How to document UFO sightings

[Fila]

How would someone go about documenting a UFO* event?

What steps can a scientist take in order to study an unknown object in the sky?
What types of data would you like to see? 

Think ball lightning or something similar. It is fairly random..,  cannot be reproduced in a lab.., and cannot be contained or captured. So field observations are necessary.

 

* For the purpose of this thread the acronym 'UFO' refers to unknown flying objects that are still officially unidentified. Unknown does not equate to alien.

P.S. if you are tired of reading sarcasm, jokes and automatic "scoffer" dismissals.., then read my comments only. I will quote valid responses and compile a list.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Fila

[Fila]

Its difficult for scientists to look into UFOs because the events are random and cannot be predicted. The current system only produces past events in the form of witness testimony and maybe images and radar returns. Officially.., at best.., this will always return an inconclusive result.

 

[Minimalists]

On 5/30/2018 at 7:52 AM, Fila said:

How would someone go about documenting a UFO* event?

What steps can a scientist take in order to study an unknown object in the sky?
What types of data would you like to see? 

Think ball lightning or something similar. It is fairly random..,  cannot be reproduced in a lab.., and cannot be contained or captured. So field observations are necessary.

 

* For the purpose of this thread the acronym 'UFO' refers to unknown flying objects that are still officially unidentified. Unknown does not equate to alien.

P.S. if you are tired of reading sarcasm, jokes and automatic "scoffer" dismissals.., then read my comments only. I will quote valid responses and compile a list.

You know every one or organization that investigates UFO's has its own set of standards when it comes to investigating UFOs....As far as I know there are no set standards that everyone follows.....

As far as science goes, in science it takes a lot more than other than you saw it that does not satisfy the standards of evidence required  in science. Now having said that you need to get the book "Admissible"  by Richard Dolan and Chase Kloetzke it's available on Amazon.

In their book they list evidence in 2 major distinctions.

Physical Evidence and Trace evidence...

Examples of physical evidence are (1). Impression based evidence, (2). Documents- Radar reports and historical records, newspaper articles and e-mails.

Examples of Trace evidence are (1)hair, (2) fingerprints, (3).soil, (4). blood, (5). NBC elements etc...this is by no means a complete list.

You ask what types of data I would like to see? Well the ones above are just some of them.

But when you look at UFO Reports there are numerous main types of them:

UFO Landings

Animal Mutilations

NBC Cases

Alien Abductions

Alien Implants

Crop Circles

Unusual lights in the Sky

Etc, Etc...

So from just the above we have to break them down into separate reports as each are unique in their own way.

Heres a form from the National UFO Reporting Center:

http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/reportformsubmit.html

Heres the one at MUFON:

https://mufoncms.com/cgi-bin/report_handler.pl

One of the best ones out there.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Alien Origins

[stereologist]

There are some basic ideas  to follow:

1. Shake the camera  that's very important

2. Make sure that your report is in conflict with other reports

3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use

[Minimalists]

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There are some basic ideas  to follow:

1. Shake the camera  that's very important

2. Make sure that your report is in conflict with other reports

3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use

Damn! I forgot about those three most important factors! Thanks for that....

[Fila]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

There are some basic ideas  to follow:

1. Shake the camera  that's very important

2. Make sure that your report is in conflict with other reports

3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use

Haha, classic.

4. Prepare for all that sweet "UFO witness" income. Not to mention all the fame and glory that comes with it.

5. Retire rich and successful

Edited June 16, 2018 by Fila

[toast]

Step 5: when filming objects in the sky, switch off auto focus and set manual focus to 1,5  meters (max.).

[Fila]

4 minutes ago, toast said:

Step 5: when filming objects in the sky, switch off auto focus and set manual focus to 1,5  meters (max.).

Damn sorry. I just edited my post and added a STEP 5.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

6. Make sure to decorate your story with stories from other people such as mentioning Grays, Draconians, Pleiadians, etc.

7. Omit anything that might resolve the story

8. Demand that others that do not think it is a mysterious event are close minded

9. Believe that filling out a UFO report makes your story all the more credible

 

[Fila]

On 16/06/2018 at 10:18 AM, Alien Origins said:

You know every one or organization that investigates UFO's has its own set of standards when it comes to investigating UFOs....As far as I know there are no set standards that everyone follows.....

This seems like a bit of a problem that needs fixing. Perhaps we need to develop a standardised approach so others can replicate the experiments / observations.

On 16/06/2018 at 10:18 AM, Alien Origins said:

Physical Evidence and Trace evidence...

Examples of physical evidence are (1). Impression based evidence, (2). Documents- Radar reports and historical records, newspaper articles and e-mails.

Examples of Trace evidence are (1)hair, (2) fingerprints, (3).soil, (4). blood, (5). NBC elements etc...this is by no means a complete list.

These are great forms of evidence.., but when I look at those links you provided on how UFOs are currently being reported.., they are not actually designed to gather these forms of data.

As Sterologist frustratingly pointed out.. "3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use. 7. Omit anything that might resolve the story, 9. Believe that filling out a UFO report makes your story all the more credible" I assume as a joke.., (but I think he and others 'liking' the post are actually dead serious).

We are frustrated with the lack of evidence.., but then scientists don't want to look into it because there is not enough evidence.

Can we change the eye-witness reporting procedure to gather more physical / trace evidence?

I'm really really sorry in advance if my post is coming across as arrogant or rude.., I am trying very hard to keep my language neutral. And I'm not forcing these issues onto you or casting blame. Its just that you are the only person so far who actually posts on-topic responses.., and without additional emotions being added. Thanks so much for attempting to answer some questions. It takes courage to speak your thoughts.., especially around here due to fear of relentless ridicule.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Fila

[toast]

On 6/17/2018 at 2:20 PM, stereologist said:

6. Make sure to decorate your story with stories from other people such as mentioning Grays, Draconians, Pleiadians, etc.

7. Omit anything that might resolve the story

8. Demand that others that do not think it is a mysterious event are close minded

9. Believe that filling out a UFO report makes your story all the more credible

10. Your written testimony ideally fills one page. The architecture of the paper must be as follows: add as much trivial, non related content as possible and do not describe the object/event itself in more than 1 to 2 sentences. Furthermore, the text must contain: "... my ??yo sister/brother" and "...while walking the dog" or "... on the balcony". If you publish your testimony on a public board, its mandatory that the final sentence is something like this: "Did anybody here experienced something similar?".

[Minimalists]

6 hours ago, Fila said:

This seems like a bit of a problem that needs fixing. Perhaps we need to develop a standardised approach so others can replicate the experiments / observations.

These are great forms of evidence.., but when I look at those links you provided on how UFOs are currently being reported.., they are not actually designed to gather these forms of data.

As Sterologist frustratingly pointed out.. "3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use. 7. Omit anything that might resolve the story, 9. Believe that filling out a UFO report makes your story all the more credible" I assume as a joke.., (but I think he and others 'liking' the post are actually dead serious).

We are frustrated with the lack of evidence.., but then scientists don't want to look into it because there is not enough evidence.

Can we change the eye-witness reporting procedure to gather more physical / trace evidence?

I'm really really sorry in advance if my post is coming across as arrogant or rude.., I am trying very hard to keep my language neutral. And I'm not forcing these issues onto you or casting blame. Its just that you are the only person so far who actually posts on-topic responses.., and without additional emotions being added. Thanks so much for attempting to answer some questions. It takes courage to speak your thoughts.., especially around here due to fear of relentless ridicule.

Quote

These are great forms of evidence.., but when I look at those links you provided on how UFOs are currently being reported.., they are not actually designed to gather these forms of data.

Then the answer should be clear here....It's based more on sightings and the inherent testimony of eyewitnesses and the fact that there will not always be actual evidence only testimony of those who saw something in the sky.

Quote

Can we change the eye-witness reporting procedure to gather more physical / trace evidence?

You could I suppose but then you would have very little in the way of any physical or trace evidence simply because its based on eye witness testimony.

Quote

As Sterologist frustratingly pointed out.. "3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use. 7. Omit anything that might resolve the story, 9. Believe that filling out a UFO report makes your story all the more credible" I assume as a joke.., (but I think he and others 'liking' the post are actually dead serious).

No I don't think it was mean't as a joke...As to what he mean't you would have to ask him.

[Minimalists]

@Fila Another thing on including physical and trace evidence on a UFO reporting form...I hazard a guess that in most if not all UFO reports there will not be any physical or trace evidence as its simply based on eyewitness testimony....

Unfortunately there is not a forum on the web where UFO evidence (or lack there of) can be discussed in detail.....Just about every UFO forum that I was a member of or I know of has died....But you are going to get skeptics no matter where it's discussed thats unavoidable...There is this site which I do not know if your aware of:

 http://www.ufoevidence.org

They don't have a forum though.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Alien Origins

[Fila]

13 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Then the answer should be clear here....It's based more on sightings and the inherent testimony of eyewitnesses and the fact that there will not always be actual evidence only testimony of those who saw something in the sky.

You could I suppose but then you would have very little in the way of any physical or trace evidence simply because its based on eye witness testimony.

We complain that there isn't enough evidence. But we can also show that evidence is limited.

I suggest that there is no sufficient UFO evidence.., because there simply has not been a thorough investigation.

We have hundreds of thousands of UFO reports.., that lead nowhere.

We have setup one UFO observation station.., which produces results. (Yet this is overlooked in favour of witness testimony)

The fact that people would rather concentrate on UFO reports that have been shown to lead nowhere.., then use this as an example to show a lack of evidence.., and ignore the real scientific evidence.., is a huge red flag.

Thank you for your posts AO.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The main consensus is that there's no UFO evidence.., because UFOs are not real, hence no evidence.

But its obviously due to a lack of comprehensive study.., and wasting waaaaaay too much time on eye-witness accounts (which has been proven to lead nowhere). Eye witness accounts don't prove or disprove anything in science.

The biggest problem is a logic loop people are caught in. I guarantee this thread will be overlooked.., and within the week people will be talking about how pathetic UFO research is. When really.., you are the one researching. Its your 'research procedure' of applying weight to eyewitness testimony in order to form a conclusion. (Sorry not you AO.., just 'you' the forum users as a whole)

This is what's wrong with UFOlogy.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The main consensus is that there's no UFO evidence.., because UFOs are not real, hence no evidence.

 

I don't believe that is the consensus. In fact, this is utter baloney.

Furthermore, any of t he inferences you made from this mistaken idea are also more than likely wrong as well.

[Fila]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

I don't believe that is the consensus. In fact, this is utter baloney.

Furthermore, any of t he inferences you made from this mistaken idea are also more than likely wrong as well.

Cherrypicking data.., in an attempt to 'handwave' away from valid points raised. You really don't want to discuss the evidence paradox do you, lol.

I told you last week that I am no longer responding to accusations and questions you make.., because you are synonymous with cherrypicking and handwaving. I asked you to answer some of my questions.., as I had been patient and answering all yours. You ignore the request and keep going... Why?

You never apologised for calling me a liar either. You made this huge attempt over multiple threads which ended up being false. You ignore me there also.., and only post what you want to discuss.

Cherrypick what you want to discuss.., avoid answering questions.., ignore valid points.., and handwave away from valid points.

Your patterns are obvious. I guess this is an example of a Zealot. Fanatical and uncompromising.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: Just to save time and space. Stereo I read you response below and you still fail to see the hypocrisy you place on me.

I am meant to answer your questions.., yet you are allowed to ignore mine? You continually avoid my questions. 

I explained this thoroughly. The fact that you avoid this.., simply proves my point again.

Your tactic is to just keep going. Ignore my points.., pick what you want to discuss in the hopes of moving past my points raised. Knowing people don't read blown out threads. Hoping your last post will trick people into thinking whatever you say must be correct.

I have always been open to respond to your questions.., but not anymore. I have no respect for you.., and take back what I said about you being able to comprehend data you post. You don't even question it.

All you have done is repeat the same thing in the next post. This merely solidifies my reasons to avoid you.

Come on.., have a go at participating in the thread. I bet you can't. Its easier to just ignore my logic.., and stay remain ignorant.I even stated in that post that I guarantee the ideas in this thread will go ignored within the week..., and look what happened within one post.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Fila said:

Cherrypicking data.., in an attempt to 'handwave' away from valid points raised. You really don't want to discuss the evidence paradox do you, lol.

I told you last week that I am no longer responding to accusations and questions you make.., because you are synonymous with cherrypicking and handwaving.

You never apologised for calling me a liar either. You made this huge attempt over multiple threads which ended up being false. You ignore me there also.., and only post what you want to discuss.

Cherrypick what you want to discuss.., avoid answering questions.., ignore valid points.., and handwave away from valid points.

Your patterns are obvious. I guess this is an example of a Zealot. Fanatical and uncompromising.

One again you fail to reply to anything at all.

1. You claimed this was the consensus: " The main consensus is that there's no UFO evidence.., because UFOs are not real, hence no evidence. " That is utter rubbish. It's a laughable statement. No handwaving. No cherry picking. This is simply rubbish.

2. You made zero effort to try and support your rubbish statement.

My guess is that you have no idea what is meant by cherry picking and hand waving since you use them here in a completely incorrect fashion. You probably need a big helping hand in getting the vocabulary right.

 

A proper term is challenge. I challenge you to support this rubbish claim of yours about the consensus. Frankly, we all know you will strike out with the "UFOs are not real" portion of your rubbish statement.

Your pattern is obvious: a basic inability to understand even the most basic ideas.

 

[Minimalists]

To say that UFO's are not real is kinda unrealistic....There are things in our skies that people cannot identify with or make sense of... The inclination of some to place these objects in the category of "Aliens From Another Planet" is what draws the ire from many a skeptic.....The argument from ignorance fallacy is played a lot in this....People don't know or cannot identify an object in the sky then automatically assume its aliens from another planet! They go from a statement of ignorance to a statement of certainty....There is nothing wrong with this per say and I would wager we all do it once in a while.

All of this kind of solidifies my idea of a forum where UFO evidence or lack there of can be discussed in a reasonable and rational manner.....Weed out the fact from the fiction...Matter of fact I am going to start work on that idea today.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Alien Origins

[Emma_Acid]

10 hours ago, Fila said:

The fact that people would rather concentrate on UFO reports that have been shown to lead nowhere.., then use this as an example to show a lack of evidence.., and ignore the real scientific evidence.., is a huge red flag.

Where's the scientific evidence for alien visitation? Must have missed that one.

[Minimalists]

2 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Where's the scientific evidence for alien visitation? Must have missed that one.

You did not miss it. I guess that depends on where you look or who you talk to as to the evidence for alien visitation. As for me I don't believe there is any real solid scientific evidence for alien visitation.....We can't use eyewitness statements as evidence for science. For me, here anyway, the lack of physical and trace evidence is a concerning factor.

There was a guy Henry McKay...Supposedly a pioneer in Ufology trace evidence....I have not followed his research and do not know that much about it.

Here's some stuff over on the Black Vault website:

 http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/category/ufos/ufological-history/the-henry-mckay-ufo-archives/#

Here's another one:

http://www.noufors.com/Henry_McKay's_UFO_Archives.html

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Alien Origins

[ChrLzs]

It would help, Fila, if you explained/defined your usage of "UFO" each time you say it.  Because clearly, in this thread, you are changing it as you go.

 

Want an example?  Sure, here we go - you said:

Quote

I suggest that there is no sufficient UFO evidence.., because there simply has not been a thorough investigation.
...
We have hundreds of thousands of UFO reports.., that lead nowhere.

The definition of a UFO is just something, usually moving, in the sky that is not identifiable.  If you like, you could add in that they need to have some degree of strangeness, but of course that will depend on the experience of the observer.

So if you are using that defintion - it is absolutely daft to say that they are not sufficiently investigated - those reports are investigated as much as they can be, given lack of evidence, lack of importance, lack of any characteristics that suggest they could not be terrestrial, and lack of basic observation /camera skills..  IF they get better documented, they're generally identifiable.  If they aren't, then NOTHING you do, Fila, will improve that, and all this handwaving is just ... well, you know what they say you shouldn't do into the wind....

