The Skeptic Report

...the paranormalites don't need enemies. Check out this most recent comment from a loyal reader who calls herself A_BELIEVER_OF_WHATS_REAL, had these astute observations about our site:

I just found your site and I want you to know I HATE THIS CRAPPY SITE!! How in the hell is it possible you don't believe in ghost and other REAL things this site trips on. I am a strong believer in the paranormal and i absalutly hate skeptics!! When my mom was a little girl living in Erie P.A. she, along with my grandpearents, 2 aunts and uncle, lived in a huanted house and she told me about what happened and so did my grandmother. I know some people think it's all a piece of crap but i know it's true because i myself live in a huanted house and if you want to dout me you can because you're all a bunch of crack monkeys who have nothing better to do then lie out their asses. So until you learn the paranormal is the truth SHUT THE F*#K UP. You know what I challenge you to stay at a haunted house and see if you to will become a believe unless you're too scared to TRY and prove you are right which you know you're not.
Hate Your Worst Nightmare,
A_BELIEVER_OF_WHATS_REAL

My last name is Foreman. People out there with famous last names can relate, I'm sure, to my life-long plight against smart asses who think they're the first person to remind me. Since the guy who made my name famous is black (and I'm obviously very white), these smart asses usually get a kick out of thinking they're the first person to ask me if I'm related to George. In the past, I would play along and say "Yeah, he's my uncle." But that got stale, and it's not very witty. Now when people ask me whether I'm related to George Foreman, I say "Go f*** yourself." Much more affective.

Having said that, a certain UFOnut/conspiracy buff (David Wilcock) who thinks that certain members of NASA are using prime time sitcoms to disseminate secret information to the masses, wrote an article for Rense.com claiming that John Glenn's very funny appearance on Fraser was actually a thinly-veiled first step toward full public disclosure about UFOs. I sent him an email, begging him to be joking. Here was his response:

Hello I'd like to make a few comments about the article on Leslie Flint,
NOTE: that this article was writen about 1year and 10 months ago.

You were the only website that came up when I searched 14+ search engines
with the words, "Leslie Flint" Fraud, so now that I've found the only
website with negative comments on Leslie Flint I will make my own
comments,

>1) Every single one of the speakers on the audio files has an English
accent. Even Bessie, the stereotypical cotton picker from Alabama. Her
accent fluctuates from a lame attempt at an American south accent to
British cockney to Scottish. Listen (it will come on automatically) to
her recording and see if you don't agree.>

Not all of them had an English accent, during the tests results were
heard dispite Leslie being tied up, and hundreds of languages were spoken
throught him including 3 dead ones. Also you think Bessie sounds like
she has an English accent? Well thats your opinion, besides the tape
recorders were crappy back in the 60's and 70's. Those audio files were
only a sample of all that were ever recorded(like 10,000 or more).

<2) Chopin speaks perfect English. He was French, and ostensibly only
visited England a few times.>

Chopin doesn't speak perfect English, if you listen carfully you can hear
a FRENCH accent, also Chopin learned English twords the end of his life.
Besides don't you think Chopin could have learn a little more English
after 120 years?

<3)The speakers all have the same basic speach pattern, with little to no
deviation between them. They all talk about the same stuff, about how
wonderful it is on "their side." They all use the same terminology, no
matter what time period or part of the world. Also, the English of 18th
Century England is very different from the English of the 20th century,
which is something that obviously has slipped Elizabeth Fry's mind.>

You heard the basic speech pattern wth samples, if you had heard them all
maby you'd change you mind. Also the samples talk about the same stuff.
Again you are using just the samples to discredit him. I don't
understand what you mean with Elizabeth Fry, it doesn't make sense. You
used samples....SAMPLES OF VOICES TO DISCREIDID HIM, have you even
reseached him?...NO.
He was bound, gaged, held, viewed throught an infared scope, had a throat
microphone put on him, all of the tests were done UNDER MADLY CONTROLLED
CONDITIONS!

read more at

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~vwzammit/index.html

go to the area on direct voice mediumship, if you don't it only shows
your weakness as a skeptic.

>Sure, Flint could have been what he claimed to be. And I could be a
Chinese jet pilot<

You'd better be a Chinese Jet Pilot unless you can proove me otherwise.

Good Day!

Hi Jim,

Thank for informing me of your interest in the 'Mystery Fingerprints', and
putting your comments up on your Web Page.

