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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Its Funny that you should mention Gaz Prosecuting and you Defending.


Thats kinda where I wanted to go with Gaz playing prosecutor and me playing defense, but without a common understanding we have to goto plan B.

Good thing i dated a law student and helped her study. I got to see first hand the very techniques of the lawyer trade in your posts there nitewing.
No need for plan B. You did a good job on defense. With your misdirection and massive amounts of Jargon being used to protect your client.(Hey didnt OJ get off a murder wrap that way) Your tactics were quite crafty.

But what it all boils down to is straight information. Information which Gazrok has painstakingly went over and through to compile the most credible and likely of any out there, in my opinion. So as i do with alll information, i will process it and make my own informed decision about it. Most of your information is useless jargon as i have stated, and will be discarded. But dont feel bad nitewing, we cant all be jonny cochrans.




posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
You folks game for a "Reality Forum" ?


I am up for it, should be interesting. But it would be mostly up to Gazrok, and I know he is a busy guy.

Maybe we should take this to the debate forum, and go from there?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   


Thats applicable because in many cases, the Jury members have as unclear an understanding of court terms as Gazrok has pretended to have.


I've pretended to have an unclear understanding?


I know what you meant though...
Amazingly though, my understanding of the term seems to agree with Mr. Webster, so I'll leave it at that.


As mentioned though, I'm all for simply presenting the evidence for both sides, and letting the public decide. I certainly don't fear it, the evidence is extremely strong. Why do you fear it so much that you must first try to get me to agree to incorrect (or, your own semantics) term definitions, in order to proceed?


Do memories get fuzzy? Sure they do. BUT, IMPORTANT things are remembered!!! Do you remember where you were when 911 happened? Sure you do. Do you remember seeing the planes crash into the building? Yep, I'll bet you do. Do you remember what you ate for breakfast that morning? I doubt it. Do you remember what day of the week it was? Probably not.

This is the kind of BS attack that the Debunkers try and use to discredit the witness testimony. I think the memory of the sudden realization that we are not alone in the universe is certainly one of those kinds of important things that are remembered. That DOESN'T mean the witness is going to recall every little detail of that day, not related to the specifics of what was important.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   
"I am up for it, should be interesting. But it would be mostly up to Gazrok, and I know he is a busy guy." == Hal

Agree. And a good reason not to institute the timelines of a debate. No pressure, research to your hearts content,
and post if you feel like it and have the time and interest. And its not two sided as in a debate. All can participate.
And I suspect there is more than two sides to this, so a Jury style deliberation is more appropriate.

"Its Funny that you should mention Gaz Prosecuting and you Defending. " == SILV3R4DO

I read that to mean "funny - strange" as opposed to "funny - ha ha."

To me, it is logical because if Roswell were a court discussion, all the claims and interpretations are automatically
Plantiff or Prosecutor style. Without the claims, nothing of note has happened at all, and no court discussion.

"But dont feel bad nitewing, we cant all be jonny cochrans. " == SILV3R4DO

Not to shock you or anything, but I am not an attorney, never have been one, and have no desire to do so.
I had a sense that Gazrok and Hal were more curious to see where we were heading than they were to
kill my "useless jargon" in a heartbeat.
Which they could have done merely by looking up the "legal"definitions.

( Quote "No legal definitions please - I will explain in another post." == nightwing)

Example:

testimony

n. oral evidence

evidence

n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.

proof

n. confirmation of a fact by evidence. In a trial, proof is what the trier of the fact (jury or judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied that the defendant is guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal prosecutions.
(Notice that there is no proof of guilt in court. Everything is alleged until the Jury reaches a verdict.)

My two objectives were to get everyone thinking about the legal terms so commonly used by Ufologists and to demonstrate how easy it is to lack
a grasp of their meaning, in any terms.

Buckle your seat belt, Hal, cause this is how I suggest we get firmly back on topic and proceed.

Peter Jennings Upset a Lot of People. Specifically, there are two charges against him.

Count one is that he allegedly lied to the public by depicting the Roswell incident as a "myth".

Count two is that he allegedly had knowledge that the myth depiction was a lie and is thus not credible as a journalist.

(Now is a good time to re-read Gazrok's Roswell work as it will be under deliberation, and anything else
that may be applicable.)

Hal, want any suggestions as to how to be a "Reality Forum" Jury Chairman? No other nominations or
volunteers, so you are He.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   


Without the claims, nothing of note has happened at all, and no court discussion.


The USAF would disagree, or at least, their official reports on the subject would, hehe...


As for Jennings, my counts against him are as follows...

1. Not that he stated Roswell as a "myth" while knowing the "truth". I charge Jennings with making an assumption that is contradictory to the evidence, and then reporting the assumption as if it were fact. He stated Roswell was a myth, pure and simple, without clarifying that it was an opinion.

2. That he fully and completed ignored citing the credentials of UFOlogists on the show, while being sure to mention the (lesser) credentials of skeptics. This was a blatantly misleading tactic.

3. That he completely and utterly ignored the most recent USAF report which focused largely on trying to explain away the sightings of "bodies" as dummies used in Project High Dive (years after Roswell). Obviously, his researchers saw that this did anything BUT reinforce their "myth" angle, so they simply ignored mentioning it.

4. That he, as the last remaining anchoring icon, abused the public trust, by stating an opinion as fact, regarding the single most important and substantiated UFO case in the field.

Personally, I find Mr. Jennings GUILTY on all of these counts.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
People, remind me not to piss off Gazrok. He continues to kick you even when you're rotting in the ground. My opinion on all this is that more people should be upset with the JFK show. Jennings didn't twist and skew the UFO subject nearly as much as he did the JFK assassination. That was a slap in the face to all Americans.

Peace



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
That has got to be my favorite movie segment.

Other captions...

Come back and fight like a man! I'll gnaw your arms off!!!

It's just a flesh wound...



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   


People, remind me not to piss off Gazrok. He continues to kick you even when you're rotting in the ground.


Bah! It's only a flesh wound....


Seriously, I just wanted to clarify EXACTLY what I was charging Mr. Jennings with....i.e. shoddy and misleading journalism.

Dr. Love's point with the JFK special is merely another example of Mr. Jennings' incompetence and desire to stay with the status quo, even when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise....(i.e. shoddy journalism).



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I'm not sure exactly sure what the plan is here. I thought the mock trial would be on whether Roswell happened or not. This would have to be proven first in order for Peter Jennings to be guilty of misinforming the public. But I guess we can put Peter on trial, although some may take offensive that we are bashing someone who is recently deceased.

How does this sound...

I start another thread where the allegations are made by me. I can structure it like a trial (here in the US) where we start out with opening arguments, starting with Gazrok as prosecutor, then Nightwing as defense.

Then the next phase will be the prosecution phase. Gazrok can present his case, then Nightwing will get a chance to cross examine the evidence, then Gazrok will get a chance to rebut.

Then the defense phase will be next, where Nightwing can provide evidence in support of PJ, and Gazrok can cross-examine, then Nightwing can rebut.

Finally, closing arguments can be made starting with the prosecution, and then the defense will have the final word.

I can receive the judgment of other members of the jury via U2U, so they are anonymous and I will report the verdict on each charge. In order to avoid a hung jury, it will be a majority vote, and a unanimous vote is not necessary in order to convict.

We can use this thread for any questions or comments, and try to keep the trial thread clean.

I can also provide some video captures of the special, which I will do at the beginning. I will let Gazrok provide links to his Roswell threads as needed.

I think we should agree on all this before starting and we will have to stick to it, so there is no changing the rules as we go.

For anyone who wants to serve on the jury, you can reply now and if I don't get twelve I will start recruiting members.

I think we could use Gazrok's charges, because he is the prosecutor, if Nightwing agrees. You guys can work that out.

If you this is too structured or complicated, then let's hear your ideas.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I've pretty much made my case in my Roswell threads, hehe... I don't feel the need (or desire really) to try and do it over again...


Most of my charges against Peter are proven FACTS. Luckily, I taped the special, so if need be, I'd be able to quote EXACTLY what was and what wasn't said about credentials. I'd be able to quote EXACTLY how Peter stated "Roswell is a Myth" as an implied fact, versus opinion.

It'd be a fairly easy case to prove....regardless of feelings about the validity of Roswell. The charges against Peter's journalism are extremely easy to prove...and by his own words (or in the case of credentials, lack of saying them).



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I've pretty much made my case in my Roswell threads, hehe... I don't feel the need (or desire really) to try and do it over again...


Yeah, I figured that, and was just offering my services for the common good.

As I mentioned earlier, I think any discussion of Roswell should be done in your threads.

Just curious, has anyone ever done a mock trial like this before?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Only in college classes, myself, hehe....and not any kind of law school...



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I used to participate in moot court, way back when. Now I participate in the real thing. I've never conducted a trial of this nature though. There are many questions though...

1 -- what standard of proof would be required to condemn Jenning's UFO report? A preponderance of the evidence (civil standard)? Clear and convincing evidence (evidentiary matters in civil cases)? Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard)?

2 -- What exactly are we trying to adjudicate? Whether PJ's report on UFO's was criminally biased to the point of being misinformation? Was it just plain wrong? Did it intentionally misrepresent or omit material facts for the purpose of asserting an ill-conceived conclusion?

3 -- Who testifies for PJ? I assume we let the documentary speak for itself and treat all other evidence as rebuttal evidence?

4 -- Do we stick to the federal rules of evidence? Much Ufology has a hard time meeting the admissibility requirements when faced with the rule against hearsay... still... there are exceptions to the rule and the rules for admitting testimony for rebuttal purposes. Also, much of PJ's report was based on hearsay, so it's ok to use hearsay for rebuttal (to a point).

It would be interesting to see how a jury of "peers" would decide on this, but I think Gazrok's right about how the government's own report on Roswell contradicts PJ's UFO report or at least shows irrefutable evidence that the documentary omitted material facts that would support an alternative conclusion to that drawn by the assertion that Roswell is a "myth". Conclusion: summary judgment for the plaintiffs.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centrist
3 -- Who testifies for PJ? I assume we let the documentary speak for itself and treat all other evidence as rebuttal evidence?

That's why I was confused at first on who would be on trial. I thought Nightwing meant to try the government's version of the Roswell incident, so the govt. would be on trial. Didn't think he meant PJ.



It would be interesting to see how a jury of "peers" would decide on this

Another problem I saw is that jurers are supposed to be picked because they have no bias in the case, but here in the UFO forum, I doubt we could achieve that.



I think Gazrok's right about how the government's own report on Roswell contradicts PJ's UFO report or at least shows irrefutable evidence that the documentary omitted material facts that would support an alternative conclusion to that drawn by the assertion that Roswell is a "myth". Conclusion: summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

See what I mean? The judgment has already been rendered.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
My points in this thread have little to do with whether or not one believes Roswell is a "myth".

My main point has been that Jennings, for whatever reason, used sleazy journalistic tactics and ommission of facts to state the "Roswell is a Myth" opinion as an implied fact.

The evidence for it is Jennings' own special, and it's there in full color for anyone who's seen it. He ommitted the credentials of UFOlogists while stating those of Skeptics. He didn't even touch on the main purpose of the most recent USAF report (to explain "bodies"), and then stated that the incident (without any disclaimer as to it being an opinion) was a "myth". Regardless of what you feel about Roswell, the truth of his shoddy journalism is self evident.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
"Just curious, has anyone ever done a mock trial like this before?" == Hal

I have not. My experiance, other than some legal training and military responsibilities regarding
manual for courts martial, is totally state and Federal District Court Jury duties. I have been selected
as a Juror on six cases, three guilty verdicts, two acquital (innocient findings), and one mis-trial,
case and jury dismissed by the judge, since 2002. I do not trust my memory to that detail on
earlier instances.

Hal, I emphasize your quote here, pretend it is in all CAPS.
"although some may take offensive that we are bashing someone who is recently deceased. "

I visit a number of discussion sites (legal) and have never seen anything like this. Doesnt mean
it isnt already out there somewhere on a campus legal area. But there may be some fallout , given the
number of folk who visit this place. That means we probably would need a reading from the site
admin/owners before proceeding. If we have a mock trial of Peter Jennings, and someone in the
press stumbles on it, what would be the result ? I would say that by doing a separate trial forum,
we are breaking NEW ground for PUBLIC forums, and if we are given the go-ahead to proceed,
that forum should START with a positive tribute to Peter Jennings and a disclaimer that we have no
animousity towards Peter, but take exception to what he has inferred about Ufology and choose this manner
to register our objection.

"I think we should agree on all this before starting and we will have to stick to it, so there is no changing the rules as we go. " == Hal

Sounds good so far, but you have just abdicated as Jury Foreman and assumed the role of Judge. Unless the DA has an objection
to the selected judge, I do not.

"Personally, I find Mr. Jennings GUILTY on all of these counts. " == District Attorney Gazrok.

Before we start, Your Honor, Point of Law. Please remind the DA that the US system of justice presumes innocience
until proven guilty, and the DA cant do that, only the Jury can. Further, I will defend Peter from any charge
the DA wishes, but again, his charges presume guilt. Where is the word "alleged" anywhere in his counts
against my client? And finally, I resent his play on the Kangaroo Court inferences so make him take down
that poster of "Skippy" on the prosecuters bench.

Gaz, more seriously, I have no objection to whatever the charges read, but IF the real press should ever drop
in on an online trial, I think the counts should be considered in light of how the press would read them. For example,
in this part of your charge one, "I charge Jennings with making an assumption that is contradictory to the evidence,
and then reporting the assumption as if it were fact."; dont you believe many in the press would feel like THEY
were also on trial ?

I need to ponder the inputs Centrist has made. Hal, he should be your Legal Advisor I think. Most of his inputs
can be worked out in here, but I am troubled by his number 3. Maybe that can be fairly delt with in the beginning
tribute to Peter.

Gaz, you are the resident ATS honcho for this area. So far, this is a normal forum with some odd ideas. Once
Judge Hal sets up the trial area, we just may be setting some kind of media precedant that could be good or bad.
I think a decision to go that way is well outside the perview of forum members. What you think ?

(Post Script.....if this be precedant setting, we might want to be extra careful with the "rules")



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I see your dead set on this Jury trial.

But I still don't see the point.

Am I expected to be objective about something that I already think is obvious?

Peter Jennings didn't do his homework , or he bought the Air Forces sack of lies. At most a misdemeanor.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I see your dead set on this Jury trial. == lost

Actually, I am not. I sorta lost control of where I thought I could take everyone. But the natural
evolution of this forum is far more interesting to me than what I was aiming for. This is now, in
my eyes, a HAPPENING, of some sort. When you drop into the bull pen, grab the rope,
and the gate opens, your in for the ride no matter what.


But I still don't see the point. == lost

Not my original heading, thats for sure, but my intuition tells me this could be important.
Besides, I am now in a position that I cannot back down from, have to put my money where
my mouth is, so to speak.


Am I expected to be objective about something that I already think is obvious? ==lost

Your oath, word as a juror is to be as objective as you can AND to make your decision solely
based upon what is admitted in the court, despite any other preconceptions you may have. If
you cannot take such an oath, you would have to step down as a juror. Your very question tells me
you would make a fair juror.


Peter Jennings didn't do his homework , or he bought the Air Forces sack of lies. At most a misdemeanor. == lost

Thats why the DA has to be careful with how he words the counts against the defendant. The burden of "proof"
is on the DA. The defense is tasked with countering the DA's proof sufficient to introduce "reasonable doubt".
And the Jury must separately evaluate Guilty or Innocient on each count and CANNOT find innocient but
guilty on a lessor charge for any count.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Look....I know there is not a lot of evidence out there to support the Roswell incident. Peter Jennings did a good job of illuminating that fact. However, after years and years of researching the subject (reading everything I could get my hands on, watching documentaries, even talking to people face to face and online), I have come to the conclusion that it did happen. Col. Corso's book, to me, was the clincher, and since then I haven't questioned Roswell's validity.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Tell you what Nightwing, I don't think Gazrok is interested in a mock trial, so let's change the debate a little, and just do it here informally. Let's start with relying on personal testimony in any criminal or UFO case. You can elaborate more if you want, and anyone can join in. So here is something we can discuss.

Now you say that Roswell is based a lot on personal testimony, which is admissible in court and is considered evidence in the eyes of the law. But even if it is not, why would someone like Peter Jennings have a special where in one instance refers to Roswell as a "myth", but in another part of the special he interviews abductees and contactees, who’s only proof of what happened to them is their own personal testimony. How much credibility can you have if you admit one person's account but not another?

More so, with Roswell there are witnesses that corroborate each other’s story, which is more that can be said for abductees. Not that I don’t believe in abductions, I am only using it as an example. There are similar stories with abductions, but I have not heard of a case where there were outside witnesses to the event. My point is, you can’t rely on personal testimony of one aspect and not another. So I would say that Peter Jennings did withhold testimony in one case but used it in another to further the agenda of the program to misinform the public.

Edit: I take back what I said, there was the Travis Walton abduction case where there were outside witnesses. Another case not mentioned by PJ.

[edit on 8/17/2005 by Hal9000]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join