Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry but can you be more specific? All I am seeing is circumstantial evidence, ie a rocket could also make this pattern in theory, at least according to these people.
I already said I was assuming you guys know what the technical definition of proof is, like the kind of proof you convict murderers with. If all you got is circumstantial then they still go free.
You've got it bass ackwards.
You're insisting it's anomalous (i.e., guilty of violating the current paradigms).
YOU have the burden of proof to show beyond reasonable doubt that NO prosaic explanation is adequate.
Otherwise, the current paradigms go free, are innocent of being falsified, and stay in force.
Is the rest of your wortd view equally upside down?