Errol Brown, you are missed sir.

Errol no longer exists. Who are you talking to? You bemoan sky fairy believers yet appear to think the spirits of dead pop stars read the Hol.

With your 1950's outlook, I had you more down as an ovalteenies fan.

Edited by nickgusset (04 Jul 2017 8.50pm)

Hot Chocolate were good in their earlier days.

Logic and statistics would suggest that advanced life exists, many times over, other than ours in this galaxy let alone the universe.

It can't be evidenced so it isn't a practical certainty but I think on a rational level we can pretty much accept it whilst also recognising the primacy and requirement of proof.

Beyond this we start to move into higher levels of speculation. I think I once saw a UFO myself but what I think I saw and what I actually saw could be two different things.

If think it's likely that 'a little' of the footage that I watched...and I emphasize 'a little' over the years has been pretty convincing.

However, it has to be listed under 'unproven' because the level of evidence just isn't there.

Advanced life being able to transverse vast galactic distances is an obvious problem.

Also the lack of space related communication that we can recognise also presents an issue. It would be foolish to suggest that it isn't happening given the small time scale we have been looking but we at least know that this part of the galaxy isn't flooded with the more obvious forms that we currently look for.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2017 6.12pm)

I guess it's akin to finding Bigfoot, plenty of anecdotal evidence...but no physical (other than the odd cast of a footprint)

Not when you examine most conspiracy theories objectively, at best they present an argument for further research, but mostly their evidence is patchy. They'll identify sources, but no corroboration of their claims etc.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they aren't established as theories. They don't aim to disprove a null hypothesis, but proceed on the basis of supporting a point they consider true with evidence that isn't corroborated or supported to facilitate their hypothesis - which is incorrect, you should establish evidence that disproves a null hypothesis.

They're effectively using journalist research which is an incorrect application, because Journalism starts with something that you can prove occurred or is generally known to have occurred, by first hand sources.

They are however very interesting, and fun, but for the most part incredible biased research, that relies on presenting a question of evidence as proof of fact of an exceptional fact (exceptional facts, require exceptional proof, as they say in parapsychology, because you're trying to prove something that requires a complete revision of known science).

That said, the fakers haven't helped either.