Topic: UAPs over America: real or balloons??

[rob1966]

1 mile long and half a mile wide is almost the exact same size as an Imperial Star Destroyer from Star Wars, a happy coincidence because Star Wars nerds have modelled how big those would be if they were floating over well-known places on Earth.

So we're looking at a claim something this size was just sitting in Earth's atmosphere before accelerating to around Mach 4.

It is a mile from my house to the train station and I was trying to visualise what a craft that big would look like and how high it would need to be to state its dimensions, never thought of a Star Destroyer

When you look at that, it's shows how ridiculous the claims are. The entire planet would be on a war footing if something like that came into our atmospheret. I suppose you could claim it came straight down over the Pacific and then flew in across Mexico and up into Texas to explain why millions of people didn't see it.

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

No offence but “what Corbell mentions” is not a credible source. He’s meant to have been researching this for two years but didn’t contact the DoD for comment?

I’m replying to posts to be polite but Corbell and the rest of these ufologists are a joke.

Corbell was quoting the artillery man eye witness, but let’s discount all evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative we want to push. The artillery man said he witnessed 60 truck convoy and helicopters checking the location out after the sighting.

But it never happened because know it alls Alan X and Riquende were there and have proof to the contrary that the eye witness was either mistaken or lying :rolleyes

[liverbloke]

Corbell is so full of shit.

https://twitter.com/realarea503/status/1661215730610900992?s=46&t=J2DAXsAkt3aYoapASfAtKQ

2 things:

did he say he's going to crowd source this? is that on the same level as crowd funding?

so he's after money to investigate - but not his own but the public's?

hope he's keeping receipts

and the 'low light' photo does not show the body of a craft 

even corbell starts to doubt his own reasoning at one point

[Riquende]

Corbell was quoting the artillery man eye witness, but let’s discount all evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative we want to push. The artillery man said he witnessed 60 truck convoy and helicopters checking the location out after the sighting.

But it never happened because know it alls Alan X and Riquende were there and have proof to the contrary that the eye witness was either mistaken or lying :rolleyes

Once again, you don't understand how debate works, and how we can use logic to verify claims and work towards determing truth. Nobody needs 'proof to the contrary' to not be convinced of something, and not being convinced of something isn't 'pushing a narrative'.

If you're not interested in truth that's fine, you can head down whichever rabbit hole you wish. But that's not how the real world works.

[Alan_X]

Corbell was quoting the artillery man eye witness, but let’s discount all evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative we want to push. The artillery man said he witnessed 60 truck convoy and helicopters checking the location out after the sighting.

But it never happened because know it alls Alan X and Riquende were there and have proof to the contrary that the eye witness was either mistaken or lying :rolleyes

It would be great if Corbell and the rest could release a short paper with an abstract, clear explanation of what happened and a conclusion with summary of the evidence. 

Instead you have to endure tedious 2-hour podcasts or videos to know what’s going on in their version of reality.     

I’m interested but I also have a life to lead.

Can you show me a transcript of the eye witness reports with names, ranks, where they were at the time of the event?

How did he know a 60-truck convoy had anything to do with the lights in the sky? Are you saying the enormous craft crashed?

[Alan_X]

2 things:

did he say he's going to crowd source this? is that on the same level as crowd funding?

so he's after money to investigate - but not his own but the public's?

hope he's keeping receipts

and the 'low light' photo does not show the body of a craft 

even corbell starts to doubt his own reasoning at one point

I didn’t think he’s crowd funding for that in particular. I just think he posted a question on Twitter.

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

Once again, you don't understand how debate works, and how we can use logic to verify claims and work towards determing truth. Nobody needs 'proof to the contrary' to not be convinced of something, and not being convinced of something isn't 'pushing a narrative'.

If you're not interested in truth that's fine, you can head down whichever rabbit hole you wish. But that's not how the real world works.

You don’t seem to understand debate, just point scoring, gaslighting and making straw man arguments.

When did I say I’m not interested in the truth? My whole point today has been not completely excluding corroborating eye witness testimony from other data. If you know the truth please enlighten us all?

[liverbloke]

I didn’t think he’s crowd funding for that in particular. I just think he posted a question on Twitter.

ah okay

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

It would be great if Corbell and the rest could release a short paper with an abstract, clear explanation of what happened and a conclusion with summary of the evidence. 

