we don’t have an obvious, prosaic explanation for the phenomena. if we did, we wouldn’t have to call it unexplained. better to come up with messy, unlikely explanations than deny that the phenomena exists.
Are these “messy, unlikely explanations” falsifiable?
not if you don’t take them seriously enough to come up with falsifiable threes. but you have to get to get to the base of the mountain before you can reach the peak.
especially when the best research has gotten done behind the scenes without the likes of us having access to it. although, from what I understand they barely understand things more than the public.
Whether these “explanations” are taken seriously enough or not has absolutely no bearing on the “explanations” being falsifiable.
Do you know what “falsifiable” means?
How do you know if it is the best if you don’t even have access to it? Besides the fact that they tell you what you want to hear, that is?
If I say they do not exist, and someone produces one, you have falsified my statement. If, on the other hand, you say they do exist, that statement is non-falsifiable because no matter how many are shown not to exist you can always say that the “real” ones just haven’t been found yet. You only have to come up with one solid example, but instead you demand that all examples, even the ones that haven’t been discussed yet all examples that might pop up in the future, be disproven to your satisfaction.
Meh, as noted, what I found was just that there are mundane explanations, explanations that I found on my own. BTW, a lot of the mental effects depend on chemistry and physical issues.
Also, what physical evidence is being ignored?
I’ve made my own research, thank you; any civilisation that goes through a metallurgical phase would leave behind extensive underground mines, which would last for millions of years. Also persistent would be golden artifacts and (curiously enough) any flint tools made in the earliest stages of their development. There are a horde of other traces, which we have discussed in detail on this board.
The idea that the traces of our cilivisation (or any hi-tech civilisation) would disappear rapidly is a complete myth that any archaeologist or palaeontologist would dispute.
Of course not. There are a myriad different prosaic explanations, not just one. Every case needs to be looked at in detail from every angle. It is UFOlogists who are trying to shoehorn a panoply of different phenomena into a single, imaginary cause.
Is there any more evidence for what the OP proposes then for the unevidenced proposal that universe-hopping fictons like The Doctor, Woodrow Wilson Smith and Dr. Manhatten are hopping over here to cause mayhem then hopping back home, leaving no evidence?
“who’s to say he didn’t invent the thing?” Scotty from Star Trek movie about the Whales
Yes, and by decades of careful collection of data by himself and others, he put together a detailed argument establishing the existence of evolution from that evidence, along with an explanation of its mechanism consistent with the evidence. As it was, it was a several hundred page book - and that was just the summary of his longer argument (he was rushed into publication by the threat of being scooped - by preference, he would have worked even longer to make sure that he had examined every aspect of the problem). If you asked him what the strongest evidence he had for evolution, he could have given a talk on the subject at the drop of a hat.
you can’t sort the wheat from the chaff if you maintain that only chaff exists. it doesn’t have to do with taking the explanations seriously but with taking the phenomena seriously. the conventional explanation does not work.
he had a keen enough mind to have done all that. smart people studied biology and paleontology without stigma. if the scientific establishment or church had discouraged those topics then no Darwin.
so, what, every person who reported encountering a goofy creature (sometimes talking with said creature) had epilepsy? I posted a link to a book by Albert Budden which posited that this had to do with an electrical effect, but even that falls outside mainstream science. as I said, I believed Budden’s theory for a while.
@Czarcasm: I provided evidence upthread of deaths associated with UFOs. with that said, I have more knowledge of UFOs from a non-physical perspective. until around eighteen months ago I accepted Budden’s theory as true or mostly true.
as far as how I know that the Gommint keeps the best evidence, well… they have the resources and personnel, so yeah.
I noticed you hadn’t tried to debunk Villarroel’s apparent finding.
We do, again your arguments depend on making it general, while there some issues that can’t be explained it is very underwhelming when one notices that there is no specific Crypto or Extra guy causing it, however, in general, as Tim Minchin noted, “Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be NOT magic”
As I don’t have it, and I did experience that… Of course one does not need to have epilepsy. Now that was a silly thing to say.
So, as noted, even less of evidence for Crypto Or Extra critters as being responsible.
and I’ll say that getting to the “definitely magic” or “definitely impossible (and therefore fake)” stage took many steps, a certain amount of institutional support, additional knowledge taking decades ior centuries.
you admitted that all these people having epilepsy seems silly. I agree. if they don’t have epilepsy, we have to find a better explanation.
Budden’s explanation does not quite work for me because, among other things, why only certain people at certain times and why not consistently? and why less of a continuous record then you would think? and it doesn’t explain (IMO) photos and video of UFO’s. not all of them, anyway.