UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT


There may be some truth, but until we can verify that they said it, it leaves us exactly where we were. With some quotes that may be true, and some that may not be.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

And it's why we need to verify verify verify. If you don't verify every single quote, and source, and just go with "law of averages", then what's the point?

Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....

Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Of course it is but its not me trying my hardest to implant that all quotes ever made on observations of "high strangeness" made by credible sources are all just out of context or never existed... If we cannot check the validity of these quotes then we are left with three options , they did say it , did not or it was taken out of context

I think the correct way to approach this would be 2 choices, Validated and not validated. Validation simply means it was verified to have actually come from the source. It also means that anyone can can examine that information as it is. Not validated doesn't mean that it never happened, it means that hasn't been validated.

This approach does not assume that any given quote is false which I think is the point you are stuck on.

The other way would be the opposite which would be all is valid until proven false which I believe is the argument and which would be incorrect by any standard.

Mass quantities of quotes only muddies the water and doesn't really mean anything statistically. Same with the level of strangeness. "High strangeness" just seems like a distracting term since it really has no meaning here.

K-PAX-PROT
Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....

At the point where we can show the actual quote, whether it is for or against UFOs. If you're truly after the truth (not you specifically, but a general you), then you should want to find out for sure if the person actually said that, or what they really meant. If you are just trying to prove debunkers wrong, or throw information out there, then you don't care and will use anything true or not.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


That's how I see it too. Instead of us vs them, it should be about finding the truth, whether you like it or not. That means you shouldn't have a problem with doing research and finding out what the truth of the quote really is, instead of just saying "Well X is an astronaut so it must be true."

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....

Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....

Someone said something or they didn't. If what they said seems ambiguous or out of context, ask them.

Increrdible; Here is how this post started; Someone posted:
UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

And it was interesting. But the debunkers could not stand it. Had to derail and destroy the post. And turned it
into a legal post on the nature of proof and truth on the internet. Wow! How desperate can you get. Met some
atheists once on a philosophical forum - same type of desperation; They will lie and twist history to 'prove'
there in no intelligence behind our existence - Just like the debunkers here as they will dispute almost all
statements made that are credible to make it look as though they are incredible so as to dissuade anyone from
seriously studying the UFO phenomena. Ane I ask why? What is their agenda? What are they trying to hide?
And who do they work for?

And so far only one of quotes given has been fairly well disputed.

reply to post by AlienView


OH my god yes, you're right. We're all paid to discredit the UFO movement by wanting to prove that people said what is claimed. Maybe you missed the post where it was shown that one of the Cosmonauts went into space for the first time AFTER he allegedly said he saw a UFO in space. But you're right, asking for proof that people said something is stupid and only done to derail and detract because you're getting too close!

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

Of course it is but its not me trying my hardest to implant that all quotes ever made on observations of "high strangeness" made by credible sources are all just out of context or never existed... If we cannot check the validity of these quotes then we are left with three options , they did say it , did not or it was taken out of context

I think the correct way to approach this would be 2 choices, Validated and not validated. Validation simply means it was verified to have actually come from the source. It also means that anyone can can examine that information as it is. Not validated doesn't mean that it never happened, it means that hasn't been validated.

This approach does not assume that any given quote is false which I think is the point you are stuck on.

The other way would be the opposite which would be all is valid until proven false which I believe is the argument and which would be incorrect by any standard.

Mass quantities of quotes only muddies the water and doesn't really mean anything statistically. Same with the level of strangeness. "High strangeness" just seems like a distracting term since it really has no meaning here.

Well lets say a credible sources quoted that a UFO report contained high strangeness data in it and that high strangeness data was about flight characteristics ,rates of climb,sudden accelerations,stop ect do we reject that high strangeness data , when does high strangeness data become serious enough to warrant serious attention and consideration, who is credible enough to determine when it is has meaning or not, someone on a internet forum or a qualified military source , i know which one i would be paying attention to...lol

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AlienView

 

OH my god yes, you're right. We're all paid to discredit the UFO movement by wanting to prove that people said what is claimed. Maybe you missed the post where it was shown that one of the Cosmonauts went into space for the first time AFTER he allegedly said he saw a UFO in space. But you're right, asking for proof that people said something is stupid and only done to derail and detract because you're getting too close!

Yes i see your point but again every single quote ever made is either out of context, never said or down to lies, what are the chances of that, that in its self is a "high strangeness" claim i feel , when is the benefit of the doubt offered?? surely not ALL quotes are bogus or out of context....

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT


If it was shown that said source said what was attributed to them, in the way that it was said to have been said, then at that point, that is a credible quote, and you start to look at what they said. If however, as in this case, you have a cosmonaut allegedly talking about a UFO in 1979, when he didn't go into space for the first time in the mid-80s, then you have a problem.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Well lets say a credible sources quoted that a UFO report contained high strangeness data in it and that high strangeness data was about flight characteristics ,rates of climb,sudden accelerations,stop ect do we reject that high strangeness data , when does high strangeness data become serious enough to warrant serious attention and consideration, who is credible enough to determine when it is has meaning or not, someone on a internet forum or a qualified military source , i know which one i would be paying attention to...lol

well first off that is whole other question. First question is if they said that in the first place. After that its another debate. Qualified military sources, qualified neurologists, qualified statisticians and qualified whoever are all important. Of course you should make up your own mind but then why discuss it on the Internet at all? Just to say people on the Internet have worthless opinions?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....

Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....

Someone said something or they didn't. If what they said seems ambiguous or out of context, ask them.

My strategy exactly. But nobody else seems to want to.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Of course we need to verity but not to the point we strangles it to death or try and make out that the primary verification's are actual out of context quotes....

Were do we draw the line in verification"s at what point is it acceptable .....

So in your view, to 'verify' means to go through the motions of checking, but then never to actually debunk any hoax or misrepresentation? No, I must be misunderstanding you. Please clarify this LIMIT you want to apply to quotation verification research.

Originally posted by AlienView
Increrdible; ....
And so far only one of quotes given has been fairly well disputed.

To your knowledge, perhaps. But the world -- and the internet -- is much wider than your own horizon, I suggest.

If you're referring to the alleged 'Afanasyev quote', what would it take to convince you that THIS one quote is bogus?

While not a Cosmonaut, Astronaut, or U.S. President, the following quote seems close enough as it is from
a Major-general in the Royal Belgian Air Force. I will give the exact quote and source page. And wish to know
why I should question its accuracy???

We have, indeed, been contacted-perhaps even visited-by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.
Victor Marchetti, former Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the CIA, in an article written by him for Second Look entitled "How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon Vol 1, No 7," Washington, DC, May, 1979. In any case, the Air Force has arrived to the conclusion that a certain number of anomalous phenomena has been produced within Belgian airspace. The numerous testimonies of ground observations compiled in this [SOBEPS] book, reinforced by the reports of the night of March 30-31 [1990], have led us to face the hypothesis that a certain number of unauthorized aerial activities have taken place. Until now, not a single trace of aggressiveness has been signaled; military or civilian air traffic has not been perturbed nor threatened. We can therefore advance that the presumed activities do not constitute a direct menace.;The day will come undoubtedly when the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and collection that won't leave a single doubt about its origin. This should lift a part of the veil that has covered the mystery for a long time. A mystery that continues to the present. But it exists, it is real, and that in itself is an important conclusion.

-Major-General Wilfred de Brouwer, Deputy Chief, Royal Belgian Air Force, in SOBEPS' Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique - Un Dossier Exceptionnel, Brussels: SOBEPS, 1991.

Source:
www.ufocasebook.com...

reply to post by AlienView

why I should question its accuracy???

Because you might want to be taken seriously?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

But how far are you going to go with that line. Many have questioned the accuracy of the Bible as we still do not who the author[s] where and if all dates and data are accurate - this is understandable. But how about the
US Constitution? I could look up dates and persons on the internet - Should I accept them as accurate? How do
I know for sure who really wrote it? And if they had an alternative agenda in writing it?

So I keep throwing the question back - why should I assume that quotes about 'Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents' are all, or mostly all, false? Sure some people may lie about almost anything and make up stories
about almost anything but when you start making that assumption there is no sense in discussing the issue
- and I sometimes feel that that is what UFO debunkers want.