Alien Misrepresentation

a reply to: JadeStar

Since you are a student in astrobiology...you might want to take a gander at my (fooftr27) 1972 photo pic - Space Alien Hiding Behind Fossil Rock --- on YouTube


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed....

These, and many other solid evidence are on display at a museum connected with the Smithsonian, and are labeled as authentic artifacts.
www.huffingtonpost.com... ell-ufo_n_1373352.html

....

Plz check your link.

Oh, Noes! A 404!

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, and always has been.But just to prove it, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of EVIDENCE:

OK. So what happens when someone else provides testimony that contradicts yours?

It all comes down to a preponderance of evidence in that case. Each side would be evaluated for merit and the weight of each side would determine which testimony has the most strength based on all the background information clashing, or not clashing with what is being told.

I think that's obviously what happens. But what's preventing anyone from coming into a forum and saying anything they want? Is there a precedent being set? I'm sure I could find an expert witness to say everyone is hallucinating

. I might not agree but an expert is an expert. Wouldn't you want to see some type of supporting evidence in this case? That's also testimony.

The things you mention are why it is good to be as knowledgeable about the subject as possible by doing absolute research. Keeping an unbiased approach, and not being swayed by any emotional content which the world and it's peoples will indeed be trying to force their own version upon us all, using emotional tools, rather than substance.

The work George Knapp has done just on his own, which some of that is in the link I left in an above post has some real serious value. The more anyone knows gives a better foundation to make correct judgements on the value of data we are presented with, but even having said that, knowing the sources as reliable by past performance is also not a perfect thing, but after time can discover it's veracity was worth listening to, all proves out sooner or later.

There are so many variables in how we all learn things, and only an individual can decide on their own what to believe after having put things to the test.
I know that Mr. Knapp is an iron clad seeker of the truth, and one heck of an investigative journalist, and not someone who can be fooled, so, sources at that level are the best places to really do the digging and then trust your own judgement based on your own past proven methods of ferreting out fact from fiction.

When people who say things that I don't yet know about, or think sounds crazy in threads, I still keep the info for further study and don't come to any conclusion necessarily. Because for one, the entire subject still seems impossible, but that is because we are knowing only a fraction of what is out there and still unknown.

There are some really bizarre reports that have never been explained, with incredible effects being reported that we don't even have the theories in physics to explain at all still. But something made them happen. Something that probably shouldn't be here, and something governments can't defend against, and something they don't want the public to even know about.

You are right that you can find an expert witness with credentials that will insist that everyone is hallucinating who sees flying saucers or alien creatures. But those who are sane with no mental or physiological pathology who have indeed seen them and are officers, police, etc, and can be trusted by a history of known reliability and honesty, would be the one that I would listen to in those particular cases, rendering some expert witness null and void, plus investigate that expert witness having connections to an agenda, which has happened.

a reply to: JackHill

Where are the 'assertions'? What I just posted are facts, not 'assertions'.

An assertion is passing off statements as facts without any supporting evidence. Since I have no idea what you are referring to and didn't see any links, its an assertion.

Not my fault you're uninformed on the subject.

actually it may be since I have asked you before to give me a clue to what you are talking about exactly. It could be new information I wasn't aware of or something I haven't considered before. Without any context, I have no clue what you are referring to.

a reply to: JimOberg

oops, lets try that link again..
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Knapp link

These are the same, and both working for me.

Why is the the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis the only acceptable hypothesis to the most vocal people decrying the lack of scientific investigation into UFO reports?

That's not how science works. You all should be open to more than one hypothesis as an explanation for the phenomenon.

Eric Oulette's book Illuminations would be a good start.

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: JadeStar

Since you are a student in astrobiology...you might want to take a gander at my (fooftr27) 1972 photo pic - Space Alien Hiding Behind Fossil Rock --- on YouTube


www.youtube.com...

All I saw was a rock.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, and always has been.But just to prove it, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of EVIDENCE:

OK. So what happens when someone else provides testimony that contradicts yours?

The only people providing testimony that contradicts mine are the deniers.

But to answer the question the way you would like me to, Zeta, I never said all eyewitness testimony was correct, I simply proved that it was evidence. Evidence to be weighed, of course.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JackHill

Where are the 'assertions'? What I just posted are facts, not 'assertions'.

An assertion is passing off statements as facts without any supporting evidence. Since I have no idea what you are referring to and didn't see any links, its an assertion.

Not my fault you're uninformed on the subject.

actually it may be since I have asked you before to give me a clue to what you are talking about exactly. It could be new information I wasn't aware of or something I haven't considered before. Without any context, I have no clue what you are referring to.

Geez... I'm not playing your little 'confused-gimme-a-clue' words game. Reserve that for anyone who actually cares. You're at the border of being reported. Nice to chat with ya fella.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, and always has been.But just to prove it, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of EVIDENCE:

OK. So what happens when someone else provides testimony that contradicts yours?

The only people providing testimony that contradicts mine are the deniers.

....

How about your imaginary friend in Mission Control during Apollo-11? Are the words YOU claim this person told you [alone among billions of earthlings] supposed to be 'evidence' too? You've been asked to just prove it. We're waiting.

originally posted by: JadeStar
Why is the the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis the only acceptable hypothesis to the most vocal people decrying the lack of scientific investigation into UFO reports?

That's not how science works. You all should be open to more than one hypothesis as an explanation for the phenomenon.

Eric Oulette's book Illuminations would be a good start.

You are only saying this based on the science you know of. You may not know the science which a witness who is declaring an extra-terrestrial answer to their own question about it, have utilized in order to answer that question they had.

For example, when I see multiple lab results showing isotopes within a metal alloy that a lab says can't be found on earth, then that has no other answer except that it is extra-terrestrial. Just like a Mars meteorite would be, except with an alloy that a lab says was definitely manufactured, and containing an isotope which doesn't match terrestrial, or even any within the solar system, (and they can make that determination using current technology), then it had to be brought here and made by someone from somewhere else. Could be humans, aliens, who knows who? But not from earth, or made here on the earth, and that leaves..... Extra-terrestrial by definition.

It doesn't have to mean that everything is from aliens or places alien to earth, but in many cases, maybe it does.

Also, knowing this does not preclude another hypothesis, which might also prove to be true in some other case.

a reply to: JackHill

Geez... I'm not playing your little 'confused-gimme-a-clue' words game. Reserve that for anyone who actually cares. You're at the border of being reported. Nice to chat with ya fella.

I'm on the border of being reported? To whom exactly? and for what? I am asking for links or some kind of context to have a discussion. If all you ever do is make baseless claims and comments and assertions and then insult me when I ask what you are talking about, I'm at a loss. Let me know when I cross your border, i'm very curious now.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: JadeStar
Why is the the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis the only acceptable hypothesis to the most vocal people decrying the lack of scientific investigation into UFO reports?

That's not how science works. You all should be open to more than one hypothesis as an explanation for the phenomenon.

Eric Oulette's book Illuminations would be a good start.

You are only saying this based on the science you know of. You may not know the science which a witness who is declaring an extra-terrestrial answer to their own question about it, have utilized in order to answer that question they had.

For example, when I see multiple lab results showing isotopes within a metal alloy that a lab says can't be found on earth, then that has no other answer except that it is extra-terrestrial. Just like a Mars meteorite would be, except with an alloy that a lab says was definitely manufactured, and containing an isotope which doesn't match terrestrial, or even any within the solar system, (and they can make that determination using current technology), then it had to be brought here and made by someone from somewhere else. Could be humans, aliens, who knows who? But not from earth, or made here on the earth, and that leaves..... Extra-terrestrial by definition.

Do you have a link where I can read that lab report? I'm very interested in it based on what you've told me.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, and always has been.But just to prove it, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of EVIDENCE:

OK. So what happens when someone else provides testimony that contradicts yours?

The only people providing testimony that contradicts mine are the deniers.

....

How about your imaginary friend in Mission Control during Apollo-11? Are the words YOU claim this person told you [alone among billions of earthlings] supposed to be 'evidence' too? You've been asked to just prove it. We're waiting.

Just curious, but does your troll-baiting work better when you say "we're" ? rather than just "I'm"?

I'm waiting for the same information from scdfa as are others so Jim using "we're"' is appropriate.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
For example, when I see multiple lab results showing isotopes within a metal alloy that a lab says can't be found on earth, then that has no other answer except that it is extra-terrestrial. Just like a Mars meteorite would be, except with an alloy that a lab says was definitely manufactured, and containing an isotope which doesn't match terrestrial, or even any within the solar system, (and they can make that determination using current technology), then it had to be brought here and made by someone from somewhere else. Could be humans, aliens, who knows who? But not from earth, or made here on the earth, and that leaves..... Extra-terrestrial by definition.

First of all, there are all sorts of naturally formed alloys, both on Earth and elsewhere.

Second, please provide a source for these "lab results" you keep talking about.

Meteorites isotopic ratios are well known (you can even order a database of them for 500 dollars) so if this was something manufactured I'd love to see that lab report.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Even though I think we may ultimately disagree..., I really like your comments here and it really gives me some things to think about.

You are right that you can find an expert witness with credentials that will insist that everyone is hallucinating who sees flying saucers or alien creatures. But those who are sane with no mental or physiological pathology who have indeed seen them and are officers, police, etc, and can be trusted by a history of known reliability and honesty, would be the one that I would listen to in those particular cases, rendering some expert witness null and void, plus investigate that expert witness having connections to an agenda, which has happened.

One of the things I have learned about in recent years is that there is no requirement for people to be mentally ill or intoxicated in order to experience these things. I think there is a very blurry line between what is reality and what isn't in these cases. It sure seems like at the heart of all this, there is something truly unexplained.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
For example, when I see multiple lab results showing isotopes within a metal alloy that a lab says can't be found on earth, then that has no other answer except that it is extra-terrestrial. Just like a Mars meteorite would be, except with an alloy that a lab says was definitely manufactured, and containing an isotope which doesn't match terrestrial, or even any within the solar system, (and they can make that determination using current technology), then it had to be brought here and made by someone from somewhere else. Could be humans, aliens, who knows who? But not from earth, or made here on the earth, and that leaves..... Extra-terrestrial by definition.

First of all, there are all sorts of naturally formed alloys, both on Earth and elsewhere.

Second, please provide a source for these "lab results" you keep talking about.

Hmm, I see you don't even know what I'm talking about, nor do you understand how isotopes of elements, or metals leave a fingerprint that always tells where it came from, and where it didn't come from as well. Like identification of a metallic Mars meteorite. How would it be positively identified as coming from Mars? Learn about that first, and then the rest is easy. Or should be.