About
I can say with confidence that since the late 90's I have investigated a hoard of cases relating to Unidentified Flying Objects and alleged encounters with foreign intelligence. I have also seen the different philosophies between people, investigators and non-investigators alike. What I have learnt over the years is that it is very easy for one to fall into a belief trap, especially when our mind is bombarded with continuous suggestions.
There is a plethora of global reports available for us to read and digest. In some instances the author seems quick to jump to extraordinary conclusions, regardless of the lack of hard evidence.
In a crime investigation scenario, if the investigation yields no solid evidence that could lead to a perpetrator, then we can’t just blame it on the 'Boogie Man'. Like in any form of investigation, what evidence would be sufficient enough to convince a jury? In other words, hard facts - indisputable and objective that can stand up against close scrutiny. It is true that one can merely speculate in the absence of proof, but even speculation without proof is weightless. Despite the facts, the objective here is not to discredit someone’s claim, but rather to find proof that supports that claim. It is only when all conventional, or otherwise known explanations are exhausted do we begin to entertain the idea of the unexplained.
Attila Kaldy
VALIDATE
I can say with confidence that since the late 90's I have investigated a hoard of cases relating to Unidentified Flying Objects and alleged encounters with foreign intelligence. I have also seen the different philosophies between people, investigators and non-investigators alike. What I have learnt over the years is that it is very easy for one to fall into a belief trap, especially when our mind is bombarded with continuous suggestions.
There is a plethora of global reports available for us to read and digest. In some instances the author seems quick to jump to extraordinary conclusions, regardless of the lack of hard evidence.
In a crime investigation scenario, if the investigation yields no solid evidence that could lead to a perpetrator, then we can’t just blame it on the 'Boogie Man'. Like in any form of investigation, what evidence would be sufficient enough to convince a jury? In other words, hard facts - indisputable and objective that can stand up against close scrutiny. It is true that one can merely speculate in the absence of proof, but even speculation without proof is weightless. Despite the facts, the objective here is not to discredit someone’s claim, but rather to find proof that supports that claim. It is only when all conventional, or otherwise known explanations are exhausted do we begin to entertain the idea of the unexplained.
Attila Kaldy
VALIDATE
