Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
- Status
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Apart from the energy requirements, which are, as you correctly state, enormous.
As an aside, do you have any idea how enormous?
But there's a big difference. As you said, those people who said that heavier than air flight was impossible should have known better, because we have obvious, direct evidence that it is possible. We've been watching birds insects and bats fly around the skies since the dawn of man. However, all of our observations so far have confirmed that the energy requirements for interstellar flight in a reasonable timespan are huge. They're huge in Newtonian mechanics, and they just get worse with relativity. You offered a couple of "solutions" in the form of ion drives and wormholes. But ion drives produce tiny amounts of thrust, simply making the problem one of the time you need to get from one star to another, and they still require huge amounts of energy (and therefore fuel). And wormholes require even more energy than more conventional travel. Now you're suggesting time travel, with all the potential problems that involves, in addition to the enormous energy requirements.
No matter what you say, all of the evidence points to the energy requirements for interstellar travel being prohibitively high.
Energy requirements that you simply refuse to discuss, hiding behind the woo mantra of "you never know what we might discover in the future". Of course, it's completely true, but also completely beside the point. The mistakes of the past were predicated on a failure to foresee more efficient fuels or propulsion methods, but that just isn't the case here. The most efficient propulsion method possible is the photon drive, which turns matter into pure energy, with 100% efficiency. And you still require tons of the base fuel to accelerate a 100kg mass at 1g for 1 year, even ignoring the extra mass of the fuel you need to carry to do it!
Now, that's not to say that it isn't possible, because I've pretty much just stated that it is possible. But the energy requirements make it a hell of an effort just to hop from one star to its nearest neighbour, so we have to ask, if the aliens are expending so much energy to come here, and to keep coming here, why do they mostly piss about buzzing farmers and vacationers in remote areas of the countryside?
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Only when there is no physical evidence, and just stories (which some call eyewitness testimony), about a claim that, if true, would be the greatest discovery in the history of the world.
When you make a claim that would be stupendously, abso-honking-lutely ginormous, you're nowhere if all you have is someone's lips flapping that, in hundreds of other similar cases, has been shown to be false.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
*laces fingers together and cracks knuckles*
We're drifting onto my home turf now. This one's gonna be fun.
Let's begin with an analysis of the term "UFO debunker." Rramjet tells us that a UFO debunker is "Someone who “debunks” UFOs." As we've mentioned again and again in this thread, the term "UFO" stands for "Unidentified Flying Object." I don't think there's anything left to cover there, so we move to the term "debunker." Wikipedia, based on dictionary.com, tells us that a debunker "is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious." As no one here would argue that UFOs are any of those three things (we're all quite happy to acknowledge that UFOs exist), Rramjet is using the term incorrectly. He is, of course, referring to us "debunking" his claims regarding UFOs. Rramjet's poor grasp of the English language bites him in the backside here, as the use of the term "debunker" acknowledges that his claims are bunk. One cannot debunk that which is not bunk.
I was right, that was fun. Moving on.
Gosh, that was fun.
We're drifting onto my home turf now. This one's gonna be fun.
Let's begin with an analysis of the term "UFO debunker." Rramjet tells us that a UFO debunker is "Someone who “debunks” UFOs." As we've mentioned again and again in this thread, the term "UFO" stands for "Unidentified Flying Object." I don't think there's anything left to cover there, so we move to the term "debunker." Wikipedia, based on dictionary.com, tells us that a debunker "is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious." As no one here would argue that UFOs are any of those three things (we're all quite happy to acknowledge that UFOs exist), Rramjet is using the term incorrectly. He is, of course, referring to us "debunking" his claims regarding UFOs. Rramjet's poor grasp of the English language bites him in the backside here, as the use of the term "debunker" acknowledges that his claims are bunk. One cannot debunk that which is not bunk.I was right, that was fun. Moving on.
Never been to L.A. in my life.
No you haven't. You haven't presented any evidence that we could dismiss out of hand. Please do so and we will be happy to evaluate the evidence.
