->  ->     Obviously Steve you know little of law.  Eyewitness is hearsay?
->  SK> Yep.
->     That definition is still wrong.
Nope.
This ain't a pissin' contest, son. But it were I'd STILL win.
Fact's are facts. Hearsay IS admissible...but it IS hearsay...and
eyewitness accounts ARE hearsay. PERIOD! Hearsay MUST be accompanied by
factual and substantive EVIDENCE to be held as fact.
->  SK> When someone tells you they saw a UFO they are doing JUST THAT! You
->  SK> are just the "I" in your example.
->  SK> And hearsay IS admissible, but it has to be supported by evidence.
->  ->  You certainly have it backwards.
->  SK> Nope. Eye witnesses's tend to be wrong, and sometimes even 
-> liars. The SK>  need  for  PHYSICAL  EVIDENCE is  required. SK> Thus, 
-> UFO eyewitness accounts are not proof. If they were then alien  SK> 
-> visitations would be proven. That isn't the case. WHY? Because there  
-> SK> is no valid and substantiated physical evidence to support that  
-> SK> eyewitness testimony.
-> First Steve, I corrected you on legalities concerning courts.
Not at all.
->   Ufology  is not a criminal issue. 
 Who said it was, dillweed?
 
 I just said something and you have to get a bitch act goin'. I was
talking about proofs and LOGIC. I made an aside about law...woo woo.
Thing is, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and then (hmmm, let's
see) WRONG!
 
-> It is not a 
-> crime to claim to have seen  a UFO,  nor is the  court system  going 
-> to  prosecute such  a person,  nor can  a court substantiate a claim, 
-> as you say without "physical  evidence". 
 Who cares? Your ignorance is astounding.
 
->     I do not see the point of trying to twist  legal definitions  
-> around to UFology, it resolves nothing, because these definitions are 
-> applicable to criminal trials.  But as you wish.
YOU are the one that had to take a slight aside as a personal affront!
All I said was that eyewitness testimony was but hearsay. BIG FRIGGIN'
DEAL! I'm not disallowing what people believe, even if I don't believe
it!
YOU made the "legal issue" not I. YOU extended it, because you are
stubborn and ignorant of the law AND logic.
-> So  therefore  Steve  if  all eyewitnesses  are hearsay,  I guess  we 
-> would certainly have very few trials.......  This case is closed.
The case is closed that you are an idiot.
Look in a thing with pieces of paper in it...they are called books,
often. 
I know the facts, ma'am, and YOU are in error. You're an idiot. Devoid of
knowledge AND humor.
              
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------