92 replies to this topic

[G Donnelly]

Psyche,mate
I think we have to agree to disagree here.
You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.
Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.
You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.
However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.
Despite all this I've  still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 11 December 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

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

Walnut Whip, on 11 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Psyche,mate
I think we have to agree to disagree here.
You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.
Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.
You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.
However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.
Despite all this I've  still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

wise choice me thinks walnut.....I wouldnt fancy my chances against Psyche on this one  

I do agree with your post with regards to doubt in the official story although mine is far more than a teeny weeny glimmer.......having said that doesnt make ET the next and/or only viable alternative, even if it is my prefered choice.

[Quaentum]

Personally I would need to see something more along the Walter Haut claims to make it valid for me.  I tried listening to the MP3 but the volume was so low I couldn't make out anything.

Then there is this site  http://roswellproof....t.html#anchor_8   Towards the bottom of the page you will see his 2002 affidavit followed by his 1993 affidavit.  The differences in the affidavits are a problem for me.

Then there are sections like this one from the 2002 affidavit:

Quote

(11) By the time the news release hit the wire services, my office was inundated with phone calls from around the world.  Messages stacked up on my desk, and rather than deal with the media concern, Col Blanchard suggested that I go home and "hide out."

The bold part is of concern.  Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide.  They tell you to deal with it.

[quillius]

Quaentum, on 11 December 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

The bold part is of concern.  Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide.  They tell you to deal with it.

is it possible that standard protocol is not the right path with something so ....monumental.

or how do you deal with media concern when the 'concern' is real...umm well we caught an alien but dont worry folks go back to bed.....its ummm.....ok...we think....its ok....

[synchronomy]

Quaentum, on 11 December 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Personally I would need to see something more along the Walter Haut claims to make it valid for me.  I tried listening to the MP3 but the volume was so low I couldn't make out anything.

Then there is this site  http://roswellproof....t.html#anchor_8   Towards the bottom of the page you will see his 2002 affidavit followed by his 1993 affidavit.  The differences in the affidavits are a problem for me.

Then there are sections like this one from the 2002 affidavit:

The bold part is of concern.  Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide.  They tell you to deal with it.

I agree.  Maybe his memory of the exact wording has been lost.
Perhaps  Col Blanchard was implying, "You screwed up.  It's out of your hands, I will deal with it"
I still think the initial report stating they had recovered a flying saucer was to cover up the Mogul crash by using the newly coined term "flying saucer" thinking it would not attract media attention.  Turned out that backfired so they made a more believable tale about a weather balloon.

Edited by synchronomy, 11 December 2012 - 04:12 PM.

[G Donnelly]

quillius, on 11 December 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

wise choice me thinks walnut.....I wouldnt fancy my chances against Psyche on this one  

I do agree with your post with regards to doubt in the official story although mine is far more than a teeny weeny glimmer.......having said that doesnt make ET the next and/or only viable alternative, even if it is my prefered choice.

Let's just say I'm a fence-sitter but with one eye on the truth.
I'm not a fully-fledged member of the woo-woo club yet.
However the Roswell thing is still shrouded in mystery.
It continues to haunt discussion boards long after the fact.
This is a prime example of it's continuing fascination with the masses.

[tipotep]

psyche101, on 11 December 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

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




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.

Its not what you did say , it's what you don’t ....

Quillius summed up what I was trying to explain  .........

Quote

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..

Without the appropriate numbers , I.E - total cases convicted by eye-witness testimony proven to be correct  versus the total cases over turned by DNA after the fact , I don't think it is correct to use those figures to justify your position on eye-witness testimony .

I do agree that one is too many , especially if that one is you or I with our neck on the line so to speak but as a whole I would be confident in saying that eye-witness testimony has been right many more times than it has been proven to be wrong , can you agree with that ?

TiP.

[tipotep]

Walnut Whip, on 11 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Psyche,mate
I think we have to agree to disagree here.
You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.
Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.
You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.
However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.
Despite all this I've  still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

Good move mate , don't go into a gun fight with a knife !

TiP.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

My take on Roswell has always been that the US military got caught with their pants down. At that time (40's) they did not have an effective, experienced response team or plan. Hence so much information got out about it before they could control the site and create a cover story.

Today, a "UFO" goes down and they are all over it. Total information blackout.

[Sweetpumper]

praetorian-legio XIII, on 11 December 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

My take on Roswell has always been that the US military got caught with their pants down. At that time (40's) they did not have an effective, experienced response team or plan. Hence so much information got out about it before they could control the site and create a cover story.

Today, a "UFO" goes down and they are all over it. Total information blackout.

And it's a good take.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 11 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

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...

Gidday Quillius

Sorry, but I think we are still saying the same thing in some  respect, my initial post said:

Quote

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

Isn't the bolded the same as your qualifier? of all wrongful convictions, that have been proven incorrect by way of DNA evidence, 75% of those examples are incorrect.

That is 75% of everything we have had the opportunity to definitively prove, and not have to rely on a witness any longer.

Which still strikes me as an alarming statistic.



This part I am good with until....:

quillius, on 11 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

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...

Here, I agree with this, as this widens the scope, however of you change that 10 to 100, everything goes up by a factor of ten. So I could change that statistic and make it look the other way based on a whim. What it is, is in cases where we have an opportunity to get a hold of DNA evidence, which is a factor being discarded that I think could affect the above statistic dramatically, but I also have no idea how one would firm that figure up, but as time goes on I expect this will become more care will be taken, and DNA will be considered more important.

quillius, on 11 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

so out of total convictions it translates to 0.00075
or

Considering the large numbers you have used to illustrate the point, is that percentage still not translating into an alarming figure that is unacceptable? I maintain that one is too many when the judgment is based on another person, who can be affected by too many interferences.  If ten in one hundred thousand are wrongfully convicted, is that acceptable? And considering CNN cited a figure of 7.3 million in the system as of 2007, that is a significant number of innocent people who at worst could be facing death on someone's say so. People fight fluoridation on less convincing statistics and it is beneficial to people.

quillius, on 11 December 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

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..