No I haven't.
You still don't get it, do you? All the physical evidence, AND THE OTHER EYEWITNESSES (caps lock is cruise control for cool) say the single eyewitness is wrong. No "out of hand" dismissal took place. The evidence was evaluated and other eyewitnesses interviewed. I realise that this is anathema to you, but you can't just accept the story you like most, you have to use the evidence. ALL of the evidence, not just the bits you pick and choose.
Saying "go look it up" is not an answer. I'm asking you, not Google. I want to know what insane methods you'd use, not what methods others use.
It's my hypothetical. I know what happened in it. A murder didn't occur. If you wish to construct one of your own, do so. It'll be ridiculous and continue to undermine your claims, but it should give us all a laugh.
They're not. And YOU, no one ("no one" is two words, no hyphen) else are being implacably obtuse in ignoring the other eyewitnesses. Is this sinking in? The murder didn't happen. UFOs aren't alien spaceships. Eyewitnesses are not flawless. Get it?
Don't be silly. Can you not even read a simple sentence without making a gibbering arse out of yourself? You've presented no evidence. My sentence makes the point that we cannot have ignored evidence because there has been none. Present some and see what happens. Not the blatherings of people making something out of nothing, some evidence. As you yourself have shown the willingness to ignore eyewitnesses, we clearly both agree that something else is required. Do you have it?
Not very good with this "English" thing, are you?dictionary.com said:
Drivel.
Liar.
People sometimes see something in the sky and don't know what it is. Glad I could solve that one for you.
Research which has been done and found nothing of interest. People sometimes see something in the sky and don't know what it is. The overwhelming statistical probability is that it's something perfectly normal. There is no evidence of anything else.
We would acknowledge the evidence if there were any. And yet despite all the stories, there's nothing. No fragments of alien metal, no clear photos, no videos of aliens leaving a message, no first contact on the White House lawn. Just a bunch of people seeing stuff in the sky, or getting spooked by noises at night.
And this supports anything you've claimed... how?
According to you, they can't draw a circle. Sounds like pretty poor draftsmen.
If the drawings are good, they're pretty good drawings of a blimp and OH MY GOOD GOD WOULD YOU STOP *RULE10*ING BLATHERING ON ABOUT THE BLIMPS. It was a blimp. They were near a blimp station, on a blimp route and they drew a blimp. Nothing you say will change that or change anyone's mind. You're so insanely, hilariously wrong that I'm amazed you're able to type it without your head exploding in an attempt to prevent your further humiliation.
You seem to keep confusing "UFO debunkers" with yourself.
We are in the face of a lack of rational, concise or logical argument. It's nice to see you admitting that. Maybe you should think about why you keep on with an argument that isn't rational, concise or logical. Do that after you've looked up "ad hominem" and found out why your usage is wrong.
Let's face it, anything you added would just be more gibberish.
Gosh, that was fun.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
He's going so fast he's talking to the back of his head.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
//OT// Happy birth day long dead Pharaoh, you owe your priests an apology./ot/
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
We never really left it.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Sunsneezer
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 159
So the constant observation and probing of space that's being done all over the world is not sufficient for you? What do you suggest we research exactly?
Investigating phenomena based on memories and photography or video hasn't been conclusive yet and there's a reason for that. There's only so much information in a video of point(s) of light moving or a photograph of a shape in the sky. With enough key information missing, recognizing a known phenomenon or differentiate it from another known phenomenon can be impossible or very hard.
There is no denying that the military has secrets, and that some technologies are developed in secret by the military. They are not entitled to divulge everything that they know happened in the sky, and examples of that information being be sensible for ordinary military reasons are numerous.
Calling for more research is a way to suggest science is not interested in what happens in the sky, which is false.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
But it's not research that Rramjet really wants.
All he's looking for is confirmation of his religious belief and he expects other people to do that for him.
Of course research into something that doesn't exist is always going to show a bleever that we just haven't found what they bleeve in yet.
When do we call off the search?