You used the terms, "smudgy fingerprints".
And, "All the other evidence points to the fingerprints' nature as human".
Also, "But Mr. Taylor seems to deny that the prints are human solely on the
basis of the lack of human DNA found on the prints. That is not good
science".

All 5 sets were very clear, except the one I took the #1 DNA swab from.
The remaining 4 sets, clearly show surface features unlike the ridges and
valleys of Human prints. Hence, they are not Human due to this factor
alone, let alone the size and shape combination of them.

You also stated....
"The mysterious scratch is obviously some attempt at linking the finger
prints with abduction phenomenon (on the part of the woman in question, or
one of the researchers involved)."

I am not considering an Abduction has taken place. It is the appearance of
the scratch at THE SAME TIME as the mirror prints that the question
naturally comes to mind, "are they connected", and this is why scientific
analysis of the prints were done.
My remarks are based on the results of the DNA tests, and comments of the
PRA science team. I have at no time "jumped to conclusions", but I must
admit that I have considered that something other than Human intervention
may be involved here. Mainly because of the nature of the prints [after
close study] and the fine nature of the cross scratch.
Basically, something [yet] unexplained created both, at the same time.

You also state....
"It would appear that this story is an example of a good mind working
harder than it needs to."

In this case, we have the DNA analysis team, The PRA Research Team and myself
working together in an attempt to try to piece this mystery together.

We have more testing to do, but it appears that a "simple explanation" does
not answer this one. I wish it did, it would save thousands of dollars of
DNA testing, and hundreds of man hours of research.

Thanks for the offer to remove the info. and your comments on your site,
but please leave it there, I respect your comments although your
conclusions being not entirely accurate due to the observed evidence of the
print features.

Regards,

Barry Taylor.

We're the Liberal Media?

Now that you have uncovered the Subliminal scandal on the part of the Bush
campaign, why don't you do a feature article on the brilliant medical mind
of Al Gore. I mean you investigate the boundaries of the Scientific world.
If I was a woman, I would like a Sonogram, ah ah a, what is it, ahh a
Sonoamamogram? However, you wouldn't since your most likely the Liberal
media. And since Al Gore invented the Internet, your form of communication
and propganda, you'ld hate to prove your ITGod as a pathological liar.
No I think not. But then again you'ld probably want a Sonomamogram.

We ran this story on September 15, in a response to this news article. We also emailed the author, and this is what we said:

Your recent article on the Martian Face is a serious misjudgment of the evidence.

How can a graphic artist's "enhancement" of a fuzzy photograph be in any way feasible science? Because a guy says it is? The same guy who has been rejected by mainstream science? That this article would appear on a page purporting to report on science is both maddening and insulting. What's next, a report on the legitimacy of the Alien Autopsy?

I love how FOX continues to distribute pseudoscientific drivel to the uneducated masses. It's very entertaining to watch shows like Signs From God, and it keeps websites like mine in production.

There's nothing wrong with wacky ideas, until mainstream "journalism" masquerades it as science. There's nothing wrong with checking the facts.

Image processing is a scientifically accepted tool for improving photographs. Some feel the work on NASA's face image oversteps acceptable bounds and that is so noted in the article.

Read the article for yourselves and decide if it is scientifically sound. Then you can get back to me.

Anyway, it all started when I replied to James Neff's article on JeffRense.com. In this article, Mr. Neff wrote an intelligent piece on how belief had no place in UFOlogy, and how UFOlogists need not describe themselves as believers. According to him (and many others), the evidence speaks for itself and should be taken at face value. Of course, we disagree with him, so I wrote a response. You can read the entirety of this exchange here.

The fella we referred to above (who refers to himself as John Doe) sent us and James Neff a reply of his own. It was largely a collection of insults and personal attacks, and you can read it here. We wrote our own reply to his baited attack, but we can't offer it up to you, since that sent draft was lost in a hard drive purge. Doe never replied to us. Until now.

I see your ridiculous website is still up and
running! Amazing. I gotta give you credit, not
many people would keep trying as hard as you
(as futile of an effort as it is) to prove a
point. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at
night. Keep up the good work though, it keeps my
friends and I rolling on the floor! =D I guess
bad PR is better than no PR at all, huh!?

