posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:29 PM
Originally posted by polomontana
Nope the burden of evidence is on the skeptic. They are making the claim that it's not a U.F.O. The person making the claim is verifying what they
saw. It's the skeptic that's saying that it's not what they saw.
There are some skeptics who don't understand that it's impossible to prove a negative, such as that such and such an image is "not" of a UFO.
After all, even if the photo clearly shows a craft that might look like an F-16, that doesn't mean it couldn't be an alien (or whatever) craft that
just happens to look a lot like an F-16. Why couldn't it?
I'm not a big fan of recreations. Just because a photo can be produced that kind of looks like the UFO photo, that doesn't mean the UFO photo was
done that way.
However, if a skeptic posts a side-by-side comparison of an F-16 (or a gliding seagull) and the putative UFO, and they look very similar, then it
presents a more likely possibility. Then the original claimant has to pony up with some better positive proof to provide an even more likely
possibility. Nothing is proven, however. They're just possibilities and probabilities.
In any event, even if a photo is determined to be real or authentic, that in no way identifies or proves what the subject of the photo is. Could be
editing, could be a kite or balloon. Could be something else. Don't know. Positive proof is necessary to get by that sticky "don't know."
That's why photos in general cannot by themselves be used as proof of anything, and why we have to move away from the photos and get more hard
evidence that can be tested and verified.