NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

So instead of clogging up all the other threads with I HAVE NOT SEEN A UFO therefore they do not exsist vs. I saw a UFO so they exsist, and debating each case

I thought I would start this thread to debate IN A CIVIL MANNER in accordance with forum rules. For those of us who engage in constant round and round debate and discourse. PLEASE BE CIVIL. If you make a claim please be ready to back it up. No personal insults.

Instead of bogging down the rest of the forum lets keep it in one thread.

1. Rendlesham ---- a. they saw a lighthouse
or
b. they saw a triangle UFO

2. Pilot sightings a. they saw a flock of birds
b. they saw a foo fighter
c. they saw an unidentified oval object

3. Phoenix Lights a. they saw flares
b. a balloon
c mile wide boomerang

Some analysis that shows how the Rendlesham could be an illusion of the lighthouse and or the skeptic conclusion of "flurrying fertilizer from a passing truck"

<blockquote data-quote="Skymon876" data-source="post: 95492" data-attributes="member: 2660">So instead of clogging up all the other threads with I HAVE NOT SEEN A UFO therefore they do not exsist vs. I saw a UFO so they exsist, and debating each case &nbsp;I thought I would start this thread to debate IN A CIVIL MANNER in accordance with forum rules. For those of us who engage in constant round and round debate and discourse. PLEASE BE CIVIL. If you make a claim please be ready to back it up. No personal insults. &nbsp;Instead of bogging down the rest of the forum lets keep it in one thread.&nbsp;1. Rendlesham ---- a. they saw a lighthouseorb. they saw a triangle UFO&nbsp;2. Pilot sightings a. they saw a flock of birds b. they saw a foo fighterc. they saw an unidentified oval object&nbsp;3. Phoenix Lights a. they saw flaresb. a balloonc mile wide boomerang&nbsp;Some analysis that shows how the Rendlesham could be an illusion of the lighthouse and or the skeptic conclusion of &quot;flurrying fertilizer from a passing truck&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Skymon876, post: 95492, member: 2660"] So instead of clogging up all the other threads with I HAVE NOT SEEN A UFO therefore they do not exsist vs. I saw a UFO so they exsist, and debating each case [B]I thought I would start this thread to debate IN A CIVIL MANNER in accordance with forum rules. For those of us who engage in constant round and round debate and discourse. PLEASE BE CIVIL. If you make a claim please be ready to back it up. No personal insults. [/B] [B]Instead of bogging down the rest of the forum lets keep it in one thread.[/B] 1. Rendlesham ---- a. they saw a lighthouse or b. they saw a triangle UFO 2. Pilot sightings a. they saw a flock of birds b. they saw a foo fighter c. they saw an unidentified oval object 3. Phoenix Lights a. they saw flares b. a balloon c mile wide boomerang Some analysis that shows how the Rendlesham could be an illusion of the lighthouse and or the skeptic conclusion of "flurrying fertilizer from a passing truck" [/QUOTE]

Verification