That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
After reading through most of this thread my only conclusion is that I wish people would not say seen when they really mean to say saw.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Losty's post
01-12-2014, 09:30 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 09:00 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 08:30 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Lol I think you left one of your toys on the way out. I'm kinda disappointed that I won't get an actual response to any of the points I made pages ago. Oh well It was bound to happen, one of us had to get tired it's gotta take just as long to make up shit up as it takes me to correct it.


Man...........this would have been really embarrassing if this was all a big misunderstanding and you actually think Mexicans did it.

Sorry I didn't respond to some of your posts. There was just too much coming at me from everyone, and also some time constraints here irl.

It's OK man I know how that is, I work 12-14 hour days here atm.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
Sorry if I already posted this.

The airport wasn't busy with landings one night, so it was fairly quiet. The window was open, because it was in the summer. The air conditioning wasn't as good as a standard apartment's. My sister was watching Star Trek, and I was scribbling some ideas on a note pad, or something like that. The TV was facing away from the window. It was open anyway. We did have a balloon season, but it was in the fall and they were like dots on the same horizon. We had a good view of town there, which included some of the streets. (I can get a few pictures of how good this view is. Sharing them in here is another matter, though.)

My sister interrupted my thoughts to ask "What is that?" I felt annoyed and looked out through the window screen. There was a really big red balloon on the west horizon. It glowed like a digital light to. I hastily went to get the camera only to find it gone when I looked again. Another time, more recently, my sister was driving the two of us back to my dad's place (same house) and I just stared out the window as I usually do. Something that would be about the size of a car and without wings was smoothly and quietly descending toward the river. It made no sound I could hear it with. Half of the round thing was a pretty green color but feint. My sister couldn't look, because she was driving. I didn't have a camera handy then either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
Okay, I have come back to this thread for a couple of reasons, one of which being that i was accused of ignoring posts, which itself is true, but I have expressed those reasons in another thread and will also express them here.

So here we go with Free version 2.0

(29-11-2014 12:09 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:57 AM)Free Wrote:  Really?

Here's his statement:


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692599

The O'Hare UFO incident has at least 12 eyewitnesses.

The issue is whether or not eyewitness testimony is considered to be evidence.

It's as simple as that.

Drinking Beverage

Apparently it's not that simple as you are not seeing the difference. When he says:
Quote: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. 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.

The recording is not evidence that they a saw a vehicle, that recording is evidence that they claim they saw what they believed to be a vehicle. This is an actual and real distinction you need to recognize.
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.
The problem is you don't have any physical evidence to determine if their claims are accurate and comport to reality and the evidence thus the claim that they saw a vehicle is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the judge would rule against you.

This is why you can't just take 12 people and have people you don't like thrown in jail based on just your testimony.

Physical evidence is not always required to get a conviction. In the analogy where there were 12 witnesses who overheard the defendant sexually harrassing the victim, there was absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever. That was the entire point of that analogy; to demonstrate how convictions occur when there is no physical evidence. And just so you know, right here in Alberta we have seen murderers get convicted when there has been no body found. The victim was absent from the trial, just like the UFO would be absent from a trial.

Similarily in the O'Hare incident, 12 people experienced with aircraft claim to have seen an aircraft that they could not identify as anything known to them.

They claim to have "seen" something, and the anaology claims to have "heard" something. Both situations rely on one of the five senses, and neither has a shred of physical evidence.

So explain to me how this analogy is false. It simply isn't. It's almost a dead-ringer for the O'Hare incident. If the testimony of 12 people who heard something can get a man convicted of sexual harrassment, how then should we doubt the testimony of 12 people who seen something?

Convictions without physical evidence, or even the victim themselves, happens all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conv...out_a_body

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/crime/no-...stic-batte

Quote:
(28-11-2014 09:09 AM)Free Wrote:  If any of you had to make a decision of yes or no in regards to the question of whether or not intelligent alien life exists in the known universe, please respond with your answers in your next post, and with a probability scale greater or less than 50%. No fence sitters please. Make a decision either way.

This is just disappointing Free.
We don't have to say yes or no, because "I don't Know" is in this case the intellectually honest answer. It's not "fence sitting" it's intellectually honest, the insistence that you have to believe one way or another is not only fallacious it's a hallmark of the religious type of thinking that we so patiently reject.

Oh for fuck sakes can't you understand it was merely a question asking for opinions? Where the fuck is this "insistence" you speak of?

If you understood logic correctly, you would know that any reasonable hypothesis is never deemed 100% true or 100% false. The post clearly said, "IF anyone of you HAD to make a decision ..." it does not say you absolutely MUST make one. It is intentionally designed to intentionally put you into a position of yes or no, and if you don't want to be in that position, then simply don't answer the question.

There's no logical fallacy and no intellectual dishonesty here whatsoever. Many people hold a position one way or the other, and my question was so obviously aimed at that specific target audience. It's not about intellectual honesty, but rather a post to sample who, if anyone here, has a positive or negative position on extraterrestrial life in general. You are going off as if I committed some kind of heinous crime, ffs.

And you wonder why i avoid your posts? Seriously, if I have to go through this much damn trouble explaining mundane things to you, why the fuck should I bother?

Quote: It's more disappointing however because "alien life exists in the known universe" is not the claim you are making. You are making the claim that they exist AND that they travel billions of billions of light years to come to earth to hang out above airports for no discernible reason. These are WILDLY different claims.

