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.

 

CNN mentions PJ's UFO special upset a lot of people

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
With the passing of Peter Jennings, CNN reporter Carol Costello mentioned this morning that there were many people on the Internet upset with the UFO special that he did in February. They started to discuss that the news about his death first broke on the Internet, then all of a sudden Carol mentioned the special. I will try to say it as close as I can recall.

There were many people upset on the Internet about his (Peter Jennings) UFO special because he said that a shadow government didn't exist. (not a direct quote).

I recall that Stanton Friedman and Dr. Steven Greer both were very upset and wrote letters to ABC to express their anger. But it was because of how the interviews were conducted. Many ATS members had expressed their displeasure on this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was surprised and saddened by his passing. Even though I thought this special along with the one he did on JFK were both bogus. I was even more surprised to hear that discussion on the Internet with regard to his UFO special is being mentioned on the news.

Here is a link to the ATSN News thread reporting PJ has died.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

May he rest in peace.




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

There were many people upset on the Internet about his (Peter Jennings) UFO special because he said that a shadow government didn't exist. (not a direct quote).


Yes, he ridiculed the "shadow government" theory...but personally, I was more upset about this:

How could a respected journalist SERIOUSLY look at the evidence surrounding the Roswell case, and then just dismiss it as a "myth"? There is PROOF something crashed there, PROOF of a coverup and USAF lies, and the fact that the events (a matter of recorded history) do NOT coincide with a Mogul balloon retrieval. (i.e. you don't fly wreckage of a balloon, balsa wood, and tin foil, at the last minute, to Air Materiel HQ, especially when you've retrieved such balloons in the past).

One of two things is obvious. Either he didn't bother to do the research himself and/or check it's validity (the likely case), or he was corraborating with those keeping the secret (unlikely). Either way though, it makes for a shoddy journalist. Just a repeat of his JFK fiasco, where he ignored the evidence just to reiterate the common public story that nobody with a lick of common sense would swallow.

Of course Greer and Friedman were upset. He basically called them conmen, and also completely ignored their credentials....while playing up the credentials of the skeptics! Not only did I express my anger to ATS, but also to ABC, Prime Time Live, and anyone else I'd get to listen, hehe....



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Of course Greer and Friedman were upset. He basically called them conmen, and also completely ignored their credentials....while playing up the credentials of the skeptics! Not only did I express my anger to ATS, but also to ABC, Prime Time Live, and anyone else I'd get to listen, hehe....


I remember, you were writing your series of threads on Roswell at that time, which was excellent BTW. Did you ever hear back from ABC or anybody?

PJ refered to Stanton Friedman as a "UFO Promoter", and didn't even mention Dr. Greer or the DP, even though they filmed interviews of some of the witnesses from the DP. What a shame.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Gazrok, Roswell is a myth. A myth that is funded by the book publishing industry. Back in the 50s there were alot of secret missions by the air force. Such as the Mogul baloons. They were highly top secret so when one crashed they had to cover it up. Then 8 years later they dropped dummys from high altitude parachutes which some people saw on the ground and thought were dead aliens. Then another incident were an explosion caused a pilots face to swell to alien like proportions. These events plus 30~ years of time between Roswell and the first book on Roswell made eyewitnesses memories distorted into believing this was all one incident, when it wasnt. Peter Jennings is the only one who makes sence and he will be missed.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Read Gazrok's series on it and you might just change your mind. By simply stating it is a myth is simply dismissing and ignoring the personal testimony AND evidence given by top-ranking military officers, journalists and others.

Gazrok makes some very good points. How would military officials mistake wood and tin foil for strange metal and hieroglyphs? How would a town full of people notice a crashing weather balloon, something which they had probably seen before, and mistake it for a mysterious craft? Simply dismissing Roswell as a myth is absurd. Read Gazrok's little book on the subject.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by DaTerminator]

[edit on 8-8-2005 by DaTerminator]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vegemite
Gazrok, Roswell is a myth. A myth that is funded by the book publishing industry. Back in the 50s there were alot of secret missions by the air force. Such as the Mogul baloons. They were highly top secret so when one crashed they had to cover it up. Then 8 years later they dropped dummys from high altitude parachutes which some people saw on the ground and thought were dead aliens. Then another incident were an explosion caused a pilots face to swell to alien like proportions. These events plus 30~ years of time between Roswell and the first book on Roswell made eyewitnesses memories distorted into believing this was all one incident, when it wasnt. Peter Jennings is the only one who makes sence and he will be missed.


Wow! I'm guessing you are either just looking to pick a fight with Gazrok, or you are really just un-educated in the Roswell subject. I'm gonna suggest you read up on the multiple thread research project that Gaz put together on the Roswell subject before you make such "matter of fact" claims so you can at least have some decent arguing points.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vegemite
Gazrok, Roswell is a myth.

I suggest as others have you read his series on Roswell. Gazrok addresses these claims that were made by the Air Force not Peter Jennings. If you would like to debate these claims, you can post in his threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Peter Jennings is the only one who makes sence and he will be missed.


I agree he will be missed, but I don't think he even investigated Roswell. Did you even see the special? Peter Jennings barely mentioned Roswell and refered to it as a myth. He presented no evidence of the Air Force claims of Project Mogul in their report "Roswell: Case Closed".



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   


I agree he will be missed, but I don't think he even investigated Roswell. Did you even see the special? Peter Jennings barely mentioned Roswell and refered to it as a myth.


That is really my point. It's obvious that this "respected journalist" simply glossed over the evidence, and merely publicly stated a claim based on nothing. That's the scary part here.

By all means, look at the evidence. In my threads I provided links to the USAF reports on it, so you can see both sides. The simple facts don't add up...

1. Balloon recoveries were a fairly routine occurance in the area, for years. Most ranchers and farmers had found them before.

2. Such balloons (including Mogul) were not addressed with severe secrecy, despite the claims of skeptics. They were often left in the desert to rot. And why not? Even the skeptics will tell you that Mogul contained NO classified materials. Only the MISSION was classified....not any of the materials.

3. You'd have to believe that US ARMY intel officers, Generals, Sergeants, etc. wouldn't be able to identify balsa wood and tin foil...materials that any 10 year old in 1947 could easily identify (if they'd eaten a Hershey bar or flown a rubber band model airplane).

4. You'd have to believe that for some strange reason, this particular balloon recovery needed top secret flights to Air Materiel Command, etc. when no other balloon recovery (even of Mogul) ever needed this before or since.

5. You'd have to ignore the ARMY's own press release, clearly stating they retrieved a flying disc (not a balloon). You'd furthermore have to believe that you can't make out "VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" clearly on the Ramey memo. (and no other air wrecks, etc. happened around the timeframe involved, so couldn't pertain to much else).

6. You'd have to believe that the US ARMY provided anyone finding a Mogul balloon with a brand new, shiny pickup truck, as that's what they gave Mac Brazel when he was finally released from custody. (hint: nobody else finding the balloons got such a "gift").

7. You'd also have to wonder why a downed balloon would require a vast military cordon, etc.

8. You'd have to believe that people could somehow mistake 6' tall, flightsuit wearing clearly human-looking dummies, for 4' tall alien beings, especially when such dummies weren't even dropped yet at the time.

9. As for secret projects, do you REALLY believe that ANY project going in 1947 would STILL need to be classified? Surely, if such a project were responsible, the USAF would have jumped on it. Instead, they try to keep explaining it as Mogul, even though they are fully aware it doesn't fit the facts....even remotely.

So, you can believe Mr. Jennings if you wish, or join us here on the side of the common sense fence... It's a free country of course (at least we keep telling ouselves that)....


[edit on 8-8-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Dont be too discouraged, Vegemite, those who gang up on you in here so far are well meaning folks with a lot of talent. Even Gazrok will come around to your point someday
simply because he is too good a researcher to keep himself blinded for long. And use a topic like this to find the thinkers, the inquirers, and researchers. Most of the cliff
edge stuff (like reptilians and etc..) is science fiction and can be tied to a movie, book, or other tall tales. I participated slightly in Gazrok's Roswell series not so much as to debate
the issue but to leave pointers for folks like Vegemite. I do not believe Roswell is a total myth, but in the sense of alien contact, yes. I aim my own studies at trying to find out just
what really happened. There are several interesting probabilities that the alien mythology well disguises. And here is a clue. The alien body mythology began in the late 1970's. Stanton
Friedman was one of a handful of folks who show up as the "first finders" of the body testimonies..

Now for Gazrok.

I do not like to argue point for point, particular when I am facing repetitive points that have little or no resolving power.
I do really like the way you organize your thoughts, and counter statements in direct challenge to you would have detracted
from your Roswell work. This forum is probably a better place. That said, I would like to counter your points in a manner
that appears to be somewhat lacking on ATS as a whole. I intend to counter with a few challenges that just might perk
your interest enough to look deeper, beyond your bias in fact.

Testimony is not EVIDENCE period. Even in court. I would submit that most attorneys have been trained in a manner
whereby, as a learning exercise, they are shown that they cannot even trust their own testimony, and how their own
testimony changes with the passage of time. This is a trait that is INDEPENDANT of the credibility of a witness.
Likewise, the credibility of a witness does NOT extend to his testimony.

I submit that the ONLY evidence regarding the Roswell event is the Army press release (a curio) and the photo of the
balloon debris, which has been identified by a key Mogul honcho as Mogul debris. This presents us with another curio.
My recollection is that Mogul 2 and 3 debris were found after Mogul 4, which is the Mogul candidate for the Brazel
ranch area. Mogul 1, I believe, was not launched from New Mexico at all. The time frames are consistant as were the debris
locations. (I left out the "Ramey" memo because it does not pass my sanity check. It simply violates the resolution capabilities
of the emulsion in common use at the time for BW photos. Waving wands and mirrors and "special" digital processing cannot
change the original resolution.)

I further do not believe that the Mogul explanation came from the USAF, but was borrowed from a UFOlogist who
independantly reached that conclusion in a timely fashion and the USAF "bought" it so to speak. While weather
balloons were common, research balloons never were and are not now. Only the very few that cannot be located
are left to rot in the desert.

Anything that is classified with regards to nuclear weaponry is exempt from automatic downgrading. If it was related
to nuclear weapons and was classified in 1947, I believe it would still be classified today. (Referring to my speculation
that Mogul DATA may have been related.)

As far as wondering about brand new shiny pickup trucks, vast military cordons, etc...well, hear-say may be allowed
on discussion boards but it aint even allowed in court. But to make a fun argument here, there is other hear-say
on ATS that suggests that Mac Brazel was not even concerned about the stuff on the ranch until
another individual, in Corona NM I recall, mentioned that there was a reward for anything unusual that may be a
flying disc. The reward amount was around $3000 which for 1947 would have come closer to buying a new Home.
I believe that the "crash" sites share a direct linear relationship with the number of "alien" museums in Roswell.
Since I have heard that a third such musuem is being planned, I conclude that when alien museums = 3
then crash sites = 3.

Any bets ?

Post Script, just for grins, I will also toss out that there was NO ground radar at Roswell Army Air Field in June 1947. The nearest
radar was sorta experimental (being tested for missile tracking) and was the SCR 584 at WSPG just on the other side of the Organ
Mts. from Las Cruces, with a maximum range of 40 statute miles. Even if it had better range, the Sacremento mountains in the area
of Sierra Blanca would have blocked the areas under discussion.

Peter Jennings did a professional job, not surprising that the believers were upset.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   


I do not like to argue point for point, particular when I am facing repetitive points that have little or no resolving power.
I do really like the way you organize your thoughts, and counter statements in direct challenge to you would have detracted
from your Roswell work. This forum is probably a better place. That said, I would like to counter your points in a manner
that appears to be somewhat lacking on ATS as a whole. I intend to counter with a few challenges that just might perk
your interest enough to look deeper, beyond your bias in fact.


Fair enough, let’s begin…



Testimony is not EVIDENCE period. Even in court. I would submit that most attorneys have been trained in a manner whereby, as a learning exercise, they are shown that they cannot even trust their own testimony, and how their own testimony changes with the passage of time. This is a trait that is INDEPENDANT of the credibility of a witness.
Likewise, the credibility of a witness does NOT extend to his testimony.


False. Testimony IS evidence, and yes, in court. There are numerous cases that are tried and convicted solely on the basis of testimony. Sworn affidavits are admissible evidence in a court of law, and that is what is provided in the Roswell threads, not hear-say.



I submit that the ONLY evidence regarding the Roswell event is the Army press release (a curio) and the photo of the balloon debris, which has been identified by a key Mogul honcho as Mogul debris.


Then you’d be ignoring the testimony (evidence) of two of the three men in the photos (Marcel and Dubose), both of whom testify to a “switch” of debris for the publicity photos. Other evidence includes the FACT of the debris flights to Ft. Worth and Wright Field, a FACT that isn’t consistent with the (now declassified) recovery procedure of a research balloon, even a classified MOGUL one. Not to mention, several other pieces of EVIDENCE presented in those threads.



This presents us with another curio.
My recollection is that Mogul 2 and 3 debris were found after Mogul 4, which is the Mogul candidate for the Brazel ranch area. Mogul 1, I believe, was not launched from New Mexico at all. The time frames are consistant as were the debris locations.


It’s only consistent with Brazel’s (admitted to, i.e. affidavit, numerous interviews) coerced testimony AFTER being held by the military. Prior to this, and later, Brazel reaffirmed the original stated dates, which do NOT coincide with MOGUL 4 or otherwise.



(I left out the "Ramey" memo because it does not pass my sanity check. It simply violates the resolution capabilities of the emulsion in common use at the time for BW photos. Waving wands and mirrors and "special" digital processing cannot
change the original resolution.)


So far, I have yet to see even skeptics like Klass make any such accusations stick. Even the skeptics agree that no fakery is involved with the imaging processes, they simply debate what is being read on the memo.



I further do not believe that the Mogul explanation came from the USAF, but was borrowed from a UFOlogist who independantly reached that conclusion in a timely fashion and the USAF "bought" it so to speak. While weather balloons were common, research balloons never were and are not now. Only the very few that cannot be located are left to rot in the desert.


Check the threads. I provide links to the official USAF reports that show that yes, the Air Force is claiming MOGUL. Why would the Air Force need to “borrow” the explanation? Only if it wasn’t the truth, right? Otherwise, they’d KNOW the explanation… Ranchers often found such balloons as there was usually a small reward for turning them in. This is shown in numerous interviews and even a couple of affidavits of local ranchers. Even during the Sci-Fi channel special, they found balloon debris in the area (though it wasn’t 50 years old, so no dice for the skeptics there), that shows that indeed, it isn’t uncommon to find such things in the area. And why wouldn’t it be, there are several research areas nearby.



Anything that is classified with regards to nuclear weaponry is exempt from automatic downgrading. If it was related to nuclear weapons and was classified in 1947, I believe it would still be classified today. (Referring to my speculation that Mogul DATA may have been related.)


MOGUL has been declassified for a while. My assertion is that other assertions (such as a missile, secret plane, etc.) would NOT still be classified either. Also, remember that only the MISSION of MOGUL was classified. It used off the shelf materials, easily identified.



As far as wondering about brand new shiny pickup trucks, vast military cordons, etc...well, hear-say may be allowed on discussion boards but it aint even allowed in court. But to make a fun argument here, there is other hear-say on ATS that suggests that Mac Brazel was not even concerned about the stuff on the ranch until another individual, in Corona NM I recall, mentioned that there was a reward for anything unusual that may be a flying disc. The reward amount was around $3000 which for 1947 would have come closer to buying a new Home.


Again, we’re not talking about hear-say, it’s sworn affidavit testimony, admissible in court. Nor is Brazel’s statement of “non-concern” about the debris. That statement was part of Brazel’s coerced testimony after military detention, to fit the cover story, as stated by Brazel in numerous TV, and media interviews. I don’t recall the saucer reward being that high though, would have to look it up…may have an extra 0 there…



I believe that the "crash" sites share a direct linear relationship with the number of "alien" museums in Roswell. Since I have heard that a third such musuem is being planned, I conclude that when alien museums = 3
then crash sites = 3.

Any bets ?


Sure, that’s a sucker’s bet…easy money. That’s a pretty bold (and baseless) assumption. Two crash sites are supported by testimony and other evidence.



Post Script, just for grins, I will also toss out that there was NO ground radar at Roswell Army Air Field in June 1947. The nearest radar was sorta experimental (being tested for missile tracking) and was the SCR 584 at WSPG just on the other side of the Organ
Mts. from Las Cruces, with a maximum range of 40 statute miles. Even if it had better range, the Sacremento mountains in the area of Sierra Blanca would have blocked the areas under discussion.


If you recall, I completely dismiss Kaufman’s claims, and most UFOlogists do not consider him a credible witness.



Peter Jennings did a professional job, not surprising that the believers were upset.


He didn’t even discuss the official USAF reports at all. How is that a professional job? He completely ignored (as in not even stating) the credentials of the UFOlogists on the show (i.e. never mentioned Friedman is a PHD, a physicist, and worked for top secret projects). Again, how is that even professional journalism? I suppose we’re to believe that Oswald can fire a bolt-action rifle faster than is physically possible, and faster than the world record holder too? After all, that’s what we’d have to believe to swallow his report on JFK’s assassination. Another “professional job” by Jennings…


EDIT: Btw, thanks for the disagreement...rather refreshing...
That's what makes discussions interesting....

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I was one of those people who watched his UFO special and was highly dissapointed.
I had always trusted and relied on PJ to bring the truth to me and this little project didnt go very well. I still think he was the best, and when he spoke, i listened. He was a great broadcaster and i will miss him.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Gazrok,

An excellent and well reasoned defense of the Roswell incident for sure.

Ever think about doing this full time like Friedman?

We could sure use more rational, reasonable, and knowledgable UFOlogists like you presenting things to the media (alternative and mainstream)

As for Jennings, I grew up listening to the man so I have a natural (if artificial) affection for him, and I truly am saddened at his families loss, but realistically he was just another easily manipulated mainstream journalist - albeit a high profiled one.

And like most current high profile mainstream journalists he was a tool of the establishment, an effective mouthpiece for their mis and disinformation.

I will miss him as a Human being, but I will not miss his brand of pseudo non-investigative journalism.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   


Ever think about doing this full time like Friedman?


Thanks for the compliment, but I've hardly got the credentials for that....yet.

I much more prefer a steady paycheck also. It's a passionate hobby (and yes, I'll admit to a little bias), but I couldn't devote full time to it. However, this bias doesn't keep me from dismissing a case when the facts suggest other explanations. The Mantell Case is a good example. All the facts and testimony seems to point to a Skyhook balloon being the cause....tragic as that is, as Mantell gave his life in pursuit of this.... I had long assumed this was a pretty good case, but my own more in-depth investigations changed my mind.

I went into the Roswell investigation thinking I'd be changing my mind also. There were numerous false witnesses (such as Kaufman), etc. not to mention the time that had passed. I fully expected that I just might come away swallowing the Mogul story (surprisingly, one of the best pieces of evidence supporting this, i.e. the FOIA released FBI memo stating a six-point star, etc. is rarely touted by skeptics). Yet, the more I looked into it, the more it all seemed to fall into place. There were two basic things that kept sticking out...

1. So many trained people unable to identify balsa wood and tin foil? Something's not right.

2. All this action, cordons, the flights, all on record, just for balloon debris? Something's not right.

This told me that the Air Force was definitely lying in their report. The next speculation then, was maybe a top secret US craft. The problem? Even planes such as the U-2, Stealth Bomber, Stealth Fighter, SR-71, etc. are now fully known to exist. Any craft developed in 1947 would not still be classified.

So, we've got government acknowledgement that SOMETHING crashed. The balloon theory doesn't jive with the facts, and a top-secret craft doesn't fit the bill either. What could it be? What could crash that would generate the accounts of the debris described (separately) by numerous witnesses? What crashed that necessitated the cordoning of the area, flights to Air Materiel Command, and top level dissavowing? What if the official original press release, that the Army had indeed captured a flying disc, was the truth? The simple answer, is that it is the only explanation that logically fits the evidence.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
This told me that the Air Force was definitely lying in their report. The next speculation then, was maybe a top secret US craft. The problem? Even planes such as the U-2, Stealth Bomber, Stealth Fighter, SR-71, etc. are now fully known to exist. Any craft developed in 1947 would not still be classified.

Also if it were a secret craft or project Mogul, someone would have been tracking it. They just don't send something up and forget about it. If they lost it, they would have gone out looking for it. But no one knew anything had crashed that day until Mac Brazel reported it to the sheriff. Then it was only when Col. Marcel went out and brought debris back did it get serious attention by the military. If something had been lost they would have sent more than one person to investigate.



by TruthMagnet
but realistically he was just another easily manipulated mainstream journalist

And like most current high profile mainstream journalists he was a tool of the establishment, an effective mouthpiece for their mis and disinformation.

I often wonder how directly controlled the media is. I think there is some manipulation, but through culture. Every journalist knows that if they treat the UFO or any other fringe subject seriously will loose credibility, and reduce chances for advancement.

So why would someone like PJ even do this piece and did he have any control of the content? I'm guessing most of the journalism *smirk* that went into the special was done by the producers and PJ probably just approved it. I don't know.

Something else about the original comment made by Carroll Costello that I didn't mention was it was clearly unscripted. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but maybe broadcast journalists know more than we think, but just don't report it.



[edit on 8/9/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   


I often wonder how directly controlled the media is. I think there is some manipulation, but through culture. Every journalist knows that if they treat the UFO or any other fringe subject seriously will loose credibility, and reduce chances for advancement.


I'd have to agree with that...

I don't think PJ was a knowing participant of disinfo. I just think there's a greater chance that he did no research on this whatsoever, and simply approved whatever his staffers put together. A hyped up piece about UFOs as a ratings grabber, but then being careful to not cross into la-la land. Unfortunately, he (imho) unscrupulously and casually dismissed one of the strongest UFO cases with barely a wisp of evidence to support his dismissal of it as a "myth". THAT is what I take issue with, the lack of journalistic integrity in this particular piece.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Btw, thanks for the disagreement...rather refreshing... Thats what makes discussions interesting.==Gaz

Actually, I am shooting for "productive" rather than just interesting. Having been stumped for a while, I am hoping
a knowledgable interchange with a serious, Pro-biased researcher might point me in a new direction. I lost my
own Pro bias long ago, but it did keep me from getting stumped.

False. Testimony IS evidence, and yes, in court. ==Gazrok

Objection, your honor, the witness is stating his opinion.

Sustained.

(Note to self....would be fun but dont get too sidetracked)

We do need to agree on some legaleze. The plantiff says the defendant has committed gross piracy.
The defendant says he did not, the plantiff is lying or mistaken. Both are sworn testimony. You
would say both testimonies are evidence. I say neither testimony is evidence. How do we resolve
contradictory circumstances to the satisfaction of both of us? And yes, before we begin.

Hopefully, we can agree on hear-say. It is second hand testimony. Example:

When I was interviewing the Proctors, (not me personally) Loretta told me that
Mac Brazel said....

Objection.....Hearsay your honor.

Sustained.

Example of how to introduce that first hand real testimony. Loretta Proctor, take the stand.

I recall when Mack (real spelling) showed us some of the debris, he said something about
"freezer" tape with purple writing.


If you recall, I completely dismiss Kaufman’s claims, and most UFOlogists do not consider him a credible witness. ==Gaz

Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. You cant have it both ways. Either his testimony is evidence or it is not.
Thats why we need to have a mutual agreement on these things before we begin or we end up discussing apples and oranges.
What would you suggest ?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
nightwing, it seems that you are mistaking "Evidence" for "Proof". A witness testimony is a form of evidence in a court of law. Sure, the lawyers can move to strike someones testimony for some of the very reasons you pointed out above, but at the same time the testimony could be relevant and therefore remain on record as "evidence." It is then left up to the judge and jury to decide if the "evidence" is enough to convict or throw out.

"Proof" (like dna, or fingerprints on a murderweapn, or being caught on tape) is a whole other ballgame. I don't think anyone here thinks that a witness testimony is "proof" of anything. Even when you have MANY people with the same testimony. But that would be considered pretty good "evidence".


[edit on 10-8-2005 by mpeake]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   


False. Testimony IS evidence, and yes, in court. ==Gazrok

Objection, your honor, the witness is stating his opinion.

Sustained.


Just to clarify, you are stating that witness testimony is not used as evidence in a court of law?
I am not stating opionion. The admittance of testimony as evidence in court is an indisputable fact.

Overruled.



We do need to agree on some legaleze. The plantiff says the defendant has committed gross piracy.
The defendant says he did not, the plantiff is lying or mistaken. Both are sworn testimony. You
would say both testimonies are evidence. I say neither testimony is evidence. How do we resolve
contradictory circumstances to the satisfaction of both of us? And yes, before we begin.


Simple, the introduction of OTHER evidence. That doesn't negate the fact that said testimony is still EVIDENCE. The Roswell case is different from many other cases specifically in it's abundance of OTHER evidence, other than testimony. The USAF's own actions in many cases, is probably the best OTHER evidence in the case. Again, their behaviors simply don't coincide with the retrieval of a Mogul balloon.



Hopefully, we can agree on hear-say. It is second hand testimony. Example:

When I was interviewing the Proctors, (not me personally) Loretta told me that
Mac Brazel said....

Objection.....Hearsay your honor.

Sustained.


And you are saying that a signed affadavit, given by the witness themself, as testimony is somehow hearsay??? How is this second-hand? When did I ever state "when I was doing this or that"??? By your opinion, the nightly news would then be hearsay, as Peter Jennings didn't actually see the building burn, but is reporting strictly from eyewitness accounts' statements.



Example of how to introduce that first hand real testimony. Loretta Proctor, take the stand.


You mean as in a signed affadavit of testimony?




I recall when Mack (real spelling) showed us some of the debris, he said something about
"freezer" tape with purple writing.


You recall incorrectly. Moore, the Mogul engineer, is the one who said the "heiroglyphs" were purple flowers on tape (made by a toy company according to him). It should be noted that Moore, or any other skeptics, have been unable to produce said tape by the way, or any evidence of it.
Likewise, if one looks at the symbols Marcel Jr. drew (first-hand witness), it's hard to connect how they could be "flowers".



If you recall, I completely dismiss Kaufman’s claims, and most UFOlogists do not consider him a credible witness. ==Gaz

Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. You cant have it both ways. Either his testimony is evidence or it is not.
Thats why we need to have a mutual agreement on these things before we begin or we end up discussing apples and oranges.
What would you suggest ?


His testimony IS evidence. It is simply BAD evidence, because of it's inconsistencies, and conflicting facts, such as Kaufman's postion in the Army, etc. When compared to other available evidence, his claims seem invented, there is no corraboration with other testimony. While speaking legalese, I'm sure you'd agree that witness testimony that corraborates is much stronger evidence, would you not?


[edit on 10-8-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Note for mpeake and Gazrok.

I am not ready to respond in a debate fashion and have not used formal word definitions because of that. I am striving for
mutual understanding, not just communication. When communicating across a bias barrier, understanding is a must. (And yes,
I am biased as well but very differently than others here.) In this type of communication, unlike a debate, when understanding
occurs, everyone wins. If that is not possible, everyone loses. No legal definitions please (thats for myself cause I would luv that)
I will explain in another post. One main topic per post (my own constraint, not yours so keep them comming.)

OK, where did I go wrong? Lets try a statement of purpose. I am trying to plant a seed to break new ground in UFOlogy. I am not
going to do so myself, but some in here certainly have the talent to do so.

UFOlogy cherry picks from our legal system and uses psuedo
science to mix a brew that results in Chaos.

There are four characteristics of UFOlogy Chaos.

1. Pro-UFO groups who espouse the alien bodies theories cannot even agree among themselves as to what, how many, and where, such
bodies were supposedly recovered. Additionally, some of these claims have been shown to be hoaxes, even by other UFO researchers.

2. When such claims are made, they are often attributed to people using pseudonyms or who otherwise do not want to be publicly identified,
presumably so that some sort of retribution cannot be taken against them (notwithstanding that nobody has been shown to have died, disappeared
or otherwise suffered at the hands of the government during the last 50 or so years).

3. Many of the persons making the biggest claims of "alien bodies" make their living from the "Roswell Incident." While having a commercial interest
in something does not automatically make it suspect, it does raise interesting questions related to authenticity.

4. Lastly, persons who have come forward and provided their names and made claims, may have, in good faith but in the "fog of time," misinterpreted past events.
Or worse.

Whether you dispute these observations or not does not matter. If you even partly agree with any of them then you have insite into
what I have coined as UFOlogy Chaos. Its getting worse, not better. So how do you fix this ? Well, the SETI guys split so keenly
from UFOlogists that, as they are being recognized by science, UFOlogy is treating them as the enemy. They turned their own line
of inquiry into a recognized science. A recognized system. UFOlogists cannot do this because they have nothing scientific to seek or study.
Whether or not testimony is evidence, sworn affidavits (Notarized Hearsay is the only kind that can be admitted in court) or simply tall
tales, its all you got to work with. The only recognized system that the public will respond to regarding testimony is the LEGAL system.
But it has to be adopted by UFOlogy in a way that the legaleze folks approve and the public can UNDERSTAND. Plus UFOlogist can become
"professional" if they ethically agree to their own rules, in a system respected by others (legal system) and understood by the public.

Is that a bit more clear ?
If so, you may now listem to the Star Trek theme, going where none have gone before.

( Gazrok, the news is indeed hearsay with a twist. They show you videos of events, interviews, etc to get the viewer in the position of
primary testimony which is a shell game for the gossip when they dont. And both you and mpeake are now generating new forum topics
on an increasing logrithmic scale while I bog down on the "mutual understanding" of basic legaleze. Such is my statement of purpose now back to
the understanding of evidence and testimony and proof (which doesnt exist in court) and hearsay and now the Jury, which is the most important
concept of all.)



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Nightwing ,

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about Roswell, or Ufology?

For one thing there is no reason at all to redefine what we consider evidence!

Another thing, UFOs and UFO research , became a big deal , in spite of Roswell , not because of Roswell , which was largely forgotten for thirty years!

SETI hasn't found anything yet, so what exactly do they have to study scientifically? Maybe that's why they are so accepted?

On the other hand Ufology , does have something real to study , when you consider thousands of people are seeing and being affected by something as of yet unexplained!

For example if an airline pilot, sees some that forces him to take an evasive maneuver , and passengers are startled or even injured , and the cause remains unexplained , that's a real event worth scientific study!

What does SETI have to study? Silence.

Edit: BTW I'm all for SETI , and they find something , it will only make the ETH that much more solid! I'm only making a point about evidence.


[edit on 11-8-2005 by lost_shaman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join