No. It is you who must answer the basic question of how you reach the conclusion that the debris behaves in a way it couldn't. However, without knowing more about the objects in the video clip, all you can do is say "it doesn't look right" which is unsatisfactory and basically an argument from ignorance.
But I
have answered that question – many times. Let me reiterate:
Observation: Curved and meandering debri trajectories.
Possible explanations: External or self-motive force applied.
Discussion:
If there is an external force applied, to produce a curve in the debris trajectory, then such a force must be applied constantly over a period of time while changing direction.
The possible external sources for that force? Well, obviously there is the Shuttle – but we can see that the shuttle is not flying around in circles in order to allow its thrusters to cause a curved motion in the debri, so that rules out the shuttles thrusters as the motivation force. What are we left with?
Nothing that I can think of. Nothing that you can think of (otherwise you would have provided the explanation already). Nothing that NASA can think of (otherwise it would have provided the explanation already). So what are we left with?
Debri that is either self-motivated and therefore not mundane or mundane debri that has a non-mundane force (because there is no known source for such a force) applied to it (or a combination of both…).
Now, your argument seems to have a foundational assumption that the debri is more likely to be mundane than not (and this is the general foundation for all UFO debunker arguments) and therefore we can assume that anything “unknown” we observe will be mundane because of that likelihood (despite the fact that we cannot currently identify it). However, let us put that statistical argument into some sort of perspective. Physicists and Astronomers admit that they have absolutely no idea what makes up more than 90% of the mass of the universe. In other words
most of the universe is
unknown! Now… according to the UFO debunker statistical logic, that would actually make it
more likely than not that
any observed debri is actually unknown too…
Now in regard to your claim of
argumentum ad ignorantiam: I am not claiming that I
know anything about the debris except what can be observed. That is the trajectories of the debris. Moreover I am not claiming that I have
proof of anything other then the debris’ trajectories. That is I am
not claiming the debri is proof of ET or proposing any other hypothetical explanation for the debris at all. All I am noting is that the trajectories of the debris seem inexplicable in mundane terms and therefore it is possible that either the debris or the motivating force is non-mundane.
This of course does not rule out that advances in theoretical physics will provide a mundane answer in the future – but then that same argument can be applied to interstellar travel by potential ETs.
The end result is that the UFO debunkers cannot have it both ways. They claim that even though we cannot identify the cause of some (many) observations, the likelihood is that the cause
is mundane because most of what we observe
is mundane and so why should any particular observation
not be mundane? But as I have just pointed out, most of the universe (the vast
majority of the universe) is
notknown (and therefore not mundane), so that argument from the UFO debunkers simply does not work.
The UFO debunkers also want to claim that I am somehow involved in an
argumentum ad ignorantiam and that therefore my claims somehow unfairly shift the burden of proof on to them. However, I
do have proof of the trajectories of the debris (the videos) and that there is no mundane explanation for those trajectories (the shuttles thrusters could not provide the necessary motivation) and I therefore simply ask the following question: Can
anyone think of a plausible mundane cause?
The trajectories of the debris are thus a
mystery to us and I find it odd, given the human propensity for curiosity and the urge to solve mysteries, that no-one is actually willing to research such a mystery – rather they indulge in a blanket denial that there is any mystery at all and involve themselves in semantic arguments designed to bog us down in philosophical confusions.
All I am pointing out by presenting the videos is that there is a mystery here and as the objects are “flying” and they are unidentified, that means that they are UFOs and thus fulfils the requirements of my statements in the OP that I would provide evidence for UFOs (as opposed to misidentified mundane objects).
So I will ask again: What do others make of the debris trajectories in the videos?
…and before someone replies with “Oh. but you also promised us evidence for aliens.” Let me first point out that I have presented other cases that fulfil that requirement (Father Gill and Lonnie Zamora for example) and second I did not actually state in the OP that I would provide evidence for ET (as in aliens = ET). Rather, in the OP I placed
aliens in quotation marks thus: “aliens” (indicating a specific definitional requirement
other than ET) and I have subsequently explained that my definition of “alien” means something outside our
concepts of the natural or technological world (which could include ET but not necessarily so).
