You bring up a very valid point here. We should be very careful about accepting second hand information as evidence, except in rare instances. The reason? One is that the evidence might very well be incomplete, or affected by the reporters agenda (if he or she has one), but the most important reason is that without the original source, it is much harder to ask approrpriate questions. Suppose that your late grandmother told you about a UFO that she saw. You decide to tell it to MUFON, let's say. Investigators might think the story was interesting but they can't question the original witness, thus their information is bound to be incomplete.Mercury wrote:The Ancient Alien episode last night showed many of the elongated skulls. David Hatcher Childress made a comment about them being tested for DNA and the results showing other than full human results.
I would constitute that as hard evidence if they then interviewed the lab which did the work and what the results were. He left us guessing, and that was a big problem.
This is the reason that a court of law has the 'hearsay rule'. It is also the reason that many psychic researchers do not accept data from second, or remoter hands. There might be some exceptions to this, but as a general rule, my understanding is that they don't.
Another question occurs to me. Does 'non-human' necessarily mean "extra-terrestrial'?