It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why isn't observer evidence like eyewitness accounts counted as evidence for UFO's?

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Why avoid the question?

It's perfectly valid, ignoring the U in UFO seems a little strange.




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
because the subject of aliens isnt a criminal case?


No, because eyewitness testimony is insufficient alone to prove the existence of a crime.

It's called 'nabeas corpus'.


I believe the term you are looking for is corpus delicti; "habeas corpus" (which I assume you meant to type; I've never heard of "nabeas corpus") has nothing to do with it.

Regardless of all of that, you're incorrect. Not only can eyewitness testimony establish that a crime has been committed, but it can secure a conviction as well. Here's a post from a lawyer that almost reads like it could have been a specific reply to your post:


Joshua Sachs
Criminal Defense Attorney
Evanston, IL

Message
Posted on Oct 17, 2014

I think you are confusing two different concepts, the quantum of proof necessary to convict and the "corpus delecti" rule.

Can a person be convicted on testimony alone? Yes. The law in virtually every state is well settled that the testimony even of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to support a conviction. End of story.

The "corpus delecti" rule, which is the law in some jurisdictions but not necessarily in all, provides that a defendant's own confession cannot support a conviction standing alone, but there must in addition be some independent evidence that a criminal act was committed. That additional evidence, of course, can be witness testimony.

There is no requirement that there be some kind of physical evidence in order for the prosecution to obtain a conviction or to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, That is, shall we say, an urban myth. Prisons are full of people convicted on the basis of witness testimony only. It sounds as though you are seriously misunderstanding whatever is in your book . . . or that your book got it wrong.

www.avvo.com...


Note that all of the other lawyers who posted on that thread are in agreement.
edit on 10/27/2016 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Why avoid the question?

It's perfectly valid, ignoring the U in UFO seems a little strange.


I didn't avoid the question. He asked a question which I've already answered (he quoted my answer to his question in the very post in which he asked it, no less). Then he followed it up with a mere assertion.

And given that I haven't "ignored the U in UFO", your statement is a non sequitur, i.e., it doesn't logically follow from anything I typed. Non sequiturs can legitimately be dismissed out of hand.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

OK, then both of us misunderstood what you said and have asked for further clarification.
Referring to what was misunderstood previously doesn't provide further clarification.

For example you assume I am unaware what non sequitur means and provided a definition without being asked.

When someone actually asks for a definition why not just answer?



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Corpus Delecti is interesting.
How many witnesses would it take to convict someone of witchcraft?

Technically not a crime I guess, but for the sake of argument if 20 people had consistent stories about Mrs X turning Mr X into a frog. Should Mrs X be charged with a crime, I guess the crime would technically be mutilation but you seem to know more about the legal process than I do.

Turning someone into a frog should definitely be against some existing law on the books.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: MaximRecoil

OK, then both of us misunderstood what you said and have asked for further clarification.
Referring to what was misunderstood previously doesn't provide further clarification.


There's nothing to misunderstand. I said:

"'UFO' has a generally accepted definition, and I am using the term in accordance with it."

Dictionaries are a repository of generally accepted definitions, so if for some bizarre reason you're not already aware of the generally accepted definition of "UFO", you can look it up in any mainstream, credible dictionary.


For example you assume I am unaware what non sequitur means and provided a definition without being asked.


I didn't assume anything. However, a lot of people don't know what that term means, so they look it up, and they find the formal logic definition of it, decide that it doesn't match up with the way I applied the term, and try to argue with me about the meaning of it. Then I have to point out that I'm not using the term in the formal logic sense, I'm using it in its general sense, which is essentially its literal Latin meaning.


When someone actually asks for a definition why not just answer?


