posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:53 AM
It was once said… ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.’
Now, on the surface of this brief statement, is a certain ring of logic. It makes sense to us, at first anyway, that the weight of a claim should be
counterbalanced by an equally weighty bit of proof. But then you may begin to think about it in depth and if you do, you realize what a completely
ridiculous notion it really is.
First of all, any truth is a proof… at least, in my way of thinking. If you can prove something simply, then why should you feel compelled to up the
ante to prove it in some unnecessarily complicated way? Albert Einstein was quoted to say, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but
In other words, don’t try to lower the river if all you need to do is to raise the bridge a bit.
For every witness like a former astronaut, or congressman, or former president, or anyone at all, the skeptic's reply is that there is no reason why
this person wouldn't lie as easily as the next.
The extraordinary testimony of an extraordinary person, means nothing.
For every eye witness to something of a truly extraordinary nature who has been denied by our own government, there is another day lost to humanity
and another opportunity to step from the shadows of a million years of isolation and bondage at the hands of our own kind.
If we can find a way to dismiss that former astronaut's personal account of a UFO putting down landing gear and settling on terra firma, right before
his eyes, then no evidence at all, extraordinary or otherwise, is going to make a whit of difference.
Extraordinary claims don't really require extraordinary proof. They just require a simple bit of truth and then, some common sense.