A question to sceptics.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Phage

 

I'm sorry, I was getting upset so I stopped responding without deleting what I had said.

Let me give you a bit of advice, kid. Turn back now. No shame in it at all. In fact, we'll all applaud your courage in being able to do so despite your beliefs.

If you continue to press on, I promise you it will only get worse. We'll devour you. We'll digest your logic like crumbling meat off bones. By the time we're done with you, you'll wonder why you ever graced the forums of ATS in the first place.

And what's worse--you'll have done nothing but amount to yet another piss-poor believer who discredits the cause of ufology. You've have actually taken a step backwards for the cause. The only thing you'll be able to state is "why is everyone picking on me?". Is that really what you want?

Phage: I'm sorry. I apologize. It will take me a bit to get used to the discussion forums. I was enjoying the convo earlier (admittedly until I tried to leave and then you forked the tongue at me a little). I didn't mean to get into a shouting match with anyone and I don't care for your support at all in this. I should have started on the freshman forum, but I have been at debating these topics for far too long. Problem is, I figured that in a venue like this that the postings would come just a little less often.

I came here tonight to see if I could generate some interest in a topic I 'knew' was shaky in order to see if the more serious topic was worth the interest..

Anyhow, I am damned near falling asleep and I've got another discussion to start plus pack my bag (problem is that I need to gather my thoughts much moreso for this and still manage enough sleep for the three hour drive)... gotta get going.

Jerkwad, follow me to the next topic for more informed debate, but be warned, I'm posting tonight and not for another three days or so.

I'm actually surprised I was able to sit at this info-box for long enough for SEVEN pages of discussion without shutting it out but for about 20 minutes... Amazing!


[edit on 26-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I came here tonight to see if I could generate some interest in a topic I 'knew' was shaky in order to see if the more serious topic was worth the interest..

Curious...you've been lurking in these forums for "years" and yet you haven't a clue what's already been covered.

In a court of law, I believe they would call that bull#.

reply to post by thrashee


Neh, It is called logic. You'll find I'm good at it, later. Working on the next topic, it will be a speculative piece, come get me tiger.

The key is to give a little and take a lot. As you eloquently evidenced with your utter lack of understanding. You see, you are a newbie also, with just a little more experience than me. You are overconfident and you are a sniper. Sniping from the sidelines is the trademark of an egotistical idiot.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

I'm sure. You've already been exposed as a complete and utter fraud, so what ever comes next surely will entertain.

EDIT--I don't give a darn tootin' what you think of me; the one thing you have not done is dispute my logic.

Don't worry--it's a trait shared by many a believer. When they are faced with logic they do not wish to confront, they side-track, misconstrue, manipulate, and do everything in their power to avoid the unavoidable.

The point remains: your logic sucks. Good luck in your next post.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by thrashee]

reply to post by NightVision


You misspelled 'septic'.

Septic

Sceptic with a 'c' is an acceptable British spelling, btw.

i know this is off topic but guys this is turning into a flame fest both of you are so intrenched in taking lumps out on each other now that there is no room for discussion from anyone else.

there are 2 3 pages of this now anyone reading through this thread just gives up hoping not to get drawn into the cross fire.

for Jay
ive spoke to you before in threads and for your first thread its a good question in principal but maybe aliens was a bit premature at this stage i think you would of sparked more debate on UFO existance in this instance not whos driving them ..but thats my thoughts

thrashee
ive witnessed you in othe threads and you are normaly involved in the discussion untill someone ticks you off and then they get both barrels i understand but both of you just need to walk away from this now as its gone way beyond disagrement of topic its been personal for a while

hell what would i know ive only been here a few weeks and no ive never posted a thread

Before anyone starts it is because i havent got everything i need to make a case for one yet due to the fact your a very demanding bunch

ON TOPIC
if this was in a court wouldnt one side or the other be able to under law be able to request evidence being witheld by the military to be presented.

i dont realy know how the US system works but is this even a possability or would it take an act of congress to get that accepted

If that was a probablility would that mean the case wold have to be heard in a closed court for "national security reasons"

The only thing i can think even come close to this was the case for the Area 51 workers that had taken legal action against the base that the government refused the existance of and eventualy had to admit it

although i think this just opens up more questions than it gives answers in the end ..



