Some people with very poor understanding of actual science will insist that since we don't know everything that we cannot at least tentatively discount unlikely explanations, in favor of more prosaic explanations, because not being familiar with this particular situation, we cannot, of course, have any basis for determining what is likely and what is unlikely. This is because these people have a comic book understanding of the history of science, what it is and how it works.
It's as productive to argue with one of these persons as it is to argue with a rock about composition of stars.
Anybody seen the PBS special on inside a cult? The one about Michael Travessor? See, this guy predicts the end of the world - and it doesn't happen. His cult members find a way to justify this post facto. And of course they think he's very wise and he thinks he's very wise. He's agonizingly dumb, but the followers are as impervious to reason as, say, fake mediums or reptilian conspiracy theorists. Leon Festinger wrote about this in 1956.
