Virtually all of this response is, well, non-responsive, but I'll go though it anyway, and then get back to the central question, which you completely evaded.
Proof also has scientific and technical meanings as well as legal. As does evidence. Where is an adversary? Who is on trial?If using the Anglo-Saxon legal standard of proof bothers you or confuses you so much, then I would suggest that you stop referencing it at your lectures, and in your media interviews.
I like the recent decision of the Washington State Supreme Court (Ongom vs State of Washington Department of Health)which reversed a lower court and the appeals court in a manner involving professional competence, licensing, etc., by claiming that the lower decisions were based on a "prepondernce of evidence" standard wheras they should have used a tougher standard "clear and convincing evidence". They did not require "beyond a reasonable doubt".Stan, with all due respect, you should stick to nuclear physics, and leave the law to we lawyers. Of course they would be talking about a standard of proof lesser than "beyond a reasonable doubt", because it was a non-criminal case.
Did you even read my post all the way through?
Many things in science are deduced based upon "clear and convincing evidence"... We know that people can build apparently metallic structured maneuverable vehicles capable of flight. We have not come up with any evidence that Earth is unique. We know that the age of our current vehicle building civilization is very very much less than the age of the planet or of the solar system or of the galaxy or the universe.None of which is even remotely relevant, but it makes for good eyewash for some I suppose.
We have, so far as I can judge from this discussion, not seen any evidence of the existence of ultraterrestrial or cryptoterrestrial beings. This doesn't mean we have established that they don't exist. We do know of many observations of the flight, landing, take off of highly maneuverable manufactured craft that move up up and away and sometimes are seen in the company of very very large airborne craft.None of which proves that any of these sightings are of an intelligently controlled, extraterrestrial spacecraft, which is what you assert as a fact.
We further know that the development of our advanced flying craft has been done for military purposes and at enormous costs. We Earthlings have a long history of developing craft and spying on other countries to see what their capabilities are along lines that we would either have to defend against or copy.Not relevant to the discussion in the least.
Nobody has presented "clear and convincing evidence" that the items seen in the best cases originated from any group on earth.They don't have to Stan. The burden of proof lies on the party making the assertion of fact, which in this case is you, as you assert that some UFOs are intelligently controlled alien spacecraft. I don't assert that they are not - I merely state that we can't say for sure what any UFOs are.
Your stance reminds me a lot of the Billy Meier defenders - they tell everyone who calls the photos/films into question to prove that they are frauds. That's not required - the Meier-ites have to prove that they are real, not the other way around. Ditto you and the ETH as the ETF.
Anything less is intellectually dishonest.
They were, therefore, produced by intelligent beings from somewhere else. That, of course, doesn't answer with "clear and convincing evidence" where they originate, why they are here, or why they don't seem to do a host of things. I would say that the Star Map work associated with the Hill case makes a very strong case that the base planets (not necessarily the homes of any of the crew) are near Zeta 1 or Zeta 2 Reticulum for those particular craft crew-members.I notice throughout that you've latched onto that "clear and convincing evidence" line. Again you miss the point - your old buddy Carl Sagan was 100% correct when he said that extraordinary claims, which is certainly what the ETH as ETF is, require extraordinary proof. In other words, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Now, I understand why you don't like that, because you know that you can't do it. But that's what thinking people require in order to assert that something like alien visitation to Earth is a fact, and not just a good working theory.
But I'll play along with the lower standard, just for fun. Clear and convincing evidence it is.
Accordingly, I'll ask my original question, which you didn't answer (you didn't answer it when you were asked it by Seth Shostak a couple of years ago during your "debate" on C2C).
Here it is again, with the lower standard of proof substituted for "beyond a reasonable doubt":
Name the one case that proves clear and convincing evidence that the ETH is the ETFact, and not something else.
One case, Stan. That shouldn't be so hard.
Don't cite stats like "hundreds of physical trace cases", or "thousands of witnesses". That's ducking the question. It's non-responsive, and it proves nothing, other than that we have a mystery, which is what I and others are saying here.
Just one case. That's all I need - the one case that shows clear and convincing evidence that aliens have visited Earth, which is the standard that you have adopted, and which sits higher than the preponderance of evidence standard (i.e. the balance of probabilities).
Then we can talk about that one case.