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
Rramjet just tell us how many members of this forum you have convinced with your big pile of old anecdotes (waiting to magically transform into convincing evidence) so far?
It does if you want it to, it doesn't if you don't.There appear to be some disagreement on whether a multitude of anecdotes equals evidence or not.
In other words, no.
There really is just one main point in all this: That is the “trap” of claiming interstellar travel is impractical (we KNOW it is possible) because of the energy requirements needed to accomplish it in reasonable time scales.
First, the argument relies on the “Physics is dead” proposition. Wollery (and the UFO debunkers) suppose that we know all there is to know about the appicable physical principles and that no new relevant discoveries will be made in the future that might show us a way to make interstellar travel a reasonable prospect. For example perhaps the ZPE could be tapped into somehow, obviating the necessity to carry fuel loads.
Second…what IS a reasonable time scale for ETI? We just don’t know that they might not spend (what seems to us) inordinately lengthy times in travelling between places. Maybe ET is actually some kind of “robot”. Maybe they have discovered the secret of “immortality” or “suspended animation” – who knows, there are many possibilities.
Finally, we don’t KNOW what they are doing here. Their purpose is obscure. For us to attempt to apply human motivations is, in the end, a futile exercise. If however we place ourselves in their position and imagine we were the ones visiting other worlds, then there do exist rational reasons why we would not make direct contact.
contends that “there is no physical evidence, and just stories”
But this is simply not true. We have multiple witness accounts. We have radar confirmation of eyewitness accounts. We have photographic and film confirmation. We have physical trace evidence. We might not have “alien” bodies and “alien craft” (then again “we” just might just HAVE those too! – but of course it is WAY too early to get into evidence for THAT contention. It would send the UFO debunkers into apoplectic fits and I don’t want to lose whatever shred of rationality is left in their minds just yet! LOL) but we have a great deal of evidence that leads us to a conclusion that UFOs are certainly NOT mundane.
For example, Rogue River is a reliable multiple eyewitness account. Project Twinkle gives us an official USAF investigation that managed to film and triangulate UFOs. Tehran supplies us with multiple military and civilian eyewitnesses and radar confirmation – along with an official military assessment that the case was genuine. We have the Trent/McMinnville and Trindade Island photos (and I happen to know of at least one other photo that to my certain knowledge IS entirely genuine – but of course convincing anyone else of that in this age of Photoshop, etc… would not be easy). Wee have the Father Gill sighting which places humanoid beings into conjunction with UFOs – as does the Lonnie Zamora case. And of course we have the New Zealand Kaikoura (Pegasus Bay) sighting which supplies us with a conjunction of Eyewitness, radar and film evidence. Then we have the Val Johnson incident, which gives us physical trace evidence, as does the Cash/Landrum incident.
So as you can see, we have MUCH more than just “stories”.
revisits Paul 2’s argument above (“You haven't presented any evidence” and “People sometimes see something in the sky and don't know what it is”) and makes a disingenuous claim (“Please do so and we will be happy to evaluate the evidence” and “We would acknowledge the evidence if there were any”). Demonstrably a hollow promise given all the evidence I have presented!
He also makes the claim that “Research which has been done and found nothing of interest.” But this is an empty claim. Clearly “research” has found interesting things – just not presumably of interest to Sledge. For example, the Sturrock panel made some very telling recommendations that the UFO debunkers seem to ignore (Journal of Scientific Exploration (1998) Vol. 12, NO. 2, pp. 179-229 - http://www.scientificexploration.org...2_sturrock.pdf)
“The panel made the following observations:
The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any
simple universal answer.
Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility
that scientists will learn something new by studying those observations.
Studies should concentrate on cases which include as much independent
physical evidence as possible and strong witness testimony.
Some form of formal regular contact between the UFO community and
physical scientists could be productive.
It is desirable that there be institutional support for research in this area, The GEPANISEPRA project of CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales - the National Center for Space Research) in France (see Appendix I) has since 1977 provided a valuable model for a modest but effective organization for collecting and analyzing UFO observations and related data.