Instead you have to endure tedious 2-hour podcasts or videos to know what’s going on in their version of reality.     

I’m interested but I also have a life to lead.

Can you show me a transcript of the eye witness reports with names, ranks, where they were at the time of the event?

How did he know a 60-truck convoy had anything to do with the lights in the sky? Are you saying the enormous craft crashed?

That’s the thing, I don’t proclaim to know, I know jack shit, but I’m happy to keep an open mind either way until further notice because no one knows except for the RAWK know it alls. Not sure why this is so controversial on here

[Jiminy Cricket]

This is what I meant a while back about this all sounding exactly like the Qanon guys. They all place great faith in these absolute chancers and refer to things they've said (or share links to things they've tweeted) as if there's any weight behind them, and that other should pay attention to them for some reason.

And of course they're still doing it, whilst previously taking great exception to being accused of doing so. They've just ploughed straight on regardless, doubling down on it.

Alan is a saint. I'm not patient enough to continually respond kindly this kind of thing when no matter how much good evidence is posted to refute baseless claims, it barely moves the needle.

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

Alan is a saint. I'm not patient enough to continually respond kindly this kind of thing when no matter how much good evidence is posted to refute baseless claims, it barely moves the needle.

I don’t think a debate can be had sadly.

[Riquende]

You don’t seem to understand debate, just point scoring, gaslighting and making straw man arguments.

When did I say I’m not interested in the truth? My whole point today has been not completely excluding corroborating eye witness testimony from other data. If you know the truth please enlighten us all?

Am I doing those things? Or are you just accusing me of understanding them?

And discovering the truth of a claim is a process you don't seem willing to engage in, or perhaps don't understand where the starting point is. This is something I've determined from the way you react to what others say, including in that very post I've quoted. Leaping off to an assumption that I'm claiming to 'know the truth'. Previously making a snide comment that Alan_X and I must have contrary proof to the claim you believe in order to not be convinced of it.

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

Am I doing those things? Or are you just accusing me of understanding them?

And discovering the truth of a claim is a process you don't seem willing to engage in, or perhaps don't understand where the starting point is. This is something I've determined from the way you react to what others say, including in that very post I've quoted. Leaping off to an assumption that I'm claiming to 'know the truth'. Previously making a snide comment that Alan_X and I must have contrary proof to the claim you believe in order to not be convinced of it.

You only seem to jump in this thread to create friction. I’m not participating in your petty arguments or being dragged into them any more

[Riquende]

Alan is a saint. I'm not patient enough to continually respond kindly this kind of thing when no matter how much good evidence is posted to refute baseless claims, it barely moves the needle.

There's a grim fascination in seeing just how credulous some people can be. I have to say I've never really bothered with the UFO stuff, or any of the paranormal claims that people make about cryptozoology etc. It all seems like harmless enough stuff that appeals to your classic 'crank' as it were - but it does appear that this stuff has kicked into overdrive in the social media age, just like the political conspiracies that are far more dangerous to us all.

I think the similarities are the online bubbles that seem to exist, in which certain group luminaries are 'promoted' (in either sense of the word) and their channels become 'serious info' for all the believers, far more credible than mainstream sources, which become sources of derision. You then end up in a feedback loop where maybe thousands of people are reinforcing each others' belief in something unfounded simply by repeating the same stuff back to each other, the validation getting stronger all the time.

It's then unthinkable that you could be wrong about this, despite nobody actually having any interest in proving it to be true, or even perhaps any idea how to do so.

[Riquende]

You only seem to jump in this thread to create friction. I’m not participating in your petty arguments or being dragged into them any more

Ah, so you threw a grab bag of modern insults at me (like gaslighting), got called out on it & realised you actually had nothing.

You can pop me on ignore if you like, I'm going to keep posting on the topic in the same vein whenever I feel like it.

[lionel_messias]

Alan is a saint. I'm not patient enough to continually respond kindly this kind of thing when no matter how much good evidence is posted to refute baseless claims, it barely moves the needle.

He's neither Saint nor sinner, like all of us.

And most things in life if you cling to one extreme view, to the exclusion of all else, it makes you a dullard.

I'm here to talk about some interesting things that seem to occur, I will try not to take pot-shots at other posters nor lecture people on what I think is inevitable or true.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I think they were flares but where better for the US to test fly one of their new toys ?

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

He's neither Saint nor sinner, like all of us.

