466 replies to this topic

[Lilly]

I'll give this one last shot. Facts can be confirmed/corroborated by anyone. Stating that something is a fact, but that the means for confirmation/corroboration is being hidden simply doesn't cut it. It doesn't matter how many people choose to believe something is a fact, without available irrefutable evidence all one really has is belief/faith, not a fact. It's like, facts are 'public', not 'private'...the evidence has to be there for all to see in order for something to be considered a fact.

[DONTEATUS]

My two cents for the Last time too Lilly !  Stating what ones see`s through very educated eyes and mind only is good enough for that person that wittnessed said event ! As for cutting it,I will say WHat I saw that sunny day many years ago,was not of this earth, And From what I saw and got to see come from a great distance fly around me ,leaves the area in less the three seconds was real ,IT was not ours , or a Black opp`s project. IT was Alien,Not of this world! As for Fact It was Factual to me . IT may never be seen again. But I know it was real ! There for  Only I need to know that others may see things that are very similar, ANd I will believe in what others say .
Who cares anyway ? People that are skeptics,people that think that only proof of an actual event ,and physicial proof , Bodys ect. They may some day get there proof ! ANd on that day there will still be people that say its fake,ect !

You know the best thing about this entire topic ? ITs the Ones that open there eyes to the possibilities! THey potential`s in our world. the Ones that Say ,"Anything is Possible !"
Remember that a day will come that An Alien Craft will enter into your Life !  I just hope that people around you are understanding !

[quillius]

psyche101, on 07 October 2011 - 12:01 AM, said:

I just do not see a straight answer as yet.

Hey Psyche, I am having the time problem again so will address these points on monday, although not too sure where we can go from here as I see the majority of comments as plain English stating 'not just locals', if we ignore the within 50 mile radius you have chosen to impose in the definition of 'locals' then I cannot see him meaning anything other other than 'not just locals'.

Would it help if I told you a couple of the poeple he has received the information from?  

(oh and by the way all transcripts have been checked as I have either listened to or watched all the interviews from which the transcripts where written. So I am confident I wont be put out to dry,   )

[quillius]

Lilly, on 07 October 2011 - 11:38 AM, said:

The bottom line IMO: Dr. Mitchell is a very honest and sincere man who has chosen to believe what certain people have told him regarding Roswell and ET. He does not personally possess evidence that constitutes 'the smoking gun'. So, what Dr. Mitchell is doing is telling his personal opinion on all this. Telling ones personal opinion is absolutely fine. We just need to keep in mind that this is what is happening...it's not something factual or proven.

Yes he has chosen to believe what people have told him, but he is not chossing to believe peoples opinions or beliefs, he is actually chossing to believe these people who claimed to have 'seen' the evidence, so although he doesnt possess this evidence, or maybe hasnt seen it first hand, if the incident really happened then people would have seen evidence and threfore we are not talking belief/opinion. I am sure with Edgars scientific background he understands what constitutes evdidence and what is opinion, and in addition I have confidence he would not base all of this on peoples opinion.

this is also quite interesting:

Mr. E. MITCHELL: I have no firsthand experience, but I have had the opportunity to meet with people from three countries who in the course of their official duties claim to have had personal firsthand encounter experiences.
MURPHY: Do you think it's more likely than not that extraterrestrials have been to this planet?
Mr. E. MITCHELL: From what I now understand and have experienced and seen the evidence for, I think the evidence is very strong, and large portions of it are classified.
MURPHY: (Voiceover) Mitchell wouldn't name names. but he says some of his information comes from former highly classified US government employees. people who say our government picked up sonic engineering secrets from UFOs. The Department of Defense declined to comment on Mitchell's allegations, but gave us the US Air Forces standard handout on unidentified flying objects, stating: "there has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as 'unidentified' are extraterrestrial." Case closed

--------------

that doesnt sound like a belief based on peoples opinions....IMO

[quillius]

I also wanted to add an analogy as I agree with Bee. I think we need to accept either Mitchell is lying himself or has been lied to or its the truth (fact based).

My analogy is if BOB sees a light in the distance and says its ET....this is opinion (worthless)
If he sees the light land in a field and says ET landed....again opinion (worthless)
If he knows that the field belongs to SAM, so he speaks with SAM, and SAM says there was a craft that landed and an alien popped out and said hello, and here is the picture. Now it moves away from opinion doesnt it?

BOB either is lied to or is being told fact....it is not SAMS opinion or BOBS opinion. Its either a fact or a lie, its not opinion, misidentification etc etc.

I see the same here with Edgar. He has been told that visitation is a fact. He has been told that Roswell is a fact. Not by people who have reached this conclusion but by people who would KNOW if they were there and it happened.

Personally I fully agree with Bee and I cannot put this all down to just Ed's opinion, as I dont think he is stating his opinion. Does this make what he says fact? no but it certainly doesnt make it opinion, its either fact or lies.

[quillius]

Lilly, on 09 October 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

I'll give this one last shot. Facts can be confirmed/corroborated by anyone. Stating that something is a fact, but that the means for confirmation/corroboration is being hidden simply doesn't cut it. It doesn't matter how many people choose to believe something is a fact, without available irrefutable evidence all one really has is belief/faith, not a fact. It's like, facts are 'public', not 'private'...the evidence has to be there for all to see in order for something to be considered a fact.

just to pick up on this part Lilly that I have bolded. If the word available is removed does this stop it being fact?

[mcrom901]

quillius, on 09 October 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

If the word available is removed does this stop it being fact?

conjecture, perhaps?

[Lilly]

quillius, on 09 October 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

just to pick up on this part Lilly that I have bolded. If the word available is removed does this stop it being fact?

