# Do you think linking UFOs with the paranormal is healthy for either discussion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2013, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976 "2013-06-14T08:16:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/41 "2013-06-14T15:25:39Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I’m not trying to be snarky or (excessively) argumentative, but it would be easier if you made your original point clear to begin with. I asked a direct question. You guys went off into the weeds about specific numbers. > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Sure, we are always advancing our **knowledge** about space and the universe around us. I don’t know if UFOs have anything do to with space or the universe. I am speaking to putting scientific discipline to the facts we do have. And there are a TON of cases worth studying. > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > That doesn’t translate at all into actual exploration or the plausibility of actual exploration of other solar systems by us or by hypothetical advanced extraterrestrials. You’re wrong about that. Theoretical physics has used the assumption of visitation by alien life forms to create models that have created discussion about time/space scenarios, worm holes, etc. I don’t know if these will bear fruit, but the convo can’t hurt. As I said before, science requires hypothesis. > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Why not? If, by cross-pollination, it gets more people interested, that can only help with funding the research of both topics, right? My answer to this is that the two subjects put together breed an unhealthy skepticism and the “experts” in each field have vastly different backgrounds. With the higher degree of skepticism, science faces obstacles that occupy time that could be used to get to the bottom of whatever a phenomena might actually be. > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > But, still, the idea that the wide variety of UFO sightings are due to extraterrestrial intelligence is a reach. > > Remember what the “U” stands for. It’s just “unidentified”. You are right about it being a reach. Please, notice that I didn’t claim UFOs had anything to do with aliens, space, or extra-terrestrial anything. That was a projection on your part. And I made the “U” point earlier. So, on that we agree. > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > So far, your arguments have been based on _incredulity_ rather than any actual physical evidence or reasoning. Incredulity is fine to start with but scientific work eventually requires you have eventually some actual evidence and not just a vague feeling something feels off. I wasn’t offering evidence of UFOs or of the paranormal. In fact, I think if you look back it is you who was incredulous - so much so that you just got around to actually answering the original question. Okay, I let myself be dragged off topic too, but as for what I “believe” or not, I never actually stated. And if you’re saying that one has to believe in a conclusion before they see the need for answering questions, on that we don’t agree. Lastly, I’d say that if you think the study of UFOs is based on a “feeling” you haven’t read on the subject. And I admit total ignorance on the paranormal front. That’s why I asked the question. I was hoping somebody would say something that might explain the link, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. Still and all, thank you for your opinion on the original question. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/42 "2013-06-14T15:30:12Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > there are hundreds of credible sightings. Soldiers, pilots, even Presidents have reported UFO sightings. These are trained observers not some yahoos drinking moonshine on a dirt road somewhere. > > It cracks me up that people dismiss a discussion because of a lack of scientific discipline, but they are willing to dismiss the facts that ARE there without even considering them. How scientific is that? There are no facts, it’s just unknown. Visual perception is [unreliable.](http://gizmodo.com/5819584/this-weird-optical-illusion-turns-beautiful-girls-into-horrible-monsters) Things seen out of the corner of your eye, in odd circumstances, poor lighting can all contribute to perfectly normal objects being unidentifiable. Even in our own homes we can [see things](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=688185&highlight=sleep+paralysis) that aren’t there at all. If there really is alien visitation, that can be seen with the naked eye, why do we have no record whatsoever of these visits, except for these sightings? Where are the camera phones finally kicking in with recordings? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/43 "2013-06-14T15:32:47Z")
> [@nashiitashii](#): > > The plausibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence is increasing all the time as we discover more and more exo-planets and the like. Extraterrestrial intelligence is not the same thing as UFOs. Life on other planets seems pretty likely just according to the law of averages. Life on other planets in the visible universe that somehow transverses the lightyears to come to Earth is another thing. Finding more exoplanets doesn’t make it more likely that there are beings on other planets coming to Earth. Yes, I’d say UFOs-as-alien-craft belong in discussions of the paranormal. My impression is that people believe in them and think they see them for the same general reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/44 "2013-06-14T15:32:49Z")