And most things in life if you cling to one extreme view, to the exclusion of all else, it makes you a dullard.

I'm here to talk about some interesting things that seem to occur, I will try not to take pot-shots at other posters nor lecture people on what I think is inevitable or true.

Same here man, I’m getting tired of the pot shots and things being implied. Hardly worth carrying on in this thread to be honest. More aggro than it’s worth.

[lionel_messias]

I don’t think a debate can be had sadly.

I think we can personally. Have no time for some people (one just joined my ignore list) who want to lecture or look down their noses on others, on a web forum.

If we are ever to say something anomalous is actually from a non-human intelligence the burden of proof is absurdly high. But that does not mean we should blanket close our eyes to things that are happening, or discount the witness accounts of people who would probably not want any attention or to look foolish.

I always go back to Ryan Graves and David Fravor; what they have said, and hopefully they may do so under Oath in Congress outweighs all the bullshit and nearly all the debate on this. There is a mystery there to be solved, which is far far more interesting than the blanket debunker squads....

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

I think we can personally. Have no time for some people (one just joined my ignore list) who want to lecture or look down their noses on others, on a web forum.

If we are ever to say something anomalous is actually from a non-human intelligence the burden of proof is absurdly high. But that does not mean we should blanket close our eyes to things that are happening, or discount the witness accounts of people who would probably not want any attention or to look foolish.

I always go back to Ryan Graves and David Fravor; what they have said, and hopefully they may do so under Oath in Congress outweighs all the bullshit and nearly all the debate on this. There is a mystery there to be solved, which is far far more interesting than the blanket debunker squads....

Yeah I don’t get that mentality to be honest. I have absolutely no issue what any individual may or may not want to believe or have faith towards from a philosophical perspective. Each to their own and fair play to them as long as people aren’t harmful or being malicious toward others. Guess that’s part of human nature to be that way though.

Live and let live.

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

Ah, so you threw a grab bag of modern insults at me (like gaslighting), got called out on it & realised you actually had nothing.

You can pop me on ignore if you like, I'm going to keep posting on the topic in the same vein whenever I feel like it.

From the first reply you made to me linking whatever it was I said to Q I stupidly got sucked into arguing with you. You seem quite unpleasant and judgmental, more interested in taking a person down than discussing something. I won’t engage with that, just like I’d have no interest engaging an unpleasant person in real life. It’s not about disagreeing with someone who comes from opposing sides of a topic, we can all discuss, agree/disagree in a respectful manner.

Don’t know where the ignore button is, but I did try and find it.
 

[Riquende]

From the first reply you made to me linking whatever it was I said to Q

I never did that, I said the way you were posting (and have continued to post) was similar to the way they posted, and found it fascinating to see the parallel. Everyone other yourself and lionel_messias was able to see that, and agreed with the observation. That's the discussion I've been having, and find interesting (You may not, and could have disengaged at any time).

You then went and got immediately offended over your own misunderstanding. Then bizarrely tried to claim as part of your 'defence' that you knew nothing about Qanon anyway, undermining your claim you weren't like them. Sort of spiralled downwards from there really. Your perception of me as unpleasant likely comes from the fact we're essentially talking past each other, not interested in what the other wants to drag the conversation to.

The ignore function is inside your forum profile, it's like Buddy/Ignore or something like that. Happy to help, we don't need negativity on the forums!

[liverbloke]

personally, i may ridicule the notion of aliens - but not you nor any of your beliefs

to me, like with religion, i can't simply rely on faith in the subject nor witnesses no matter how many - you throw a rock into a crowd and it'll hit someone crazy - for you to offer your thoughts on an open forum (with free speech - even free speech to ridicule) then expect discourse

for me, i simply can't go on superficial evidence no matter how many people believe it or have witnessed it - i need something more concrete

this debate is for UAPs and i guess most of it is weather conditions or military (both friendly and non) and the other 5% is unexplainable - but to think that that unexplained is 'something else' then you're gonna have to bring more to the table

we are not debunkers because we have nothing to debunk - the onus of proof is on you

just that in all these decades and decades there has been nothing proven - loads of interesting videos but nothing proven

such a long time and nothing concrete brought to the said table and therefore you have your answer

things like roswell - most probably is a cover up but one which is going to be US military based using their own technology and nothing more

but many 'beliefs' seem based on sci-fi novels - aliens travelling here or leaving machines - that all needs a colossal commitment to the 'faith'

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

I never did that, I said the way you were posting (and have continued to post) was similar to the way they posted, and found it fascinating to see the parallel. Everyone other yourself and lionel_messias was able to see that, and agreed with the observation. That's the discussion I've been having, and find interesting (You may not, and could have disengaged at any time).

