Hello AG:
I’ll let you decide if that’s the case. Quix refuses to back up his contentions and throws insults my way instead. No one else has claimed to have read Renato Vesco’s book, “Intercept UFO”. I posted just a sampling and Las Vegas Dave thanked me for the foo-fighter link.
What is the accepted approach to an inductive area of study? Is not Occham’s Razor and other inductive logic the prevailing accepted approach? And logic fallacies are to be avoided & corrected?
As part of the Inductive Triangle that I introduced on a different thread, we see the same level of invective here. The insults are outside of the triangle, the data — especially testable data — are inside. I offered the fact that I put forth falsifiable data and it has only been met with contempt.
I never said anything about Las Vegas Dave, it looks to me that Quix is just looking for some allies.
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Evidently you are unaware that Las Vegas Dave is manager of the backup UFO ping list.
We manage the list and usually the threads mostly together.
His perspective is reportedly extremely close to mine on this thread and your part in it.
As are the perspectives of a number of ping list members who have taken the voluntary initiative to FREEP MAIL Dave and/or I about your posts on this thread.
I realize that personal insight is a spotty thing and sometimes a rare thing. But a few tanker-fulls more might be a good thing.
With regard to the contentiousness, I strongly suspect the two of you are approaching the subject from two completely different aspects.
Quix, you see things from a prophetic point-of-view. And Kevmo, you are the logician.
I would that you both laid aside any impressions or suspicions and instead just try to hear the other out to whatever extent that is possible.