I have a question ( and all opinions are welcome )
Why is it that witnesses, testimonials, etc. are automatically looked upon as "not proof enough"? Yet....in a court of law, witnesses are used to help prove or disprove crimes? ( crimes that do not have DNA proof - proven with science ) Im not even trying to argue one way or another.....I just want to know why its a double standard when it comes things like UFO's or anything unexplainable?
Im not saying every testimonial is true and not a hoax, because yes, many of them are ( just like everyone who testifies in court, doesnt always tell the truth )
I wonder about that since the history of UFO witnesses/testimonials here and around the world are so so many ( and many because of their job, I would consider credible ) Is it just in human nature to automatically think another is lying, just because we dont understand what they have seen or been through?
Just curious....

I totally agree with you, and i would also add that it is always seen that the hoax believers have a bigger point to prove? I can only imagine this is because the believers (to whatever) feel it's 'given' that science as all the answers or governments and agencies are truth tellers.

we all choose what we want to believe.

Yes we do.

well there are two points that need addressing here:

1. When it comes to classifying the sightings, it goes beyond two distinct camps i.e. Hoaxes and the Truth. In many cases the witnesses truly do believe that they saw what they saw...and as such will pass lie detector tests etc....however it's the interpretation of what they saw which should be scrutinised. Witness testimonial can easily fall apart when its revealed that the phenomenon is terrestrial based, therefore the sighting was 'real' yet it was far from anything substantial.

2. Witness testimony is comparable to Thunder and Lightning. The event (the Lightning) is the most important part for scientific study of the phenomenon, the witness to the event (the Thunder) is merely the echoing after effects. Lightning causes thunder, yet the degree of how intense the witness hears the thunder depends on their location to ground zero. In this way, some witnesses are truly not able to absorb the full effect of the event. The only way to get a picture of the 'Thunder' is by examining the evidence from a number of sources....not a single source. In many UFO cases, this is not always available.

Definately, especially when the idea of some type of opposing consensus or label such as "nut" is involved.

Mass psychology is very powerful.

I think some of that perception as with many other issues is facilitated.

Once someone gets labeled it becomes very easy to discount what they say, no matter how much truth may be behind it.

I have an interesting anecdote about witnesses that, in a way, throws a real curve ball into the argument. In the late 80s at a place called Ingelstone Common in the South West of England i was at a music festival. It was the motning after the night before and a bunch of us were just surfacing when there was a kerfuffle from oneside of the site.

It transpires a classic silver globe style UFO had been sighted by a number of people and then done its usual disappearing trick. Amongst the witnesses were a bunch of people i know from my home town and what happened to them, was a real eye opener.

Of the half a dozen people who saw it from that group only one had the presence of mind to dash back into their tent and grab a camera and take some pictures. That person was in the middle of an acid trip.See the people who were *striaght* just sat there transfixed gawping at it and watching , their critical facilities on hold because they were witnessing something so out of the ordinary. The guy who was tripping on acid thought.." Bloody Hell, i must be hallucinating that, but it looks bloody real and everyone else can see it". That is, the only person to have the presence of mind to question the validity of the experience and take pictures was the guy *supposedly out of his head*.

For the record, the pictures were actually damn good ones, one in particular. It quite clearly showed a silver sphere hanging in the sky. Having seen pictures of, and viewed them in real life, weather balloons i know it wans't one of them, as this was a decidely *solid* looking object like a huge ball bearing. Sadly, a couple of years alter, my friend had his house broken into and one of the few things they took were all the pictures from that sighting, which was rather strange in itself.

The upshot of this though is interesting. it tends to suggest that people who are *straight* immediately believe what they are seeing is actually there, no matter how strange or anomalous it might be. However, the person who is under the influence of a hallucingenic drug immediately questions the validuty of the experience and, in this case. sought to at least attempt to verify it by means of an impassionate third person , ie the camera...

nice post

Hmm I think it's a case of, as human beings we know what other human beings are capable of. We all possess the ability to behave as another person does, so naturally we know it is not outside the realm of probability for a person to commit murder, or to steal, given the right circumstances. However, eye-witness accounts are not always successful in proving or disproving a crime, and that largely rests on motive. Obviously an eye-witness account from a family member of someone on trial would be taken into less consideration than a stranger who happened to pass by when the crime was being committed, because naturally the family member has a motive - trying to keep their loved one from jail or execution. When it comes to UFO witnesses, well there is motive there too - attention and money being a couple. Cases are also alot of stronger when there are several stranger eye-witnesses who all saw and revealed the same story, same goes with UFO sightings. More credit is given when there are a bunch of strangers who all saw and described the same thing. As for me, if someone tells me they saw a UFO then I will accept that they saw something, or at least they believed they did. The question still remains whether they did indeed see an extraterrestrial something, or a man-made something.

The answer to the question of why does testimony work in a court of law, but not with ufo's (or other paranormal things) is that there are people out there in vast numbers that absolutely cannot accept anything "out of the ordinary" no matter how much testimony they are presented with, or shown mounds of information. Their minds just are not wired to accept certain things that would pose a risk to their well being. Denial is their primary weapon, and it keeps them in a very safe place. As long as they can refute it, then they feel somewhat safe. A court case concerns things of man's own doing, to sort out, which poses no real threat to them as the court case is normally about something that has happened after the fact. There is no threat to them on these type of things, so they readily accept the evidence from all sides. Clear evidence of invaders from another world is way too dangerous for them to accept and they will thusly reject it at all costs. No matter what they are shown, it will always come out the same for them. Safety is of their primary mind set, so we have to allow them that much.

yes, I think that might have alot to do with it....



Everyone has a right to their own opinion...or whatever gets them through the day

There are countless cases of miscarriages of justice due to incorrect and flawed witness belief, analysis and opinion. Human perception of a fleeting incident can vary greatly - at a simple level consider how two drivers in a car/auto accident perceive who was at fault...
A UFO event can be very fleeting or transitory; by definition the witness is observing something that to them is unidentified, therefore they may or may not be able to accurately determine simple facets of the sighting such as height, size speed etc. against known parameters - therefore the accuracy/veracity of their account cannot be guaranteed or validated, and should not be taken as 100% accurate 'proof'. Contrary to the normal beliefs of the believers; 'trained observers' are no more able to observe and record a transitory UFO event that is outside their parameters, knowledge and experience than Joe Public.

Very well said, this is the main reason why observation alone can't be claimed as being 'proof'. It's a simple concept, but often very difficult for some to accept.

Simple. Claims of "alien spacecraft" are extremely extraodinary and require far more viable proof. These witnesses are claiming something for which there is NO SOLID EVIDENCE. Saying they saw something strange and saying they saw alien spacecraft are 2 different things. MOST UFO witnesses calim they saw something "not of this Earth". Well, they have to PROVE that theory. They can not.

In a murder for example you have a body. Proof of a murder. In an alien spacecraft report you have nothing. Blurry photos and video don't work. Tiny bright lights FAR AWAY don't work. Unfocused bright tiny lights don't work.

People that believe they saw an "Alien spacecraft" have no tangible, viable proof what so ever of it being true.

That frustrates them like crazy.

Witnesess coming forward is very important, but it can be very frustrating for them too. If i saw a ufo hover above me for 10 mins, and i could see the craft in fine detail before it shot off into space, i would have to ask myself would i tell someone. I have read about other witnesess, who's sightings have been put down to stupid explanations, even though they know what they saw, that would frustrate me. Just like the rendleshem forest ufo. The witnesess know what they saw, but some people say it was a lighthouse. Im sorry, but that is just pathetic. At the same time, its important that people from militery, governments, nasa, even pilots coming forward, because if they did see what they said they saw, then you cant keep it to yourself, but again, i understand how frustrating it can be.

Ask any judge, prosecutor or defence attorney about the value of first hand accounts in a court of law and you will learn that they are the least reliable and consistently the most subjective of all evidence types.

My feeling is that there will always be a part of society that will outright reject the idea of anything extraterrestrial. Many refuse to beleive out of fear. When their world of perception is threatened they often react by attacking the person making the testimonial. That is why many people who have had experiences do not discuss them openly.

I have done lots of things over the years, and i ain't sharing that info with no one bud.

A slight contradiction in what is acceptable as 'proof'? Why assume that the claimed Rendlesham witnesses accounts* are accurate while other military reports may be inaccurate?

* There is seldom (if any) mention of the capsule that crashed in the forest and was attended by a fire crew. Penniston belatedly stated that the first night's events occurred in a different location to that originally indicated by others. Warren claims Halt touched the 'craft', and Halt claims he didn't (not to mention his long-standing claim that Warren wasn't even there) - both witness accounts clearly cannot be true. The local knowledge of Thirkettle is disregarded by witnesses because it doesn't suit their story...
I agree the Lighthouse Excuse (I won't call it a theory) has no credibility, but the variance of the accounts illustrate the difficulty in establishing proof; even the strange lights described on the night-time excursion are an example of witnesses describing unknowns while in unfamiliar surroundings.

I think it is safer to trust witnesses to a murder than to a UFO sighting. We actually know that murders can happen so it is safe to assume that witnesses are at least capable of telling the truth whereas we aren't yet sure if UFOs are real so people could just be making it up as a hoax.

Oh come on now!



So, they are all lying, is that what you are saying? If me, and a group of friends where in the same situation, in the dark, are you saying we would remember everything that happend, in the exact same spot? i dont think so. I believe they saw something that night. Was it ET, well, i would need more proof, but if people tried to view some cases with an open mind instead of finding ways to de-bunk them or discredit them, then im sure they would get something out of some of these cases.

Very well said.

You are the one who cast doubt over the ability of military personnel to accurately relate what they may see - read your own post

There is no doubt that Halt had sought to distort his story (for purposes unknown) over many years in denying Warren was present at second night's encounter, before belatedly and begrudgingly admitting he was there. That said, Warren's claims that Halt touched the craft and/or communicated with ETs are denied by Halt; one of these accounts cannot be true - so which do you choose to believe? Penniston's belated claim for the location of the first night's event is considerably different to that originally indicated by other witnesses and understood by the researchers; there is more than a slight difference between the event occurring @1.5km in the forest near Capel Green or @100m off the Woodbridge perimeter fence - again, which claims are actually true?

Your description of what may happen during a UFO sighting confirms that an individual's perception and recollection of the event may be fallible, and therefore may be equally unreliable.



When a believer's world of subjective belief (and indeed blind faith) is threatened they often react by attacking those who deal in objectivity and fact.

I think this has a lot to do with it right here. If we had a UFO on hand, or other physical evidence, then first hand witness accounts would be important. Lets say we had a murder...no body, no ID, no missing person, no motive, absolutely NO physical evidence that a murder ever occured...but one guy swears he saw someone get killed. Then what? That's what you have with UFO's. Not always but more often than not.

Actually, there have been cases where a person was convicted of murder in the absence of a body. Here is one example.


http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/082207a.htm

In the case of UFOs, radar evidence is considered physical evidence, especially when used to corroborate eyewitness accounts.

Not in the cases where eyewitness accounts were corroborated by radar and ELINT data, and it is inconceivable to think that experienced commercial and military aircrews would conjure up a false UFO reports for fun.

Beside, in many of the pilot reports, radar not only confirmed the UFOs, but there are many cases where ground-based witnesses confirmed the pilot UFO sightings in addition to the radar contacts. The 1952 Washington UFO and 1976 Iranian UFO incidents are very good cases.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. What does "no body, no ID, no missing person, no motive", have to do with eyewitness accounts of people who see UFOs?

Radar is not proof to me, due to the fact it does not say WHAT the radar hit(s) are. Weather and other normal things can cause radar hits.

yep - there are people serving life prison sentences because someone testified that they "saw" them commit the crime. there are people that have put to death by our judicial system because someone testified that they "saw" them commit the crime. however, if someone says they "saw" a UFO - they are crazy, or debunkers/skeptics come along and find any & every explanation why the eye witness testimony isn't true. maybe some of these guys missed their true calling & should be criminal defense attourneys. . . . .

The point is that there is no physical evidence when a person see's and reports a UFO. There is noting left behind. We have no vehicle (body), no identification (ID), no report of something that we know was here and is now not (missing person), or any idea why it was here and what it was doing (motive).

The absence of "evidence" is not evidence of absence...in regards to UFOs.

Don't you think if alien technology existed, lets say --- err --- i know, 'anti gravity lift' wouldn't you think that the government who had this in there grip would more than likely use it for military gains, or even bigger and more likely, world monopoly on human propulsion - ie, cars trains lorries boats, you name it they would own it.
Don't you think bud?

What? So UFO's are somehow exempt from the rules regarding proof and evidence in a scientific field? In ANY paranormal field, the so called holy grail, should be verifiable physical evidence. That's all I'm saying in regards to UFO's and the witnesses of these things. Great, we have reports, we have anecdotal evidence, and we even have some scientific analysis of these reports, maybe even some electronic data that supports the claims that there was SOMETHING physically in the air. But we need more. Your saying is a cliché' used to sell books and promote websites. Bah. I want real evidence, that's all. Is that asking too much?

Sheesh...there is plenty enough evidence if you take the time to look for it. Okay, this is just one I have found, there are thousands.

Falcon Lake, Manitoba
May 20, 1967

Stephen Michalak set out on a prospecting trip to Falcon Lake, Manitoba, on Friday, May 19, 1967, just as he would have for any other trip. He packed his equipment, and his wife packed him a lunch for the next day's work. He arrived in Falcon Lake at approximately 9:30 p.m. and checked into a motel. He would later report to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) that he went for a coffee at the motel's beverage room. On the morning of May 20th, Michalak awoke early in the morning and began prospecting in an area he later attempted to keep secret. After a morning of work in the bushes around Falcon Lake, he came across a flock of geese, a typical scene for rural Manitoba, and sat down at 11:00 a.m. to have his lunch.

It was the ruckus caused by the geese that first caught Michalak's attention. When he looked up, there were two flying saucers directly in front of him. According to his statement to the RCMP, he knelt in amazement before the two objects.

One of the objects landed about 100 feet in front of him, while the other hovered about 10 feet off of the ground. Michalak estimated the size of the hovering object to be about 30 feet in diameter.

Related documents:
Interview of May 24, 1967

The first object remained on the ground for 45 minutes. It made a whirling sound and gradually changed in colour from grey to silver. Then a hatch opened and the object emitted a bright violet light. Michalak claimed that he heard voices from within. He called out to the voices in English, German, Italian, Polish, Ukrainian and Russian. There was no response; instead the hatch closed quickly as if the inhabitants were spooked. Michalak reached out and touched the object as it began to revolve and take off, and he was instantly pushed back by a force of hot air. The blast burned his clothing and left marks on his chest. After he ripped off his clothing, Michalak felt ill. He began to vomit and noticed a metallic smell coming from inside his body, like the burning smell of an electric wire or an electric motor.

Feeling worse by the minute, Michalak headed towards the highway, where he managed to flag down an RCMP car. Michalak refused medical treatment from the officer at the time, but later went back to the RCMP detachment office and asked for a doctor. Upon learning that there were no doctors in the area, he caught a bus back to Winnipeg.

Related documents:
RCMP report Falcon Lake

When Michalak returned home, his son took him to the hospital. He did not tell the doctor the burns were caused by an unidentified flying object (UFO), but rather by airplane exhaust. Michalak also consulted his family doctor about his loss of appetite; since the ordeal, he had experienced rapid weight loss.

On May 26, 1967, Michalak was interviewed by C.J. Davis of the RCMP. His report describes the burn marks visible on Michalak's chest: "...a large burn that covers an area approximately 1 foot in diameter. The burn was... blotchy and with unburned areas inside the burned perimeter area."

Related documents:
RCMP report of May 26, 1967

By this time, the authorities had become very interested in the case. There were aspects of Michalak's story that were difficult to explain, such as the burns on his body. The RCMP wanted to find the landing site to investigate further. They first attempted to find the site on their own, on May 31st, but were unsuccessful.

Related documents:
RCMP report of June 26, 1967

On June 1, 1967, Michalak was brought to Falcon Lake to lead another search. Michalak could not find the site, causing increased speculation about the validity of his claim. The RCMP uncovered another discrepancy in his story: Michalak had reported that he went for coffee the night before the alleged sighting; however the bartender at the Falcon Lake Motel's beverage room claimed to have served Michalak bottles of beer.

Related documents:
RCMP report of June 18, 1967

The RCMP decided to close the case until Michalak could locate the landing site. On June 26th, however, the case re-opened. Michalak claimed to have found the site on his own, and recovered objects he had left there -- pieces of his burnt clothing, steel tape, and some rocks and soil samples.

