Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 199

Thread: Pentagon UFO Report

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,440
    The only possibility I’ve come up with, assuming known physics (no magic cloaking device) is for hypothetical observing ETs mostly keeping their distance, as in millions of miles from Earth and not using things like fusion rockets, matter/anti-matter rockets and such or going at high velocities as that could give them away. The exception would be to send small spacecraft to Earth in trajectories that mimic meteorites. So ballistic trajectories, fairly slow travel times to Earth and unpleasant atmospheric entry. The big problem would be if they ever want to leave again, as that would be much harder to hide.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,016
    Actually one interesting idea would be to have a very well shielded ship and then encase it in an artificial asteroid, designed to burn up in the atmosphere and then release the capsule which would continue its journey through the atmosphere.

    Interestingly, I find the idea interesting (I wasn't really paying attention when Oumuamua came through), but I did find this article:

    https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/how...ien-spaceship/

    One scientist was saying he didn't think our networks would necessarily find an alien ship. So I'm sort of interested, this idea that we would surely find them, is this generally accepted, and the article I quoted is just wrong? The article doesn't seem to address the issue of atmospheric entry, so that is obviously one issue, but for the actual scanning it doesn't seem to be that confident. I guess I'm interested in knowing if the idea we would definitely find them is something that some people are arguing, or something that is actually being debated, or something that has been resolved (meaning it is generally accepted we would find something).
    As above, so below

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,800
    I think a sufficiently-advanced civilisation could arrange to land on Earth without being detected. But they would find it easy to remain unobserved while within the Earth's atmosphere, so I doubt we would see them at all.

    In fact there may be aliens in our atmosphere right now, but I doubt very much that they have anything to do with the Navy film clips, or that we would see them at all.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    I can only see two methods of unannounced alien visitation at this time.

    One, aliens had already arrived here before the age of satellites and set up a hidden multi-generation colony; sea bed or some such. (Then why all the inland UFOs?). The "duck blind" model. If they've remained undetected for this long they must be masters of stealth, in which case their vessels would not be seen.

    Two, some advanced nanotech was slipped in as meteorites, grown into aircraft. If they're that advanced in molecular science, metamaterials for optical invisibility and radar stealth should be a breeze; again, the craft should be unseen.

    In either case the "they don't have eyes like ours so they can't be invisible to us" argument doesn't hold water. If they've been on Earth for decades they'd have learned by now how humans see. If they are nano technicians they can have their nanobots examine our eyes from the inside out.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,017
    Yes, the problem is this special pleading required for the Space Brothers to be cavorting around in the atmosphere in ways that supposedly show up on visual, infrared and radar sensors, but to be utterly stealthy when arriving and departing. We of course have patchy coverage for objects entering the solar system, but that's a very different matter from our vigilance in LEO and the upper atmosphere.
    I don't find the argument "But they're aliens and we can't understand their motives" any more compelling that someone suggesting that all UAPs are caused by magic and therefore don't need to conform to the laws of physics. In the context of reasonable arguments, these are what the bottom of the barrel looks like.

    Grant Hutchison

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,017
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    But complete dismissal is in my opinion either arrogant or short sighted. Until the full facts about something that has been witnessed and recorded are available with hard physical evidence to back them up, and a testable explanation is presented, then how can anything be dismissed?
    As Hume said, a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. If there is zero evidence, then zero belief is appropriate. If evidence appears, then belief becomes non-zero. But in the meantime I'm not obliged to keep a trickle of belief going on the off-chance some future evidence will convince me. If I did that, my head would simply fill up with every half-baked idea in the world.
    I can think of several occasions during my working life when I had zero belief in something that subsequently proved to be true. But many more occasions on which my zero belief has been justified by a complete lack of evidence stretching across decades. How long must zero evidence persist before we decide that zero belief is justified? Or shouldn't we just accept that zero belief is a valid response to currently inadequate evidence, which may (or may not) change in the light of new evidence?

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    As Hume said, a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. If there is zero evidence, then zero belief is appropriate. If evidence appears, then belief becomes non-zero. But in the meantime I'm not obliged to keep a trickle of belief going on the off-chance some future evidence will convince me. If I did that, my head would simply fill up with every half-baked idea in the world.
    I can think of several occasions during my working life when I had zero belief in something that subsequently proved to be true. But many more occasions on which my zero belief has been justified by a complete lack of evidence stretching across decades. How long must zero evidence persist before we decide that zero belief is justified? Or shouldn't we just accept that zero belief is a valid response to currently inadequate evidence, which may (or may not) change in the light of new evidence?

    Grant Hutchison
    I agree with everything you have said, but there is belief and then there is objective scientific perspective. I can chose to believe or indeed not believe in anything I like, people demonstrate this everyday. I don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters, and until there is some scientific evidence that they exist I will continue to not believe in their existence. The idea is absurd and I would be happy to dismiss them as a real possibility.
    Now, if what appeared to look like a flying spaghetti monster was witnessed by numerous people and something was recorded on video or radar that sort of fit the eye witness report, I still wouldn't all of a sudden claim that I believe in them. I would look towards all the other most likely causes of this particular UAP and try to explain it using scientific methods. But what I wouldn't do is totally dismiss the object as a glitch or hallucination... until the evidence was presented to prove such. Even if I believed that it was totally absurd to even think it was a flying spaghetti monster and that in fact it was more than likely a glitch, hallucination, weather or something more plausible and naturally occurring, I should not totally dismiss the idea based on my beliefs.

    In my mind (and this is my opinion) if you have something what appears as credible evidence, showing a phenomenon that is currently unexplained by science, then to instantly dismiss it as something that could be possible is a poor judgement call.

    And this is the basis of my argument on some of the (what appears to be ) more credible sightings. My personal belief is that, what has been witnessed so far, even if never fully explained, is likely to be either a coincidental glitch / mis-interpreted data, or more likely some naturally occurring phenomena originating on Earth. But, I refuse to dismiss alien origin as a possibility (even though I don't like the idea) simply because that to do so is not a scientific objective approach.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    But, I refuse to dismiss alien origin as a possibility (even though I don't like the idea) simply because that to do so is not a scientific objective approach.
    I disagree entirely. If there's extraordinary evidence presented, I'll change my mind. But until and unless that happens, my response is entirely appropriate to the circumstances.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I disagree entirely. If there's extraordinary evidence presented, I'll change my mind. But until and unless that happens, my response is entirely appropriate to the circumstances.
    I'm confused?
    Objects recorded on video and radar and by multiple eye witness accounts that currently cannot be definitively explained is not extraordinary?

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I'm confused?
    Objects recorded on video and radar and by multiple eye witness accounts that currently cannot be definitively explained is not extraordinary?
    It's extraordinary, but it's not evidence of anything. You said it yourself, they can't be explained. So there's no particular reason to believe they're aliens, or even connected to each other.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It's extraordinary, but it's not evidence of anything.
    Ah.. ok so you are talking about confirmed factual evidence rather than proposed. But there is evidence to support a UAP, just no evidence to support what the UAP is hence - UAP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    You said it yourself, they can't be explained. So there's no particular reason to believe they're aliens, or even connected to each other.
    I agree there is no particular reason to "believe" they're aliens (this is my stance also). If they are UAP then why should they automatically be dismissed as - of alien origin? We are all entitled to believe, not believe, dismiss... what we chose to.
    I just can't understand why (if its a possibility) something should be automatically dismissed prior to the proposed evidence reviewed and tested to reveal an explanation. If no explanation is discovered then the mystery remains, even if there is a most likely explanation.

    If someone or even a group of people claim a sighting then you question this by asking for some evidence. If they then presented proposed evidence as proof, say a video clip or picture. You would then, if it looked on appearance credible, endeavour to investigate this evidence to see if it was indeed intentionally doctored. Then if all is legit, next step would be to try and prove that it was not a glitch, mechanical or software etc... If this turned out to be all ok then you would study the image and if there was no obvious clear explanation, you would then compare the timings to local flight plans, weather reports military testing etc... and so on... so there is a process during this process you are free to have your beliefs on the sighting. But until the empirical evidence is verifiable and you can start to rule out certain explanations, then surely the sighting remains UAP, which in turn means anything plausible/possible cannot be dismissed as an explanation?

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,016
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    But, I refuse to dismiss alien origin as a possibility (even though I don't like the idea) simply because that to do so is not a scientific objective approach.
    I think maybe an important part of this is what you mean by "dismiss." And it may be that people are using it in different ways. For example, as a casual observer of this stuff, I like others basically dismiss it, because as NCN says, it seems weird to spend my time thinking about a possibility that is basically impossible (extremely implausible). But if I were a military planner, I would not want to do that, because I wouldn't want to dismiss a possibility just because it is extremely improbable. In the same way, physicists have this thing about five-sigma data, which to me seems unnecessary but for them, from their perspective, it makes lots of sense to require that a finding be 99.9% within the error bars or whatever.

    But on the other hand, like many others, I think it would be really cool if there were ETs visiting, so whenever I hear stuff like this I kind of pay attention, even though I am certain I will be be disappointed and it won't be extraterrestrials.
    As above, so below

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I just can't understand why (if its a possibility) something should be automatically dismissed prior to the proposed evidence reviewed and tested to reveal an explanation. If no explanation is discovered then the mystery remains, even if there is a most likely explanation.
    There IS no explanation. As soon as something turns up that seems to indicate aliens I'll consider aliens. Until then, NOPE.

    I don't go by "proposed" evidence, as anything can be proposed. I go by concrete evidence. Nothing of the sort has been presented.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    For clarity, a blurry ball of light is a blurry ball of light. A photo of a blurry ball of light shows... a blurry ball of light. If there were some reason to think we know the cause, then fine. But at present there is only Unidentified.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think maybe an important part of this is what you mean by "dismiss." And it may be that people are using it in different ways. For example, as a casual observer of this stuff, I like others basically dismiss it, because as NCN says, it seems weird to spend my time thinking about a possibility that is basically impossible (extremely implausible). But if I were a military planner, I would not want to do that, because I wouldn't want to dismiss a possibility just because it is extremely improbable. In the same way, physicists have this thing about five-sigma data, which to me seems unnecessary but for them, from their perspective, it makes lots of sense to require that a finding be 99.9% within the error bars or whatever.

    But on the other hand, like many others, I think it would be really cool if there were ETs visiting, so whenever I hear stuff like this I kind of pay attention, even though I am certain I will be be disappointed and it won't be extraterrestrials.
    Exactly, I personally dismiss aliens as an explanation simply because I don't "believe" in alien visitations. Its my opinion that there will be a perfect natural explanation to the sightings. But I cannot dismiss the possibility, because as yet, until it's ruled out, it is plausible that alien visitation/observation could be a valid explanation.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    For clarity, a blurry ball of light is a blurry ball of light. A photo of a blurry ball of light shows... a blurry ball of light. If there were some reason to think we know the cause, then fine. But at present there is only Unidentified.
    So would you dismiss the idea that the blurry ball of light could be a fire fly, or ball lighting or just a glitch regardless? I'm not saying we should make any assumptions, as you stated it's unidentified, so until there is concrete evidence to prove otherwise, then any plausible explanation for the origin or cause is valid, until ruled out, no?

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,017
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I agree with everything you have said, but there is belief and then there is objective scientific perspective. I can chose to believe or indeed not believe in anything I like, people demonstrate this everyday.
    In his essay "On Miracles", which is the origin of the quotation I gave, Hume was talking about what would now be understood as "objective scientific perspective". Here's something he wrote a little later in the same text:
    All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence, proportioned to the superiority. A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experiments, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior evidence.
    There's no doubt Hume was talking about the way scientists come to believe or disbelieve, not that weird thing in which people just announce they've chosen to believe something. (How does that even work?)


    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters, and until there is some scientific evidence that they exist I will continue to not believe in their existence. The idea is absurd and I would be happy to dismiss them as a real possibility.
    Now, if what appeared to look like a flying spaghetti monster was witnessed by numerous people and something was recorded on video or radar that sort of fit the eye witness report, I still wouldn't all of a sudden claim that I believe in them. I would look towards all the other most likely causes of this particular UAP and try to explain it using scientific methods. But what I wouldn't do is totally dismiss the object as a glitch or hallucination... until the evidence was presented to prove such. Even if I believed that it was totally absurd to even think it was a flying spaghetti monster and that in fact it was more than likely a glitch, hallucination, weather or something more plausible and naturally occurring, I should not totally dismiss the idea based on my beliefs.
    So what makes you dismiss flying spaghetti monsters as a possible explanation for current UAPs? What about evil magicians? A lone genius in a flying suit? What about ghosts? What about Elder Gods? Why is it OK to "dismiss" certain "possible" explanations, but not other explanations that are equally implausible, based on the evidence? As Hume would say, show me one convincing piece of evidence that the Space Brothers are specifically responsible for UAPs, and then I'll assign them more credence than I apply to ghosts or sphagetti monsters.

    Grant Hutchison

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    So would you dismiss the idea that the blurry ball of light could be a fire fly, or ball lighting or just a glitch regardless? I'm not saying we should make any assumptions, as you stated it's unidentified, so until there is concrete evidence to prove otherwise, then any plausible explanation for the origin or cause is valid, until ruled out, no?
    No.

    Possible does not mean plausible. To make something plausible there has to be a reason to find it plausible. There is none for aliens, any more than there is for Secret Nazis In Underground Cities. Nothing physically impossible about either, but nothing to support them as UFO/UAPs.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    So what makes you dismiss flying spaghetti monsters as a possible explanation for current UAPs? What about evil magicians? A lone genius in a flying suit? What about ghosts? What about Elder Gods? Why is it OK to "dismiss" certain "possible" explanations, but not other explanations that are equally implausible, based on the evidence? As Hume would say, show me one convincing piece of evidence that the Space Brothers are specifically responsible for UAPs, and then I'll assign them more credence than I apply to ghosts or sphagetti monsters.

    Grant Hutchison
    I would dismiss all of these simply because I don't believe in them and think the ideas are absurd. But this is my point, why should I dismiss them just because I believe anything? UAP's are exactly that and until explained, as absurd as it may seem, nothing should be dismissed until ruled out.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    No.

    Possible does not mean plausible. To make something plausible there has to be a reason to find it plausible. There is none for aliens, any more than there is for Secret Nazis In Underground Cities. Nothing physically impossible about either, but nothing to support them as UFO/UAPs.
    So its not plausible that life might exist anywhere else in the observable universe, when we have evidence already that there is highly likely to be Earth like planets in almost every solar system?

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,017
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I would dismiss all of these simply because I don't believe in them and think the ideas are absurd. But this is my point, why should I dismiss them just because I believe anything? UAP's are exactly that and until explained, as absurd as it may seem, nothing should be dismissed until ruled out.
    But nothing can ever be ruled out. We can't prove a negative. So your head should be full of every single wildly implausible explanation for UAPs, all the time, forever. Ghosts, magicians, monsters, lone geniuses, Nazis ...
    I'm willing to bet that's not actually how you're analysing UAPs. So I'm interested to know why you're willing to "have an open mind" about the Space Brothers in particular, given the range of other options on the table.

    Grant Hutchison

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    So its not plausible that life might exist anywhere else in the observable universe, when we have evidence already that there is highly likely to be Earth like planets in almost every solar system?
    As I've already pointed out, I do believe* that there's life. But I've seen no reason to think anything's come here.

    Also, the observable Universe is BIG. Even the closest parts are very far away.



    * Correction. My beliefs are not relevant to anyone but me. More accurately, I entertain the possibility of ET life because it's consistent with present data; elemental proportions in stars, the presence of organic molecules in odd places, etc. Intelligent life capable of interstellar travel, is a whole nother fish, because we ourselves are not in that category. We've literally never experienced any interstellar travel, it may or not be achievable in the real world.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2021-Jun-21 at 01:58 PM.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,991
    There's this false dichotomy that we see a lot. Either you believe aliens are here or else you don't believe in them at all. And that's simply not true. I believe the idea that aliens don't exist is every bit as improbable as the general idea of alien visitation on Earth. Both are theoretically possible, of course, but I don't have any reason to believe in a completely-empty-except-for-us universe, and I don't have any reason to believe that any alien species can and has visited Earth.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    But nothing can ever be ruled out. We can't prove a negative. So your head should be full of every single wildly implausible explanation for UAPs, all the time, forever. Ghosts, magicians, monsters, lone geniuses, Nazis ...
    I'm willing to bet that's not actually how you're analysing UAPs. So I'm interested to know why you're willing to "have an open mind" about the Space Brothers in particular, given the range of other options on the table.

    Grant Hutchison
    You are spot on, I like most of us consciously dismiss possibilities for a whole host of reasons, often personal ones. I have my preferred choices to accept as plausible based on my knowledge, experience and current scientific understanding. This does not mean that my choices should be considered any more valid than any other option.

    The point I'm trying to make is not about my personal acceptance or dismissal, but rather why one explanation should be dismissed over another? We don't have to fill our heads with all the possibilities, absurd or otherwise. Rather we should not dismiss anything regardless how ludicrous until a definitive explanation has been found.

    Now if you chose to do so, you can use your knowledge, understanding and experience to rate the possibilities in an order of likelihood. This, though not a completely objective approach, can help reduce the noise by provisionally dismissing those that appear less likely and so on... which technically is wrong but practically makes sense.

    A complete dismissal of an explanation of something unknown, in my mind, is stating a fact that may not be true. Basically by dismissing something is to state or assume it "can't be", which then implies you already know something about something unknown in the first place.

    Maybe I'm just trying to argue semantics and getting in a muddle, but I really can't get my head around why something can be dismissed over something else about something unknown in the first place. If a UAP remains a UAP then all bets are on, don't you think?

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Maybe I'm just trying to argue semantics and getting in a muddle, but I really can't get my head around why something can be dismissed over something else about something unknown in the first place. If a UAP remains a UAP then all bets are on, don't you think?
    I don't, but as you say, that's a personal decision.

    I think you're stuck on the word "dismiss". I mean it as, I am not wasting any of my limited cognitive power on something that's unsupported. If there's evidence of aliens I'll re-evaluate and look at that evidence.

    What do you mean by dismissal, and why is it so important to you?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    There's this false dichotomy that we see a lot. Either you believe aliens are here or else you don't believe in them at all. And that's simply not true. I believe the idea that aliens don't exist is every bit as improbable as the general idea of alien visitation on Earth. Both are theoretically possible, of course, but I don't have any reason to believe in a completely-empty-except-for-us universe, and I don't have any reason to believe that any alien species can and has visited Earth.
    I totally agree, but whether you believe or not, based on this reasoning would you completely dismiss the possibility that "if" aliens existed they could/have visited Earth?

    My point being there is no reason to believe or not believe, so there is also no reason to dismiss or accept (the possibility). So to do so could be making a statement, implying a fact about something you have no evidence either way.

    If I dismiss the possibility of alien visitations, then I'm implying that I know that aliens have never, or could never have visited. Which implies I know something about something that is unknown

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I totally agree, but whether you believe or not, based on this reasoning would you completely dismiss the possibility that "if" aliens existed they could/have visited Earth?

    My point being there is no reason to believe or not believe, so there is also no reason to dismiss or accept (the possibility). So to do so could be making a statement, implying a fact about something you have no evidence either way.

    If I dismiss the possibility of alien visitations, then I'm implying that I know that aliens have never, or could never have visited. Which implies I know something about something that is unknown
    I think your use of "dismiss" is different from mine, and I'll just leave it at that because this has gone on way too long. We just don't get each other and that's fine.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I don't, but as you say, that's a personal decision.

    I think you're stuck on the word "dismiss". I mean it as, I am not wasting any of my limited cognitive power on something that's unsupported. If there's evidence of aliens I'll re-evaluate and look at that evidence.

    What do you mean by dismissal, and why is it so important to you?
    I agree that I'm stuck on the word "dismissal" I interpret this to mean (in this context) "it can't possibly be". We are all free to dismiss what ever we chose, as you state for the sake of "wasting" time, I'm with you on that.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I think your use of "dismiss" is different from mine, and I'll just leave it at that because this has gone on way too long. We just don't get each other and that's fine.
    Ok, well lets see if the report does surprise us with something, I don't hold much hope, however I still remain interested.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,870
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I interpret this to mean (in this context) "it can't possibly be".
    Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •