On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Bowery wrote: > > At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the >> confirmation I need to summarily reject the "sheer coincidence" explanation >> with just the two events. >> > > It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that > something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks > affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot > prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many > undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as "sheer coincidence" then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the "sheer coincidence" hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the "sheer coincidence" hypothesis. Apparently you missed it: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html The least plausible aspect of this explanation is that a government could actually keep deep cover on the expenditure of a few tens of billions of dollars. All the technologies required are Apollo era, preliminary studies are published in peer reviewed journals decades old and the motive presented by the Reagan Administration's SDI leading up to the START treaty is clear. Means motive and opportunity galore.
