I only have a moment but took a peek and had to make an obvious point. Every time someone says there is no evidence for UFOs [which is just plain silly] or even ETs, they are wrong. That is blatantly false. There are reams of evidence for both, but no scientific evidence.
That's the only kind anyone cares about, and rightfully so.
There are many forms of evidence. For example, there are forms of evidence allowed in a court of law; such as when police officers testify to assist in a conviction and removing someone's Contitutional rights.
Apples and oranges. People testifying in court are legally obliged to tell the truth, and should it come out that they are lying, they will be prosecuted. And the credibility of each witness is weighed by the judge and/or jurors, so it's not as if anyone is compelled to believe them simply because they're on the stand.
Anecdotal evidence is worthless in this context.
When we ask for scientific evidence for ET, by most standards, we are asking for proof, not evidence. How much weight do we give to multiple policemen who chased an object that was widely reported at the time in the form of 911 calls? Well, proof of it's origins or nature, or even existence, it is not.
For one, no one is asking for proof of ET, they're simply asking for verifiable evidence. Testimony isn't going to cut it, because we know full well that people at worst will make shit up to get on TV, and at best have mistaken this "object" for something entirely prosaic.
There is no scientific evidence. But I have never heard of one similar report that involved Santa or unicorns either.
But you
have heard of similar reports that involved
Bigfoot and
La Chupacabra.
Is anyone here suggesting that eyewitness testimony should not be allowed in a court of law?
Straw man.
Is it being argued that police testimony in a court of law should be treated like unicorn sightings and belief in santa?
Straw man again. I've already explained to you why testimony in a court of law and public testimony are not comparable. But to answer your ridiculous question, it would depend on what the police are testifying to. If they're saying they chased a flying saucer, then yes, they should be viewed skeptically, and their credibility should be called into question.
Let's flip the question: Should the officer's testimony simply be accepted without question?
At best, allusions to santa and the like are disengenuous and misinformed. At worst, they rise to the level of crackpottery. Not one cop or pilot has ever genuinely claimed an encounter with Santa.
Interesting that you focus on Santa, while ignoring the fact that other mythical creatures have been reported by so-called "credible people."
Perhaps it is being suggested that all of the cops and 911 operators were engaged in a conspiracy?
No one has suggested that, to my knowledge. But why would the 911 operators have to be in on it? This could be a hoax without their aid. And why is that so crazy to you? Aren't you one of the few crackpots who claim the government is hiding their knowledge of UFOs? So then you think the idea of a few cops getting together for a hoax is crazier than several
generations of government officials and operatives, across numerous presidencies and departments, concocting a cover-up?
That's lunacy, my crackpot friend.
