I appreciate being baited into reading a thread that reads" Debunk this" and doesn't have any actual evidence to debunk.

The OP says some pretty outrageous things.

It makes no difference how many UFO reports are made. Unless there is undeniable proof that at least some UFO sightings are real sightings of ET craft, then no number of UFO sightings will ever have any Relevance on determining the reality or unreality of ET visitation. The reason is that we don't know the probability of a UFO sighting being a true positive sighting of ET craft. It might be essentially zero, in which case even millions of UFO reports would mean nothing.

We KNOW that there are lots and lots of false positive sightings of ET craft, but we don't know for sure that there are ANY true positive sightings. If there are no ET UFO's on Earth then every claim of ET activity would be false.

Originally posted by SuperKawaiiNibiru

Eyewitness accounts may work in a court of law, but when it comes to science, they're the lowest form of evidence....

(Yawn...) A tired, old argument which is evidence of unpardonable denial when used to casually brush aside such huge amounts of quality, corroborated testimony & data. Perhaps Neil DeGrasse Tyson (from whom you took those words) needs to go read some Richard Feynman....

Maybe a little perspective from Dr. James McDonald wouldn't hurt, either?

"A frequent objection to serious consideration of UFO reports, made by skeptics who have done no first-hand case investigations, is based on the widely discrepant accounts known to be presented by trial-witnesses who have all been present at some incident. To be sure, the same kind of discrepancies emerge in multiple-witness UFO incidents. People differ as to directions, relative times, sizes, etc. But I believe it is not unfair to remark, as the basic rebuttal to this attack on UFO accounts, that a group of witnesses who see a street-corner automobile collision do not come to court and proceed, in turn, to describe the event as a rhinoceros ramming a baby carriage, or as an airplane exploding on impact with a nearby building. There are, it needs to be soberly remembered, quite reasonable bounds upon the variance of witness testimonies in such cases. Thus, when one finds a half-dozen persons all saying that they were a few hundred feet from a domed disk with no resemblance to any known aircraft, that it took off without a sound, and was gone from sight in five seconds the almost inevitable variations in descriptions of distances, shape, secondary features, noises, and times cannot be allowed to discount, per se, the basically significant nature of their collective account. I have talked with a few scientists, especially some psychologists, whose puristic insistence on the miserable observing equipment with which the human species is cursed almost makes me wonder how they dare cross a busy traffic intersection...."

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

However, there are also those ET hypothesis supporters who claim to be open minded, but as soon as a case of high strangeness comes along they are more than willing to toss it out because it doesn't fit their worldview of UFOs=ETs. I strongly believe that the worst thing that has ever happened to ufology is the ET hypothesis. It has turned a once burgeoning field with aspirations of scientific legitimacy into a cult. We need to stop with these preconceived notions and actually look at the facts. Instead of trying to figure out how the Shag Harbour incident is proof of visitors from Zeta Reticuli we need to simply look at the Shag Harbour incident.

I agree with you, mostly. I just happen to believe that the strongest UFO cases -- the nuts and bolts, multiple witness, radar-confirmed, *physical craft* cases -- are most suggestive of the ET hypothesis, that's all. But of course we should keep an open mind. (And it's all pretty big news regardless of the explanation! Haha.)

The OP is suggesting that one peice of evidence is nothing, but a million peices is proof:-

zero * a million = proof

I posit that zero * a million = zero.

Math wins.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


If you want to start going through it case by case I guess we could, but the bottom line is this: any "debunking" explanation that requires dozens of human eye-balls plus a radar or two to all be wrong in the same way at the same exact time is much more violative of Occam's Razor than is the slap-you-in-the-face-it's-so-obvious conclusion.

I would disagree about that. There are a LOT of ways to be wrong about believing you have seen an ET craft, there is only one way to be right about it.

Originally posted by Tearman

I would disagree about that. There are a LOT of ways to be wrong about believing you have seen an ET craft, there is only one way to be right about it.

The number of ways to be wrong diminishes quite rapidly when the concept of "independent corroboration" is introduced though, right? Obviously.

(And... "ET"? Maybe, maybe not. I prefer "probably," but... none of that is even the point. The point is: unknown flying machines, that appear to be intelligently controlled, demonstrating capabilities that are far exceed anything WE could build.)

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
You make the OP's point for him. You seem to say that either there is "proof" -- as in a scientific, 3-sigma level of certainty, which any reasonable person admits there is not -- or else any belief is based on blind faith. As if there can be nothing in between?!?! That's simply not a rational position. That's not "skepticism." That's denial.

That makes no sense. What is in between believing in something without proof and asking for proof? How is that a bad place to be? It actually makes the opposite point when you make sense. Hopefully in your next post you will?

The OP is (correctly) telling some of the more hard-line skeptics that it's time for a gut-check, because too many on here improperly apply that label to themselves when what they actually are is a debunker or a denier.

Ok then. I guess that is between him and them then.

Any person reading this who calls himself a "skeptic," yet cannot admit that there are several highly strange, very intriguing UFO cases -- cases highly *suggestive* of ET visitation, even though falling short of proof -- is not a true skeptic.

That is quite the straw man you put up there. Where did any skeptic say there are no interesting cases? Why the hell do you think we are here to begin with? I have not seen that kind of stance from any skeptics let alone all or most of them. Help me out.

That person is actually either ignorant of that most compelling UFO evidence, or is living in some kind of denial-laden fantasy land, one every bit as deserving of ridicule as that which is occupied by, for example, the saucer-callers and ET taxonomists.

I think that person is someone you imagined. Way to go attacking your own imaginary friend.

I want proof. That does not make me a denier. The only other option is to believe without proof. If you can explain how that is anything but blind faith I am all ears.

BTW, the hostile tone of this thread overall is extremely helpful. You guys are winning friends and influencing people to take a harder line against what you are hoping they will come around to see. It is kind of fun to watch though.