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.

 

A question to sceptics.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Skeptic-an individual who seeks truth,and does not accept heresay
Sceptic-made up word that means, having to do with a scepter
Septic-infected.
Just thought I would clarify




posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


And what exactly leads you to deduce that because the media says so, the people feel that way?

I'll admit, I was scared Sh*&less on 911, and I cried. But by 5 days later I was a normal individual, surrounded by normal individuals.

Does not the existence of such movies as "Team America" and similar parodies disprove you?

Americans are not that gullible.

Also, a sniper hiding is quite different then a hovercraft with laser beams. A sniper in the open country is to be feared. But clearly visible people next to you are another story. Something that you know is superior, and aw-inspiring. THAT invokes want. While snipers invoke fear, you know they are men and normal men at that. An alien craft is something to digest and learn about, and something you WANT to know about how it works.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Well guys, I think I may have muddled my opening opinion quite a bit. This was not my intention and no, I am not reforming it to counter your opinions. While I mentioned that the term skeptic is thrown around loosely, I don't mean that EVERYONE uses it loosely. Surely there are many true skeptics out there. It just seems to me that many, MANY more are willing to simply say "NAY!" Healthy skepticism is a wonderful thing. I'm a skeptic myself. My conclusions are drawn from many years of research and may in fact not jive with anyone else's, but these are my opinions. In the courtroom analogy there is always going to be a hung jury on this one until you get your Whitehouse lawn landing.

Problem with circumstantial evidence (as is already apparent in the responses to the question) is that there is ALWAYS doubt. For me it has simply passed beyond reasonable doubt and I am ready to move on from here.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

Anyhow, the question is this. Would you, as a responsible sceptic (one who evaluates evidence and has taken time to study case reports for yourself), be worried if you were on trial for murder and had the same volume of circumstantial evidence implicating YOU for murder as the UFO community has for the existence of UFO activity?


UFO activity or evidence of ET visitation? Let's assume you are saying they are the same thing. In a murder trial, the quality of the evidence, the manner in which it was obtained, the credibility of the evidence are all considered. It would be a poor lawyer who couldn't have any of the current "evidence" disproven and thrown out before the court even considered it. Once admitted any evidence available is subject to alternate explanations that cut into the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. Nah, I wouldn't be worried.




Now clearly not all "evidence" would be admissable in court, but people are convicted of murder all the time without a SINGLE SHRED of positive proof of crime.


Really? Not one valid piece of evidence? Can you show us a couple of these cases? Well, If all the prosecutor had to do was say "UFO's exist and I have no proof", I guess maybe I would be worried.

The problem with comparing the court system to scientific inquiry is that it's role of the courts to interpret the law, not decide the nature of reality (well, not since the middle ages anyway). That's the job of science. There is not a SINGLE SHRED of scientific evidence that ET's ever have or are now visiting Earth.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Good lord, I feel like a fool for misspelling that word EVEN IN THE TITLE! hahaha!
I guess I need to remind myself that people read and write in groupings rather than in individual letters, especially when in a rush. I feel like a fundamentalist religioso!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It would make an equally poor lawyer to admit evidence unto the court that CAN be disproven.
To the second point, I didn't say with a single shred of evidence, I said of proof. Circumstantial convictions happen frequently. Watch nightline.

I actually tend to think that circumstantial convictions are a travesty to our mockery of a judicial system, but it does happen.
Editing again to celebrate my use of the edit function! haha!

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Theoretical physicians interpret evidence regularly. I for one didn't see anyone calling Einstein a kook before his speed of light constant was evidenced recently.

Physicians may be a bad word but I can't think of a plural form of that word. haha!

Furthermore, the theoretical concept of polar flip has been gaining a LOT of attention lately. It wasn't Einstein's, btw, it was the theoretical hunch of a man named Charles Hapgood. Einstein merely "signed off on it." Interpreting evidence happens in science REGULARLY. This is how we make predictions. Meteorologist use it all the time. Every day!

Dang, I keep having to edit this one post to keep up with your errors! You also seem to neglect the fact that EVEN OUR JUDIDICIAL SYSTEM is a scientific construct. The scientific method is a philisophical construct that is suited to best determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
This is, in essence, NO different than our judicial construct.
The judge acts as a mediator and evidence is present as a backing to the hypothesis (accusation) and it is up to the jury to weigh the evidence of it and ALL OPPOSING POSITIONS and deliberate and weigh on a specific outcome.
Our appeals system is only there in case of new evidence. Until then, once agreed upon, this agreement BECOMES LAW. And under new light that law may ONLY THEN be changed! Flaws abound.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
To the second point, I didn't say with a single shred of evidence, I said of proof. Circumstantial convictions happen frequently. Watch nightline.


You did. Apologies. But a proof requires evidence so if there isn't a shred of proof doesn't that imply that there is also not a shred of evidence?




I actually tend to think that circumstantial convictions are a travesty to our mockery of a judicial system, but it does happen.