Because he can go to e.g., Merriam-Webster's website and type in "UFO" just as easily as I can. Plus, the term is an initialism which defines itself, as long as you know which word each letter stands for, and I don't believe that he doesn't already know that. On top of that, he followed with, "If you are using the commonly accepted definition your posts are making no sense." There is no "if" about it; I've already stated that I'm using the term according to its generally accepted definition, and his mere assertion about it "making no sense" carries no weight whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Someone asked you a question so clearly there was something to misunderstand. Whose fault the misunderstanding is, is irrelevant. And a dictionary cannot tell me how "you" define UFO's.

Merriam Webster says... a flying object in the sky that some people believe could be a spaceship from another planet

dictionary.com says... any unexplained moving object observed in the sky, especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin.

I believe that reflections of light can be misinterpreted and called UFO's. Is that wrong because it doesn't match up with the definition as there is no "object" in the sky.

Although to be fair, I've never looked up the definition. I was actually surprised they didn't just extrapolate the U,F and O.
edit on 28-10-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
That is to say, in a court of law, there may have been an eyewitness who says they saw a defendant commit a crime. However, if that eyewitness was mistaken (mistaken identity or whatever), then that is NOT evidence that the defendant committed a crime.



originally posted by: MaximRecoil
That goes without saying.
If it went without saying, this thread wouldn't exist.

Since this thread exists, it apparently doesn't go without saying.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Someone asked you a question so clearly there was something to misunderstand.


No, there wasn't anything to misunderstand. He said:

"If you are using the commonly accepted definition your posts are making no sense."

Which means he knows what the generally accepted definition is, given that he is attempting to draw a conclusion (albeit, an invalid one) based on it.


Whose fault the misunderstanding is, is irrelevant.


There is no misunderstanding, at least not with regard to the definition of "UFO". He seems to be having trouble understanding other things however, as evidenced by his false assertion that my posts "are making no sense".


And a dictionary cannot tell me how "you" define UFO's.


I didn't define UFO; I said that I used the term in accordance with the generally accepted definition, and dictionaries are a repository of generally accepted definitions. Take your pick from any mainstream, credible dictionary. It isn't even relevant to the point in the first place (which is why DJW001's replies to me with regard to the definition of "UFO" are non sequiturs; the same goes for your replies to me), the point being: eyewitness testimony (which hasn't been negated) is evidence, full stop. What it's evidence of is determined by the details of the testimony, and the strength of the evidence is also determined by the details of the testimony, along with other factors, such as the credibility, level of knowledge, etc., of the witness.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
That is to say, in a court of law, there may have been an eyewitness who says they saw a defendant commit a crime. However, if that eyewitness was mistaken (mistaken identity or whatever), then that is NOT evidence that the defendant committed a crime.



originally posted by: MaximRecoil
That goes without saying.
If it went without saying, this thread wouldn't exist.

Since this thread exists, it apparently doesn't go without saying.


It goes without saying that negated evidence is not evidence. This thread topic isn't about negated evidence (and even if it were, it still logically goes without saying that negated evidence is not evidence), and as such, your reply doesn't make sense.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Someone said your post made no sense. That is either because they misunderstood or because the post made no sense. Are there any other options?

The misunderstanding may not even be related to UFO, however by not answering the question regarding definition you won't be able to find that out.

I'm aware you didn't define UFO, it's your refusal to give your definition which we are discussing.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Someone said your post made no sense. That is either because they misunderstood or because the post made no sense. Are there any other options?

The misunderstanding may not even be related to UFO, however by not answering the question regarding definition you won't be able to find that out.


The fact that he asked the question at all shows that he's confused, i.e., the definition of UFO has no relevance to the point. On top of that, the question was answered before it was asked. And it's not my problem that he's confused. I had an exchange with someone else on this thread, and he wasn't confused (though he seems to have a misconception about what "evidence" means), so I'm obviously not speaking Greek here.


I'm aware you didn't define UFO, it's your refusal to give your definition which we are discussing.


