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 -

Government files detail investigation of paranormal activity in Utah


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

It is all about the evidence

Actually that was exactly what I was going to type to you in response to your post, which didn't mention 'the evidence' at all.  I'm not blaming you, your kind of comment is par for tons of threads here, but I always consider it a knock on believers:  there's no/not much evidence to discuss so let's criticize skeptics as meanies instead.  The irrelevant hand-waving in a lot of those kind of complaints is very obvious, skeptics and everyone would love to see some good evidence instead of bad excuses.

On 5/14/2024 at 2:31 AM, Alchopwn said:

It smacks of dogmatism and smells like fear to me.

It's not 'dogmatism' to note that zillions of claims have been made about the paranormal, etc, and there is never any good evidence for it.  That fact in itself is of course evidence, you kinda act like every claim must be approached with a totally open mind as if there was no history, which doesn't sound particularly rational.  Lots of people have claimed to have perpetual motion machines/designs; it's not 'dogmatism' to not bother with those claims, it's a conclusion based on extremely strong evidence.

I have no idea what you think any skeptic would have to 'fear' about any of this stuff being true.

On 5/14/2024 at 2:31 AM, Alchopwn said:

others who supply the social ridicule to stop people discussing fascinating things that have happened to them.

Really, something's been stopped?  Like when? There are tons of places on the internet where you can read about these fascinating things let alone who knows how many full-length books on these subjects.  That's a pretty good indication that the discussions are absolutely not being stopped, precisely the opposite.

10 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

but where is the judge to slam the people who perform ad hominem attacks on witnesses with contempt?

Or alternatively, where are the adults who aren't so sensitive?  Valid criticisms do not change because someone also made an ad hominem attack, and believers dish it out just as well as they receive it.

10 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

but REMEBER THIS, oral testimony is valid as evidence in a court of law in every country in the Anglophone World.

There are very good reasons why we don't use the standards of courts of law in science or for scientific questions, which almost all of this stuff are.  Courts of criminal law are not really designed to determine the truth, they are for determining guilt or not.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

but REMEBER THIS, oral testimony is valid as evidence in a court of law in every country in the Anglophone World.

I've spoken about this MANY times before, so do not need to be reminded - do you not understand the HUGE differences between a law court, and how science and investigation work?  I shall use CAPITALs as that seems to help you..

1. Testimony is only accepted IF THERE IS A CRIME that is being tried.  In other words, in a normal case, you have a dead body or a stolen car or..  Where's the crime, in telling a tall tale about a UFO being alien-manned?  Does it not occur to you why UFO claims are NEVER seen in a court?

2. In law, testimony is always cross-checked against the evidence, and is almost never used as the prime and sole evidence.  (And the next point explains why that might happen...)

3. Law must be, and is by its nature, TIMELY.  In other words, in order to prosecute, in order to have a fair outcome, it may *have to* rely on some testimony and then a (hopefully expert) decision.  This, imnsho is the biggest difference between science and law.  Science* relies, ABSOLUTELY on verifiable physical evidence and verifiable observations.  There is, therefore, absolutely no hurry - it waits for good observations and evidence.  Until that exists, there is no science outcome.  Plus, science adjusts as new and better evidence comes in.  On that, given that our sky surveillance is thousands of times better than it was back in the, say, 1940's, doncha think we should have got some slightly better imagery, at least?  Sheesh.

18 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

  Yes, of course we need to cross examine such evidence, but where is the judge to slam the people who perform ad hominem attacks on witnesses with contempt?

Saru.  If you want stuff to get an easy ride, then the goto place used to be godlikeproductions - dunno if that still applies...

But you're at UM, so either report the attacks, ignore them, or debate them.  There will always be idiots on both sides.  Deal with it.  The truth will eventually be uncovered.  Or aliens might just actually land here and the debate will be over.