Circumstantial evidence can be very strong evidence, there is nothing wrong with using it. But there is no authenticated circumstantial evidence for the existence of ET's. Photographs just don't do it. Too easily faked and too often ambiguous. Eyewitness reports are not circumstantial evidence and routinely hold less weight than strong circumstantial evidence (with very good reason). Hearsay is of course inadmissible.

Of course, whether the evidence presented meets the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt depends on the judge/jury. Scientific proof has a much higher standard.



[edit on 25-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hearsay is actually, by no means, inadmissable. It is only discluded from consideration if your testimony is only countered by ONE person saying you did it. If even ONE MORE person says you did it, it is considered. It becomes, literally, a he said she said affair.
As to aliens, there are thousands if not millions who have claimed to have had encounters with them.
As to the first point, there can certainly be evidence without proof!

I'll give an example of what could be a he said she said case. Frat party. A group of people walk in on someone raping a drugged out chick. They testify to your identity and, despite a lack of physical evidence (wearing a condom) you are convicted. This happens. The only way for an innocent man in that position to be released is to come up with a way of proving they are all lying. It LITERALLY becomes a guilty until proven innocent case.

Not unlike trying to prove to the IRS that you didn't lie about your earnings. Nearly impossible, if not IMpossible.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
True Believers Only need things like the GLF , Rainbow Snake Tales , Mingloucho Chronicles , John Lear and other TRUTH BRINGERs to see the light and BELIEVE , we do not heed the Siren Calls of the So called Skeptics who are merely agents of Unknown Forces, Disinfos and those who do Not Open their Minds and Deny Ignorance (Closing Mind Against Holy and Truthful Knowledge)



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Man, I hate to keep harping on this, but I actually made a draft of my thread idea last night and I'm looking at my spelling of skeptic last night and it was correct. haha... I had even been drinking when I wrote it!

Editing to ask if there is any way to edit the title of the thread? Probably not, but geeze I feel like a fool. (Probably my OCD provoking me here)

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by fishspeaker
 


That was completely and totally off topic. Please do not derail my thread with fringe ideas.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Forgot to post about your charge. No, it is murder.
And in this scenario I do believe that the abduction/contactee testimony would translate to; "yeah, I saw nohup shoot that dude in the face."


And any good lawyer would be able to get me off by simply asking, "What dude? Show me the body." That's habeas corpus.

I'd be walking in no time.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


HAHAHA! Habeas Corpus doesn't exist anymore! Thanks GOP!

However, you have an excellent point. I'm done. I guess I need something more concrete! Thanks for the discussion guys!

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 



Hearsay, in this case, would be someone saying "I know ET's are visiting Earth because Fred said so" and would not be admissible. Saying "Fred said ET's are visiting Earth" is not hearsay it is eyewitness testimony. Neither hearsay nor eyewitness testimony are circumstantial evidence.



As to the first point, there can certainly be evidence without proof!

Sure there can but that's not what I said. I said that proof requires evidence. My point with the smiley and all was that the phrase you used "without a SINGLE SHRED of positive proof" really is nonsensical. There is no such thing as a shred of proof. There is either proof or there is not. There can be a shred of evidence. Evidence is a part of proof (the whole).




As to aliens, there are thousands if not millions who have claimed to have had encounters with them.

Eyewitness evidence, not circumstantial.

Do I have to remind you of your original question?



Anyhow, the question is this. Would you, as a responsible sceptic (one who evaluates evidence and has taken time to study case reports for yourself), be worried if you were on trial for murder and had the same volume of circumstantial evidence implicating YOU for murder as the UFO community has for the existence of UFO activity?


There is no circumstantial evidence of ET's visiting Earth.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
However, you have an excellent point. I'm done. I guess I need something more concrete! Thanks for the discussion guys!


I've been hoping and waiting for somebody to come up with something concrete (or plastic or glass, or whatever) for over 40 years now. I've become much better at examining the pluses and minuses of the evidence because it always falls short in some way.

The best evidence we have is that of the literally tens of thousands of sightings and encounters (and maybe even the photos), it becomes extremely unlikely that they are all hoaxes, misidentifications, or delusions. So something odd is apparently going on. Something that is apparently actively defying discovery and explanation.

But after all this time, I still have very few clues as to what it might even be.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
And any good lawyer would be able to get me off by simply asking, "What dude? Show me the body." That's habeas corpus.


No. It's not.

Habeas corpus gives an incarcerated person the right to appear before the court in order to have the court determine if the incarceration is lawful.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

HAHAHA! Habeas Corpus doesn't exist anymore! Thanks GOP!
[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]


Sure it does. Unless you are "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I've always said this: Just because Big Brother is watching, doesn't mean he cares.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Quote [
The best evidence we have is that of the literally tens of thousands of sightings and encounters (and maybe even the photos), it becomes extremely unlikely that they are all hoaxes, misidentifications, or delusions. So something odd is apparently going on. Something that is apparently actively defying discovery and explanation.

But after all this time, I still have very few clues as to what it might even be]


Hey I am right there with ya ......actually I am more confused and wondering what is the truth about it all .........now than I was when I started reading and thinking on it years ago ... .........................



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join