Agreed. But still assumption w/o proof. But... moving on. (2/10)
i.e., "he has many accolades so believe him w/o evidence." (4/10)
I find this insulting. The correct phrase would be "... thrilling E.T. enthusiasts while also ignoring the scientific process." (6/10)
But with limited observations, how can you even posit, you might ask, that it may be a damn solar sail?! That's right. YOU CAN"T. (7/10)
that's the equivalent to "show me evidence against God, and I"ll back down."
No. No. We do not know. (9/10)
That's not how science works. #oumuamua (10/10)