Santa Claus apparently more common than UFOs

Found this funny article:

www.skepdic.com...

What do you think? Maybe all these children think that the UFOs they're seeing are Santa Claus?

What pseudo-skeptics do

Debunk near-death experiences by associating them with something else such as: "If we suppose that an afterlife exists, then we might just as well suppose werewolves exist."

www.near-death.com...

Comparing ufo witnesses with children "seeing santa" is the same kind of dumb argument.



[edit on 21-6-2004 by TheBandit795]

That website fails to provide any data as to the date and location of where Santa Claus was seen by these multiple witnesses. UFOs have had thousands of good, solid, credible reports done by civilians and even the U.S. government. As such the skeptical opinion is invalid in this case and in fact more based upon mythical belief than UFO enthusiasts due to having zero reports available.

[edit on 22-6-2004 by heelstone]

That's one of the reasons why I don't trust skepdic.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
That's one of the reasons why I don't trust skepdic.

im not a big fan of skepdic either, i use it now and again.

I've always though that the big hushus in the government ranks is because the truth is something really weird and bizarre, like Santa is real or Roswell high kinda thing.

At least you can track Santa on Norad's radar each Christmas eve....

Originally posted by RX84
Found this funny article:

www.skepdic.com...

What do you think? Maybe all these children think that the UFOs they're seeing are Santa Claus?

The 'Skeptic's Dictionary' is a disinformation publication.

They are manipulating words.

Santa Claus and his sleigh have never been photographed, for one.

The entire argument is absurd.

There's actually a lot of good research done by skepdic. I usually check it first when looking at a hoax, as they usually give some great starting points. They are of course biased, so like many such sources, you have to take it with a grain of salt, but still, it's usually a good springboard when something sounds fishy....

Originally posted by Gazrok
There's actually a lot of good research done by skepdic. I usually check it first when looking at a hoax, as they usually give some great starting points. They are of course biased, so like many such sources, you have to take it with a grain of salt, but still, it's usually a good springboard when something sounds fishy....

Sorry, but their research is disinformation. I can't change that. They are good at making it look good using Neurolinguistics.

Trust me. I should know. I've studied neurolinguistics. I know how this BS works.

It's always good to have both "positive" and "negative" arguments when looking into something. For example, it is always good for people to know that people may be delusional when they report that they have been abducted or something. But this doesn't give the investigator the right to trash down on anybodys story, grouping everyone in that field as delusional.

Gallileo was "delusional" when he produced his findings according to the Church at that time, for example...