I AM saying that so called "experts" who claim to "disprove" something based on facts which they make up, are wrong to do so.
If the facts were made up, they would be wrong to do so. However, the facts that are used are known facts about ecosystems and what kind of environment is conducive for what kind of life. Sure there are surprises, but giving reasons for skepticism using an existing body of knowledge is entirely reasonable behaviour.
As our knowledge grows, so to do our conclusions about what kind of species can and cannot sustaibably survive in certain environments without leaving significant evidence.
Sure, a scientist that stands up and claims proof or disproof about anything should raise an eyebrow since we all know that science can do no such thing. A lot of this is due to the way scientists are portrayed in a lot of documentaries about these 'mysteries'. It doesn't make good viewing to have a guy talk about tentative and reasonable coclusions - you want a guy who talks in absolutes so you can say you got 'both sides' of the argument clearly on record.
If there was a science paper done on it, I'd expect to see language like 'given the nature of the environment...it doesn't seem possible for...extremely unlikely...'.
™ Version 4.2