Related documents:
RCMP report of August 10, 1967

RCMP Squad Leader Bissky visited Michalak on the evening of June 26th and obtained samples of soil brought back from the location. The soil samples, along with samples of clothing and the steel tape, were sent to be tested for radioactive material. On July 24th, the results of these tests were sent to the RCMP along with a memo that stated, "U.F.O. reported by Stephen Michalak. Laboratory tests here indicate earth samples taken from scene highly radioactive. Radiation protection Div. of Dept. of Health and Welfare concerned that others may be exposed, if travel in area not restricted."

Related documents:
Memo of July 24, 1967

A second laboratory test was sent to the RCMP on July 25th. It stated that the Department of Health and Welfare would be sending a representative, Mr. Hunt, to Winnipeg to investigate.

Related documents:
Memo of July 25, 1967

On the evening of July 27, 1967, Michalak was visited by Hunt, Squad Leader Bissky and C.J. Davis, who explained the laboratory findings of radioactive material. Michalak agreed to take them to the landing site on the following day, July 28th. The group walked to the location in the afternoon and reported the scene to be bare of evidence except for a semi-circle on the rock face, 15 feet in diameter, where the moss had been somehow removed. Mr. Hunt found traces of radiation in a fault in the rock across the center of the landing spot. No trace of radiation was found around the outer perimeter of the circle or in the moss or grass below the raised portion of the rock. The radioactive material found in the rock fault was radium 226, an isotope in wide commercial use and also found in nuclear reactor waste. In view of the small quantity of soil contamination, Mr. Hunt determined that there was no danger to humans travelling in the area.

Related documents:
RCMP report of August 10, 1967

Mr. Hunt's report of September 13, 1967

The Department of National Defence identifies the Falcon Lake case as unsolved. Stephen Michalak wrote a book about his experience, but claimed to never have financially benefited from his ordeal.

Related documents:
Department of National Defence letter

RCMP interviews and documentation:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1301.01-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1302-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1303-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1304-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1305-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1306-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1307-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1308-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1309-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1310-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1311-e.html

The picture of his burns can be seen here:
http://www.ufoarea.com/events_falconlake.html

I agree the Michalak case has some strong corroborative evidence of something unusual occurring; but is it proof of ET rather than a military and/or black-budget project - no. The late 60s timescale was a period of nuclear propulsion experiments.
Certain elements of the case are similar to the Cash-Landrum case, also with radiation effects - which itself was very contemporary to the Rendlesham event.

That's all the exact type of evidence I'm talking about.



It's good evidence, but WHAT does it prove? That SOMETHING appears to have occurred, that we can't explain, only guess at.

The event remains unidentified by the Military and RCMP. There was ground impressions and residual radioactivity that they had to call in special services to deal with it. We have the witness as to what it was...a flying saucer, and by the sounds of it, he wasn't too forthcoming with details and tried to hide the event. I assume because of his gold claim on the land that the event occured. Was it alien? ...unknown but possible. Someone mentioned a black-op project. What would you do if something like this happened to you? Would you climb in the craft when the door opened?

Okay,
To me, the only proof that the average person is going to accept as actual proof, is physical proof ( and this means MOST people would accept this ) its proof in hand ( even detailed pictures or film would have some people skeptical because it could always have been altered in some way or fake ) In hand proof would have to be part of their "space ship" ( better to have the whole spacecraft though....cause you know, it could always be part of our own advanced technology lol ) or the ultimate proof ( for all those really skeptical people ) would be an alien itself. I dont know about you, but I dont think any ADVANCED race is going to put themselves in that kind of situation. I wouldnt think that they would just "leave" a spacecraft here. They certainly are not going to just leave an alien behind for us to have fun with either lol Wouldnt you think that it would be possible ( as advanced as they would be ) that they could indeed come, visit, and leave.....all without leaving a spaceship, or an alien? lol
Oh, and yes.....I would believe that they would have an interest in us ( observing without the majority of us even acknowledging their presence ) Heck, they could even conduct their own experiements ( lets say cow mutilations for example ) its not like they are going to get caught....and even if they are, so what. What are we going to do...tell someone? LOL

Oh, and Im not saying its bad to be skeptical ( not everything is what it seems ) but, its also not a bad thing to be open minded, expecially to things that cant be proven at this time ( doesnt mean its not possible or true )

These ground impressions and "residual radioactivity" could of been from numerous things. It proves nothing. Ahh wait, a gold claim??? Hmmmm, wild story to keep people away from the site? Unknown but possible? How? How is it possible that it was alien?