 

*  There is a tiny exception - 'soft' sciences like psychology, obviously, may have to rely on some testimony.  UFOlogy is not a soft scence.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

  Where's the crime, in telling a tall tale about a UFO being alien-manned? 

I can't resist, we have a thread on here where a meth'ed up loon killed his banjo player canoe buddy using the defense, that his friend was.....gonna....feed him to Bigfoot,

That loon is locked away for life.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

there's no/not much evidence to discuss so let's criticize skeptics as meanies instead.  The irrelevant hand-waving in a lot of those kind of complaints is very obvious, skeptics and everyone would love to see some good evidence instead of bad excuses.

Very well said, it's not at all just skeptics , if a person goes on Oprah and says they shot and killed Bigfoot you better believe the audience will demand to see the body,

If a person claims a ghost has morning tea with them of course the audience would like to see proof but knows none will be presented,

If a person says aliens probed them well yeah, proof might not be something anyone wants to see,

Light hearted aside, bad excuses and ad hominem attacks for total lack of evidence don't make true believers look righteous it makes them look looney and then they get angry for being treated the way they asked for.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2024 at 6:07 PM, Grey Area said:

And that’s how it’s done, when the ‘proof’ doesn’t present itself, just shut down the opposing voices.

Who needs proof when everyone around you believes?

First I think the whole “proof” thing is BS. What proof could possibly be presented on a message board that would change anyone’s mind? 
 

I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally find skeptics who are willing to talk about the subject, and not the messenger, to be helpful. 
 

Where many of you guys just make this place suck is when the ridicule and personal attacks begin. Which happens all the time. 
 

Also you guys can’t seem to grasp that not everyone who posts here, especially those with a personal story to tell, are doing so to try and prove anything to anyone. Much time is wasted when they have to weed through the posts demanding evidence for their personal story. And even after they say they are not here to prove anything, the demands for it not only do not end, but then the skeptics really start to personally attack them. 
 

Moderators are constantly coming here and cleaning up threads deleting personal attacks. They never actually do anything about it though, even to the people who constantly do it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/16/2024 at 10:56 PM, the13bats said:

Very well said, it's not at all just skeptics , if a person goes on Oprah and says they shot and killed Bigfoot you better believe the audience will demand to see the body,

If a person claims a ghost has morning tea with them of course the audience would like to see proof but knows none will be presented,

If a person says aliens probed them well yeah, proof might not be something anyone wants to see,

Light hearted aside, bad excuses and ad hominem attacks for total lack of evidence don't make true believers look righteous it makes them look looney and then they get angry for being treated the way they asked for.

You are in the top 3 people here who is nothing but condescending and rude to people usually in your very first post. All while laughing in their face. 
 

At least you finally admitted it though. You are here to personally attack people when your standard of evidence isn’t met. That they deserve to be treated as such. Even though there is nothing in the rules here that allow such behavior. Even though said person never claimed to be able to prove anything. 
 

You are a troll. A troll who’s mission is to chase off anyone who doesn’t post the way you want them too. Even though this is a place to share personal stories, you have taken it upon yourself to change what this board is intended for, because you can’t tolerate anyone who does not believe as you do. 

Edited by preacherman76
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

First I think the whole “proof” thing is BS. 

Of course you do. As a preacher you’re dedicated to a concept forever impossible to prove. How else are you supposed to feel.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Antigonos said:

Of course you do. As a preacher you’re dedicated to a concept forever impossible to prove. How else are you supposed to feel.

I’m not a preacher. That name was made like 18 years ago. 
 

So do tell. What could possibly be posted in this message board that would change your mind. I’ve been asking this for years, and never get a straight answer. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

First I think the whole “proof” thing is BS. What proof could possibly be presented on a message board that would change anyone’s mind? 

Perhaps you are right here, but then if message boards are so useless at changing minds, why did you feel the need to respond?

Reflect on your answer before you hit post.

8 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally find skeptics who are willing to talk about the subject, and not the messenger, to be helpful. 