Reflecting on evidence presented at the workshop that some witnesses of UFO events have suffered radiation-type injuries, the panel draws the attention of the medical community to a possible health risk associated with UFO events.
The panel also reviewed some of the conclusions advanced in 1968 by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project. He asserted that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge," and that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." While agreeing with the first conclusion and its extension to the present, the panel considers that there always exists the possibility that investigation of an unexplained phenomenon may lead to an advance in scientific knowledge. The panel considers that the chances of such an advance are greater now than they were in 1967 because of the advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the GEPANISEPRA model for data acquisition.”
(pp. 184-185)The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any
simple universal answer.
Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility
that scientists will learn something new by studying those observations.
Studies should concentrate on cases which include as much independent
physical evidence as possible and strong witness testimony.
Some form of formal regular contact between the UFO community and
physical scientists could be productive.
It is desirable that there be institutional support for research in this area, The GEPANISEPRA project of CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales - the National Center for Space Research) in France (see Appendix I) has since 1977 provided a valuable model for a modest but effective organization for collecting and analyzing UFO observations and related data.
Reflecting on evidence presented at the workshop that some witnesses of UFO events have suffered radiation-type injuries, the panel draws the attention of the medical community to a possible health risk associated with UFO events.
The panel also reviewed some of the conclusions advanced in 1968 by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project. He asserted that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge," and that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." While agreeing with the first conclusion and its extension to the present, the panel considers that there always exists the possibility that investigation of an unexplained phenomenon may lead to an advance in scientific knowledge. The panel considers that the chances of such an advance are greater now than they were in 1967 because of the advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the GEPANISEPRA model for data acquisition.”
Later in the report we have:
“The UFO problem arises from the verified existence of a very large and coherent set of testimonies worldwide. Its approach is bound to be in three steps:
Step 1. Try by all means to identify the stimulus that has led to the report: the report may be due to inadequate information, misinterpretation of a familiar phenomenon or device, an unusual astronomical or atmospheric phenomenon, an unusual technological device, or a hoax (perpetrated by the reporter or on the reporter).
Step 2. If Step 1 has not yielded an explanation of the report, try to characterize the event that led to the report and compare it with other case descriptions.
Step 3. For any case that is strong in testimony and rich in detail, one should try to define a model. In this activity, we are clearly not dealing with a simple question with a Yes /No (one-bit) answer. Different cases require analyses with different levels of complexity.”
(pp. 225-226)Step 1. Try by all means to identify the stimulus that has led to the report: the report may be due to inadequate information, misinterpretation of a familiar phenomenon or device, an unusual astronomical or atmospheric phenomenon, an unusual technological device, or a hoax (perpetrated by the reporter or on the reporter).
Step 2. If Step 1 has not yielded an explanation of the report, try to characterize the event that led to the report and compare it with other case descriptions.
Step 3. For any case that is strong in testimony and rich in detail, one should try to define a model. In this activity, we are clearly not dealing with a simple question with a Yes /No (one-bit) answer. Different cases require analyses with different levels of complexity.”
People should also read “Appendix 8. Scientific Inference” (p. 226) because here it is outlined HOW a scientific methodology might be applied to the study of UFOs and which concludes:
“It is highly unlikely that any research project that is in operation for only one or two years will solve the UFO problem. However, it could and should provide useful relevant evidence, and that evidence should lead to a measurable change in the assessments of an interested scientist. In an area such as that of UFO research, that is all that can be expected. On the other hand, several research projects, each lasting a reasonable length of time, should provide sufficient evidence that an hypothesis may be effectively definitely established or definitely rejected.
If these suggestions are considered to have merit, they could be developed into a more specific and more useful form by means of a workshop that brings together UFO investigators, professional investigators (of accidents, failures, etc.), physical scientists, and statisticians.”
(p.228)If these suggestions are considered to have merit, they could be developed into a more specific and more useful form by means of a workshop that brings together UFO investigators, professional investigators (of accidents, failures, etc.), physical scientists, and statisticians.”
