External Quote:
In an eighty-minute appearance today on The Good Trouble Show livestream with Matt Ford, UFO researcher and Stanford University professor Garry Nolan attacked what he calls "pseudo-skeptics" who disbelieve UFO claims and offered a bizarre set of conditions under which he would agree to let UFO skeptic Mick West interview him about flying saucers. (The video settings currently prevent embedding, so you will need to click the link.)
Among Nolan's conditions, which he appeared to be inventing on the fly:
- All of the so-called "Guerilla Skeptics" must withdraw from Wikipedia, where they work to edit articles to limit misinformation and unsubstantiated claims.
- West must disclose "who his funders are" because "they have a pretty decent budget."
- West must pay $1 million or $2 million from his (imaginary) funders' resources to a UFO "whistleblowers' charity" (whatever that is).
- West must publish a paper on any of his work related to UFOs in a tier-one academic journal with The Hill opinion columnist and ufology promoter Marik Von Rennenkampff to serve as coauthor (!).
I know that Metabunk has a politeness policy, but my reaction to that list of conditions is that it's more than a little unhinged. Especially as it includes something that (even if Nolan's beliefs were all true) would be entirely beyond Mick's control, i.e. the withdrawl of "Guerilla Skeptics" from Wikipedia.Not sure where to post this, but I think this thread fits, for the sheer absurdity factor:
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/...ions-for-a-potential-interview-with-mick-west
External Quote:
Among Nolan's conditions, which he appeared to be inventing on the fly:
- All of the so-called "Guerilla Skeptics" must withdraw from Wikipedia, where they work to edit articles to limit misinformation and unsubstantiated claims.
- West must disclose "who his funders are" because "they have a pretty decent budget."
- West must pay $1 million or $2 million from his (imaginary) funders' resources to a UFO "whistleblowers' charity" (whatever that is).
- West must publish a paper on any of his work related to UFOs in a tier-one academic journal with The Hill opinion columnist and ufology promoter Marik Von Rennenkampff to serve as coauthor (!).
Especially as it includes something that (even if Nolan's beliefs were all true) would be entirely beyond Mick's control, i.e. the withdrawal of "Guerilla Skeptics" from Wikipedia.
Shillions?massive shill millions![]()
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/...ions-for-a-potential-interview-with-mick-westExternal Quote:Nolan frequently emphasized his belief that UFO skeptics are somehow funded by a bottomless well of money from a shadowy but unnamed group. Ford added that $2 million was "a drop in the bucket" compared to the overall budget of the organizations funding skeptics and debunkers.
Mr. Capone says "yes."Furthermore:
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/...ions-for-a-potential-interview-with-mick-westExternal Quote:Nolan frequently emphasized his belief that UFO skeptics are somehow funded by a bottomless well of money from a shadowy but unnamed group. Ford added that $2 million was "a drop in the bucket" compared to the overall budget of the organizations funding skeptics and debunkers.
I eagerly await my check. Tell me, are payments under the table considered by the IRA to be taxable income?
But does it come as a cut of a Scrooge McDuckian vault, or of a Smaug hoard of treasure. I think that affects its taxable status.I eagerly await my check. Tell me, are payments under the table considered by the IRA to be taxable income?
Furthermore:
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/...ions-for-a-potential-interview-with-mick-westExternal Quote:Nolan frequently emphasized his belief that UFO skeptics are somehow funded by a bottomless well of money from a shadowy but unnamed group. Ford added that $2 million was "a drop in the bucket" compared to the overall budget of the organizations funding skeptics and debunkers.
I eagerly await my check. Tell me, are payments under the table considered by the IRA to be taxable income?
Am I the only one who spots a heffalump in the room? Bigelow's a billionaire, isn't he? Which side is he funding? (And no, I don't mean politically, I mean UFO-wise.) Do the skeptics have anything equivalent?Furthermore:
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/...ions-for-a-potential-interview-with-mick-westExternal Quote:Nolan frequently emphasized his belief that UFO skeptics are somehow funded by a bottomless well of money from a shadowy but unnamed group. Ford added that $2 million was "a drop in the bucket" compared to the overall budget of the organizations funding skeptics and debunkers.
I eagerly await my check. Tell me, are payments under the table considered by the IRA to be taxable income?
-- https://www.wired.com/story/inside-robert-bigelows-decades-long-obsession-with-ufos/External Quote:Bigelow was so certain [of an ET presence near earth], he indicated, because he had "spent millions and millions and millions" of dollars searching for UFO evidence. "I probably spent more as an individual than anybody else in the United States has ever spent on this subject."
