Leaderboard

Whaaat? No proponent green plusses for the black hole thing? I'm done arguing for the proponents. Do you think it's easy taking on Ray, Kit, and Saskeptic? Especially when they band together on a subject? Okay here it is again. The left half is from Ray's original. The right half in bold is a new comparison. Bigfootdom has an organization that investigates bigfoot reports and sightings, and maintains a bigfoot database (BFRO) - The study of black holes has an organization that investigates black hole reports and sightings, and maintains a black hole database (I'm sure there is a link somewhere). Bigfootdom has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos -- The study of black holes has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos. Bigfootdom has many books written on the subject -- The study of black holes has many books written on the subject. Bigfootdom has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for bigfoot is compelling -- The study of black holes has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for black holes is compelling. Bigfootdom has thousands of anecdotal accounts -- The study of black holes has thousands of anecdotal accounts. Bigfootdom is occasionally subjected to hoaxes -- The study of black holes is occasionally subjected to hoaxes. Bigfootdom has witness accounts, like those of Roe, Ostman, and Beck, that are considered 'classic' bigfoot reports -- The study of black holes has witness accounts, like those of blah blah blah and such. Bigfootdom has no definitive proof of large, hairy, undiscovered creatures inhabiting the forests of North America -- Black holedom has no definitive proof of black holes, only theories. Since black holes emit no light, there is no photo of one. Only surrounding evidence that suggests one is nearby. Sound familiar? Both groups have conferences, websites and forums. Both must be the same apparently. If you don't green plus this.... there is no bigfoot. Okay?.. yeah I said it.

My beautiful pool is back!