[quickthrowman]

> Your comment is all certainty, and the thread has rewarded that.

If I am presented with two options, I am going to defer to the more likely option, particularly when aliens are involved.

Is it more likely that you don’t understand artifacts in digital imaging of visible light or the infrared spectrum; or that it’s aliens?

When “aliens did it” is one of the possible options, skeptical people will never assume it’s aliens, given there is no evidence of aliens visiting Earth. If we had evidence of aliens visiting Earth, I would maybe consider that option.

[keepamovin]

The pattern you show is worth discussing so I give it time. You don't want to consider the possibilities, that's okay, so you pretend it's a binary choice between something you feel reasonable, and something you feel ridiculous. I say this gently: if you were so certain of your reason would you need ridicule to keep you in line?

About the 8-pointed - I reject the idea that my approach, by being in disagreement with yours, somehow indicates that I am deficient in understanding - this insult is the refuge of the orthodox and uncurious. You probably responded to me because I challenged the certainty of the other. Indeed, it leads your comment as a quote.

If you bring a conclusion, you find a binary: one reasonable choice (which you already took), and one ridiculous one. If you bring questions, you find something else.

You want your belief, and I want the truth. It makes me more courageous and more curious. You can also choose that. Or not: there's no shame in your opinion and no badness in it as long as you don't expect others participation nor impose against them.

I will explain the mechanism of how stigma is operating in your case, and how it's designed to stymie thinking and investigation.

Your focus on "aliens as the only alternative" is mostly ideological inflexibility, and blinds you to exploring by mis-associating exploration with an ideologically forbidden outcome: "aliens". You are supposed to be scared of it being aliens, and scared of sounding stupid by suggesting that, and to mislabel any deviation from orthodox "it's nothing" explanations as that, to disable thinking. You are supposed to try to propagate the stigma by shaming others with it, via suggesting they are nuts for violating its constraints, just as you try to insinuate here. Of course, I reject that insult, it has nothing to do with me. Yet, the stigma is working in your case. There's no shame in that. You can free yourself when you want. The stigma was used and has worked on millions for decades.

It does not work on me, I am already out of it. "If we had evidence I would investigate" - is not scientific, it's finality implying certainty, when in reality there's mystery and science is the way. Saying there's nothing worth looking at, so I won't look is safety masquerading as rationality, but is neither really. But it's perfectly okay for you to personally adopt that. All have their own timing. No need to rush or change. To avoid badness just don't impose it on others nor expect them to participate. Hopefully that is clarifying. It's not meant as insult or insinuation and there's no shame in it.