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....

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...