Does Military/Government insider testimony on the reality of UFOs constitute as proof to you ?

I never argue with the debunketts, but granted, I will try to set something right that they are attempting to put on me which is wrong.
I've been to all skeptic sites, and they have these same kinds of techniques they use against everyone, which I -try- to stay out of the way of but I then I make the careless mistake of getting caught up in a thread like this one.
I never thought there was something suspicious about Karl's -age- at his ALS diagnosis.

As for Schiff
www.anomalies.net...

Caught early, squamous-cell carcinoma reportedly has a 95% cure rate. But doctors treating Schiff recently expressed concern that his cancer was unusually aggressive.

As for Karl
I WILL CONCEDE to you on this. Because I'm not right about everything like a debunker is.
(Nor the best speller.)
www.pbs.org...

ALS is a fatal disease: Most ALS patients die within two to five years of diagnosis. Common causes of death are respiratory failure and/or cardiac problems related to insufficient oxygen. Patients may also suffer respiratory infections, such as pneumonia.
Up to 10 percent of ALS patients live for 10 years or more after diagnosis. Some of these are patients who have opted to use a ventilator to assist breathing. Physicist Stephen Hawking has lived more than 40 years with the disease, though he does not use a respirator.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Pimander
Lets go back to evidence in court.

Let's not, because it is obvious that UFO believers are as ignorant as the court system as they are of science. Until you people can educate yourselves on what eyewitness testimony is as it relates to the court-system, don't bring it up. It exposes your absolute ignorance on the matter.

edit on 14-8-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

On this evidence I'd suggest that there is considerable ignorance of science and the court system from both sides of the debate.

The late June Crane is probably the most important whistleblower there is. I myself think that June is THEE most impressive one I am aware of, hands down.
Unfortunately Miss L.M.H. gets her voice into this, but there used to be something far far better, and I cannot for the life of me, find it. Skeptics, the NewAgies and alien Festival'ers make me cringe too. Way--so.




My second in line in that vein is Kenneth Storch.

Kenneth Storch is currently a law enforcement officer in Aurora, Colorado, as well as an active U.F.O. Field Investigator for The Mutual UFO Network, (MUFON).
www.mufon.com...

Originally posted by simone50m
As for Schiff
www.anomalies.net...

Caught early, squamous-cell carcinoma reportedly has a 95% cure rate. But doctors treating Schiff recently expressed concern that his cancer was unusually aggressive.

2,500 people die every year from squamous cell carcinoma. Why does it make it a conspiracy if Schiff is one of those victims?

Originally posted by BenReclused
They would at least have to prove the victim at one time did exist, and is now missing or dead.

No one has proven there is a "victim" as far as extra terrestrial UFOs go! Every bit of your argument is based on speculation and heresay! That doesn't work for me! It doesn't work for science! And it sure as hell won't work in a court of law in the United States!

Exactly. No matter how many eyewitnesses you have, you have to still show evidence the event took place and took place as the eyewitnesses describe. No one is given a death sentence on the basis of eye-witness testimony only, as the UFO believers like to claim.

Originally posted by WingedBull
Exactly. No matter how many eyewitnesses you have, you have to still show evidence the event took place and took place as the eyewitnesses describe. No one is given a death sentence on the basis of eye-witness testimony only, as the UFO believers like to claim.

What exactly do you mean by UFO believer?

The UFOs exist. They have been photographed, filmed, recorded on radar, sonar, electrical interference, unexplained background radiation and chemical changes at landing sites and described by multiple witnesses. Thousands of people have observed their presence including pilots, air traffic controllers, astronauts, naval officers and other professionals. There is evidence in abundance. The proof - if it exists - has been denied to the majority of scientists and the general public.

If you don't believe that they exist you are a denier - which is a belief too. Is that what you believe? You attempt to portray anyone who believes in their existence as delusional. What does that suggest about you? If you believe in their non-existence is there any evidence you are in a better position to testify?

Granted, the nature of the phenomenon has not been explained to the satisfaction of genuinely skeptical enquirers. However, skepticism of any belief - be it denial or acceptance - is profoundly more scientific than the one you appear to proselytize.

Originally posted by Pimander
What exactly do you mean by UFO believer?

You know exactly what I mean, despite your attempts to attribute claims to me that I am not making. The context was very specific. There is a tendency among the least-thinking of UFO believers (including famous names within the field) to make the "courtroom" fallacy.

It's rarely ever proof. It's only ever evidence: That's what I consider testimony as.

My, my- such vehemence amongst the skeptics in this thread!

One point I would like to make- if our eyes are so easily 'mistaken', then how can we trust any sort of science at all? Surely we require our eyes to look at the results of experiments, to look down microscopes, through telescopes, at X-rays, lab rats, patients etc etc.

Maybe its a question of faith in the observer? And yet, I have read scientific text books without meeting the author- does this mean I shouldnt trust the contents?

Originally posted by Thunda
One point I would like to make- if our eyes are so easily 'mistaken', then how can we trust any sort of science at all? Surely we require our eyes to look at the results of experiments, to look down microscopes, through telescopes, at X-rays, lab rats, patients etc etc.

Because in those cases we don't have just one observer. The more people that look at something and see the same thing the more probabilities we have of being right.

When we use other means to back up our own senses (like making measurements to see if there's an optical illusion in an image) then the confidence in those results also rises, but there's always the possibility of being wrong.

