I honestly meant no offense. I used the term as (an attempt to become involved in new activities or disciplines). After your post I looked it up as a curiosity as to why you were offended. Then I saw the (an attack into enemy territory) definition and had a chuckle. My fault in using the term without consciously realizing the overt confrontational manner it could indicate. For that you have my apologies.
Apparently, my choice of terminology in this post is a sticky point. I meant "blasphemy" as tongue and cheek to the idea that James Fox might not be as humble and interested in forwarding the UFO awareness angle he porports and is more interested in the "look at me " aspect. On this forum, Fox is highly regarded as a champion of the UFO phenomenon awareness movement (trademark pending). As far as I am personally concerned, I do not think we have enough data to discern an origin. Therefore, any speculation is likely ill conceived. With that being said I do think there are more plausible explanations that others. For instance, there is just as much evidence to suggest that the UFO's are actually piloted by sentient super large subterranean amoebas. Though you would have to agree that one is more likely and plausible than the other.
Honestly, havn't you already decided that there is nothing other than the mundane and explainable at work here? Your posts seem to me as indicative of that position. If I am wrong then please tell me how you see things.
Its not about like or dislike. Truth be known I have made my share of waves with board members. I have received hatemail for my views on Greer, Birnes, and Dolan. But please, don't throw names like Bob Dean and Clifford Stone out as the only way you can be accepted in Ufological circles and especially on the Paracast forums. Thats absurd and by now you know it. If you want people to take you and your points seriously, you have to pick the right battles with the right weapons. Otherwise you end up sounding like Bill Nigh the science guy.
Admittedly, I did read the portion of your post wrong. I thought you were saying that Penniston, Halt, and Burroughs were not believable. That is the thing that set me off. So, in the interests of personal disclosure I will say that I was a bit pissed that someone could listen to their testimony and come away with the "they are a pack of liars" interpretation. if I had read it correctly I probably would not have posted at all.
So I am not sure where that leaves us. I didn't mean to offend you as I rarely intend to offend anyone. I do think your mind is made up and you participate here only to try show us all that there are only prosaic explanations to these phenomenon. In that case, a close minded approach thinly veiled as skeptical thinking does ruffle my feathers. I guess thats it.
