Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

TV show to cover Rendlesham UFO mystery

85 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Wearer of Hats
On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:00 PM, curiouse said:

I totally agree. This is a very intriguing turn of events. Multiple witnesses +Radar evidence+ physical evidence.....

What physical evidence?
I thought it was a case of lights, radar and radio quirks and odd radio reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What physical evidence?
I thought it was a case of lights, radar and radio quirks and odd radio reports.

Well, if you conveniently don't acknowledge the eyewitnesses, no wonder there is no physical evidence to you like radiation, indentations of landing gear etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, if you conveniently don't acknowledge the eyewitnesses, no wonder there is no physical evidence to you like radiation, indentations of landing gear etc.

There is no physical evidence *period*. An eyewitness does not in any way, shape or form constitute physical evidence. That constitutes anecdotal evidence however you slice it. 

Edited by badeskov
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
27 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, if you conveniently don't acknowledge the eyewitnesses, no wonder there is no physical evidence to you like radiation, indentations of landing gear etc.

Those would be the eyewitnesses who said they only saw lights or the eyewitnesses that saw an object or the eyewitnesses who saw and touched an object?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
9 hours ago, badeskov said:

There is no physical evidence *period*. An eyewitness does not in any way, shape or form constitute physical evidence. That constitutes anecdotal evidence however you slice it. 

Now here's a blast from the past. How ya doin', BadBoy?

Anyway, no, if you do not believe witnesses of evidences that they recorded then of course you can say there were no  evidences and you can't be proven wrong.

However, may I remind you, you never proved the witnesses wrong, hence you cannot say that *at one time*, evidences did not exist. tit for tat.

Come on, Bad, "semantics" is your way out? You give yourself poetic license to accuse ppl of testifying to things you do not prefer to hear as liars. Funny way to do business, ol' boy.

And how's that Napa Valley vino doing, lately? Hope the fires don't affect it. "As you were before you were".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
9 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Those would be the eyewitnesses who said they only saw lights or the eyewitnesses that saw an object or the eyewitnesses who saw and touched an object?

Sir Sir, I suggest you read the article again. Witnesses said more than that. Sir, why don't you just take the simple route out and just say, "I don't believe them"?

That has worked for centuries!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Have I ever told y'all about the atheist that went to the Christian message boards every day *faithfully*, and got into every thread that ever was and averred the same curt sermon every time - "God does not exist!" ?

Uh huh... Sure is a psychology I can't figure out. Never could, and still can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Sir Sir, I suggest you read the article again. Witnesses said more than that. Sir, why don't you just take the simple route out and just say, "I don't believe them"?

That has worked for centuries!

Eyewitnesses, which I felt I covered with “radio reports”, are not physical evidence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

@Sir Wearer of Hats  Well in that case, I suggest you don't watch the show! See how simple that was. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

Hopefully it closes the book on this wildly exaggerated and misreported event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
curiouse
On 22/11/2018 at 3:25 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What physical evidence?
I thought it was a case of lights, radar and radio quirks and odd radio reports.

I thought there were burn marks on trees. And indentations in the ground and trees /branches bent or broken over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 11/22/2018 at 4:45 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, if you conveniently don't acknowledge the eyewitnesses, no wonder there is no physical evidence to you like radiation, indentations of landing gear etc.

Which eyewitness are you favouring? 

The one that says it was aliens or the one that says it was future humans? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
On 11/9/2018 at 12:12 PM, stereologist said:

Will this be a show that tries to recreate the events or will it just be a dramatization of things that never happened?

The write up sounds to me like the latter.

This is a redundant question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
On 11/19/2018 at 10:59 AM, stereologist said:

So what?

It seems rather clear to me that Penniston created the notebook after the event to make more money. 

 

This is the major problem I have with the story. Once somebody claims to have "downloaded information" by touching an object I lose all interest. That's ripped straight from movies and it kills any validity the story previously had going for it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Which eyewitness are you favouring? 

The one that says it was aliens or the one that says it was future humans? 

either/or.  Human testimony is most normally considered evidence. People are picky in here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
7 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

This is the major problem I have with the story. Once somebody claims to have "downloaded information" by touching an object I lose all interest. That's ripped straight from movies and it kills any validity the story previously had going for it to me.

they know it will be enough for the easily led staunch believers to buy the books

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

either/or.  Human testimony is most normally considered evidence.

So your saying they are both right? How can that be? 

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

People are picky in here

Not really. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Not only that, but your ignoring the testimony of those who say they chased down a lighthouse, which can be substantiated. Why would you dismiss that testimony? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

So your saying they are both right? How can that be? 

I'm saying it could be either a) or b.)

Quote

Not really. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Not only that, but your ignoring the testimony of those who say they chased down a lighthouse, which can be substantiated. Why would you dismiss that testimony? 

Uh huh. That's why human testimony is allowed as evidence in every court room in the world. It's also why #MeToo exists

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
19 hours ago, curiouse said:

I thought there were burn marks on trees. And indentations in the ground and trees /branches bent or broken over?

