Joshua Cude wrote:
OK. It was sloppy. Multiple claimed sightings of extra terrestrials
with inconclusive evidence does not make said visits more believable.
Likewise more fuzzy photos of the loch ness monster does not make its
existence more believable.
The data published by people such as McKubre, Miles or Storms cannot be
compared to fuzzy photos. It is not inconclusive. The signal to noise
ratio is high, not low. When the experimental conditions are met, the
effect always appears. There is clear correlation, and cause and effect.
Just because you claim that an isolated naked eye extraterrestrial
sighting resembles millions of of high precision instrument readings at
SRI, taken over many years, that does not actually make those two things
similar. It is hard to imagine two data sets more dissimilar.
- Jed
