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

Rlyeh
On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:20 AM, preacherman76 said:

I both love and hate this story. The eye witness accounts by reputable people is nearly unparalleled. I have little doubt that something amazing happened that night. 

Where it went off the rails is when that one guy who saw the craft up close, close enough to see symbols on it, then goes on to tell people he believed it was time traveling humans. 

Like where the hell did that come from? How did he reach that conclusion? And talks about it like it’s an absolute fact. 

Makes me think the guy is trying to throw a turd in the punch bowl, to discredit the story. 

Another witness came up with pretty wild stories of him being kidnapped and taken to an underground alien under the RAF station.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

Witness testimonies are not scientific evidence anyway you slice it.

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.

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

No idea, not living even close to Napa valley.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Badeskov, you, physche, and Leo are all over me on this "evidence" argument. Meanwhile, this is a "Rendlesham" thread.

I'll sum this up for you as I did for the others: Every court in the world allows in human testimony as evidence, and in many cases, that evidence plays a deciding roll in the outcome of a case. Ok? END OF STORY.

Now, I am out of the sub-thread and sub-sub-thread in here. if you wish to argue the point, open a new thread. And if it remains empty, that would be me.

Ciao

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Badeskov, you, physche, and Leo are all over me on this "evidence" argument. Meanwhile, this is a "Rendlesham" thread.

I'll sum this up for you as I did for the others: Every court in the world allows in human testimony as evidence, and in many cases, that evidence plays a deciding roll in the outcome of a case. Ok? END OF STORY.

Now, I am out of the sub-thread and sub-sub-thread in here. if you wish to argue the point, open a new thread. And if it remains empty, that would be me.

Ciao

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2c.htm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
On 08/12/2018 at 2:22 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'll sum this up for you as I did for the others: Every court in the world allows in human testimony as evidence,

Not quite end of story... Only humans can give testimony- I've never known of a dog in the dock in a suit & tie.

You mean eye-witness testimony I assume;)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
On 11/11/2018 at 1:50 PM, preacherman76 said:

Where it went off the rails is when that one guy who saw the craft up close, close enough to see symbols on it, then goes on to tell people he believed it was time traveling humans

where it went off the rails for me is the fact he didn't mention the symbols the first few times he told the story! an important thing to leave out, eh?- he must have forgotten about it i guess:rolleyes:

Share this post


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

Well that's very interesting

Indeed it puts a different light in the subject pardon the pun, when the other witness statements are examined. That Penniston and Halt kept popping up in the media with a new story every few years doesnt help with their credibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 07/12/2018 at 6:20 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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

No, we're not all that picky - we just think a bit deeper than you do.

In COURT (not in science - do you not know why? - feel free to ask..) witness testimony *may* be accepted as evidence, IF and ONLY IF:

1. there is something to be solved, ie an actual crime, dead body, etc.

2. the witness is not prone to telling tales, and does not have a bias/motive

3. the testimony is reasonably accurately corroborated, and fits both the crime and any other available evidence.

1 and 2 must apply, 3..? well, it helps....

Witness testimony is always up for challenge, and of course often it is challenged, and then rejected.

Now, how does this all compare to the Rendlesham case?  Do I really need to spell it out?  EoT can't see any difference.......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occams Razor

Who's going to play the lighthouse...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occams Razor
On 11/11/2018 at 9:50 PM, preacherman76 said:

I both love and hate this story. The eye witness accounts by reputable people is nearly unparalleled. I have little doubt that something amazing happened that night. 

Where it went off the rails is when that one guy who saw the craft up close, close enough to see symbols on it, then goes on to tell people he believed it was time traveling humans. 

Like where the hell did that come from? How did he reach that conclusion? And talks about it like it’s an absolute fact. 

Makes me think the guy is trying to throw a turd in the punch bowl, to discredit the story. 

No, Penniston is just a turd. Remember he came up with all that binary BS a few years ago that turned out to be co-ordinates for Hy-Brazil. LOL, drivel, zero credibility.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Larry Warren came up with a pretty wild story of being drugged and kidnapped.

 

Share this post


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

where it went off the rails for me is the fact he didn't mention the symbols the first few times he told the story! an important thing to leave out, eh?- he must have forgotten about it i guess:rolleyes:

Or he saw a movie and thought "hey that's pretty sensational. Let me add that to my delusion!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
42 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Larry Warren came up with a pretty wild story of being drugged and kidnapped.

according to the others involved Larry Warren wasn't even there! The whole thing is full of BS

Share this post


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

according to the others involved Larry Warren wasn't even there! The whole thing is full of BS

Holy CRAP!!!   You mean there is something we can actually agree on....??  OhMyGod... OhMyGod!!!   Mark this date on your calendar, Dejarma! :P

Share this post


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

Holy CRAP!!!   You mean there is something we can actually agree on....??  OhMyGod... OhMyGod!!!   Mark this date on your calendar, Dejarma! :P

what is it you agree with?

