UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2015, 06:46 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
FREE, in regards to your comments about the big expansion?

Your word usage is poor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 06:26 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 06:19 PM)Banjo Wrote:  [Image: 56388698.jpg]

Just so you know, the Big Bang theory is built entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Holy Shit!

Big Grin

Uh, no.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2015 07:03 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 06:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 06:17 PM)Free Wrote:  Explain in detail exactly why it is not rational. And don't try to tell me it's because we don't have any direct evidence either.

Because we don't have any evidence period.

That's your position, and it's completely rejected. The circumstantial evidence we do have, including historical photographs and government documents, does indeed provide circumstantial evidence to support the possibility.

Quote:No circumstantial, because unknowns are not evidence of aliens. No anecdotal, because anecdotes are not evidence. None.

They are not unkowns. The photographs clearly and crisply show disc shaped aircraft, metallic, and domed on top. The government documents are not unkowns at all, as they testify that according to the US Military's opinion, these objects have been identified as aircraft of unknown origin and design, and are real and not fictitious whatsoever. Witnesses to these aircraft are credible, and include USAF personnel and other person's intimately familiar with aircraft.

And yes, that certainly is evidence.

Quote:And what evidence that we do have goes against it. There is no known means of stealth in space, we don't have any evidence of any intelligent species within traveling distance of us, and so on. The only way to get around this is to posit that aliens are space wizards.

This is a humanistic imposition upon the intelligence and technology of a possible alien race, and it simply fails since we cannot assume from humanity's perspective what any alien race is capable of accomplishing.

Quote:There is literally no rational basis for believing in aliens as a possible explanation for UFOs, any more than there is for wizards.

None.

Firstly, prove the possibility that wizards can exist, and then after you do that we can see if your comparison is fair.

After all, it is the scientific consensus that alien life existing elsewhere is damn near certain, so therefore please find scientific consensus that wizards also can exist.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 07:03 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
World of Forensic Science | 2005
COPYRIGHT 2005 Thomson Gale.
Circumstantial Evidence

Jurisprudence defines evidence as any written or oral testimony given under-oath, including documents, records, or physical objects admissible in a court of law, according to established rules of evidence, either to prove or disprove the authenticity of alleged facts, claims, or accusations. Circumstantial evidence is indirect information or secondary facts that allow the reasonable inference of the principal fact, without actually proving that such inference is true. Therefore, circumstantial evidence ideally requires further corroboration through other forms of evidence to prove a fact. All presented evidence will be considered by a jury, or by a judge, depending on the nature of the legal process, to test its relevancy and level of reliability, including the credibility of witnesses. In the United States, until 1975, the decision about which evidence was admissible in court was decided on the basis of judicial precedent (e.g., prior court decisions in similar cases). In the absence of a statutory law on a particular matter, the judge would make the rules. This common law jurisprudence descends from the colonial British legal system.

California was the pioneer American state in the creation of four statutory codes (in 1872): the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Penal Code, and the Political Code, in which the Code of Evidence was also implemented, establishing the necessary standard criteria of importance, validity, and legal weight of different types of evidence for civil and criminal courts. The California Evidence Code has inspired both the federal and other state legislations, in varied degrees, since then. However, only in 1974 did the Congress approve the implementation of the Federal Rules of Evidence , proposed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the preceding years.

The purpose of evidence in courts is to prove or disprove the existence of a fact. The level of proof or evidence presented must be solid enough to convince the court that such fact is true beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in criminal trials . In civil trials however, the standard of proof is often based on whether the true existence of the fact is more probable than not. Circumstantial evidence, therefore, carries different weight in criminal and civil trials.

Circumstantial evidence, in spite of its indirect nature, may be of great value, for instance, in highlighting inconsistencies between the behavior of a suspect and his allegations, thereby "filling in the blanks" of a probable crime scenario. For instance, although a suspect was unseen at the crime scene, the tire prints found on the scene match those of his car and a similar car was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene around the time the crime was committed. Or, sometime before the crime, the victim may have told a friend that they were afraid of the suspect, or a neighbor overheard a bitter and violent argument between the victim and the suspect in the recent past. Circumstantial evidence may be presumptive and inconclusive, admitting rebuttal by the other part, or, on the contrary, its quantity and pattern may be strong enough to substantiate a prosecution where other types of evidence are scarce and by themselves inconclusive.