Then Sledge makes an extremely interesting claim about Rogue River: “ It was a blimp.”. This of course “outs” him as a “true believer”. Up until this point the UFO debunkers have been careful to publically state that “blimp” represents a mere possibility. That is, while there is no “proof” that it was a blimp, the (vanishingly small) possibility is enough to show that a mundane solution cannot be ruled out. Here however, we have confirmation of what I have been contending all along, that while the UFO debunkers publically state “possibility”, they privately believe “certainty”! And this “conclusion without evidence” is precisely what the UFO debunkers accuse ME of doing!
…and while we are on Rogue River… Disparaging the eyewitness drawing of the object won't work. The technicians/draftsmen put some definitely non-blimplike features in their drawings. As I have essentially pointed out, the fact that the outlines appear superficially as "blimp shaped" is an accident of trying to draw a thick (coin or pancake shaped) disk with (apparently) rounded edges as seen obliquely.
As I have also pointed out: The blimp hypothesis assumes that somehow the witnesses missed key details that would have caused them to identify a blimp, details such as the shape (aspect) variation when the object turned (if it were a blimp), the failure to see 4 fins, the failure to see the gondola, the engines, the failure to note the noise of the engines, the positive identification of “jet plane” speeds, the un-blimplike size… the circular shape…and so on… all this makes “blimp” entirely implausible as a rational explanatory hypothesis.
There are some other claims Sledge makes about Rogue River and blimps (“near a blimp station” and “on a blimp route”) which, for anyone who has been following the debate even at a superficial level would realise as absolute nonsense.
(welcome to the fray!) comes in with: “So the constant observation and probing of space that's being done all over the world is not sufficient for you?” And of obviously the answer is of course a resounding “NO”. When you are looking for (for example) variations in microwave radiation, or studying black holes, or looking for extrasolar planets, etc, you are NOT focussed on looking for or investigating UFOs. The equipment and researcher attention has a completely different focus. UFOs need their own properly consituted and funded research program. It is as simple as that. You cannot say to an astronomer “Oh, by the way, when you are looking for cepheid variables tonight…keep an eye out for UFOs will you?” THAT does not constitute “UFO research” and to suggest it might do is patently ridiculous.
Sunsneezer contends that the reason UFO research has not been “conclusive” to date is that there is not enough information to distinguish UFOs from know phenomenon. I would simply point Sunsneezer in the direction of Blue Book Special Report No. 14 (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) so that he may understand the scientific principles behind how it IS possible to categorise and distinguish.
Finally Sunsneezer acknowledges that the military necessarily keeps secrets for sensible reasons. But what his point is remains obscure. The military keeps secrets – yes – but will he acknowledge the possibility that they also keep “UFO” secrets?
returns with an assertion that what I am looking for is “confirmation” of a “religious belief”. But this has not been demonstrated. I simply present cases and argue in support of the evidence contained within those cases. That is a rational, logical, scientific approach. Stray Cat is simply making an unfounded assertion - a favourite UFO debunker methodology – throw some mud and see if it sticks!
…and then the next assertion of Stray Cat is a little perplexing given all that has come before about the UFO debunker’s public affirmation that UFOs exist. He states: ”Of course research into something that doesn't exist is always going to show…” Research into “something” that does not exist? UFOs do not exist? And so along with Sledge, Stray Cat has finally “outed” himself as a “true believer”. UFOs do not exist! …and in one short sentence from Stray Cat all the objections about my application of the term “UFO debunker” are shown to be utterly disingenuous (to be polite).
The question now becomes: Who will be next to “out” themselves as “true believers”? Two UFO debunkers have now done so…who will be next to fall on their own sword?
Finally,
chimes in with “just tell us how many members of this forum you have convinced with your big pile of old anecdotes (waiting to magically transform into convincing evidence) so far?” showing two things at once…the first is of course an affirmation of “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” and second his failure to grasp that just perhaps JREF members are not the target audience here
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
I'm sure it is quite obvious to intelligent people reading this thread that I was referring to the 'alien origin' attributed to the UFO's and not the UFO's themselves.
