354 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 18 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

hello McG. I dont think for one minute you would have seen a light in the sky and then started spouting 'aliens'. I also dont think someone would show you a picture and from this you then suddenly went from no interest in UFOs to believing we are/have been visited by ET......therefore there must more to it to have convinced you, of course I dont know 'whole' picture but as I said keep dropping hints and I can build my own picture, and maybe one day if the 'pressure' put on you by some is eased and decent conversation can be had we may just find out a lot more from you than has been given already....

If there were more posters like you on here, there would be more decent conversations.  There are generally few conversations at all on here, just people trying to post evidence and others jumping on them every time and saying it's all false.  I have gotten to the point where I just ignore that because there really is nothing to say.

[cormac mac airt]

quillius, on 18 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I still dont think I have put my point across it seems. My point is simply that if aliens DID come down in a craft, and DID say hello to 20 people then vanished, with no evidence left to the witnesses to be able to prove aliens came down. Then their claim is a FACT. To you the claim without proof cannot be accepted as fact, however it DOES remain a FACT.

The points you raise above are on any sighting/claim are when we are not using the hypothetical of knowing teh event is a FACT.

I understand the hypothetical you've presented, but we don't live in the "let's pretend" world. But the real world where real, verifiable evidence is required to substantiate a claim and not "I saw something so it must be ET's".

I could use hypotheticals as well concerning pigs that really do fly or leopards that can change their spots, both of which are just as meaningless to the real world situation.

cormac

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

cormac mac airt, on 18 January 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

The claim can only be taken as a fact that your hypothetical 20 people saw "something". Not that that "something" automatically equates to extraterrestrials just because they say so. One doesn't, or at least shouldn't, assume that everything claimed is automatically the truth.  Although, obviously, if any or all of your 20 people specialized in the areas of biology, medicine or forensic pathology (as an example) the level of credibility ascribed to their account would be greater than, say, that of a group of construction workers.

cormac

Why would you place more trust in the people with some kind of science degree as suppose to the construction workers when it come to witnessing UFOs or ETs? Wouldn't they have the same inexperience when it's come to the subject? Are the people who hold these types of degree never lies, cheats or steals?

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

cormac mac airt, on 18 January 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

I understand the hypothetical you've presented, but we don't live in the "let's pretend" world. But the real world where real, verifiable evidence is required to substantiate a claim and not "I saw something so it must be ET's".

I could use hypotheticals as well concerning pigs that really do fly or leopards that can change their spots, both of which are just as meaningless to the real world situation.

cormac

I don't think you get quillius' point. Let me ask you this.
In the "real" world, people do disappear without a trace. Let say a person do disappeared without a trace. 19 witnesses testified they saw "Suspect A" walking along the beach with the disappeared person the day before the disappearance. "Suspect A" confess that he killed the person and dumped the body in the ocean. No body was recovered, no evidences of any murder. No video tape or picture of them together. You, cormac, as judge, jury and executioner, how would you deal with this situation? set the suspect free or punish him?

[cormac mac airt]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 19 January 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

I don't think you get quillius' point. Let me ask you this.
In the "real" world, people do disappear without a trace. Let say a person do disappeared without a trace. 19 witnesses testified they saw "Suspect A" walking along the beach with the disappeared person the day before the disappearance. "Suspect A" confess that he killed the person and dumped the body in the ocean. No body was recovered, no evidences of any murder. No video tape or picture of them together. You, cormac, as judge, jury and executioner, how would you deal with this situation? set the suspect free or punish him?

I realize this. That quillius' hypothetical question can, because of its very nature, only receive a hypothetical answer which doesn't make it a fact.

With no evidence and too many variables that could come into play I couldn't judge this person as guilty of murder. He could just as well be covering for a friend who was in great financial straits and decided to fake their own death for the insurance money, a cut of which he'd get at a later date. Point being, that the allegations concerning your hypothetical murder do not make said murder a fact.

To add to this, I don't think it's possible to have a murder that leaves no evidence. Misinterpreted, yes. Overlooked, yes. But no evidence whatsoever, NO. This isn't Star Trek and the victim wasn't beamed into space.

cormac

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

cormac mac airt, on 19 January 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

I realize this. That quillius' hypothetical question can, because of its very nature, only receive a hypothetical answer which doesn't make it a fact.

With no evidence and too many variables that could come into play I couldn't judge this person as guilty of murder. He could just as well be covering for a friend who was in great financial straits and decided to fake their own death for the insurance money, a cut of which he'd get at a later date. Point being, that the allegations concerning your hypothetical murder do not make said murder a fact.

To add to this, I don't think it's possible to have a murder that leaves no evidence. Misinterpreted, yes. Overlooked, yes. But no evidence whatsoever, NO. This isn't Star Trek and the victim wasn't beamed into space.

cormac

OK, so it's impossible to leaves no evidence. But since the court of law required evidence but the investigators failed to find any, and all the they have are the confession of the suspect and 19 witnesses saying they saw him with the disappeared person. Do you think the court will set him free? even with the suspect's confession, under no duress, it's of his own free will, you would still let him go? please be honest.

you assume a lot don't you? without any hard facts that you so desperate to expect regarding ET. but here you are readily assuming that the disappeared person fake his own death for the money which he then collect at a later date? you are making no sense, as usual

[cormac mac airt]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 19 January 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

OK, so it's impossible to leaves no evidence. But since the court of law required evidence but the investigators failed to find any, and all the they have are the confession of the suspect and 19 witnesses saying they saw him with the disappeared person. Do you think the court will set him free? even with the suspect's confession, under no duress, it's of his own free will, you would still let him go? please be honest.

you assume a lot don't you? without any hard facts that you so desperate to expect regarding ET. but here you are readily assuming that the disappeared person fake his own death for the money which he then collect at a later date? you are making no sense, as usual

And here you've just changed the parameters. First you simply said he confessed, which leaves it questionable as to "why". Now you say he did it of his own free will, under no duress. I'm guessing you don't see the difference here either.

That's not what I said. I haven't assumed anything. I gave a possibility for there being another explanaion, nothing more. I've consistently said in the past and I still say that you can't base a claim on evidence you don't have. Evidence, NOT speculation. Do you know the difference between a possibility and an assumption?

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 19 January 2013 - 02:12 AM.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

cormac mac airt, on 19 January 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

And here you've just changed the parameters. First you simply said he confessed, which leaves it questionable as to "why". Now you say he did it of his own free will, under no duress. I'm guessing you don't see the difference here either.

That's not what I said. I haven't assumed anything. I gave a possibility for there being another explanaion, nothing more. I've consistently said in the past and I still say that you can't base a claim on evidence you don't have. Evidence, NOT speculation. Do you know the difference between a possibility and an assumption?

cormac

so let stick with the original parameter and YOU asked him why, which is a standard question any judge is required to ask when a person plead guilty or make any confession. and he tell YOU that he make the confession without threat, satisfied? you still haven't answer the question whether the court of law would let him go.

So you would just let the guy go based on possibilities? Even in cases where there are DNA evidence, you would let the suspect go because there are possibility he was framed(no proof of this) or the possibility the DNA could have come from an unknown long lost twin that possibly exist?

[cormac mac airt]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 19 January 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

so let stick with the original parameter and YOU asked him why, which is a standard question any judge is required to ask when a person plead guilty or make any confession. and he tell YOU that he make the confession without threat, satisfied? you still haven't answer the question whether the court of law would let him go.

So you would just let the guy go based on possibilities? Even in cases where there are DNA evidence, you would let the suspect go because there are possibility he was framed(no proof of this) or the possibility the DNA could have come from an unknown long lost twin that possibly exist?

I answered the question the first time and apparently you didn't like the answer since you changed the parameters.

So I guess, for you, if you don't like the answer then just change the parameters, AGAIN. Right?

cormac

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

cormac mac airt, on 19 January 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

I answered the question the first time and apparently you didn't like the answer since you changed the parameters.

So I guess, for you, if you don't like the answer then just change the parameters, AGAIN. Right?

cormac

you answered that YOU would let him go, but you didn't say whether the COURTS would or not. I give you a choice to stick to the original parameter or not. Please Choose.

[cormac mac airt]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 19 January 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

you answered that YOU would let him go, but you didn't say whether the COURTS would or not. I give you a choice to stick to the original parameter or not. Please Choose.

I can only speak for what I would do, not for what the Courts would do. And I gave my answer to what I would do in the first reply. The Courts don't answer to me. Neither of which has anything to do with the topic at hand.

cormac

[DingoLingo]

TheMacGuffin, on 18 January 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

No one simply has to take my word for this because I "feel" it is correct, since they are quite capable of doing their own research and thinking, just as I have over many decades.

I wouldn't have been doing that if I had not seen a UFO myself and then been given more information when I was in the military.  Frankly, though, most of the people who keep insisting there's 'nothing to it' are not very well-informed about all these things. This has been my experience anyway.

Thank you Guff..

With those two parts of your statement I have bolded Guff.. I will actually start taking you a bit more seriously..

and I am not taking the micky here mate..

..

Now just on a side note to this.. you have just stated a couple of things.. your feelings and your experience.. and that is where myself and a number of the skeptics differ.. we have no had the experience you could say.. so the belief and the feelings are not there for us.. so for us.. when people put across that this has happend.. this is the truth etc.. all we really have to go on is taking that persons word when we dont really know them.. Ok you have seen a ufo you say.. alien that kind of deal.. myself.. I would be more inclined to say you saw a UFO that was not under alien control.. I have seen things myself in the night sky.. even saw what was probably a UFO back in 74 when I was a kid.. but I dont believe it was alien..

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

cormac mac airt, on 19 January 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

I can only speak for what I would do, not for what the Courts would do. And I gave my answer to what I would do in the first reply. The Courts don't answer to me. Neither of which has anything to do with the topic at hand.

cormac

Fair enough, but it would safe for me to assume the courts would not let him go. I see that you don't appeal to authority in this case, but why think that  biologists, doctors or forensic pathologists would provide you with any answers regarding ET at this time? maybe you are beyond skeptic.

[cormac mac airt]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 19 January 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:

Fair enough, but it would safe for me to assume the courts would not let him go. I see that you don't appeal to authority in this case, but why think that  biologists, doctors or forensic pathologists would provide you with any answers regarding ET at this time? maybe you are beyond skeptic.

A reasonable assumption.

A proper analysis performed by any of the above on an actual, physical specimen could confirm or rule out whether it was of terrestrial origin. Whereas a picture or claim of having seen one can only be used to explain what something "appears" to be, which is subjective and therefore open to interpretation.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 19 January 2013 - 03:30 AM.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

cormac mac airt, on 19 January 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

A reasonable assumption.

A proper analysis performed by any of the above on an actual, physical specimen could confirm or rule out whether it was of terrestrial origin. Whereas a picture or claim of having seen one can only be used to explain what something "appears" to be, which is subjective and therefore open to interpretation.

cormac

Have you forgotten the engineers and pilots also? You would also need an intact spaceship that can travel to to other planets. A crashed spaceship with a body mean nothing. If the life scientists examine the body and determined it to be nothing known to man, it could just be an undiscovered earth specie. The burned up debris could just be some government "black project". The body could just be a genetically modified animal. The possibility are endless, everything is possible except ET. Your trust in the scientists only, are incomplete. You need to be tougher, why so soft? Without an actual working "flying saucer" there can be no aliens. Would you believe a biologist that confessed to being probed by aliens? They would know what an alien looked like since they study the science of life.