Footage in the Sky: The Truth Behind NASA's UFO Videos

Originally posted by JimOberg

But aren't you driving backwards here? This is an extraordinary claim. To accept it as true, a reader needs proof -- or at least preponderance of evidence --it is not a hoax. That's where the burden of proof lies.

I don't think so, no, because there is no claim. I'm not claiming it's legitimate, I'm pointing out that the claim that it is a hoax, is an opinion, and is unproven. A transmission was recorded and it's origin is unknown. That's a fact. The transmission itself purports to be from Discovery, relating to Alien Spacecraft. That to is a fact. Where you appear to be saying "case closed" I'm saying that is not so, the case is still open, because you can't prove it.

ot only is this burden not met, I would argue that the preponderance of evidence that it IS a hoax is a lot stronger than the opposite.

But I don't see a need to reach a conclusion without a solid basis, either way. It's possible that it is from Discovery, it's possible that it's a hoax. It seems more likely to you that it is a hoax, to others it may not, and there are various reasons why different people might feel each possibility was more likely and legitimate. The truth is we don't know for sure. I am not a fan of the culture at ATS of opinion being "sexed up" and touted as fact, and, despite this accusation more usually being leveled at "believers", I personally see it as being just as applicable - and I feel I am being rather generous in saying that - to 'debunkers', for many of whom the faintest of possibilities that something could have been hoaxed is deemed enough to declare it so, and to repeat this ad nauseam as supposed proven "fact". Actually, I have seen your opinions repeated as "fact" by other members at ATS countless times. There is a burden of proof for any claim, whether the claim is that something is a hoax or real. The burden of proof has not been met for either position, in this case, as in many other cases supposedly "debunked". So, the case is not closed, and no amount of forceful opining either way can legitimately close it.

What is my opinion? I don't know. What is my "claim"? Neither do you

However, to be fair, your claim of hoax, which I originally queried, was made in response to a quite definite and rather sharply worded claim regarding the legitimacy of the transmission in question, and the evils of NASA.


[edit on 5-6-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Also, If this wasn't really even NASA-related communications from this shuttle mission then why wouldn't NASA have at least denied the validity of this recording? It sais it in the video..

"To this day, NASA neither confirms or denies the validity of this recording".

Sometimes, you can tell the truth by what you aren't being told. I think that really does apply here.

-ChriS

Originally posted by Malcram
But I don't see a need to reach a conclusion without a solid basis, either way. It's possible that it is from Discovery, it's possible that it's a hoax. It seems more likely to you that it is a hoax, to others it may not, and there are various reasons why different people might feel each possibility was more likely and legitimate. The truth is we don't know for sure.

Did it ever occur to you that you don't have to be a passive consumer of other people's investigations? That, instead, you could make a new contribution to this debate instead of parasitically recirculating old reports and your own spin on them?

Like, maybe -- call that Greenbelt, MD, amateur radio club that relays the air-to-ground feed, and talk to the hobbyists there about what THEY think of the controversy, and report back?

Like, maybe, DO something to clear up these controversies?

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by Malcram

 

Also, If this wasn't really even NASA-related communications from this shuttle mission then why wouldn't NASA have at least denied the validity of this recording? It sais it in the video..

"To this day, NASA neither confirms or denies the validity of this recording".

Sometimes, you can tell the truth by what you aren't being told. I think that really does apply here.

-ChriS

Chris, your last comment is the most telling.

When the video says 'NASA neither confirms or denies...' the video is just lying. The Hartsfield (misspelled 'Hatfield') quotation proves it.

What you are NOT being told about these videos in general is the contextual data (date/time and witnesses), to prevent you (if it ever occurred to you) to check up on the video claims. What you are NOT being told by the UFO promoters is, as you state, strong evidence that it is these promoters who are being deceptive and misleading.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Malcram
But I don't see a need to reach a conclusion without a solid basis, either way. It's possible that it is from Discovery, it's possible that it's a hoax. It seems more likely to you that it is a hoax, to others it may not, and there are various reasons why different people might feel each possibility was more likely and legitimate. The truth is we don't know for sure.

Did it ever occur to you that you don't have to be a passive consumer of other people's investigations? That, instead, you could make a new contribution to this debate instead of parasitically recirculating old reports and your own spin on them?

Like, maybe -- call that Greenbelt, MD, amateur radio club that relays the air-to-ground feed, and talk to the hobbyists there about what THEY think of the controversy, and report back?

Like, maybe, DO something to clear up these controversies?

That is a great idea. Perhaps you could report back to us with your findings?

Jim, you are a smart man. This behavior does not seem to fit you well. Of course, Malcrom could do exactly as you suggest. But, on the other hand, so could you. The difference here is that Malcram doesn't believe that the case is closed. He is making no assertion other than, "Without further information, the data is noteworthy at best, although possibly a hoax" (or something thereabouts).

In YOUR posts, however, you have belabored a few syntax and spelling errors in what, to the average observer, appears to be an attempt to discredit Malcram via informal fallacy. Simply put, who really cares how Ratsch's name is spelled? It had absolutely no bearing on the story, and i see no reason why you would have made it a point to refer to it (among others) more than once.

Having said all that, since it would seem that you have more emotion invested in the discussion, one would think that it could be helpful to prove your point if you possibly did the research you suggest. Since it is you who claims it is a hoax, the onus is on you to prove it (or, at least find some supporting evidence for it).

As i said, you are an intelligent man. I respect and appreciate the contributions you have made to our nation in your work with NASA. It would make your position stronger if you would not have such an obvious bias.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Malcram
But I don't see a need to reach a conclusion without a solid basis, either way. It's possible that it is from Discovery, it's possible that it's a hoax. It seems more likely to you that it is a hoax, to others it may not, and there are various reasons why different people might feel each possibility was more likely and legitimate. The truth is we don't know for sure.

Did it ever occur to you that you don't have to be a passive consumer of other people's investigations? That, instead, you could make a new contribution to this debate instead of parasitically recirculating old reports and your own spin on them?

Like, maybe -- call that Greenbelt, MD, amateur radio club that relays the air-to-ground feed, and talk to the hobbyists there about what THEY think of the controversy, and report back?

Like, maybe, DO something to clear up these controversies?

Clearly I can't be a "consumer", nor can I be providing "spin", seeing as I - unlike you - haven't reached nor presented a conclusion either way, because there is insufficient evidence to do so. So your accusations are baseless. In fact, you seem rather upset that I won't be a "consumer" of your "investigation" and claim regarding this case by accepting your opinions as fact.

My point, which you are avoiding in your latest reply, is an incredibly simple one - you are presenting your opinion as fact in declaring this transmission a hoax by a ham radio operator, something which you cannot prove, yet clearly want to be accepted as if it were "truth". Instead of simply acknowledging that your claim is not an established fact, can't be proven, and that it's bad form to suggest otherwise, you'd rather switch topic and obfuscate.

Why is it so imperative to prematurely declare cases closed, supposedly "debunked" as "hoaxes", when the evidence is not sufficient to properly validate that claim? I believe it is because in a battle between two ideologies - such as broadly between hardcore "believers" and "debunkers" - unclaimed territory is unacceptable, because the fear is that if it is not claimed the "enemy" might make use of it. If debunkers don't declare a case a hoax then "believers" might feel it supports their ideology and make use of it. So, best to claim it is a hoax, whether it is or not, or whether it can be proven or not. This is more about "winning" than an interest in uncovering the truth. As in this case, some claim this transmission as definite proof of UFO/ETs and a NASA coverup and to combat this, you insist it a hoax. So the truth of the matter, which is that there is insufficient evidence to make a sound determination either way, as is often the case, is the first casualty in this battle, because this truth is unacceptable to the hardened members of both camps who are more interested in their agenda than the facts.


[edit on 6-6-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It would make your position stronger if you would not have such an obvious bias.

Always good to see your thoughtful posts, Furry.

I stand by my interpretation of where the burden of proof lies.

I also point out that I already do lots of independent research, and feel I could use a little help.

As for making one's position stronger by not showing bias, I note this is a standard that I've never heard you apply to far more deserving posters than me.

I'll keep digging, never fear, and reporting my results. But I can't be tagged as a bottleneck through which all attempts at corroborative info must pass. Other people are capable of doing it too. Don't make my packed schedule an excuse for the research not being done.

Typos are never a problem, but the misspelling of names seems to be a legitimate clue that the poster may not be a careful reader and reporter of raw information.

Originally posted by Malcram
My point, which you are avoiding in your latest reply, is an incredibly simple one - you are presenting your opinion as fact in declaring this transmission a hoax by a ham radio operator, something which you cannot prove, yet clearly want to be accepted as if it were "truth". Instead of simply acknowledging that your claim is not an established fact, can't be proven, and that it's bad form to suggest otherwise, you'd rather switch topic and obfuscate.

Me obfuscate? I'm one of the few players here doing original research and posting the results for open discussion.

As for whether the tranmission was proven to be a hoax or not, you are unjustifiably trying to invert the burden of proof. Your insistence that you haven't closed the book on the possibility it's real, is self-conjured-up by your refusal to actually DO any original research that might do exactly that.

Talk about 'arm-chair experts' [a term usually used as derogatation of skeptics]!!

Originally posted by JimOberg


Me obfuscate?

Yes, by changing the subject in order to avoid the simple fact that you don't have the proof to justify a conclusion, and yet you have reached one anyway, and tout it as supposed fact.

As for whether the tranmission was proven to be a hoax or not, you are unjustifiably trying to invert the burden of proof. Your insistence that you haven't closed the book on the possibility it's real, is self-conjured-up by your refusal to actually DO any original research that might do exactly that.

This is where the obfuscation comes in. Either you don't understand burden of proof - which I doubt very much - or you're attempting to switch issues because you have been unable to meet it and wish to try to hide this fact. "The best form of defense is attack"? I'll make this very simple:

I am not making any claim, so I have no burden of proof to meet.

You are making a claim of fact and yet you cannot prove it - you cannot meet the burden of proof.

So you have to meet the burden of proof, not I, and this you cannot do.

Your position appears to be that it is a hoax until proven otherwise. You act as if "hoax" is the default truth which requires no proof. The truth is it's an unknown until proven to be either a hoax or real, both of which are claims which must bear the burden of proof in order to be legitimate.

You imply that my not reaching a conclusion either way is based on a lack of research, yet your research also does not actually support any conclusion - it's just that you have not let this lack of proof stop you from reaching a conclusion or promoting it as fact. You cannot provide the evidence that would justify any adjustment in my agnostic stance. Therefore, your stance is unjustified. You, while making a claim, cannot prove it, and yet you attempt to condemn me for not similarly reaching a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

I have done research. Unless you are holding back evidence that you have not provided so far, then I have seen the same evidence you have. The difference between us is that I am honest enough to admit that this evidence does not amount to proof either way. Your efforts in research do not free you from the burden of proof or entitle you to make claims of fact which you can't prove. And my supposed lack of research - as you perceive it - does not bar me from noting that you have not presented proof of your claim, as irritating as that may be for you.

Here are some comments regarding skepticism and the burden of proof that I find applicable here, edited for relevance:

"Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label...The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved....Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. ... But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis...he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Thus, if a subject ... can be shown to have had an opportunity to [hoax], many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did [hoax], but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence..."

On Pseudo-Skepticism

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Malcram]