And yet, the series of exchanges you are responding to started with this from a believer:

Quote

Some people need bashing 😈👍🤣.

 

8 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Where many of you guys just make this place suck is when the ridicule and personal attacks begin. Which happens all the time. 

Unclear why you are using me to highlight this, I am a skeptic, but I pride myself on being respectful and as non-judgemental as possible.  If you can find any instance where I have unjustly insulted or attacked another member, post it and I will make a public apology.

8 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Also you guys can’t seem to grasp that not everyone who posts here, especially those with a personal story to tell, are doing so to try and prove anything to anyone. Much time is wasted when they have to weed through the posts demanding evidence for their personal story. And even after they say they are not here to prove anything, the demands for it not only do not end, but then the skeptics really start to personally attack them. 

Again, if someone posted with a story, that they acknowledged was unsubstantiated and simply wanted to share it, I personally absolutely would respect that.

The issue here is, how many times does that happen, a poster coming to the forum with a story and zero expectations of belief?  This is a discussion forum, and I’m sorry, but boohoo if someone has to actually read some responses.

I would suggest you report anyone inappropriately challenging someone’s post, but as this is a public forum, discourse is invited.

8 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Moderators are constantly coming here and cleaning up threads deleting personal attacks. They never actually do anything about it though, even to the people who constantly do it. 

Take that up with site management then.  And let’s be completely honest, over the last few months, the only users I have seen that have required significant staff intervention have been believers attacking skeptics, with one prolific user having to be given their own thread, and restrictions to posting in others.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Perhaps you are right here, but then if message boards are so useless at changing minds, why did you feel the need to respond?

Reflect on your answer before you hit post.

Just my 2 cents. Nothing more. I certainly don’t come here to change anyone’s mind. I don’t even want to change anyone’s mind. You don’t have to change minds to ask people respect each other. 

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

And yet, the series of exchanges you are responding to started with this from a believer:


 

Often the “believer” for lack of a better word, respond poorly as well. It’s usually after sustaining ridicule though. 

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

 

Unclear why you are using me to highlight this, I am a skeptic, but I pride myself on being respectful and as non-judgemental as possible.  If you can find any instance where I have unjustly insulted or attacked another member, post it and I will make a public apology.

My apologies. Honestly I didn’t mean to direct this at you. Just wanted to give a better understanding regards to the comment you made. It didn’t reflect accurately what goes on here more often then not. 

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Again, if someone posted with a story, that they acknowledged was unsubstantiated and simply wanted to share it, I personally absolutely would respect that.

If only everyone here had the same respect, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Others here, like bats, have openly admitted they demand proof, and treat people poorly when there is none to give. 

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

The issue here is, how many times does that happen, a poster coming to the forum with a story and zero expectations of belief?  This is a discussion forum, and I’m sorry, but boohoo if someone has to actually read some responses.

The problem is not disbelief. It’s disrespect. Often people come to tell stories in hopes of finding others who may have had similar experiences. I see people say all the time they haven’t come to prove anything to anyone. Yet the demands continue. 

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

I would suggest you report anyone inappropriately challenging someone’s post, but as this is a public forum, discourse is invited.

Been there. It stopped nothing. 

59 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Take that up with site management then.  And let’s be completely honest, over the last few months, the only users I have seen that have required significant staff intervention have been believers attacking skeptics, with one prolific user having to be given their own thread, and restrictions to posting in others.

I wouldn’t know to much about the last few months. I don’t come often, and post even less. All the good posters have left because of how toxic it gets here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2024 at 8:43 PM, esoteric_toad said:

Not sure where you are looking but I simply do not see what you describe. Most of the people that have been on here for a long time simply want the same thing, real evidence.

Seems someone's threshold for 'hostile' is pretty low. The only hostility I have seen is after years and years of certain posters spamming the same thing over and over again (and I do mean OVER AND OVER AGAIN) people finally got a bit fed up with it. It is a forum after all and it is supposed to be a discussion backed with actual evidence with the rules that go along with debating.