But I do not think it is. That is a figure based upon what we have had the resources to accomplish, and within a system that still employs the method without verification. What would that figure look like of all eyewitness testimony could be reconsidered with DNA evidence? I would suggest it will rise dramatically based upon the samples we have to work with, and the statistics those sample produce. I think what is missing here is proportionating the number of total conviction against that which we have had the opportunity to sample.

I do not think the significance of the 75% sample can, or deserves to be overlooked, or washed out. It is still innocent people who are paying for someone else's mistake because someone did not actually see what they claimed to see.

[psyche101]

Walnut Whip, on 11 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Psyche,mate
I think we have to agree to disagree here.
You are truly a scholar on the UFO subject and I hasten to add a gentleman.
Your one of the reasons I generally don't scuff and deride debunkers and skeptics.
You provided a compelling case and addressed every point perfectly.
However there's still a teeny-weeny glimmer of doubt in my eyes about the official story.
Despite all this I've  still got a limit of belief when it comes to certain incidents.

I would be a cad to refuse such a polite and well written response. Sir, you humble me.

With regards to your personal pursuit, please do carry on. If ever I can help you quell any doubts, and if you would like that, or other information that I can supply, please do not hesitate to ask.

[psyche101]

Quaentum, on 11 December 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Personally I would need to see something more along the Walter Haut claims to make it valid for me.  I tried listening to the MP3 but the volume was so low I couldn't make out anything.

Then there is this site  http://roswellproof....t.html#anchor_8   Towards the bottom of the page you will see his 2002 affidavit followed by his 1993 affidavit.  The differences in the affidavits are a problem for me.

Then there are sections like this one from the 2002 affidavit:

[/left]

The bold part is of concern.  Having been in the military, if something comes up that needs to be dealt with, your superiors do not tell you to go home and hide.  They tell you to deal with it.

There is indeed something not right with Hauts recollection altogether. The link I left on a previous page has Marcel saying Haut did it all himself:

Quote

In 1979, Major Jesse Marcel, who rounded up the "saucer" debris, told reporter Bob Pratt: "(W)e had an eager-beaver public relations officer (Haut) - he found out about it - he calls AP about it. Then that's when it really hit the fan..." ("Roswell", page 228.) In 1979 interviews with Start Friedman and Bill Moore, Marcel said, "It was...Haut...who called the AP (Associated Press) and later wrote the press release. I heard he wasn't authorized to do this, and I believe he was severely reprimanded for it..."

Yet this defies protocol, so what could Marcel be on about if this could not happen?

I think Intel Ops just seem to fit tighter at every turn.


LINK - Saucer Smear

[psyche101]

tipotep, on 11 December 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

Its not what you did say , it's what you don’t ....

Quillius summed up what I was trying to explain  .........



Without the appropriate numbers , I.E - total cases convicted by eye-witness testimony proven to be correct  versus the total cases over turned by DNA after the fact , I don't think it is correct to use those figures to justify your position on eye-witness testimony .

I do agree that one is too many , especially if that one is you or I with our neck on the line so to speak but as a whole I would be confident in saying that eye-witness testimony has been right many more times than it has been proven to be wrong , can you agree with that ?

TiP.

I guess the confusion arrives when people take to overall count, which I find is only indicative of what the statistic could mean. What I do miss, and you rightly note such above, is that this is a sample which we have had an opportunity to re-evaluate. The overall statistics listed cannot take that into account.
I think the statistic from the provided sample is alarming enough to re-evaluate, and heavily investigate the effectiveness of eyewitness testimony, which I believe is notoriously unreliable, and I feel the statistic does indeed prove that and would be reflected if all cases were listed. From what I can tell, we have had the opportunity to work with tens of cases as opposed to hundreds or thousands. And the initial rate of overturned convictions is what I find very convincing. It is 75% of what we have done, not what the numbers are, and what we could do.

Edited by psyche101, 12 December 2012 - 01:26 AM.

[psyche101]

For clarification:


10000 convicted

Why does the 10,000 matter? Only the very next step is the figure being sought. Those who are directly affected by eyewitness testimony.

5000 of these are through eyewitness testimony alone

OK, so we have out sample of those convicted by eyewitness testimony. 5,000 people.

out of the 10000 convicted 10 are found to be innocent through modern techniques.


​Why are we back to the ten thousand? if the 5,000 directly pertains to eyewitness testimony? We are only considering those that have been reinvestigated are we not? And we have not got to that number yet. Why do those convicted by confession, DNA ort other get into the mix again?

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

If, out of ten thousand, ten were selected to have DNA evidence admitted. Then we have the 75% figure that has been attained above. But above, only 5,000 were convicted be eyewitness testimony? Where did the ten thousand come from? Why not a thousand in ten thousand? The we have 750 people.


Or are you illustrating that the statistic is based on a sample of the overall population? If so, surely it does not pertain to actual convictions? The overall population does not have the opportunity for a retrial.



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..


Here are the actual numbers, form the link:


There have been 301 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.
• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.
• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.
• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

Races of the 300 exonerees:
187 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 146 of the DNA exoneration cases.
• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.
• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.







I think these more accurate figures paint a much more concerning figure than what has been proposed above?? It also strongly suggest that other factor such as racism affect the outcome of eyewitness testimony, which in turn fortifies the very fact that testimony is influenced by emotion as well. And it is definitely a great deal more than one in one hundred thousand.

Edited by psyche101, 12 December 2012 - 01:49 AM.