years and is not a liar or fantasy-prone. Since Lance whooz yer daddy has become insultingly snippy and hemorrhoidal , I went ahead and emailed her to get verification of my memory of her story. Here is her reply--don't shoot the messenger, OK?:

"The first spot was white the next morning [after her car accident where she clinically died]. I woke up with a circle of white hair and it grew like a forest fire! This area still continues to be my "whitest" spot! Within a week the whole top and sides. I'm talking root to tip. Underneath is still darker. I feel it was 'traumatized' somehow? Phil and my family were all witness to this. Hope this helps."

Thanks for addressing this Chris.

 

[Decker]

mac you always make me laugh. you just took on the biggest nazi here and laid one upside his head. savy? i fully admit that i don't care which way something is spelled but his arogance was priceless! he can expell one or both of us but he cant undo his nazi rant. its there for all to see. i am still in the wings cheering you on babe.

And who are you and what Nazi rant? You throw crap like that around and your right Toots, you will get tossed.

Decker

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

What are you insinuating Don? If someone doesn't buy into the same stuff you think is true, we're one of the bad guys? I'm still waiting for that mindblowing Moon anomaly stuff you brought up on the Paracast ages ago.
It's ridiculous that as soon as someone is critical in this forum, they get jumped on, be they new members or not.



Thanks for addressing this Chris.

Bull shit Angelo. I am all for polite but macdaddy went out for O'Brien. Go back and read the posts. And as far as my Moon info, when I am good and ready. SAVY?

Decker

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

OK, that's more like it! One vote for the trickster! Anybody else want to chime in? I'm being serious here. If you think the trickster offers more than science, stand up and be counted!

Lance (I meant "macdaddy"):
You are misquoting me. I never said what you are saying I said. Obviously, you are twisting my words or using them completely out of context. But what else is new?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Lol, seems like the shows I don't listen to tend to be the ones that lead to the biggest debates.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Lol, seems like the shows I don't listen to tend to be the ones that lead to the biggest debates.

Yeah, it sucks when you have a guest like Stan the Man and all people can talk about is the first ten minutes of a two-hour interview.