There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

HarteGrays entered the human psyche with the edited description by Betty Hill (originally, they looked like Jimmy Durante until she changed her story.)

I would not put too much emphasis on the J. Durante bit. This came to her in a dream, I believe, and dreams can be very distorted. I would not blame her for not being able to dream with perfect visual precision. The grey emerged during Barney Hill's hypnosis.

ZetaRediculian

Harte No extraterrestrial evidence has even been mentioned in this thread by the ETH supporters. Let me know when you post a pic of a UFO with "We're not from this planet" painted across the side - in alien glyphs, of course. Harte

The "evidence" is the numbers. What comprises these numbers is beyond me. I believe the statement was made that there have never been any cases of misidentification ever. If there were, they were made by someone that was delusional. I must accept "evidence" without question. I am completely baffled.

There is no evidence that people who see ufos are seeing incorrectly.

None. Never once has this happened ever. As in no one has ever seen something else and thought it was an alien spaceship. There is no evidence this has happened. So if I look at the sky tonight and see something that looks alien and think its alien, there is no way it could be something else.

Or maybe he means it has happened repeatedly throughout history but that it does not apply in any way shape or form to any case today that it hasn't happened to yet. we ignore large bodies of knowledge and whole fields of study that we don't know about anyway. Once you completely dispose of this, you still don't have evidence of ET!

edit on 8-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

Hey Zeta, I believe he was trying to say, but didn't type it in, was in the 5-15% of the cases where "mis-identification" has been ruled out already by a litany of experts (there really are a few of these), and NOT every single case ever reported. I

And also, I am seeing that you might have mistaken his use of the word "evidence" for proof? Proof of aliens seems to fit the point you are making much better.

As for "evidence" there is tons of that! Really!

The real and true battle (side show) begins when both sides attempt to define for the other, the quality of that "evidence" ,
when both sides are using COMPLETELY DIFFERENT value systems!..

Having said all of this, the OP does indeed deserve credit for pointing out a real aspect of this phenomenon by showing how groups and classes of people etc, etc, refuse to acknowledge any evidence at all, because THEY have already mentally dessicated all of the evidence into just a simple "No way Bro!"

reply to post by KingIcarus


This is just a lie:

The fact remains - to the best of public knowledge there is not even one piece of evidence available for scientific study and peer review that supports the notion that intelligent extraterrestrial life has visited Earth at any point.

There's mountains of evidence that supports the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.

Here's trace evidence:

www.ufoevidence.org...

Here's abduction cases

www.ufocasebook.com...

Here's Close encounters of the 3rd kind

www.ufoevidence.org...

Alien implants in body of Abductee's.

Dr. Roger Leir and his surgical team have performed 14 surgeries on alleged alien abductees, resulting in the removal of 15 objects suspected of being alien implants. These objects have been scrutinized by some of the most prestigious laboratories in the world: Los Alamos National Labs, Seal Laboratories, the University of Toronto, and the University of California-San Diego. Their findings have been baffling and some comparisons have been made to meteorite samples. In addition, several tests show metallurgical anomalies such as highly magnetic iron, combinations of crystalline materials with common metals, as well as isotopic ratios not of this world. Dr. Leir has traveled to Brazil and performed exhaustive research into the Varginha, Brazil case. He has recently formed a 501(C) 3 non-profit organization for this purpose called A & S Research Inc.

The point here is that there's plenty of evidence to reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. The problem with most UFO skeptics is they can't accept that people can look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion. Many of these so called skeptics are so blinded by their beliefs, they have to keep repeating the lie over and over again that there isn't any evidence. The most they can say is this:

I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION HAS OCCURRED.

THAT'S IT!!

They can't say there isn't any evidence for others to reach a conclusion different than theirs.

This is how you know the difference between a real skeptic and a blind debunker. A blind debunker can't accept that others can intelligently look over the evidence and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.

For instance, I'm a Bigfoot skeptic but I would NEVER say that people who have reached the conclusion that Bigfoot exists don't have any evidence to reach that conclusion. I'm secure in my position and I don't have to turn everyone that has reached a different conclusion into a blind believer.