Again, I didn't define UFO. It was defined by people long before I was born. There is no "[my] definition". There is a generally accepted definition which you can find in any major, credible dictionary (the wording will vary from dictionary to dictionary, but they all mean fundamentally the same thing), and I always use words according to their generally accepted definitions. Also, the definition isn't even relevant to the point, as I've already said.
edit on 10/28/2016 by MaximRecoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Lets try and some things up most members on here reporting and reposting from you tube and similar when talking about UFO's are referring to Mog from Zog 90+% of the time.

Eye witness accounts are just that accounts they are not evidence they are statements from a person who saw or thinks they saw something. Looking at many threads on here you will see that MANY people have no idea what they are looking at.

Every winter in the UK we have reports from people regarding a star that flickers red green & blue we even have threads on here about it. These ACCOUNTS usually claim they look at the sky on a regular bssis and have never seen this before anybody who looks up at the sky on a regular basis will know it's Sirius.

This is a prime example of how eyewitness reports have to be taken with a pinch of salt. I will not even comment on the Nibiru believers on here.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

Eye witness accounts are just that accounts they are not evidence



Full Definition of evidence

1
a: an outward sign : indication
b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

www.merriam-webster.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Why isn't observer evidence like eyewitness accounts counted as evidence for UFO's?

I can appreciate your passionate about UFOs and for what its worth I believe aliens walk among us and are observing us all the time.

But mate; dont get to passionate about it. For you own inquiries and satisfaction, yes no worries but dont bother trying to convince people. put your info up to make it available for others to access and leave it at that.

Recognise that many people on this forum are here to attack claims from people such as yourself either because they are paid to or because they are religious and their religion does not permit them to believe in aliens and UFOs. The reason they are not permitted to believe in UFOs and aliens is because god made us in his own image remember and it just would not do for being that are streets ahead of us in technology to look different to us humans. Therefore they cant exist can they.

One day the various religions will go into a huddle and redefine some clause in the bible to make it OK to beleive in aliens that is some distance away yet.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Ok I will rephrase they are not PROOF !



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
because the subject of aliens isnt a criminal case?


No, because eyewitness testimony is insufficient alone to prove the existence of a crime.

It's called 'nabeas corpus'.


I believe the term you are looking for is corpus delicti; "habeas corpus" (which I assume you meant to type; I've never heard of "nabeas corpus") has nothing to do with it.

Regardless of all of that, you're incorrect. Not only can eyewitness testimony establish that a crime has been committed, but it can secure a conviction as well. Here's a post from a lawyer that almost reads like it could have been a specific reply to your post:


Joshua Sachs
Criminal Defense Attorney
Evanston, IL

Message
Posted on Oct 17, 2014

I think you are confusing two different concepts, the quantum of proof necessary to convict and the "corpus delecti" rule.

Can a person be convicted on testimony alone? Yes. The law in virtually every state is well settled that the testimony even of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to support a conviction. End of story.

The "corpus delecti" rule, which is the law in some jurisdictions but not necessarily in all, provides that a defendant's own confession cannot support a conviction standing alone, but there must in addition be some independent evidence that a criminal act was committed. That additional evidence, of course, can be witness testimony.

There is no requirement that there be some kind of physical evidence in order for the prosecution to obtain a conviction or to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, That is, shall we say, an urban myth. Prisons are full of people convicted on the basis of witness testimony only. It sounds as though you are seriously misunderstanding whatever is in your book . . . or that your book got it wrong.

www.avvo.com...


Note that all of the other lawyers who posted on that thread are in agreement.


Thanks for the clarification and catching my typo.

So if witnesses say they saw a person kill someone and dump their body off a bridge, but there is no body found, and nobody of the description even missing, the accused person can be convicted of murder?

I'd like to see an example of that ever having happened please.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

""Recognise that many people on this forum are here to attack claims from people such as yourself either because they are paid to or because they are religious and their religion does not permit them to believe in aliens and UFOs."

Is there any reliable testimony that this claim is true?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue


Recognise that many people on this forum are here to attack claims from people such as yourself either because they are paid to or because they are religious and their religion does not permit them to believe in aliens and UFOs. The reason they are not permitted to believe in UFOs and aliens is because god made us in his own image remember and it just would not do for being that are streets ahead of us in technology to look different to us humans. Therefore they cant exist can they.


