posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 06:04 AM
reply to post by CardDown
While that would be one way of investigating mysterious aerial phenomena, it has a major flaw in that it is singling out one particular type of
phenomena that about everyone could accept simply on the face of it: Mysterious ight distortion is possible and need not necessarily be a physical
presence of some unknown type.
The best that could be hoped for from such a narrow-minded study is that he can prove that such light phenomena does happen at times. Would any shred
of that disprove physical UFOs? Nope. Nada.
His would get the same result if his target was to prove that "Chinese lanterns" were UFOs. His certifiable result would be a resounding YES (in
some cases) but would absolutely prove nothing germaine to the situation as a whole. UFOs are pretty much as the represent themselves to be. Get
over it, science people!
Yet, I continually have to point out that even the "nay-sayers" are worthy to the over-all cause. First, because they will never prove their
"something else other than alien craft." opinions, and that keeps narrowing the focus down on the craft being recognized for what they actually are.
The public will take an example such as this one under discussion and via common sense say, "Nay, that can't explain the whole business of UFOs"
and unconsciously their acceptance of UFOs and distrust of the often voiced opinions of scientists on that particular matter will be diminished. The
result is more tacit support and evidence for a general belief in UFOs. In wise circles, they call that using reversed psychology whether
intentionally done or not.