Share this post


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

what is it you agree with?

 

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

according to the others involved Larry Warren wasn't even there! 

 

Share this post


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

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".

There is  no need to "proved the witnesses wrong". The witnesses need to prove their case, not the other way around.

The burden is on the claimant. So far we have a story that gets bolder over time. There is the notebook that suddenly appears years later.

What we do  have is a simple prosaic explanation for what happened. All there is to counter this explanation is head shaking and uttering nah by those that have embellished their story over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 12/6/2018 at 3:20 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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

Anecdotes or human testimony as you call it is a story. Here we have a story that has become retold with embellishments.

People are not picky here. They simply want to see evidence, not story telling. The little evidence such as indentations on the ground were likely the result of animal activity. In fact, the marks were indistinguishable from animal activity. They were assigned to the event for no reason other than the people involved saw everything in terms of a story they were creating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 12/6/2018 at 7:43 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

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

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

Glad you brought up #MeToo. It has the potential for people to lie because people are not looking for corroborating evidence. 

Remember that a court is not necessarily a seeker of truth. It allows eyewitness testimony despite people knowing how poor that testimony can be even when the witnesses are secure. You might want to look at this long list of people known to  be wrongfully convicted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomHaider51
2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Anecdotes or human testimony as you call it is a story. Here we have a story that has become retold with embellishments.

People are not picky here. They simply want to see evidence, not story telling. The little evidence such as indentations on the ground were likely the result of animal activity. In fact, the marks were indistinguishable from animal activity. They were assigned to the event for no reason other than the people involved saw everything in terms of a story they were 

Ok what if I said I saw a ghost or an alien being walking in the woods, how does one provide evidence? I know you don't believe in these things but evidence is not easy to obtain unless a space craft crash landed, so therefore all you you is eye witness accounts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

Ok what if I said I saw a ghost or an alien being walking in the woods, how does one provide evidence? I know you don't believe in these things but evidence is not easy to obtain unless a space craft crash landed, so therefore all you you is eye witness accounts. 

So what you are saying is that  you saw something and that you gave it an identification. I would probably believe you saw something, but I probably would not support your identification since you can't give a reason it was one or the other or something entirely different.

Your story could very well be the the goblin tale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly–Hopkinsville_encounter

The family did not corroborate their tale, but it became famous - at least for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomHaider51
4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So what you are saying is that  you saw something and that you gave it an identification. I would probably believe you saw something, but I probably would not support your identification since you can't give a reason it was one or the other or something entirely different.

Your story could very well be the the goblin tale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly–Hopkinsville_encounter

The family did not corroborate their tale, but it became famous - at least for a while.

In terms of identification , I can understand if people were to mistake an owl for the moth man, but if I saw a sectoid type alien and looks nothing of this world it's plausible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
42 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

In terms of identification , I can understand if people were to mistake an owl for the moth man, but if I saw a sectoid type alien and looks nothing of this world it's plausible. 

Here you are making a claim that it was a particular type of alien and you are certain of that. Well, people were certain about these victims. They were so certain that some people spent decades in jail.

It is so easy to imagine something you are completely certain of. Yet, we know from real world experiences that this idea of being so certain is often wrong. 

It works both ways you know. Witnesses have misdirected police by telling them that someone is NOT the culprit when it turns out they were. So even when people are familiar with a person they misidentify the person. 

Guess you didn't really take the time to check out the link because the people did not "mistake an owl for the moth man". The link had nothing at all to do with mothman.

Share this post


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

Anecdotes or human testimony as you call it is a story. Here we have a story that has become retold with embellishments.

People are not picky here. They simply want to see evidence, not story telling. The little evidence such as indentations on the ground were likely the result of animal activity. In fact, the marks were indistinguishable from animal activity. They were assigned to the event for no reason other than the people involved saw everything in terms of a story they were creating.

Well, that's not exactly true. Some people demand physical evidence, yes, of course.

Others just want to see a good show on telly and listen to their story. As to what to believe,,,  it is up to the individual viewer.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


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

Glad you brought up #MeToo. It has the potential for people to lie because people are not looking for corroborating evidence. 

Remember that a court is not necessarily a seeker of truth. It allows eyewitness testimony despite people knowing how poor that testimony can be even when the witnesses are secure. You might want to look at this long list of people known to  be wrongfully convicted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

Perhaps you are confusing evidence with proof. People generally know the difference.

A woman makes a #MeToo claim. That is evidence that JoeSchmo sexually attacked claimant. It is *also* evidence that JaneDoe is just shooting for money and fame!

Evidence <> proof.

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.