What about the people who just don't like sloppy thinking? It's interesting you phrase the situation in terms of religion. Religion is founded on belief; faith in the truth of something without evidence. Believing that UFOs and alien life are in some way connected is an article of faith for some. There is no rational reason to connect the two.

People see things in the sky they cannot immediately identify. These are called "Unidentified Flying Objects," or UFOs for short. These experiences are very real, hence, UFOs, as a phenomenon, are real.

Our understanding of the nature of the physical universe is such that we can say with near certainty that life exists on other planets.

Automatically assuming that anything seen in the sky must necessarily be connected with life on other planets is illogical. We know so little about the human mind, for example, that it would be foolish to exclude the possibility that the causes of the phenomenon are not material in nature.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
Can a person be convicted on testimony alone? Yes. The law in virtually every state is well settled that the testimony even of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to support a conviction. End of story.


Well, that testimony would need to be consistent with the rest of the facts of the alleged crime. A person cannot be convicted ONLY on the testimony of someone else.

For example, if I testified that I saw ATS member "MaximRecoil" kill someone, and there are no other facts whatsoever supporting that you killed someone, there is no way that you would be convicted. There needs to be other facts supporting my testimony. I might be the one and only witness to the crime, and that's perfectly acceptable, but my testimony should not be thought of as "evidence that you killed someone" unless other supporting facts exist.

The reason I say that is because what if I totally made up the fact that I saw you kill someone? If no other facts exist that indicate that you killed someone except my totally made-up story, should my totally made-up story be considered evidence that you killed someone? I would say "No".


This is similar to an eyewitness account of a UFO. Having the eyewitness see a thing in the sky that they could not identify and there be no other evidence that the thing in the sky was anything unexplainable, then the eyewitness account is not evidence that unexplainable things exist. The eyewitness could have been mistaken, or could have totally made it up. So why should that eyewitness sighting with no other facts whatsoever supporting that sighting be considered evidence that unexplainable (alien?) craft exist.

As others have said, it's only evidence that the eyewitness saw something that they could not identify...and that's not the same as saying it is evidence that there are flying objects that nobody could possibly explain.




originally posted by: wmd_2008
Eye witness accounts are just that accounts they are not evidence they are statements from a person who saw or thinks they saw something. Looking at many threads on here you will see that MANY people have no idea what they are looking at.

Every winter in the UK we have reports from people regarding a star that flickers red green & blue we even have threads on here about it. These ACCOUNTS usually claim they look at the sky on a regular bssis and have never seen this before anybody who looks up at the sky on a regular basis will know it's Sirius.

This is a prime example of how eyewitness reports have to be taken with a pinch of salt. I will not even comment on the Nibiru believers on here.

Exactly. People see Sirius (and sometime Arcturus) and reported seeing an strobing light in the sky that cannot possibly be a star (and, yes, there have been ATS threads in which people have misidentified Sirius and Arcturus). Or consider the two police officers who chased the planet Venus for several miles, thinking it was some sort of craft. From theior car, and viewing it through the trees, Venus looked to them to be a low-flying craft that may have been looking to land.

These are examples of eyewitness sightings that are misidentifications. There are also eyewitnesses who flat-out make up stories. That's why an eyewitness sightings should not automatically be considered evidence of impossible-to-explain flying craft.

Sure , there are some eyewitness accounts that may in fact rise to the level of being evidence that craft may (just "may")exist that cannot be explained in conventional ways. I'm not saying it's necessarily damning eviudence, but there is some eyewitness evidence out there.

It seems to me that the OP is advocating that eyewitness sightings should be called "evidence that impossible-to-explain objects exist". Technically, all sightings are evidence of something, but they are not all "evidence that impossible-to-explain objects exist".


edit on 2016-10-28 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join