Originally posted by Druscilla
The infamous witch trials of Salem and other places consisted primarily of witness testimony.
This is why we require more concrete evidence in real criminal cases that just witness testimony.
Perfect analogy... except for the MANY problems which invalidate it.
The most obvious difference being that the "spectral evidence" admitted by the Salem court in the 1690's -- pre-scientific revolution, practically
speaking -- was the most common type of 'witchcraft' evidence accepted, and it consisted usually of only of a *single person* claiming to be
harassed in his or her dreams by the spirit / spectre of the accused witch. Now, yes, multiple people might claim to have had their own dreams and
independently accuse the same 'witch', but... it's still apples and oranges with respect to the Westall UFO. In Westall we have multiple witnesses
(some independent) to a single event, while Salem mostly presents a case of multiple, separated witnesses to *multiple discrete, temporally- and
geographically-distinct events*... which were admittedly the dreams or visions of individuals.
Westall also has the not insignificant advantage of testimony and newspaper stories from that very day which immediately documented the SINGLE,
Oh, also... some of the Salem witches, IIRC, were also convicted of witchcraft based on things the 'witches' didn't even deny, like wearing
non-standard clothing ... i.e., they did not look puritan enough.
The point is, Salem is not about multiple witnesses to a single event mis-perceiving that same event or colluding to make sure their stories as to
that single event all agreed . But Westall, you seem to be saying, IS something along those lines? You're at least implying that, no? I'm with you
in that this is not "proof" in the strict sense, but it seems as if you think all of those people at that school (and witnesses outside of it) were
simply mistaken, or that they all were/are just lying? If not either of those, then any reasonable person would have to label this evidence somewhat
And does the metaphysical / pre-scientific nature of the beliefs that the Salem judges let infect their rules of evidence bother you? Spectral
evidence was "paranormal" even to the religious folk back then. Yet UFOs do not have to be paranormal at all, because our modern, scientific society
and the objectively-determined properties of our cosmos already perfectly well incorporate the idea of actual, physical probes from other
intelligences having stopped by Earth. Big difference.
There are of course other problems with your analogy, but... who has the time? I wrote only this much just because I'd hate to see a pithy and
apparently clever reply such as yours accepted at face value by the easily misled, when, once it's actually examined with any depth, its status as a
false analogy become obvious.
You can do better than the above post of yours, Druscilla. Try!! Read some of the real UFO evidence and take a break from youtube.... And while
Westall is not the 'proof' the thread title claims, the OP does highlight the important fact that, at some point, as the number of diverse and
independent witnesses increases, the line between "evidence" and "proof" does begin to blur. Westall is not "proof", no, but on the other hand,
to billions of people, neither would be the UFO / White House Lawn scenario, even if captured on camera....