As Arthur C. Clark said, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I see no evidence; only 'claims'. Contemporary men who don't think to take out their HD smartphone camera and record what they allegedly see.
All we're left is with are their 'claims'.
I think we both agree that proof is essential—but digging for answers requires more than dismissing every claim out of hand. If we limit our imaginations to only the possibilities we already understand, how can we expect to expand our knowledge? We need to look critically, yet remain open-minded, rather than waiting for answers to be handed to us on a silver platter. After all, isn’t that the essence of intellectual curiosity?
I understand your skepticism about anecdotal evidence, but labeling all witness testimony as mere “claims” feels dismissive to me. Are we really to believe that soldiers, admirals, and others who have served with distinction are all deluded or dishonest? This kind of rigidity risks closing the door on valuable insights. Rejecting anecdotal evidence as a rule may shield us from gullibility, but it also risks blinding us to truths that might emerge through careful investigation.
BTW, you mentioned the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” attributing it to Arthur C. Clarke. It’s actually Carl Sagan who popularized that idea. Clarke’s work, while visionary, focused more on imagining the future of science and technology than on making philosophical statements about evidence. It’s a minor point, but it underscores the importance of precision when dealing with big ideas, which is precisely why we can’t just reject credible claims outright.
I get it—this topic can be unsettling. The possibility that UFOs could represent something we don’t yet understand, whether it’s extraterrestrial, extradimensional, or even advanced human technology, challenges the boundaries of what we know and are comfortable with. It’s natural to feel hesitant or even skeptical.
That said, it strikes me that you’re engaging in discussions on this topic but aren’t willing to seriously entertain the claims or evidence being presented, even for the sake of argument. This seems like a contradiction. If your mind is already made up, what value do you see in commenting or engaging with others on the subject? Honest skepticism is one thing, but dismissing everything out of hand as “just claims” isn’t exactly an intellectually honest approach.
As the saying goes, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” It’s okay to be cautious or even fearful, but shutting down the conversation entirely denies us the chance to dig deeper into a mystery that clearly captivates so many. I’d encourage you to reconsider—not necessarily to believe everything you hear, but to approach the topic with curiosity and openness. After all, isn’t the pursuit of truth worth stepping outside our comfort zones?