You then went and got immediately offended over your own misunderstanding. Then bizarrely tried to claim as part of your 'defence' that you knew nothing about Qanon anyway, undermining your claim you weren't like them. Sort of spiralled downwards from there really. Your perception of me as unpleasant likely comes from the fact we're essentially talking past each other, not interested in what the other wants to drag the conversation to.

The ignore function is inside your forum profile, it's like Buddy/Ignore or something like that. Happy to help, we don't need negativity on the forums!

Fair enough, suffice to say that was from your perspective and not how I saw things but I don’t really care to be arguing about minutiae that this has turned into whilst boring everyone else, clogging up the thread. Let’s draw a line under it.

[lionel_messias]

sorry but you've got to laugh - there's a comment below which a guy says 'it's clear they don't give a squat about what the public thinks or asks' when the top question has a vote of only 1481 and this tweet only has 2 replies in a world of nearly 8 billion people

and the kecksburg question - really?

what a waste of a question

more hypothetical nonsense made up from nothing but conjecture - funnily enough at a time of heightened public (and media) space travel and flying saucer interest

Apart from that obscure one, would be fun to see them fully answered though.

[liverbloke]

Apart from that obscure one, would be fun to see them fully answered though.

definitely

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

personally, i may ridicule the notion of aliens - but not you nor any of your beliefs

to me, like with religion, i can't simply rely on faith in the subject nor witnesses no matter how many - you throw a rock into a crowd and it'll hit someone crazy - for you to offer your thoughts on an open forum (with free speech - even free speech to ridicule) then expect discourse for me, i simply can't go on superficial evidence no matter how many people believe it or have witnessed it - i need something more concrete

this debate is for UAPs and i guess most of it is weather conditions or military (both friendly and non) and the other 5% is unexplainable - but to think that that unexplained is 'something else' then you're gonna have to bring more to the table

we are not debunkers because we have nothing to debunk - the onus of proof is on you

just that in all these decades and decades there has been nothing proven - loads of interesting videos but nothing proven

such a long time and nothing concrete brought to the said table and therefore you have your answer

things like roswell - most probably is a cover up but one which is going to be US military based using their own technology and nothing more

but many 'beliefs' seem based on sci-fi novels - aliens travelling here or leaving machines - that all needs a colossal commitment to the 'faith'

Interesting post which I’d like to respond to better when I get chance. But it’s not that I don’t expect discourse, of course I do, but it’s the ridicule I guess, after one or 10 comments about dinobeavers etc to make themselves look smart and superior and then others come along and pile on thinking they know you, how you think, start implying things, not capable of critical thinking/looking at it from all angles.

Anyway, I don’t want to keep harking back to this and bogging up the thread

I’m at the gym so can’t see your message properly, but would like to reply better later on with some of my thoughts on concrete evidence vs faith etc

[WhereAngelsPlay]

It's mathematically impossible that we're alone in the Universe, as impossible as it would be to keep it a secret in todays world of 4k smartphones & Drumpf resisting the opportunity to go down in history as being the person who released any proof.

The most impossible out of the three is the last one.

[TepidT2O]

It's mathematically impossible that we're alone in the Universe, as impossible as it would be to keep it a secret in todays world of 4k smartphones & Drumpf resisting the opportunity to go down in history as being the person who released any proof.

The most impossible out of the three is the last one.

We don’t know this.  But if we were to find other signs of life in our solar system, then evidence of life evolving a second time would make it true.

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

personally, i may ridicule the notion of aliens - but not you nor any of your beliefs

to me, like with religion, i can't simply rely on faith in the subject nor witnesses no matter how many - you throw a rock into a crowd and it'll hit someone crazy - for you to offer your thoughts on an open forum (with free speech - even free speech to ridicule) then expect discourse

for me, i simply can't go on superficial evidence no matter how many people believe it or have witnessed it - i need something more concrete

this debate is for UAPs and i guess most of it is weather conditions or military (both friendly and non) and the other 5% is unexplainable - but to think that that unexplained is 'something else' then you're gonna have to bring more to the table

we are not debunkers because we have nothing to debunk - the onus of proof is on you

just that in all these decades and decades there has been nothing proven - loads of interesting videos but nothing proven

such a long time and nothing concrete brought to the said table and therefore you have your answer

things like roswell - most probably is a cover up but one which is going to be US military based using their own technology and nothing more

but many 'beliefs' seem based on sci-fi novels - aliens travelling here or leaving machines - that all needs a colossal commitment to the 'faith'

Im open minded to be fair, I believe it’s firm ground to say something is in our skies that we either don’t understand or are not being told about if the authorities know more than they are letting on.