One recent example of use of circumstantial evidence was the trial of Scott Lee Peterson, where the evidence presented was essentially circumstantial. A day after reporting that his eight-months pregnant wife was missing (December 23, 2002), Peterson was considered a suspect, because investigators found he had several extra-marital affairs since his marriage, and had recently been in a relationship with another woman. Petersen alleged that at the time of his wife's disappearance he was fishing at the Berkeley Marina, and was innocent. In April 2003, the remains of an unborn baby and the partial remains of a woman were found on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. Autopsy and other forensic tests identified the remains as those of his wife and her baby, although where, how, and when she died was not specifically determined. The FBI and forensic teams conducted extensive investigations at the Petersons' house, as well as searching Scott Peterson's boat, truck, toolbox, clothes, and personal objects, in search of forensic evidence of violence such as bloodstains or weapons. No physical piece of forensic evidence was identified that could link Peterson to the murder of his wife.

Although the prosecution could not present any physical evidence of Peterson's involvement with the crime, and the defense tried to defuse the circumstantial evidence, in November 2004, the jury convicted Scott Peterson of first degree murder for killing the wife "with special circumstances," and of second degree murder for killing his unborn baby. That December, the jury recommended a death sentence for Scott Peterson. In a press conference, the jurors declared that they had found Peterson guilty, in part, because of his demeanor. Circumstantial evidence including Peterson's change in haircut and color immediately after the crime, buying a car in his mother's name, and testimony by his ex-lover that he frequently lied and said he was a widower previous to the crime, weighed heavily with the jury.

One case where forensic evidence supported circumstantial evidence was California vs. Orenthal James Simpson in 1995. Nicole Brown, the ex-wife of famous football player and actor O. J. Simpson, was killed with her friend Ronald Goldman, on June 12, 1994. Evidence from the crime scene pointed to Simpson as a suspect, and he was later arrested for the crime.

The prosecution relied on forensic physical evidence along with circumstantial evidence to build the case against Simpson. Circumstantial evidence included footwear prints at the crime scene that matched Simpson's size, failure to keep an arranged appointment with the police to turn himself in, initiating a two-hour-long highway journey in a white Ford Bronco with police in pursuit, a left-handed glove found among Simpson's belongings that matched a bloody right-handed glove found at the crime scene, a documented history of domestic abuse against Brown, previous telephone calls made by the victim in which she relayed fears of being physically injured by Simpson to the police, and a letter from Simpson given to a friend that indicated an intention to leave the country in disguise.

Forensic evidence supported much of the circumstantial evidence. More than 40 bloodstains were tested for DNA fingerprinting, and each could be linked with either the victims and/or to Simpson. These samples were taken from the primary crime scene area, the secondary scene area, Simpson's Ford Bronco, and from Simpson's home. DNA profiles that matched the victims were found in blood taken from the crime scene and from Simpson's Bronco.

In spite of the circumstantial evidence, often supported with forensic evidence, the jury declared O. J. Simpson not guilty of murder in 1995. A civil jury, however, used much of the same evidence to convict Simpson on a civil court in 1997, and awarded the victim's families over 30 million dollars in damages.

In some countries, circumstantial evidence in the absence of other more solid testimonial and material evidence is not admissible in criminal courts. Circumstantial evidence is considered relevant to a case as an explanatory complement to existing testimonial and/or forensic evidence of indisputable accuracy. Controversy about the two cases above described continues among jurists and other experts, due to the perceived quality and relevance of evidence presented in each of those trials.

see also Artificial fibers; Blood; Bloodstain evidence; Civil court, forensic evidence; CODIS: Combined DNA Index System; Crime scene investigation; Crime scene reconstruction; DNA fingerprint; DNA profiling; DNA sequences, unique; DNA typing systems; Evidence; Expert witnesses; Federal Rules of Evidence; Fibers; Hair analysis; PCR (polymerase chain reaction); RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism); Statistical interpretation of evidence; U.S. Supreme Court (rulings on forensic evidence).

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 07:16 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 06:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because we don't have any evidence period.

That's your position

No. It's fact.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  The circumstantial evidence we do have, including historical photographs and government documents

These are not circumstantial evidence of anything. They are unknowns at best.

You do not understand what the word "evidence" means.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  They are not unkowns. The photographs clearly and crisply show disc shaped aircraft, metallic, and domed on top.

No, they don't.

They show unknowns.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  The government documents are not unkowns at all

They are also not evidence, as baseless claims remain baseless no matter who makes them.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  as they testify that according to the US Military's opinion, these objects have been identified as aircraft of unknown origin and design

This opinion was subsequently discarded due to - again, a lack of evidence.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  This is a humanistic imposition upon the intelligence and technology of a possible alien race

You make this same imposition on the existence of wizards.

Your "possibility" applies to them as well.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  Firstly, prove the possibility that wizards can exist, and then after you do that we can see if your comparison is fair.

Prove the possibility that aliens could have visited Earth.

Seventeenth verse, same as the first...