If you want to see how prevalent the link is between the two subjects, just Google “angels and aliens”. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/45 "2013-06-14T15:40:47Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > You’re wrong about that. Theoretical physics has used the assumption of visitation by alien life forms to create models that have created discussion about time/space scenarios, worm holes, etc Cite? You can have the hypothetical discussion. But I would like to see these models (and the names of these people practicing “theoretical physics”) generated from the assumption of visitation by alien life. My guess is that rather than theoretical physics models, what you have are a few people (maybe even a few physicists) making up scenarios involving alien visitations that are plausible given our current understanding of physics. Those aren’t models. Those are just stories made up to fill time on cable TV. You’re making a lot of hand-wavy arguments about “credible witnesses” and “theoretical physics” but not offering a whole heck of a lot of citations, evidence, or anything else. Mainly a lot of “just-so” justifications. > [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > Okay, I let myself be dragged off topic too, but as for what I “believe” or not, I never actually stated. Really? Your earlier posts seem to imply it pretty well, along with a healthy dollop of incredulity. In fact, it’s kind of what got this ball rolling: > [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > That doesn’t make sense to me. Even allowing for the assumption that no UFO has been a visitation of alien life, our civilization is younger than the rest of the universe by BILLIONS of years. How can anybody believe that just because we haven’t seen something yet, it’s less likely to happen? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/46 "2013-06-14T15:49:06Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > I don’t know if UFOs have anything do to with space or the universe. I am speaking to putting scientific discipline to the facts we do have. And there are a TON of cases worth studying. We have studied them, and time after time they have come up with perfectly normal explanations. What makes you think we haven’t looked into this. No UFO sighting has even been shown to have an extraterrestrial origin. We’ve done what you ask, repeatedly, and nothing other than the standard explanations have ever been needed. What additional research should we apply to the subject now? And why not give the same scrutiny to all ghost, pixie, and Sasquatch report? The answer is that we have limited resources and it’s better to invest that effort into potential useful research. Researching UFO reports is wasted time and effort. ---
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/47 "2013-06-14T15:52:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do you or do you not want to gather data? Or is it just that you want to gather data that supports your “hypothesis”? I don’t have a hypothesis and I didn’t claim to. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > When it comes to intelligent life, how old something is really isn’t much of a factor. We were speaking to the evolution of one species over another as an answer to how a civilization other than ours might be able to accomplish travel that we cannot. Time and age might be relevant there, especially when you’re talking about the potential of millions of years of evolution. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. Nutjob isn’t the only possibility: there’s also mistaken, convinced by someone else that what they thought they saw was actually something else, lonely and looking for attention, ignorant as to what is going on, greedy and looking to sell books etc. Every UFOlogist I’ve read agrees that the vast majority of sightings are not what people think (or hope) they are. The question is about those that are truly different. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. There is no scientific value in the _possibility_ of data when we have no hard data to base that possibility on in the first place. Where’s the actual data itself? Again, you have not read on the subject. I only started three weeks ago for an article I was working on and I can tell you there IS hard evidence and there is expert eyewitness accounts from people who not only have nothing to gain, but who sacrifice their reputations (or worse) to tell what they’ve seen. You are ruling out evidence because it can’t prove a specific conclusion. That’s not how it works. You put the evidence together and go where it leads you. You are ASSUMING there is no evidence when there is. If you want to read on the subject, I seriously recommend looking at “The Disclosure Project”. I think you’ll see that these aren’t the people you’re expecting. It is at the very least, interesting. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > 1. Once again, the tying of U.F.O.s and the supernatural was initially made by the believers, not the skeptics.Does “loosen up” mean “Accept my ideas without criticizing them”? I am still waiting for the name of a UFOlogist who made the link. I’ve read about a hundred hours of material and talked to half a dozen people who know A LOT more about this than I do and I don’t think you’re going to be able to link a UFOlogist to the paranormal. And “loosen up” means don’t get sucked into debating whether the universe is 13.7 or 13.2 billion years old when it has nothing to do with the original question. The conclusion or plausibility of one argument doesn’t discount the facts that are out there. I’ve already said it, but out of respect for your time and patience, I’ll say it again. I am not claiming that ANY OF THIS means anything in particular, but if you listen to the people I am talking about I think you will agree that it does mean something. Something scientific? I don’t know. Something alien? I doubt it, but I don’t know. Something stupid? Maybe, but I don’t know. Seriously, if you’ve never read on the subject the most interesting things I’ve come across are these 1) The Disclosure Project testimonies 2) Rendlesham Forest incident 3) Malmstrom AFB incident 4) The Kelly Johnson sighting 5) Hillsdale Michigan sighting of 1966 6) Phoenix Lights of 1997. Enjoy! ---
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/48 "2013-06-14T15:55:25Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > We have studied them, and time after time they have come up with perfectly normal explanations. What makes you think we haven’t looked into this. No UFO sighting has even been shown to have an extraterrestrial origin. We’ve done what you ask, repeatedly, and nothing other than the standard explanations have ever been needed. > > What additional research should we apply to the subject now? And why not give the same scrutiny to all ghost, pixie, and Sasquatch report? The answer is that we have limited resources and it’s better to invest that effort into potential useful research. Researching UFO reports is wasted time and effort. Who is “we” and what makes you think resources are scarce for this? I haven’t heard any actual UFOlogists complain about a lack of manpower. Their concerns seem to stem more from a lack of cooperation and being bombarded with nonsense from frauds and skeptics alike. See my post above if you need evidence that there are cases without sufficient answers. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/49 "2013-06-14T16:00:50Z")
What qualifies someone to be an authentic “UFOlogist”? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/50 "2013-06-14T16:04:55Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > (snip) > > Again, you have not read on the subject. **I only started three weeks a** go for an article I was working on and I can tell you there IS hard evidence and there is expert eyewitness accounts from people who not only have nothing to gain, but who sacrifice their reputations (or worse) to tell what they’ve seen. You are ruling out evidence because it can’t prove a specific conclusion. That’s not how it works. You put the evidence together and go where it leads you. You are ASSUMING there is no evidence when there is. If you want to read on the subject, I seriously recommend looking at “The Disclosure Project”. I think you’ll see that these aren’t the people you’re expecting. It is at the very least, interesting. > (snip) Three weeks? Do you realize you are on a board with people who have been reading about UFOs for _decades_? I remember being a flying saucer buff back in the 1970s. After Betty and Barney Hill, everything looked promising. And the more we look at the reports, the more disillusioned we have become. Come back after your initial new-convert enthusiasm wears off. ---
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/51 "2013-06-14T16:06:40Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Cite? > > You can have the hypothetical discussion. > > But I would like to see these models (and the names of these people practicing “theoretical physics”) generated from the assumption of visitation by alien life. > > My guess is that rather than theoretical physics models, what you have are a few people (maybe even a few physicists) making up scenarios involving alien visitations that are plausible given our current understanding of physics. > > Those aren’t models. Those are just stories made up to fill time on cable TV. > > You’re making a lot of hand-wavy arguments about “credible witnesses” and “theoretical physics” but not offering a whole heck of a lot of citations, evidence, or anything else. Mainly a lot of “just-so” justifications. > > Really? Your earlier posts seem to imply it pretty well, along with a healthy dollop of incredulity. In fact, it’s kind of what got this ball rolling: See my post to Czarcasm for the cases that interest me as far as credible witnesses go. I think Kelly Johnson and his flight crew are credible seeing as how he was he preeminent authority on aviation design at the time of his sighting. I also find two separate missile silo details as pretty credible. It’s worth noting that after their reports, none of them were moved from the silos. Curious if they were hallucinating, grandstanding, or delusional for any reason. And the Rendlesham forest team seems pretty concrete seeing as how they were responsible for the security of two military bases and seeing as how they too were left to serve out their tours of duty in spite of their sighting(s). If they’re not credible you can also find accounts by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, General MacArthur, Congressman Alexander Hamilton (and family) and a TON more who actually risked their credibility by telling their stories and who didn’t profit from them. As for the cites for theoretical physics there are a few books by Stanton Friedman where he speaks to theoretical physics and the work done regarding the folding of time and space as well as theoretical worm holes etc. I can find other names, but I won’t waste my time if you’re not asking a serious question. I’d have to dig through reading I’ve already put away. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/52 "2013-06-14T16:08:31Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > > [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > > > Do you realize the number of credible witnesses who have encountered UFOs? I am talking about military officers, pilots, police officers, and the like. > > > > I have never contested that these things are alien spacecraft nor have these witnesses, but unless you’ve read seriously on the subject you can’t say UFOs are bullshit. You are kind of making my point though. Don’t these military officers deserve to be treated with more respect than the corner palm reader? > > Can we not say the same for ghosts? I’ve never met a ghost who was a credible witness. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/53 "2013-06-14T16:11:31Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > See my post to Czarcasm for the cases that interest me as far as credible witnesses go. I think Kelly Johnson and his flight crew are credible seeing as how he was he preeminent authority on aviation design at the time of his sighting. How does this make him a trained observer of U.F.O.s.? In what way are generals and presidents better at telling spacecraft from cloud? I think you are mistakenly thinking that expertise in one area translates to expertise to another unrelated area. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/54 "2013-06-14T16:13:04Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > The question is about those that are truly different. What makes some of them “truly different?” It’s easy to say ‘that guy’s a UFO kook, but _my_ UFO experience is legit,’ but it doesn’t actually tell us anything about how to evaluate this stuff. Ideally maybe we can discuss this without my having to read a bunch of Wikipedia entries for UFO sitings that are famous to UFOlogists but that the rest of us haven’t heard of in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/55 "2013-06-14T16:16:50Z")
What is your single best case, the case with the most evidence, for the existence of U.F.O.s, **RadioActiveRich**? Give us your best shot to convince us to take the subject seriously. ---
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/56 "2013-06-14T16:23:47Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Three weeks? Do you realize you are on a board with people who have been reading about UFOs for _decades_? I remember being a flying saucer buff back in the 1970s. After Betty and Barney Hill, everything looked promising. > > And the more we look at the reports, the more disillusioned we have become. Come back after your initial new-convert enthusiasm wears off. Your snarky tone notwithstanding, I’m not sure what you think I am “on board” with. Feel free to re-read my posts on the subject, but I never claimed expertise nor a particular position on the subject and my initial question doesn’t require either. As for Betty and Barney Hill, I am not “on board” with abductions and seeing as how I haven’t attempted to make any link between UFOs and aliens I think you’d see why that is. Also, a lot has been uncovered since 1970 - or do you not read on the subject any more? ---
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/57 "2013-06-14T16:26:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What is your single best case, the case with the most evidence, for the existence of U.F.O.s, **RadioActiveRich**? Give us your best shot to convince us to take the subject seriously. There isn’t one case. And UFOs as “unidentified” are not an unproven phenomena. There have been sightings and the crafts are “unidentified”. What is yet to be proven is what they actually are. Again, coming back to my ORIGINAL point lumping in those accounts and evidence with talk about casper and uncle buddy speaking from the dead is not likely to make that any easier. I have no intention of converting people to believe in UFOs, aliens, etc. I don’t even know what I believe except to say that I have doubts that the subject of UFOs belongs in the same conversation as the paranormal. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/58 "2013-06-14T16:27:39Z")
It seems those who are into paranormal are also into ufo’s, bigfoots and other unexplainable phenomina. The profile of the followers makes it easy for us to lump them all together at some level. I wouldn’t completely close the door on anything but I won’t waste any of my own time following any of it either. ---
**Author:** ![RadioActiveRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@RadioActiveRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioActiveRich)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/59 "2013-06-14T16:30:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What makes some of them “truly different?” It’s easy to say ‘that guy’s a UFO kook, but _my_ UFO experience is legit,’ but it doesn’t actually tell us anything about how to evaluate this stuff. Ideally maybe we can discuss this without my having to read a bunch of Wikipedia entries for UFO sitings that are famous to UFOlogists but that the rest of us haven’t heard of in the first place. A person who gains or profits from a report is less credible than one who sacrifices to make their report. A trained observer is more credible. A person with experience in aircraft (particularly top-secret aircraft) is more credible for obvious reasons. A sighting where multiple unconnected witnesses report the same thing is more credible. I personally put more stake in military personnel (partly because of the reasons above and partly out of respect). Those are but a few examples. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976/60 "2013-06-14T16:30:38Z")
> [@RadioActiveRich](#): > > Like Stanton Friedman (UFO dude and physicist) said, “We shouldn’t be asking if all UFO sightings are fake, but rather what if only one of them is real?” I like the way he thinks. If only one of them is real, we haven’t seen it yet. Which one do you think is the best candidate? And Friedman makes a lot of money selling books and lecturing. It helps his bottom line if he promotes his ideas even without evidence. It doesn’t make them true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-linking-ufos-with-the-paranormal-is-healthy-for-either-discussion/660976.md?page=4)