Dr Wu,
So you would agree that Bullard agrees, if somewhat reluctantly, that there may actually be something going on. Something that can't be just ignored ?
OH,
How do you read it ?
Dundee,
And you ?
I struggled with seeing that from the paper.
I imagine you will call it my bias, perhaps it is.
But from the first page till pretty much the last all I saw was a person who has already decided on the outcome and quoting as many people he can find to bolster his confirmation bias as he can. He frequently used pisitive terms like researchers when talking about skeptics, but referred to beleivers in a far less flattering way.
His opinions on people less skeptical than him jumped out and smacks you round the ears in almost every paragraph.
There is an old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull"
There is no doubt at all it is a very well written paper by someone who has done his reseach. It could be used as a tecahing aid at UNI to show students how to present a convincing argument.
But an ability with words does not automatically equate to an unbiased view.
We all know another saying, "out of the mouth of babes."
I don't see the point in adding the "Two Views" at the end of the title. There seems to be only one view there.
I actally laughed out loud at one point where he said, "In my humble opinion",
There is nothing humble about that piece.
So for me, all I got out of it was yet another skeptic who is bundling up everything into a big basket of personal skepticims that at every oportunity uses derogatory language to describe beleivers.
Even the terminoligy is derogatory.
On one side you have two terms, Deniers, and Skeptics, a subtle but significant difference.
The other just has beleivers, which bundles up everyone on that side into the crazy camp.
My personal beleif is that 99% of what we see buzzing about is misidentified and has a rational explanation. I am skeptical of most reports. But I also look at the small % that is left and think well hell thast wierd, I think that might very well be ET.
Why does the terminology bundle me up in the crazy camp. OC for example has put me in with the crazies, even though I am skeptical of most.
Why am I also not given the title of skeptic, when I am skeptical of the majority, but have a small but in my opinion not insignificant yes list.
So for me, it was just another paper full of academic fluff in a poor attempt to look unbiased, and wrtten by a skeptic.