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

I don't like the guy...or at least, I don't like the character that comes across online. He's totally dismissive of UFOs and *shock horror* is an associate of CSI (csicop) from way back. He's part of the school of thought whereby UFO witnesses require discrediting as bad characters, liars, hoaxers or simpletons. In his various online posts, I perceive a gloating sense of egotistical superiority. At the same time, he's quick to dismiss any and all accounts of UFO witnesses as hearsay and yet will accept the testimony of counter-claimants on face value. A pretty shit skeptic.

With all that said, it's hard to ignore some of the points he raises about Rendlesham. He's done a hatchet job on Penniston...basically characterised him as a wilful liar with an inability to separate TV movies from reality. A despicable lying idiot is about the sum of his opinion on Penniston. Nevertheless, between him and Dr Clarke, Rendleshem is a case that holds little interest for me. I can't decide which side is the more truthful and have moved on...

<blockquote data-quote="Kandinsky" data-source="post: 95498" data-attributes="member: 1801">I don&#039;t like the guy...or at least, I don&#039;t like the character that comes across online. He&#039;s totally dismissive of UFOs and *shock horror* is an associate of CSI (csicop) from way back. He&#039;s part of the school of thought whereby UFO witnesses require discrediting as bad characters, liars, hoaxers or simpletons. In his various online posts, I perceive a gloating sense of egotistical superiority. At the same time, he&#039;s quick to dismiss any and all accounts of UFO witnesses as hearsay and yet will accept the testimony of counter-claimants on face value. A pretty shit skeptic.With all that said, it&#039;s hard to ignore some of the points he raises about Rendlesham. He&#039;s done a hatchet job on Penniston...basically characterised him as a wilful liar with an inability to separate TV movies from reality. A despicable lying idiot is about the sum of his opinion on Penniston. Nevertheless, between him and Dr Clarke, Rendleshem is a case that holds little interest for me. I can&#039;t decide which side is the more truthful and have moved on...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kandinsky, post: 95498, member: 1801"] I don't like the guy...or at least, I don't like the character that comes across online. He's totally dismissive of UFOs and *shock horror* is an associate of CSI (csicop) from way back. He's part of the school of thought whereby UFO witnesses require discrediting as bad characters, liars, hoaxers or simpletons. In his various online posts, I perceive a gloating sense of egotistical superiority. At the same time, he's quick to dismiss any and all accounts of UFO witnesses as hearsay and yet will accept the testimony of counter-claimants on face value. A pretty shit skeptic. With all that said, it's hard to ignore some of the points he raises about Rendlesham. He's done a hatchet job on Penniston...basically characterised him as a wilful liar with an inability to separate TV movies from reality. A despicable lying idiot is about the sum of his opinion on Penniston. Nevertheless, between him and Dr Clarke, Rendleshem is a case that holds little interest for me. I can't decide which side is the more truthful and have moved on... [/QUOTE]

Verification