Rramjet said:
What makes ET implausible? That it has never been shown to have visited.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides you seem to be hand waving away all the circumstantial evidence – resorting to mere proclamation – as if the mere statement of unfounded assertion will somehow magically make those statements true. I can tell you (again…) that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence, as you seem to be asserting. There is no circumstantial evidence for ET. Why do you continually assert without foundation that there is? Your claims made without evidence are still dismissed.
There have been no observations of ET nuts and bolts craft…
The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(
http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
Blue Book case report
(
http://www.nicap.org/zamora2.htm)
(
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)
Where was it confirmed that these were ET? Or that there was anything at all, for that matter? Oh, you've started with your conclusion.
Where was it confirmed that ET was involved? Oh, you've started with your conclusion again. That's very pseudoscientific.
Where was it confirmed that ET was involved? Oh, you've started with your conclusion again. That isn't critical thinking.
Where was it confirmed... well, you know the drill. You've begun with your conclusion again.
…or physical trace evidence…
Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(
http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Johnson_incident)
Where was it...? Don't tell me, you've started with your conclusion? Only a pseudoscientist would do that.
The above seems to create a good circumstantial case.
Well, no.
You've started with your conclusion that it's pseudoaliens and retrofitted anything you could. How tall are pseudoaliens?
And you think it's pseudoaliens because..? Oh yes, your conclusion first.
And you think that's pseudoaliens because...? Um, conclusion first, yes?
The above seems to create a good circumstantial case.
Well, no. It is a case of you beginning with your conclusion and making everything be your conclusion. Pseudoscience, if you will.
There is also no FLIR evidence for ET, since you forgot it again.
You mean this radar case?
The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(
http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX7vvYXzxA)
LOL. How could I forget? After all you keep reminding me to look at that case.
No, I mean the FLIR case. The one you keep forgetting. LOL! The one that your version of a process of elimination had eliminated all plausible mundane explanations and you thought it was pseudoaliens and it turned out to be oil well fires! LOL!
Only pseudoscientists jump to their conclusion as you do that the answer is ET.
I have NEVER claimed ET to be the explanation (or the “answer”) – merely that in the absence of plausible mundane explanations the ET hypothesis is a plausible alternative.
But it isn't. Do you see the difference? If not, why not? The process of elimination says that all of your cases positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation.
So in the absence of plausilble non-mundane explanations…
The ET hypothesis is a plausible explanation because science does not rule out ET visitation and
demonstrably we have the above evidence supporting it.
But it isn't because ET has never been shown to have visited here and there is no evidence that ET has visited here. Do you see the difference? If not, why not? Remember, you've started with your conclusion.
…we can only legitimately turn to mundane explanations, such as blimps, oil well fires and HOAX.
…and of course that is why the term
plausible becomes necessary. Any explanation proposed will have to pass the plausibility test – that is, is such an explanation
plausible? Exactly! Such as blimps, oil well fires and HOAX. Now you're catching on.
I've used the actual process of elimination to eliminate plausible non-mundane explanations, leaving only "mundane".
You keep
saying that – but have never demonstrated by evidence or logical argument that your unfounded assertion is actually true. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence RoboT.
You shouldn't lie like that.
Well, no.
You keep untruthfully asserting that your version of a process of elimination shows that some cases positively defy plausible mundane explanation. You've proven yourself utterly and totally wrong so many times, I'm surprised that the shame of that doesn't equal the shame of your being a pseudoscientist. Remember Campeche, your Dismay at the Delphos HOAX, your Debri
WP Debacle, the purported letter at Venezuela?
The real process of elimination has determined that all of your cases positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation leaving only "mundane". ET is not a plausible mundane or non-mundane explanation as I've explained to you.