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 07:17 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2015 07:25 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 07:03 PM)Banjo Wrote:  World of Forensic Science | 2005
COPYRIGHT 2005 Thomson Gale.
Circumstantial Evidence

Jurisprudence defines evidence as any written or oral testimony given under-oath, including documents, records, or physical objects admissible in a court of law, according to established rules of evidence, either to prove or disprove the authenticity of alleged facts, claims, or accusations. Circumstantial evidence is indirect information or secondary facts that allow the reasonable inference of the principal fact, without actually proving that such inference is true. Therefore, circumstantial evidence ideally requires further corroboration through other forms of evidence to prove a fact. All presented evidence will be considered by a jury, or by a judge, depending on the nature of the legal process, to test its relevancy and level of reliability, including the credibility of witnesses. In the United States, until 1975, the decision about which evidence was admissible in court was decided on the basis of judicial precedent (e.g., prior court decisions in similar cases). In the absence of a statutory law on a particular matter, the judge would make the rules. This common law jurisprudence descends from the colonial British legal system.

California was the pioneer American state in the creation of four statutory codes (in 1872): the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Penal Code, and the Political Code, in which the Code of Evidence was also implemented, establishing the necessary standard criteria of importance, validity, and legal weight of different types of evidence for civil and criminal courts. The California Evidence Code has inspired both the federal and other state legislations, in varied degrees, since then. However, only in 1974 did the Congress approve the implementation of the Federal Rules of Evidence , proposed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the preceding years.

The purpose of evidence in courts is to prove or disprove the existence of a fact. The level of proof or evidence presented must be solid enough to convince the court that such fact is true beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in criminal trials . In civil trials however, the standard of proof is often based on whether the true existence of the fact is more probable than not. Circumstantial evidence, therefore, carries different weight in criminal and civil trials.

Circumstantial evidence, in spite of its indirect nature, may be of great value, for instance, in highlighting inconsistencies between the behavior of a suspect and his allegations, thereby "filling in the blanks" of a probable crime scenario. For instance, although a suspect was unseen at the crime scene, the tire prints found on the scene match those of his car and a similar car was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene around the time the crime was committed. Or, sometime before the crime, the victim may have told a friend that they were afraid of the suspect, or a neighbor overheard a bitter and violent argument between the victim and the suspect in the recent past. Circumstantial evidence may be presumptive and inconclusive, admitting rebuttal by the other part, or, on the contrary, its quantity and pattern may be strong enough to substantiate a prosecution where other types of evidence are scarce and by themselves inconclusive.

One recent example of use of circumstantial evidence was the trial of Scott Lee Peterson, where the evidence presented was essentially circumstantial. A day after reporting that his eight-months pregnant wife was missing (December 23, 2002), Peterson was considered a suspect, because investigators found he had several extra-marital affairs since his marriage, and had recently been in a relationship with another woman. Petersen alleged that at the time of his wife's disappearance he was fishing at the Berkeley Marina, and was innocent. In April 2003, the remains of an unborn baby and the partial remains of a woman were found on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. Autopsy and other forensic tests identified the remains as those of his wife and her baby, although where, how, and when she died was not specifically determined. The FBI and forensic teams conducted extensive investigations at the Petersons' house, as well as searching Scott Peterson's boat, truck, toolbox, clothes, and personal objects, in search of forensic evidence of violence such as bloodstains or weapons. No physical piece of forensic evidence was identified that could link Peterson to the murder of his wife.

Although the prosecution could not present any physical evidence of Peterson's involvement with the crime, and the defense tried to defuse the circumstantial evidence, in November 2004, the jury convicted Scott Peterson of first degree murder for killing the wife "with special circumstances," and of second degree murder for killing his unborn baby. That December, the jury recommended a death sentence for Scott Peterson. In a press conference, the jurors declared that they had found Peterson guilty, in part, because of his demeanor. Circumstantial evidence including Peterson's change in haircut and color immediately after the crime, buying a car in his mother's name, and testimony by his ex-lover that he frequently lied and said he was a widower previous to the crime, weighed heavily with the jury.

One case where forensic evidence supported circumstantial evidence was California vs. Orenthal James Simpson in 1995. Nicole Brown, the ex-wife of famous football player and actor O. J. Simpson, was killed with her friend Ronald Goldman, on June 12, 1994. Evidence from the crime scene pointed to Simpson as a suspect, and he was later arrested for the crime.

The prosecution relied on forensic physical evidence along with circumstantial evidence to build the case against Simpson. Circumstantial evidence included footwear prints at the crime scene that matched Simpson's size, failure to keep an arranged appointment with the police to turn himself in, initiating a two-hour-long highway journey in a white Ford Bronco with police in pursuit, a left-handed glove found among Simpson's belongings that matched a bloody right-handed glove found at the crime scene, a documented history of domestic abuse against Brown, previous telephone calls made by the victim in which she relayed fears of being physically injured by Simpson to the police, and a letter from Simpson given to a friend that indicated an intention to leave the country in disguise.