You also use science in the wrong way. There's a lot of things with less evidence than in ufology that's considered scientific areas of research. For instance:

HAWKING RADIATION
PARALLEL UNIVERSES
EXTRA DIMENSIONS
STRING THEORY
M-THEORY
CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGING FROM MATERIAL BRAIN

I can go on and on. There's plenty evidence to support extraterrestrial visitation. Everyone will not reach this conclusion but it's just silly to say there's no evidence.

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant
what seems to be the explanation, in your estimation?

That would be pure speculation on my part and would depend on the specifics of the individual case.

Why only an individual case? A collection of cases is more than the sum of its parts. In a collection common factors or themes emerge that cannot be discerned in one case. It is these kinds of patterns that lend themselves to powerful analysis.

Because each case is unique and eyewitness testimony, even within the same cases, vary.

Lumping them all together and calling it more than the sum of it's parts is very, very bad analysis.

EnPassant

It has. People have seen grays and Nordics. I have argued that, by and large, these people are seeing correctly. Also, there is evidence that some of these beings are biological creatures and the best explanation, if they are such, is the ETH.

So now we are getting down to something tangible, not a light in the sky or even some silver ball zipping around, but something I can reach out and touch. The problem here is that these Greys and Nordics are as evasive as lights in the sky or ghosts. Once again what makes them aliens other than speculation since all we have to go on is the eyewitness speculation that they are aliens.

EnPassant: Why only an individual case? A collection of cases is more than the sum of its parts. In a collection common factors or themes emerge that cannot be discerned in one case. It is these kinds of patterns that lend themselves to powerful analysis.

Draknoir: Because each case is unique and eyewitness testimony, even within the same cases, vary.

Lumping them all together and calling it more than the sum of it's parts is very, very bad analysis.

'Lumping them all together' is a very crude way to put it. Gathering data from many cases is excellent analysis. For example, many cases of abduction happen outside heavily populated areas, on lonely roads. This fact could not be determined from a single case. It emerges from analysis of many cases. And this information is very useful. For example, it is an argument against people who say abductees are suffering delusions - why would delusions happen on lonely roads and not in crowded cities? This observation is compelling evidence for the objective reality of the phenomena. There are many other arguments that arise from analysing patterns that can only be discerned from many cases.

Xtrozero

EnPassant

It has. People have seen grays and Nordics. I have argued that, by and large, these people are seeing correctly. Also, there is evidence that some of these beings are biological creatures and the best explanation, if they are such, is the ETH.

So now we are getting down to something tangible, not a light in the sky or even some silver ball zipping around, but something I can reach out and touch. The problem here is that these Greys and Nordics are as evasive as lights in the sky or ghosts. Once again what makes them aliens other than speculation since all we have to go on is the eyewitness speculation that they are aliens.

My argument thus far has been that because there are powerful arguments for the veracity of the sightings the same arguments can be made for the impressions of the ufonauts. And if we are to take it that witnesses are, by and large, reporting correctly, we should also consider the evidence that suggests these beings are physical, biological beings. If they are they are likely to be ET.

reply to post by neoholographic


Thank you for your response, but there really is no need to be quite so accusative. I am not 'lying' because I disagree with you.

Whilst I haven't reviewed all of your evidence in detail (and probably aren't qualified to do so, if I'm honest) I would point to Dr. Leir's work as potential evidence of my skepticism. Dr. Roger Leir's scientific/medical background is in podiatry. Whilst this is an entirely legitimate background, I would suggest that it is not ideally suited to identifying the origin of foreign objects found in the body. If there was any real substance to his claims, the material science world would be all over him like a cheap suit.

Leir claims to have possession of around 15 objects that he claims are not terrestrial debris. He also claims that they have been tested by various prominent labs - many of whom have been 'baffled' by their results.

As far as I can see, no rigorously academic lab is willing to put their actual name to any such finding. It might be true that the samples were tested informally using the stated lab's equipment, but the fact no organisation is willing to say their 'extraordinary' findings have passed even internal peer review is hugely telling. None of these findings have been published in relevant journals, even though such evidence would be of huge interest to countless fields of science. It would also be a huge badge of honour to publish such evidence, and a gigantic draw for funding. Leir's samples would also be hugely important and valuable scientific samples.