Both of which would have been photographable. And yet no photographs, nor even mention of “redacted photographs” have emerged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'm saying it could be either a) or b.)

Have you read Ian Ridpaths evaluation? 

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Uh huh. That's why human testimony is allowed as evidence in every court room in the world. It's also why #MeToo exists

And why the Griffith  University innocence project exists. Of the cases they have taken on 75 % have been overturned by DNA evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Have you read Ian Ridpaths evaluation? 

And why the Griffith  University innocence project exists. Of the cases they have taken on 75 % have been overturned by DNA evidence. 

1. no.

2. so?  What cases did they take on? I have no idea. your cherry picking, I am sure.

Anyway, what's your point overall? I already showed to you that human testimony is considered evidence in a court.of law. Why can't  it be considered evidence in the topic of this thread?

Aren't you making a mountain out of a mole hill?  I mean you can but, after a while,... BORING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

1. no.

Why not?

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

2. so?  What cases did they take on? I have no idea. your cherry picking, I am sure.

Here's a link to their cases page. https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Anyway, what's your point overall? I already showed to you that human testimony is considered evidence in a court.of law. Why can't  it be considered evidence in the topic of this thread?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/

" Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 70% of the more than 350 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence. "

Besides, it's the quality of the evidence, as well as the corroborating evidence, that counts. You can't simply go on "eyewitness testimony" and believe everything anyone says. Suppose there are conflicting eyewitness accounts? Whom do you believe?

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Aren't you making a mountain out of a mole hill?  I mean you can but, after a while,... BORING.

No comment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Leo Krupe said:

Why not?

Here's a link to their cases page. https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/

https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/

" Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 70% of the more than 350 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence. "

Besides, it's the quality of the evidence, as well as the corroborating evidence, that counts. You can't simply go on "eyewitness testimony" and believe everything anyone says. Suppose there are conflicting eyewitness accounts? Whom do you believe?

No comment.

 

Leo, you walked right into our conversation where Psyche is trying to get me into sub-sub-thread to the main topic.

At first the sub-thread began off as whether or not "human testimony" is evidence or not. Fine.  But when I said that human testimony is allowed in as evidence in any court in the world, then the shape-shifting took place. Now all of a sudden, it  is a sub-sub-thread of "how reliable human testimony is".  W...T....F????? Who CARES!?  WHat the hell happened to Rendlesham???? Are you two looking for an argument or something...? I mean, really.

BTW, in one particular year "ago", the FBI said that the cases where plaintiffs lie the most is the case of rape, 11%. Now, if you both want to continue this cherry picking bullcrap, all I can tell you is this, I am not  interested in participating in such a sub-sub-thread in this thread. And you start your own thread dedicated to the reliability of human testimony, I will not participate in it because I don't care. Stick to the issue at hand and quit trying to goad me into an argument.

I will end with the same statement I made long ago. All courts in the world allow human testimony in as evidence. And that ENDS IT.  (for me)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe
2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Leo, you walked right into our conversation where Psyche is trying to get me into sub-sub-thread to the main topic.

At first the sub-thread began off as whether or not "human testimony" is evidence or not. Fine.  But when I said that human testimony is allowed in as evidence in any court in the world, then the shape-shifting took place. Now all of a sudden, it  is a sub-sub-thread of "how reliable human testimony is".  W...T....F????? Who CARES!?  WHat the hell happened to Rendlesham???? Are you two looking for an argument or something...? I mean, really.

BTW, in one particular year "ago", the FBI said that the cases where plaintiffs lie the most is the case of rape, 11%. Now, if you both want to continue this cherry picking bullcrap, all I can tell you is this, I am not  interested in participating in such a sub-sub-thread in this thread. And you start your own thread dedicated to the reliability of human testimony, I will not participate in it because I don't care. Stick to the issue at hand and quit trying to goad me into an argument.

I will end with the same statement I made long ago. All courts in the world allow human testimony in as evidence. And that ENDS IT.  (for me)

 

I didn't realize it was a private conversation you were having.....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
On 11/22/2018 at 8:21 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now here's a blast from the past. How ya doin', BadBoy?

I'm doing good, thanks. How about you? 

On 11/22/2018 at 8:21 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Anyway, no, if you do not believe witnesses of evidences that they recorded then of course you can say there were no  evidences and you can't be proven wrong.

Witness testimonies are not scientific evidence anyway you slice it.

On 11/22/2018 at 8:21 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

However, may I remind you, you never proved the witnesses wrong, hence you cannot say that *at one time*, evidences did not exist. tit for tat.

It is not up to me to prove anything wrong, it it up to the claimant to prove the witness right. Good luck with doing that.

On 11/22/2018 at 8:21 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Come on, Bad, "semantics" is your way out? You give yourself poetic license to accuse ppl of testifying to things you do not prefer to hear as liars. Funny way to do business, ol' boy.

And saying that anecdotal evidence is semantics for saying it is not scientific is utter nonsense.

On 11/22/2018 at 8:21 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And how's that Napa Valley vino doing, lately? Hope the fires don't affect it. "As you were before you were".

No idea, not living even close to Napa valley.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.