He's right. Since the early 1990s[1], Bigelow has bankrolled[2] a voluminous stream of pseudoscience on modern-day UFO lore—investigating everything from crop circles and cattle mutilations to alien abductions and UFO crashes. Indeed, if you name a UFO rabbit hole, it's a good bet the 79-year-old tycoon has flushed his riches down it.[3]
Nah, we have to make to with the truth, and some very clever people who like solving puzzles.Am I the only one who spots a heffalump in the room? Bigelow's a billionaire, isn't he? Which side is he funding? (And no, I don't mean politically, I mean UFO-wise.) Do the skeptics have anything equivalent?
I know that Metabunk has a politeness policy, but my reaction to that list of conditions is that it's more than a little ...
Not sure where to post this, but I think this thread fits, for the sheer absurdity factor:
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/...ions-for-a-potential-interview-with-mick-west
External Quote:
In an eighty-minute appearance today on The Good Trouble Show livestream with Matt Ford, UFO researcher and Stanford University professor Garry Nolan attacked what he calls "pseudo-skeptics" who disbelieve UFO claims and offered a bizarre set of conditions under which he would agree to let UFO skeptic Mick West interview him about flying saucers. (The video settings currently prevent embedding, so you will need to click the link.)
Among Nolan's conditions, which he appeared to be inventing on the fly:
- All of the so-called "Guerilla Skeptics" must withdraw from Wikipedia, where they work to edit articles to limit misinformation and unsubstantiated claims.
- West must disclose "who his funders are" because "they have a pretty decent budget."
- West must pay $1 million or $2 million from his (imaginary) funders' resources to a UFO "whistleblowers' charity" (whatever that is).
- West must publish a paper on any of his work related to UFOs in a tier-one academic journal with The Hill opinion columnist and ufology promoter Marik Von Rennenkampff to serve as coauthor (!).
...a young Nolan about to take off his pants to swim in San Francisco bay.
@derwoodii Unfortunately, I don't think time works like that![]()
There's some sort of dopey crime story that could revolve around (ha!) running around the pole to prevent ever having to reach a trial date, or the other way to get to the statute of limitations quicker...Hear me out, I think I have a way around this - just don't upgrade to 2026 in the first place (OK, too late now, but you can use this in future years). Alas, you need to move to one of the poles, and you'll need to constantly be running away from the oncoming dawn at your longitude, but assuming you can keep it up, the pending day will never begin for you. You might think that jumping westards across the international date line once a day would set your calendar forward by a day, but that would be cancelled by the fact that you're continuously setting your clock back as you rotate - a matching 24 hours of backward clock-setting per day.
(Is this a new paradox/puzzle? I can't believe it is, but I don't remember seeing it before, and given that I hand around in puzzling groups, that seems a surprise.)
Why do I get the feeling one of those warped serial-killer jokes is behind all this?There's some sort of dopey crime story that could revolve around (ha!) running around the pole to prevent ever having to reah a trial date, or the other way to get to the statute of limitations quicker...
That's pretty much the sub-plot of Pirates of Penzance...There's some sort of dopey crime story that could revolve around (ha!) running around the pole to prevent ever having to reach a trial date, or the other way to get to the statute of limitations quicker...
Good artists copy, great artists steal. Picasso is credited with that, but I bet he heard it somewhere and repeated it.That's pretty much the sub-plot of Pirates of Penzance...
Britain is simply too cold for nudism. [It's not.] It's called FKK in Germany, and we have beaches dedicated to it.As a British person that left a horrible mental image, only slightly improved when I realised we're talking Americanese:
To me, pants are what you wear under your trousers or jeans.
Britain is simply too cold for nudism.
If it's boggling you're after, I'll see your Duke's Mound, and raise you Parson's Pleasure.There are a few naturist beaches in Britain. One of them is called Duke's Mound, the mind boggles.
Dubrovnik is a nice warm place with a fully-nude beach, whereas the other beach behind our hotel was merely topless. I had brought only a one-piece suit, so I did consider the nude beach, but then I realized I was about to spend a couple of weeks in a bus with the rest of my tour group (not all of them strangers) and chickened out in favor of American prudery.Britain is simply too cold for nudism.
You could have fallen back on your scots roots, and worn nothing but a sporran?Dubrovnik is a nice warm place with a fully-nude beach, whereas the other beach behind our hotel was merely topless. I had brought only a one-piece suit, so I did consider the nude beach, but then I realized I was about to spend a couple of weeks in a bus with the rest of my tour group (not all of them strangers) and chickened out in favor of American prudery.![]()
To protect my pussy?You could have fallen back on your scots roots, and worn nothing but a sporran?
To protect my pussy?
View attachment 87538