2 min readOct 4, 2021
- There are ALWAYS assumptions. Your refutation assumes that this “light trapping” technology did not exist in the 50s and 60s. Nobody knows that. And the strongest data from that era is the famous 1952 radar alarm over Wash DC which was conclusively proven to be a weather glitch misinterpreted by a primitive radar network in those post-WW2 years. When they improved the radars, the same reading never happened again. So when we talk about “all the data,” we need to be aware of the asterisk over the word “data.”
- What you call “messing with” is “testing” for someone else. Drones are employed all over the battle theater for no purpose other than “to mess with people and militaries” in the most painful way, but that doesn't lead to any conspiracies, does it? So why should another hush-hush technology (like “light trapping”) lead to a conspiracy? Maybe it’s being developed before our very eyes under the disguise of UFO observations.
- Yes, holograms don't ping on radar and that’s an excellent point! But who said that a “light trap” is a hologram? You are again assuming things that I can neither prove nor falsify.
- The overt goal of science is not to minimize gossiping, innuendos, and conspiratorial thinking (which could, in theory, be a byproduct of scientific thinking). It is to find the laws in the universe that can be proven repeatedly through empirical observations performed by multiple observers according to universally accepted observation rules and then survive the merciless peer review. Otherwise, it’s speculation and chitchat, not science.
- I agree that we need more data, or better yet, forensic evidence, and not just “observations.” I’m all for getting our hands on an alien corpse or the front fender of a UFO :-)
