>>> Part 1 of 2...
 
-=> On 02-19-98  09:41, David Bloomberg said to Ivy Iverson,<=-
-=>"About Skeptics are always right...,"<=-
 
Hi, David;
 
I started answering this, got called away when it was ALMOST finished,
and then a power dump of about half a second wiped out the whole works!
(Damned power company... that's the THIRD TIME THIS WEEK!!!)  Now I don't
have time to give you a full answer.  I have GOT to find the money to
replace the batteries in my UPS!   :-<
 
 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> I will agree to a point,
 DB> Wow....
 
We aren't THAT far apart, at least on UFOs!
 
 II> HOWEVER a tru-blu SKEPTIC will refuse to believe what little evidence  
 II>does exist, simply because it COULD have been faked!
 DB> Are you now doing what Jack did, and redefining the term "skeptic"
 DB> according to your own beliefs?
 
From my little "home" dictionary:  Skeptic n. A person who doubts or
questions.
 
 DB> A skeptic _may_ refuse to believe
 DB> evidence if there is other evidence that the evidence was, indeed,
 DB> faked.  That doesn't mean whatever  evidence might be brought forth is
 DB> automatically deemed as fake. 
 
To many, at least in the field of UFOlogy, it sure seems like it!
 
 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,
 DB> Unfortunately, this is true.
...
 
 II>  _IF_ there are
 II> any GENUINE UFO pictures, (stills, movies or videotape), how would/could
 II> they be verified as not faked? 
 DB> It would be difficult.  However, it is at least possible to rule out
 DB> some forms of fakery.  For example, the Gulf Breeze photos were
 DB> identified as fakes (by  MUFON investigators) because the light
 DB> reflections from the supposed spacecraft didn't show up the way they
 DB> should have (this made it obvious that it was a  double-exposure). 
 DB> With current computer programs, it may be possible to  overcome some of
 DB> these problems, and thus make hoaxes easier, but some others  may still
 DB> crop up. 
 
You cannot "double expose" videotape like you can film.  That would have
to be done on editing equipment, such as found in a TV station.
 
 II> ... So the
 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? 
 DB> That depends on the given picture.  Obviously, if you take a picture
 DB> of a  Stealth Bomber, and you think it's a UFO, it's possible for
 DB> others to point out that, no, it's just a Stealth Bomber.  If, however,
 DB> it can't be identified just from the photo, then more investigation
 DB> needs to be done. 
 
After you have examined and anyalized the pictures and interviewed all
known witnesses, if the thing wasn't seen to land, where else would you
investigate?  And how about the reports of "large triangular objects,"
which the Stealth planes are, are flying NOISLESSLY 50 Ft over the
observer's head, at an estimated speed of 20-30 MPH, (which a Stealth
plane CAN NOT DO!!!)?  And these things have been reported by numerous
witnesses along a track of many miles!
 
 II> ...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 
ccept?
 DB> It would constitute a piece of evidence.  Further investigation would
 DB> have to  be done to see how that evidence stands up.  But since nothing
 DB> like this has  ever happened, we're just speaking of an incredible
 DB> hypothetical situation  here.
 
Ok, and how many people have found parts/objects which have fallen out of
or off of airplanes?
 
 II> ...  No, the majority of what _I_ have accepted as evidence is when
 II> 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.
 DB> You accept that as evidence.  I have seen enough information such
 DB> that, while I doubt they are necessarily "spinning yarns," they may be
 DB> unwittingly telling a  false story.
 
True.  Haven't you heard of "screen memories," involving such things as
deer and owls at times/places where they would not be expected to be?
For instance, in an area where none have been seen in years, or at a time
of day/night when they would not be expected to be out and about?
 
 DB> And if all we have is their word
 DB> for what happened, that is  simply not good evidence for such an
 DB> extraordinary claim (especially when all  the inconsistencies in so
 DB> many of these stories turn up). 
 
Inconsistancies, huh?  How about the college professor set up the
following activity during one of his classes: In the middle of the
lecture, someone comes running into the room, yelling, "Help! Help!"
followed a few seconds later by someone else holding a banana.  The
second person points the banana at the first, yells "BANG!" and leaves
as the first person screams and falls to the floor.  The professor then
has the class write an account of what had just happened.  The result
was that out of the whole class, NO TWO REPORTS WERE THE SAME, and OVER
HALF reported that a real gun had been used and that the first person
was shot dead!  So much for your inconsistancies!
 
 >>> Continued to next message...
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
---------------