I wouldn't say "how much more proof" is needed.....I have yet to see/examine the proof. So far, it's just hearsay.....the question is, do we take
their word regarding the events they described? Seems as if we're dealing with direct evidence rather than circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence
is fine with me as long as it's from credible sources as it appears to be in this case. Direct evidence will not "fly" within the scientific
community, though. Are there any threads here at ATS that covers these events thoroughly?
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.