GeeMack:
Unfortunately you choose to deny the overwhelming dicumented evidence in support of what the word UFO means to convey, and choose self-servingly to portray it using not the actual definition(s) or even the common understanding, but the mere word origin in the form of the individual words that makeup the acronym. So long as you continue misrepresenting the meaning of the word in this way, we have nothing further to discuss on the word origin, meaning or usage.
If you mean that everyone else chooses to use the common and actual definition of UFO to mean Unidentified Flying Object, then you are correct. You are, therefore, attempting to use an outdated, cherry picked and superseded definition which nobody but you wants to use. Even the other pseudoscientists disagree with you. You're all alone on this one and you aren't going to get anyone else to agree. Here, the term UFO will mean Unidentified Flying Objects, as it is meant to be defined. What you do in your club is your business. It is simply dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.
As for you saying that UFOs ( alien craft )
No, nobody but you is saying that UFO means alien craft. If you mean Alien Space Ship, just say Alien Space Ship.
have never been demonstrated to exist. all you can say with any certainty is that they have never been demonstrated to you.
We can definitely say that the null hypothesis which is:
"All UFOs are of mundane orgin"
has never been falsified.
They have however been demonstrated to me and many other people.
Unfalsifiable anecdotes are useless for validating extraordinary claims. Even yours.
I freely admit that I cannot replicate my observation and therefore cannot provide scientific proof.
Your continued belief in OMG PseudoAliens is a pseudoscientific one.
Therefore you may reasonably choose to dismiss that evidence and/or reserve judgement, ( reject the null hypothesis ),
I think you meant, agree that the null hypothesis has never been falsified.
but going beyond that by claiming that because alien craft have never been proven to exist, it therefore proves they don't exist, is an argument from ignorance. Therefore you cannot make your claim with any certainty without revealing your bias.
No, it is the only sane thing to think. Your misuse of terms that you don't understand is quite charming, though.
Lastly, your analogy between UFOs and gods is false, and comparing the phenomena to fairy tales is equally false logic.
No, it is a valid analogy. Did you just not understand it any more than you don't understand a null hypothesis?
Simply because unicorns or Santa Clause are fairy tales is not proof that UFOs are also fairy tales, and to make that assertion with such certainty once again only reveals your prejudice and bias.
No, you are incorrect. That you don't comprehend the analogy is merely due to your credulous bias so you see everything through your alien filters.
Consequently, it seems we have nothing further to discuss. Perhaps I'll run across some video or case study that you can help debunk and I'll look forward to your responses at that time.
Or perhaps you'll run across some evidence that would falsify the null hypothesis so that you aren't playing pseudoscientist.
