In article <4038cb6f$0$68935$d368eab@news.calweb.com>, John M Price PhD says...

In sci.skeptic article <pe1_b.4018$_4.157@www.newsranger.com> Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers ?.S.?. <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
: 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." I think there is, right now, quite
: sufficient evidence. Given the physical trace cases,

Minimal evidence at best.

Blatantly  false, and that wasn't even a nice try!
But you do show your absolute ignorance!

the radar sightings, 

But not definitive - shows just that something is there.

Again demonstrably incorrect, 
I hope you do NOT work with anything resembling real science!

the
: photographs 

Definitely fakeable.  

Hello- this isn't the 1950's.  That excuse didn't even work
that well back then!

and the eye-witness testimony

Not very good evidence at all.  Read some psychology.

I've read it.  Your arguments are so pathetically inept,
that you really should be embarrassed to have your name
next to them.


"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--Former CIA Director William Colby