why isn't observer evidence like eyewitness accounts counted as evidence for ufo's? page: 1 link eyewitness accounts have been used by science for years. newton used eyewtiness accounts in the principia when talking about comets. he came up with a theory on comets based on recorded sighting throughout the world like a boy saw a comet and this is what he described. there wasn't any internet to even verify the credibility of these eyewitness accounts yet newton used them to come up with a theory about comets which helped lead to his equations of gravity. so if eyewitness accounts are so unreliable, how did newton use them to come up with his theories? we also saw this with meteorites. this is from wiki: although meteors have been known since ancient times, they were not known to be an astronomical phenomenon until early in the 19th century. prior to that, they were seen in the west as an atmospheric phenomenon, like lightning, and were not connected with strange stories of rocks falling from the sky. in 1807, yale university chemistry professor benjamin silliman investigated a meteorite that fell in weston, connecticut.[27] silliman believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of november 1833.[28] people all across the eastern united states saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. astute observers noticed that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation leo.[29] astute observers saw meteors radiating from a single point in the sky and to this day this is still called the radient. i thought science never uses eyewitness accounts? also, here's a list of published papers and studies on u.f.o.'s. this page offers a list of 100+ articles, papers and monographs about ufos / uaps published in professional journals and specialty publications. two polls of professional & amateur astronomers respectively, on whether they see ufos or not. finally 60+ phd dissertations and academic publications about ufos. very little peer-reviewed literature has been published in which academics have proposed, studied or supported non-prosaic explanations for ufos. www.hyper.net... why aren't there more non-prosaic explanations of u.f.o.'s? that alone lends support to the notion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. i have had 3 sightings myself. two looked like probes. it was real windy one day and the wind was almost knocking me over, then this round orb passed in front of me going against the wind. it slowed down and then it sped back up. where are all the scientist explaining u.f.o.'s? why are there still these unidentified objects in the sky? we have aeriel phenomena in the sky that can avoid radar, outrun our best planes and cause nuclear facilities to malfunction. after 60 or more years of these sightings why can't scientist explain these things like newton did with comets based on eyewitness accounts or what happened with metorites? here's 565 eyewitness accounts
why isnt observer evidence like eyewitness accounts counted as evidence for ufos?
neoholographic