Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Circumstantial Evidence and the Reality of UFOs

A few months ago, George Noory, host of the radio talk show "Coast to Coast AM" held a debate between Ufologist/physicist Stanton Friedman and Seth Shostak, director of the government-funded program, SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Well into the debate, Seth posed an "If-Then Proposition" which is a method used in logic to determine the validity of an argument.

Seth asked Stanton, IF there are such things as UFOs, THEN why do we not have a spaceship to analyze in the laboratory?

Seth's argument was that IF there is no spaceship, THEN there is no UFO reality.

Seth's argument of course is invalid and therefore illogical. But then so are many of the arguments of the naysayers who deny the existence of UFOs. But the argument against UFOs is flawed in another way -- the naysayers don't take the overwhelming amount of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE into consideration.

Circumstantial evidence? What good is that?

Circumstantial evidence is good enough to be used by science to discover new planets in the universe. The actual planet is never found; rather science locates celestial objects that have "perturbations" -- distortions from the magnetic pull of the new planet. Somehow this kind of circumstantial evidence works amazingly well when science wants it to work.

Circumstantial evidence is also a powerful indicator in justice. The most recent example is the Scott Peterson case. Peterson was recently convicted of killing his wife and his unborn son though there was no actual evidence discovered to link him with the crime. So why was he charged with first- and second-degree murder? Circumstantial evidence. The jury used "meta-logic" to look at the larger picture painted by the circumstantial evidence and from that, they decreed that Peterson was the perpetrator of that heinous crime.

A convincing argument supporting the use of circumstantial evidence was recently made in a column by political pundit and attorney Ann Coulter. Her column was an essay on the use of circumstantial evidence as it relates to a murder case, but the arguments that she uses can support the reality of UFOs, as well. (I've added UFO references in parentheses so that the reader can see how Ann's arguments can also be applied to UFOs.)

In the December 21, 2004 column, Ann Coulter wrote:

"In a murder case, all evidence of guilt other than eyewitness testimony is 'circumstantial.' Inasmuch as most murders (or most UFO sightings) do not occur at Grand Central Terminal during rush hour, it is not an uncommon occurrence to have murder convictions (or the acknowledgement of a true UFO event) based entirely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is 'circumstantial evidence.' Fingerprints are 'circumstantial evidence.' An eyewitness account of the perpetrator fleeing the scene of a stabbing with a bloody knife is 'circumstantial evidence.' Please stop referring to 'circumstantial evidence' as if it doesn't count."

UFOs also produce circumstantial evidence in radar anomalies, atmospheric and environmental changes, physical evidence -- and thousands upon thousands of eyewitness reports from people in every strata of society, including astronauts (like the late Gordon Cooper) and pilots who are trained to know the difference between the planet Venus and an unidentified flying object.

Circumstantial evidence does count; it is important. UFOs exist and the substantial amount of circumstantial evidence proves it. ***


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home