Sorry, the world is full of people making claims about all sorts of things. Some folks want evidence to back those claims. A lot of people apparently have a very loose definition of evidence and get a bit upset when challenged.

For those folks there are other forums with low standards that will accept anything as evidence and everyone can sing kumbaya while patting each other on the back.

 

PS - you can block posters that you find offensive. I know I have used it a few times.

There is zero stipulation that things posted here have to be backed with evidence. That’s the disconnect here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

What could possibly be posted in this message board that would change your mind. I’ve been asking this for years, and never get a straight answer.

OK, I'm about to repeat some basic information, as I've done many times in different forms, but always coming back to a basic principle.  How about this time you READ what is said, and then explain your objections, specifically.

10 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

Gosh, you're so kind.

OK, ready? ...  What would be acceptable?  It's pretty simple - ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.  To be specific it could be anything that is verifiable proof to support the claim being made. Specifics?  OK, sure.  And bear in mind that ALL of what follows is easily applicable to anything and everything that is currently accepted as mainstream science:

  • Video? - yes, if it's from two independent sources, clearly shows non-terrestrial attributes eg an alien or a ghost, and the RAW (ie original) video can be verified. OR
  • DNA analysis? - yes, if it's from a reputable testing facility and shows completely alien characteristics. OR
  • A scientific paper? - yes, if it is in a truly peer-reviewed journal and is cited and verified by others. OR
  • The thing itself? - yes, a dead or captured alien/unicorn/bigfoot/chupacadaver ( :) )... but see the item above. OR
  • (I have others, but those are the main ones..)

Please address each of those and feel free to point out how it is that ALL of those things are available for hundreds of millions of things, including very rare animals/insects/microbia/etc.  Do you believe in platypuses, for example?  I'm pretty sure I can prove they exist, by ALL, not just one, but ALL of those things.  And that isn't a comprehensive list, but even ONE of them would be enough!  So go on, post your best case that has any of those.  And particularly, do address the first one in detail.  You are aware that every woman and her dog has a digital camera nowadays, and that those cameras are becoming better by the hour...  So why the hell don't we get a least a few cases where two people see it and film it clearly? 

Over to you.  And BTW, this:

26 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

All the good posters have left because of how toxic it gets here. 

.. is a very weak copout - you reckon you improved it by leaving? - why not fight the good fight.  If you are pushing the truth, you should win.  Imnsho, it's the bad posters who are leaving as they are no longer pushing misperceptions at best, lies at worst.

 

For further reading, try my post about giraffes here....

And I'll ask again, why do you not nominate the best case, in your opinion?  Could it possibly be that the best case is very weak, and it's all downhill from there......?

And another post I see...

13 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

There is zero stipulation that things posted here have to be backed with evidence. That’s the disconnect here. 

Is it against the rules to point out that there is no evidence, or ask for it if it exists, or to point out that absence of evidence just makes it a cool story bro?

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grey Area said:

And yet, the series of exchanges you are responding to started with this from a believer:

Quote

 

Some people need bashing 😈👍🤣.

A believer you reckon, lol. I only believe what I see and don't criticize other people's reports, that's what you think a believer is? lol. I'll stand by the statement that some people need bashing though, because they do.🤛

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, openozy said:

A believer you reckon, lol. I only believe what I see and don't criticize other people's reports, that's what you think a believer is?

Well, It was a judgement call on my part, if you feel misrepresented I will certainly edit my description, I was led mostly by statements like:

Quote

Look mate, I've seen so much of the paranormal, nothing or nobody will convince me of it being fanciful,

What would you choose be referred as?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/17/2024 at 4:28 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

There are very good reasons why we don't use the standards of courts of law in science or for scientific questions, which almost all of this stuff are.  Courts of criminal law are not really designed to determine the truth, they are for determining guilt or not.

If that were true, then every Catholic and Jew would be in jail, and no sociopath would ever go to jail.  Also, there would be no room for scientific evidence in any court.

