Merrell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of these historical accounts from centuries
> ago cannot necessarily be taken at face value.

And yet as you have shown without waver you have no problem doing so with any debunker or source you feel contradicts an alternative explanation. Many you do not even seem to actually read. Regardless, this is one of the tools of the debunker to ignore the portion of an account that contradicts their debunkery and cherry pick those that might. For example, I highlight the part of the account that not only clearly casts doubt on the validity this event could have been a "sun dog" which all told, ironically, is easily the most credible and least fantastic part of the whole tale and the one aspect we should feel most comfortable to take at "face value". Not to mention, as I also note, these same people already had seen sun dogs and depicted and described them in a way wholly inconsistent with this account.

So you ignore both points and instead offer:

"Some of these historical accounts from centuries ago cannot necessarily be taken at face value".

And now that you see a challenge to this debunkery, instead of addressing the points directly all you can say is "I said "possibly sun dogs". Which says what-that you are willing to just believe whatever one of your confirmation bias sources tell you until something else comes along?

> I
> said "possibly sun dogs," in case some other
> explanation might emerge at some point.

One could have gotten that from the Colavito blog you posted yet you made a point to single it out anyways. If you have your doubts, hence the "possibly", would you not note this as well? And if this was such a valid explanation then how could another emerge?

> Do you have a suggestion or theory about the
> phenomenon?

If I don't then its best we just go with the unlikely sun dog then? Probably swamp gas or the planet Venus, wouldn't you agree?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Jul-19 21:42 by Thanos5150.