-=> Quoting Paul Andinach to Fred Austin <=-
 >>> Part 1 of 2...
 
 -=> Quoting Fred Austin to Paul Andinach <=-
    Hi Paul,
 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.
 PA> That's a very sweeping statement. Certainly no media can be taken
 PA> at face value, but by close examination it should be possible to
 PA> discard the demonstrably false material. If it isn't all
 PA> demonstrably false, it should be possible to end up with a small
 PA> collection of material which appears to have something to it. Which
 PA> is not the same thing as saying it's true, of course.
Not everything is taken at face value, at least not  by myself.   What 
seems to be here is a different opinion from the skeptic viewpoint.
I say sweeping statements because  logically there  is no  medium that 
would  satisfy  the  skeptical  demand.  And  as you  end you're  last 
sentence with, "not saying it is true", is almost the same point.   We 
have only two ways to go, there is no middle  ground,it's either  true 
or false.  Either photos, tape etc are what they are or not.  
 FA> No one is believable.
 PA>  I  personally  choose  not to  accept people's  say-so alone  as 
evidence
 PA> because I know that I don't have the experience and expertise  to 
tell
 PA> the difference between truth, mistake, outright lies, etc. I know I
 PA> can't rely on all of it. I know I can't be sure which I can rely on
 PA> and which I can't. To be safe, then, I try not to rely on any of it. 
    Well unfortunately that is pretty much what we have to  go on.   We 
either give weight or  don't.  Same  as believing  other issues,  from 
whoever.  You either find the person reasonably sane  or totally  full 
of it.  In person of course, we all use our intuition and wits, which 
would make it an easier job of telling who is full of it....
 PA> It is entirely conceivable that it could be happening without there
 PA> being any evidence. But in an issue as important as this, surely it is
 PA> better to reserve judgment than to say "I've seen no evidence, but
 PA> I'll believe it anyway". 
    Fair enough, it is an important issue, that  is why,  I personally 
dislike hoaxes, and am dismayed as to the lengths that people will  go 
to create.  But are they all hoaxes, and poor judgment.   We seem  to 
be sitting on something.  Since so many come forward we are left  with 
this puzzle. True or false. Its just math and odds now...
 FA> There  are  no  answers  here.   Just   opinions  and   theories.
 FA> Concerning the alien abduction phenomenon all there is is conjecture.
 PA> And that is exactly why unmistakable evidence is so important. In a
 PA> society built on science, it's very dangerous to support part of your
 PA> life with mere conjecture. 
    Our society is built on many things not just science, but that  is 
another topic.  What I am more concerned with is the what if this is a 
possible reality.  Can we always ignore this.  What bothers me  is the 
amount of    people    coming   forth.     Well,   these    are   hard 
questions,basically if this is not a reality, then what are we dealing 
with....
 PA> How do you define "interest"? There are skeptical people who are
 PA> interested in the UFO phenomenon; whatever it is, we can learn a lot
 PA> from it.
    
    In truth we have learned nothing,  unless you  wish to  believe in 
some of the more exotic claims.  We have learned more from Sci-fi tv.
 PA> I spoke of a "true" skeptic, one not susceptible to human failings.
 PA> Perhaps I was wrong to do so, since no such skeptic really exists;
PA> 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.
 PA> Do you mean "you" as in Paul Andinach, or "you" as a general
 PA> address to all skeptics everywhere? 
 PA> I do not dismiss. I simply do not accept the idea that I should
 PA> believe something without sufficient evidence. To me, they aren't
 PA> credible, and surely it's my right to decide that for myself? It is
 PA> possible to be mistaken without being a fool. It's a fact of life.
 PA> Nobody can get everything right every time. 
    Hmm, a bit of both.  You do not need to  believe. If  you wish  to 
dismiss  everything,  I  have  no  problem  with  that.   But  I  have 
noticed,that sometimes the skeptical viewpoint exceeds the simple I do 
not bite on that.  Sometimes it seems that references are  thrown out, 
that have just about as much logic and credibility as the UFO claim.
Is that reasonable.  No.  It is just called posturing.
FA> By human  behavior we  are "all" skeptics.
 PA> That's an interesting claim. What does it mean?
    I'll make it simple, would you like to buy  some beach  front land 
in the Cayman Islands, I'll sell you some .35 cents a sq. ft.
 FA> Do  you  honestly believe everyone who has ever come forth 
 FA> and made  any claim  is so weak minded.
 FA> Do you  honestly believe, that everyone  who may  have seen something 
as
 FA> seen a cloud,flock of geese, a meteor.
 PA> No.
    Well, you stand in the middle then Paul, you are not as extreme as 
you let on...
 FA> The  evidence is most likely not forthcoming
 FA> from "official" offices.
 PA> Do you have any evidence of this?
 PA> Why do you say it is "most likely"?
 
     Being as astute as you are you can figure out why.  And I am  not 
trying to create an air of mystery.  It is a common enough theory, and 
I would say quite reasonable.
Happy Trails,
Fred.
 Internet: Fred.Austin@juxta.mn.pubnix.net   
           Fred.Austin@sphinx.hughestech.com 
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------