Latest activity

I'd say that's largely correct as those "centuries of hindsight" included a lot of what we now take for granted as science and technology. Our current understanding of the laws of nature and the development of human biology and culture have...

Exactly. We looked at fairies and the laws of nature and said: These don't work together, fairies don't exist. They look at UFOs and the laws of nature and say: These don't work together, the NHIs must know more than we do. Why?

It's just classic Hitchens' Razor: "We have good photos" has been asserted without evidence, so can also be dismissed without evidence.

Argument from authority fallacy. This site has a history of embarrassing government officials on these cases. See now, I asked you to back up a claim you made. I wanted you to explain what you mean by a "true report". Does that mean you think...

"We have good photos" is a simple declaration, the truth of which could be demonstrated by showing us some good photos. Then we can turn the analytical skills of dozens of experts on a picture to see if meets the definition of "good" in any way...

Science vs Scientists vs UFOs We really should flag this usage as unacceptably vague. "Science" is not a person and has no opinion of it's own. "Scientists" is a catchall for a very very large collection of professional disciplines that follow...

Unfortunately, you still can't do a lot even with reliable witness testimony and corroboration, or triangulation with those cases. Especially if the contact was fleeting. I got a good look at what I saw and intentionally tried to focus on it so I...

I sort of agree. We can't rule out that an eyewitness might see something unusual that is objectively there, and is able to give a reasonably accurate description that corresponds to what was there. But without corroborating evidence it's...

I sort of agree. We can't rule out that an eyewitness might see something unusual that is objectively there, and is able to give a reasonably accurate description that corresponds to what was there. But without corroborating evidence it's...

I sort of agree. We can't rule out that an eyewitness might see something unusual that is objectively there, and is able to give a reasonably accurate description that corresponds to what was there. But without corroborating evidence it's...

It's not a bold claim at all. Pais has filed several patents, but the one we've been discussing is US10144532B2, "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device", 28 April 2016, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en, the one raised and...

Exactly. We looked at fairies and the laws of nature and said: These don't work together, fairies don't exist. They look at UFOs and the laws of nature and say: These don't work together, the NHIs must know more than we do. Why?

I'd say that's largely correct as those "centuries of hindsight" included a lot of what we now take for granted as science and technology. Our current understanding of the laws of nature and the development of human biology and culture have...

I agree on the whole. But sometimes, some reliable witnesses, may see something weird enough that justifies further analysis. For example is the balloon hypothesis for Fravor’s tic tac actually conclusive? If we ignore the FLIR1 video, which...

It's just classic Hitchens' Razor: "We have good photos" has been asserted without evidence, so can also be dismissed without evidence.