What is with you people presuming that those who do not believe the headlight theory *must* believe the light is a ghost? No one knows what it is! That's what the man is saying....geeeez.

I'm going to *prove* that the Paulding Light is a portal to another dimension if I make it back... If I ever *want* to come back :)

I was just pondering this... Are you really so closed minded and dead set that you cannot perceive even the *possibility* of light sources on Planet Earth, just a blip with in the Universe, which are unexplained to the lemmings that inhabit it's atmosphere? Really? Is it really that inconceivable to you that humans don't have all of the truths documented per the very nature of their fallacious sense of superiority in the year 2010? Well, I guess this is the age of the internet., Google, iPhones, digital cameras, mass marketing of college education complete with laptops... If you're not going to get with it, then get out, eh! I'm hoping the Paulding Light is actually a portal to another dimension!

I just thought of something that tickles me, and I'll have about 500 of you thumbing me down about because no matter what I say, it's the wrong thing to say, lol... But some of you are criticizing the Scy Fy network findings along with whatever other investigations skeptics of this study are using as question to ponder the possibility that these guys are wrong. It's funny to me because you are so ready to defend a Youtube video as satisfactory evidence! What a hoot...

"Second, don't criticize someone for practicing bad science or demand citation of data when the best points coming from the other side is "well, I saw the light behind me once" or "the lights were reported before cars were around"."

On a side note, that's the real world, honey. It doesn't matter what the opposing side's argument or how irrelevant you believe it to be. If you want to set out to prove something, prove it before announcing you've got any answers. Reality, hardcore. And, anyhow, among those who are asking for citation and documentation are those who seem to be satisfied with the students' explanation... Try getting school credit for a paper that doesn't provide citation. If I feel someone needs to cite their claims before they deserve credit by me, so it is. Honestly, it's alarming how many of you ~future professionals~ are absolutely willing to accept what your peers tell you is truth. If that means "you" (anyone reading this), I pray you are not going into science....lol, I *pray*...How do you like that? That's funny :)

What is a "believer" of the Paulding Light? And how is renting a plane to prove that it's not the source translate into "theatrics", or "not enough brains"? It seems pretty straight forward to me.

I am certain that this study was not approached with out bias, which is a principal aspect of the Scientific Method and a necessary component in conducting empirical studies. So, yes, there is room for criticism of the students' approach to announcing their "scientifically conclusive" findings. Are people supposed to be real nice and enthusiastic to these kids when they are not satisfied that they have accurately provided *scientific* evidence? Well, that right there sounds like the real fantasy!

"...everyone has biases, either you want it to exist or you don't."
Dude...it *does* exist. The question is HOW? To ask HOW is not biased. To theorize and then set out to prove your theory is correct with out implementing the proper equipment or procedures to surmise a conclusion with the least possible room for error is biased and is *not* scientifically empirical or conclusive.

By the way, this site thanks you for your significant contribution to this pissing match!

Thank you for saying "ballyhoo." You've just made my day :)

I believe you should request a written, documented account of this poster's experience before you go offering answers to their questions...

Ricky states, "Our *perception* of *reality* is just as important as the *science* of *reality*." Human science is based on human perception and there's a huge percentage of humans who have a human-centric slant on reality based on their limited human perception. Point taken?

that website is idiotic.