Then do you agree that skeptics are setting an appropriate standard of evidence?If I have missed anything, I apologize.
You may be confusing two ideas. Eyewitness testimony is not necessary rumor, but it is not necessarily to be taken at face value. It must be evaluated according to the sciences we know apply to that kind of testimony.No I think it's flawed to accept withness testimony as a rumour.
Your evidence from Keyhoe and Goldwater is rumor. It's rumor because they present no evidence to support their belief; they simply state their belief and you simply believe that it constitutes a valid suspicion.
The evidence from Keyhoe and Goldwater would not even be admissible in a court of law because it is hearsay and conjecture.This AGAIN, is how evidence is evaluated in court proceedings. They take evidence from wittness testimonies and evaluate it under a panel of 12 members.
Eyewitness evidence is indeed evaluated in court proceedings. In fact, the bulk of a court proceeding is to determine just how credible and reliable a witness may be. There is no presumption that the witness is telling the truth under direct examination. The whole process of cross-examination exists to determine whether the witness can know what he purports to know, whether he is being deceptive, or whether he was simply mistaken or misled. Then the jury decides whether the witness is believable. The whole court system is based on the presumption that you don't take any witness at face value.
It's interesting you bring that up, because the whole science of witness perception arose to try to determine why so many juries inappropriately believed eyewitnesses who were, in fact, impeached by other evidence or by cross-examination. It is a science you seem to want desperately to avoid.
Also Nick Pope has provided a priori of the situation, remarking that considering these objects are real, anything pervading UK airspace is a matter of National Security.
As nick shows, it is matter of National Security, which ever way you may look at it.
Minus his sister was not kidnapped by aliens :P
You consider us close-minded because we insist on rational hard evidence for acceptance of extraordinary conclusions; not hearsay, misinterpreted memos, cherry-picked witnesses, assumptions of what blobs on a photograph are, or the one-sided arguments of self-appointed profit-driven "research" authors.
If your choice is to blindly believe instead of critically think, then good luck to you.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but don't bother trying to "paint" someone of Pope's "ilk" as in any way respectable...It just won't work, here.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You tell us you have no proof. Then you try to tell us your evidence is verified and is strong. Sorry, I'm not going to follow you on this latest trip around the UFO merry-go-round. This is why you will never be taken seriously by legitimate researchers.These reports have been varified countless times. I have even raised them.
OK time to end this, Goldstone says he wants to end his UFO posts and the thread is going round and round anyway.
Time to put it away before infractions have to be handed out
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple