A Reasonable Requirement, Hitchens' Razor at Play.

Greetings. The investigation of any event, any crime, any unknown, any unsolved mystery requires evidence. Evidence which proves that an event took place, evidence which corroborates witness testimonials, evidence which can be examined by independent investigators and researchers, evidence which allows for an investigative consensus.

When no evidence is available, the investigative effort is almost a lost cause, but not impossible. Witness testimonials, whilst not accepted as evidence in the scientific community, still has some value, when looked at logically. Logically being the operative word. The information gathered from individuals can be revealing and can lead in directions that may bear some fruit. 

I have always held the late Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) in high regard. His epistemological razor, known as Hitchens' Razor states that "What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence." Magnificently stated and agreed. The standard set by Hitchens' Razor places a reasonable requirement on any investigative effort, a requirement for evidence, not just anecdotal information. 

As it pertains to the effort to investigate the enigma of unidentified flying objects, Hitchens' Razor still applies, and further legitimizes the process of investigation. As is the case with the majority of UFO reports and investigations, no physical evidence is present, with anecdotal information the only content available to examine. However, a logical and cautious approach to such information can still be beneficial to the cause. Some testimonials don't pan out, with people having misidentified or misunderstood what they witnessed. Some people are guilty of embellishments, or worse, of hoaxing their entire stories. The aforementioned factors are not overly common, with most people being completely honest and truthful in their testimonials, so all is not lost. 

UFO investigators consistently come across the very same issues. When Donald Schmitt and Kevin Randle began their investigation of the Roswell case back in the late 1980's, they came across a substantial amount of quality first-hand testimonials, with a few less than honest people sprinkled in between. Frank Kaufmann is a prime example. His testimonials  were eventually proven to be untrue, and they were cast aside by UFO investigators, or at least the ones with an ounce of professional integrity. Once Tom Carey joined in the investigation, the same issues held court, but the occasional "bad apple" did not, and has not, lessened the importance of, or the legitimacy of the Roswell case. 

As the decades have passed, I often wonder if today's UFO investigators adhere to the same investigative standards as Don Schmitt, Kevin Randle, and Tom Carey. I don't know, but I worry. I really worry.

Thank you for your time and consideration.