In short, what you have said is obviously and provably wrong.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

OK, I'm about to repeat some basic information, as I've done many times in different forms, but always coming back to a basic principle.  How about this time you READ what is said, and then explain your objections, specifically.

You mad bro?

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Gosh, you're so kind.

OK, ready? ...  What would be acceptable?  It's pretty simple - ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.  To be specific it could be anything that is verifiable proof to support the claim being made. Specifics?  OK, sure.  And bear in mind that ALL of what follows is easily applicable to anything and everything that is currently accepted as mainstream science:

  • Video? - yes, if it's from two independent sources, clearly shows non-terrestrial attributes eg an alien or a ghost, and the RAW (ie original) video can be verified. OR
  • DNA analysis? - yes, if it's from a reputable testing facility and shows completely alien characteristics. OR
  • A scientific paper? - yes, if it is in a truly peer-reviewed journal and is cited and verified by others. OR
  • The thing itself? - yes, a dead or captured alien/unicorn/bigfoot/chupacadaver ( :) )... but see the item above. OR
  • (I have others, but those are the main ones..)

Please address each of those and feel free to point out how it is that ALL of those things are available for hundreds of millions of things, including very rare animals/insects/microbia/etc.  Do you believe in platypuses, for example?  I'm pretty sure I can prove they exist, by ALL, not just one, but ALL of those things.  And that isn't a comprehensive list, but even ONE of them would be enough!  So go on, post your best case that has any of those.  And particularly, do address the first one in detail.  You are aware that every woman and her dog has a digital camera nowadays, and that those cameras are becoming better by the hour...  So why the hell don't we get a least a few cases where two people see it and film it clearly? 
 

you are covering way to much there. I’d have to write a freaking novel going over aliens and ghosts and big foot ect ect. None of which I necessarily even believe in. 
 

I could save you guys tons of time though. I promise soon as a case comes that meets these standards I will personally PM you all and invite you to the conversation. 

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Over to you.  And BTW, this:

.. is a very weak copout - you reckon you improved it by leaving? - why not fight the good fight.  If you are pushing the truth, you should win.  Imnsho, it's the bad posters who are leaving as they are no longer pushing misperceptions at best, lies at worst.

Truth? I have no idea what the truth is. You think my argument is all this stuff should be believable to you? Not even close. I’m saying people shouldn’t be ridiculed because they feel they have a story to tell. 

 

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 

For further reading, try my post about giraffes here....

And I'll ask again, why do you not nominate the best case, in your opinion?  Could it possibly be that the best case is very weak, and it's all downhill from there......?

I only have one case, my own. Of which I don’t expect anyone here to believe me. Never have. Now because of that, on just one of these subjects, I know those who doubt are just wrong. Despite the lack of evidence. And because I know you are wrong about that, I question what else you folks might be wrong about. Apart from that exactly what is it you think I believe? 

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And another post I see...

Is it against the rules to point out that there is no evidence, or ask for it if it exists, or to point out that absence of evidence just makes it a cool story bro?

Not at all. I never said that. You aren’t hearing what’s actually being said at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Well, It was a judgement call on my part, if you feel misrepresented I will certainly edit my description, I was led mostly by statements like:

Quote

 

Look mate, I've seen so much of the paranormal, nothing or nobody will convince me of it being fanciful,

What would you choose be referred as?

To me a believer is someone who blindly follows someone or something else without any personal proof, as in religions. Nobody has come up with anything mundane to explain my experiences so to me it is very real, not a belief. I'm very skeptical always at first, even with my own stuff. I'm just sick of members like bats calling everybody who has experienced something unexplainable a Dear True Believer, that's just being a condescending A hole. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Just my 2 cents. Nothing more. I certainly don’t come here to change anyone’s mind. I don’t even want to change anyone’s mind. You don’t have to change minds to ask people respect each other. 

And there you are, just your 2 cents, and I say this with all due respect, but now users of this thread have to sift through multiple off topic posts, to enable you to have your 2 cents worth, which is your right of course.

For what it’s worth I agree with the sentiment.  What I disagree with is that this issue is exclusive to skeptics, or even a majority issue with skeptics.

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Often the “believer” for lack of a better word, respond poorly as well. It’s usually after sustaining ridicule though. 

I think most posts are given credit where credit is due.

The problem is where someone might post an experience or sighting, that they have convinced themselves of its otherworldly authenticity.  This kind of post represents a significant investment psychologically.  When it is challenged the user lashes out.

I think some initial challenges can be quite direct but it’s rare to see offensive or overtly insulting challenges as you assert.

I would suggest it is beholden on us all to self regulate our emotions, but it certainly isn’t on the skeptic to anticipate hostility to perfectly valid skepticism.

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

The problem is not disbelief. It’s disrespect. Often people come to tell stories in hopes of finding others who may have had similar experiences. I see people say all the time they haven’t come to prove anything to anyone. Yet the demands continue. 

And that’s fine, herein lies the need for self regulation.  If I posted an experience, and couldn’t back it up I just wouldn’t engage with the requests.

But this isn’t an AA meeting, and you are a fool if you think posting an experience publicly is not going to attract dissent as well as assent.  Further I would suggest many who post in this fashion, do so for attention and/or validation.

Add into this the thing that I think many people miss in their choice whether to share or not to share:  This stuff matters.  Maybe not so much the sighting of a light in the sky, or the reptilian blob caught on CCTV, but the overarching question of whether we are alone in the universe has meaning for us all.

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I wouldn’t know to much about the last few months. I don’t come often, and post even less. All the good posters have left because of how toxic it gets here

Skeptics or Believers?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

but it certainly isn’t on the skeptic to anticipate hostility to perfectly valid skepticism.

Well go to the Vatican and see what their response is to your skepticism and they are believers not experiencers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, openozy said:

To me a believer is someone who blindly follows someone or something else without any personal proof, as in religions.

But surely if someone believes something they have received adequate ‘personal proof’ to validate their belief?

 

1 hour ago, openozy said:

Nobody has come up with anything mundane to explain my experiences so to me it is very real, not a belief.

Oookay, so you don’t believe… You know?  So you are a ‘knower’?

1 hour ago, openozy said:

I'm just sick of members like bats calling everybody who has experienced something unexplainable a Dear True Believer, that's just being a condescending A hole. 

While you openly admit to trolling, one good turn deserves another right?

ETA:  So I just reviewed the thread, with a focus on @the13bats responses.  With the exception of the aforementioned ‘dear true believers’ I have to say that their responses have been measured, calm and factual.  I can see no inappropriate attacks or even particularly offensive pokes at individuals.

Personally I think if you are taking offence at ‘dear true believers’. Which I will add was a statement without any individual focus, you need to recalibrate your offence detectors.

Edited by Grey Area
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

If that were true, then every Catholic and Jew would be in jail, and no sociopath would ever go to jail.  Also, there would be no room for scientific evidence in any court.

In short, what you have said is obviously and provably wrong.

Which part?  I have no idea what you are saying about Catholic and Jews, none of that follows from what I said.  Scientific evidence outweighs personal testimony where they overlap almost every time, but personal testimony isn't that valuable in science.

I thought this was pretty basic; OJ was found not guilty of murdering his wife, did that prove that was actually the case in your view, submitting that question to the opinion of jurors is 'scientific'? Of course scientific evidence is allowed in court, it's that some of the evidence and processes used in courts are not of much value nor compatible with science.  As you noted personal testimony is allowed in court, but, "I saw a cold fusion reactor running at my friend's house on his table" is of course worthless scientifically.  If you're accused of shooting someone with a plasma rifle and the only evidence against you is the functional plasma rifle the police found when they illegally searched your house, then you won't be found guilty because that evidence won't be admissible.  Science doesn't care about that, however it came into being or how we obtained it there's a functional plasma rifle, that's all that matters scientific evidence-wise. And because you are then in possession of the only plasma rifle in existence that's pretty good evidence, in reality outside the rules of courts of law, that you may be guilty.

Again this is a response to your pointing out that oral testimony is valid in courts of law, presumably taking into the surrounding context that paranormal testimony should be given more weight or is being unfairly mostly-dismissed.  Question for you and I think someone's already mentioned it:  name some sciences that rely or give weight to 'oral testimony', the kind that we allow in courts?  Sure we have expert testimony in courts, but you were mentioning just 'witnesses'.  Psychology-related science of course does too but that is in a different context, there's no requirement in psychology that the testimony being given by a patient represents actual reality and I assume (I think you have some personal experience with counseling maybe you've said) that a lot of it has to do with feelings.  Testing some medicines would rely on personal testimony.  But physics, chemistry, biology, and most their sub-disciplines I don't think use 'oral testimony'/witnessing as evidence much at all.  Almost all the paranormal claims I've seen are ultimately scientific questions, not legal questions which is what courts are for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to visit UTAH sometime, check some trails out. Seems like many instances of parapsychology/psychical/etc research studies come up a bit empty handed in concrete evidence and will most likely continue to do so due to the messiness of the topic at hand. However, NIDSci's research at Skinwalker is at least a little interesting. 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

If that were true, then every Catholic and Jew would be in jail, and no sociopath would ever go to jail.  Also, there would be no room for scientific evidence in any court.

In short, what you have said is obviously and provably wrong.

Really?  Rather than handwave and offer up silly and irrelevant exaggerations, I shall repeat why law is not analogous to science, from above:

Quote

...do you not understand the HUGE differences between a law court, and how science and investigation work?  I shall use CAPITALs as that seems to help you..

1. Testimony is only accepted IF THERE IS A CRIME that is being tried.  In other words, in a normal case, you have a dead body or a stolen car or..  Where's the crime, in telling a tall tale about a UFO being alien-manned?  Does it not occur to you why UFO claims are NEVER seen in a court?

2. In law, testimony is always cross-checked against the evidence, and is almost never used as the prime and sole evidence.  (And the next point explains why that might happen...)

3. Law must be, and is by its nature, TIMELY.  In other words, in order to prosecute, in order to have a fair outcome, it may *have to* rely on some testimony and then a (hopefully expert) decision.  This, imnsho is the biggest difference between science and law.  Science* relies, ABSOLUTELY on verifiable physical evidence and verifiable observations.  There is, therefore, absolutely no hurry - it waits for good observations and evidence.  Until that exists, there is no science outcome.  Plus, science adjusts as new and better evidence comes in.  Just on that issue, given that our sky surveillance is thousands of times better than it was back in the, say, 1940's, doncha think we should have got some slightly better imagery, at least?

Sheesh.

Please address each point.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Grey Area said:

But surely if someone believes something they have received adequate ‘personal proof’ to validate their belief?

 Wrong!  Wrong! Wrong!  There is no personal proof.  There is only proof...and then that which is proved becomes a  fact and is something we know.  We call that knowledge.  There are things we know.  Things we don't know.  And things we believe.  If you believe something to be true, it is always because there is no proof.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, openozy said:

To me a believer is someone who blindly follows someone or something else without any personal proof, as in religions. Nobody has come up with anything mundane to explain my experiences so to me it is very real, not a belief. I'm very skeptical always at first, even with my own stuff. I'm just sick of members like bats calling everybody who has experienced something unexplainable a Dear True Believer, that's just being a condescending A hole. 

Yup, I caught Bats debunking an article that he refused to read. When I pointed it out to him, he doubled down and asked me to give him a brief overview so that he could debunk my overview.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/376607-skyline-bar-and-grill-haunting/

 

Edited by Hankenhunter
Content
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.