Rramjet, no one is afraid of saying "I don't know." THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING THERE ISN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION TO COME TO A DEFINITE ANSWER. Please refrain from misrepresenting what people say. At best, you appear unable to understand what people are saying. At worst, you appear to be lying to support your own beliefs.
(*Shrugs*) Even when you agree with me you want to turn nasty with it. That is your prerogative I guess.
Now, many people have speculated mundane hypotheses for the sightings. Why? Because the things suggested actually exist. We know, for instance, that aeroplanes exist. All manner of evidence is available to prove aeroplanes exist. Therefore, when someone says "I saw some lights moving in the sky," it is reasonable to suggest it might have been an aeroplane. Aeroplanes move in the sky. Aeroplanes have lights on them.
Sure, you can speculate all you want about such things but you cannot therefore conclude that it
was an airplane. The logic many here seem to be working on is ‘It
might have been an airplane – therefore it
was an airplane.’ And make no mistake, that is the
intent behind such speculations here. It is to falsify the UFOs as ET explanation – nothing more, nothing less.
It is not reasonable to suggest an alien spacecraft might have been what was seen.
Why not? There is nothing in scientific knowledge that would rule out such an explanation. All we can do is determine if such an explanation is warranted on the evidence (just as we would with any other explanation – including airplanes). Of course ET is not warranted on the evidence – but then neither is an airplane. Quite simply there is not sufficient quality of information to positively conclude on
any explanation. All we can do is state “I don’t know what it is because I don’t have enough information”.
We don't know what alien spacecraft look like. We don't know they exist. There is no evidence for their existence.
Well, there is
circumstantial evidence for their existence and what they look like, but looks can be deceiving. While the circumstantial evidence might
seem compelling in that regard, we still cannot be certain, so a positive conclusion about ET is not warranted on the evidence.
Therefore they are not an acceptable explanation for lights in the sky.
I agree, ET is not an acceptable explanation for lights in the sky. However, where there is sufficient quality information to determine that such lights in the sky defy mundane explanation (that is their characteristics do not fit with any mundane explanation we know of) then we
can state that fact (that the lights in the sky defy mundane explanation). However, that does not mean that we have
explained their cause - but just because we cannot
explain something does not mean we cannot describe its characteristics.
Do you understand, or will you be turning this into another of your multi-page testaments to your refusal to face reality?
I could not have put it better myself.