Forensic evidence supported much of the circumstantial evidence. More than 40 bloodstains were tested for DNA fingerprinting, and each could be linked with either the victims and/or to Simpson. These samples were taken from the primary crime scene area, the secondary scene area, Simpson's Ford Bronco, and from Simpson's home. DNA profiles that matched the victims were found in blood taken from the crime scene and from Simpson's Bronco.

In spite of the circumstantial evidence, often supported with forensic evidence, the jury declared O. J. Simpson not guilty of murder in 1995. A civil jury, however, used much of the same evidence to convict Simpson on a civil court in 1997, and awarded the victim's families over 30 million dollars in damages.

In some countries, circumstantial evidence in the absence of other more solid testimonial and material evidence is not admissible in criminal courts. Circumstantial evidence is considered relevant to a case as an explanatory complement to existing testimonial and/or forensic evidence of indisputable accuracy. Controversy about the two cases above described continues among jurists and other experts, due to the perceived quality and relevance of evidence presented in each of those trials.

see also Artificial fibers; Blood; Bloodstain evidence; Civil court, forensic evidence; CODIS: Combined DNA Index System; Crime scene investigation; Crime scene reconstruction; DNA fingerprint; DNA profiling; DNA sequences, unique; DNA typing systems; Evidence; Expert witnesses; Federal Rules of Evidence; Fibers; Hair analysis; PCR (polymerase chain reaction); RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism); Statistical interpretation of evidence; U.S. Supreme Court (rulings on forensic evidence).

Let me take the relative part of that out of the context and explain something to you:

"Circumstantial evidence is indirect information or secondary facts that allow the reasonable inference of the principal fact, without actually proving that such inference is true.

Now, I am not stating that aliens are visiting earth is a fact, but rather I am arguing for a possibility. So let's replace the word "fact" with "possibility."

And that is what I am doing. My argument has never been that aliens are, in fact, visiting earth.

Principle Possibility: Is it possible that aliens are visiting earth?

I am using circumstantial evidence and indirect information and secondary facts that allow the reasonable inference that it is possible that aliens are visiting earth.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 07:20 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  My argument has never been that aliens are, in fact, visiting earth.

Principle Possibility: It is possible that aliens are visiting earth.

I am using circumstantial evidence and indirect information and secondary facts that allow the reasonable inference that it is possible that aliens are visiting earth.

No. You are presenting evidence which you claim supports the reality of it, even if it is not proof of this.

You do not understand what "evidence" means, and you do not understand how to establish what it is that you are arguing for. If you want to establish that aliens visiting Earth is merely possible, then you need to establish a means by which they could do this without being detected, demonstrate that this is feasible, and establish that they exist within a distance which makes this means of transport practicable.

But you can't do that any more than you can actually establish that these craft even exist in the first place.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 07:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  That's your position

No. It's fact.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  The circumstantial evidence we do have, including historical photographs and government documents

These are not circumstantial evidence of anything. They are unknowns at best.

You do not understand what the word "evidence" means.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  They are not unkowns. The photographs clearly and crisply show disc shaped aircraft, metallic, and domed on top.

No, they don't.

They show unknowns.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  The government documents are not unkowns at all

They are also not evidence, as baseless claims remain baseless no matter who makes them.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  as they testify that according to the US Military's opinion, these objects have been identified as aircraft of unknown origin and design

This opinion was subsequently discarded due to - again, a lack of evidence.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  This is a humanistic imposition upon the intelligence and technology of a possible alien race

You make this same imposition on the existence of wizards.

Your "possibility" applies to them as well.

(28-09-2015 07:00 PM)Free Wrote:  Firstly, prove the possibility that wizards can exist, and then after you do that we can see if your comparison is fair.

Prove the possibility that aliens could have visited Earth.

Seventeenth verse, same as the first...

I keep forgetting there's no hope at all for retarded brain-dead denialists.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 07:21 PM)Free Wrote:  I keep forgetting there's no hope at all for retarded brain-dead denialists.

Big Grin

Denial of what???

Free, I mean this sincerely. You need to remember where you are and with whom you are speaking. This is an atheist/rationalist website. It is an absolute that the people you engage will require evidence. Not the circumstantial type, which I showed above is insufficient in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence is also insufficient here.

After all this time you must accept this fact. You are free to believe what you wish. However, your attempt to influence members without actual facts are, have been, and will remain fruitless.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
28-09-2015, 07:48 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(28-09-2015 07:21 PM)Free Wrote:  I keep forgetting there's no hope at all for retarded brain-dead denialists.

Big Grin

This isn't even a conversation any more. This is a stimulus-response spambot set up to post on your account.

Any time you can't think of an actual rebuttal, you just post an insult and pretend you've won.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: