Steve, Just because an assertion from an eye witness is presented to a court doesn't mean it will be accepted as evidence Yes it does. Along with any evidence to the contrary. Corroboration will always be required, if the court is fair and if justice is to be done. No. Corroboration just adds weight to the evidence. Justice is done when the evidence is all put in the balance. You are very confused about this despite your alleged scientific background. As I have just shown, the confusion is yours and has nothing to do with science. it in no way confirms either that the phenomenon is real or that ball lightning is what I saw Yes. I thought I said that. Stu., All I'm suggesting that to make a statement saying there is evidence for whatever is being discussed and not producing said evidence makes the original statement worthless; it's not based on any firm, empirical fact. There are no firm facts. I described such evidence as there is. When that evidence is produced, then it should be subject to scrutiny and testing That would be good, but how?
|