Based on that, I’m happy to keep an open mind either way on what that could be, whether it’s something of this earth/man made/natural phenomena/airborne clutter or not of this earth. There’s not enough evidence or data that we are privy to to be able to make a determination about any of it either way. That’s pretty much fair to say unless your biased?

Couple of playful questions. What would it take to swing it to concrete evidence?

1: POTUS and world governments announcing  we have non human technology?
2: Release of Nimitz radar data confirming objects descending from 80000 feet to sea level in 1 second?

Just curious, I guess because I expect there will always be some who refuse to believe it no matter what. I need some kind of concrete evidence myself to believe it 100% as it indeed is too fantastical. I just haven’t actually worked out what my level of concrete proof would be yet.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

We don’t know this.  But if we were to find other signs of life in our solar system, then evidence of life evolving a second time would make it true.

We don't, we can only rely on possibilities. I don't think finding any form of life in our system makes it any more or less probable though.

[liverbloke]

Im open minded to be fair, I believe it’s firm ground to say something is in our skies that we either don’t understand or are not being told about if the authorities know more than they are letting on.

Based on that, I’m happy to keep an open mind either way on what that could be, whether it’s something of this earth/man made/natural phenomena/airborne clutter or not of this earth. There’s not enough evidence or data that we are privy to to be able to make a determination about any of it either way. That’s pretty much fair to say unless your biased?

Couple of playful questions. What would it take to swing it to concrete evidence?

1: POTUS and world governments announcing  we have non human technology?
2: Release of Nimitz radar data confirming objects descending from 80000 feet to sea level in 1 second?

Just curious, I guess because I expect there will always be some who refuse to believe it no matter what. I need some kind of concrete evidence myself to believe it 100% as it indeed is too fantastical. I just haven’t actually worked out what my level of concrete proof would be yet.

not to side with the 'believers' but if - and it's a very big if - we do have tangible proof of aliens or alien technology then that in itself could lead to mass panic worldwide and religious adherents would have to reinterpret their own particular doctrine which would cause a right hoo-haa - so not a great outcome for many 

but i guess that i'm looking for someone (who is not mentally ill) with a video - it'd have to be a raw video otherwise we'd have to put our faith in the governments or militaries - that would show in clear definition (not shaky shaky or blurred lights at night) either a craft or an alien being...  and then that video would still have to be shared and verified beyond reasonable doubt

without that you are relying too much on faith and trust to believe

but, as whereangels has already touched upon, a person who shoots that video knows that they would be an instant millionaire and be known throughout our history for all time as the one who proved that there was other intelligent life in the universe

so lights in the skies even seen by a whole country is just that - lights in the sky - and radar data can fall victim to manipulation or error

show me the proof and i'll make you famous - but i want 10%

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

not to side with the 'believers' but if - and it's a very big if - we do have tangible proof of aliens or alien technology then that in itself could lead to mass panic worldwide and religious adherents would have to reinterpret their own particular doctrine which would cause a right hoo-haa - so not a great outcome for many 

but i guess that i'm looking for someone (who is not mentally ill) with a video - it'd have to be a raw video otherwise we'd have to put our faith in the governments or militaries - that would show in clear definition (not shaky shaky or blurred lights at night) either a craft or an alien being...  and then that video would still have to be shared and verified beyond reasonable doubt

without that you are relying too much on faith and trust to believe

but, as whereangels has already touched upon, a person who shoots that video knows that they would be an instant millionaire and be known throughout our history for all time as the one who proved that there was other intelligent life in the universe

so lights in the skies even seen by a whole country is just that - lights in the sky - and radar data can fall victim to manipulation or error

show me the proof and i'll make you famous - but i want 10%

That’s a whole debate in itself, what would it mean for religions. You had the Vatican saying belief in aliens and god is ok some years ago, that could be classed as an early doctrine reshuffle attempt.