Being 'baffled' probably amounts to results being inconclusive at best - as one might expect from any tested object that behaves in any way that deviates even slightly from the expected result. If I had gone somewhere with unusually radioactive rocks, for instance, and ended up with a fragment in my foot, this would be 'baffling' in Leir's terms as said object would test more radioactive than you'd expect from my surroundings. Chances are I'd have no idea that the object had entered my foot from an unusually radioactive rock area. I'd probably have no idea that I'd even stood on an unusually radioactive rock.

The kicker with Leir though is that he's unwilling to give up his samples for independent analysis. If he's right, he's sitting on a MAJOR scientific breakthrough - yet, he won't release his samples for forensic examination to a recognised and verifiable lab at, say, Harvard, Cambridge, MIT etc. He's written two books about it, of course.

You say this yourself...

"A blind debunker can't accept that others can intelligently look over the evidence and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred."

I put it to you that a blind believer can't accept that there are many ways for samples (especially when there's several of them) to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis by recognised institutions who would be willing to subject those results to proper peer review and potential publication.

The willingness to simply accept the unverified evidence of a scientist unqualified to draw real conclusions about his physical samples, who is resistant to releasing them to people with the qualifications and equipment necessary to come to an accurate conclusion, is a blind believer. I make no comment on your other evidence, but I suggest that the evidence of Dr. Roger Leir is entirely circumstantial and based on no real science at all.

EnPassant

My argument thus far has been that because there are powerful arguments for the veracity of the sightings the same arguments can be made for the impressions of the ufonauts. And if we are to take it that witnesses are, by and large, reporting correctly, we should also consider the evidence that suggests these beings are physical, biological beings. If they are they are likely to be ET.

I guess that is where we differ. For me when all we have to go on is the perception of a person with nothing else to back it up I find that the weakest form of evidence, and rightly so. There are many famous experimental cases of just how limited our perception really is. Our brains fill in the gaps all the time, and doesn't get it right many times either. A good book to read is The Invisible Gorilla, and it is about just how limited we really are and how our brains fake us out into thinking we are much better.

neoholographic
reply to post by KingIcarus

 

HAWKING RADIATION
PARALLEL UNIVERSES
EXTRA DIMENSIONS
STRING THEORY
M-THEORY
CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGING FROM MATERIAL BRAIN

You misunderstand Theoretical Science.

I'm not familiar with a couple of these, tbh, but Theoretical Science's job is literally to propose 'bridges' in our understanding. You're not supposed to accept them as fact as they have no (or highly tenuous) base in evidence. Your proposal presents tenuous 'evidence' to support a 'fact'.

reply to post by KingIcarus


I believe a podiatrist must have basic surgical skills too. Respected science journals are not likely to publish Leir's findings. They are terrified of anything ufological. I suspect some scientists believe in ufos but are afraid to admit it. This scientific community is very anally retentive.

reply to post by KingIcarus


Again, you prove my point.

If you look at my previous posts where I have linked the abduction cases, close encounters and trace evidence, I don't get any response. This time I threw in Dr. Lier and implants as sort of a red herring.

Debunker's love isolating things like Dr. Lier and basically ignoring everything else when Dr. Lier is mentioned. Again, you prove my point.

Your entire post is the usually diatribe you get from Debunker's when Lier is mentioned but you ignore all of the other evidence that I listed.

Again, this is evidence. You may not agree with my conclusion but to make the absurd claim that there isn't any evidence just irks me.

Why are people so insecure in their own conclusions that they have to act like people who reach a different conclusion are doing so without any evidence?

This is just silly.

Back to Dr. Lier, since he's the main focus of your post which isn't any surprise.

The first think you hear from debunker's is that he's a Podiatrist. So what?? Because he's a Podiatrist he can't oversee or remove implants to be tested? Debunker's must think being a Podiatrist is derogatory because it's always the 1st thing they mention.

If you take the time to read Dr. Lier's book he talks about the testing of these implants. Here's a list of some that were removed.

