I mention it to establish that I am not pursuing something due to mental disorder or irrationality or paranoia. I further stated that it is clearly proof of nothing. Nor do I offer it as anything more than personal motivation. Nor do I offer it as an argument of alien visitation because in no way is that established in my own mind.

I expected the liar argument as well. I do not have a religious belief either. Religion is purly an invention of man. The designer of a universe (if there indeed is such, do not know) would have no need of religion.

If I felt that a single eyewitness account without supporting evidence was proof worthy of argument I would present it. I do not accept this as an argument of proof from anyone.

I mention it just to say I have personal motivation for exploration and not some religious or mental deficiency for such.

I have previously stated that I have never seen a UFO because I do not consider it totally unknown. And having structure does not make it alien either. It just mades me curious enough to seek an answer outside myself.


Now as to my opinion of this report and it being circular. That is more germaine to the issue.

First they argue that plasma phenomena can link up in such a way as to appear solid with triangle shapes being predominent. That such false solidity can fool infrared and radar.

Then they follow with the argument that plasma phenomena can affect the human brain and cause hallucination of solidity.

This establishes that the witness can present no argument not discounted by hallucination.

To establish this would require a study of the range of the mental effects. At what distance is the observer subject to or immune. Exacly what those effects are and what type of hallucinations and what senses or memory would be affected.

So it becomes an unfounded argument ment to discredit without any supporting evidence or even establishing a distance of the effect. Any dissenting view is self defeating because the observer can be considered under the influence.

How is that not circular? A cause cited without establishing any range or qualifications as to senses affected or how the effect works.

UFOllogist is brought to task on speculation but science is not? How disengenuous.

For the argument of how plasma energy behaves they cite no studies.

Why is speculation by a scientific study acceptable while UFO theorist are held to rigorous proof?

I do not totally discount the arguments presented. I ask where is the proof and the studies to support such speculation.

They accept that the phenomena is real and observable by witness, radar, and infrared. They argument as to cause is unsuported speculation.