Eyewitness accounts have been used by Science for years.
Newton used eyewtiness accounts in the Principia when talking about comets. He came up with a theory on comets based on recorded sighting throughout
the world like a boy saw a comet and this is what he described. There wasn't any internet to even verify the credibility of these eyewitness accounts
yet Newton used them to come up with a theory about comets which helped lead to his equations of Gravity.
So if eyewitness accounts are so unreliable, how did Newton use them to come up with his theories?
We also saw this with meteorites. This is from Wiki:
Although meteors have been known since ancient times, they were not known to be an astronomical phenomenon until early in the 19th century. Prior
to that, they were seen in the West as an atmospheric phenomenon, like lightning, and were not connected with strange stories of rocks falling from
the sky. In 1807, Yale University chemistry professor Benjamin Silliman investigated a meteorite that fell in Weston, Connecticut. Silliman
believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of November
1833. People all across the eastern United States saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. Astute observers noticed
that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation Leo.
ASTUTE OBSERVERS saw meteors radiating from a single point in the sky and to this day this is still called the radient. I thought Science never uses
Also, here's a list of published papers and studies on U.F.O.'s.
This page offers a list of 100+ articles, papers and monographs about UFOs / UAPs published in professional journals and specialty publications.
Two polls of professional & amateur astronomers respectively, on whether they see UFOs or not. Finally 60+ PhD dissertations and academic publications
about UFOs. Very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which academics have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations
Why aren't there more non-prosaic explanations of U.F.O.'s?
That alone lends support to the notion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. I have had 3 sightings myself. Two looked like probes. It was
real windy one day and the wind was almost knocking me over, then this round orb passed in front of me going against the wind. It slowed down and then
it sped back up.
Where are all the Scientist explaining U.F.O.'s? Why are there still these unidentified objects in the sky?
We have aeriel phenomena in the sky that can avoid radar, outrun our best planes and cause nuclear facilities to malfunction. After 60 or more years
of these sightings why can't Scientist explain these things like Newton did with comets based on eyewitness accounts or what happened with
Here's 565 eyewitness accounts
Here's another timeline with a bunch of cases
Here's Mufon with cases dating back to 1897
Here's a sight that gives you pre 1900 case files and post 1900 files.
There videos, photos, trace evidence and more. Newton didn't have any of these things yet he came up with a theory about comets based on eyewitness
accounts. We came up with evidence about meteors based on eyewitness accounts.
We have all of these tools today yet we lack a lot of peer reviewed literature with non prosaic explanations of U.F.O.'s, why?
26-10-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)