1) 8-19-95, Patricia. Two implants in left toe, metallic seed,
and metallic T-shape

2) 8-19-95, Paul. Left hand, metallic seed (looks like a
'cantaloup' seed)

3) 1-2-96, Babs (F). Left shoulder, 'elemental solid' ball

4) 5-18-96, Annie. Left leg, elemental solid ball

5) 5-18-96, Doris. Left leg, elemental solid ball

6) 5-18-96, Don. Left jaw, metallic triangle

7) 1-12-97, Lyla. Left heel, glass sliver (earthly origin, discarded)

8) 8-17-98, Pablo. Left hand, metallic seed (filmed by NBC and
aired in February 1999)

9) 2-5-2000, Tim Cullen. Left wrist, metallic seed (case
presented at the Laughlin UFO Congress of March 2000 with the
presence of Tim Cullen. Reported in the MUFON UFO Journal of May
2000, and at the Mufon Symposium of July 2000. (See the
Proceedings of the symposium, available at MUFON).

10) 10-29-2001, stewardess for a major airline. Small lump in
the right arm, the size of a pea (case presented at the Laughlin
UFO Congress, March 2002. Report in the British UFO Magazine of
May 2002. Will be presented at the Leeds International UFO
Conference, 20-22 September 2002).

This is evidence. You may draw a different conclusion about the EVIDENCE but you can't make the absurd statement that there's no evidence.

This again is just one piece but I listed this because I knew this is what you would focus on while ignoring the other evidence that was listed. I'm convinced most debunker's never even look at the evidence. They dismiss most of it without looking at it and they repeat talking points.

The important aspect to me about Dr. Lier's work is that these implants are being removed from people after an Alien Abduction. Again, these are eyewitness and their credibility and the credibility of there story can be weighed. It's something we do all the time.

Here's a video of Lier talking about removing the implants, showing the implant being removed, showing where the tests took place and the results of the tests. There's also Abductees who talk about their encounter.

Again, this is evidence. Skeptics need to learn the difference between evidence and proof. People look over the available EVIDENCE and they can come to a conclusion as to what's most likely vs. what's less likely.

For instance, people have looked at the EVIDENCE and concluded that parallel universes exist or some sort of multiverse exists but they don't have any PROOF. They have never seen a parallel universe.

In the case of Ufology you have mountains of evidence. Photos, videos, abduction cases, close encounters, radar cases, trace evidence and more that you can use to come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. To say there's no EVIDENCE is just silly.

Here's the video but I doubt the Debunker will even look at it.

reply to post by alienreality

Hello Mr Reality,

Hey Zeta, I believe he was trying to say, but didn't type it in, was in the 5-15% of the cases where "mis-identification" has been ruled out already by a litany of experts (there really are a few of these), and NOT every single case ever reported.

And also, I am seeing that you might have mistaken his use of the word "evidence" for proof? Proof of aliens seems to fit the point you are making much better.

As for "evidence" there is tons of that! Really!

I am actually quite confused with what a couple of posters here are saying as I believe I am being quite reasonable with my position. For instance, I am not quite sure how its possible to rule out "mis-idenfication" of something that remains "unknown". I think it might be more reasonable to say that all "current" known things have been ruled or don't match what is being reported. My opinion is that there is so much we do not yet understand about how we perceive and how our minds work. I truly believe that understanding this aspect will really help with understanding this and other related phenomenon. I am advising caution before leaping into thinking that everything has been ruled out. I even accept the possibility that aliens could turn up but it is impossible to put any type of meaningful number like "probability" with this "evidence". There is evidence but it is evidence of something unknown. I have also stated that it is perfectly fine to believe that this evidence is due to aliens. It is also perfectly fine to explore the subject in any way you think is appropriate. I like the psycho-social aspect but apparently that makes me an illogical pseudo-skeptic? It is really mind boggling to me.

The real and true battle (side show) begins when both sides attempt to define for the other, the quality of that "evidence" ,
when both sides are using COMPLETELY DIFFERENT value systems!..

What I am seeing is not "quality of evidence" issue but just a blatant misunderstanding what evidence is. Also just plain confusion on some basic words like "IDENTIFY" and "DESCRIBE" and "DELUSION" and "HALLUCINATION" really doesn't help. Saying that someone that "misidentifies" something makes them "delusional" is just plain ignorant. It is IMPOSSIBLE to carry on any productive meaningful conversation in this case. When I Say clearly "g-loc has nothing to do with UFO sightings" repeatedly but have that misinterpreted so blatantly, grossly and utterly as me saying "g-loc is responsible for all, some or even ANY sighting" over and over even after I say over and over that it doesn't is so unbelievable that I am beginning to think there is actually something going on at a real fundamental cognitive level with a few posters. I am not kidding.

