The absence of evidence

[Dejarma]

10 minutes ago, Viatorem said:

You are seriously asking for a difference between statements of the US goverment and its agency's and a writer of a few books with a sci-fi fantasy story about wizzards?

Scepticism towards certain things aint bad but you can overdo it offcourse.

you haven't answered the question:

what's the difference? 

[Viatorem]

6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you haven't answered the question:

what's the difference? 

The difference is that J.K. Rowling released a few books in the form of sci-fi and fantasy and it clearly is wat it says science fiction and fantasy to entertain a certain amount of people and in the meanwhile make some money on it. As where the US goverment told us 4 different stories about 1 incident wich we know did happen and thus is a non fiction. What exactly happend we still dont know but the 4 different versions do indicate that there is litle truth in what is said. One of this versions might be true although it is hard to tell wich one and it is even possible all 4 versions are a lie.

Another difference is that the US Goverment is a group off elected people who all sworn to do what is best for there country and fellow countryman and woman where a writer as JK Rowling or any other wich does the same as her is not elected and does not have a certain obligation to her country and those who live in it.

Wich makes me wonder that lets say the Britisch goverment makes a statement about something towards the people of the UK and some time later they come back on that same topic and make a complete different statement about it and repeat that two times over so that you have 4 different statements on one matter do you still believe in that goverment than or in any version that they have given on the matter?

 

[Dejarma]

5 minutes ago, Viatorem said:

As where the US goverment told us 4 different stories about 1 incident wich we know did happen and thus is a non fiction. What exactly happend we still dont know

In just a few lines you've created the ultimate in contradiction!! Brilliant, well done

[Viatorem]

31 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

In just a few lines you've created the ultimate in contradiction!! Brilliant, well done

Oh realy, are you sure? We know there was a crash but what exactly crashed over there is still not exactly known so I do not see the contradiction like you say there is.

[Dejarma]

16 minutes ago, Viatorem said:

Oh realy, are you sure?

no, i'm not.. but it seems you're enjoying yaself so have fun

[bmk1245]

Are we there yet? 14 pages, after all...

[Dejarma]

Just now, bmk1245 said:

Are we there yet? 14 pages, after all...

your point is what?

[bmk1245]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

your point is what?

Exactly.

[Dejarma]

13 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Exactly.

Do you have something to say to me? If so then be an adult & make you're point... Or stop boring me= the choice is yours

[bmk1245]

5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Do you have something to say to me? If so then be an adult & make you're point... Or stop boring me= the choice is yours

Is there absence of evidence, or evidence of absence? Which one?

[Dejarma]

9 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Is there absence of evidence, or evidence of absence? Which one?

the later... so, do you have anything interesting to say about it? you still haven't made your point-- if there is a point 

[bmk1245]

14 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

the later... so, do you have anything interesting to say about it? you still haven't made your point-- if there is a point 

I've made my point long time ago, in Best Evidence #1, #2, #3, #4. Feel free to read through...

Anyway, there is no evidence for alien visitation, and there is no evidence for alien existence, so far. Period.

[Dejarma]

17 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

I've made my point long time ago, in Best Evidence #1, #2, #3, #4.

how am i supposed to know this is what you were referring to?

i can't read minds-- YET. though i'm working on it

[OntarioSquatch]

Reports, sightings, artifacts, and leaked documents qualify as evidence. What is lacking is evidence that you and others would have an easy time evaluating. The cat’s out of the bag: this isn’t an easy field of research

Who would’ve thought?

To believe there’s an absence of other technologically advanced species here on our Earth(s), one would have to make assumptions about how an organization of beings that’s possibly thousands of years more advanced would behave. What some do is create an ill-founded/flawed scenario that they know they can easily knock down, and reach whatever conclusion they want. They don’t seem to be aware of the reality that they’re constantly cherry picking 

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

To believe there’s an absence of other technologically advanced species here on our Earth(s), one would have to make assumptions about how an organization of beings that’s possibly thousands of years more advanced would behave

As far as I know there's no other technologically advanced species here on earth- therefore I would have no need to make assumptions regarding their behavior.

And BTW= you don't 'know' either.. You just believe the stories you've been told in books etc.. Nothing wrong with that 

2 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

The cat’s out of the bag: this isn’t an easy field of research

Yep not easy as 80+ years of absolutely nothing proves!

I'd say not worth the effort but having said that it's well worth it for those who produce the books & all the other media forms that you listen to...

[ChrLzs]

16 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Reports, sightings, artifacts, and leaked documents qualify as evidence. What is lacking is evidence that you and others would have an easy time evaluating. The cat’s out of the bag: this isn’t an easy field of research

Who would’ve thought?

To believe there’s an absence of other technologically advanced species here on our Earth(s), one would have to make assumptions about how an organization of beings that’s possibly thousands of years more advanced would behave. What some do is create an ill-founded/flawed scenario that they know they can easily knock down, and reach whatever conclusion they want. They don’t seem to be aware of the reality that they’re constantly cherry picking 

OS, you always avoid the basic question that is asked after you make handwaves like this..  Why don't you post the best evidence?

If you are nervous about doing that, then it seems pretty clear that your 'evidence' clearly and demonstrably proves.... that lots of people like scary stories.

[OntarioSquatch]

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

OS, you always avoid the basic question that is asked after you make handwaves like this..  Why don't you post the best evidence?

What I have personally found to be useful evidence is still highly challenging and controversial to assess. That plus the fact that many here try to debunk theories rather than try to properly understand the evidence makes it virtually useless here

regardless, here are a few good examples

https://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy Hottel Part 1 of 1/view

https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO Part 1 of 16/view (on page 22)

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/stone.html (this is an interview containing leaked info that was recommended by NASA worker Harold Povenmire, who was for decades involved with US’s research into this)

The smaller details on the top two aren’t as noteworthy as the fact that they would choose to put out such info, when such info is generally highly classified. What I’ve learned is that such papers like the two on the FBI website which are put out for an unofficial disclosure usually contain some disinformation while still giving out the main idea. For instance, with Roswell, there may have been only been one crash of non-human craft and not three 

[Dejarma]

With regards to aliens visiting this planet:

Can a story really be classed as evidence? 

[Blaid Drwg]

12 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

What I have personally found to be useful evidence is still highly challenging and controversial to assess. That plus the fact that many here try to debunk theories rather than try to properly understand the evidence makes it virtually useless here

regardless, here are a few good examples

https://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy Hottel Part 1 of 1/view

https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO Part 1 of 16/view (on page 22)

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/stone.html (this is an interview containing leaked info that was recommended by NASA worker Harold Povenmire, who was for decades involved with US’s research into this)

The smaller details on the top two aren’t as noteworthy as the fact that they would choose to put out such info, when such info is generally highly classified. What I’ve learned is that such papers like the two on the FBI website which are put out for an unofficial disclosure usually contain some disinformation while still giving out the main idea. For instance, with Roswell, there may have been only been one crash of non-human craft and not three 

Lets say for the sake of argument intellegent alien life forms are present on earth current or in the past and had contact with someone. This does raise a few questions for me.

1. How comunicate with them: math is considderd a universal language wich I can follow but if those aliens got here from pretty far away this means they are pretty much way more advanced than we are wich means they have math developed in a state that we cannot comprehend yet because we do not know it so far.

2. Telepathic communication ok but than again they can talk to us telepathic with images or words but not in our language and we dont know how to respond cuz we do not speak there languages and might not have the people who are capable to send telepathic messages in the form of images or words.

3. The encounter happens and humans and ET's stand with eachother but there is a barrier in language and probably cultural as well. Humans respond not that very well towards something that would be superior and that humans dont understand wich could lead towards a hostile act (unwillingly perhaps but damage is done) and in turn you might have started a galactic war with a way more advanced specie. 

 

I know the 3 points I point out could be the basics for a good sci-fi movie like Independance Day or V for Visitors or whatever but think about it, this just could be happening for real if alian species actulay where here and had contact with humans.

 

[ChrLzs]

3 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

What I have personally found to be useful evidence is still highly challenging and controversial to assess.

I think I've spotted the problem.  Your defintion of evidence is "what you want to believe in".  I think most folks here (and the legal system and science community) have a more dictionary-like version of the definition.

Quote

..regardless, here are a few good examples

https://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy Hottel Part 1 of 1/view

So... that was at the top of your best 'hard evidence'?  Given that over the years, I've wasted more time than I care to remember on this stuff, I will only bother looking at one example - the first you posted..

Here's what the FBI itself says about that one:

Quote

The agency denies that it's related to Roswell, or that they even seriously investigated it. "Finally, the Hottel memo does not prove the existence of UFOs; it is simply a second- or third-hand claim that we never investigated," it says. "Some people believe the memo repeats a hoax that was circulating at that time, but the Bureau's files have no information to verify that theory."

