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.

 

What do honest lawyers and UFOs have in common?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Given that ufology and lawyers are both the subject of a considerable amount of humour/ridicule, it was perhaps inevitable that jokes would emerge which combine these two popular topics.

The following joke is littered all over the Internet:


Q: What do honest lawyers and UFOs have in common?
A: You always hear about them, but you never see them.


In a similar light-hearted vein, see the following commercial for S.G.V.C. injury lawyer, made by Gasket Studios Ltd:



and this parody of lawyer's commercials in the USA:





In fact, lawyers seem to have more substantial connections with UFO research.

For example, the longest list of www.mufon.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">consultants that used to appear on the website of MUFON (probably the best known international group of UFO investigators/researchers) was not, as some might expect, in relation to astronomy, physics, photo-analysis etc etc but rather was the section entitled "law".


The author of a UFO book, Warren Smith, has suggested (apparently seriously) that a disproportionate number of abductees are lawyers and speculates on the purposes of the abductors, asking: "How many policemen, judges and lawmakers are now agents?..." (Warren Smith in his "UFO Trek" (1976) at page 99 (in Chapter 6) of the Sphere paperback edition).


I'm not sure if any other researcher has noted the correlation suggest by Warren Smith. The former head of the US Air Force's UFO investigation (Project Bluebook) Captain Ruppelt made a comment that "I don't understand this apparent correlation between flying saucers and lawyers" (see his letter to Dr Hynek dated 21 February 1955. However, given its context, it is clear that Ruppelt's remark was in the context of various people that had been involved in Project Blue Book later going on to train as lawyers, including Bob Olsson, Kerry Rothstein, and Max Flutch.


Given the importance of evidence from eye-witnesses in many UFO investigations, it is not supprising that quite a few researchers have suggested that lawyers may be better suited to dealing with the ambiguities in UFO cases than scientists used to dealing with experiments in laboratories which can be repeated under desired conditions.

For example, McGill University psychologist Don Donderi argues that the scientific method is ill equipped to digest UFOs--lawyers, using legal standards of evidence, would handle them better (In UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge, edited by David Jacobs))

Similarly, one respected UFO researcher has suggested that "... when a really ingenious person wants to perpetrate a hoax, it is not always easy for others to see how it is done. I have wondered sometimes whether scientists are the best trained individuals to investigate UFO sightings. Perhaps magicians should try their hands at providing explanations - and perhaps lawyers should do the interviewing of witnesses!" Frank Salisbury in his "The Utah UFO Display: A Biologist's Report" (1974) at page 139 (in Chapter 4) of the Devin Adair hardback edition.


So, why do scientists seem to dominate much of UFO research?




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Great post, lol. I needed the laugh this morning. Scientists should not waste their time investigating UFO's or Aliens until the climate concerning this subject has changed. Right now, until they have SOLID evidence, they can't get taken seriously by the mainstream because we are viewed as crackpots. And we did that to ourselves, by allowing the fringe believers in the community to come to power, and by supporting existing UFO "investigators" that have not, in all these years, made a single difference to the subject...other than to line their pockets and promote the very thing this place claims to "deny".

Edit to add: Are you on vacation or something? I have been following this board for years and have never seen you post so much or so often in such a short time period. If you are on vacation, please step away form the computer and go enjoy it!!!!
edit on 22-3-2011 by MainLineThis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MainLineThis
Edit to add: Are you on vacation or something?


Yes, just a short one - about 24 hours...

I tend to post here in fairly short bursts and then go silent for a while due to busy periods at work and home - which can last days, weeks or even months...


Originally posted by MainLineThis
If you are on vacation, please step away form the computer and go enjoy it!!!!


Ok. Bye.


Isaac
edit on 22-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
A person can be convicted based on eye witness testimony but when one sees a UFO and have no proof they get discredited because witnessing it just isn't good enough.

Great idea for a thread even if I might be a little off topic.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
A person can be convicted based on eye witness testimony but when one sees a UFO and have no proof they get discredited because witnessing it just isn't good enough.

Great idea for a thread even if I might be a little off topic.
Seems more or less on topic to me since it seems to involve lawyers and UFOs.

But actually you'll find that's not universally the case that eyewitness testimony is sufficient. In some courts, eyewitness testimony by itself is NOT sufficient, and lawyers know about the lack of reliability. That's why some courts have guidelines that eyewitness testimony should be considered in corroboration with other evidence, but it's probably a very bad idea to convict someone based on eyewitness testimony alone. Likewise when eyewitness testimony alone is all we have on a UFO case, it's just not considered that reliable by scientists, (and perhaps by lawyers also), but in conjunction with other things like perhaps radar reflections, etc, it can corroborate other evidence. As one scientist said, most witness estimates of the UFO's size, distance, and speed are usually unreliable to the point of being worthless, but some other aspects of their testimony may have value.

If lawyers are the targets of abductions, then not only are they at the "butt" end of so many jokes, but the really bad ones might actually deserve the anal probing they get from their abductors


This is part of the reason I didn't become a lawyer, being the butt end of jokes. I didn't know about the abductions and anal probings!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
A person can be convicted based on eye witness testimony but when one sees a UFO and have no proof they get discredited because witnessing it just isn't good enough.


The strength of the evidence required to convict (or win a claim for breach of contract etc, requiring proof "on the balance of probabilities") depends on the nature of the allegation.

The more unlikely the alleged action, the stronger the evidence required to have the allegation accepted.

You may be familiar with the statement popularised by Carl Sagan that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

The suggestion that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” actually reflects English law in relation to proving matters on the balance of probabilities. In the leading House of Lords case of Re H [1996] AC 563, Lord Nicholls said: “the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability …. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established”.

I discussed this point a bit in one of my threads a few years ago, "Dogon Alien “Mystery” Demystified".

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 22-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


To the 2 posters above me thanks for the indepth clarification on the law.

Isaac,that thread is amazing and I love your approach.
Its always good to look at both sides of things and I think you did that very well.
I am bookmarking that one for future reference because I have never heard of the Dogon people or the possible ufo connection.
Well done and thanks for the link.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Issac, would you accept a back hander from a grey to make it look like he wasn't real





posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Thanks for the Laugh





posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somamech
Thanks for the Laugh



I think there are quite a few uncertainties in relation to ufology, but one of the certainties is that it is often good for a laugh.

My profile has had my mood set to "amused" for the last four or five years...

All the best,

Isaac



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Well a lawyer just might get to the the truth of the matter...followed shortly by a myriad of Inter-Galactic Class Action Lawsuits of anally-enraged abductees.

Bonus:

Q: New Jersey has more toxic waste dumps per capita of all states. California has more Attorneys per capita of all states. You know why?

A: New Jersey got first pick. *drum roll high hat*



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Well a lawyer just might get to the the truth of the matter...


Hey the Gut -apparently one did try but was informed by the U.S. Supreme Court that 'the continued need for secrecy far out weighs the public's right to know.'




In 1977 New York attorney Peter A. Gersten brought suit in the US District Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of Ground Saucer Watch, an Arizona based UFO organization. The lawsuit was against the Central Intelligence Agency pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Gersten demanded the release of classified UFO related documents. Pursuant to the lawsuit, the CIA in 1979 released over 900 pages of documents relating to the UFO phenomenon. But they refused to release 57 documents, claiming national security considerations.

On June 24,1980 Gersten brought suit in the same District Court against the National Security Agency but this time on behalf of his own recently formed organization, Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS). His objective was 135 UFO related documents the NCI had refused to release. On November 18, 1980, based upon a NSA top secret affidavit which Gersten was not allowed to see, US District Court Judge Gerhard A. Gesell dismissed the lawsuit stating that 'the continued need for secrecy far out weighed the public's right to know.'


link


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Very telling, Karl 12 - of course the multi-talented 'due to national security'. Sad -



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


The more I think about Sagan's quote about "extraordinary claims" requiring "extraordinary evidence", the more it appears to me that we just kind of accept this idea as self-evident without really examining it. For example, if I were to rob a bank, I could presumably be convicted on ordinary evidence such as the testimony of the 20 people in the bank at the time and saw my face, were they all to pick me out of a line-up. It would be an ordinary claim, so ordinary evidence should suffice, according to Carl Sagan.

But what about an extraordinary claim, such as that a chimp with an AK-47 robbed the bank. Indeed, this situation would seem quite extraordinary, but would it require evidence any more extraordinary than that which was required in the former example? If 20 bank patrons and tellers all claimed that a chimpanzee with a machine gun loped into the bank, pointed its gun at the teller and handed him a note, received a sack full of cash and took off out the door, would it be insufficient to reasonably establish the reality of the event? Would we say that such an extraordinary claim would require more extraordinary evidence before we would believe it? Would we assume that all 20 witnesses were mistaken, and that actually it was a man, not a chimp, that had robbed the bank?

Here we would have an allegation that seems extremely unlikely to have actually taken place. We should expect that the absolute weakest form of evidence - witness testimony - would fail to convince anyone of any intelligence that the event actually occurred as reported. We should demand better evidence, shouldn't we?

edit on 22-3-2011 by Orkojoker because: added text



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is indeed a load of hooey. Who gets to determine what is "extraordinary" in the first place? And what exactly is "extraordinary evidence"? I would suggest claims need sufficient evidence, nothing less or more.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
The suggestion that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” actually reflects English law in relation to proving matters on the balance of probabilities.
But English law is rather weird.


I can think of no rule of Dutch law or case law which says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sufficient evidence is largely case-dependent and rarely are circumstances the same.

PS I find the argument in the case you cited to be highly illogical. Take criminal law. Rape is a more serious allegation than a simple theft. Does this conclusion now justify the statement that therefore a claimed rape is less likely to have occured than a claimed theft, therefore the rape case should be held to different standards of evidence? Nonsense. The gravity of a crime in general does not tell us one bit about the probability in a concrete event.
edit on 22-3-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
ufos have lying lips that move?
now thats it
no more advanced civilization about it




top topics



 
5

log in

join