Indy wrote: Their motivation could be to never let us see them - but then the day their cloaking device fails they're fvcked right out in the open where everyone can see them.
So you're saying that these technologically advanced geniuses haven't invented a way to turn off the blinking, flashing lights on their crafts if their "cloaking device" (whatever that is) fails?
That's a very unlikely to be true answer.
In actuality, the vast majority if not all of the UFOs which have been spotted by humans casually looking up at the sky behave as if they don't care whether they're spotted. Don't you agree with this?
Dick, first off - any air craft with blinking lights is an airplane. Those are standard air craft lights required by the FAA.
Secondly, the only people who are making this ludicrous argument that they don't want to be seen are you and Navy. And that... ahem... "knowledge" is based on a cartoon that was meant as a joke.
I do not get why people would dismiss all the evidence of ET's. Given that even with conservative figures in the equations there should be ET's visiting. With all the credible witnesses, trace evidence, and detections by machines to corroborate statements. I don't get that. It is not a court of law. There is a preponderance of evidence.
Quote Indy!
Dick, first off - any air craft with blinking lights is an airplane. Those are standard air craft lights required by the FAA.
So now you've decided that the aircraft spotted during the Belgian UFO wave (you know, those UFOs with the flashing lights) were actually airplanes?
Good for you! That's a start anyway -- even if the reasoning behind your new belief is just as screwed up as the reasoning behind your old belief was. For example, just because the FAA requires that flights within the USA require aircraft lights that meet a particular standard does not mean that alien spacecraft cannot also have identical or similar or totally dissimilar aircraft lighting.
Quote
Secondly, the only people who are making this ludicrous argument that they don't want to be seen are you and Navy. And that... ahem... "knowledge" is based on a cartoon that was meant as a joke.
I never said that alien spacecraft in our atmosphere, if there were or are any, don't want to be seen. I said that either they are ambivalent about being seen or they are not. It's not a question of alien motivation. It's a logical point; one that you've failed to comprehend.
Quote latch33534
I do not get why people would dismiss all the evidence of ET's. Given that even with conservative figures in the equations there should be ET's visiting. With all the credible witnesses, trace evidence, and detections by machines to corroborate statements. I don't get that. It is not a court of law. There is a preponderance of evidence.
Good question, Latch. Just why exactly would scientists, who in some instances have dedicated their professional careers to the search for ET life, dismiss "all the credible witnesses, trace evidence, and detections by machines to corroborate statements" for the observation of ET life if that evidence was sound and convincing?
The most reasonable answer to this question is that the vast preponderance of evidence given for the phenomenon isn't sound and the little evidence that may be to some degree sound isn't convincing.
If it were, then you'd be reading about the discovery of ET life in reputable science journals instead of only on internet pseudo-science sites.
Waaaait a minute. Are you saying that by asking Latch to explain what UFO "trace evidence" is, that I'm ... what? Setting a trap? Somehow being unfair?
I understand trace evidence to mean a small physical sample. Are you saying that humans possess trace evidence of alien life or alien spaceships?
What? Is your reading disorder rearing its ugly head again?
Also, you continue to conflate the probability that ET life exists (high) and the probability that intelligent ET life has been spotted visiting Earth (low).
Why after all this conversation do you continue to do this?
Indy wrote: "So (now... finally) you agree there is life out there."
I have never, ever disputed the claim that it's probable that "life [is] out there."
Never.
In fact, I've stated many times that I believe that it's highly probable that ET life exists. Yet, you ignore this fact over and over and over again. And here you go and do it yet again in the quote above.
Why you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between the separate questions . . .
1) "Is it probable that ET life exists?"
and
2) "Is it probable that some UFO is the result of ET intelligence?"
. . . ought to be a bit concerning for you, I would think.
" -Navy