Originally posted by ArMaP
The more people that look at something and see the same thing the more probabilities we have of being right.

When we use other means to back up our own senses (like making measurements to see if there's an optical illusion in an image) then the confidence in those results also rises, but there's always the possibility of being wrong.

Does that mean we should have a high level of confidence in the multiple witnesses of alien bodies at Roswell?

What does this guy have to gain from lying? He is a former military person who claims he saw NASA images of structures on the moon and he sounds like he is telling the truth to me.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Thunda
My, my- such vehemence amongst the skeptics in this thread!

One point I would like to make- if our eyes are so easily 'mistaken', then how can we trust any sort of science at all? Surely we require our eyes to look at the results of experiments, to look down microscopes, through telescopes, at X-rays, lab rats, patients etc etc.

Maybe its a question of faith in the observer? And yet, I have read scientific text books without meeting the author- does this mean I shouldnt trust the contents?

Because the experiments are replicable by anyone in the planet
Please learn how science works before trying to talk about it.

reply to post by Greensboro1978
His testimony is discussed on pages 1 and 2 of this thread. His testimony is not considered to be reliable due to discrepancies regarding when he was at NASA. Have a read and see what you think.

Originally posted by Pimander
Does that mean we should have a high level of confidence in the multiple witnesses of alien bodies at Roswell?

Higher than if it was just one witness (and if all say the same thing).

Originally posted by Thunda
My, my- such vehemence amongst the skeptics in this thread!

One point I would like to make- if our eyes are so easily 'mistaken', then how can we trust any sort of science at all? Surely we require our eyes to look at the results of experiments, to look down microscopes, through telescopes, at X-rays, lab rats, patients etc etc.

Maybe its a question of faith in the observer? And yet, I have read scientific text books without meeting the author- does this mean I shouldnt trust the contents?

One person saying something happened and just expecting everybody to believe it without any proof, is far from science. I'm not a physicist, and I really don't care to even try reading any papers written by physicists... yet, they obviously know what they're doing, since we have nuclear power. That's the proof. It's not one person just standing there saying... 'Oh yeah, there's this thing called nuclear fission, and when you put these elements together, you get a reaction and heat'... and then they don't show you a single example and just expect you to believe it works. There's thousands of scientists that can show you it works... Not just one guy with a story. Big difference.

The problem in general is that anyone who even mentions anything about ufo's is automatically labeled a weirdo or kook. This has been an ongoing program started by the governments to discredit anyone in the field. I'm sure that there a lots of credible witnesses out there. What needs to happen is event that takes place in full view of lots of people and something that no one can deny. I hope I'm alive when someone or something pulls up on the White House lawn to announce their arrival.

Originally posted by blackcube

Originally posted by Thunda
My, my- such vehemence amongst the skeptics in this thread!

One point I would like to make- if our eyes are so easily 'mistaken', then how can we trust any sort of science at all? Surely we require our eyes to look at the results of experiments, to look down microscopes, through telescopes, at X-rays, lab rats, patients etc etc.

Maybe its a question of faith in the observer? And yet, I have read scientific text books without meeting the author- does this mean I shouldnt trust the contents?

Because the experiments are replicable by anyone in the planet

Please learn how science works before trying to talk about it.

edit on 15/8/11 by blackcube because: (no reason given)

By 'anyone on the planet'? I think not, mr Scientist. And Im not trying to 'talk about science', Im making an observation about the off hand dissmissal of eye witness testimony.

reply to post by dpd11


I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply voicing my opinion that we need to be able to trust our eyes in many situations, and I dont believe all eyewitness testimony can be so easily dismissed- especially when you have multiple witnesses, or witnesses who rely on their visual abilities to safely carry out their jobs (like pilots and surgeons) or when their testimony matches up with radar data (see Minot AFB incident for an example.)

We rely on our eyesight everyday to give us accurate data quickly in life or death situations (see driving a car or carrying out an operation), and yet according to the skeptics, they are some sort of feeble device that easily make massive mistakes, even when owned by trained observers. Im just saying I dont agree with that. I also dont agree that the other option is that the witness is always lying.

Originally posted by Thunda
We rely on our eyesight everyday to give us accurate data quickly in life or death situations (see driving a car or carrying out an operation), and yet according to the skeptics, they are some sort of feeble device that easily make massive mistakes, even when owned by trained observers.

But we do easily make mistakes (I haven't seen anyone talking about massive mistakes), if we didn't we wouldn't have so much traffic accidents, for example.

The problem is that, when someone sees a UFO, by definition, they cannot identify it, so they do not have a basis for comparison (and that is what we do best) and the possibilities of being mistaken are bigger than when that person is, for example, driving home after a day's work, following the same road, knowing the dangerous spots, etc.

Im just saying I dont agree with that. I also dont agree that the other option is that the witness is always lying.

There are only two possibilities, either they are lying or they aren't.
If they are lying then the problem lies in the motive, and that's the most difficult thing to understand.

But if they are telling the truth, they are telling what they think is the truth, and in those cases they can be mistaken or they can be right, so, if we consider that the odds are the same for all cases, only half of one half is true, the problem is that it's hard (or even impossible, in most cases) to know which are the cases in which the witness is not lying and is not mistaken. But I am sure that there are many cases in which that happened.