This was my point in the Big Foot thread. It was this very post that compelled me to ignore most of your posts afterwards because I never said anything of the sort whatsoever, at any time. Not only is this post a miscarriage of the truth, but it is also clearly such an attempt to mock me that this is where you began to lose all credibility with me.

Quote:
(28-11-2014 10:48 AM)Free Wrote:  Since both have no empirical evidence, then neither is conclusive. Both are plausible.
They are not EQUALLY plausible though. You are wildly in violation of Occam's Razor, your hypothesis requires the most assumptions to maintain and is thus the least plausible.

The application of Occam's Razor was demonstrated ad nausium, and yet you still didn't accept it.

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
10-12-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, I have come back to this thread for a couple of reasons, one of which being that i was accused of ignoring posts, which itself is true, but I have expressed those reasons in another thread and will also express them here.
For the sake of clarity I never once accused you of ignoring posts. I accused, and then demonstrated, that you repeatedly responded to all my posts but that you ignored the objections raiser or intentionally edited them out of the quotes you responded to.
The most recent example of this off the top of my head is where you edited out my demonstration of you misrepresenting and strawmaning my position ....while accusing me of misrepresenting your position.

I'm not particularly bothered by it, I just wanted to clarify.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Physical evidence is not always required to get a conviction. In the analogy where there were 12 witnesses who overheard the defendant sexually harrassing the victim, there was absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever. That was the entire point of that analogy; to demonstrate how convictions occur when there is no physical evidence. And just so you know, right here in Alberta we have seen murderers get convicted when there has been no body found. The victim was absent from the trial, just like the UFO would be absent from a trial.
Except that's not an accurate comparison at all and there is in fact other evidence in the harassment case. First off a scientific evaluation of evidence is not the same as a criminal evaluation, but that's not really important to me at the moment though it is entirely relevant.

The problem with your analogy, as I stated before, is that in the harassment claim (and in those murder trials) we can demonstrate that the harasser and the murderer exist. We can demonstrate that the victim exists. The only qualities the two analogies share is the number of witnesses, and all other factors are not analogous. All active agents in the harassment, and murders, are known quantifiable and demonstrable factors. We can bring forth the accused, we can examine him, we can test him and we can demonstrate his existence. None of this is true for the UFO. The analogy is a false analogy.

Furthermore harassment and murder are, sadly, every day occurrences. They are common place on a daily basis unfortunately. UFO's are not, by any stretch of the imagination. Even if we counted every single sighting of UFO's they are not nearly a common experience. Even by the majority of people who claim to experience them are they not a common occurrence. Not only that but even by your own metric less then 1% of sightings are, in your opinion, genuine.
Harassment is an ordinary occurrence. UFO's are, by their very nature as not ordinary, extraordinary occurrences. They require a much more extraordinary level of evidence. The amount of evidence to find plausible an everyday occurrence is not sufficient to find the extraordinary plausible.

The only way the analogy is valid is if there is no physical evidence that the person exists. Don't get me wrong I see what your trying to say and I respect that, and hell I'm not even saying that it was absolutely not an aircraft and that it was absolutely not aliens. My position is that both of those, the claim and the proposed hypothesis, are far from ordinary claims and require far from ordinary evidence. Eye witness accounts, no matter how many you have, are very very ordinary evidence. We might just have a difference of opinion here on what constitutes ordinary evidence and that's fine, we can agree to disagree, but I require more then claims and assertions to find something possible let alone plausible. Don't take that the wrong way, that's not a dig at you, I personally require a great deal of evidence to entertain as plausible things which the claimant can not demonstrate to be true.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Similarily in the O'Hare incident, 12 people experienced with aircraft claim to have seen an aircraft that they could not identify as anything known to them.
And I agree, they have claimed to have seen such a thing. I have never disputed this claim.

(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  They claim to have "seen" something, and the anaology claims to have "heard" something. Both situations rely on one of the five senses, and neither has a shred of physical evidence.
I have already explained why this is incorrect, so I'll skip over it to avoid rehashing previous statements and just simply say that by their very, demonstrable, existence the victim and the harasser both provide physical evidence.

(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  So explain to me how this analogy is false. It simply isn't. It's almost a dead-ringer for the O'Hare incident.
I did above, it simply is, and it's not a dead ringer at all.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Convictions without physical evidence, or even the victim themselves, happens all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conv...out_a_body

How would a jury rule if the prosecution charged someone with the murder of a person whos very existence can not be shown? I'm not talking about no body I'm talking about a case where the accused does not exist, or can not be demonstrated to exist at any time before or after the crime.

How would a jury rule if the prosecution charged a man who does exist with the murder of a person that does not exist, or can not be demonstrated ever to have existed?

(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  http://www.naplesnews.com/news/crime/no-...stic-batte

Quote:"But it's important to remember that oftentimes, a victim is crucial in domestic violence cases," Russell said. "In this case, Mike was able to make a case with other evidence.

I don't see how this supports your position. That's not a dig, I really really don't. This is a case where they have a victim, have a culprit, have multiple instances of physical evidence and in fact do NOT rely on her eye witness testimony at all. The guy even admitted in his pretrial diversion agreement that he had struck her.

That's .....uh...that's the level of physical evidence that would get me to agree that they HAD in fact seen an aircraft they could not identify.

I'm positively bemused what your point is with that, again no dig at you intended.Huh



(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Oh for fuck sakes can't you understand it was merely a question asking for opinions? Where the fuck is this "insistence" you speak of?

If you understood logic correctly, you would know that any reasonable hypothesis is never deemed 100% true or 100% false. The post clearly said, "IF anyone of you HAD to make a decision ..." it does not say you absolutely MUST make one. It is intentionally designed to intentionally put you into a position of yes or no, and if you don't want to be in that position, then simply don't answer the question.

There's no logical fallacy and no intellectual dishonesty here whatsoever. Many people hold a position one way or the other, and my question was so obviously aimed at that specific target audience. It's not about intellectual honesty, but rather a post to sample who, if anyone here, has a positive or negative position on extraterrestrial life in general. You are going off as if I committed some kind of heinous crime, ffs.
Actually i freely admit that I was in error here. I had misread your statement and missed a rather crucial qualifier in your statement. I apologize for that and officially retract my statement of your dishonesty in this specific instance.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  And you wonder why i avoid your posts?
I do not wonder at all considering you have never avoided a single post, just many many points and criticisms and your excuse for that is not one I accept due to the fact you have changed your claim as to why you have done so.
However that is not particularly relevant at this point as you are taking the time to address some of my criticisms which I am very grateful for.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  This was my point in the Big Foot thread. It was this very post that compelled me to ignore most of your posts afterwards because I never said anything of the sort whatsoever, at any time. Not only is this post a miscarriage of the truth, but it is also clearly such an attempt to mock me that this is where you began to lose all credibility with me.
Um...except that it's not? You claimed that, in your opinion, the most probable explanation for the UFO over the airport was extraterrestrial life.
  • If they are extraterrestrials they would, by the very nature of the distance to the nearest solar system, have to travel billions of of light years to get here.
  • If you believe (or find it probable) that they were at the airport that day then they would in fact be... hanging out above an airport.
  • You did not provide any discernible reason as to why they would do that so therefor..their reasons remain undiscerned.

That was an accurate summation of a small portion of the baggage that comes along with the claim that extraterrestrials are the most probable explanation for the claimed sightings of a UFO over the airport.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  The application of Occam's Razor was demonstrated ad nausium, and yet you still didn't accept it.
This is partially true, you did demonstrate it ad nausium but it was fallacious each time. Occam's Razor is applied to competing hypotheses not to the individual claim it's self. The claim is that they saw a UFO, and this is where you applied Occam's Razor which is the wrong place. The hypothesis you presented was that the most probable explanation for what they saw is extraterrestrials and the hypotheses I presented was that the witnesses were mistaken about what they saw or that it was a Black Project aircraft. When we correctly apply Occam's Razor to the competing hypotheses it is the extraterrestrial position that has far and away the most assumptions making it the least probable explanation of those proposed. That does not mean that it is the wrong answer naturally but that it is the least likely due to the many assumptions one needs to make to support that hypothesis.


On a personal note however I want to say thank you. You took the time to address a few of the criticisms I raised, even bringing a mistake I made which slipped past me to my attention which I greatly appreciate, and that's all I have been wanting since the beginning. A response to the points and criticisms I made. Thumbsup

Pending your response and it's content/tone I'll be removing my negative rep.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2014, 10:16 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(10-12-2014 08:31 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Physical evidence is not always required to get a conviction. In the analogy where there were 12 witnesses who overheard the defendant sexually harrassing the victim, there was absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever. That was the entire point of that analogy; to demonstrate how convictions occur when there is no physical evidence. And just so you know, right here in Alberta we have seen murderers get convicted when there has been no body found. The victim was absent from the trial, just like the UFO would be absent from a trial.
Except that's not an accurate comparison at all and there is in fact other evidence in the harassment case. First off a scientific evaluation of evidence is not the same as a criminal evaluation, but that's not really important to me at the moment though it is entirely relevant.

The problem with your analogy, as I stated before, is that in the harassment claim (and in those murder trials) we can demonstrate that the harasser and the murderer exist. We can demonstrate that the victim exists. The only qualities the two analogies share is the number of witnesses, and all other factors are not analogous. All active agents in the harassment, and murders, are known quantifiable and demonstrable factors. We can bring forth the accused, we can examine him, we can test him and we can demonstrate his existence. None of this is true for the UFO. The analogy is a false analogy.

Furthermore harassment and murder are, sadly, every day occurrences. They are common place on a daily basis unfortunately. UFO's are not, by any stretch of the imagination. Even if we counted every single sighting of UFO's they are not nearly a common experience. Even by the majority of people who claim to experience them are they not a common occurrence. Not only that but even by your own metric less then 1% of sightings are, in your opinion, genuine.
Harassment is an ordinary occurrence. UFO's are, by their very nature as not ordinary, extraordinary occurrences. They require a much more extraordinary level of evidence. The amount of evidence to find plausible an everyday occurrence is not sufficient to find the extraordinary plausible.

The only way the analogy is valid is if there is no physical evidence that the person exists. Don't get me wrong I see what your trying to say and I respect that, and hell I'm not even saying that it was absolutely not an aircraft and that it was absolutely not aliens. My position is that both of those, the claim and the proposed hypothesis, are far from ordinary claims and require far from ordinary evidence. Eye witness accounts, no matter how many you have, are very very ordinary evidence. We might just have a difference of opinion here on what constitutes ordinary evidence and that's fine, we can agree to disagree, but I require more then claims and assertions to find something possible let alone plausible. Don't take that the wrong way, that's not a dig at you, I personally require a great deal of evidence to entertain as plausible things which the claimant can not demonstrate to be true.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Similarily in the O'Hare incident, 12 people experienced with aircraft claim to have seen an aircraft that they could not identify as anything known to them.
And I agree, they have claimed to have seen such a thing. I have never disputed this claim.

(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  They claim to have "seen" something, and the anaology claims to have "heard" something. Both situations rely on one of the five senses, and neither has a shred of physical evidence.
I have already explained why this is incorrect, so I'll skip over it to avoid rehashing previous statements and just simply say that by their very, demonstrable, existence the victim and the harasser both provide physical evidence.

(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  So explain to me how this analogy is false. It simply isn't. It's almost a dead-ringer for the O'Hare incident.
I did above, it simply is, and it's not a dead ringer at all.


(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Convictions without physical evidence, or even the victim themselves, happens all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conv...out_a_body

How would a jury rule if the prosecution charged someone with the murder of a person whos very existence can not be shown? I'm not talking about no body I'm talking about a case where the accused does not exist, or can not be demonstrated to exist at any time before or after the crime.

How would a jury rule if the prosecution charged a man who does exist with the murder of a person that does not exist, or can not be demonstrated ever to have existed?

(10-12-2014 03:10 PM)Free Wrote:  http://www.naplesnews.com/news/crime/no-...stic-batte

Quote:"But it's important to remember that oftentimes, a victim is crucial in domestic violence cases," Russell said. "In this case, Mike was able to make a case with other evidence.

I don't see how this supports your position. That's not a dig, I really really don't. This is a case where they have a victim, have a culprit, have multiple instances of physical evidence and in fact do NOT rely on her eye witness testimony at all. The guy even admitted in his pretrial diversion agreement that he had struck her.

That's .....uh...that's the level of physical evidence that would get me to agree that they HAD in fact seen an aircraft they could not identify.

I'm positively bemused what your point is with that, again no dig at you intended.Huh

I took the time to deeply review this analogy situation, and have figured out what the problem actually is here.

I have grouped all the ones regarding the analogy together, since what I am about to say will be a one-glove-fits-all response.

Of course you are correct about the requirement of a victim at a trial, or at least some kind of physical evidence, except perhaps in one of the links which demonstrated how expert eyewitness testimony did get the wife beater convicted. But that was not really what I was arguing about with Chas.

Chas and I were arguing ONLY on whether eyewitness testimony alone could be considered as evidence, and I presented the harassment scenario to demonstrate only how eyewitness testimony could in fact be considered as evidence and on its strength alone, could get a conviction. The argument was all about how a verdict can be rendered without any physical evidence.

It was an analogy only to demonstrate the power of eyewitness testimony, and was not intended to compare to the totality of the O'Hare incident.

But Chas didn't like that analogy, so I presented a better one below:

Here is the other one:

Quote:That does not matter in the slightest. Here's another plausible hypothetical scenario:

The Chicago Tribune investigated the situation and asked the FAA if they had any records of the UFO claims, and they responded "No."

Due to the persuasiveness of the eyewitness reports, the Chicago Tribune applied to the Freedom of Information Act to have access to the public FAA records, which turned up evidence that the FAA did indeed have plenty of evidence, demonstrating that they lied.

12 people, experienced with aircraft, all claimed that what they seen was an aircraft vehicle.

The Chicago Tribune decides press charges against the FAA for covering up reports that indicate that US airspace was invaded by unknown aircraft, posing a real danger to the USA.

The case goes to court, and the 12 witnesses who seen the aircraft are registered.

So again, here's the question:

Would the judge consider their testimony as evidence?

Then you enter and said my analogy was horrible, but the point of the first analogy was only to demonstrate that eyewitness testimony alone was sufficient for conviction, and to serve no other purpose than that. The 2nd analogy above is the one that relates directly to O'Hare.

I don't know, perhaps I was way too inundated with posts from all directions to think this explanation through and present it as clearly as this back then, or even earlier today.

Time for bed, back tomorrow, will address the rest.

It's good we are civil again.

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
11-12-2014, 12:33 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Of course you are correct about the requirement of a victim at a trial, or at least some kind of physical evidence, except perhaps in one of the links which demonstrated how expert eyewitness testimony did get the wife beater convicted.
The article makes it very clear that the accused was convicted without any eyewitness testimony at all and entirely on the basis of the physical evidence as presented to the court by the officer. That's why I was confused on this example.




(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  But that was not really what I was arguing about with Chas.

Chas and I were arguing ONLY on whether eyewitness testimony alone could be considered as evidence, and I presented the harassment scenario to demonstrate only how eyewitness testimony could in fact be considered as evidence and on its strength alone, could get a conviction. The argument was all about how a verdict can be rendered without any physical evidence.

It was an analogy only to demonstrate the power of eyewitness testimony, and was not intended to compare to the totality of the O'Hare incident.

I'm aware but what constitutes evidence in a court room and what constitutes scientific evidence are not really the same and even if you could demonstrate that a court will render a decision where the only evidence is eye witness testimony (a thing which technically is not possible) that does not transfer over into the realm of scientific fact.
From a scientific stand point their claim to witnessing an aircraft can't be used as evidence to support their claim as accurate. It's the same way that the claims in the Bible can't be used to prove the claims in the Bible as true and accurate, we have to go to outside sources, other means of evidence.

When we do that in the case of the UFO we find no corroborating evidence of any kind. We don't even find evidence we should expect to find it when dealing with an aircraft, namely radar imaging.

Using the harassment thing as an example of a conviction based primarily on eye witness testimony is fine, but when you try to use it as an analogy for something almost entirely unrelated and in no way similar to the analogy then it becomes a false analogy. Not to mention using a fictional example and trying to super impose it on to a real world event is not a good idea, but I digress.

The point stands however, your analogy was not analogous in any way. Eye witness testimony is accepted in courts, but it's not accepted in scientific investigation. So when Chas says they have no evidence to support their claims he is in fact right, because the claim it's self is not evidence for the claim.



(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  That does not matter in the slightest. Here's another plausible hypothetical scenario:

The Chicago Tribune investigated the situation and asked the FAA if they had any records of the UFO claims, and they responded "No."

Due to the persuasiveness of the eyewitness reports, the Chicago Tribune applied to the Freedom of Information Act to have access to the public FAA records, which turned up evidence that the FAA did indeed have plenty of evidence, demonstrating that they lied.

12 people, experienced with aircraft, all claimed that what they seen was an aircraft vehicle.

The Chicago Tribune decides press charges against the FAA for covering up reports that indicate that US airspace was invaded by unknown aircraft, posing a real danger to the USA.

The case goes to court, and the 12 witnesses who seen the aircraft are registered.

So again, here's the question:

Would the judge consider their testimony as evidence?

Evidence of what though?
Evidence that they made a claim and that it was withheld by the FAA from the public? Absolutely. Those people can testify that they in fact made those claims and that can be accurately demonstrated in a court of law.

That there was an aircraft there that day and that their eye witness testimony is a factually accurate representation of events? Absolutely not. Without corroborating evidence the judge has no way of knowing how accurate their testimony maps to reality. He has no yard stick by which to measure. That's also not a question that would, or even should, be left up the the discretion of a single Judge.
What actually happened that day would be determined by scientific investigation not criminal or judicial investigation.

For example: If every person at CERN working on the large hadron collider claimed they had witnessed the Higgs Boson particle but provided no data, no demonstrations, no corroborating evidence, and no explanation of the experiment that led to the event they are claiming to have witnessed...no scientist in the world would believe them.


(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Then you enter and said my analogy was horrible, but the point of the first analogy was only to demonstrate that eyewitness testimony alone was sufficient for conviction, and to serve no other purpose than that.
Conviction in a court of law, not in a scientific investigation. They are not the same thing. That there WAS an aircraft there is not a courtroom matter, it's a scientific one. The example you created does not fit the conditions or elements of the thing you are comparing it too in anyway save a single one. They are not analogous. I get what you are trying to say, but your example is a false analogy. Not a personal dig or anything.

(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  It's good we are civil again.

As am I, rep restored. Thumbsup

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
11-12-2014, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 09:47 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 12:33 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Of course you are correct about the requirement of a victim at a trial, or at least some kind of physical evidence, except perhaps in one of the links which demonstrated how expert eyewitness testimony did get the wife beater convicted.
The article makes it very clear that the accused was convicted without any eyewitness testimony at all and entirely on the basis of the physical evidence as presented to the court by the officer. That's why I was confused on this example.

The point was, no victim in court.

Sure they had some pictures, and eyewitnesses testimony to go with those pictures, and eyewitness testimony to go with the voice recordings.

But you need to understand that whenever any pictures or recordings were presented in the court, the eyewitness who had the pictures or made the recordings would need to be there to verify their authenticity.

So, what would happen if the defense cried "photoshop" in regards to those pictures? Why would the judge dismiss that claim?

We both know why. The eyewitness testimony that accompanied those pictures would be considered "credible."

If no eyewitnesses testified, I guarantee you there would be no conviction in that case. I think you can agree with this.

O'Hare supposedly had pictures to go with the eyewitness testimony, but claims of photoshop- whether accurate or not- destroyed their credibility. The transcripts reveal that pilots also took pictures, and if it went to court, those pictures would be authenticated by the pilot.

O'Hare also had voice transcripts and recordings.

What this does is reveal how closely O'Hare and the Domestic Abuse trial can be compared. Both had credible witnesses, both had transcripts, perhaps both had pictures, and neither had the subject- victim and UFO- in court.


Quote:
(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  But that was not really what I was arguing about with Chas.

Chas and I were arguing ONLY on whether eyewitness testimony alone could be considered as evidence, and I presented the harassment scenario to demonstrate only how eyewitness testimony could in fact be considered as evidence and on its strength alone, could get a conviction. The argument was all about how a verdict can be rendered without any physical evidence.

It was an analogy only to demonstrate the power of eyewitness testimony, and was not intended to compare to the totality of the O'Hare incident.

I'm aware but what constitutes evidence in a court room and what constitutes scientific evidence are not really the same and even if you could demonstrate that a court will render a decision where the only evidence is eye witness testimony (a thing which technically is not possible) that does not transfer over into the realm of scientific fact.

From a scientific stand point their claim to witnessing an aircraft can't be used as evidence to support their claim as accurate. It's the same way that the claims in the Bible can't be used to prove the claims in the Bible as true and accurate, we have to go to outside sources, other means of evidence.

Using the harassment thing as an example of a conviction based primarily on eye witness testimony is fine, but when you try to use it as an analogy for something almost entirely unrelated and in no way similar to the analogy then it becomes a false analogy. Not to mention using a fictional example and trying to super impose it on to a real world event is not a good idea, but I digress.

When we do that in the case of the UFO we find no corroborating evidence of any kind. We don't even find evidence we should expect to find it when dealing with an aircraft, namely radar imaging.

Aww ... but the analogy does not speak of using the scientific method. That was not the point of the analogy at all. The entire point of that analogy was only to demonstrate how eyewitness testimony could result in a conviction.

The analogy had absolutely no physical evidence. All the evidence was based upon what the witnesses heard, and nothing more.

Now, imagine if that witness went to the police and filed a criminal complaint. The police investigated and recorded her complaint, then interviewed all witnesses.

The day of the trial comes, the victim refuses to testify, and just like in the domestic abuse case, the trial goes ahead anyways.

The police have voice recordings and other transcripts, and all 12 witnesses to testify.

Now, just like the domestic abuse case, it is entirely possible to get a conviction.

Why?

Because the credibility of all eyewitness is so important. That's exactly why.

Quote:The point stands however, your analogy was not analogous in any way. Eye witness testimony is accepted in courts, but it's not accepted in scientific investigation. So when Chas says they have no evidence to support their claims he is in fact right, because the claim it's self is not evidence for the claim.

Again, the analogy involved the court system, not the scientific method.

Quote:
(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  That does not matter in the slightest. Here's another plausible hypothetical scenario:

The Chicago Tribune investigated the situation and asked the FAA if they had any records of the UFO claims, and they responded "No."

Due to the persuasiveness of the eyewitness reports, the Chicago Tribune applied to the Freedom of Information Act to have access to the public FAA records, which turned up evidence that the FAA did indeed have plenty of evidence, demonstrating that they lied.

12 people, experienced with aircraft, all claimed that what they seen was an aircraft vehicle.

The Chicago Tribune decides press charges against the FAA for covering up reports that indicate that US airspace was invaded by unknown aircraft, posing a real danger to the USA.

The case goes to court, and the 12 witnesses who seen the aircraft are registered.

So again, here's the question:

Would the judge consider their testimony as evidence?

Evidence of what though? Evidence that they made a claim and that it was withheld by the FAA from the public? Absolutely. Those people can testify that they in fact made those claims and that can be accurately demonstrated in a court of law.

That there was an aircraft there that day and that their eye witness testimony is a factually accurate representation of events? Absolutely not. Without corroborating evidence the judge has no way of knowing how accurate their testimony maps to reality. He has no yard stick by which to measure. That's also not a question that would, or even should, be left up the the discretion of a single Judge.
What actually happened that day would be determined by scientific investigation not criminal or judicial investigation.

For example: If every person at CERN working on the large hadron collider claimed they had witnessed the Higgs Boson particle but provided no data, no demonstrations, no corroborating evidence, and no explanation of the experiment that led to the event they are claiming to have witnessed...no scientist in the world would believe them.

But have you thought this thing through? Let me explain ...

The O'Hare prosecution team would have far more than just eyewitnesses testimony. They would have the transcripts, and voice recordings, and possibly pictures. The defense would subpoena all those who were involved with the cover-up.

Let's say, for example, that the defense called the radar operator to the stand. He testifies that he seen nothing on radar that day. Then, the prosecution asks him, "To the best of your knowledge, do you know of any aircraft that can avoid detection of radar?"

Whether he answers yes or no is not even relevant, because sitting in the audience is a potential witness who is just licking his chops. He is a retired air force pilot who piloted the stealth bomber, and he's chomping at the bit to get on the stand.

So the prosecution team successfully demonstrates that there are known aircraft that can evade radar detection.

The judge looks at the situation. He listens to all 12 witnesses. He listens to all the expert witnesses from the FAA. He also hears from other witnesses who all agree that they were told by their superiors to not mention the UFO sighting or else they would lose their jobs.

So their superior is put on the stand. He is now facing the testimony of several witnesses who accused him of making threats against their job security. He cracks under pressure, revealing yet another attempt at a cover-up.

So now the judge sees that two cover-ups were initiated. He reasons that the only reason why these cover-ups were initiated is because something was actually in the sky over O'Hare airport. otherwise, there would be no need to make threats and hide transcripts.

Now:

a) with the radar operator's testimony rendered meaningless,
b) the hiding of the transcripts and voice recordings demonstrated to be true,
c) the threat of the superiors against the job security of staff demonstrated to be true,
d) the testimony of 12 very credible eyewitness now very seriously considered ...

Would the judge conclude that the FAA and other staff at the O'Hare airport attempted a cover-up of an unknown aircraft in US airspace or not?

Verdict please? Consider

With this scenario playing out, whether or not the judge finds the defense guilty, I believe it is reasonable for you to admit that at the very least is is very compelling.

Quote:
(10-12-2014 10:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Then you enter and said my analogy was horrible, but the point of the first analogy was only to demonstrate that eyewitness testimony alone was sufficient for conviction, and to serve no other purpose than that.
Conviction in a court of law, not in a scientific investigation. They are not the same thing. That there WAS an aircraft there is not a courtroom matter, it's a scientific one. The example you created does not fit the conditions or elements of the thing you are comparing it too in anyway save a single one. They are not analogous. I get what you are trying to say, but your example is a false analogy. Not a personal dig or anything.

It's really not about a scientific investigation. Nothing about the O'Hare incident has anything to do with a scientific investigation.

In my opinion, it's all about a cover-up. In my experienced opinion, the reason these things get covered up is because nobody wants the grief of admitting that a UFO was present. The media sensationalism could result in lost jobs, tiring investigations, embarrassment, and discrediting.

I at one time did some work for the military. One specific job I had was to simply provide entertainment for pilots. Many of them would get a few drinks into them, and start talking. I am not permitted to go into details but ...

Believe me, I know all about "cover-ups." Yes

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
11-12-2014, 10:01 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 12:33 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The article makes it very clear that the accused was convicted without any eyewitness testimony at all and entirely on the basis of the physical evidence as presented to the court by the officer. That's why I was confused on this example.

The point was, no victim in court.

Sure they had some pictures, and eyewitnesses testimony to go with those pictures, and eyewitness testimony to go with the voice recordings.

But you need to understand that whenever any pictures or recordings were presented in the court, the eyewitness who had the pictures or made the recordings would need to be there to verify their authenticity.

So, what would happen if the defense cried "photoshop" in regards to those pictures? Why would the judge dismiss that claim?

We both know why. The eyewitness testimony that accompanied those pictures would be considered "credible."

If no eyewitnesses testified, I guarantee you there would be no conviction in that case. I think you can agree with this.

O'Hare supposedly had pictures to go with the eyewitness testimony, but claims of photoshop- whether accurate or not- destroyed their credibility. The transcripts reveal that pilots also took pictures, and if it went to court, those pictures would be authenticated by the pilot.

O'Hare also had voice transcripts and recordings.

What this does is reveal how closely O'Hare and the Domestic Abuse trial can be compared. Both had credible witnesses, both had transcripts, perhaps both had pictures, and neither had the subject- victim and UFO- in court.


Quote:I'm aware but what constitutes evidence in a court room and what constitutes scientific evidence are not really the same and even if you could demonstrate that a court will render a decision where the only evidence is eye witness testimony (a thing which technically is not possible) that does not transfer over into the realm of scientific fact.

From a scientific stand point their claim to witnessing an aircraft can't be used as evidence to support their claim as accurate. It's the same way that the claims in the Bible can't be used to prove the claims in the Bible as true and accurate, we have to go to outside sources, other means of evidence.

Using the harassment thing as an example of a conviction based primarily on eye witness testimony is fine, but when you try to use it as an analogy for something almost entirely unrelated and in no way similar to the analogy then it becomes a false analogy. Not to mention using a fictional example and trying to super impose it on to a real world event is not a good idea, but I digress.

When we do that in the case of the UFO we find no corroborating evidence of any kind. We don't even find evidence we should expect to find it when dealing with an aircraft, namely radar imaging.

Aww ... but the analogy does not speak of using the scientific method. That was not the point of the analogy at all. The entire point of that analogy was only to demonstrate how eyewitness testimony could result in a conviction.

The analogy had absolutely no physical evidence. All the evidence was based upon what the witnesses heard, and nothing more.

Now, imagine if that witness went to the police and filed a criminal complaint. The police investigated and recorded her complaint, then interviewed all witnesses.

The day of the trial comes, the victim refuses to testify, and just like in the domestic abuse case, the trial goes ahead anyways.

The police have voice recordings and other transcripts, and all 12 witnesses to testify.

Now, just like the domestic abuse case, it is entirely possible to get a conviction.

Why?

Because the credibility of all eyewitness is so important. That's exactly why.

Quote:The point stands however, your analogy was not analogous in any way. Eye witness testimony is accepted in courts, but it's not accepted in scientific investigation. So when Chas says they have no evidence to support their claims he is in fact right, because the claim it's self is not evidence for the claim.

Again, the analogy involved the court system, not the scientific method.

Quote:Evidence of what though? Evidence that they made a claim and that it was withheld by the FAA from the public? Absolutely. Those people can testify that they in fact made those claims and that can be accurately demonstrated in a court of law.

That there was an aircraft there that day and that their eye witness testimony is a factually accurate representation of events? Absolutely not. Without corroborating evidence the judge has no way of knowing how accurate their testimony maps to reality. He has no yard stick by which to measure. That's also not a question that would, or even should, be left up the the discretion of a single Judge.
What actually happened that day would be determined by scientific investigation not criminal or judicial investigation.

For example: If every person at CERN working on the large hadron collider claimed they had witnessed the Higgs Boson particle but provided no data, no demonstrations, no corroborating evidence, and no explanation of the experiment that led to the event they are claiming to have witnessed...no scientist in the world would believe them.

But have you thought this thing through? Let me explain ...

The O'Hare prosecution team would have far more than just eyewitnesses testimony. They would have the transcripts, and voice recordings, and possibly pictures. The defense would subpoena all those who were involved with the cover-up.

Let's say, for example, that the defense called the radar operator to the stand. He testifies that he seen nothing on radar that day. Then, the prosecution asks him, "To the best of your knowledge, do you know of any aircraft that can avoid detection of radar?"

Whether he answers yes or no is not even relevant, because sitting in the audience is a potential witness who is just licking his chops. He is a retired air force pilot who piloted the stealth bomber, and he's chomping at the bit to get on the stand.

So the prosecution team successfully demonstrates that there are known aircraft that can evade radar detection.

The judge looks at the situation. He listens to all 12 witnesses. He listens to all the expert witnesses from the FAA. He also hears from other witnesses who all agree that they were told by their superiors to not mention the UFO sighting or else they would lose their jobs.

So their superior is put on the stand. He is now facing the testimony of several witnesses who accused him of making threats against their job security. He cracks under pressure, revealing yet another attempt at a cover-up.

So now the judge sees that two cover-ups were initiated. He reasons that the only reason why these cover-ups were initiated is because something was actually in the sky over O'Hare airport. otherwise, there would be no need to make threats and hide transcripts.

Now:

a) with the radar operator's testimony rendered meaningless,
b) the hiding of the transcripts and voice recordings demonstrated to be true,
c) the threat of the superiors against the job security of staff demonstrated to be true,
d) the testimony of 12 very credible eyewitness now very seriously considered ...

Would the judge conclude that the FAA and other staff at the O'Hare airport attempted a cover-up of an unknown aircraft in US airspace or not?

