From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:14:26 -0300 Archived: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:19:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Printy 'Science' & Kecksberg >From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:36:21 -0700 >Subject: Printy 'Science' & Kecksberg >[was: Debunkers Irrational Uninformed And Ignorant] >>Source: Frank Warren's UFO Chronicles >>http://tinyurl.com/7sest3t >snip> >>UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed And Ignorant >>Stanton T Friedman >>In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many >>interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 >>article by Tim Printy entitled The UFO Disclosure Myth; I am a >>primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found >>his paper My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs. Clearly he is a >>debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he >>has strong opinions. >Ah yes, Tim Printy, the Sarah Palin of Ufology, indeed >irrational, uniformed, and ignorant. He thinks he knows much >more than he really does, claims to be the defender of "science" >But like a lot of debunkers, he is more of a science wannabe who >thinks he knows what "science" is about, but hasn't a clue about >true scientific argumentation. Printy never really had any >formal scientific education. Unlike Stan or me, or many others >in this crazy field, Printy has zero college science degrees. >Just remember that whenever you read Printy ranting about how >sancrosanct "science" is and how supposedly pseudoscientific >Ufologists like Stan or me are. >According to a bio he once did on himself, he has only a high >school diploma before putting in for (as I remember) a 20 year >stint in the Navy as a tech on a nuclear submarine. Nothing >wrong with that, of course, but it doesn't somehow make one a >"scientist" any more than being an auto mechanic makes you a >scientist. Nonetheless, that and being a long-time amateur >astronomer, apparently makes Printy think he is a scientific >genius, even though he bungles just about every argument he >makes because he usually 1) doesn't get his basic facts right or >just makes them up or omits/dismisses inconvenient ones, or 2) >doesn't even comprehend what the argument is about. Printy is >bombastic in his writing style and knows just barely enough to >make him sound superficially authoritative, but when you analyze >his arguments, they almost invariably turn out to be total >rubbish. <snip> I hardly think that anyone would call Printy a scientist, and he certainly lacks any investigative skills. Printy is nothing more than a shill for the debunkers out there that aren't interested in facts but would rather make proclamations and follow the mantra and drop holus bolus large portions of reports to meet their own criteria. I don't see how anyone could be fooled by Printy's observations after they've read a full case report. Another example of this type of thinking was the Knickell/McGaha report re the Exeter Incident. Don Ledger Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp