On 10/26/2011 11:45 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> yeah, you know every possible outcome and you know everything there is
> to it and for a fact you can demonstrate there can't be anything else,
> sure... your opinion hardly could be more biased, but OK, I see now how
> difficult is to reason when the people don't want to and find some
> intellectual pretext to not do so. But is your opinion and I respect it.
Where is the evidence that aliens are a plausible explanation, at all. 
We don't even know if "alien" is a coherent definition, or just a 
anthropomorphic projection of the original meaning of "outsider" to some 
non-existent thing from another planet. We simply don't know. The answer 
to, "What is it?", is either, "something known", or "I don't know". 
Unless you already have real, clear, evidence that space aliens are 
real, or any of the other myriad supposed things they "might be", as 
suggested by such UFOlogists, its no more a coherent, never mind 
plausible, explanation than that its time travelers, ghosts, holograms, 
pixies, or magic tea pots.

I don't have a damn clue, any more than they do, what the hell they are. 
But I do bloody well know that I **don't** have a clue, and that there 
is, therefor, no reason to pull some random science fiction term, from 
Orwell and the like, out of my butt, and say, "I think this is a 
reasonable thing for it to be." By that definition of "reasonable" 
demons, ghosts, Ayakashi would have made just as much sense, a few 
hundred years ago. And, there where lots of *examples* of prints, 
mysterious burn marks, strange and spooking feelings, and people 
claiming to have personally *seen* those things, at the time too, even 
including, "artifacts", in some cases, "owned by them", which, 
"disappeared", but where of, "unearthly origin", according to the people 
that handled them.

I am not telling you what I know these things are. I am telling you why 
its absurd to assume, just because a lot of people currently think its a 
space ship, instead of a sky dragon, and find that more "scientific", 
with no more evidence than was once used to *prove* the sky dragon, that 
those people have any better idea what they are dealing with, or a more 
plausible answer, without clear evidence, than a 10th century peasant, 
who thought it was spirits, or a 15th century Japanese priest, who 
thought he saw a demon lord menacing his village.

Having a more modern, "We haven't a damn clue, but this sounds good!", 
version doesn't make it, or the witnesses, or the explanations, or the 
vague and inconclusive "evidence" that you see with UFOs any more 
reasonable.

Post a reply to this message