Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Sry. IMGUR doesn't like embedded linking.
There's ways to tell the difference between a drone and a true uap:
"Distinguishing between a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) and a drone involves several factors: [...]
1. Yes, if you do all that you have a UAP.... then you have a UAP.
Yeah. What Gawzilla said. Even having a UAP still doesn't mean you have a bona fide alien spacecraft; you just have a mystery.1. Yes, if you do all that you have a UAP.
2. No, you don't have an alien spacecraft, no matter how desperately proponents want it to be something that would justify the proponent's existence. You have an UAP. Proceeding beyond that point with the available evidence is called "lying".
A few days ago we got a slew of reports of a jolly elf and eight tiny reindeer. You need to be able to distinguish between "every damn thing" reports and reports that have a rational basis.Too many first hand reports of sightings and direct contact to ignore.
I do understand. But if only 10 % of the more than ten thousand reports are real, we have a valid phenomenon. Especially the direct contact testimonies.A few days ago we got a slew of reports of a jolly elf and eight tiny reindeer. You need to be able to distinguish between "every damn thing" reports and reports that have a rational basis.
Even that is more stringent than necessary.I do understand. But if only 10 % of the more than ten thousand reports are real, we have a valid phenomenon.
Then you, sir are not a scientist, but just a debunker.And your SWAG estimate has no basis for being seriously considered.
Tell me, how can you confirm an individuals' own experience if no physical evidence can be found. Are you calling all these people liars? Are you that unenlightened? And yet, in at least a few instances, there was a little physical evidence and witnesses.Even that is more stringent than necessary.
If only single solitary report is real, we have a valid phenonemon.
Alas, not a single one, in over 65 years, has been confirmed.
That's like saying if only 10% of Trump voters had any cognitive thought process.I do understand. But if only 10 % of the more than ten thousand reports are real, we have a valid phenomenon. Especially the direct contact testimonies.
LOL, I never claimed to be a scientist. You debunked your own claim.Then you, sir are not a scientist, but just a debunker.
Trump has nothing to do with the topic.That's like saying if only 10% of Trump voters had any cognitive thought process.
Not really.LOL, I never claimed to be a scientist. You debunked your own claim.