3 ms·
Unless the assertions made by those interviewed in the article are true. We are all arm chair quarterbacks who only have a view from the goal line to the one ya
by bostonsre 3y ago
Unless the assertions made by those interviewed in the article are true. We are all arm chair quarterbacks who only have a view from the goal line to the one yard line. There is no sense in trying to say we know what happened in the game. We don't know what's actually happening and I don't see much sense in eliminating plausible explanations. It could be sensor aberrations, China, or something else. Why not keep an open mind and be scientific about evaluating it? Yes, we should probably focus on eliminating the more mundane explanations, but I don't think we would want to give up if we don't find it at first.
- kube-system 3y ago> Why not keep an open mind and be scientific about evaluating it? I am for keeping an open mind, scientifically speaking. Entertaining theories rooted in fictional fantasy is not that. There is zero scientific evidence of technologically advanced life outside of Earth. It is a hypothesis that is just as unsupported as anything anyone might make up on the spot. Just because it is a hypothesis people want to believe doesn't make it any more supported than a hypothesis that it is the flying spaghetti monster.
- bostonsre 3y agoBy entertaining do you mean considering them plausible?