Anyway, back to what we know and can attempt to measure in order to get to the bottom of UAP, this 40 odd page Galileo paper has been published that talks about how these real scientists are going to try and solve the issue and provides a good historical account as to what has brought us to where we are over the last 75 years.

The Scientific Investigation of Unidentifed Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Using Multimodal Ground-Based Observatories

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/sites/projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/galileo/files/s2251171723400068.pdf

Reading that paper gives me more confidence than I had about the efforts of the Galileo Project investigation into UAP

[thejbs]

Im open minded to be fair, I believe it’s firm ground to say something is in our skies that we either don’t understand or are not being told about if the authorities know more than they are letting on.

Based on that, I’m happy to keep an open mind either way on what that could be, whether it’s something of this earth/man made/natural phenomena/airborne clutter or not of this earth. There’s not enough evidence or data that we are privy to to be able to make a determination about any of it either way. That’s pretty much fair to say unless your biased?

Couple of playful questions. What would it take to swing it to concrete evidence?

1: POTUS and world governments announcing  we have non human technology?
2: Release of Nimitz radar data confirming objects descending from 80000 feet to sea level in 1 second?

Just curious, I guess because I expect there will always be some who refuse to believe it no matter what. I need some kind of concrete evidence myself to believe it 100% as it indeed is too fantastical. I just haven’t actually worked out what my level of concrete proof would be yet.

I think it’s completely wrong to infer that a UFO sceptic is somehow closed-minded. As an atheist, I often hear that from deists too. I’m absolutely open to anything that is supported by evidence or science. The majority of ufology doesn’t fit that description. If it did, I’d openly believe and take a keen interest in it.

In terms of not being able to make a determination either way, that is shifting the burden of proof onto those who haven’t claimed anything again. A ‘lack of evidence either way’ means there is no evidence for the claim, ergo the null (there are no aliens in contact with earth) is the logical position to hold. And by holding that position you are not being closed-minded, you’re simply not being ruled by faith, feelings or fantasy.

[Riquende]

In terms of not being able to make a determination either way, that is shifting the burden of proof onto those who haven’t claimed anything again. A ‘lack of evidence either way’ means there is no evidence for the claim, ergo the null (there are no aliens in contact with earth) is the logical position to hold.

I hope you have more success trying to get the logical basics across than I did. Maybe someone less unpleasant might just shine a light on this for them?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I hope you have more success trying to get the logical basics across than I did. Maybe someone less unpleasant might just shine a light on this for them?

You think I could shine that light 

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

I think it’s completely wrong to infer that a UFO sceptic is somehow closed-minded. As an atheist, I often hear that from deists too. I’m absolutely open to anything that is supported by evidence or science. The majority of ufology doesn’t fit that description. If it did, I’d openly believe and take a keen interest in it.

In terms of not being able to make a determination either way, that is shifting the burden of proof onto those who haven’t claimed anything again. A ‘lack of evidence either way’ means there is no evidence for the claim, ergo the null (there are no aliens in contact with earth) is the logical position to hold. And by holding that position you are not being closed-minded, you’re simply not being ruled by faith, feelings or fantasy.

Fair enough, I wasn’t trying to infer anything though. You have the right to take any stance you want without being questioned. The only questioning should come from one’s own mind, as I think we should all challenge our own thinking, stances, beliefs. You can be open minded leaning towards being skeptical or open minded leaning towards there being something. Sounds like you’re the former and I’m the latter. But then again, I don’t like to put myself or people in neat little boxes. Some people seem to prefer labels

In terms of burden of proof, there isn’t any concrete proof yet, that’s due to the very nature of the phenomenon. I’m happy to sit back and see what develops going forwards

From a scientific standpoint, that Galileo link I posted is really good and explains how some scientists such as Avi Loeb are going to investigate it. I like section 2.2 in particular

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

I hope you have more success trying to get the logical basics across than I did. Maybe someone less unpleasant might just shine a light on this for them?

I’m grateful for your lessons in logic, Spock. One day I hope to be as good as you, but I realise that’s impossible.

[Riquende]

One day I hope to be as good as you

Well you've begun the day by demonstrating that you still don't understand what 'burden of proof' means, so you're not off to a good start in that endeavour!

["Bobber" Thanks :)]

Not interested any more mate. Argue with someone else