Funny T-Shirts

hehehe... WE should let it go??? What about her letting it go that anyone not happening to see angels where there are only bluish pixels are NOT murderers of her brother?

Let it go? Because this woman is mentally ill, I should give up my right to free speech? Make me.

No one is asking you, Terry Austin, to give up your right to free speech. What we're saying has nothing to do with free speech. What some of us are suggesting is that people should use a little tact. Everyone likes to brag that they "don't hold anything back, I say what's on my mind", but I think that just shows a lack of social awareness. There are many times when you should not say what is on your mind.

How do you know she's 'mentally ill', are you a psycologist? Her brother was recently killed. How many relatives have you had that were blown up?

Actually, she doesn't care what Terry Austin says, it's Alex actually.

"Alex, it is more professional to contact the individual before posting a potentially slanderous note on the internet."

More professional than what? And aren't we talking about potential libel here? If you want to get technical, calling you slanderous is potentially libelous. LOL

"Speculating in the Internet Age is a game you may not be old enough to remember called Broken Telephone where millions of people will race to accept what they read is fact."

The interweb tells me lies? Say it ain't so!

"I cite experts for their input."

Does that even make sense? Am I reading it wrong?

"irresponsible speculation"

Tee hee.

"People allowed themselves to be influenced by incomplete thought."

Again, am I missing something in the syntax here?

Miss-Black
HSD(high school diploma)
BFA
S.O.B.

Just a quick update. I posted her most recent email to me in which she responded to my note telling her that I posted our communication. I get the impression that she doesn't mind at all 'going public' with our exchange.

Sorry, but I've really got to take exception to all those posters arguing along the lines of "oh, let's be tactful and indulge the raving lunatic's misplaced hostility to spare her feelings," because that's exactly the opposite of what should be done from a mental health perspective. And the reality is those sentiments aren't motivated by concern for this woman's mental or emotional well-being at all; they're motivated by a shabby, emotionally-cowardly desire to passify aggressors and avoid conflict. It's never a good idea to indulge others' delusional obsessions and fantasies, whatever the circumstances, because doing so only encourages further descent into delusional and obsessive behavior--in fact, indulging in the kind of path-of-least-resistance sentimentality some have advocated here probably does more to create the kinds of delusional fanatics who brought about the death of this poor woman's brother than anything else. Jeez, people used to complain about Political Correctness... Now it's starting to look like "Religious Correctness" is America's new hobgoblin.... Life is tough; sometimes bad things happen to good people. I know, because I lost my entire family in a series of unrelated tragedies over a span of less than five years--though, to be fair, I guess their deaths count less than this woman's since none of my family members were blown up in a national tragedy or anything newsworthy like that. Personal loss is no excuse for becoming a simpering, intolerant spoiled child. When did humility and tolerance stop being Christian virtues?

I've gotta say, All-Seeing Eye Dog, you're on to something. As long as people indulge this woman's illness, she won't get help.

Thanks Terry Austin--Have to point out I feel bad about getting a couple of facts wrong in my previous post. I erroneously assumed Carrie was a Christian fanatic, but apparently she's a Jewish fanatic; I also erroneously assumed her brother had been killed in the 9/11 attacks, when in fact, he was killed by a bomber in Israel (still very much a national tragedy). I apologize if any of my remarks were insensitive to these facts. Still, I think my original point is valid.

For a person who claims to use logic and facts, Carrie sure skipped that step in reaching the conclusion that the blue objects are angels. In fact she started from the conclusion, "The objects are angels" and worked backwards rom there. She dismisses any alternative explanations for the objects because they don't fit her theory. To even suggest that she is wrong causes her to make accusations of libel.

I will admit that I am still confused about how refusing to admit that the objects are angels has anything to do with killing her brother. Perhaps that high-level thinking is just beyond me.

Steve L.
ASAP, QED, EIEIO

Give the poor lady a break, the blue things really are angels, even better; they are angels that have appeared in her picture to make her known on the web and have the extreme privilige to get the attention of the No.1 messiah : ALEX.
Jeroen.
LMT. DIT. DOM. KGG(kindergartengraduate)

From someone who claims to be a 'photojournalist', the photo is neither professional, conclusive nor very interesting. A visit to http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ provides hundreds of such photographs that would lead a gullible and imaginative viewer to numerous scenarios. Those who take such photographs are the most likely to surmise the most fantastical of subjects.

Whether it's Bigfoot, aliens or angels, the photographer is usually the most blinded by logic or reason in their interpretation merely because the act of ownership and consequent presentation, forces justification.

As far as Carrie's credentials go, a quick search on Google reveals that they are easily (if maybe expensive) obtained through online courses. Which if you've read Museum of Hoaxes much, can be suspect at best.

Finally, not to discount what was obviously a tragedy with her brothers death, her consequent writings are vitriol and self-serving. When she writes 'There is no peace. May his death be avenged', I see a narrow-minded and angry individual who will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence.

It's no wonder that someone so disturbed would see angels.

Carrie is not trained as a scientist (yet as PI she should know a little better) she has made conclusions assumptions brought patterns together and has a emotional involvement in the matter. Yet ‰ÛÏthe event‰Û should not be ruled out.

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

How many pictures are taken per day by people cameras etc.? How many pictures have distorted images on them? What would the results be from a statistical probability analysis?

Name calling bashing and emtional involement needs to be downplayed and "the event" exploreded and investigated.

Trained conversation facilitator? Puh-leez.

I had a neighbor who took photos of her dog shortly before the dog's unfortunate death. When she had the pictures developed some time later, there were rainbow-like bands of glare in some of the shots. She was (and, I suppose, still is) firmly convinced that this was a miracle that happened to give her the message that her dog is in heaven.
I thought a light leak (or maybe "lens flare") was a more likely explanation, but I never argued with her because it made her happy to attribute it to divine intervention, and for all I know her dog probably IS in heaven (though I'm not sure what that means).
But then, she never published the pictures, claimed she had proof of angelic visitations, or accused other people of slander and murder if they didn't agree with her interpretation.

Well knick knack ..........


If 100,000 photos are taken every day and 100 pictures are bad that gives 36,500 pictures a year that are bad. In ten years thats 365,000. So that means 1 out of 7500 people get this type of pictureper year.

So loser thier you have it............

bitch crazy.

My favorite part was when she called you "awesome." That lady's crazy.

She's verbous, I'll give her that! Her article and her letters just went on and on....

If you don't believe in God, you better not tell anyone, because the government will find out while trying to filter "actionable intelligence" from the entire radio spectrum and the Internet, and your tax returns will get audited and you will wind up on a list of convicted felons and denied the right to vote because your name is almost the same as someone else's and then just to prove to you that God exists, you will get picked up by a black smoked-window limo and be crammed into a tiny metal cage in Guantanamo Bay, with a bunch of 11th grade Bible-school educated grunts to kill your infidel pagan self.

Even though half of us are fervently trying to avoid the other half of us that are holyroller religious nutcases, this here is God's elected country, boy. Don't piss them off unless you want to get yerself crucified.

dude, she wants you!