Posts Made By: Chris Brown

Alex McConahay said:

It is interesting to see the argument going on about Edgar Mitchell, and it brings up an interesting thing about "proving UFO's."

I want to hear your opinion on a few things.

It seems that "credibility" is defined among other things as related to whether the claim is mainstream. In other words, people may be "credible" until they make a "crackpot" claim. Then they are loony and not credible. Hardly seems a good way to establish credibility.

"First hand experience" does not seem credible even though there have been hundreds of people who claim to have been "abducted." These witnesses/abductees are generally in the category of "not credible." But for most people they only got into the category of not credible when they made their claim.

It seems a circular thing--Claims are considered credible by the credibility of their witnesses. But credibility of the witnesses is defined by the claims.

UFO claimants are going to lose this battle no matter which way they go. Claim the sighting, and lose your credibility.

So--just what information is needed to establish "proof" that we have been visited by others?

Alex