[Merged] Admiral Tim Gallaudet: "We're Being Visited by NHI"

[Trelane]

When determining what is provided by individuals, regardless of rank or position it is the items presented as evidence that has to be examined. Not beliefs or assumptions. That is where many pro-ETH folks fail miserably.

Let's apply the correct criteria for defining credible evidence or information. This is straight from military regulations,

“evidence of attributable or corroborated information, in any form, disclosed to or obtained by an Appointing Authority that, considering the original source, the nature of the information, and the totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently to raise a question of fact that would cause a reasonable Appointing Authority under similar circumstances to inquire further. Information may be credible, even though not initially supported by a preponderance of the evidence. However, to be credible, the information must be based on more than mere speculation and not clearly contradicted by known and material facts."

When applying that condition most, if not all, cases crumble.

[Hazzard]

On 10/7/2024 at 10:47 AM, MrAnderson said:

The Admiral doesn't just express a religious belief but has made an assessment based on his experience and access to information he had within the intelligent community.

An argument from authority is a logical fallacy, a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.

Take astronaut Ed Mitchell (6th man on the moon) for example. He believed in all sorts of wacky stuff (zero evidence)... among them that many of the UFOs were visitors from other planets and that the government was covering it up. He also claimed that a teenage remote healer living in Vancouver and using the pseudonym "Adam Dreamhealer" helped him heal kidney cancer from a distance.

He may have been a really awesome astronaut and a true hero... but that does in no way make him automatically right (or even worth listening to) about the paranormal.

Without corroborating evidence he is just like anyone else - Someone flapping their lips telling a tall tale. 

 

Quote

He might be wrong, but it's worth the effort and time to post his views on this topic.

...for entertainment purposes maybe!... because as some sort of evidence its valueless.

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Hazzard said:

An argument from authority is a logical fallacy, a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.

Take astronaut Ed Mitchell (6th man on the moon) for example. He believed in all sorts of wacky stuff (zero evidence)... among them that many of the UFOs were visitors from other planets and that the government was covering it up. He also claimed that a teenage remote healer living in Vancouver and using the pseudonym "Adam Dreamhealer" helped him heal kidney cancer from a distance.

He may have been a really awesome astronaut and a true hero... but that does in no way make him automatically right (or even worth listening to) about the paranormal.

Without corroborating evidence he is just like anyone else - Someone flapping their lips telling a tall tale. 

 

...for entertainment purposes maybe!... because as some sort of evidence its valueless.

It's not an argument from authority and the admiral hasn't expressed religious beliefs like I said a earlier on a couple of occasions. You are continuing with a strawman argument. Has has clearly made an assessment based on his knowledge and experience and the access to information he has within the intelligent community. Something others don't have and will never get. It's a significant admission by Tim Gallaundet regardless of whether you choose to trust him or not at this point. Admirals don't usually get out there to admit there are aliens on this planet. It's not just the base deputy commander at Rendlesham who came to a similar conclusion back in 1980.

[The Sky Scanner]

8 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

It's not an argument from authority

 

It is the text book definition of an argument from authority. The admiral has expressed his views, and provided no corroborating evidence for anyone to check, therefore it remains just his view. You then use his rank to say his view must hold weight - that is the text book definition of an argument from authority. 

Edited October 8 by The Sky Scanner

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Trelane said:

When determining what is provided by individuals, regardless of rank or position it is the items presented as evidence that has to be examined. Not beliefs or assumptions. That is where many pro-ETH folks fail miserably.

Let's apply the correct criteria for defining credible evidence or information. This is straight from military regulations,

“evidence of attributable or corroborated information, in any form, disclosed to or obtained by an Appointing Authority that, considering the original source, the nature of the information, and the totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently to raise a question of fact that would cause a reasonable Appointing Authority under similar circumstances to inquire further. Information may be credible, even though not initially supported by a preponderance of the evidence. However, to be credible, the information must be based on more than mere speculation and not clearly contradicted by known and material facts."

When applying that condition most, if not all, cases crumble.

That sounds like a description of the Admiralty Scale.

[Golden Duck]

What is "the intelligent community"?

[Golden Duck]

Under The Sea won Disney an Oscar in 1989 and, as a single, went double platinum.

Here is Gallaudet's original release - Beneath The Surface - for The Sol Foundation.

https://thesolfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Sol_WhitePaper_Vol1N1.pdf

The Sol Foundation "... are a non-profit 501.c.3 organization and rely on gifts for [their] continued operation."

 

Edited October 8 by Golden Duck

[Hazzard]

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

It's not an argument from authority ....

How do you not understand this??!! 😆

Its literally right in black and white for you in Scanners post. It doesnt get any simpler than that.

Read it again (20 times) and really try your best to understand it this time. 

Edited October 8 by Hazzard

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, The Sky Scanner said:

It is the text book definition of an argument from authority. The admiral has expressed his views, and provided no corroborating evidence for anyone to check, therefore it remains just his view. You then use his rank to say his view must hold weight - that is the text book definition of an argument from authority. 

