Claims are not evidence for themselves. That's a simple, inescapable fact, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise.
Just more of your semantics to deny that perception and memory provide evidence. In fact without perception and memory you wouldn't know anything at all ... that is the true "inescapable fact".
It may be semantics, but it's a fact. "Perception and memory" cannot be shared among individuals. That's why they're generally useless as evidence. Without evidence that others can independently verify, you have no way of knowing for sure that even your own memories are correct. That's the inescapable fact that you persistently ignore.
From the standpoint of a third party, exactly how are they different? Some people may think they know that, but those people might be mistaken, delusional, or simply lying. Lacking evidence, there's no way to know for sure.
I'll grant you the above with the following exception. People might also be telling you a truth that is accurate enough to deduce that alien craft are real and have visited Earth.
As I said, lacking evidence, there's no way to know for sure.
Considering these "space alien" claims have been part of the common folklore for well over half a century without a single shred of actual, verifiable physical evidence, that's a pretty good indicator that the chances of them being real are very slim indeed.
Such investigations are not the same as your portrayals which equate them to being no different than looking for unicorns or fairies.
The results of the investigations have been every bit as conclusive as the hunt for unicorns and fairies, so they're alike in that regard at least.
Besides, the training and experience of military aircraft pilots is serious. Unless all the hype I've seen about it is bogus, it requires a lot of testing both physically and psychologically.
This is irrelevant. Training doesn't make people immune to mistakes, prevent them from lying, or make them impervious to
other individuals with a particular agenda making mistakes and/or lying
about them.
Regardless who's making the claim, claims are not evidence. Evidence is what is required to validate claims.
You're also well aware that there's not a single iota of conclusive, physical, measurable, testable evidence for any of it. And that's where we stand.
The J. Randall Murphy UFO (alien craft) null hypothesis,
"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
has never been falsified.
The Battelle Memorial Institute study falsifies the above hypothesis, ( which you continue to incorrectly label as mine ).
The J. Randall Murphy UFO (alien craft) null hypothesis is not an hypothesis; it's a
null hypothesis. It is yours whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. It was created the moment you claimed your own hypothesis:
"Some UFOs are of alien origin."
The null hypothesis is merely the converse of your hypothesis, to wit:
"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin."
And it
has not been falsified. The Battelle Memorial Institute study has never falsified anything. It even says so within its own abstract.
It's just fairy tales in your worldview. For those who know UFOs are real it's an entirely different thing. You can't change that. I can't even change that.
What about people who
know they're Napoleon Bonaparte? Does their belief make it true? Can you or I change that?
The problem ( as you have pointed out ), is discerning in the absence of testable physical evidence, which reports have value and which ones don't.
Wrong.
No amount of reports
will ever suffice in the absence of testable physical evidence. Reports are nothing more than claims. They constitute absolutely no verifiable evidence of anything non-mundane in themselves.
But the bottom line is still that because we don't know for certain that every report without tangible testable evidence doesn't represent an actual UFO ( alien craft ), it isn't reasonable to simply sit back with a smug attitude and denounce them all as "fairy tales".
That is yet another argument from ignorance from you.
It's totally backwards thinking. Not knowing everything does not constitute proof of anything, let alone the existence of an assumed thing such as outer space aliens, gods, unicorns, ghosts, garage dragons, or indeed even fairies.
Jeez, just considering that line of reasoning for a moment is enough to make my head spin. How can you live every day of your life in that kind of thinking?
So what can you offer besides sitting back and being critical?
Um, you might want to scroll up and examine the tagline in the web page header. See the words "critical thinking"?
If you're looking for credulous thinking, go back to the
Paracast Forums.
I asked for some feedback on the Clark McClelland ( Stargate Chronicles ) guy and got back about as much as I could dig up in 5 minutes on the Internet. Is digging up any real info like skeptic Lance did on Imbrogno too much work?
You're the self-described UFOlogist. Why aren't you investigating it yourself?
It's been what, like a month now and you still haven't made any progress on that? Is it too much work for you to Google that stuff on your own?
