Proving the Phenomenon is real

**Carol Nistri** · Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 3292

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc776.htm

UFOs: Proving the Phenomenon is Real - The Case against Debunkers
By Will Hart

original source | fair use notice

Summary: In a recent exchange with a UFO lawyer I was assured that he could prove the existence of UFOs in a court of law. This brings up a very important point regarding the history of UFO investigations that raises questions about the rules of evidence used to judge whether UFOs are a real phenomenon or not. The lawyer could justifiably make that claim, however, scientists routinely say there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of the phenomenon. What gives?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a recent exchange with a UFO lawyer I was assured that he could prove the existence of UFOs in a court of law. This brings up a very important point regarding the history of UFO investigations that raises questions about the rules of evidence used to judge whether UFOs are a real phenomenon or not. The lawyer could justifiably make that claim, however, scientists routinely say there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of the phenomenon. What gives?

The problem has to do with the way the phenomenon has been classified and defined or rather not clearly or correctly classified or defined. Most of the time UFOs have been studied as if they were a natural phenomenon and the rules of evidence that apply to the physical sciences have been applied. Those rules are stringent as they involve such subjects as chemical and atomic structures. When placed in this category the UFO phenomenon fails to meet the criteria of scientific proof, for obvious reasons. The phenomenon is not a natural one. We have no control over it and scientists cannot perform repeatable experiments to ascertain its nature.

It is a matter of classification and that is why a lawyer can accurately make the claim that sufficient evidence does exist to prove it in a court of law. Physical scientists do not consider things like eyewitness reports and circumstantial or anecdotal evidence. A court of law does. There is no single set of standards that can be applied across the board to define what scientific evidence is. Physical scientists cannot deny the veracity of sociological or psychological theories simply because the evidence to support them is based upon a different degree of rigor.

There is an acknowledged division between the hard and soft sciences, for example, chemistry and sociology. You dont approach the two disciplines in the same way.

Now, let us compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges to gain some insight into why there is such a divergence of opinion about the UFO phenomenon. First we have to ask, would it be fair to let a chemist evaluate the credibility of a sociological theory using the standards of evidence and protocols that he normally uses in his chemistry investigations? No, that is apples and oranges. That is exactly what has happened in the history of UFO investigations. Skeptical scientists have consistently claimed that the phenomenon cannot be proven and by their standards they have been right.

But those are the wrong standards to apply because UFOs are not natural events or processes and the preponderance of evidence suggests this is the case. So we have this historical split and ongoing ambiguity with highly credible witnesses reporting sightings and encounters with UFOs that are followed by routine dismissals from scientists that are reported in the media in a variety of UFO articles. What is the general publics reaction? The public is quite naturally torn and confused.

Most people do not want to think of pilots, policemen and radar operators as well as various military personnel as being incapable of distinguishing between a UFO and swamp gas or a UFO and a weather balloon. These are trained professionals that we depend upon for our safety. Yet thousands upon thousands of reports by such individuals have been rejected or downgraded because there is no scientific proof and therefore they must be treated as nothing more than anecdotal reports.

As we noted above, hard scientists do not have much use for such evidence and yet these are the kinds of factual observations made by credible witnesses that legal cases and sociology are built upon. People also want to have confidence in science and as we have seen scientists have not been wrong. But neither have they made it clear just what they mean by scientific proof in the context of UFOs and the media has not picked up on this subtle, confusing issue.

No, there is not enough physical hard science evidence to prove the phenomena is real in this context. Yes, there is enough legal and soft science type evidence to prove the phenomena is real in this context. How do we resolve the resultant ambiguity and ascertain the ultimate reality of the phenomenon? Put it in its proper classification and definition as an unnatural phenomenon under the purview of such disciplines as sociology, cultural anthropology, social psychology, etc.

While the skeptical scientists and debunkers have been correct, to a degree, their assertion that there is no hard evidence is incorrect. Radar operators have observed them, photographs and video clips containing recorded sound have all been documented and they corroborate UFO sightings. This is hard evidence that substantiates the reality of the phenomenon.

Does it matter? How we classify the phenomenon makes all the difference in the world. Accepting that it is an established scientifically proven reality under the less stringent rules of soft science would remove the stigma from witnesses. Removing the stigma is important because as Stanton Friedman has pointed out it is a taboo subject in academia. But more importantly classifying it correctly as a non-natural phenomenon allows investigators to start focusing on the right questions instead of looking for hard evidence among the ever-increasing amount of data that they have accumulated.

911 taught us a lesson about not connecting dots and not making the cogent inferences and acting on them. The data was there and several analysts were correctly interpreting it. But the executive part of the organizational brain of the FBI and CIA did not cooperate with the data collection and analysis part, which resulted in an intelligence breakdown.

We have to take the UFO phenomenon seriously until we have ascertained whether it poses a threat or not. We cannot allow the government to withhold important information and we cannot continue to come at the phenomenon from the wrong angle. Individual UFO investigators and organizations need to cooperate and share information just as much as government intelligence agencies do because there is no official (overt) investigation being conducted into the phenomenon at present, which could be the biggest intelligence blunder of all!

If debunkers want to argue against these propositions they should do so using a cost/benefit scenario. What do we have to lose by accepting the premise that the evidence proving UFOs is real? I submit we have nothing to lose. But what do we have to lose by accepting the premise that it is not real? We have nothing to gain and everything to lose if we are proven wrong and the worst case scenario emerges.

Ahhh,Id love to see this get into a courtroom.

**Carol Nistri** · Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 3292

btw,can anyone give us some reasons why the government couldnt or wouldnt come out with the information we all feel its witheld?

Bruce Duensing · Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Posts: 363

**Carol Nistri** · Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 3292

...the threat is who will your subjects look to...you or a society far advanced...for influence and perhaps even a shared or reinvested source of steering or management of what you formerly owned without

I had this very thought a few years ago Bruce,it makes sense when you think of it. Mere mortals seem to be screwing the joint up bigtime,as humans and awed by intelligence and technology we would be ripe for a change such as this.Maybe not at first but shortly after we accepted that these entities are here and real.Then again would the entity even want the job,lol.

**Carol Nistri** · Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 3292

IF this ever got into a court of law Id doing everything in my power to be at the proceedings,if that wernt possible Id have a write-in to ask Court T.V. to include these proceedings for all the public to see,should that happen I would then lock up the house,turn off the phones and just sit and watch ,this would be some fasinating t.v. viewing and it would be a smash success.

Bruce Duensing · Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Posts: 363

**Carol Nistri** · Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 3292

well,they could have come here and seen the potential our species has. Were magnificent,theres no two ways about it mankind dispite his obvious faults is splendid. Now IF its true and IF they really are abducting humans and forcing them to bear children for them then this might be further evidence that theres something about us humans that they want included in their own. No wonder,put mankind in any situation and give him sometime and he will learn to thrive.If its the mountains of Tibet or the hot arid Sahara or the colds of Siberia it doesnt matter,mankind has the ability to adapt and that alone may make us the perfect vessel to create a new species.As far fetched as that may sound its the only thing that keeps coming back time and time again. UFOs containing alien entities have been seen in earth skies for decades now,there here for a purpose,I cant imagine them being here for No purpose.

Now while I was typing that another thought popped into my tiny tiny brain. Ive got to start another thread while the thought is still cooking.

**dr wu23** · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 2254 Location: Indiana

For those like carol who are science challenged.... Wink

, once again, courts of law have nothing to do with ufos, science , and proof. Frankly I'm tired of people bringing up this nonsesne.

I also think the objective aspect of ufos as real space beings is open to question so for me the whole disclosure thing a nd hard science evidence might not be the question or the issue. But if groups wish to pursure that venue, have at it.
Smile

_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man