Internet currently offline, usual maintenance I think, so this post will go in late(12pm,posted)
I would say you are free to take the mickey.
You also make some valid comments on my skeptic post, I have answers, tonight.
I want taking the micky 🙂 Wasnt my intention, sorry. And I wasnt addressing your skepticism post, rather to the article itself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if i disagree with it. Its the way it works isnt it.
You posted up a skeptics site and I took a read and felt that many points they made were very valid,for example if looking from above at high altitude at an object below, it can look like the object is traveling at tremendous speed, when in fact it is only because of its high altitude that it is crossing great distances. This however is not only their example but they leave out a great deal of information, such as how this is being viewed from above by a fighter jet, what is the working altitude of such a jet, what is the distance between the object and the earth below it, in relation to its ability to ‘look’ like its moving very fast. Why does the object and the sea below it seem so close, when that itself would lend skepticism as to the point being made that it is altitude. and so on and so forth. Looking and asking questions analytically.
But other times felt they were not being honest, in that they claim ‘Oh it must be that’ but not explaining why. A bit like doing maths but not doing the workings for it. 😕 if you get my drift.
As to the points, I couldnt really fully reply as the article is huge and to address each point skeptically and ask for definition, or evidence, would be a post akin to a final year dissertation.