Oh the humanity, the humanity… yeah right, lets begin with the overblown ad hominem hyperbole and see how far that gets us LOL…
I have answered RoboT’s “dogged” questions so many times now that it has become ridiculous. RoboT has developed a disruptive spam method of posting that seems to slip under the radar of the mods. He asks a question, I reply, he ignores my reply, waits a little, then asks the same question all over again (usually adding the lie that I have not answered and that he has refuted my answer if I have), then he just keeps repeating the question/unfounded assertion/ad hominem etc over and over again no matter how I respond to him. Consequently I usually ignore him totally – on occasion I have replied to a post of his – but I am beginning to learn that I should simply ignore him no matter what.
No, you lie when you say you've answered it. It's important that you do answer it because it addresses your research ability or your honesty in presenting cases, you let us know which it is. You continue to lie when you say you've answered it. If you were to say that you've waffled and not answered it, you would be telling the truth and I would be the first to admit it.
Did you deliberately and overtly omit any reference to the boy's other hoaxing attempts so that you could pretend to eliminate HOAX as a plausible mundane explanation or was it the typical substandard research ability of pseudoscientists that caused you to miss it when you declared this case to "
positively defy plausible mundane explanation"?
I merely presented the case for appraisal in this thread. Rarely do I do much in the way of research the cases before I post them. The cases I choose often have already had a great deal of research and have seemed to withstand the test of time. But what better test than presenting them in a forum such as this (when I can get any sense out of the membership that is). If the case stands up under subsequent research and close scrutiny, then that supports my contention that cases exist that defy plausible mundane explanation.
Ok, you don't research cases before you declare them to "
positively defy plausible mundane explanation". So it seems that you're saying here that it was your substandard research ability. If that's what you're admitting, we can then move on.
The mundane explanation put forward by the debunkers as an explanation for this case is that it is a hoax. Now I have indicated that while a hoax is always a possibility, nevertheless there is absolutely no evidence in this case to support that assertion.
The non-mundane explanation put forward by the creduloid pseudoscientists is pseudoaliens. While we have ample evidence for HOAX, we have none for pseudoaliens.
The boy claimed he saw a small UFO land and take off again, he ran to his parents who saw a UFO disappearing up into the sky. The boy was clearly traumatised by his experience. An independent witness saw a UFO in the area at around the same time. The landing traces were examined scientifically and found to be extremely unusual in nature. In fact the “landing ring” was so unusual, no other example of its kind has ever been found in nature.
There is no critical thinking in your paragraph above. What "landing traces"? Are you talking about the known fungus? Why do you credulously call it "landing traces" or a "landing ring" when there is no evidence that anything landed?
He later claimed to have seen a “wolfgirl” in the woods. He sincerely believed that – there is no indication that he was not sincere in his belief. Some few years later some kids were caught hoaxing a “wolfgirl” in the woods (probably motivated by the boy’s original claims).
You have displayed no critical thinking in the above paragraph. Why do you credulously assert without evidence that he sincerely believed?
The boy - it is alleged - later claimed to have developed “psychic powers” – though it is never specified in the reports what those powers were precisely.
That's because he never specified what those powers were precisely. Do you now also credulously believe in psychic powers?
Some years later the family was awarded some prize money by a newspaper for it being a “best case”. The family however had no foreknowledge that they would be awarded such a prize, nor did they solicit it.
Which "news" paper was that again? Of what concern is it that the family would have no way of knowing if they would win a prize which they were competing for?
That is the case in a nutshell. There is no evidence of a hoax. All involved seem to sincerely believe what they have related. The scientifically analysed physical trace evidence supports their story, as does the independent eyewitness. The only hoax was the years later kids in the woods thing, but that had nothing to do with the boy or the family.
There is evidence of a HOAX, despite your protestations. It is amazing to me and anyone reading this that you can continue to claim that there is no evidence of a HOAX but that it
is evidence of pseudoaliens.
And if you are now admitting that the other hoaxed wolf girl sighting three years later had nothing to do with Ron Johnson's hoax sighting, why did you earlier try to defend it by saying the later one caused the Johnson boy's sighting? More of your shoddy research?
As I have repeated many times now – if anyone has any evidence for a hoax in this case then they should present it. Merely repeating the scurrilous and unfounded assertion that it was a hoax – or that I have not addressed the issue on numerous occasions - is disingenuous in the extreme.
As you've scurrilously tried to weasel your way out of answering a straightforward question that goes to the heart of the matter, and as you've scurrilously tried to weasel Ron Johnson out of being caught in his hoaxing attempts just to shore up your belief in pseudoaliens, you are disingenuous in the extreme.
However, I accept your admission that it is the sorry state of your research ability that caused you to honestly do nothing to find out about Ron Johnson's other hoaxing attempts and therefore caused you to continue in your belief that pseudoaliens did it.