AHAHAAhahaa, oh my, I just realized you're just a
KID!! I think I was working on my first
photographic analysis job while you were still
sucking on a bottle! If I had known that months
ago I wouldn't have spent so much time and energy
debating this issue with you. I must apologize
for wasting our time back then. I've got more
experience and knowledge of this subject in my
left testicle than you can even begin to absorb.
That's good though, because that means there's
still plenty of time left for you to learn (and
read).
Good luck to you...and update your site once in a
while, I'm getting tired of hearing people make
fun of the SAME content!

While it's plainly obvious that this man is a moron, we thought we'd reply anyway. Here is that reply:

First of all, I don't recall ever having a debate. I received one email from you to which I gladly replied. You never answered that email, for reasons known only to you. I could take that to mean you couldn't answer or debate the points I made, but that kind of gloating is beneath me.

Second, age is obviously not a measure of tact or maturity, since you enjoy a terminal lack of both. You must feel threatened by "kids" with rational minds capable of taking your boundless wisdom to task, since the only correspondence I've received from you has been chock full of inept attempts at attacking my abilities. That kind of behavior is lamentable, especially in my elders who, by all accounts, should know better.

Your experience in photographic analysis must be a wonderful laurel, since you rest on it so frequently. And while I'm sure you find my admitted lack of knowledge in that field so entertaining, I must confess that I have no interest in the contents of your testicles.

I have nothing but pity for you. It must give you great pleasure to cast baseless aspersions and insults at "kids" like me. The true sadness of it, however, is that you cower behind an anonymous email address to do it. You spinelessly throw badly aimed (and badly written) attacks at me, most likely out of fear. As you so skillfully demonstrate, having testicles does not make you a man.

But not only are you a pitiful excuse for a man, you make a very bad example for your cause. It is because of children like you that the UFOlogist camp has had so much difficulty in being taken seriously.

If any of you would like to comment on this, feel free to email us. This issue is probably not over yet. Look for more updates as soon as we get a reply from our anonymous friend.

John Doe replied to us a few weeks ago, and this is his reply to our previous story. , with our comments interjected.

Oh, so you refer to it as the "UFOlogist Camp" now instead of 'UFOnuts' and 'Paranormalites'?

I see we're moving up in the world, because (of course) everyone knows that the current state of the UFO research field is based entirely upon
what your interpretation of it happens to be at the time---and lest we forget the millions of
visitors to your website each month....
=D

Oh, sarcasm, eh? Funny. We have never purported our site to be anything more than a diversion for us and a very small portion of the internet. Our audience is neither large, nor is it constant. I don't do this for approval from anyone, least of all from the likes of you.

I won't bother you anymore, I just thought it
was rather amusing that you really don't have a
leg to stand on as far as your own logic toward
the subject goes and felt it necessary to inform
you of that.

Really? Are vapid insults and badly-written personal attacks how you usually "inform" people? Somehow, I get the feeling that you're one of the spineless types who reserves email to make baseless accusations against the people who intimidate you in your obviously pitiful "real" life. It gives you some kind of juvenile thrill, and I understand that. I deal with children all the time.

As for your comment that I have no leg to stand on, I will put my logic against that of a UFOnut or Paranormalite any day, and I include you in that summation. I have attempted to debate you on points directly corresponding to the subjects at hand, and you responded only with insults. That's not a dialogue, or a debate.

Remember, you have to be *familiar*
with the subject before you can ever hope to
discuss it with any competence.

Save it. I am perfectly confident in my competence and familiarity with the subject. You obviously aren't as comfortable with yours, or you would make some attempt to debate the issues.

My issue is not with the fact that you debunk the entire subject
area without any foundation to work from, my
issue is that you yourself group everyone
together with cute little stereotypical names
that you've so creatively come up with all by
yourself.

More sarcasm! Clever. You obviously have some bitterness over your own side's lack of cohesive evidence, otherwise you would take those "stereotypical names" with the humor that most of the rest of your camp appreciates. Don't take it so hard, it gives you the appearance of having a think skin.

-Me (indeed, continuing to hide behind the
ever-present veil of secrecy allowed by the
internet, what fun...)

You're a coward. That's not name-calling, that's a statement of fact. A real man would have no fear to meet me on equal terms. Instead, you seem content to lob insults from behind your self-important email address.

This is all I have to say about you. If you'd like to debate the issues, I'd be willing to hear what you have to say. But keep the insults to a minimum...my moron threshold is rather low these days.