>>> Part 1 of 2...
 -=> Quoting Fred Austin to Paul Andinach <=-
 FA> Ok,  fair  enough  and  what  qualifies   as  evidence   in  your
 FA> terms,video tape can be hoaxed, therefore all form of media is out  of
 FA> the question.
   That's a very sweeping statement. Certainly no media can be taken at face 
value, but by close examination it should be possible to discard the 
demonstrably false material.
   If it isn't all demonstrably false, it should be possible to end up with a 
small collection of material which appears to have something to it.
   Which is not the same thing as saying it's true, of course.
 FA> No one is believable.
   I personally choose not to accept people's say-so alone as evidence 
because I know that I don't have the experience and expertise to tell the 
difference between truth, mistake, outright lies, etc.
   I know I can't rely on all of it. I know I can't be sure which I can rely 
on and which I can't. To be safe, then, I try not to rely on any of it.
 FA>                    If we were to propose that such  an event  did take
 FA> place, in the physical world, at random, at  a time  of no  particular
 FA> choosing, what makes you think evidence would be left
   It is entirely conceivable that it could be happening without there being 
any evidence. But in an issue as important as this, surely it is better to 
reserve judgment than to say "I've seen no evidence, but I'll believe it 
anyway".
 FA> There  are  no  answers  here.   Just   opinions  and   theories.
 FA> Concerning the alien abduction phenomenon all there is is conjecture.
   And that is exactly why unmistakable evidence is so important. In a 
society built on science, it's very dangerous to support part of your life 
with mere conjecture.
 FA> this should  raise interest,  even from skeptics.....
   How do you define "interest"? There are skeptical people who are 
interested in the UFO phenomenon; whatever it is, we can learn a lot from it. 
They just don't happen to be convinced by the ET hypothesis.
 PA> Having ten thousand fools instead of only ten fools, doesn't make
 PA> any of the individual fools any less foolish. 
 FA> An  old  proverb,  just  remember  something,  what makes  you any
 FA> different than the rest of the fools in this great society....
   I am a human being, and therefore fallible.
   I like to think that I realise this and try to adjust for it, but that 
could being fallibility as well.
   In short - I don't know.
 FA> What if there are rare instances, and of course no
 FA> hard proof.
 PA> Then they will have occurred, but will be recorded in history as
 PA> not proved due to lack of sufficient evidence. 
 FA> You miss the point Paul.
   Do I? I am sorry. What is the point, then?
 FA> Yes relevant.  Secondly you miss human behavior.
   I spoke of a "true" skeptic, one not susceptible to human failings.
   Perhaps I was wrong to do so, since no such skeptic really exists; but it 
is the ideal we supposedly strive for.
 FA>                                       You dismiss all on the basis of
 FA> a  few hoaxes, you create an air of all are non credible, all are
 FA> mistaken, all are your proverbial ten thousand fools.
   Do you mean "you" as in Paul Andinach, or "you" as a general address to 
all skeptics everywhere?
   I do not dismiss. I simply do not accept the idea that I should believe 
something without sufficient evidence. To me, they aren't credible, and 
surely it's my right to decide that for myself?
   It is possible to be mistaken without being a fool. It's a fact of life. 
Nobody can get everything right every time.
 FA> By human  behavior we  are "all" skeptics.
   That's an interesting claim. What does it mean?
 FA> Do  you  honestly believe everyone who has ever come forth 
 FA> and made  any claim  is so weak minded.
   No.
 FA> Do you  honestly believe, that everyone  who may  have seen something 
as
 FA> seen a cloud,flock of geese, a meteor.
   No.
 FA> Now it  is you being the one of 10,000.  The odds are long  time passed.
   How do you know?
 FA> The  evidence is most likely not forthcoming
 FA> from "official" offices.
   Do you have any evidence of this?
   Why do you say it is "most likely"?
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------