[edit on 26-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Well let us look at this circumstantial evidence:

(1). Only blurred pictures of these irratic objects.

(2). No confirmed material evidence of any such object (i.e. some
artefact which has clearly been manufactured by a technology unknown on Earth at this time or with materials which are clearly not of terrestial origin.

(3). Testimony recovered by hypnosis very dubious, so alien abduction 'victims' testomony is not valid.

(4). There is strong evidence that various millitary organisations fly experimental aircraft and do not release details of flights or designs of such craft.

Since there is no hard evidence of any sort, it seems hard to understand how anyone could be convicted in an equivalent sense. By this I mean there is no 'DNA', no physical evidence linking the person to the scene of the crime etc. Does this answer your question?

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Since I believe my earlier post got lost during the war above, I will repost it;

It depends upon what the lawyers would throw out as circumstantial evidence, and I have seen many court cases were the eyewitness testemony was considered just that, circumstantial, and i have seen many cases were it went the other way as well, it depends on how good the lawyers are and how they can bend the law to their own ends.

Jay-in-AR,

I owe you a pretty big apology--my remarks in this thread have been way overboard (even for me) and I shouldn't have attacked you in such fashion. Phew, coming home from the bars and hopping on ATS is not a good idea.

But your premise is still flawed

Forum beer Fury now thats a topic that should be looked into more

guys take a look at my post about about a legal team trying to unravel the secrecy the establishment seems to surround this UFO feild in

is it possible in legal terms in the case of a judicial investigation

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Nice Intelligent Post!

However I would like to suggest the exact opposite scenario for those that believe questioningly.

For those that have no requirement in their lives for proof... How would you feel if you were in court being judged for a crime by a jury that required no proof. Would your stance on proof suddenly change?

I believe that no honest truths can ever be found without proof. Only hunches, feelings, guesses, postulations, theories and in the worst cases - even blind prejudice. Proof is an important mechanism to everyone. Without it we cannot truly 'know'. If a lack of proof was universally acceptable, UFOlogy would not be in the sad, fractured state it is today. We wouldn't have 101 differing 'theories' on who they are, where they come from and why if we truly knew. Therefore any 'proof' we have to this point is speculative and at best - highly questionable.

IRM

[edit on 26/8/08 by InfaRedMan]

While there is certainly love involved with the 'caretakers' of this spinning garden of life we call earth its a love more of the end result than it is the beings occupying a particular time frame.

Our bodies are not our own. They are 'leased vehicles' based on mutual agreement. The original idea behind this creation was to produce a crop that is by nature very hard to find. That crop is universally valued and sought after and as it turns out our emotions and the emotional responses of all other lives here produces a very pure form of this treasured thing whatever it may be called.

The idea was that the bodies could also serve as a play ground of sorts for experiential vacations and is now a popular tourist attraction in many dimensions. As a result the life that is so diverse and teaming here is no mistake. Its the law of attraction in action. We come, we look over the agreement, agree and get to experience a different kind of trip so to speak. For some its a one time thing, for others an addiction that they repeat over and over either singly or in groups called clusters.

The caretakers are ultimately responsible for maintaining the planet, atmosphere, environment and more and another a group is responsible for collections of the produce created by the interactions of the life forms on the planet from the lowest plant forms to the highest mobile intelligences. All leased vehicles as per the agreement can be looked at, experimented on, modified, cross bred or anything else while here and when the time comes that the contract expires and the body dies the experience is over and we move on with a memory of a great trip. Its that simple for a nut shell description.

The planet is in no danger because it is 'artificially maintained to a plus or minus temp. with a maintained eco system to support the crop designed to live on it at all times and this has been the case throughout the garden's creation. We've had records of the caretakers being observed from times way back in early history and that is no accident. They are here now and they have always been here doing a job with single minded purpose and unattachment/indifference to the cries of those examined.

On occasion a new crop of better producing life forms is created on the planet. This has happened before where one or several of the old vehicles of crop producing life was replaced with a new better hybrid that out classes the last one. In those cases the old is replaced, sometimes slowly, sometimes all at once, but modifications are made as needed and the new crop, or modified crop is put into place to continue with production for business as usual. In short the experience here is all about supply and demand for something universally needed, wanted sought after and traded for that is created by our emotions from experiences we share and cause here as well as those caused by the creators.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage

It depends upon what the lawyers would throw out as circumstantial evidence, and I have seen many court cases were the eyewitness testemony was considered just that, circumstantial, and i have seen many cases were it went the other way as well, it depends on how good the lawyers are and how they can bend the law to their own ends.

Evidence is never thrown out because it is circumstantial. I would guess that circumstantial evidence is used in virtually every criminal trial. It is usually held in higher regard than eyewitness testimony.

You must have missed this, posted earlier. By definition, eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence.

circumstantial evidence: All evidence except eyewitness testimony.

Source

reply to post by Phage


You must not have been in many court room or participated in jury duty before either, because it does happen, quite often in fact.

[edit on 8/26/2008 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by AlienCarnage


No, I haven't been involved in any criminal cases. I'm basing my statements on what I've picked up over the years and what I've been finding on the internet.

I know... internet. But here goes:

If you don't believe the definition from the State Department here are a few more that elaborate a bit.

The law is clear in California and in every other jurisdiction: “Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof,” according to the standards California lays out for instructions to juries. “Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.” The easiest way to define “circumstantial evidence” is by what it is not — it is not evidence that comes directly from an eyewitness or a participant. With direct evidence, jurors don’t have to draw any “if-then” inferences.

Source

In general, direct evidence is not considered to be as reliable as circumstantial evidence. Historically, eyewitnesses are poor at identifying perpetrators or remembering certain events. Therefore, their eyewitness accounts are not always credible. People have a tendency to make up events as opposed simply restating actual events like a tape recorder

Source

circumstantial evidence n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.

Source

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Unfortuanately the definitions don't mean much when you have lawyers that tend to bend the law to their own meaning and Judges that allow them to do it. I have been to many trials and see this happen quite alot.

reply to post by AlienCarnage


I see your point. Well, the judges are lawyers after all.

Looking at it that way, bringing this subject to the courts would be a very bad thing indeed.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


The evidence is not the problem, but the amount of people who see it.

Hopefully people will continue to wake up, but until then it's basically the few with the facts vs the masses convinced of a lie.

Just know that, in your heart, you will be aware of possible things to come in this world and with that knowledge you will be able to help people in terrible times.

Originally posted by Kenan
As for "evidence"? Well, if I decide to chop my neighbour with an axe, they will find his DNA on my clothes, perhaps some peaces of flesh as well..that's evidence that I whacked him..if not, that at least I had something seriously to do with it.

That's EVIDENCE.

Let me ask you... Let's say you manage to burn the clothes in question, took the weapon into another state a buried it deep in a forest, and since you were wearing latex gloves and a ski mask, left none of your details at the scene. Also, the lady down the street, who says she saw you entering your neighbor's house on the day of the murder, you know has a very weird quirk, and you show that her testimony is highly suspect and get most people to believe that her word is irrelevant.

Now, I contend that is what we are seeing relative to UFO's is basically the same thing. The military protects the secret by removing the physical evidence, and has built up the notion that believing in extraterrestrials is a quirk, so any testimony from someone who believes in UFO's is highly suspect... And so it goes.

So if you were on trial for the murder of your neighbor, given the above, you might get acquitted. Doesn't mean that you didn't do it, and just because there is no "EVIDENCE," there are no aliens.