The believer resorts to personal attacks. :-/
Dude, where did I imply Haines was a hoaxer? I granted that Haines' conclusion was true (i.e. there's not enough data to conclusively identify the
object). I then
said, if we had better
data, it would probably be a hubcap or some similar object. If he fabricated the analysis, it
would make sense to either deny
an alien craft, or say it was definitely
an alien craft. Not "unidentified". I do
parts were sloppy (as Raymundoko pointed out with size/distance data), but he didn't over-reach.
On re-reading Raymundoko's post...it's not absurd to think he was intending to deceive. I'll place this in the "Maybe" file.
I see you like pointing out fallacies. Let's point out yours! Because pointing out fallacies makes you win
the argument! Right?
Appeal to ignorance! It hasn't been disproved, therefore it definitely exists.
Appeal to authority! Haines worked for NASA, therefore he's incapable of fraud? There's no reason why a NASA scientist would be less likely to commit
fraud if the results supported his previous conclusions. Now, I
didn't claim he was a fraud--but he has so little data to work with, that he
pulled out baseless estimates. And even then
, he concluded it was "unidentified". You do
know what "unidentified" means, right?
Ad hominem! Attacking the person instead of the argument (like you did with Raymundoko).
Bottom line: No data, no alien space ship. Sorry bud, we can't make exceptions simply because you want to believe. That's now how science (or how any
other form of rational inquiry) works.
edit on 28-12-2013 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)