Anyone who cites Christophera photos of proof of anything, as "truthseeker" did above, is probably certifiable on that basis alone.
That aside, surely I am not the only one to notice that while "truthseeker" purports to be interested in science, he hasn't actually advanced any. All he has offered thusfar is photographs and videos and his own uneducated opinions about them, while distorting what others have said.
My guess is that he has no scientific knowledge whatsoever and that his only expertise is in googling conspiracy theories and convincing himself that they *must* be true because some other tinhatters told him so.
My goodness, Lash! You mean this isn't
pure science?
Kent, I'm not being dishonest. I asked what observations you make that allow you to think that the flashes are reflections. I know that, theoretically, shiney material can reflect sunlight. But I do not observe any debris, at all, in the area. The flash is large. The debris would have to be as large. It could not disappear.
Again, what do you observe that allows your position? Without an observation, you are arguing from incredulity.
Bolding and italics mine.
Observations! Say no more. Troofspeaker read somewhere that scientists have to observe things to prove their theories. He didn't, unfortunately, read that scientists observe things in controlled environments in the real world, not on some pimply kid's website.
The Shiny(not shiney, yutz!) Material Can Reflect Sunlight Theorem. I believe Hawking covered this beautifully in his 1986 classic, "Oooh, Look Mommy I see big bwight lights..." Of course, there's a counter to Hawking's theory offered by the USAF - those could be weather balloons.
Arguing from Incredulity. We had a guy here a while back who used to use "ad hom" with the same frequency and also had no clue as to what his pet expression meant.
This has been pseudo-science from the first post. It is now heading into Christophera territory, .... rapidly.
Truthseeker, why is it that when we observe, it's unaccepted conjecture? When you observe, it's factual evidence? When we point out the absence of scientific facts or request you to refer to some, you say that observation is more important. But then again, our observations aren't important. YOUR observations are. Do you begin to see a pattern? You are seriously deluded that you are having an intelligent debate, here. You are blowing smoke up our kilts and offering nothing in return. "I can see but you can't" is not an argument, it's a wussy kindergarten recess temper tantrum.
