Sky News: Author Says UFO Threat 'Serious'

reply to post by Phage


Dude, are you being serious?

reply to post by JayinAR


I believe Phage is illustrating the problem with the believers "evidence".

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Betty and Barney Hill.

While you contemplate this, it may be necessary to look up the term circumstantial evidence.
This would include abduction/eye witness testimonials.

In that regard, the evidence is enormous.

And that is a phenomena, wrapped in the phenomenon.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I fail to see the relevance if Phage is BSing, honestly.
Phage knows I have the utmost respect for both his intellect and his knowledge, but to ignore the very definition of evidence is absurd.

reply to post by JayinAR

Dude, are you being serious?

Yes. Completely.

I saw something that I have no idea what it was. (pardon the atrocious grammar).

Satellite? No.
Plane? No.
Balloon? Maybe. But why the strobe and why only a few flashes?
Drone? Maybe. But why the strobe and why only a few flashes?

No idea what it was and no real reason to think ET.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Betty and Barney Hill.

While you contemplate this, it may be necessary to look up the term circumstantial evidence.
This would include abduction/eye witness testimonials.

In that regard, the evidence is enormous.

And that is a phenomena, wrapped in the phenomenon.

Actually you are mistaken. This is not circumstantial evidence, it would be direct evidence. My counter to Betty and Barney Hill is people lie. It was turned into a book and a movie. They made money. Let me put it this way ... I see you psychically tormenting me, apparently we now have direct evidence it is true, where's my money?

To reiterate, there is ZERO evidence and thus far you have provided none.

reply to post by Phage


Well there ya go, man.
My first of those was in '96 when I saw a giant freaking triangle fly over my head at a low altitude

Here I am today.

I try and follow the evidence, but at times the desire to believe clouds the judgement of evidence.

All I can do is my best.

Happy hunting.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I fail to see the relevance if Phage is BSing, honestly.
Phage knows I have the utmost respect for both his intellect and his knowledge, but to ignore the very definition of evidence is absurd.

Phage is not BS'ing. He is being honest and illustrating the ridiculousness of most eyewitness accounts and why they are NOT evidence. I am sure he will be by shortly and you will see.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


It would only be direct to Betty and Barney Hill.

For our purposes here it would be circumstantial. And it is but a drop in the bucket to the wave of folks who claim nearly exactly the same thing.

And the reason I say it is circumstantial is because you have to look at the phenomena as a whole.

Even if the Hills were lying, they are but one instance in a case that builds with THOUSANDS, suggesting the same.

This is circumstantial.

This can get your ass convicted of murder.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

It would only be direct to Betty and Barney Hill.

For our purposes here it would be circumstantial. And it is but a drop in the bucket to the wave of folks who claim nearly exactly the same thing.

Circumstantial evidence through testimony would be someone saying they say the Hill's go around a corner, and then they themselves took the corner moments later and the Hill's were gone.

Direct evidence through testimony would be the Hill's saying what they themselves saw and witnessed.

So far your evidence for ET is just as strong ass my evidence for your psychic abuse towards me. You have provided ZERO evidence that does not have a non ET explanation. Occam's Razor. You are going to have to do better than that.

Originally posted by JayinAR
And the reason I say it is circumstantial is because you have to look at the phenomena as a whole.

Even if the Hills were lying, they are but one instance in a case that builds with THOUSANDS, suggesting the same.

This is circumstantial.

This can get your ass convicted of murder.

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

www.innocenceproject.org...

It very well may get my ass convicted for murder, but it would still be wrong. Bad evidence does not make something true. How many of those eyewitnesses that got it wrong were SO SURE of what they saw?

reply to post by JayinAR

This is circumstantial.

No. That is not circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence connects physical evidence to a crime by inference.

This can get your ass convicted of murder.

Not without other physical evidence to back it up. Eyewitness statements can do so more commonly. They can also result in many false convictions.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Yeah. Exactly.
*I* am the one drawing on the Hill's testimony, saying that I saw them going around the corner and then they were gone.
I do this, in the past tense, by drawing upon other witness testimony (including my own DIRECT) testimony, if need be, to establish that this is real and seeks to suggest alien.

We can quibble all night.

My guess is you will argue semantics.

reply to post by Phage


Physical evidence?

There is plenty of that as well at alleged landing sites.

I am glad to see you venturing into convos I don't normally see you in. Seriously

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Yeah. Exactly.
*I* am the one drawing on the Hill's testimony, saying that I saw them going around the corner and then they were gone.
I do this, in the past tense, by drawing upon other witness testimony (including my own DIRECT) testimony, if need be, to establish that this is real and seeks to suggest alien.

We can quibble all night.

My guess is you will argue semantics.

It's not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence. Direct evidence is more powerful, I do not know why you want to make it a LESS powerful form of evidence. If anything you should be happy I am saying it's direct. Direct is always better than circumstantial, every time. But it doesn't matter, because it's evidence of nothing. It would be like me calling 911 saying I witnessed a person get murdered and buried, but there's no blood, no body, no evidence any crime had ever been committed. So I say to you, show me the body.

reply to post by JayinAR

My guess is you will argue semantics.

I will when you use specific terms incorrectly.

I understand your point but as you are probably aware, I take the completely opposite view.
Rather than throwing all sightings and encounters into a single bucket and saying "See! It must be ET!", I think each case has to be looked at and considered on its own merits.

Sort of like saying "all Muslims are terrorists."

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Phage

 

Physical evidence?

There is plenty of that as well at alleged landing sites.

I am glad to see you venturing into convos I don't normally see you in. Seriously

Please share. Like I said in my last post, show me the body .. er .. landing sites.

I am just gonna post this one generally since you guys flipped on me.

The reason I consider this circumstantial and not direct is because if I continue to throw out specific examples of direct evidence, you will either dismiss them all as "liars" or you will seek to debunk the cases specifically.

Fortunately I preempted all of that by qualifying it as circumstantial.
Meaning that the totality of events, given a margin of error, suggests what they ALL are saying as a strong possibility.

Originally posted by JayinAR
I am just gonna post this one generally since you guys flipped on me.

The reason I consider this circumstantial and not direct is because if I continue to throw out specific examples of direct evidence, you will either dismiss them all as "liars" or you will seek to debunk the cases specifically.

Fortunately I preempted all of that by qualifying it as circumstantial.
Meaning that the totality of events, given a margin of error, suggests what they ALL are saying as a strong possibility.

1 million fake youtube videos is not evidence of real ET's. Perhaps that is where your misconception lies. You have "logically" arrived at an illogical conclusion. If every case can be debunked specifically you end up with nothing, somehow you have concluded that the sheer volume of debunked evidence means it must still be true.

You said you had physical evidence, I would love to see it. Testimony is only valid if a crime has been committed, show me the body.