That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 11:21 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 10:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  ⇧Truly I think this is the crux of why this analogy breaks down.

Below is the gist and obstacles of your argument as I understand it:

1. A physical manifestation of an object without physical, scientific proof (eyewitness accounts do not qualify as scientific proof as both Chas and Whiskey explain above).
2. Said object operated by non-human beings.
3. Said object appearing to defy conventional laws of physics.

The event can be sliced and diced in a myriad of ways but in the end there still exists no tangible scientific proof that a craft piloted by extraterrestrials flew and hovered over O’Hare and then zipped off through the clouds defying known laws of physics.

I suspect that the universe harbors countless other life-forms form bacteria to sentient beings however, to this date, we have no scientific evidence for it. I think without it all we have is supposition, conjecture and hypotheses and we’re left with only the following unanswerable question; “I wonder what those twelve people saw?”

The introduction of some kind of need of the scientific method into the trial scenario is a demand for new and greater evidence.

In other trials, the scientific method is not a demand. So why are we introducing it into this hypothetical scenario?

I guess becuse I don’t want to talk just about what is and isn’t admisible in a court of law with respect to a human felony. I’d rather discuss why eyewitness accounts of UFOs without corroborating scientific evidence are scientifically dismissed. But that’s just me. Big Grin

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
11-12-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 11:48 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 11:21 AM)Free Wrote:  The introduction of some kind of need of the scientific method into the trial scenario is a demand for new and greater evidence.

In other trials, the scientific method is not a demand. So why are we introducing it into this hypothetical scenario?

I guess becuse I don’t want to talk just about what is and isn’t admisible in a court of law with respect to a human felony. I’d rather discuss why eyewitness accounts of UFOs without corroborating scientific evidence are scientifically dismissed. But that’s just me. Big Grin

Okay, that's fine.

I'm just trying to get through the validation process of those analogies without introducing other random variables.

Wink

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, 12:05 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 11:56 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 11:48 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I guess becuse I don’t want to talk just about what is and isn’t admisible in a court of law with respect to a human felony. I’d rather discuss why eyewitness accounts of UFOs without corroborating scientific evidence are scientifically dismissed. But that’s just me. Big Grin

Okay, that's fine.

I'm just trying to get through the validation process of those analogies without introducing other random variables.

Wink

I know.

How about, “All eyewitness accounts are not created equal”?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(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.
You have one of the loosest definitions of "eye witness" that I have ever seen in my life. An eye witness is a "witness to an event" ONLY, an expert witnesses (like the kind in that abuse case) are not considered eye witnesses because they give testimony related to the evidence as it pertains to the event in question not to the actual witnessing of the event.

You are trying to use the term "eye witness" to cover just about everything, and it does not at all from a legal perspective. It covers a single thing, witnesses to an event. People can provide testimony on physical evidence but that does not make them "eye witnesses".
There was zero eyewitness testimony involved in that case, hell the name of the article is even "No witness, no problem." The conviction was gained on the physical evidence provided by relevant experts, that they testified on that evidence does not make them "eye witnesses".


(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Firstly a person recording the claims of a person does not make them an eye witness to the event being claimed. Technically a person testifying on what an other person says is called a "hersay witness", but I digress.
However no a court would not determine the authenticity of pictures or recordings by asking the person that made them. They would ask them to testify that they did take the picture/capture the recording, but it's authenticity would be determined, if the authenticity is even in question, by trained experts in photographic/audio/video analysis.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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 the defense cried Photoshop? They can cry that all they bloody like, they would have to SHOW that it is and provide motive why the police would digitally edit evidence. However we both know that lawyers don't really yell photoshop and when they do make accusations of evidence tampering they don't rely on eye witness testimony they go to the experts who study, evaluate, and examine the picture to determin authenticity. They don't rely on eye witness testimony they rely on a scientific evaluation of data by trained experts.



Does the defense, judge, or jury have any reason to believe that police use digital manipulation to fabricate evidence, especially when enough non photographic evidence exists for a conviction? I think it's reasonable to say they do not have an justified reason to think so.
Do we have reason to believe that UFO photography is fabricated? Yes we do because the vast majority of UFO pictures have been shown to be fabricated. Everyone here knows that. There is a well documented history of these kind of fabrications.

Not only that but there is the type of claim being made. One is ordinary, the other is extraordinary. The evidence needed to be confident in the authenticity of the first is not sufficient of the second.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  If no eyewitnesses testified, I guarantee you there would be no conviction in that case. I think you can agree with this.
Seeing as how by the legal definition of what constitutes an "eye witness", not a single eye witness was provided, so no I do not agree with that.


(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Claims of Photoshop don't mean they are Photoshopped, so until some are photographs are provided they are not an argument that can be used in favor of corroborating evidence.
Not really, if it went to court the court would call on the pilot to give testimony that he had in fact taken the photo in question, but determining it's authenticity and its accuracy would be left up to experts in the relevant fields, not the pilot himself. In fact if the evidence was to show that the photograph was fabricated the pilot would be charged with a crime.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  O'Hare also had voice transcripts and recordings.
Not in contention, they absolutely do. However those only corroborate that the witnesses made a claim and when they did, it does not corroborate that they actually saw an aircraft.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Only if you incorrectly label expert testimony as eye witness testimony, ignore the mounds of corroborating physical evidence (which can be independently verified) in one case and not the other, consider assertions that photographic evidence may exist as equal to demonstrated photographic evidence, and a whole host of other issues.
They are not comparative at all.

I'll have to respond to the rest latter, time to head to work and get paid. Hazzah! New suit shopping!

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
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
11-12-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 12:12 PM)WhiskeyDebates 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.
You have one of the loosest definitions of "eye witness" that I have ever seen in my life. An eye witness is a "witness to an event" ONLY, an expert witnesses (like the kind in that abuse case) are not considered eye witnesses because they give testimony related to the evidence as it pertains to the event in question not to the actual witnessing of the event.

You are trying to use the term "eye witness" to cover just about everything, and it does not at all from a legal perspective. It covers a single thing, witnesses to an event. People can provide testimony on physical evidence but that does not make them "eye witnesses".
There was zero eyewitness testimony involved in that case, hell the name of the article is even "No witness, no problem." The conviction was gained on the physical evidence provided by relevant experts, that they testified on that evidence does not make them "eye witnesses".


(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Firstly a person recording the claims of a person does not make them an eye witness to the event being claimed. Technically a person testifying on what an other person says is called a "hersay witness", but I digress.
However no a court would not determine the authenticity of pictures or recordings by asking the person that made them. They would ask them to testify that they did take the picture/capture the recording, but it's authenticity would be determined, if the authenticity is even in question, by trained experts in photographic/audio/video analysis.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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 the defense cried Photoshop? They can cry that all they bloody like, they would have to SHOW that it is and provide motive why the police would digitally edit evidence. However we both know that lawyers don't really yell photoshop and when they do make accusations of evidence tampering they don't rely on eye witness testimony they go to the experts who study, evaluate, and examine the picture to determin authenticity. They don't rely on eye witness testimony they rely on a scientific evaluation of data by trained experts.



Does the defense, judge, or jury have any reason to believe that police use digital manipulation to fabricate evidence, especially when enough non photographic evidence exists for a conviction? I think it's reasonable to say they do not have an justified reason to think so.
Do we have reason to believe that UFO photography is fabricated? Yes we do because the vast majority of UFO pictures have been shown to be fabricated. Everyone here knows that. There is a well documented history of these kind of fabrications.

Not only that but there is the type of claim being made. One is ordinary, the other is extraordinary. The evidence needed to be confident in the authenticity of the first is not sufficient of the second.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  If no eyewitnesses testified, I guarantee you there would be no conviction in that case. I think you can agree with this.
Seeing as how by the legal definition of what constitutes an "eye witness", not a single eye witness was provided, so no I do not agree with that.


