UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 07:49 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:45 AM)Free Wrote:  Hearsay is not what evidence I am supplying here. Hearsay implies a verbal repeating of something previously said, and that is not the evidence here.

Multiple Eyewitness testimonials is what I am talking about, and in any civilized court it is always considered to be "oral evidence." If this is not evidence , then cases of sexual harassment convictions based upon multiple eyewitness testimony only would never have resulted in a conviction.

So yes, it IS evidence.

How can you continue to conflate the ordinary and the extraordinary? Consider

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:47 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I am sorry mate. Your text is all jumbled on my screen and I am unable to read it.

Now I look more closely, my text has become your signature.

Yeah, I think there has been some kind of update on the forum, cuz I see the same thing a lot.

Just refresh.

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
11-09-2015, 07:54 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:45 AM)Free Wrote:  Hearsay is not what evidence I am supplying here. Hearsay implies a verbal repeating of something previously said, and that is not the evidence here.

Multiple Eyewitness testimonials is what I am talking about, and in any civilized court it is always considered to be "oral evidence." If this is not evidence , then cases of sexual harassment convictions based upon multiple eyewitness testimony only would never have resulted in a conviction.

So yes, it IS evidence.

How can you continue to conflate the ordinary and the extraordinary? Consider


Oh I can read it now! Smile

Multiple eyewitness reports will differ. This is a reason they are not taken as seriously as you seem to think. At least as far as I know. But as I said, I am not a professional involved in the law. In Australia I know eyewitness reports can be used, but only if the other physical evidence supports it.

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
11-09-2015, 07:54 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:45 AM)Free Wrote:  Hearsay is not what evidence I am supplying here. Hearsay implies a verbal repeating of something previously said, and that is not the evidence here.

Multiple Eyewitness testimonials is what I am talking about, and in any civilized court it is always considered to be "oral evidence." If this is not evidence , then cases of sexual harassment convictions based upon multiple eyewitness testimony only would never have resulted in a conviction.

So yes, it IS evidence.

How can you continue to conflate the ordinary and the extraordinary? Consider

I do not see anything extraordinary. You may think alien visitation is extraordinary, but I see it as being absolutely inevitable considering what we know about the universe.

Most scientists consider that life is abundant in the universe to a near certainty.

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
11-09-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:54 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  How can you continue to conflate the ordinary and the extraordinary? Consider


Oh I can read it now! Smile

Multiple eyewitness reports will differ. This is a reason they are not taken as seriously as you seem to think. At least as far as I know. But as I said, I am not a professional involved in the law. In Australia I know eyewitness reports can be used, but only if the other physical evidence supports it.

Consider cases of verbal death threats, with multiple eyewitnesses only. Such threats have landed people in jail, so yeah ... they are taken very seriously. Also consider conspiracy to commit murder, and how people are convicted upon oral evidence.

So can we at least agree that oral evidence is indeed evidence, with the stipulation that the weight of the oral evidence depends on the circumstances?

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
11-09-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:54 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  How can you continue to conflate the ordinary and the extraordinary? Consider

I do not see anything extraordinary. You may think alien visitation is extraordinary, but I see it as being absolutely inevitable considering what we know about the universe.

Most scientists consider that life is abundant in the universe to a near certainty.

Life, not intelligent life, and certainly not freewheeling neighbors-come-a-visiting life. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:00 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:54 AM)Free Wrote:  I do not see anything extraordinary. You may think alien visitation is extraordinary, but I see it as being absolutely inevitable considering what we know about the universe.

Most scientists consider that life is abundant in the universe to a near certainty.

Life, not intelligent life, and certainly not freewheeling neighbors-come-a-visiting life. Tongue

Actually, scientists such as Stephen Hawking believe that intelligent life does exist, and that we should avoid direct contact, according to his statements back in 2010. He fears contact could result in the extinction of the human race.

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
11-09-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:57 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:54 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Oh I can read it now! Smile

Multiple eyewitness reports will differ. This is a reason they are not taken as seriously as you seem to think. At least as far as I know. But as I said, I am not a professional involved in the law. In Australia I know eyewitness reports can be used, but only if the other physical evidence supports it.

