“The trend is for these mysteries to have boring solutions. Eyewitness testimony is known to be unreliable.”
As discussed elsewhere in this thread this is not the same as saying they all are 100% fallible. By far, as stated in the Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14.
“There is no physical evidence. All that is left is a very small amount of people who claim to have seen something that they don’t understand;”
Where did you get these statements from? Thin air? Any references on it? You obviously hasn’t looked into this.
“Have little grey men actually emerged from objects? Or is that just what people have claimed? There is a significant difference between those two statements and your choice of phrasing indicates an unjustified bias.”
As said in the original post my belief is utterly uninteresting—I could be lunatic. What matters is the arguments and references I can come up with.
As discussed elsewhere in this thread this is not the same as saying they all are 100% fallible.
No disagreement here. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not the 22% remaining unknowns qualify as positive evidence towards anything.
Where did you get these statements from? Thin air? Any references on it? You obviously hasn’t looked into this.
I assumed that if there was physical evidence then you would have used it to bolster your argument. Is there any?
I read the wiki article you linked to. I came out believing that the study concluded that 22% of cases could not be explained. This, apparently, means a lot more to you than it does to me. No big deal.
“The trend is for these mysteries to have boring solutions. Eyewitness testimony is known to be unreliable.”
As discussed elsewhere in this thread this is not the same as saying they all are 100% fallible. By far, as stated in the Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14.
“There is no physical evidence. All that is left is a very small amount of people who claim to have seen something that they don’t understand;”
Where did you get these statements from? Thin air? Any references on it? You obviously hasn’t looked into this.
“Have little grey men actually emerged from objects? Or is that just what people have claimed? There is a significant difference between those two statements and your choice of phrasing indicates an unjustified bias.”
As said in the original post my belief is utterly uninteresting—I could be lunatic. What matters is the arguments and references I can come up with.
No disagreement here. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not the 22% remaining unknowns qualify as positive evidence towards anything.
I assumed that if there was physical evidence then you would have used it to bolster your argument. Is there any?
I read the wiki article you linked to. I came out believing that the study concluded that 22% of cases could not be explained. This, apparently, means a lot more to you than it does to me. No big deal.
To quote, prefix a line with a greater-than sign
>. For more tips, click the ‘Show help’ button on the bottom-right of the edit box.