No evidence of a "someone." The line of reasoning here is a converted conditional: if beings existed and engaged in such behavior, then such behavior from them would be consistent with malevolence. That is not, however, evidence of any actual malevolence because the motive depends on the existence of something to exhibit it.

Your analysis is interestig however since it is of ancedotal evidence which your reject as being possible to evaluate scientificly then your evaluation has no more validity than mine. Further you have an established bias that the subject is non existant and so your arguments are simply to support an opinion and not an evaluation.

Much of my statements are summary of actual research by KT and others so it is not just my unsuported thoughts. However since you have previously all such research as unworthy there is little point in discussing its merits.

None of what I stated was propsed as an establishe fact supported by physical evedence but merly an excercise of if this then that is implied.

Since you have ruled out anything but physical evedence being applicable to analysis then any conclusions made by you are baseless.

I just read project Bluebook special report 14 and I was amazed that the conclusions were not supported by the data. The unknowns were consistantly 20 to 30 percent in virtually every catagory. The low of 20 percent was attained by moving any that might be possible knowns out of the unknown group.

Quote from report.

The results of these tests are inconclusive since they neither confirm
nor deny that the UNKNOWNS are primarily unidentified KNOWNS, although
they do indicate that relatively few of the UNKNOWNS are actually astronomical
phenomena.

Here is how they class witnisess reports with high reliability of unknown.

It was decided that this process would not be carried to its logical
conclusion (that is, the determination of a linear combination of KNOWNS
that would give a negligible chi square when compared with the UNKNOWNS),
since it was felt that the inaccuracies in the reports would give a distorted
and meaningless result.

And this is how they avoided taking the unknowns to their logical conclusions.

Again it is all ancedotal evidence so I will concede any argument on that basis.

I find all of your arguments of scientific value do little to convince those who have actually seen one.

I want to thank you for your time and energy. I will take to heart the statement that I should adopt critical thinking before continuing to post as I am taking too much of this forums time and energy in continuing to ignore this premise.

You are quite knowlegable and I have learned a great deal here. It would be remiss of me not to consider your arguments at lenght so I plan to spend the next week or so following the links on critical thinking I was given here.

Given your pre requisite that only physical evedence is worthy of scientific evaluation I find it unlikly that any will be found to present to you. After the dcades of study that has so far produced none I think it shall not be produced for decades more.

regards