(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Claims of Photoshop don't mean they are Photoshopped, so until some are photographs are provided they are not an argument that can be used in favor of corroborating evidence.
Not really, if it went to court the court would call on the pilot to give testimony that he had in fact taken the photo in question, but determining it's authenticity and its accuracy would be left up to experts in the relevant fields, not the pilot himself. In fact if the evidence was to show that the photograph was fabricated the pilot would be charged with a crime.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  O'Hare also had voice transcripts and recordings.
Not in contention, they absolutely do. However those only corroborate that the witnesses made a claim and when they did, it does not corroborate that they actually saw an aircraft.

(11-12-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Only if you incorrectly label expert testimony as eye witness testimony, ignore the mounds of corroborating physical evidence (which can be independently verified) in one case and not the other, consider assertions that photographic evidence may exist as equal to demonstrated photographic evidence, and a whole host of other issues.
They are not comparative at all.

I'll have to respond to the rest latter, time to head to work and get paid. Hazzah! New suit shopping!

This whole thing seems to hinge on the differences between eyewitness and expert witnesses, and I can concede to the difference between both.

However, expert witnesses can still be eyewitnesses. For example, if a victim didn't show up in court, and the expert witness was on the stand to testify, he may be asked a question of, "Did you victim X enter your interview room? Did you hear victim X say blah blah blah."

He would need to verify that he was in the presence of the victim. Even if the victim was in court, he may be asked to point out the victim.

But this is really all about semantics.

I am going to go eat some aliens for lunch. Gasp

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, 04:17 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 04:24 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
Quote:
(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.

You do understand that I have also expressed my beliefs on this forum that the so-called "Aliens" may in fact be life-forms existing right here on earth? I have not said anything about "traveling light years," nor did I imply that their intention was to "hang out over an airport.

My assessment referred to "non human" life forms. Here is the link for that assessment:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692635

But, even so, I can admit to spliting hairs here. Even so, your statement of ..." 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," in no way accurately portrays my position." I never said they travelled light years just to come hang out over an airport. That's like the aliens saying, "Hey dude, let's go check out Earth and fuck everybody up by hanging over an airport."

To me, it was juvenile, and an attempt to mock my position. I take this subject rather seriously, and tend to ignore people who mock my views on it. Hence why I didn't respond to the totality of your posts.

This subject to me is very interesting, and I prefer a more cordial and serious discussion about it.


Quote:[quote]

(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.

That's not the correct assessment of my application of Occam's Razor. I did not present a hypothesis leading to the most probable explanation for what they saw as being extraterrestrials. Here it is again, with all possibilities in play:

Occam's Razor Application:

12 persons highly experienced with aircraft claim to have seen a type of aircraft they could not identify over Chicago Airport in 2006.

a) They seen an aircraft they could not identify.
b) It was swamp gas.
c) It was mass hallucination.
d) It was a weather phenomenon.
e) They all lied.
f) It was not an aircraft.
g) Unknown.

Answer = a) They seen an aircraft they could not identify.


Did you actually look at this? It says absolutely nothing about extraterrestrials. It is only speaking about the craft.

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, 04:29 PM
Re: RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 04:17 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: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.

You do understand that I have also expressed my beliefs on this forum that the so-called "Aliens" may in fact be life-forms existing right here on earth? I have not said anything about "traveling light years," nor did I imply that their intention was to "hang out over an airport.

My assessment referred to "non human" life forms. Here is the link for that assessment:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692635

But, even so, I can admit to spliting hairs here. Even so, your statement of ..." 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," in no way accurately portrays my position." I never said they travelled light years just to come hang out over an airport. That's like the aliens saying, "Hey dude, let's go check out Earth and fuck everybody up by hanging over an airport."

