But you demonstrated it was so by refuting empirical evidence whilst declaring yourself an empiricist.
I did not "refute" the evidence, shaky as it might be. I refused to accept you CONCLUSION based on said evidence because I hold that other conclusions and explanations are more plausible.
And for the record, if I had indeed REFUTED the evidence, then I would have succesfully shown that it was invalid.
Refute | Define Refute at Dictionary.com
That's nice. Now for the source and validation of the pictures to:
1. show that they are not falsifications of some kind, and
2. show that they actually show what it appears they show.
They don't have to be but the other explanations that they are secret government projects or extra dimensional are even more bizarre and less concordant with the known facts about UFO phenomena and the three degrees/levels of contact that has reportedly been made by all kinds of people the world over.
I'm unfamiliar with the 'extra dimension' explanation, but seeing as various government projects of an aircraft capacity does take place and that experimentation and testing is often done in secret, it seems plausible that at least some of these observations are related to that fact. As for people "seeing" things all over the world...well, that is hardly news and we both know that people can be very credulous and make mistakes very frequently, especially if you leave the impression to "brew" for a while. Memory is a fickle thing and can easily be influenced by outside sources like the media, other people and the like. This is the reason the police, if possible, wishes to interrogate witnesses to an incident as soon as they can, preferably before they get a chance to sleep on it.
Take the Loch Ness monster as a counterexample. Many people have over the years claimed to see it, some have shown pictures (usually of poor quality), and yet, science does not recognize the Loch Ness monster as a factual entity. Why? Because we've looked, many times over, and the biology does not support the view that such an animal could live there. I'm not dogmatically saying that there cannot under any circumstance be a Loch Ness monster, but at the moment the evidence is not in favour of it.
From simply observing non human intelligent machines on radar or on video or through the naked eye to actual face to face contact with non human entities...some images of these non human entities do exist on the net and whilst the natural tendancy is to immediately scoff it is better to look then deny yourself the chance of spotting something truly unbelievable....
Mate, let me tell you, I'd be the first to cheer if we were indeed visited by aliens, provided they were of a friendly nature. I'd love for this to be true but at the moment, as I see it, the evidence is not showing it.
Well firstly then if we do own them why the hell are we using crappy and technologically inferior chemical rockets and aircraft?
Maybe they don't work yet? Maybe their capabilities are blown out of proportion? Maybe people are lying?
But to be honest, there just isn't enough reliable data to make a conclusion.
They are likely space flight capable if they are not of this planet's origin....I thought that rather obvious.
Maybe they are faerie-wagons?
Maybe they belong to a civilisation living underground here on Earth?
Maybe, maybe, maybe...
Why is it so hard for some people to just say "I don't know" and leave it at that?
Sure, investigate all you like, but until these alien abductees and their peers have something in the form of substantial evidence, all they have is a baseless claim.
Distance in the 4 dimensional spatial universe is an illusionary thing to those subjective and limited to it.
And I assume then that you have evidence of 4 dimensional beings?
It is theoretically possible that we could create an artificial wormhole to literally allow us to circumnavigate space and time through an extradimensional tunnel between two loci/point.
Sure, there are many things that are theoretically possible, or which at least does not contradict our current understanding of physics. But the fact remains that we have yet to find an actual wormhole. And until we do, this is just another unknown.
Secondly and perhaps more conservatively due to time dilation effects travelling at nearly the speed of light would make even journeys of dozens of light years pass in what might seem for the passengers months...and there are plenty of star systems nearby within 50 light years.
True, but assuming that they have overcome the hurdles of near light speed travel (of which there are quite a few), it would still mean a 100 year round-trip as relative to their home world.
I have a theory based on scientific evidence and empirical evidence and witness reports.
And I say I think you are overstating the solidity of your evidence and you are putting way too much value in those witness reports, which, from a scientific point of view, are considered the weakest form of evidence in the book.
I did offer to go through it with you in more detail.
I would like you to make the most conservative estimate and explain why and then I will like wise if you wish.
Use this...
Space: SETI: The Drake Equation
*Sigh* Alright... I'll play.
I'll be using current estimates when possible and will mark those with an *. For all others I'll comment. Ok?
N* set to 100 billion*.
fp set to 40%*.
ne set to .33. This should actually be closer to .2 or .1 according to current estimates, but .33 is as low as the page will let me put it.
fI set to .5%*.
fi set to .001%*. Note: This number is highly unreliable.
fc set to .001%*. Note: This number is highly unreliable.
fL set to 10000 years. Note: This number is highly unreliable.
These values gives us 6.6 communicating civilizations in the galaxy, which, in my view, makes it very unlikely that any of them have actually been visiting us.
I don't claim...I know it wasnt.
So what do you claim it was then? Clearvoyance?
