Got into a heated argument on some other forum over the Philadelphia Experiment. The trouble is, all I was doing was asking a few questions about this article that was posted. He kept insisting the ship exhibited "dielectric breakdown" near the surface of the water before turning invisible and that he had a photo from a physics text that showed exactly that. I asked him if he had talked to anybody involved with whatever this photo was showing--where was this facility and who was conducting this experiment that was photographed? I asked him if he had any official documents from the Navy stating anything about invisibility experiments. Instead of answering no, he started getting really wound up. "I'm just asking a few questions," I said. But he began to get really sarcastic. For a guy whose article made him sound like a scientific genius, he certainly had a very immature attitude about fielding questions ANY scientist or ordinary skeptic would have asked. If he's going to get like that with me, how's he going to pass a peer review? At least the mods slapped him down and he left the forum and never came back. Touchy guy.

I also casted doubt on the validity of alien abduction by asking one really simple question: "If aliens are real and are having this much contact with us, why don't we have anymore proof of their reality than we did 30 years ago when we first began to hear about Greys?" That didn't win friends either.

When you post about such topics, you tend to get negative responses depending on who the audience is. For example, to be skeptical in front of believers invites negative responses and to be puzzled by events in front of skeptics invites negative response. I posted about things like the Ica stones and exactly when and how civilization began and garnered immediate negativity here. I didn't bother to post it in this other forum because I knew the reaction would be unquestioning praise. For the same reason, I didn't post my criticisms of alien abduction here simply because it would be preaching to the converted.

The world seems to be divided into believers--people who unquestioningly believe anything no matter how outrageous it is and who literally turn the would "skeptic" into an insult and attach a stigma of loathsomeness to it; and disbelievers--people who concour with a general statement that we don't know everything about our history but who will not give an inch with any particularly example but will fight tooth & nail to maintain that our knowledge in that area is complete and anybody who disagrees is obviously an "idiot."

Believers believe from a deep-seated need to believe and disbelievers disbelieve from a deep-seated need to disbelieve. They are otherwise the same type of person--mirror images.

Neither one can accept that they don't possess anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The other side is, of course, totally wrong about everything. Their egos won't let the accept that it is far more likely that the truth lies somewhere between them and probably will always be somewhat elusive.