That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(29-11-2014 09:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(29-11-2014 12:09 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Apparently it's not that simple as you are not seeing the difference. When he says:
He is 100% correct, there is no evidence that they saw an aircraft. No physical evidence of any kind, no images, no video, no material samples, no wreckage, no energy or radioactivity readings or recordings of environmental changes in or around the area.

Then you, and anyone else who has argued this point, have absolutely miserably failed to reason and rationalize the sexual harassment analogy. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.

In the sexual harassment analogy, there is no evidence that the defendant said anything at all. So how could the 12 witnesses' testimony get the defendant convicted, UNLESS the judge considered the testimony of the 12 witnesses' as EVIDENCE?

Therefore, in the other litigation analogy regarding the Chicago Tribune vrs the FAA, whereas the Tribune accuses the FAA of covering up reports that an unknown aircraft had invaded US airspace, why would the judge deny as evidence the testimony of the 12 witnesses who would testify that they had filed those reports- the same ones that were covered up- with their superiors?

You see, this is where you lose the plot, dude. Don't even try to defend yourself with this, you are Done. Fini. Kaput. Laughat

Quote:Oral testimony is the oldest kind of evidence. The oral testimony of witnesses can exclude or supplement documentary evidence. Under the U.S. law almost anyone can be a witness. The parties to the case, experts, even children, and convicted felons can testify.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/oral-testimony/


Quote:In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

Quote:Oral evidence offered by a competent witness under oath, which is used to establish some fact or set of facts. Testimony is distinguishable from evidence that is acquired through the use of written sources, such as documents.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/testimony

Their testimony is evidence supporting the existence of an unknown aircraft in US airspace, and it supports the evidence covered up by the FAA.

CASE CLOSED. Big Grin

Since the rest of what you said is but more of the same inability to reason intelligently, there's no point in responding to it.

Thumbsup

You just went full pigeon. Never go full pigeon. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(29-11-2014 03:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  You just went full pigeon. Never go full pigeon. Drinking Beverage

I am not into yoga. I am into champagne.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2014, 11:18 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2014 11:21 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(29-11-2014 09:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.

You see, this is where you lose the plot, dude. Don't even try to defend yourself with this, you are Done. Fini. Kaput. Laughat

Since the rest of what you said is but more of the same inability to reason intelligently, there's no point in responding to it.

Thumbsup

[Image: Boy-That-Escalated-Quickly-Anchorman.gif]

You have been around here for awhile and your rep is positive enough that I'm willing to over look your unnecessarily belligerent attitude and deliver a more measured response then people who act this way are accustomed to getting from me, because I think your past contributions here have earned you that much at least. Also I just flat out like you as a person Free Yes

(29-11-2014 09:44 AM)Free Wrote:  Then you, and anyone else who has argued this point, have absolutely miserably failed to reason and rationalize the sexual harassment analogy. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.

In the sexual harassment analogy, there is no evidence that the defendant said anything at all. So how could the 12 witnesses' testimony get the defendant convicted, UNLESS the judge considered the testimony of the 12 witnesses' as EVIDENCE?

First off I never said that eye witness testimony is not considered evidence, in fact I said the complete opposite, something you conveniently edited out of your response:
Quote:Eyewitness testimony that corresponds to the physical evidence is very valuable in a court and relied upon all the time. Eyewitness testimony that runs counter to, or does not support, the physical evidence is almost always universally discarded.
Everything I said there is accurate, eyewitness testimony that runs counter to the evidence is discarded, people are often charged with perjury even. You could have 100 witnesses saying a guy robbed a bank in Chicago but if you can provide physical verifiable evidence that the guy was in New York at the time of the robbery then they don't go with the witness testimony and throw the guy in jail. Eyewitness testimony can be used as evidence but it is know to be the most horribly unreliable there is.

Secondly I went to all the trouble to explain to you why your analogy was garbage and you , again, conveniently edited that out when you responded. You just asserted I failed to understand it, but never showed how. I understand it. I understand the point you are trying to make, and I understand how it's a fallacious false analogy. The share exactly one thing in common, the number of witnesses and the rest are either not similar or polar opposites. The cases are in no way similar, I explained what it would take for them to be analogous of each other and you edited that out of your reply, instead of attempting to explain why that is not the case.
Your analogy is literally a textbook example of the False Analogy Fallacy, so you will forgive me if I don't take your belligerent assertion that I failed to reason seriously.

Quote:In the sexual harassment analogy, there is no evidence that the defendant said anything at all.
there is no evidence the defendant said anything? Cool I'll grant you that but there is other pertinent evidence. Was the accused even there during the alleged sexual harassment? Does this person actually bloody exist?
These are things we can establish in one case and we can not in the other. The cases are not analogous of each other in the slightest, they have a fallacy for what you're doing for a reason.

(29-11-2014 09:44 AM)Free Wrote:  why would the judge deny as evidence the testimony of the 12 witnesses who would testify that they had filed those reports- the same ones that were covered up- with their superiors?

He wouldn't. I'm not disputing that they filled the reports and that the report was kept from the public. Which is what their testimony in that case was about. The judge did not rule that their testimony was a factually accurate representation of the events or that they had in fact witnessed an alien craft from another part of the universe, he ruled that they made a claim and that the claim was suppressed by their superiors.
The case proved that the witnesses reported seeing something and that the reports were suppressed, it did not prove that what they saw was what they think they saw.
You are making wild leaps from what is proven (that they issued a report)to what is not proven (that it was an alien craft) without justifiable cause, you are violating Occam's razor entirely (another justified criticism of your position you have, twice now, edited out of your replies and avoided), and you are using fallacious methods (demonstrated) to try and justify your stance.
That a judge agreed with their testimony that they filled a report, does not mean the judge considered their testimony evidence of an alien encounter, just that it was proof that they filled a report. these are not the same thing.

If only 0.01% of alien sightings are genuine then you better have a damn sight more compelling evidence than "12 people said so and a judge agreed that they did in fact say so".

Here is an event where over 30000 people claim to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity. There is no corroborating evidence that this occurred. The witnesses claimed it to be the work of the Virgin Mary.
Under you standard of evidence this is sufficient enough that the existence of the Virgin Mary is the most plausible. To point out that this is not justified or down right silly is not a "failure to reason", it's the opposite in fact.

There is a reason on a forum full of evidence based rationalists you have failed to get any support for your stance and it's not because we all magically stopped being able to reason on this one subject you just happen to have an emotion investment in at the exact same time for the exact same reasons.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
29-11-2014, 11:24 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(29-11-2014 04:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(29-11-2014 03:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  You just went full pigeon. Never go full pigeon. Drinking Beverage

I am not into yoga. I am into champagne.

Drinking Beverage

[Image: arguing-with-some-people.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-11-2014, 08:52 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2014 09:02 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
Quote:First off I never said that eye witness testimony is not considered evidence, in fact I said the complete opposite, something you conveniently edited out of your response:

Here is your response to Chas' statement:

WhiskeyDebates Wrote:
Chas Wrote:Except that there is no evidence that what they saw was an aircraft. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
He is 100% correct, there is no evidence that they saw an aircraft.

Since Chas' statement clearly says ad nausium that there is no evidence that what they "saw" was a craft- and note the word "saw" clearly indicates eyewitness/visual observation- and then you said that Chas was 100% correct, am I to think anything else?

Chas' statement clearly includes eyewitness testimony as part of his "None. Nada. Zip. Ziltch." He does not specify that he was speaking about physical evidence only.

I am responding directly to the written words on the screen, and those written words clearly indicate that you are 100% in agreement with Chas that what they "saw" was not evidence.

And that is precisely why I get so ignorant to some posters. I pay very VERY close attention to what is written, and what was written is very VERY clear.

So to me, there is only two possible reasons why you agreed with Chas.

1. You actually do agree with him.
2. You are trolling me.

Either one will frustrate me since it is obvious that what they "saw" is indeed eyewitness evidence, and/or if you were trolling me then the frustration and my response was warranted.

If you didn't not realize that you were agreeing with Chas that what they "saw" was not evidence, then all is good in the world.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 08:52 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:First off I never said that eye witness testimony is not considered evidence, in fact I said the complete opposite, something you conveniently edited out of your response:

Here is your response to Chas' statement:

WhiskeyDebates Wrote:He is 100% correct, there is no evidence that they saw an aircraft.

