Concerning _evidence_, RON TAYLOR said to TROY H. CHEEK in UFO:
 RT> It seems that you and I are saying the same thing but from different
 RT> perspectives.  To me, the true believers are the ones with the distorted
 RT> perception of skeptics.
I don't necessarily consider it distorted, as it accurately reflects the 
actions of many who claim to be skeptics.  The true skeptics get a bum rap 
out of it, unfortunately.
 THC>> These "skeptics" I have encountered seem to view their own beliefs as
 THC>> some of worldwide consensus.
 RT> 
 RT> That is my perception of true believers.
And my reason for lumping many so-called skeptics in with the true believers. 
And, because they seem willing to examine evidence and change their opinions, 
I lump many so-called believers in with the skeptics.
   >> Anyone who seeks to prove (or even mention) a claim
   >> contrary to the consensus must present overwhelming proof that is
   >> immediate available and obvious to the "skeptic".  Failure to do so 
means
   >> the claim a claimant are without validity.
 RT> 
 RT> Immediately available and obvious to the _skeptic_?
Yes, otherwise you've failed to present sufficient proof, obviously because 
you didn't have it and were making the whole thing up from the start.
 RT> No, but it must be available to and testable by the existing scientific
 RT> community.  Otherwise, yes... the claims are without validity.
Just because a claim is not immediately testable does not mean it is not 
valid. It simply means it can't be tested at present.  Future testing, when 
finally available, may or may not show the claim's validity.
   >> The "skeptics" do not have to provide any
   >> special evidence to back up their own claims (e.g. "I won't do your
   >> researc for you.")
 RT> 
 RT> I think that is fair...  the believer is the one making the claim.  He
 RT> should be the one backing it up.  Convenient for the skeptic, no doubt,
 RT> but nevertheless, thats the way the world works.
The believer is making a claim when he says that a UFO he saw was an alien 
spacecraft.  However, the skeptic is ALSO making a claim when he says that 
that the UFO was a weather balloon.  Or that USAF officers didn't investigate 
a specific UFO sighting.  Or that nobody, in the centuries-long history of 
telescopes, has ever seen a UFO through one.  If one person is required to 
back up his claim, why isn't the other? 
... "Thief" is so ugly.  I prefer "Creative Acquisition Technician."
--- JetMail 0.99beta22
---------------