I said...
 >  JS> I stress these points I have presented in the name of UFOlogy.
 >  JS> Too much "I believe" deters from legitimate research, because there
 >  JS> just aren't any aliens being found behind the bush. Too many people
 >  JS> are associating UFOs with alien visitors/invaders.
 >  JS> A healthy dose of reality is needed from time to time, and that too
 >  JS> is part of my job, so don't misunderstand my motives. ;-)
 >  JS> Now that the more "aggressive" skeptics have retreated to the
 >  JS> background to either re-group or sulk (I don't care which), our
 >  JS> remaining "staff" of skeptic contributors are called upon to keep the
 >  JS> rest of us in touch with reality. I call upon all UFO researchers,
 >  JS> UFOlogists, and investigators to continue their activities, but with
 >  JS> skeptism uppermost in their minds. My advice is best for our image,
 >  JS> believe me.
You replied...
 >  A word or two on this important point your raised.  It is beyond
 > doubt that UFOs exist....and 90% of all U.F.O.s (a figure somwhere
 > in the correct ballpark) are deemed explain by natural phenomena.
 > So what counts as evidence for the ets hypothesis?   Would not you
 > sighting be a small piece of evidence since this explanation seems
 > to explain all the facts.  Same as the sighting over Tehran and many
 > others.   With regards to the Skeptics.... ..they claim to represent
 > the name but a great deal of them suffer from the same ignorance as
 > the worst of the ufo buffs.  They come in with a set viewpoint from
 > the beginning, and believe error ridden claims from the 'experts'
 > like some in ufo field take to Lazar. The problems occur on both
 > sides but at least here people can admit a problem exists.
Skeptics have every right to present their views. Anyone can then
question them as they question those of us who speculate a lot.
My sighting is evidence that influences me more than it does others.
It falls in the catagory of, "You would have had to been there and
seen for yourself!" Unlike photographs which can be faked, a real
time sighting is only marginally questionable. A skeptic may point
out the obvious alternative objects the sighting could have been of,
but if the experiencer denies these alternatives, the argument ends
right there.
It doesn't prove the object was an alien craft, but it does become
one of the strong points of evidence that leave questions that are
unanswerable.
js
--- FMail 1.22
---------------