Having said all of this, the OP does indeed deserve credit for pointing out a real aspect of this phenomenon by showing how groups and classes of people etc, etc, refuse to acknowledge any evidence at all, because THEY have already mentally dessicated all of the evidence into just a simple "No way Bro!"

I disagree. I see this MORE on the "believer" side. And it is so much more pronounced. I cant even speculate or even mention that even one case might be due to a "hallucination". I cant even begin a discussion about it or even mention it in the most innocuous way possible without going through the most exhausting discussion and never ending bombardment of straw man arguments and endlessly fending of accusations of being a psedo-skeptic.

Just watch as Neo blasts away at me for being an illogical pseudo skeptic that makes absolutely no sense only to repeat exactly what I said one or two posts later. its insane.

KingIcarus

neoholographic
reply to post by KingIcarus

 

HAWKING RADIATION
PARALLEL UNIVERSES
EXTRA DIMENSIONS
STRING THEORY
M-THEORY
CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGING FROM MATERIAL BRAIN

You misunderstand Theoretical Science.

I'm not familiar with a couple of these, tbh, but Theoretical Science's job is literally to propose 'bridges' in our understanding. You're not supposed to accept them as fact as they have no (or highly tenuous) base in evidence. Your proposal presents tenuous 'evidence' to support a 'fact'.

Again, you don't understand science. In many cases and not just Theoretical Physics, scientist weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

The blind debunker can't accept that people looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

EnPassant
I have not said anywhere that anyone is delusional. I think you have lost the drift of my argument.

here is what you said

...saying witnesses are not seeing what is there - if there is anything there. That is essentially an argument that they are deluded.

You are clearly saying that people see something that is not there are deluded or is that only when someone else says that? The link you referenced was about peoples hallucinations and g-loc which means by your definition they are deluded. What right do you have to say someone is deluded when by very definition of the word, they are not. People experiencing g-loc are not delusional.

(its a goose-gander thing)

neoholographic


Debunker's love isolating things like Dr. Lier and basically ignoring everything else when Dr. Lier is mentioned. Again, you prove my point.

Blow-hard believers love using unqualified, fringe sources like the esteemed foot doctor and then loudly cry "foul!" when the not as blind as they would like debunkers directly respond.

Logic and reason would indicate that your ranting is no substitute for logic and reason.

ZetaRediculian

EnPassant
I have not said anywhere that anyone is delusional. I think you have lost the drift of my argument.

here is what you said

...saying witnesses are not seeing what is there - if there is anything there. That is essentially an argument that they are deluded.

You are clearly saying that people see something that is not there are deluded or is that only when someone else says that? The link you referenced was about peoples hallucinations and g-loc which means by your definition they are deluded. What right do you have to say someone is deluded when by very definition of the word, they are not. People experiencing g-loc are not delusional.

(its a goose-gander thing)

edit on 8-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

No. I am saying that debunkers say witnesses are not seeing what is there or are accused of seeing something that is not there. It is the debunkers who are saying they are deluded.

reply to post by KingIcarus

Thank you for your response, but there really is no need to be quite so accusative. I am not 'lying' because I disagree with you.

No worries. Just as a heads up, he will argue in circles until he himself repeatedly until he ends up essentially saying the same thing you do. Just take note of his repeated phraseology like "you keep proving my point' and "that makes no sense" and whatever link you provide to support your position will "support everything he says". I have seen happen at least 10 or 15 times now. All you have to do is disagree with something he says and you will have a guaranteed rollercoaster ride of utter confusion, god speed

reply to post by EnPassant

No. I am saying that debunkers say witnesses are not seeing what is there or are accused of seeing something that is not there. It is the debunkers who are saying they are deluded.

really? Quote one. Your ability to lump things into a group is notable. Again, you are the ONLY one using this term. Not only are you blatantly using it incorrectly, no one is saying this except you.

neoholographic

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2It's also very natural to switch from "scene" to "scene" while dreaming. Doesn't mean the dreamer is a liar or delusional... that's just how they are experiencing it.

If scene switching was so prevalent why is the sequence always the same first the examination then dialogue with the aliens then return never the other way around. Why don't they talk with the aliens first then have the examination?