Your last question, yes I would. Pure speculations on your part.

Most people won't accept the eyewitness accounts because of the lack of verifiable, or physical, evidence. To use your analogy of a crime, eye witness accounts would only be acceptable if there was any physical evidence a crime had been committed,(probably for good reasons) or perhaps if there were a number of independent eyewitnesses.

I have encountered both angels and UFO's in my 56 years on earth. I can assure you that people are a lot more accepting/less judgemental of my accounts of the UFO's than of the angels. Generally, most people won't accept either, unless you can offer physical proof, but the existence of UFO's in the 21C is obviously a lot more socially acceptable than the existence of angels.

In my case the angels have had a lot more tangible effect on me, and the physical world around me, than the UFO's, which remain just visual sightings. Yet people remain more skeptical of the angels, perhaps because of the "religious" element they perceive with angels, and their innate distrust of anything religious/spiritual.

Again, this kind of proof is still not enough.

All you have is a piece of metal. Metal is NOT an indicator of interstellar travel.

I think only some people have picked up on the real argument here....and that is not that the evidence exists, but the fact evidence itself is not a definitive indication of the truth.

For instance, a photograph of a Yellow light floating above a car is exactly what it is....a picture of a yellow light floating above a car. The assumption that it is a UFO or is extra-terrestrial is not apparent in the photograph.

OK, again...based on the evidence presented, tell me, definitively, exactly what this guy saw. That's my point...you can't.

If I say, " I saw Bob shoot Ed", and Ed's body has a hole in it, with a bullet in it, that matches Bobs gun, and Bob has gunshot residue on his hand, and Ed owed Bob $10,000 and told everyone in public he wasn't gonna pay it back, I have a MURDER.

Now, what do YOU have? Besides more questions.

That's my point. Not that it wasn't an alien spaceship...that we don't know what it was.

Ummm, yes it can be. If the proper testing is done to it. How do you think we know meteorites are from space? None of the so called "alien spacecraft" metal that is said to exist has been sent to a real meteoritical lab. Wonder why??? With the proper testing we can not only tell if it came from space but we can tell how LONG it's been on Earth and how old the object is.

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it....

Earthly elements didn't 'Evolve' on earth, elements of a supposed UFO piece of metal are going to be SAME as those found on Earth (our periodic table is quite common in the universe), the only thing that will differ is the ratio of metals in the Alloy. A supposed UFO piece of metal may have an additive that is a synthetic compound to strengthen the metal or give it a property that is not common practice terrestrially.

That's not evidence of a space faring culture....thats evidence of someone intelligent...we have THEM on earth too.

In regards to your comparison of rocks....Planets are formed in the same process universally. A 'Space Rock' is going to be the same as a terrestrial rock. Meteorites that crash to earth are generally loose material and debris from larger formations from failed planets (one such planet is thought to have existed in our solar system, hence the debris ring between Mars and Jupiter) or collisions from the Mars asteroid field. Analysis of the rock to discover its origin will reveal very little about what the rock is made from. The conditioning of the rock will have been affected too upon entering the earths atmosphere. Plus, space rocks are generally pretty easy to spot because they sit at the epicentre of a massive crater.

Thirdly this is actually incorrect:



in my library of UFO related material, there are several instances of supposed UFO crash debris sent for independent testing. Off the top of my head (i'm actually at work and don't have access to my books) there was crash debris from a 1967 case in Queensland, Australia at a place called Greenbank (just outside of Brisbane). It was detailed in a book called 'Alien Honeycomb' (1978), where several pieces of crashed UFO were sent for testing. The material turned out to be a heat resistant insulation for metal. The material then could really only be classified as 'unknown' because without a defined set of characteristics that are used as a guide for extra-terrestrial craft....it can not be classified any other way.

soemthing which is 'unknown' may still belong to the 'known' category, just the amount of evidence at the time is inconclusive to classify it that way.

Liar!

You ignored the first part of my post. Noted.

Which lab was the material sent too? Want to bet it wasn't a meteoritical lab? A proper lab (as noted in the first part of my post) can tell if it was in space and how long it's been on earth. There are other things they test for than composition.