Verdict please? Consider

With this scenario playing out, whether or not the judge finds the defense guilty, I believe it is reasonable for you to admit that at the very least is is very compelling.

Quote:Conviction in a court of law, not in a scientific investigation. They are not the same thing. That there WAS an aircraft there is not a courtroom matter, it's a scientific one. The example you created does not fit the conditions or elements of the thing you are comparing it too in anyway save a single one. They are not analogous. I get what you are trying to say, but your example is a false analogy. Not a personal dig or anything.

It's really not about a scientific investigation. Nothing about the O'Hare incident has anything to do with a scientific investigation.

In my opinion, it's all about a cover-up. In my experienced opinion, the reason these things get covered up is because nobody wants the grief of admitting that a UFO was present. The media sensationalism could result in lost jobs, tiring investigations, embarrassment, and discrediting.

I at one time did some work for the military. One specific job I had was to simply provide entertainment for pilots. Many of them would get a few drinks into them, and start talking. I am not permitted to go into details but ...

Believe me, I know all about "cover-ups." Yes

The truth of the O'Hare claims is not decidable by a court, so your argument is irrelevant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Machias's post
11-12-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 10:01 AM)Machias Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  The point was, no victim in court.

Sure they had some pictures, and eyewitnesses testimony to go with those pictures, and eyewitness testimony to go with the voice recordings.

But you need to understand that whenever any pictures or recordings were presented in the court, the eyewitness who had the pictures or made the recordings would need to be there to verify their authenticity.

So, what would happen if the defense cried "photoshop" in regards to those pictures? Why would the judge dismiss that claim?

We both know why. The eyewitness testimony that accompanied those pictures would be considered "credible."

If no eyewitnesses testified, I guarantee you there would be no conviction in that case. I think you can agree with this.

O'Hare supposedly had pictures to go with the eyewitness testimony, but claims of photoshop- whether accurate or not- destroyed their credibility. The transcripts reveal that pilots also took pictures, and if it went to court, those pictures would be authenticated by the pilot.

O'Hare also had voice transcripts and recordings.

What this does is reveal how closely O'Hare and the Domestic Abuse trial can be compared. Both had credible witnesses, both had transcripts, perhaps both had pictures, and neither had the subject- victim and UFO- in court.



Aww ... but the analogy does not speak of using the scientific method. That was not the point of the analogy at all. The entire point of that analogy was only to demonstrate how eyewitness testimony could result in a conviction.

The analogy had absolutely no physical evidence. All the evidence was based upon what the witnesses heard, and nothing more.

Now, imagine if that witness went to the police and filed a criminal complaint. The police investigated and recorded her complaint, then interviewed all witnesses.

The day of the trial comes, the victim refuses to testify, and just like in the domestic abuse case, the trial goes ahead anyways.

The police have voice recordings and other transcripts, and all 12 witnesses to testify.

Now, just like the domestic abuse case, it is entirely possible to get a conviction.

Why?

Because the credibility of all eyewitness is so important. That's exactly why.


Again, the analogy involved the court system, not the scientific method.


But have you thought this thing through? Let me explain ...

The O'Hare prosecution team would have far more than just eyewitnesses testimony. They would have the transcripts, and voice recordings, and possibly pictures. The defense would subpoena all those who were involved with the cover-up.

Let's say, for example, that the defense called the radar operator to the stand. He testifies that he seen nothing on radar that day. Then, the prosecution asks him, "To the best of your knowledge, do you know of any aircraft that can avoid detection of radar?"

Whether he answers yes or no is not even relevant, because sitting in the audience is a potential witness who is just licking his chops. He is a retired air force pilot who piloted the stealth bomber, and he's chomping at the bit to get on the stand.

So the prosecution team successfully demonstrates that there are known aircraft that can evade radar detection.

The judge looks at the situation. He listens to all 12 witnesses. He listens to all the expert witnesses from the FAA. He also hears from other witnesses who all agree that they were told by their superiors to not mention the UFO sighting or else they would lose their jobs.

So their superior is put on the stand. He is now facing the testimony of several witnesses who accused him of making threats against their job security. He cracks under pressure, revealing yet another attempt at a cover-up.

So now the judge sees that two cover-ups were initiated. He reasons that the only reason why these cover-ups were initiated is because something was actually in the sky over O'Hare airport. otherwise, there would be no need to make threats and hide transcripts.

Now:

a) with the radar operator's testimony rendered meaningless,
b) the hiding of the transcripts and voice recordings demonstrated to be true,
c) the threat of the superiors against the job security of staff demonstrated to be true,
d) the testimony of 12 very credible eyewitness now very seriously considered ...

Would the judge conclude that the FAA and other staff at the O'Hare airport attempted a cover-up of an unknown aircraft in US airspace or not?

Verdict please? Consider

With this scenario playing out, whether or not the judge finds the defense guilty, I believe it is reasonable for you to admit that at the very least is is very compelling.


It's really not about a scientific investigation. Nothing about the O'Hare incident has anything to do with a scientific investigation.

In my opinion, it's all about a cover-up. In my experienced opinion, the reason these things get covered up is because nobody wants the grief of admitting that a UFO was present. The media sensationalism could result in lost jobs, tiring investigations, embarrassment, and discrediting.

I at one time did some work for the military. One specific job I had was to simply provide entertainment for pilots. Many of them would get a few drinks into them, and start talking. I am not permitted to go into details but ...

Believe me, I know all about "cover-ups." Yes

The truth of the O'Hare claims is not decidable by a court, so your argument is irrelevant.

Dude, how can you miss the fact that we are using analogies? Consider

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: