JS> The problem here as I see it is, the word evidence as opposed to the
 JS> word proof.  A sighting of a UFO with multiple witnesses is good
 JS> evidence that they saw something most likely physical. ...But it's
 JS> not proof of anything. I think skeptics use the word "proof" to their
 JS> advantage too often. Maybe I should ban the use of the word in UFO.
 JS> (just kidding)
 JS> If 50 people see a UFO land in a field then fly away leaving landing
 JS> marks behind, the landing marks are evidence that a skeptic may
 JS> consider worth further investigation, but it (the marks) is not proof
 JS> to the skeptic that a UFO landed there. I would be inclined to give
 JS> the witnesses the benefit of the doubt. The skeptic may not be so
 JS> generous. (Unless he was one of the witnesses.) ;-)
 I have noticed the same problem.  Although it is good to demand a high 
standard for evidence on such an extraordinary issue, there is a clear 
difference between dismissal of evidence and refutation of evidence through 
arguement.  A great deal of skeptics employ the first option for its 
simplcity.
       Take for example the Tehran sighting I have discussed with some of 
these people.  It has been dismissed by the peopl for the following reasons,
       1) the document is false.  Simply untrue when you can make a FOIA 
request to the DIA for it yourself.
       2) some made the claim that it was 2nd hand evidence fowarded by an 
governmental FTB observer in Iran.
       The event was documented by the Iranian Airforce and fowarded to 
various government agencies in the US by a field operative.  However, 
dismissing the event merely by classifying the operative with his own agenda 
does not fly.  The source of these claim was good old Philip Klass, god and 
holy mentor of the skeptics establishment. 
--- FMail 1.22
---------------