To me, it was juvenile, and an attempt to mock my position. I take this subject rather seriously, and tend to ignore people who mock my views on it. Hence why I didn't respond to the totality of your posts.

This subject to me is very interesting, and I prefer a more cordial and serious discussion about it.


Quote: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.

That's not the correct assessment of my application of Occam's Razor. I did not present a hypothesis leading to the most probable explanation for what they saw as being extraterrestrials. Here it is again, with all possibilities in play:

Occam's Razor Application:

12 persons highly experienced with aircraft claim to have seen a type of aircraft they could not identify over Chicago Airport in 2006.

a) They seen an aircraft they could not identify.
b) It was swamp gas.
c) It was mass hallucination.
d) It was a weather phenomenon.
e) They all lied.
f) It was not an aircraft.
g) Unknown.

Answer = a) They seen an aircraft they could not identify.


Did you actually look at this? It says absolutely nothing about extraterrestrials. It is only speaking about the craft.

Correction. They saw SOMETHING they could not identify...perhaps an aircraft and perhaps not... but they did not SEEN it they SAW it lol!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(11-12-2014 04:29 PM)photon9 Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 04:17 PM)Free Wrote:  You do understand that I have also expressed my beliefs on this forum that the so-called "Aliens" may in fact be life-forms existing right here on earth? I have not said anything about "traveling light years," nor did I imply that their intention was to "hang out over an airport.

My assessment referred to "non human" life forms. Here is the link for that assessment:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid692635

But, even so, I can admit to spliting hairs here. Even so, your statement of ..." 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," in no way accurately portrays my position." I never said they travelled light years just to come hang out over an airport. That's like the aliens saying, "Hey dude, let's go check out Earth and fuck everybody up by hanging over an airport."

To me, it was juvenile, and an attempt to mock my position. I take this subject rather seriously, and tend to ignore people who mock my views on it. Hence why I didn't respond to the totality of your posts.

This subject to me is very interesting, and I prefer a more cordial and serious discussion about it.



That's not the correct assessment of my application of Occam's Razor. I did not present a hypothesis leading to the most probable explanation for what they saw as being extraterrestrials. Here it is again, with all possibilities in play:

Occam's Razor Application:

12 persons highly experienced with aircraft claim to have seen a type of aircraft they could not identify over Chicago Airport in 2006.

a) They seen an aircraft they could not identify.
b) It was swamp gas.
c) It was mass hallucination.
d) It was a weather phenomenon.
e) They all lied.
f) It was not an aircraft.
g) Unknown.

Answer = a) They seen an aircraft they could not identify.


Did you actually look at this? It says absolutely nothing about extraterrestrials. It is only speaking about the craft.

Correction. They saw SOMETHING they could not identify...perhaps an aircraft and perhaps not... but they did not SEEN it they SAW it lol!

No, they all claimed to have seen an AIRCRAFT that they could not identify.

Saw?

I hate you.

Big Grin

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
21-12-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
Here's a documentary that I found quite educational. It's about the history of the UFO phenomena, starting after WWII. Quite informative.

UFOs THE SECRET HISTORY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDb1oyVKnP4
(also on Netflix)

The "secret" part of the title is a bit of hype, but the rest of the film is very calm and reasoned, free of hysterical exaggerations etc. Author is an astro-physicist, not a palm reader etc. The best film I've seen on the topic.

Here is my crackpot theory on UFOs. :-)

Why does everybody always assume it is aliens from across the galaxy, when a more likely source for UFOs would seem to be future humans doing archeology? I've never seen future humans offered even once as an explanation, and I find that puzzling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
A slight change of subject although still involving aliens. Has anyone ever heard of this crazy theory about RH negative blood meaning that you're an alien? A friend had someone tell her this when they found out she was RH negative. No Reeces? monkey in her blood means she's some lizard aliens descendant or something goofy like that. I mean seriously....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: