true evidence

As an avid reader and ocassional poster here on ATS I read and learn about many of the worlds conspiracies. From assasinations to Zombies and everything in between. There are always heated discussions with many differant view points. In the majority of cases, these conspiracy theories are exactly that, theories based on speculation, an insiders account, hearsay, what if scenerios, and sometimes somebodies over active imagination. I am not discounting any of the ideas or theories here but this thread is about the true evidence surrounding these theories. With that in mind I submit several questions for discussion.

1. In your opinion what evidence would be nessesary to turn a theory into reality? Please list a specific theory and what evidence you think would turn a theory into fact.

For instance aliens and or ufo's. I would think that true evidence of their existence would be possibly a "ggod photograph" maybe a video interview, an actual craft, or a public exibition. For those of you that believe this evidence is being supressed what materials documents or testimony coul be brought to light to prve that the evidence was being supressed.

2. If you were collecting evidence to prove a theory, what evidence would be good enough? For instance Many times I see links for evidence or reference material that are dead links. Other times I see one persons story, viewpoint, and conclusions supposedly based on evidence but they present the evidence in a manner that you are expected to believe. A person might write according to the department of defense......,or witnesses report....., or the orlando sentinial published a story that stated....,.

3. This is based on question 2. If one of your answers is a newspaper story, How could you turn this into evidence to support your case so all that would read your research would believe it without a shadow of a doubt? You could post a link but links are broken all the time and as we all know content has the strange ability to change from time to time. Perhaps you could post screen shots of that article, or maybe better yet offer as evidence a scanned image of the actual newspaper with the original being safely stored away as the true evidence. For personal testimony would it be a video of the person doing he testimony or maybe a signed affadafit, either case with the documents that prove this person is who they say they are.

Basically i want to know what evidence would it take to prove a conspiracy theory and how to properly handle the evidence so that there is absolutley no doubt to its's authenticity.

Please feel free to list any conspiracy and what true evidence you think that theory would need to be substantiated. If by any chance you have access to some piece of true evidence please post it as well.

Sorry for any gramaticals but it is almost 4:00 in the morning. I really should be in bed with my beautiful wife, and my eyes are about to slam shut.

i think you are meaning 'proof' rather than 'evidence. proof is what you need to prove a case because it can't be denied or argued with.

there is evidence that jean charles de menezes was a terrorist who ran away from the police into the tube train. however, there is proof that he walked to the ticket machine, picked up a free newspaper and hurried a little bit to catch the tube (as most londoners have to do on occasion). evidence being the police's version of events and proof being the video footage from the london underground

there is evidence that terrorists carried out the first attack on the world trade centre. however, there is proof that the fbi gave them the explosives to do it with. evidence is the official version of the story, proof is the secret tapes one of those involved made of his meetings with his fbi handler.

I understand your semantics its a point well taken, however I have a domain trueevidence.com that I would like to develop so the word evidence works better for me than proof. We are all looking for the same proof.

Just trying to get this thread going, semantics aside what in your opinion would be verifiable, unqueationable proof or evidence of something. How could a photograph be used as proof without being questioned as having been photoshopped, How could a statment somebody makes be properly documented so there is no question to it's authenticity, or so that it could not be taken out of context.

In the same spirits of this thought: "You can't help stupid." You also can't have enough proof for a skeptic. A person would sometimes even deny his/ her own doings and wipe it off from the mind.

Bottom line, don't try to please a skeptic, it's their loss.

A Tough Sell

Interesting questions, but first a riposte to the member preceding me:

When the faithful express their sympathy for us poor scoffers and our narrow, impoverished lives and outlooks, they are really admitting that it is their own ability to find interest and excitement in the real world that is deficient, and that, unlike us, they must seek the spurious enchantment of fantasy to bring a little colour to their drab, hollow lives. Poor ickle chaps.

And with that off his chest, Scamandrius may now ponder the OP questions.

Q: What is sufficient to turn a theory into a reality?

A: Nothing. No statement can ever be wholly proven.

If it appears consistent with logic, however, it may be taken as true until it is disproved.

Take your UFO example. A photograph or video interview are worse than useless. An alien being, actual craft or other alien artifact would be acceptable -- but only if

1. it could be examined and tested -- repeatedly, by different and suitably qualified people.
   
   
2. the test results were then examined and verified by 'peers' (similarly qualified people) of those doing the testing.
   

The 'repeatedly' part is very important, since it enables the examiners to test one another's observations and establish that they are true and accurate.

This is known as the scientific method.

Q: If you were collecting evidence to prove a theory, what evidence would be good enough?

A: Clearly you are talking about documentary evidence, since you dealt with physical evidence in your first question. Well, Internet sources are only any good if they can be verified in the same way you verify the authenticity of a printed document. Start by checking that the source exists and that its origin is the one claimed for it. Then check the reliability of the source -- is it honest, unbiased, not given to exaggeration and hyperbole, not trying to grind an axe or make a profit? Are statements made by the source on other important or related subjects trustworthy? Finally, check the accuracy of the statement against whatever other evidence you have. But in the end it's down to judgement. No source is ever 100 percent trustworthy, but you can get very close, especially with printed documents.

Internet sources are always regarded as unreliable unless they represent real-world institutions with a reputation for accuracy and probity (such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Smithsonian Institution).

Q: If one of your answers is a newspaper story, how could you turn this into evidence to support your case so all that would read your research would believe it without a shadow of a doubt?

A: Oh, don't worry. If someone thinks a newspaper story is a proof of anything, you don't need to work any harder to convince them: they're silly geese who'll swallow anything you chuck at them.

Originally posted by Astyanax
A Tough Sell

Interesting questions, but first a riposte to the member preceding me:

When the faithful express their sympathy for us poor scoffers and our narrow, impoverished lives and outlooks, they are really admitting that it is their own ability to find interest and excitement in the real world that is deficient, and that, unlike us, they must seek the spurious enchantment of fantasy to bring a little colour to their drab, hollow lives. Poor ickle chaps.

While not a true believer or a scoffer, I might point out the slanted viewpoint that seems to ooze from the above statement. It is the epitome of egotism to ASSUME that you scoffers alone have the true breadth of mind and soul to evaluate evidence, and that those who would entertain ideas that you and your ilk deem unfit are such drab little creatures.

There are many contrarians that have rich and fulfilling lives ASIDE from their willingness to evaluate evidence of a more esoteric nature. It is the scoffers that dare not deviate from the herd mentality that actually have the more impoverished existence, not to mention lack of intellectual courage.

And with that off his chest, Scamandrius may now ponder the OP questions.

Q: What is sufficient to turn a theory into a reality?

A: Nothing. No statement can ever be wholly proven.

If it appears consistent with logic, however, it may be taken as true until it is disproved.

And yet, scoffers find that the numbers, no matter how great, of reported UFO incidents is not logically persuasive that where there is so much smoke there is a reasonable expectation of fire.

Take your UFO example. A photograph or video interview are worse than useless. An alien being, actual craft or other alien artifact would be acceptable -- but only if

1. it could be examined and tested -- repeatedly, by different and suitably qualified people.

And only those bent on proving that it was in fact a hoax should be deemed by the scoffers as fit to judge the results, thereby undermining any hope of objectivity.

the test results were then examined and verified by 'peers' (similarly qualified people) of those doing the testing.

The 'repeatedly' part is very important, since it enables the examiners to test one another's observations and establish that they are true and accurate.

This is known as the scientific method.

This is also known as the scientific description of Purgatory, and has been the bane of new ideas and thought for thousands of years. History is replete with the number of times that scientific ideas and results were squashed by such reviews, waiting in limbo for a day when the light of reason might once more see them.

It is in the art of choosing the "peers" that results are foreordained , much like modern polls and statistics, are skewed to serve the status quo.

Q: If you were collecting evidence to prove a theory, what evidence would be good enough?

A: Clearly you are talking about documentary evidence, since you dealt with physical evidence in your first question. Well, Internet sources are only any good if they can be verified in the same way you verify the authenticity of a printed document. Start by checking that the source exists and that its origin is the one claimed for it. Then check the reliability of the source -- is it honest, unbiased, not given to exaggeration and hyperbole, not trying to grind an axe or make a profit? Are statements made by the source on other important or related subjects trustworthy? Finally, check the accuracy of the statement against whatever other evidence you have. But in the end it's down to judgement. No source is ever 100 percent trustworthy, but you can get very close, especially with printed documents.

And once more, the veracity of the source is accepted by the scoffers at their choosing, so therefor the results can again be manipulated.

Internet sources are always regarded as unreliable unless they represent real-world institutions with a reputation for accuracy and probity (such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Smithsonian Institution).

Do we all notice a certain narrowness to the list of "acceptable" sources?

Q: If one of your answers is a newspaper story, how could you turn this into evidence to support your case so all that would read your research would believe it without a shadow of a doubt?

A: Oh, don't worry. If someone thinks a newspaper story is a proof of anything, you don't need to work any harder to convince them: they're silly geese who'll swallow anything you chuck at them.

Yes, just like all those silly geese that were led astray and ended up impeaching (figuratively) Richard Nixon. And just like Tricky Dick, our poster would want you to ignore any and all reporting except those that come from a controlled medium.

Now I certainly don't think that every story that comes down the pike should be taken hook, line, and sinker. But neither do I think that I need the likes, or approval, of the scoffers to decide what is worth a closer look and what isn't. I can judge for myself the merit of the source, and the logical weight of the "evidence".

If you read my signature line, you'll understand where many people on this website stand.



[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

And before one of the many eggheads and nitpickers points out how I really messed up the structure of the above post by using the quotes, and am therefore an intellectual midget, I will say it for them: Dumb.

Still, it only goes to show that I'll try things on for size. And having to learn these things by trial and error, I make mistakes. And I am not impoverished for the experience.

I'll try to do better next time.

reply to post by NGC2736
Messing up the quotes doesn't really signify one way or the other, though using the Preview button might have forestalled the need for a second post.

What is significant is the line you chose to take in reply to me.

Shall I sum it up for you? Easy-peasy: 'There's no smoke without fire, and I'm too eager and impatient to wait until the evidence is in; I want to believe now!'

Whence this eagerness to rush in where the angels of dispassionate inquiry fear to tread?

You suggest that the 'purgatorial' slowness and tortuousness of the scientific method were invented to cover up or sideline evidence that scientists don't like to look at. Is it not strange, then, that they should apply it with equal strictness to all fields of scientific inquiry, not just the ones popular with fantasists and the mentally disturbed?

Or did you mean to say that the methodology of science exists only to arrogate power to the scientific 'priesthood' and consolidate it there? Why, then, do scientists apply the method so enthusiastically, nay brutally, to one another's work?

Priesthoods are secret societies bound by laws of brotherhood and silence. Are you suggesting that scientists are like that? If so, you clearly know nothing at all about real science, or real scientists.

Scepticism is not blind disbelief. It is an unwillingness to accept as fact what is not proven, particularly what does not seem reasonable or likely given common experience of the world. Once the facts are in, once the reasoning is made clear, scepticism turns to acceptance.

One day, I hope, you will wake from your magic dreams. On that day, you will see that I have spoken truth to you.

Or better yet...

Originally posted by NGC2736
It is the epitome of egotism to ASSUME that you scoffers alone have the true breadth of mind and soul to evaluate evidence...

But you, my friend, are also making an assumption. You assume that my statement was based on an assumption. You are wrong. It is based on experience -- not necessarily my own.

There are many contrarians that have rich and fulfilling lives ASIDE from their willingness to evaluate evidence of a more esoteric nature.

How many? Do you have numbers? Where's the evidence? Will it stand up to peer review?

It is the scoffers that dare not deviate from the herd mentality that actually have the more impoverished existence, not to mention lack of intellectual courage.

Alternatively, they have long since dared -- and deviated, and followed the paths of belief to their conclusion, finding nothing there but tares and stubble. Older and wiser, they then sought out other paths, paths that carried them back through the real world towards the promise of real understanding; and along these paths they went, ever fascinated by new realities and the sheer abundance and complexity of life. And so they go to this day.

An alien being, actual craft or other alien artifact would be acceptable -- but only if

1. it could be examined and tested -- repeatedly, by different and suitably qualified people.

And only those bent on proving that it was in fact a hoax should be deemed by the scoffers as fit to judge the results, thereby undermining any hope of objectivity.

No. Anyone who wanted to examine it might do so. And they could publish whatever conclusions they arrived at. The varying conclusions of different examiners could then be examined and debated by the public, including that section of it which may claim some expertise on the subject under discussion.

the test results were then examined and verified by 'peers' (similarly qualified people) of those doing the testing.

History is replete with the number of times that scientific ideas and results were squashed by such reviews

Peer review is just part of the process of making your results public so that anyone who wants to can discuss or test them. It precedes publication of a paper, and exists to reduce the possibility of erroneous data or false conclusions being laid before the public. That's what 'publishing' means, O Distant Luminous Object in the Sky -- presenting your work to the general public for comment and approval. You forgot about that bit, didn't you?

Want to 'peer review' a scientific paper? Just buy a copy of the publication in which the paper appeared, read the paper, and submit your review back to the same publication or another reputable one. If the editors of Nature won't publish it, that may well be because you don't know what you're talking about, but never despair: just post it on the Internet. There'll always be someone to read it -- and believe it, too. That's where the wannabelieves swarm: online.

History is replete with the number of times that scientific ideas and results were squashed by such reviews, waiting in limbo for a day when the light of reason might once more see them.

This happens. It is the penalty we pay for having scientific knowledge we can rely on and it is more than worth the price. Besides, 'history is replete' is a hilarious exaggeration. There have been some. Let's see how many you can name. Corroborated by reliable sources, naturally.

And once more, the veracity of the source is accepted by the scoffers at their choosing, so therefor the results can again be manipulated.

Good heavens. How did these scoffers get to be so powerful? How have they come to dominate the gathering and dissemination of knowledge so completely? What's their wicked secret?

Could it be they have occult powers that believers don't -- such as the ability to distinguish between truth and fiddlesticks?

Oh dear.

Internet sources are always regarded as unreliable unless they represent real-world institutions with a reputation for accuracy and probity (such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Smithsonian Institution).

Do we all notice a certain narrowness to the list of "acceptable" sources?

Doubtless we all do, but I hope we also take the point: that an institution which must earn its keep by its reputation for accuracy and probity has a big stake in ensuring that such a reputation is not damaged, and so will make great efforts to ensure that its statements are honest, accurate and verifiable.

Though one sometimes wonders why they bother, when they could probably make so much more money gulling the faith-heads and wannabelieves.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Again, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are assuming. While there are some that want to believe so badly that they will accept anything, I'm not in that number. I simply want to slow the the believers AND the scoffers down long enough for us to all take a look at things. Sadly, both ends of the "belief" spectrum is so anxious to be seen as right that neither will stop and look and listen.

I am amazed that you find no good value in being open to looking at the world, but I guess if you're born to blinders, then the world is a scary place to view full on. And in this way too, the scoffer is twin to the true believer.

As to your point to point review of my statements, balderdash. You can twist and squirm as you will, but it all boils down to viewpoint, and the willingness to look at each idea and event in life on it's own merit.

I am a fence sitter on many issues, waiting for enough evidence to be presented to form an opinion. But unlike the zealots who demand that they be believed because they know the "truth", I wait to form an opinion.

The religiously self appointed standard bearers of what is "real" and what is not are no different than the 40 watt believers. Any group that starts with a position has to then defend that position, even when it is unreasonable to do so.

Besides, this is life, and one man's proof is another's error. And I'm so glad that neither you nor David Icke (sp) get to decide the right and wrong of the world.

Pencil Makes a Point!

Originally posted by NGC2736
I am amazed that you find no good value in being open to looking at the world, but I guess if you're born to blinders... (canters on in vaguely insulting fashion for several paragraphs)

That is not, O wise Enstellated Stylonimbus, my position at all. You're deliberately ignoring my declared statements, and the very important subject under discussion, in your attempt to score a trivial debating point.

Of course, you're also hoping this will cover up for the evident fact that you haven't a single sensible reply to make to my arguments.

Cheer up, old chum. Here: just to make you happy, I willingly concede that you are not a true believer, but one of those wise, balanced souls who will keep all his options open, all the time, no matter what the evidence -- or lack of it.

For my part, I will take my stand with the famous thinker who once said, 'It's good to be open-minded -- but not so open-minded your brain falls out.'

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Astyanax]