reply to post by gavron
i hate to just call you out like this, but since two of us have already pointed it out and you clearly took no notice, maybe just maybe just maybe
just possibly, you should read links before getting all superior at everyone? you would found that, lo and behold, there ARE photos.
wait, should i say it again because it didn't sink in the first three times?
go look at them! THEN tell me they are chinese lantern passenger venus gasses.
but don't claim a lack of evidence there clearly is.
how are we to get anywhere productive if we can't even look at what we have?
also, as far as your claim goes, i would look at that with some skepticism....
that word... i do not think it means what you think it means! here's how it goes, since so many people are having trouble with this lately;
you make a statement; flying craft reminiscent of confectionary goods, all lit up and piloted by rock dinosaur fans. to me this seems unlikely, based
largely on the fact that i have never heard of a UFO being likened to confectionary before, or playing music.
HOWEVER i was not there, and have no reasonable reason to doubt your veracity.
also we must keep in mind that "unlikely" and "impossible" have quite different meanings.
the next step is whether there is visually corroborative evidence; photos will generally be enough, especially with something so outlandish as a
lit-up twinkie, to prove that something is going on, and to sometimes rule out more obvious explanations [remembering here to take into account your
verbal report too; what a photo may seem to present does not nullify your written statement]. video would garner you extra value as no one [to my
knowledge] has heard the aliens playing oldies.fm and many people would find that quite interesting.
from there we look for unrelated witnesses saying similar things. were a lot of people surprised to hear the howling tones of Jagger and co. when they
weren't expecting to? that does seem like the sort of thing people would notice and think to mention.
if there are no corroborative witnesses and you got no video and no photographs
it does not mean you are automatically lying;
it just means that your singular and unlikely report remains just that, until it happens again or more witnesses come forward. On the balance of
probability you would just be trying to stir people up but who am i to judge you? this is a vast universe after all.
what is NOT a logical conclusion is to tell you that you just happened to be drunk at an exhibition of vintage musical trends and thought you were
looking at the sky when really you were looking down at the stage.
especially without even reviewing the evidence.
do you see the difference?
edit on 23-11-2012 by decepticonLaura because: bride it up/long days