"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers �.S.�." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message news:pe1_b.4018$_4.157@www.newsranger.com...

What level of proof is adequate proof, then?

SF: I talk in terms of evidence. The legal profession recognizes certain
standards: in a civil court, "preponderance of the evidence;" in a

criminal

court, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Which are not appropriate concepts for scientific questions.  One only has
to consider the people convicted of child abuse in the '80s and early '90s
on the basis of very questionable testimony to see cases where the courts
handled extraordinary claims poorly.

I think there is, right now, quite
sufficient evidence.

Nope.

Given the physical trace cases,

None of which have proven to be the incontrovertable result of non
terrestrial craft.

the radar sightings,

Radar returns are not a particularly strong form of evidence.

the
photographs

None of which have been conclusively proven to be of non terrestrial
vehicles.

and the eye-witness testimony from people all over the world,

Which is the weakest form of evidence without other corroboration.

we
have quite sufficient evidence to conclude that our planet is being

visited by

manufactured objects behaving in ways that we Earthlings cannot yet

duplicate,

and that therefore were produced someplace else.

No we don't.


 Now, the reason for that

little kicker about not being able to duplicate: every government in the

world

would love to be able to duplicate UFO flying capabilities. If we could

build

these things, we would be building them. So, if they weren't built here,

they

were built someplace else. There's nothing exotic about that. It's not
charismatic handwaving, it's perfectly good reasoning. We have an adequate
amount of evidence today to clearly establish that some-I emphasize

some-UFOs

are alien spacecraft. And I would take on anybody who says we don't. I

would say

it's entirely because they haven't reviewed that evidence, which is very
different from saying there is no evidence.

Question: Give me some examples. What are some of the strongest cases on

record

that you know of, and why do you find them so convincing?

SF: I feel the Roswell evidence makes a very strong case. We've talked to

more

than 240
(now over 350) people about that case; people at the Roswell Army Air

Force

base; people out at the rancher's site, including Mac Brazel's neighbors,

his

son, his daughter, and his daughter-in-law. We've talked to people who

handled

pieces of the wreckage at the base; we've talked to the people who were in

Texas

where it went; people who were crew members on the planes that carried

some of

the wreckage. I've talked to somebody who saw the bodies, people who were
threatened by the government-that's being kind-to shut up about this whole
thing. So that's an excellent case.

No its not.  Roswell has been heavily debunked.  Its too bad Stanton
Friedman, which is who this material actually comes from, is still kicking
that cowpie down the road.

This post is of course typical of Artie.  He posts the same stuff over and
over again, often without attributing it to its real source.

tim gueguen 101867