It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 987931
Why not 99.133% or perhaps 97.218%?
But I do agree with your basic point, about multiple credible witnesses, even though we use crude proxies for credibility that undoubtedly lead to many false negatives; i.e. falsely concluding someone is not credible simply because they don't have some kind of credentials or position, current or past, that makes them "credible". Does the fact I have a PhD or that am an acaedmic in a good university make me more credible than someone whose lifetime hobby has been astronomy and astrophysics, if that's what is called for in a particular case? (hypothetical since I don't claim to have ever seen anything worthy of investigation).
On a similar note, I'm glad to hear you think the COMETA carries some weight, being French and having the very healthy and robust skepticism you do. I agree -- I see no reason not to take the experts involved seriously.
Credibility has a lot to do with the psychology of the witness (whether someone is a known hoaxer, drug user, mythomaniac, attention seeker, etc...), and how much the story varies in time. A single report is nearly worthless without several interviews of the witnesses, other investigations in the neighborhood, confirmation by other means, such as physical effects. The level of education or job is not the most important factor. It doesn't disqualify anyone I mean.