In 100% of reported UFO cases that have been subsequently investigated and a conclusive indentification has been reached, the conclusion has been a misidentified mundane object or event. 0% have ever been conclusively demonstrated to be alien origin craft.
When do we call off the search?
Let us look at your whole post IN context then shall we?
That was it. So where precisely were you talking about the “alien origin” of UFOs? Of course you were talking about UFOs! You meant UFOs do not exist! A moment of forgetfulness perhaps, a proverbial “slip of the tongue” if you like – but it is there now in black and white. You cannot now deny it. It is there for all to see.
But this is simply a version of the “All crows are black” fallacy. That is, “All the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are black.”
But you take it one step further: You actually imply there are white crows – yet totally ignore the implication of that!
Of course one must also be careful to acknowledge the convoluted language and logic structure of the statement. The meaning is relatively clear: That is in 100% of cases that have had a successful “identification” have been shown to be “misidentified mundane objects”. Now, leaving aside the obvious falsehood of that statement (eg: hoaxes and delusions or hallucinations) we can note that it leaves us with a body of cases that have NOT been identified as “mundane” (more than 20% according to both Blue Book No. 14 and Condon).
Stray Cat then tries to have a little bit both ways. He states that “0%” have been demonstrated to be “alien craft”. But we have to ask, 0% of what? Stray Cat cannot mean the already identified cases, for that would be tautological, but at the same time he does not want to alert us to the fact that his first statement leaves a substantial number of cases unidentified – so he leaves it undefined. Yet plainly it is THOSE unidentified (as mundane) cases he refers to. But why would he make this claim when it has already been acknowledged that UFOs are UFOs. Of course he really wants to say what he actually believes - that these unidentified cases are “mundane” also (that is 100% of ALL cases are mundane), but he cannot, he needs to make a point about them not being identified as “alien craft”. And he cannot do that if he states what he really believes. (confused? Don’t blame me, it is Stray Cat’s logic after all…)
So… the point being that while we cannot positively identify the “unknowns” as “alien craft”, we CAN form speculative hypotheses about what they might represent given the characteristics contained in the sighting reports.
Finally, we cannot “call off the search” before we have begun searching.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Yes lets...
It referred specifically to the part about you looking for confirmation of your religious beliefs. Which you have demonstrated throughout this thread.
That, I presume is what you were calling for, research which could prove that UFO's were alien in origin.
No, it's a version of the "All crows are native species of this planet. Show me one that has flown across the universe (any colour really, I don't mind) but I dont see why we should waste time and money looking for an alien crow when there is no evidence that such a thing exists." piece of common sense.
I'm sure the UN would be very interested to hear that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Committee_on_the_Peaceful_Uses_of_Outer_Space
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html
Amazing, yet another thing Rramjet is wrong about. It's almost as though he's not actually a scientist at all.
Belgian thought
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,345
Searching through this thread has indeed shown no evidence for “aliens”. Therefore, as you say, to begin searching sounds indeed like a good idea, and as Astrophotographer recently pointed out, this could be done relatively cheaply.
To begin searching would entail starting from scratch, i.e. today and looking forward, thus ignoring previously non-provable cases including all those recently issued by the MOD in the UK, you know the ones, Rendlesham etc.
Since your opening thread, wherein you stated ‘.... that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”’, has resulted in no evidence so far, you Rramjet, I am afraid, are left with the only option stated in the above quote, and to begin a scientific search for evidence to back up your opening post. I am sure you know what I mean by scientific, since you have shown a lot of knowledge on the subject to date.
Go forth and search Rramjet! We, I write for all of us presumptuously, all await the results with great anticipation.
Could you give us a schedule and programme detail of your search so that we know when to come back for your presentation?
Now tootle off and get researching properly, there’s a good chap.
Last edited:
- Status