Or so Ms. Randles asserts.
Beware of the "always".

Arguments that persistently hinge on accusations of delusion are suspect. Dawkins, when presented with evidence of personal knowledge of God can only go "You're deluded. Deluded deluded deluded. Deluded. Deluded deluded deluded." It is a last card defense. I have studied the evidence and I am convinced there is something in it. If people are so easily influenced by the media why are people not imagining they are encountering Godzilla, vampires, werewolves, or any of the strange creatures from the Star Trek menagerie? The mind is not as fickle or as at the mercy of media influence as is being suggested. If it was, people would be imagining they met Spock on a UFO and were attacked by a werewolf on their way to the supermarket. Normal people's minds don't disintegrate into phantasmagoria in the way that is being argued. Normally people are able to report what they see. Our justice system, in terms of witness testimony, is based on this fact.

Back in the day when people reported ufos they were laughed at and the accusations of delusion came. But the ufos did not go away. Now the same pattern is being repeated with abductions.

edit on 6-3-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Great points and this is the BIG LIE that comes from skeptics. In this area they try to belittle eyewitness testimony as meaningless and it's just silly. Eyewitness testimony is very important and some testimony is much stronger than others.

When a Police Officer comes onto the scene of an accident, he talks to EYEWITNESSES.

When they have a police sketch done or they do a line up, the Police are depending on EYEWITNESSES.

I just saw a true crime case where Police were at a dead end and then they found an EYEWITNESS who described a man she bumped into that seemed strange and this EYEWITNESS talk to a sketch artist, the sketch was put on TV and it lead to the criminals capture.

In Court, Juries listen to EYEWITNESSES and they weigh the credibility of the witness. This is why Defense Attorney's and Prosecutors spend so much time trying to damage the credibility of the WITNESS just like skeptics tried to damage the credibility of Edgar Mitchell when he all of a sudden became a senile old man after he talked about U.F.O.'s and Aliens.

So Eyewitness accounts are very important and some accounts are stronger than others. This is also why the skeptic is simply burying their heads in the sand and lying in this area. We know that eyewitness accounts are important. We also know that all eyewitness accounts aren't monolithic. Some will be very strong and some will be very weak.

So all eyewitness accounts in these areas can't just be the case of delusions and people who are mistaken. This says more about the belief of the skeptic than the actual eyewitness accounts. Anybody using reason and logic knows that you can't throw every eyewitness account into a monolithic box because you want to bury your head in the sand because of your belief.

Here's a list of Abduction Cases

www.ufocasebook.com...

These are just a small portion of the cases and I would say some of these cases will be weak and some will be very strong. You have to also look at the credibility of the witness. Has there story changed over the years? Have they taken a polygraph? How do the people around them describe them?

At the end of the day, some of these people saw and experienced exactly what they said they saw and experienced. Every EYEWITNESS isn't delusional or mistaken. That's just a BIG LIE.

The same goes for these Close Encounters of the 3rd kind.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Again, basic common sense tells us that all of these EYEWITNESS accounts aren't faulty.

I remember a case a few years ago where people robbed a Bank and they were wearing masks but they made the mistake of not wearing gloves. One of the EYEWITNESSES saw a tattoo on one of the robbers hand and described it to the Police which eventually lead to his capture.

Anyone being honest and really seeking the truth knows this. Eyewitness accounts are very important because all eyewitness accounts aren't the same. When Police questioned the people in the Bank, I'm sure some eyewitnesses didn't even see the tattoo on his hand but the Police didn't just ask one eyewitness what they saw, they asked them all.

You have to look at the all the abduction cases, close encounters and trace evidence cases because some eyewitness accounts will be very strong and some will be weak. The skeptic tries to throw all eyewitness accounts when it comes to these areas into a monolithic box and this makes ZERO sense.

edit on 6-3-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

I tend to agree with you. I mean, isn't there such a thing as CORROBORATING evidence, in which more than one eyewitness sees virtually the same thing? Don't we typically believe there is more truth involved when several eyewitnesses see the approximately the same thing? One of the reason I am convinced that Roswell involved a crash of 'alien'--define that as extraterrestial, extradimensional, however you like--beings is the amount of corroborating evidence involved in the case. Simply overwhelming, IMHO.