>>12247607>You're arguing on bad faith, before any evidence can be collected and test can be doneNo, I didn't overlook evidence, I said "when you make an entire movement SOLELY based on a mountain of, according to your metrics*, "evidence" [...] you're selling bullshit".
*If your metric for evidence doesn't go beyond the accumulation of thousands of anecdotes, photographs of saucer-shaped flying objects made with old, cheap cameras (see
>>12247472) and very few pieces of ordinary looking metal or rock with magnetic properties (oh God, magnets are witchcraft!), and then you have the guts to demand rational people to be more open, as much as it takes to ignore that you have no solid, self-sustaining evidence, no scientist will take you seriously.
Imagine if your average redditor hoarded thousands of memes and then claimed he's an internet connoisseur, or if I told you that I downloaded thousands of math books and that gave me the credentials of being a mathematician, would you believe it?
>Secondly, just because bad actors are involved in a field, it doesn't mean the entire field is without validityWrong, when your "field" is 95% filled with bad actors you are as reliable as the mafia or the government of some shithole to do serious business, sure there are good people there!, but it is worth the high risk?, or from the perspective of a scientist, the limited time and budget?
I just gave you a hint, do you want the truth about UFOs to be found? Support true scientists, not History Channel merchants and the like.