Why on earth, given the huge amount of air traffic ranging from tiny drones thru sky lanterns to private aircraft, from choppers to blimps to satellites and commercial airliners, thru to as yet unexplained UAP's like plasma, ball ligthning...Why should there NOT be lots of UFO reports?  (I dispute your numbers by the way..)

As you well know, there is no, nada, zero, zilch good evidence for anything non-terrestrial, indeed the 'best' candidates for that are from decades past.  Yet our sky monitoring, and the equipment that is now 'out there' in everyone's pocket has improved out of sight.  The better we monitor, the less we can't identify.  Has it not got through to you what that means?

 

BTW, would you mind citing this - what observation station do you mean, and which is your favorite 'result'?

Quote

We have setup one UFO observation station.., which produces results. (Yet this is overlooked in favour of witness testimony)

?

[Fila]

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

It would help, Fila, if you explained/defined your usage of "UFO" each time you say it.  Because clearly, in this thread, you are changing it as you go.

The definition of a UFO is just something, usually moving, in the sky that is not identifiable.  If you like, you could add in that they need to have some degree of strangeness, but of course that will depend on the experience of the observer.

So if you are using that defintion - it is absolutely daft to say that they are not sufficiently investigated - those reports are investigated as much as they can be, given lack of evidence, lack of importance, lack of any characteristics that suggest they could not be terrestrial, and lack of basic observation /camera skills..  IF they get better documented, they're generally identifiable.  If they aren't, then NOTHING you do, Fila, will improve that, and all this handwaving is just ... well, you know what they say you shouldn't do into the wind....

Hi ChrLzs. If this is considered "handwaving".., why don't you pull up stereologist when he does it?

I mention this in the original post. For the purpose of this thread the acronym 'UFO' refers to unknown flying objects that are still officially unidentified. Unknown does not equate to alien.

I see no difference with this compared to your definition. You misunderstand my point. Or I yours. Relative to the conversation and the post I was replying to..,  I meant that;

I suggest that there is no sufficient UFO evidence.., because there simply has not been a thorough investigation. (Means there is no physical or trace evidence because there hasn't been a scientific study into UFOs) 

We have hundreds of thousands of UFO reports.., that lead nowhere. (We can only gather certain types of data from witnesses.., and that is not conclusive. What we need is better forms of evidence.., which witnesses cannot provide)

I'm not sure what the actual issue is. Can you please tell me? If you feel frustrated.., please ask one of your peers to translate for me.

Thank you for your input.

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Why on earth, given the huge amount of air traffic ranging from tiny drones thru sky lanterns to private aircraft, from choppers to blimps to satellites and commercial airliners, thru to as yet unexplained UAP's like plasma, ball ligthning...Why should there NOT be lots of UFO reports?  (I dispute your numbers by the way..)

I agree there are heaps of UFO reports.., I just don't get your point.

That was actually a conservative guess. I'll try and gather some facts as I slowly collate past cases. The Australian airforce received thousands in the 40's from the declassified documents I reviewed. Meanwhile this was happening all around the globe. Its been happening ever since.., so yea. I think I will be pretty close actually.
What do you think it would be? This number may reflect the scope of your research.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

Hi ChrLzs. If this is considered "handwaving".., why don't you pull up stereologist when he does it?

I mention this in the original post. For the purpose of this thread the acronym 'UFO' refers to unknown flying objects that are still officially unidentified. Unknown does not equate to alien.

I see no difference with this compared to your definition. You misunderstand my point. Or I yours. Relative to the conversation and the post I was replying to..,  I meant that;

I suggest that there is no sufficient UFO evidence.., because there simply has not been a thorough investigation. (Means there is no physical or trace evidence because there hasn't been a scientific study into UFOs) 

We have hundreds of thousands of UFO reports.., that lead nowhere. (We can only gather certain types of data from witnesses.., and that is not conclusive. What we need is better forms of evidence.., which witnesses cannot provide)

I'm not sure what the actual issue is. Can you please tell me? If you feel frustrated.., please ask one of your peers to translate for me.

Thank you for your input.

I agree there are heaps of UFO reports.., I just don't get your point.

