92 replies to this topic

[G Donnelly]

Despite all the facts,formulae and forms gladly provided by Psyche I'm not going to change my mind.
I still think it's one of the major cornerstones of UFO belief and I still stand by my conviction something weird happened at New Mexico.
If not for the sudden abrupt turn from recovering a flying disk to a weather balloon in the press releases.
Though if the Roswell incident happened now I would find it harder to believe.
Btw let's see if my recent supply of UFO books can shed any more light on it.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 10 December 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Eyewitness testimony is directly responsible for 75% of Wrongful convictions overturned by DNA.

That is out of all people convicted by an eyewitness, that have been proven innocent by DNA testing, 75% of them were wrongfully convicted by eyewitnesses, and that is 100% proven.

So you can put your faith in them should you ever find yourself wrongfully incarcerated huh.

Testimony has put people on death row, how many have died for eyewitness testimony when they were innocent to date??


LINK - Innocence Project.


75% hit or miss rate..... sounds a bit like UFOlogy I grant, just more accurate!!

hey Psyche....

the 75% is of those 'wrongly convicted....

i.e. out of 10000 convicted 10 were incorrectly convicted and out of those 10,  75% were because of eye witness testimony....

this would not indicate a 75% strike rate but 7.5/10000 which would equal 0.00075% wrongly convicted.

Ofocurse I have used extreme numbers here but just wanted to demonstrate that its not 75% wrongly convicted of all those convicted but just 75% of those wrongly convicted....

hope that makes sense

[PersonFromPorlock]

So, we have a tape with a voice, purportedly that of an elderly witness (who can no longer be questioned) to events that happened fifty years earlier, asserting things not supported by any material evidence. Does anyone else get a feeling that this doesn't add up to ontological certitude?

Edited by PersonFromPorlock, 10 December 2012 - 04:20 PM.

[Hawkin]

psyche101, on 10 December 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

I beg your pardon?

What in earth do you mean? How does this challenge religion or science? From what I see, it does not at all.

What in earth do I mean? I thought we humans lived on earth. Maybe you're a Hollow Earth Theorist.



That is good to know that you are fine with me then.

[psyche101]

Nuke_em, on 10 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

They did send a squad there.. and no again i disagree on ballon theory there are like 20 lines written about it and no firm data to say it might really happen

Gidday Nuke

How ya been mate.

Yes, some claim a large squad did go there, which I think is more in line with Lost Shamans Roswell hypothesis. If they were covering it up, why send a large contingent? You would not want regular Joe's knowing about a covered up item, but the big one is quarantine  No measurers were ever deployed. That alone I find a massive red flag, and very indicative of a terrestrial happening.
But, if you wanted people to look, you would send a big contingent out there to draw attention and illicit rumour. This is what I feel is quite possible and in line with Lost Shamans hypothesis on Roswell.

We do have firm data on the flights.

Nuke_em, on 10 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

( the operation ) not just that operation happened right in the time ( adn ended shortly there after ) of roswell event now how handy is that? I feel that this Mogul operation is meant to derail the people who look and compare info that is/was given to us through leaks. Plus too many people who were involved then now speak of some craft... And Psyche like i wrote before we haven't got a clue how real alien craft would look like,saucer,cigar,delta, who knows maybe they don't even need a craft..

I do not think so. I have seen quite a few interviews with Professor Moore (the man from NYU in charge of the balloons) and we know MOGUL happened, we know it was in the right time frame, down to the day. What I do know is that he was not shy at all in telling Kevin Randle that there were big ego problems on the base, and Moore himself said that he would not put it past some to say saucer just to spite those that said balloon. When you read the reports, MOGUL really is a very good candidate, and reflects many of the earlier descriptions. Only after Stanton Friedman got involved did the descriptions start to really spice up. Of course as mentioned, this is the first time Aliens appeared in the Roswell tale.

Shape of the craft is not a worry mate, what is, is space. If you think about it, a craft the size of a Volkswagen Beetle cannot be large enough to carry enough food fuel or atmosphere to get you past the moon. If that. And not many people speak of a craft, about three.


As for convenience, let me try this one.

We know for sure that the Military was indeed flying around big balloon trains made of balsa wood and tinfoil. There is no question as if to wether Project MOGUL actually existed.

Now lets say for a second that all we have read in the papers is true, for the sake of this argument, lets say a spaceship really did crash, and we decided for whatever reason to ignore quarantine, and the little Aliens did have one survivor after Brazel left them sitting in the paddock for a week or so.

All reports state that the materials looked just like tinfoil and balsa wood right? I am sure everyone agrees on that. The qualifier being that some people claimed amazing properties from these pieces of whatever that look just like Balsa wood and tinfoil.

So what do you think the chances are that a spaceship that is made out of something that just happens to look just like Balsa wood and tinfoil, manages to crash in that infinitesimal speck within the Universe where earthlings are carrying out experiments with balloon trains made from ..... wait for it............


Balsa wood and tinfoil.


Talk about convenience? Mighty accommodating to skeptics these aliens LOL

Nuke_em, on 10 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Anyways there is just too much holes with entire event, it's like swiss cheese... I am just not sure what happened there but i don't believe in any mogul operation which data was given so long after everything happened ( it is written disinformation all over ). We would need a picture of the crash site if one ever existsed that would clarify alot..

Indeed, I think swiss cheese would look at Roswell and say Man how do you manage to hold yourself together?

The data for the MOGUL operations is valid, we have records that are very much genuine, and thank goodness for Albert Crary, who left us a note in the margin of his diary that sheds much light on the entire operation. He is the link that brings MOGUL to the picture.

It also pays to note that the balloon story is the most consistent from day one, despite what proponents say. It went from "Disc suspended by balloon" to "weather balloon" to MOGUL Balloon, wich is the same thing, and came from the same storage compound, with different instruments hanging from it.

I would love to see a picture of the crash site, but none exist, and in fact, it does not have to exist for the Intel Ops hypothesis. Which is also a bit strange, but would be in line again with said Hypothesis.

Pax asked a good question that always made me wonder. If all these people were wandering the crash site before the military arrived, how is it humanly possible that not one person pocketed a piece of flying saucer? I do not think I know a person alive today that would miss such an opportunity.

Cheers.

[psyche101]

Walnut Whip, on 10 December 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Despite all the facts,formulae and forms gladly provided by Psyche I'm not going to change my mind.
I still think it's one of the major cornerstones of UFO belief and I still stand by my conviction something weird happened at New Mexico.
If not for the sudden abrupt turn from recovering a flying disk to a weather balloon in the press releases.
Though if the Roswell incident happened now I would find it harder to believe.
Btw let's see if my recent supply of UFO books can shed any more light on it.

If you want to believe blindly without any reason whatsoever, I am fine with that. That is something more like religion, and personal and is not directed at people in general. I am fine with personal belief. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.
I agree something happened in New Mexico, bit I feel the information is best fitted to the Intelligence Operation Hypothesis.

And there was never an abrupt turn in the military story, proponents claims that, but proponents have more changes to the claim than any other party. They have changed the shapes, the locations  the number of crashes, the number of witnesses, added in aliens, it's a never ending story. The military said : Disc that is suspended by a balloon, then they said weather balloon with a RAWIN (the RAWIN being the "Disc") and then they said it was a MOGUL balloon, and MOGUL balloons and weather balloons are the same thing that come from the same place, just set up differently. Three stories, three balloons. The reason for using the balloons was changed, and that is because MOGUL was indeed classified.

It is an example of modern culture as opposed to a cover up.

Mate, if you want to debate Roswell, I am sure I can accomodate you rather well

Edited by psyche101, 11 December 2012 - 04:49 AM.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 10 December 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

hey Psyche....

the 75% is of those 'wrongly convicted....

i.e. out of 10000 convicted 10 were incorrectly convicted and out of those 10,  75% were because of eye witness testimony....

this would not indicate a 75% strike rate but 7.5/10000 which would equal 0.00075% wrongly convicted.

Ofocurse I have used extreme numbers here but just wanted to demonstrate that its not 75% wrongly convicted of all those convicted but just 75% of those wrongly convicted....

hope that makes sense

It does make sense, but I do not see where it is going?

It is still 75% of people convicted by eyewitness testimony, statistics on other convicted using other methods does not negate the very facts that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. What you are using is a total count aren't you? I do not see how that affects the statistic the proves testimony to be unreliable?

[psyche101]

Mag357, on 11 December 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

What in earth do I mean? I thought we humans lived on earth. Maybe you're a Hollow Earth Theorist.

I am afraid I am losing you more by the second. Can we start again? You said:

Quote

Not only does it challenge Religion but it challenges Traditional Science. They want that smoking gun instead of being
open to the possibilities that this phenomena could be real no matter how credible the witness is.

I am unable to see how your reply answers my bewilderment? How is religion and science affected?

And for that matter, how credible is Walter Haut?

[tipotep]

psyche101, on 11 December 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

It does make sense, but I do not see where it is going?

It is still 75% of people convicted by eyewitness testimony, statistics on other convicted using other methods does not negate the very facts that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. What you are using is a total count aren't you? I do not see how that affects the statistic the proves testimony to be unreliable?

That is not entirely true Psyche , it seems you are trying to say that 75% of ALL people convicted by eyewitness testimony have been proven to be by eyewitness miss-identification .

Wouldn't it be out of all cases proven by DNA to be a false conviction , 75% of them are witness testimony related ?

Once again I will say that I don't fully trust witness testimony but .... I think it is more reliable than not ... most times

TiP.

[psyche101]

tipotep, on 11 December 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

That is not entirely true Psyche , it seems you are trying to say that 75% of ALL people convicted by eyewitness testimony have been proven to be by eyewitness miss-identification .

Wouldn't it be out of all cases proven by DNA to be a false conviction , 75% of them are witness testimony related ?

Once again I will say that I don't fully trust witness testimony but .... I think it is more reliable than not ... most times

TiP.

Mate, is that not exactly what I said in the first instance?

Quote

Eyewitness testimony is directly responsible for 75% of Wrongful convictions overturned by DNA.

LINK

Which is a convincing number, How many people are still sitting in jail wrongfully convicted ny eyewitness testimony? Out of all the cases that were convicted by eyewitness testimony, those that have been reinvestigated with DNA evidence have proven that 75% of eyewitnesses in these cases were completely incorrect i the first instance.

Mate, I think one is too many. And considering what happens when we do have the opportunity to admit more evidence, then you surely have far more faith in testimony than I.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 11 December 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

It does make sense, but I do not see where it is going?

It is still 75% of people convicted by eyewitness testimony, statistics on other convicted using other methods does not negate the very facts that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. What you are using is a total count aren't you? I do not see how that affects the statistic the proves testimony to be unreliable?

Morning mate, What I am driving at here is that it is not 75% of people convicted by eyewitness testimony but 75% of those found to be wrongly convicted.....Yes I am using a total count but only when directly related...let me try another way...

10000 convicted
5000 of these are through eyewitness testimony alone
out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.

out of these 10 we know 7.5 are those that were convicted on eyewitness testimony.

This would mean that eye witness testimony would carry a rate of
7.5/10000 on total convictions
or
7.5/5000 on eyewitness testimony convictions...

so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075
or
that eyewitness testimony had a failure rate of just 0.0015% on convictions based on eyewitness testimony alone


so the rest of the numbers are crucial in determing what exactly that 75% represents..

[Paxus]

didn't someone from HERE (UM) have a relative who was there and ALSO claimed that there really WAS an ET craft at Roswell?...

[Lcvec]

Paxus, on 10 December 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Another one huh?!

Interestink!

It seems to me every now and then we get another one of these just to keep us frustrated!

Seems to me quite a lot of people who have now claimed that there really was an ET craft crashed at Roswell.....

What I find odd about this case is that quite a few of these people say they have handled the debris.... but not ONE of them pocketed a little piece of it so that they could PROVE to the world that ET have visited Earth....

Exactly. Damn aliens, why do they have to crash in the US? If they crashed in a 3rd world country (at least here I'm sure), it wouldn't be an hour before a few hundred people gathered around it to loot the bloody thing and it would take at least a day for the military to get involved   Even if it really was an ET craft that crashed there, I think this case is beyond saving, everyone wants the attention so there are hundreds of witnesses popping up and they only decide to come forward when it's convenient, with the excuse of being threatened by the government.

[Paxus]

Lcvec, on 11 December 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Exactly. Damn aliens, why do they have to crash in the US? If they crashed in a 3rd world country (at least here I'm sure), it wouldn't be an hour before a few hundred people gathered around it to loot the bloody thing and it would take at least a day for the military to get involved   Even if it really was an ET craft that crashed there, I think this case is beyond saving, everyone wants the attention so there are hundreds of witnesses popping up and they only decide to come forward when it's convenient, with the excuse of being threatened by the government.

The more I think on it, the more ridiculous it seems - so many people saying they came in contact with the parts and yet NOT ONE grabbed a bit!!!! It's NUTS!!! Unless they are lying about having come in contact with it.
Hell, even AT THE SITE, long after the crash, you'd think someone could find one tiny little piece of 'alien' material if there really was an ET crash!

[Babe Ruth]

PersonFromPorlock, on 10 December 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

So, we have a tape with a voice, purportedly that of an elderly witness (who can no longer be questioned) to events that happened fifty years earlier, asserting things not supported by any material evidence. Does anyone else get a feeling that this doesn't add up to ontological certitude?

Ontological certitude may not be an option....