I see that Wilbur Allen has been has been briefly discussed in the past, but I'm relatively new to this forum and in recently listening, for the first time, to his last appearance on the show I was, once again, driven up the wall by this guy (and Noory never challenging anything).
I've heard Allen several times over the years and, aside from his wild, subjective statements ("It was coming out of a wormhole...", "It was coming out of warp....", "I know for a fact...", etc. ) and the doubtful claims he makes about his photos, his use of certain words bugs the hell out of me.
1. The most annoying (because it's the most frequent) is his use of "sample(s)" when referring to his photos. They're not "samples" of anything except his photography (maybe "examples," yes)! This usage, whether intentional or not, seems like an attempt to make his "evidence" sound more solid. And it gets worse when Allen calls them "physical samples." A "sample," especially a "physical" one, would be a piece of debris thas has fallen from a UFO, or DNA, or alleged Bigfoot hair/skin, or any number of other things, but NOT a photo.
2. Allen often uses the word "abstract" when it's obvious that he means "surreal," and sometimes when neither word seems to apply in context.
Please understand, I consider myself "pro-phenomenon" on many of the C2C UFO and "paranormal" topics, but I have a very sensitive BS detector.
Note to Wilbur: If you want to sound more credible when you speak (and you need to work on that), start by using the language correctly.
I've heard Allen several times over the years and, aside from his wild, subjective statements ("It was coming out of a wormhole...", "It was coming out of warp....", "I know for a fact...", etc. ) and the doubtful claims he makes about his photos, his use of certain words bugs the hell out of me.
1. The most annoying (because it's the most frequent) is his use of "sample(s)" when referring to his photos. They're not "samples" of anything except his photography (maybe "examples," yes)! This usage, whether intentional or not, seems like an attempt to make his "evidence" sound more solid. And it gets worse when Allen calls them "physical samples." A "sample," especially a "physical" one, would be a piece of debris thas has fallen from a UFO, or DNA, or alleged Bigfoot hair/skin, or any number of other things, but NOT a photo.
2. Allen often uses the word "abstract" when it's obvious that he means "surreal," and sometimes when neither word seems to apply in context.
Please understand, I consider myself "pro-phenomenon" on many of the C2C UFO and "paranormal" topics, but I have a very sensitive BS detector.
Note to Wilbur: If you want to sound more credible when you speak (and you need to work on that), start by using the language correctly.