Consider cases of verbal death threats, with multiple eyewitnesses only. Such threats have landed people in jail, so yeah ... they are taken very seriously. Also consider conspiracy to commit murder, and how people are convicted upon oral evidence.

So can we at least agree that oral evidence is indeed evidence, with the stipulation that the weight of the oral evidence depends on the circumstances?

Oral evidence alone for a conspiracy to commit murder case is hardly enough. The claim of it is tough. The evidence of verbal death threats is going to be less because the claim and it's something you really can only have verbal/unless recorded evidence of. Multiple witnesses is a good case but the real case against would have to be providing a motive for it to be a lie to the point of a trial ongoing; Which seems to be a stronger claim to prove though.

Evidence has to met the nature of the claim... that's why you demand extreme evidence in the case of anything that would resemble a god claim and it applies not as harshly, but still really harshly when it comes to alien visitation claims.

Plus just like 1 scientist, while be it a heavily respected hyper intelligent one also isn't good evidence against a claim like HOC made of most scientists. Though it's a little through away claim that isn't much of a serious kinda discussion. But it was also a comment about abundant in the universe, many are uncertain how abundant and common intelligent life is. Most would still just make that claim of life in general.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:57 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:54 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Oh I can read it now! Smile

Multiple eyewitness reports will differ. This is a reason they are not taken as seriously as you seem to think. At least as far as I know. But as I said, I am not a professional involved in the law. In Australia I know eyewitness reports can be used, but only if the other physical evidence supports it.

Consider cases of verbal death threats, with multiple eyewitnesses only. Such threats have landed people in jail, so yeah ... they are taken very seriously. Also consider conspiracy to commit murder, and how people are convicted upon oral evidence.

So can we at least agree that oral evidence is indeed evidence, with the stipulation that the weight of the oral evidence depends on the circumstances?


Yeah but I think you are pushing it mate. A recording of the aliens speaking captured on tape is quite different to some obscure shape in the distance.

You are not being objective here. You are arguing for a case. The rest of us are asking for evidence, finding none and treating it as such.

This is why I posted the, I want to believe, cartoon.

You appear not to be searching for evidence Free.

Sure anything is possible. Perhaps aliens have visited? I do not know for a fact. And neither do you or anyone else.

Once we have the facts everyone will know. I mean why hide it, if a govt has the evidence? ISIS chops heads off on youtube and people watch it. The human is pretty hardy and can handle it. That UFO's visit would not, I think, bring down a govt.

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
11-09-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:03 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:57 AM)Free Wrote:  Consider cases of verbal death threats, with multiple eyewitnesses only. Such threats have landed people in jail, so yeah ... they are taken very seriously. Also consider conspiracy to commit murder, and how people are convicted upon oral evidence.

So can we at least agree that oral evidence is indeed evidence, with the stipulation that the weight of the oral evidence depends on the circumstances?

Oral evidence alone for a conspiracy to commit murder case is hardly enough. The claim of it is tough. The evidence of verbal death threats is going to be less because the claim and it's something you really can only have verbal/unless recorded evidence of. Multiple witnesses is a good case but the real case against would have to be providing a motive for it to be a lie to the point of a trial ongoing; Which seems to be a stronger claim to prove though.

Evidence has to met the nature of the claim... that's why you demand extreme evidence in the case of anything that would resemble a god claim and it applies not as harshly, but still really harshly when it comes to alien visitation claims.

This is an excellent and intellectually honest post. That is all I seek from people here, a little honesty.

Yes, in a case where there is purported alien visitation, the evidence required to positively confirm the truth of the claim should be very high, and certainly requires some degree of physical evidence of some sort.

But in this discussion, I am not trying to positively confirm the absolute truth of the claim, but- as I have stated ad nausium- I am only demonstrating with multiple eyewitnesses how their testimonies contributes to the possibility of alien visitation.

There is a distinct difference between making a positive claim about Alien visitation (or God, of which there is no evidence) and supplying credible evidence to support the possibility of alien visitation (in which God also has no evidence.)

We cannot compare the claims of multiple eyewitness- who are not predisposed to beliefs about aliens- and who all describe something materialistic in the sky to claims of religionists who are all predisposed to beliefs about whether or not they all seen God.

One claim suggests something materialistic, and the other claims suggests something supernatural.

We cannot make this comparison and be honest about 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: