..... There really is no use arguing with somebody who can't even argue or understand basic logic, it's precisely because the point is that the cop was thinking that he was looking at a UFO and that's why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable, most people have no fucking clue of what they are talking about so they make assumptions instead, you being a classic example on this very thread or were you actually paying attention to what the guy was saying?
I've seen articles about there being water and even beer in space lol but not organisms. Did you mean organic material or did I miss something? xD
http://news.discovery.com/space/has-evidence-of-extraterrestrial-life-been-found-110305.htmYes! they're fossilised though but it shows there's obviously something out there, we've also found planets that very closely but not entirely match the atmosphere required for life, oh and look you guys, this is the kind of thing that can be properly investigated and brought to a lab!
Your "Dr." goes through explaining how people who claim to have been abducted should just distract the alien for a second and reach up and grab something off of the UFO and I am the one with logic issues?
The point is he sits there in the video and explains how something has to be tested & verified in a lab before he can accept it as truth. But he is more than willing to accept circumstantial evidence when it supports his perception of normal. He wants an ash tray or something physical from a UFO but is willing to accept the fact that Venus was in the vicinity of that portion of the sky the night of the incident and the road was windy, so we must accept that what he saw was Venus. I say Hypocrite. And I am not implying that it wasn't Venus, just that he is willing to accept sub-par evidence to support his theory, but can't accept sub-par evidence to support someone elses theory. And make no mistake, both are theories. By this guys own definition, neither should be accepted as scientific evidence. But again, he accepts one of them as scientific evidence because it makes sense to him.
In addition to this, his whole cookie cutter explanation of how UFO sightings go is not accurate for MOST of the cases out there that cannot be easily debunked as fake. In most of these cases that should be considered credible, there isn't just a sighting! There are other phenomenon, cars shutting off, electronic interference, military & commercial radar picking up objects, and of course actual abduction victims who have went through hypnosis, lie detectors, and more to prove their cases.
And for another form of hypocrisy, he uses the fact that UFO sightings are lower amongst amateur astronomers because astronomers "Know what the hell we are looking at!!"
2 MINUTES LATER he says "well because we think because you have a badge or your a pilot or your whatever, and how better your testimony is than an average person - ITS ALL BAD BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN"
Shortly after that statement, he goes on to explain how his expertise and testimony is better than an average person.
Again, there are plenty of fakes, I would never argue otherwise. But there are plenty of unexplainable sightings & experiences that have happened to many credible people.
To ignore, dismiss, and ridicule the phenomenon is
ignorant whether your a Scientist or not.
If anyone is actually interested in the details of the UFO case he is mocking, I can only imagine he is referring to this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portage_County_UFO_chaseIf you actually look at the details of the case, your Dr.'s explanation of one cop driving on a windy road and spotting venus just seems illogical to me.