The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

The whole point here is to examine whether ANY of those objects "defy current knowledge of science".

That can not be done without focusing on each event individually. The evidence of one event does not apply to the other events.

 

I've never suggested that.

I've suggested that if someone wants to claim that "go fast" can not be explained within our knowledge of science, you can not use "tic tac" or other events to accomplish that.

What I've pointed out is that "go fast" is VERY explainable within our knowledge of science.

Therefore, it has to be eliminated from any further argument that there are objects such as you want to believe exist.

Well, you search for arguments that

All that matters is the pursuit to the great question, "are there, indeed, craft in our airspace that are unexplainable?".

that's it.

Any testimony, any video, any data, all of it is fair game in pursuit of that quest.

You are not the gatekeeper to what can, or cannot be looked at or discussed

So please stop it.

If you are not willing to pursue that quest, and I suspect you are not, you are just hung up on one video, which isn't logical,
I will find someone else who has a modicum of interest and curiosity and is more open minded on the subject.

I presented a study that looked into events that were being described by pilots, inclusive or radar and video data, as 'unexplainable'.

I think you are unwilling to look at it because it is going to prove you wrong, and you can't handle that fact.

There it is, right there.

Right?

I think so.[/QUOTE]
You can't use "go fast" as evidence of alien craft when there are perfectly reasonable Earthly explanations for "go fast".

So, "go fast" has to be eliminated from your argument that there are craft flying around breaking physics.

The next step AFTER that is to look at the NEXT piece of evidence - "tic tac". That has to be analyzed as a separate event, too.

After that, one could move on to the third tape.

Each of these tapes is a separate event. You can not use evidence from one to support your assessment of the others.

Science never allows for the kind of mixing that you want to apply. You can not use data from one test as evidence in another test. Any paper that did that would be eliminated in the review process.

 

No, the entire point is to seek the answer to the greater question:

"Are there objects flying in our airspace that are extraordinary, and, if there are, what are they?"

That is the question. And, ANY video, ANY data, ANY testimony, ANY anything that is in furtherance of that quest is.........

FAIR GAME.

And therefore the quest is most DEFINITELY NOT limited to your arbitrary imposition of 'three videos'.

Frankly, I could give a crap about the three videos because, obviously (deducing from testimony), the Navy has likely a lot of them and they have intentionally released the most boring videos in it's inventory.

 

NO,


I'll repeat my reply to your other rebuttal:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-intelligence.508305/page-33#post-1073156356

the entire point is to seek the answer to the greater question:

"Are there objects flying in our airspace that are extraordinary, and, if there are, what are they?"

That is the question. And, ANY video, ANY data, ANY testimony, ANY anything that is in furtherance of that quest is.........

FAIR GAME.

And therefore the quest is most DEFINITELY NOT limited to your arbitrary imposition of 'three videos'.

Frankly, I could give a crap about the three videos because, obviously (deducing from testimony), the Navy has likely a lot of them and they have intentionally released the most boring videos in it's inventory.

 

Your approach here does not comport with science in any way.

And, your logic is also excluded in the rule of law.

You're still trying to use as evidence that which has not been shown to be true.

 

Do you think the tardigrade was entangled:

 

Well, has this become a movement:

 

I'm curious about the specifics here.

My understanding is that when one observes an entangled object, it collapses the wave function and one sees the object in one of the two possible states. (Ignoring the "many worlds" view of what happens.)

What are the states of the tardigrade in this experiment?

 

Wow, what a load of mental masturbation that was. I am surprised that he did not talk about how "1337" he was.

 

Is this the last word about life on Mars:

 

The person in the vid seems to make a good case for the end of the question concerning life on that particular meteorite.

Of course, one sample couldn't possibly indicate that Mars hasn't ever had life.

This is a great example of where we are in our ability to search for life outside of Earth.

We (and Russia, EU, and India) have multiple orbiting observation satellites, surface rovers, a helicopter, pieces blasted from Mars, and we still don't know even about that planet, the one most easy to investigate.

And, we're essentially nowhere on the other estimated 700 quintillion planets.