I think it's not really a question of hostility and mockery, though you really should expect that there's likely to be an element of that anyway, in any public arena. Disagreement, now that's another matter. It also has a lot to do with the tone of whatever's being claimed: if I was to come in here and say "Hey guys, last night I saw a strange flashing light in the sky it didn't appear to be an ordinary aircraft but I have no idea what it was", I'd expect to attract a different response than if I said "Hey guys, I saw a flying saucer last night! It's a wonder I wasn't abducted and gang-probed or something!"
Not to set any of us up as authority figures or anything, though I would consider certain of our number as experts in their field, but places like this are similar to the "peer review" stage of the scientific process. Claims get dissected, analysed, shredded even, until every particle has been exposed as either true or false. That's SOP. Not just here and in the scientific arena, but in our courts as well. Somehow I can't imagine Stephen Hawking announcing, say, some new discovery about black holes and then complaining that no-one's taking him just at his word, they all just want to check his data and repeat his experiments and such.
That's why I welcome your wanting to check my Beth Star analysis yourself; I'd really benefit from any feedback, good or bad. Just as long as the experts you are relying on for this are reputable, and preferably have no vested interest in promoting the very thing that's in question. I suggested Phil Plait to you as a good source, though I can't speak for him as to whether he'll reply to you or anyone. Worth a try though.
Not to set any of us up as authority figures or anything, though I would consider certain of our number as experts in their field, but places like this are similar to the "peer review" stage of the scientific process. Claims get dissected, analysed, shredded even, until every particle has been exposed as either true or false. That's SOP. Not just here and in the scientific arena, but in our courts as well. Somehow I can't imagine Stephen Hawking announcing, say, some new discovery about black holes and then complaining that no-one's taking him just at his word, they all just want to check his data and repeat his experiments and such.
That's why I welcome your wanting to check my Beth Star analysis yourself; I'd really benefit from any feedback, good or bad. Just as long as the experts you are relying on for this are reputable, and preferably have no vested interest in promoting the very thing that's in question. I suggested Phil Plait to you as a good source, though I can't speak for him as to whether he'll reply to you or anyone. Worth a try though.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