That was actually a conservative guess. I'll try and gather some facts as I slowly collate past cases. The Australian airforce received thousands in the 40's from the declassified documents I reviewed. Meanwhile this was happening all around the globe. Its been happening ever since.., so yea. I think I will be pretty close actually.
What do you think it would be? This number may reflect the scope of your research.

Here are more misrepresentations of the issue.

Consider this ridiculous non sequitur. "I suggest that there is no sufficient UFO evidence.., because there simply has not been a thorough investigation."

Evidence does not magically appear because someone does a thorough investigation. Lots of these stories have received thorough investigations. Turns out there is  nothing to them other than the prosaic. Case in point is the Phoenix Lights. That event was covered and covered and covered and investigated and investigated and it was just planes. No amount of investigation turned up physical or trace evidence. 

A scientific study of that or other events turns up zilch because there is nothing to find. The suggestion that Fila has no idea what they are saying. Tell Hynek he didn't do a scientific investigation. There is one example of someone doing scientific research into UFOs. Is that the only one. Of course not, but apparently Fila has never done a simple internet search. 

And this statement is true for reasons already described in this thread. "We have hundreds of thousands of UFO reports.., that lead nowhere."

Quote

There are some basic ideas  to follow:

1. Shake the camera  that's very important

2. Make sure that your report is in conflict with other reports

3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use

6. Make sure to decorate your story with stories from other people such as mentioning Grays, Draconians, Pleiadians, etc.

7. Omit anything that might resolve the story

8. Demand that others that do not think it is a mysterious event are close minded

9. Believe that filling out a UFO report makes your story all the more credible

 

Quote

10. Your written testimony ideally fills one page. The architecture of the paper must be as follows: add as much trivial, non related content as possible and do not describe the object/event itself in more than 1 to 2 sentences. Furthermore, the text must contain: "... my ??yo sister/brother" and "...while walking the dog" or "... on the balcony". If you publish your testimony on a public board, its mandatory that the final sentence is something like this: "Did anybody here experienced something similar?".

ChrLzs has no problem calling me on handwaving. He has done that and he was correct. So stop, count to 10, and understand that he correct when it comes to you.

As for this uneducated comment ... I once again doubt you are in uni. It suggests a student doing poorly at 7th or 8th grade level. It comes from someone that thinks they understand things, but as everyone keeps telling them it is time to knuckle down and do the hard work of learning.

Quote

Anyone up for deciphering Stereo's post? I am having trouble following his points as it gets way too emotional for me to read. I feel like I have broken this man mentally.., and I feel bad like I'm picking on someone less educated. The anger is the huge indicator.

 

[stereologist]

At best the bulk of UFO reports seem to me to be indications that there are curious people out there. They might not know what is out there, but are curious.

One of the interesting things I point out to people are sun dogs. I point one out and they often tell me that they have never seen one before. They are aghast when I tell them that they appear on average twice a week. When someone says they saw something in the sky and they say they could not identify it I am not surprised - not even a bit. Even common things go unnoticed. 

One night I had family over for a barbecue and a campfire in the backyard. I live in a dark sky zone. My sister and her family were visiting the area. Within minutes of telling them that I'd point out satellites one of the group excitedly pointed out a passing satellite. I told them it was the ISS. Later they showed me an app on their phone and said it couldn't be the ISS. What they didn't realize was that we can see out over a thousand kilometers to see the ISS go by. After they left I sent them a link to a better site that showed that the ISS did pass by and at the time we observed it. The site also posted that the ISS would come by at a similar time the following night. It did and it was the same brightness which is what I had told them made it the ISS and not some other satellite.

This could have been just another UFO report had they been inclined to report it with the statement it could not have been the ISS, when in fact it was.

[Dejarma]

5 hours ago, Fila said:

I suggest that there is no sufficient UFO evidence.., because there simply has not been a thorough investigation. (Means there is no physical or trace evidence because there hasn't been a scientific study into UFOs) 

no it does not mean that!

if there were physical/trace evidence of a claim then there is something for science to study- & it would! You really are becoming tedious, seriously!

the consistency & intenseness of your posts now leads me to believe you're not a wind-up... you're just a confused individual that won't/ can't commit to a particular stance on this subject. why this is only you know!