Since Chas' statement clearly says ad nausium that there is no evidence that what they "saw" was a craft- and note the word "saw" clearly indicates eyewitness/visual observation- and then you said that Chas was 100% correct, am I to think anything else?

I am responding directly to the written words on the screen, and those written words clearly indicate that you are 100% in agreement with Chas that what they "saw" was not evidence.

And that is precisely why I get so ignorant to some posters. I pay very VERY close attention to what is written, and what was written is very VERY clear.

So to me, there is only two possible reasons why you agreed with Chas.

1. You actually do agree with him.
2. You are trolling me.

Either one will frustrate me since it is obvious that what they "saw" is indeed eyewitness evidence, and/or if you were trolling me then the frustration and my response was warranted.

If you didn't not realize that you were agreeing with Chas that what they "saw" was not evidence, then all is good in the world.

We have no evidence of what they think they saw. Nothing corroborates their belief.

Why don't you understand that?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 09:03 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 08:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 08:52 AM)Free Wrote:  Here is your response to Chas' statement:


Since Chas' statement clearly says ad nausium that there is no evidence that what they "saw" was a craft- and note the word "saw" clearly indicates eyewitness/visual observation- and then you said that Chas was 100% correct, am I to think anything else?

I am responding directly to the written words on the screen, and those written words clearly indicate that you are 100% in agreement with Chas that what they "saw" was not evidence.

And that is precisely why I get so ignorant to some posters. I pay very VERY close attention to what is written, and what was written is very VERY clear.

So to me, there is only two possible reasons why you agreed with Chas.

1. You actually do agree with him.
2. You are trolling me.

Either one will frustrate me since it is obvious that what they "saw" is indeed eyewitness evidence, and/or if you were trolling me then the frustration and my response was warranted.

If you didn't not realize that you were agreeing with Chas that what they "saw" was not evidence, then all is good in the world.

We have no evidence of what they think they saw. Nothing corroborates their belief.

Why don't you understand that?

Perhaps you should have made your point more precise and clear? You clearly said that what they "saw"- their observation- was not evidence, so what am I to think?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 09:03 AM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 08:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  We have no evidence of what they think they saw. Nothing corroborates their belief.

Why don't you understand that?

Perhaps you should have made your point more precise and clear? You clearly said that what they "saw"- their observation- was not evidence, so what am I to think?

Their unsupported testimony of their experience is poor evidence indeed.

Do you have any idea how many people convicted of crimes solely on eyewitness testimony have been subsequently cleared when actual evidence emerged?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 09:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 09:03 AM)Free Wrote:  Perhaps you should have made your point more precise and clear? You clearly said that what they "saw"- their observation- was not evidence, so what am I to think?

Their unsupported testimony of their experience is poor evidence indeed.

Do you have any idea how many people convicted of crimes solely on eyewitness testimony have been subsequently cleared when actual evidence emerged?

I understand that, but that is not the point here. I am simply reading the words on the screen and responding directly to those words.

I am a "word" nut. When translating ancient texts, I can dwell on a single word for days as I investigate the many different applications of that word so that I can best choose the application that corresponds to the context with the closest approximation.

Perhaps I do tend to over-analyze some statements, but when some statements appear to be exceptionally clear, not much I can do but respond to what I see.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2014 09:38 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
Here is another hypothetical scenario.

A report comes in to Homeland Security that an unidentified aircraft was observed in a stationary position over the Empire State Building in New York City.

The US Airforce scrambles its fighter pilots, and they head for the area. They see an unidentified aircraft which then begins to move towards the east. They pursue it east at a high speed, and even attempt to shoot it down as it flies over US waters in the Atlantic ocean, off the coast of Maine.

6 trained fighter pilots failed to shoot down the aircraft and the aircraft itself demonstrates exceptional maneuverability and speed insomuch that it accelerates over the water until it can no longer be visually seen.

Afterwards, the pilots were interviewed and none of them could identify what kind of craft it was, or who was responsible for it.


So the question is this:

Is there any evidence that what they saw was an aircraft?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: