Originally posted by BMP2CPM
My point is that before you say there is no evidence, go back to the original investigations. Go back to the mood of country when unidentified flying
objects were occurring at record pace. A time when the press took it seriously. A time when people were more open minded. A time
when people weren't called names if they saw a UFO. A time when man was a little more humble and perhaps more open-minded at
the thought we may not be as advanced as we think. Also a time when we were exploding lot's of atomic weapons out in the open that were sure to get
the attention of anyone watching.
Read this book first, then tell us there is no evidence. Friedman read this book and then became a believer. This book opened his eyes.
I've highlighted your use of "open minded" twice.
Anyone familiar with the mythology associated with the UFOlogy circus would be familiar with the usage of buzz words which serve as tell-tale flags in
One of these buzz words is "TRUTH".
Truth should be self evident and need not be promoted extraneously to the point that extra assurance needs be proclaimed that materials presented are
indeed "True", "Truth", etc, in nature.
If anything, procalations of "Truth", either outright, or eg; "based on a true story ... " are indicative of either outright falsehood, or such
liberal interpretation and embroidery of the basis that it may as well be a work of fiction in its entirety.
Just as "Truth" is a buzzword flag for anything containing it consisting of otherwise, "Open-minded" also denotes a requirement for suspension of
disbelief to such extent that anyone in such a state is receptive to an outright fiction, or lie. If someone is required to suspend the functioning
of their facilities for critical analysis and logical inquiry, certainly there's shenanigans afoot.
Requiring an "open mind" is thus another way of requiring someone to believe a lie.
For legitimacy, and credibility, examination of any subject should invite and welcome every sense of facility for critical interrogation and
prejudicial inquisition. In essence, if it survives a crash test, makes it through the evening meeting the parents, whatever it is might just be
worthy of note.
As far as "NO" evidence, I don't think any is claiming "NO" evidence.
Insufficient evidence, certainly.
UFOs exist. The Phenomenon is indeed a phenomenon. Most on any side of the argument can agree on that.
What UFOs are, however, is another question entirely.
Thus far, as stated before, there's insufficient evidence to make any reasonable claims.
Until such time as there is reasonable unambiguous data, UFOs remain Unkown.