There lies the rub (ie, the problem), if one can't somehow view/check/corroborate the evidence then one simply can't tell if it's a fact or not. Without evidence science will not assume existence for something.

If Dr. Mitchell has directly seen evidence then he has what I call 'personal proof'. This kind of thing must be frustrating as all 'get out' to live with. I'm convinced that if this is the case the alledged cover up will unravel at some point and some type of irrefutable evidence will eventually surface. If the whole sha-bang was simply some kind of CIA 'smoke and mirrors' to lead folks to think ET verse US spy/hi-tech planes then we should find that out at some point as well.

It stinks not to know for sure...but it would stink even more to know for sure and not have any supporting evidence!

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 09 October 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

I also wanted to add an analogy as I agree with Bee. I think we need to accept either Mitchell is lying himself or has been lied to or its the truth (fact based).

My analogy is if BOB sees a light in the distance and says its ET....this is opinion (worthless)
If he sees the light land in a field and says ET landed....again opinion (worthless)
If he knows that the field belongs to SAM, so he speaks with SAM, and SAM says there was a craft that landed and an alien popped out and said hello, and here is the picture. Now it moves away from opinion doesnt it?

BOB either is lied to or is being told fact....it is not SAMS opinion or BOBS opinion. Its either a fact or a lie, its not opinion, misidentification etc etc.

I see the same here with Edgar. He has been told that visitation is a fact. He has been told that Roswell is a fact. Not by people who have reached this conclusion but by people who would KNOW if they were there and it happened.

Personally I fully agree with Bee and I cannot put this all down to just Ed's opinion, as I dont think he is stating his opinion. Does this make what he says fact? no but it certainly doesnt make it opinion, its either fact or lies.

I wouldn't classify the scenarios you describe as opinion.  That is why I used the word belief before.  Ed believes what he has been told.  It is as simple as that.

I really don't understand why this appears to be so difficult a concept.

[psyche101]

bee, on 07 October 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Coming from you that's a compliment....



*cough* Phil Klass *cough*

If you want to take that as a compliment, Godspeed to you


Haha, you know what, I am en electrical engineer, know what Klass did? Nice compliment, but I doubt I will accomplish as much in life as Klass did, coining new terms, writing for specialist trades, having an asteroid named after yourself and pioneering the field of Plasma is more than one could hope to accomplish on on life time. And nobody had the guts to take him up on his bet. He died being right on that one. That is quite a life he lived. Gotta admire a man who gets things done.

[psyche101]

bee, on 08 October 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

Basically it looks like neither you or Lilly have any real interest in what EM has to say.

I honestly do not think this is the case. Boon and Lilly keep trying to tell you what he is saying, you keep trying to tell them what you think the words mean. I think you are interested in what you can drawn from EM's statement, not what he is saying, which is that others told him something that he believes.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 09 October 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

Hey Psyche, I am having the time problem again so will address these points on monday, although not too sure where we can go from here as I see the majority of comments as plain English stating 'not just locals', if we ignore the within 50 mile radius you have chosen to impose in the definition of 'locals' then I cannot see him meaning anything other other than 'not just locals'.

I cannot dismiss the "bull traders" comments that suggest to me his information could well be from a surrounding town, which to me would accurately describe someone who is "not necessarily local" and someone who would have a version of the Incident to share.

This is what I mean by a straight answer. Lord knows your efforts are very good, and have combed the interviews well, but still there is no definite proof that says "This information came from outside of Roswell". There are loose descriptions that could be taken two ways, I think on that basis we have to ask ourselves, "If Roswell was so top level, how could others know?" And he does say his information is limited to the Roswell incident.

quillius, on 09 October 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

Would it help if I told you a couple of the poeple he has received the information from?  

Why yes indeed! You can identify som Old Timers?

quillius, on 09 October 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

(oh and by the way all transcripts have been checked as I have either listened to or watched all the interviews from which the transcripts where written. So I am confident I wont be put out to dry,   )

Haha, you better have!!

I hope you realise that comment was very much TIC for the benefit of others who present dodgy sources Not known you to lead me to a bad source to date.

Cheers.

[quillius]

mcrom901, on 09 October 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

conjecture, perhaps?

I suppose it would depend if the evidence exists or/and has existed....it being available is a different ball game...so not quite conjecture as this would be opinion based would it not?

[quillius]

Lilly, on 09 October 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

If Dr. Mitchell has directly seen evidence then he has what I call 'personal proof'. This kind of thing must be frustrating as all 'get out' to live with. I'm convinced that if this is the case the alledged cover up will unravel at some point and some type of irrefutable evidence will eventually surface. If the whole sha-bang was simply some kind of CIA 'smoke and mirrors' to lead folks to think ET verse US spy/hi-tech planes then we should find that out at some point as well.

It stinks not to know for sure...but it would stink even more to know for sure and not have any supporting evidence!

I agree and think that this may well happen.

As for knowing but not having the supporting evidence...yes that must be tough..especially if telling the truth renders you 'crazy' in the eyes of some.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 09 October 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

I wouldn't classify the scenarios you describe as opinion.  That is why I used the word belief before.  Ed believes what he has been told.  It is as simple as that.

I really don't understand why this appears to be so difficult a concept.

Hey Boony,
reading my post again it was not even an analogy as originally set out to put forward. All in all a very disjointed post but let me try again.
Anyhow, yes i agree its Ed's belief (if we ignore the 'seen evidence for' comment he made), what I think both Bee and I are trying to convey is that yes its belief on Ed's part but not on the people that have told him. He states clearly many times that these are people that were there and/or in the know. If Roswell did happen then these people would know which means they are either lying to Ed or telling the truth. This as opposed to him believing in their 'opinion' 'belief' 'conjecture' and so forth.