UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  You are making a positive claim that it's an extraordinary claim.

And you're making the positive claim that it's not.

You don't quite understand what a positive claim is, but vapidly declaring that other people are doesn't get you out of substantiating your own.

(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  None of them made a positive claim that it was definitely an alien aircraft, although some cited it as being possible.

So now you must prove it is an extraordinary claim.

"Some people saw something they couldn't identify" is not an extraordinary claim.

"Maybe it was a non-human aircraft" is.

"Maybe" doesn't change that.

(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Also, again ad nausium, oral evidence from 12 credible witnesses is excellent evidence indeed, in any court.

No, it isn't. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That's not out of context. That's what you literally said. You don't get to pretend that you're not asserting something here.

Yep, it is out of context and does not truthfully represent by quote. You insist on non existent positive claims at the exclusion of other options such as the fact there is room for doubt if somebody else may have been capable of identifying the object as being man-made, or some other explanation of what it actually was.

Claiming something is a possibility is necessarily an implicit claim that it exists.

It troubles me that you refuse to acknowledge this.

(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:If we (by which I mean you) were more honest about it, it wouldn't present as much of a problem. Identifying an unexplained phenomenon as not man-made is not extraordinary. Identifying an aircraft - explicitly an aircraft, remember, because you only examine the claim while already layers-deep in confirmation bias - as such is extraordinary.

So no, yet again disingenuously dancing back from certainty to possibility doesn't particularly impress me.

No, you're just not thinking clearly here.

You have to prove something is possible before you can conclude that an unexplained phenomenon might be due to it.

(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:You can't selectively interpret the testimony you're echoing. You don't get to pick and choose.

What? I am not allowed to have an opinion based upon my experience? Heaven forbid!

You can have all the opinions you want.

If they're biased and/or ignorant, you're going to get called on them.

(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Should I look over my shoulder for the RCMP?

Quote:So, the apparitions at Fatima, then? There were a lot more than twelve people claiming to have seen that...

Didn't I demonstrate that as being a false comparison already? If you want to continue making that comparison, it's all on you.

People witness all kinds of things all the time.

That you don't understand your own blind spots isn't my problem.

(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:And more to the point, the courtroom is a godawful analogy.

Or did we suddenly replace all the review boards of scientific journals while I wasn't looking?

This is an issue that requires judgements. Since there is no physical evidence, science can't help here any more than it can help in a death threat court case.

How many convictions are you aware of in the absence of physical evidence, hmm?

I invite you to meditate on what you refuse to understand:
To claim something is a possibility is necessarily to assert its existence.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Also, again ad nausium, oral evidence from 12 credible witnesses is excellent evidence indeed, in any court.

You have yet to provide any evidence that these witnesses are credible.

"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
11-09-2015, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 03:57 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
Quote:
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Also, again ad nausium, oral evidence from 12 credible witnesses is excellent evidence indeed, in any court.

No, it isn't. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Asserting it isn't evidence isn't doing you any good. Please refer to the Canadian Law listed below regarding death threats. These types of threats leave no physical evidence, and the only evidence that can be supplied are eyewitness accounts.

If oral evidence can be used to prove the existence of a death threat, and result in a truth claim being considered true, then likewise in this case it also can apply.



Quote:
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Yep, it is out of context and does not truthfully represent by quote. You insist on non existent positive claims at the exclusion of other options such as the fact there is room for doubt if somebody else may have been capable of identifying the object as being man-made, or some other explanation of what it actually was.

Claiming something is a possibility is necessarily an implicit claim that it exists.

No. See at the bottom of this post.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  No, you're just not thinking clearly here.

You have to prove something is possible before you can conclude that an unexplained phenomenon might be due to it.

That has all been discussed.

Scientists have very strong beliefs in the possibility of alien life existing in this universe, and so do I. Earth is the precedent we can use as evidence of intelligent life possibly existing elsewhere in the universe.

Mankind's accomplishments can be used as evidence that it is possible for intelligent life in the universe to travel to other worlds.

Since we can accept the above as evidence to support possibility, then possibility is established, however remote.

No matter how you look at it, possibility exists.



Quote:
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  What? I am not allowed to have an opinion based upon my experience? Heaven forbid!

You can have all the opinions you want.

If they're biased and/or ignorant, you're going to get called on them.

I would expect no less, and welcome correction when error has been conclusively demonstrated.

However, I too will exercise my right to excise the demons of fallaciousness in anybody who attempts to challenge my position with such things as false comparisons, misrepresentation of my views, and assertions of claims I never made.

Thumbsup

Quote:
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Didn't I demonstrate that as being a false comparison already? If you want to continue making that comparison, it's all on you.

People witness all kinds of things all the time. That you don't understand your own blind spots isn't my problem.

Rather evasive of the point I must say.

Quote:[quote]
(11-09-2015 02:31 PM)Free Wrote:  This is an issue that requires judgements. Since there is no physical evidence, science can't help here any more than it can help in a death threat court case.

How many convictions are you aware of in the absence of physical evidence, hmm?

Quite a few. Read below:

Quote:What does the Criminal Code of Canada say?
Under cc. 264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

© to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

What is the possible punishment for Uttering Threats?
Under subsection (2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or ©

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

http://www.normstanford.com/charges-defe...g-threats/

Quote:I invite you to meditate on what you refuse to understand:
To claim something is a possibility is necessarily to assert its existence.

No.

When a possibility is asserted, it is not a positive claim of existence, but rather a positive claim about the possible existence.

Where something is claimed to be a possibility, at least some evidence should be supplied to demonstrate said possibility. The evidence to demonstrate possibility should not be, and cannot be, as strong as evidence expected and required on an assertion of positive existence.

Hence, I am not making a positive claim of positive existence, I am making a positive claim of possible existence based upon the evidence in the case file, reasoning, and acceptance of other aforementioned valid possibilities.

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, 03:57 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:No, it isn't. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Asserting it isn't evidence isn't doing you any good. Please refer to the Canadian Law listed below regarding death threats. These types of threats leave no physical evidence, and the only evidence that can be supplied are eyewitness accounts.

If oral evidence can be used to prove the existence of a death threat, and result in a truth claim being considered true, then likewise in this case it also can apply.

Oh hello there, pointless red herring. How are the waters today?

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Claiming something is a possibility is necessarily an implicit claim that it exists.

No. See at the bottom of this post.

It rather is. Deal with it.

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Scientists have very strong beliefs in the possibility of alien life existing in this universe, and so do I. Earth is the precedent we can use as evidence of intelligent life possibly existing elsewhere in the universe.

Mankind's accomplishments can be used as evidence that it is possible for intelligent life in the universe to travel to other worlds.

"Humans have travelled 400000 kilometres therefore aliens can travel hundreds of light-years".

Wait, no. That's insane troll logic.

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Since we can accept the above as evidence to support possibility, then possibility is established, however remote.

cf God.

You don't want to play that game.

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:People witness all kinds of things all the time. That you don't understand your own blind spots isn't my problem.

Rather evasive of the point I must say.

You're presupposing the validity of testimony based on whether it agrees with beliefs you already hold.

That's not rational, it's cherry-picking.

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:How many convictions are you aware of in the absence of physical evidence, hmm?

Quite a few. Read below:

Quote:What does the Criminal Code of Canada say?
Under cc. 264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

© to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

What is the possible punishment for Uttering Threats?
Under subsection (2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or ©

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

http://www.normstanford.com/charges-defe...g-threats/

Hearsay isn't sufficient to obtain a conviction. I could file charges against you right now, alleging you threatened me. How seriously would they be taken?

Notwithstanding that courtroom proceedings do not decide reality.

Have all the scientific journal editorial boards been replaced by juries of laymen while I wasn't looking?

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I invite you to meditate on what you refuse to understand:
To claim something is a possibility is necessarily to assert its existence.

No.

When a possibility is asserted, it is not a positive claim of existence, but rather a positive claim about the possible existence.

You're equivocating.

Something as a possible specific explanation requires a priori substantiation.

Something as a generality can be left to freewheeling speculation.

You, yourself, explicitly reject the idea that all supposition not conclusively disproven must be entertained.

Unless it's your pet theory, naturally.

(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Where something is claimed to be a possibility, at least some evidence should be supplied to demonstrate said possibility. The evidence to demonstrate possibility should not be, and cannot be, as strong as evidence required on an assertion of positive existence.

Ignorance and the unknown do not demonstrate possibility.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:No, it isn't. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Asserting it isn't evidence isn't doing you any good. Please refer to the Canadian Law listed below regarding death threats.

Quote:What are Uttering Threats charges?

Uttering threats charges can take many different forms. The two most common ones appearing in police charges are Uttering Death and Uttering Bodily Harm. These charges often result from allegations of incidents involving partners in domestic situations, assaults outside of domestic situations, messages sent by cell phones, instant messenger, Facebook, or telephone calls.

What Must the Crown Prove to Convict Me?

To convict someone of Uttering Threats, the Crown prosecutor must show that the threat was made knowingly — that the person who is accused of making the threat was aware of the meaning of the words and what they convey. The threat must also have been made seriously. Proof of the charge does not require a motive, nor does it require that the person making the threat was capable of carrying it out.

Underlining mine.

I don't normally go in for posts like this, but at this point, Free, it is rather apparent that not only are you an extremely silly person, but you are also a liar, exceptionally immature and childish, and rather an idiot to boot.

You don't understand a single thing about the way evidence works even when the sources you cite disagree with you. You don't understand what a false comparison is or how to spot one. You don't understand even the most utterly basic principles of logic, and you are willing to throw out all your "skepticism" when the facts contradict your personal pet beliefs.

Beyond that, when others confront you about this, you respond with insults, and when those fail, you resort to simply ignoring those who disagree with you and pretend that they aren't there. And you lie, blatantly and repeatedly, about the nature of your arguments and the information your own sources contain.

I have already gone so far as to give you negative reputation, which is more than I have done for literally any other poster on this site, but I am making this post to make it perfectly clear that I have absolutely no respect for you. At least posters like Heywood Jahblome and Godexists are just rather silly and ignorant.

At least they aren't blatant liars.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-09-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:09 AM)Free Wrote:  I have not run from his arguments like a coward, as you so wrongfully and stupidly insist.

He was ignored for the following reasons:

1. Constant False Comparison Fallacies: He continues to point to false comparisons, such as the last one in which I replied to him, wasting my time reviewing his bullshit reasoning.

You continue to falsely compare courtroom evidence with scientific evidence.

Quote:2. Ignoring Evidence: He wrongfully insists that oral testimony given via multiple eyewitness testimonies is not evidence, when every court in the civilized world demonstrates that it is.

It is not scientific evidence.

Quote:3. Misrepresenting My Views: Due to # 1 & 2 above, he misrepresents my position, and also by not being capable of distinguishing between a positive claim and and a claim of possibility, he constantly insists that I am making positive claim of the existence of alien visitation when I have clearly, numerous times, have been stating it as being but one of the aforementioned possibilities.

4. Chas has demonstrated Unbeliever's other faulty reasoning blunders at least twice in this thread now, and there are numerous others.

Really? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 04:41 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:21 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 02:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, Joe does not eliminate those possibilities except for himself. He makes assertions only about what he believes is true.

His assuredness about weather phenomena is misplaced.

Joe's assuredness is not evidence.

Hence why I said, "Joe eliminates ...

That wasn't at all clear.

Quote:His testimony is evidence, wholly. To an impartial judge, Joe's confidence is acknowledged.

This is not a courtroom. It is not scientific evidence and Joe is not all that credible.

Quote:If Joe said something to the effect of, "I'm pretty sure," would the judge then take into consideration Joe's lack of confidence? Sure he would, because that is the reasonable thing to do. Therefore, when Joe demonstrates confidence in his position, the judge may equally view it as positive confirmation due to Joe's level of confidence. That is an equally reasonable thing for a judge to do.

This is not a courtroom.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 07:45 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 07:39 AM)Banjo Wrote:  No, I am unable to confirm this. I am not a legal professional. I understand though that in order for a case to be closed evidence is required. You are simply trying to use hearsay. This is what the xians do all the time. How often do they cite eyewitness testimony only to be lambasted by rationalists on a forum such as this.

It is good to be open minded. Dangerous when the mind is gaping though. One must be careful. And we require evidence. This seems to be how most of the atheist members brains work.

You should be aware of this Free, you have many posts under your belt. To come here and argue a case without proof is a sure sign of acting in a pointless manner. So often xians and others try that here. It will never work.

Now if you have real evidence, not just hearsay, please show us. If not, give it away. You are wasting every body's time. Including your own.

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.

No, not in science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-09-2015, 04:45 PM
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.

But there is no known property of the universe that would make interstellar travel practical, so "inevitable" is far too strong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 04:46 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:09 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The weaknesses in eyewitness testimony are well-documented, yet you seem to gloss them over, so folks are making sure that the point is made.


What you, and those folks are "glossing over" is your intentional misrepresentation of eyewitness testimony in this discussion. Your post above may be true with a single witness, or maybe even two or three, but it doesn't hold an ounce of water when 12 or more witnesses all point to the exact same thing.

So, please make a point that I do in fact acknowledge the possible weakness of a singular eyewitness, or even two or three- but do NOT use that to misrepresent my position on this issue when I am clearly stating 12 or more eyewitnesses all pointing to the same thing.

We all know and understand how a large number of eyewitnesses who were not predisposed to expecting something to happen would increase a judge's confidence in the claim of truth, as opposed to a decreased measure of confidence if there was only one eyewitness.

Denying this makes anybody look fucking retarded, and if I continue to see this misrepresentation, I will call out whoever does it as being "fucking retarded."

Big Grin

"Exact same thing"? That beggars belief right there. Multiple eyewitness descriptions are notorious for differing, sometimes radically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: