In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:

The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a scientist
refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions, they must be true."

Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to attribute to
me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the possible exception
of my ideas on the Red Shift)

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been looked into by
mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything resembling
evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up to the scientists to
prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens? Well, then,
you prove it.

I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases
remained "unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence
"utterly wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the
portion of the project staff that strongly disagreed with the
findings. The point is not which group of scientists is correct,
the point is at least they were acting like scientists and
gathering data and trying to understand it. Are these people
therefore kooks?

And you are correct it isn't up to scientists to "prove"
anything. But it is for them to try to understand the
world in which we live. To rope off certain areas with
ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems scientific to me.
The question is not what I or any other serious observer
"thinks" is the basis of the phenomena. I'm not trying
here to "prove" anybody's theory. My point is simply that
such theorizing and discussion is good science and a priori
rejection of the topic is a pitiful excuse for science.

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!