3 ms·

> Consider two realities We should not consider merely those two options, if you're speculating then there are a vast number of "possible" options that "cannot

> Consider two realities We should not consider merely those two options, if you're speculating then there are a vast number of "possible" options that "cannot be ruled out". You're cherry picking, exhibiting confirmation bias etc. This is why there is a burden of proof on the hypothesis being proposed. Disagree strongly with your "not reasonable" about sensors and people. A mish-mash of vague noisy readings cannot really be said to "coincide" much.

ALittleLight 5y ago
You can consider more realities than RA and RB, but RA and RB are still possible realities and what I wrote about them is still true. Even if you infinite other possibilities the relative likelihood of RA and RB still changes the way I describe. If your radar reports some anomaly then the radar is probably malfunctioning. If the electro-optics report the same anomaly at the same time with the same characteristics, that's weird. If both these sensors, and others, agree on some strange data and you witness it with your own eyes and someone else does too... At some point you need to flip your conclusion from "sensor error" to "I'm observing something strange." There's no basis that I'm aware of to refer to the observations as "A mish-mash of vague most readings".