Let's expound on that a little, shall we?  I'm one of the 'some people'..... And to explain why, I'd suggest a little time here:

http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-hottel-memo-reveals-ufo-hoax-279533

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec,_New_Mexico,_UFO_incident

Your 'evidence' involves nothing more than an appeal to authority, namely that an FBI staffer is somehow immune from being suckered.  Clearly, Hottel was not immune...  It is pretty much proven a hoax, and even the initial link is a third hand story...
 

Edited October 3, 2017 by ChrLzs

[OntarioSquatch]

Quote

So... that was at the top of your best 'hard evidence'

I’ve never called any of the observations “hard” evidence or anything even synonymous with that. I’ve been saying the opposite.

Also, I didn’t say the info on that paper is entirely true or that I accept the main idea simply because it’s on the FBI’s website. Ironically though, this is an appeal to authority:

“The agency denies that it's related to Roswell, or that they even seriously investigated it.”

Quote

“It is pretty much a proven hoax”

Yes, to some it’s certainly a “proven” hoax. That much I gathered early on.

Quote

Your defintion of evidence is "what you want to believe in”

The only reason I can think of for why you would make that assumption is because of a pre-conceived notion that any evidence supporting the theory of an alien presence is bogus, and that I’m accepting it as evidence without evaluating it

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[stereologist]

14 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

I’ve never called any of the observations “hard” evidence or anything even synonymous with that. I’ve been saying the opposite.

Also, I didn’t say the info on that paper is entirely true or that I accept the main idea simply because it’s on the FBI’s website. Ironically though, this is an appeal to authority:

“The agency denies that it's related to Roswell, or that they even seriously investigated it.”

Yes, to some it’s certainly a “proven” hoax. That much I gathered early on.

The only reason I can think of for why you would make that assumption is because of a pre-conceived notion that any evidence supporting the theory of an alien presence is bogus, and that I’m accepting it as evidence without evaluating it

 

You are confusing a statement of fact with an appeal to authority.

There are those that cannot accept the lack of evidence. That leaves these people with nothing more than the reposting of hoaxes.

I think it is humorous to call the analysis of hoaxes and anecdotes " highly challenging and controversial to assess. " It is not. They are simply hoaxes or anecdotes no matter much long you stare at them in the hopes they will change.

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

You are confusing a statement of fact with an appeal to authority.

There are those that cannot accept the lack of evidence. That leaves these people with nothing more than the reposting of hoaxes.

I think it is humorous to call the analysis of hoaxes and anecdotes " highly challenging and controversial to assess. " It is not. They are simply hoaxes or anecdotes no matter much long you stare at them in the hopes they will change.

yep, totally agree 

[OntarioSquatch]

5 hours ago, stereologist said:

You are confusing a statement of fact with an appeal to authority.

It’s supposedly a “statement of fact” because it’s coming from the FBI. That’s what makes it an appeal to authority. Logically, it’s not any better than simply just bolding the words of someone claiming to have seen a unicorn.

 

Quote

There are those that cannot accept the lack of evidence. That leaves these people with nothing more than the reposting of hoaxes.

I think it is humorous to call the analysis of hoaxes and anecdotes " highly challenging and controversial to assess. " It is not. They are simply hoaxes or anecdotes no matter much long you stare at them in the hopes they will change.

That’s only if you have a pre-conceived notion that any evidence supporting an alien presence is bogus. In that case it sure is very easy to do what you think is a proper assessment. It’s only when you’re careful and unbiased that you realize it’s often challenging to figure out whether or not a report or anecdote is true

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

It’s supposedly a “statement of fact” because it’s coming from the FBI. That’s what makes it an appeal to authority. Logically, it’s not any better than simply just bolding the words of someone claiming to have seen a unicorn.

 

That’s only if you have a pre-conceived notion that any evidence supporting an alien presence is bogus. In that case it sure is very easy to do what you think is a proper assessment. It’s only when you’re careful and unbiased that you realize it’s often challenging to figure out whether or not a report or anecdote is true

No. That does not mean it is an appeal to authority. It is a fact as in that is what is written. Yes it is different than your unicorn suggestion.

Your suggestion that others have a pre-conceived notion one way or the other is as childish as your unicorn suggestion.

The evidence is there to be debated. The suggestion you had for evidence began with a hoax. I have the feeling you did that to support your pre-conceived notions. Anyone thinking that a hoax is in any form evidence is sloppy, careless and biased. It is not difficult to identify anecdotes as anecdotes. Anecdotes are known to be poor sources of information.