Originally posted by Dagar
All these sightings, So little video evidence. Why?
...and what good would the video evidence be?
It would give us something other than text to go off, which for anyone who yearns for truth over speculation is a starting block.
I am so, SO fed up with sceptics continuously moving the goal posts... 
No, a sceptic continuously asks creative questions to find truth in facts, avoiding speculation, a sceptic will question
all evidence. The
goalposts are the same... questions need to be asked.
Just an anecdote .... where's the photo?
Stories are fun but for a true researcher are nothing but timewasters or at best hints on their own. Some anecdotes help but there are millions out
there that are false and cannot be proven true or not, therefore pointless but fun.
Just an anecdote and photo's.... Where's the video?...
Hmm Yes I guess if the photo is rubbish and there is
valid reason for video to exist (like 28 sightings in 20 nights) then the question is
common sense.
Just an anecdote, photo and video.... where's the trace evidence?
Yes, the next logical step. If you trust an anecdote, a picture and a video enough to make your mind up then I am sorry to say you are either
uneducated in the ways of modern media or really wanting to believe something... maybe for reasons of escapism.
Just anecdote, photo, video, and radar tapes of a UFO ... where's the @tangeable evidence?... Where's the piece of UFO tailpipe?
This is different. Any sceptic would question the validity and source of the radar footage before
demanding to see physical evidence, which
would be pure stupor on behalf of the sceptic... who (although I am not one myself really) seem to be the most intelligent of all here on ATS.
Photo/Video blurred... useless
Yes, in a world where people want reliable answers that have a mature background and are not based in a yearning to believe... yes, blurred videos are
terrible.
Photo/Video clear... too good, therefore hoaxed/CGI'd
Yeah, you're right, most of the good footage has been proven to be hoax... if you can link me to one that isn't I would be happy. There are some I
know of, mainly the triangle ones and such. But most sceptics wont say they are cgi, they will just question validity to be ceratin they cover most
angles.
Witnesses are normal members of public... not expert enough, don't know what they are seeing, not credible
Humans are very untrustworthy and those who believe their accounts without question are fools. Humans lie and more importantly
are deceived by
their senses... especially in recounting events
Witnesses are pilots/astronaughts ... They made a mistake and have misidentified something ordinary, they are going senile
I trust these guys.
I'm just saying we have to be mature about these things. We have to respect what the sceptic does and why. Take a look through my thread history, you
will see I'm no sceptic. But I have learned from not blindly ignoring the sceptic.
The sceptic is not my enemy he is a fountain of knowledge
(sometimes a bit of a short tempered know all fountain of knowledge but still the sceptic is closer to the truth than the blind believer.)
[edit on 24-11-2009 by and14263]