The matter of UFO's is a real one

[R.A.F.]

Using my analogy, the court can be presented scientific evidence to persuade the correct outcome. If this was a court, niether party has payed homage to this area of investigation in its fullest.

Oh no...you don't get to do that...the onus is ON YOU to present evidence. That you are unable to do that is not out "fault".

[Goldstone]

Since we are not talking about the presentation of scientific evidence in a court proceeding, but eyewitness testimony in a court proceeding, then what you posted is (yep...here it comes again) IRRELEVANT.



Eyewitness testimony is notorious for being unreliable...not so for scientific evidence.

You obviously have no clue to a real court proceeding then. Testimonial evidence is the spine in many cases, of the scientific investigation.

[JayUtah]

No proof has been suggested from either side...

You have the burden of proof. Some UFOs have been determined to be misinterpretations of ordinary phenomena. No UFO has been determined to be an alien spacecraft, CIA drone, or whatever it is you're claiming today in contrast. Do you understand why the null hypothesis is the way it is, and why you have the burden to falsify it?

If I have missed anything, I apologize.

Then do you agree that skeptics are setting an appropriate standard of evidence?

No I think it's flawed to accept withness testimony as a rumour.

You may be confusing two ideas. Eyewitness testimony is not necessary rumor, but it is not necessarily to be taken at face value. It must be evaluated according to the sciences we know apply to that kind of testimony.

Your evidence from Keyhoe and Goldwater is rumor. It's rumor because they present no evidence to support their belief; they simply state their belief and you simply believe that it constitutes a valid suspicion.

This AGAIN, is how evidence is evaluated in court proceedings. They take evidence from wittness testimonies and evaluate it under a panel of 12 members.

The evidence from Keyhoe and Goldwater would not even be admissible in a court of law because it is hearsay and conjecture.

Eyewitness evidence is indeed evaluated in court proceedings. In fact, the bulk of a court proceeding is to determine just how credible and reliable a witness may be. There is no presumption that the witness is telling the truth under direct examination. The whole process of cross-examination exists to determine whether the witness can know what he purports to know, whether he is being deceptive, or whether he was simply mistaken or misled. Then the jury decides whether the witness is believable. The whole court system is based on the presumption that you don't take any witness at face value.

It's interesting you bring that up, because the whole science of witness perception arose to try to determine why so many juries inappropriately believed eyewitnesses who were, in fact, impeached by other evidence or by cross-examination. It is a science you seem to want desperately to avoid.

[Jason Thompson]

Using my analogy, the court can be presented scientific evidence to persuade the correct outcome. If this was a court, niether party has payed homage to this area of investigation in its fullest.

Apart from all the linked articles and papers on the scientific research into the limitations of eyewitness testimony, or did you think we'd forgotten those several pages on?

[Goldstone]

Oh no...you don't get to do that...the onus is ON YOU to present evidence. That you are unable to do that is not out "fault".

No... I haven't dodged anything.

I have admitted that I cannot provide hard scientific facts. But then every time I have noted you and everyone else couldn't, I've not heard that theory being quelled.

[JayUtah]

You obviously have no clue to a real court proceeding then.

I've been involved in many, many court proceedings. You really don't know what you're talking about.

[JayUtah]

I have admitted that I cannot provide hard scientific facts.

Then are you willing to concede that there is no rational reason to be alarmed, as you say we should be in your initial post?

[Goldstone]

Then are you willing to concede that there is no rational reason to be alarmed, as you say we should be in your initial post?

Not on the basis of hearing my own words on it, no. I ask for a full evaluation of events relating to the UFO-phenom which by requirement had testimonial papers from officials suggesting there was some ''reasons'' in believing that the UFO's could be potentially harmful. These reports have been varified countless times. I have even raised them.

[Goldstone]

Also Nick Pope has provided a priori of the situation, remarking that considering these objects are real, anything pervading UK airspace is a matter of National Security.


As nick shows, it is matter of National Security, which ever way you may look at it.

[Strange]

Apart from all the linked articles and papers on the scientific research into the limitations of eyewitness testimony, or did you think we'd forgotten those several pages on?

Goldstone, will you please acknowledge that there is scientific research into the limitations of eyewitness testimony (and that you have refused to take this into account).

[R.A.F.]

Also Nick Pope...

Nope...he is not a respected authority...so invoking his name is pointless.

[Strange]

Also Nick Pope has provided a priori of the situation, remarking that considering these objects are real, anything pervading UK airspace is a matter of National Security.

Shouldn't that be if? And if they are not real, or there this is a mundane (but unknown) explanation, then it is not a security issue.

[Goldstone]

Shouldn't that be if? And if they are not real, or there this is a mundane (but unknown) explanation, then it is not a security issue.

No not if. This is the one part of UFO's I will get general consensus on. One person remarked to me that it is not really a matter of believing these things exist... but obviously it does if you are still in the stone-age of ''IF''.

[Goldstone]

Nope...he is not a respected authority...so invoking his name is pointless.

Oh he is respected. He worked in the British Ministry of Defence (a very high position by the way) as the real ''Fox Mulder.''

[Goldstone]

Minus his sister was not kidnapped by aliens :P

[Strange]

This is the one part of UFO's I will get general consensus on.

What is? Consensus from whom?

One person remarked to me that it is not really a matter of believing these things exist...

That was presumably someone else who shares your beliefs?

[Luckmeister]

No... I haven't dodged anything.

I have admitted that I cannot provide hard scientific facts. But then every time I have noted you and everyone else couldn't, I've not heard that theory being quelled.

The question I must ask is, Why did you come here? It couldn't have been because of a desire for more knowledge on UFO evaluation because you have refused to accept or even acknowledge any observations, references and evaluations that could even begin to shake your (yes I'll say it) belief in ET visitation. And your hypocrisy regarding that obvious belief has been a continual insult to our intelligence. That's an awfully big turnip truck we would all have had to just fall off of to accept your stated position that you're leaving the ETH option "open." That is not an adjective I would apply to any thinking you have exhibited here. The authors you cite promote belief in ET visitation and sometimes you let your guard drop and promote it yourself.

You consider us close-minded because we insist on rational hard evidence for acceptance of extraordinary conclusions; not hearsay, misinterpreted memos, cherry-picked witnesses, assumptions of what blobs on a photograph are, or the one-sided arguments of self-appointed profit-driven "research" authors.

If your choice is to blindly believe instead of critically think, then good luck to you.

[Paul Beardsley]

The question I must ask is "Why did you come here? It couldn't have been because of a desire for more knowledge on UFO evaluation because you have refused to accept or even acknowledge any observations, references and evaluations that could even begin to shake your (yes I'll say it) belief in ET visitation. And your hypocrisy regarding that obvious belief has been a continual insult to our intelligence. That's an awfully big turnip truck we would all have had to just fall off of to accept your stated position that you're leaving the ETH option "open." That is not an adjective I would apply to any thinking you have exhibited here. The authors you cite promote belief in ET visitation and sometimes you let your guard drop and promote it yourself.

You consider us close-minded because we insist on rational hard evidence for acceptance of extraordinary conclusions; not hearsay, misinterpreted memos, cherry-picked witnesses, assumptions of what blobs on a photograph are, or the one-sided arguments of self-appointed profit-driven "research" authors.

If your choice is to blindly believe instead of critically think, then good luck to you.

Well put.

[Garrison]

Oh he is respected. He worked in the British Ministry of Defence (a very high position by the way) as the real ''Fox Mulder.''

Nick Pope was a minor civil servant stuck with the job of collating UFO reports no one else was interested in. When many of these reports were declassified he found himself thrust into the media spotlight and it all rather went to his head. He never investigated any of the reports in question, he certainly never occupied any high position.

[Paul Beardsley]

So, AGAIN, my question is, what form does this panic take? No one ever says, just uses that big bad boogie word, PANIC. (not just asking Goldstone, but anyone who has an idea)

Would primitive Afghan tribesmen react any different to purple people eaters than they did when the British redcoats marched in?

Who is the concern about, the poverty stricken in the slums of the world? Native tribesmen in South American rain forests? Arkansas hillbillies?

To be honest, I dont see a lot of signs that our military leaders concern themselves a great deal with the well being of those living in less privileged countries. Why would the matter of aliens be so different?

TJ

All good points, TJ. One thought that might be relevant is that the Aztecs are supposed to have believed the conquistadors mounted on horses were a single lifeform - and they were somewhat taken aback when one dismounted. I don't think this caused them to run about in panic, though - that probably had more to do with them being massacred.

[R.A.F.]

Oh he is respected.

By the blind believers of the world...but actual scientists have critically examined his claims and found them "wanting".

You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but don't bother trying to "paint" someone of Pope's "ilk" as in any way respectable...It just won't work, here.

[JayUtah]

Not on the basis of hearing my own words on it, no.

And around we go again...

These reports have been varified countless times. I have even raised them.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You tell us you have no proof. Then you try to tell us your evidence is verified and is strong. Sorry, I'm not going to follow you on this latest trip around the UFO merry-go-round. This is why you will never be taken seriously by legitimate researchers.

[captain swoop]

OK time to end this, Goldstone says he wants to end his UFO posts and the thread is going round and round anyway.

Time to put it away before infractions have to be handed out