well not exactly, I insist that you cannot dismiss neither based on what we have. To date we have the statement by the controller where he conmfirms the RADAR hit. Ok we dont have the hard data nor do we have a voice recording of 'other' witness, does that mean they dont exist!??
Did I said nothing happened?
well you at least say it was in the mind as opposed to physical so yes to an extent you deny there was anything physically seen. Apologies if I have this wrong.
Yeah, thats true, but what the hell with "instant denial" then?
ok maybe it was harsh. So I will retract the 'instant denial' accusation, with apologies
Yes, its possible (if you mean pilot saw nuts-and-bolts aircrafts, radar detected nuts-and-bolts aircrafts, and the second pilot saw nuts-and-bolts aircrafts), only its very far from the top on my list.
no i mean that something was there as opposed to figmant of imagination. nuts and bolts is pushing the ET slant again is it not.
It would be flying all around, and as I said in my very first post "Too many unknowns".
why would it....logical fallacy I believe....no hard data presented here or to be found on net with basic search does not equal it doesnt exist. And yes too many unknowns but investigations could potentially unravel.
The only fact about this case - it is solid mess. And no, with plasma I wouldn't go either (although it would be higher on the list).
BTW, what most likely explanation would be the number one on your list? Let me guess, again, your answer will be "Its truly unidentified", while in your thoughts "What else if not ET?". Am I wrong?
I cant put forward an explanation without more facts (and /or hard data )
as for my thoughts being what else apart from Et...... is that what you really think that my thought process is?
Thats why UFOlogy is on the same page with woo-woo stuff.
??? this reponse to my post is misunderstood I believe.
quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:
I do appreciate though that if we do claim ET that makes life far easier does it not?
what I am saying here is that if someone introduces ET as the answer that makes debunking easy doesnt it ? it goes like this:
person a) I think its ET
person prove ET exists with scientific evidence
a) I cant
haha case closed..
then these participants leave the ride and new people hop on for the merry go round to start again...