II> ... Patch is telling me as I type this that he said, "Do not take on
 II> faith, anything without a solid basis of evidence."
 DB> Wow.  That would pretty much decimate ufology!
 II> So the question begs, "What is `solid evidence?'"
 DB> Something that ufology is missing.
 II>  
 II> I will agree to a point,
Wow....
 II> HOWEVER a tru-blu SKEPTIC will refuse to believe what little evidence  
II>does exist, simply because it COULD have been faked!
Are you now doing what Jack did, and redefining the term "skeptic" according 
to your own beliefs?  A skeptic _may_ refuse to believe evidence if there is 
other evidence that the evidence was, indeed, faked.  That doesn't mean 
whatever evidence might be brought forth is automatically deemed as fake.
 II> Yes, pictures have been faked for years, and can now be faked in minutes
 II> using a computer, so pictures by themselves are automatically suspect,
Unfortunately, this is true.  
 II> EVEN THOUGHT THERE _MAY_ BE SOME GENUINE UFO PHOTOGRAPHS! 
There are LOTS of genuine UFO photos -- as long as you remember that UFO = 
UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object.  The problem is when people start putting forth 
photos of supposed alien spacecraft as real, such as Ed Walters did in Gulf 
Breeze.
 II>  _IF_ there are
 II> any GENUINE UFO pictures, (stills, movies or videotape), how would/could
 II> they be verified as not faked? 
It would be difficult.  However, it is at least possible to rule out some 
forms of fakery.  For example, the Gulf Breeze photos were identified as 
fakes (by MUFON investigators) because the light reflections from the 
supposed spacecraft didn't show up the way they should have (this made it 
obvious that it was a double-exposure).  With current computer programs, it 
may be possible to overcome some of these problems, and thus make hoaxes 
easier, but some others may still crop up.
 II> Then _IF_ they are genuine, how can we
 II> tell if they are something which IS explainable as natural and native to
 II> this planet OR verify it as "something else from somewhere else"?  So 
he
 II> question now becomes, _IF_ a picture, (still or moving), can be 
alidated
 II> as genuine, how is anyone going to determine if the object(s) originate 
on
 II> Earth or have another source? 
That depends on the given picture.  Obviously, if you take a picture of a 
Stealth Bomber, and you think it's a UFO, it's possible for others to point 
out that, no, it's just a Stealth Bomber.  If, however, it can't be 
identified just from the photo, then more investigation needs to be done.
 II> So, if you can't come up with a physical
 II> object which is VERIFYABLY not of Earth origin, (and since there are 
nly
 II> so many elements - all available on this planet, BTW), the final 
question,
 II> I guess, is, "WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE?"  If I were to witness a UFO 
50
 II> feet over my head, and I saw it drop some small object, which turned out
 II> to be made of, say, a titanium and aluminum alloy, and it had "strange
 II> markings" on it, would THAT constitute "evidence" which you would 
cept?
It would constitute a piece of evidence.  Further investigation would have to 
be done to see how that evidence stands up.  But since nothing like this has 
ever happened, we're just speaking of an incredible hypothetical situation 
here.
 II> Probably not, because I _COULD_ have gone to a machine shop and had such 
a
 II> piece made.  No, the majority of what _I_ have accepted as evidence is
 II> when personal friends, people who are NOT prone to spinning yarns, and 
who
 II> do NOT discuss their experiences with strangers for fear of ridicule,
 II> describe to me, in private, stories of their abductions and other ET/UFO
 II> experiences.
You accept that as evidence.  I have seen enough information such that, while 
I doubt they are necessarily "spinning yarns," they may be unwittingly 
telling a false story.  And if all we have is their word for what happened, 
that is simply not good evidence for such an extraordinary claim (especially 
when all the inconsistencies in so many of these stories turn up).
 II>  Add to that, the statements of EX-military people who
 II> _claim_ to have been involved with such matters on a highly-classified
 II> military level, who state that they believe that this information should
 II> be made public. 
You highlighted the proper word -- "claim."  When they can provide good 
evidence to back those claims, then we'll have something.  Unfortunately, 
most of them are more interested in selling books than providing good 
evidence. 
cont...
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------