No it's not an argument from authority. Because the admiral has expressed his views and I didn't say that because of his rank we should take what he said as the gospel. But his stance on the matter is significant because of his ranking and because admirals don't go around discussing about aliens visiting earth. He is in position of power and his view holds more weight (without being the gospel) in comparison to a pedestrian. As an admiral he has the connections with the army and the intelligence community that's why what he said is significant.

Edited October 8 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

What is "the intelligent community"?

 I meant intelligence community.

[MrAnderson]

44 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

How do you not understand this??!! 😆

Its literally right in black and white for you in Scanners post. It doesnt get any simpler than that.

Read it again (20 times) and really try your best to understand it this time. 

No because I don't use it as evidence to support an argument. I said what he said is significant and carries more weight than what some pedestrian thinks. On his case we are talking about an educated opinion rather than a guess. But regardless of the kind of conversation you want to have you can't escape the significance of what he said. Which is very clear, aliens are among us here on Earth. That's what he said.

[HeyBim]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

No it's not an argument from authority. Because the admiral has expressed his views and I didn't say that because of his rank we should take what he said as the gospel. But his stance on the matter is significant because of his ranking and because admirals don't go around discussing about aliens visiting earth. He is in position of power and his view holds more weight (without being the gospel) in comparison to a pedestrian. As an admiral he has the connections with the army and the intelligence community that's why what he said is significant.

This is a joke right? Surely?

Every reason you just gave for believing the Admiral is in the definition The Sky Scanner gave, yet you still manage to claim it isn’t. You cannot just include “as gospel” and it somehow stops being an appeal to authority. On top of that, it sounds like you are actually taking his word as gospel (as at no point do you question anything he is saying) and for the exact reasons in above-mentioned definition.

From The Sky Scanner’s post:

Quote

You then use his rank to say his view must hold weight - that is the text book definition of an argument from authority

And taken from your reply:

Quote

He is in position of power and his view holds more weight*

This, and your exchange with Saru in another thread, are yet more proof that it is pointless to attempt to discuss anything with you. 

*And before it is mentioned, yes I left out the “without being the gospel” part as it is meaningless. The very fact you are saying we should all believe them suggests you are taking it as the truth and to believed without question, i.e. gospel.

[Dejarma]

36 minutes ago, HeyBim said:

And before it is mentioned, yes I left out the “without being the gospel” part as it is meaningless. The very fact you are saying we should all believe them suggests you are taking it as the truth and to believed without question, i.e. gospel.

I was going to reply but you've prompted me to start a new thread on this😉

let's say a thread for skeptics only - oh joy😁

[Hazzard]

16 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

I was going to reply but you've prompted me to start a new thread on this😉

let's say a thread for skeptics only - oh joy😁

That sounds interesting 🕸

[Dejarma]

7 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

That sounds interesting 🕸

all done- go for it you silly closed minded skeptic😁

[MrAnderson]

7 hours ago, HeyBim said:

This is a joke right? Surely?

Every reason you just gave for believing the Admiral is in the definition The Sky Scanner gave, yet you still manage to claim it isn’t. You cannot just include “as gospel” and it somehow stops being an appeal to authority. On top of that, it sounds like you are actually taking his word as gospel (as at no point do you question anything he is saying) and for the exact reasons in above-mentioned definition.

From The Sky Scanner’s post:

And taken from your reply:

This, and your exchange with Saru in another thread, are yet more proof that it is pointless to attempt to discuss anything with you. 

*And before it is mentioned, yes I left out the “without being the gospel” part as it is meaningless. The very fact you are saying we should all believe them suggests you are taking it as the truth and to believed without question, i.e. gospel.

I am not appealing to authority or use it as evidence. It's clear from what I said in the posts. But whet he said is significant and it should be the topic of discussion in the mainstream media and not just in a podcast. There has to be some evaluation and assesment of the comments he made.

Did I say that you should believe him? No I didn't. Clearly you don't and that's your right. But his words as an admiral have more weight than a pedestrian for the reasons I have described above.

I know you want to take the conversation elsewhere but I insist that what he said is significant and it seems that other members of the intelligence community to share his views.

[HeyBim]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

I am not appealing to authority or use it as evidence. It's clear from what I said in the posts. But whet he said is significant and it should be the topic of discussion in the mainstream media and not just in a podcast. There has to be some evaluation and assesment of the comments he made.

Did I say that you should believe him? No I didn't. Clearly you don't and that's your right. But his words as an admiral have more weight than a pedestrian for the reasons I have described above.

I know you want to take the conversation elsewhere but I insist that what he said is significant and it seems that other members of the intelligence community to share his views.

I spent about ten minutes trying my best to write a reply that either wouldn't make me feel like I was banging my head against a wall, or that wouldn't most likely get me a warning.

So you know what, on your last line, I agree with you. I think I do want to take the conversation elsewhere, straight off the end of a cliff so it can crash and burn at the bottom and not have to continue.

[The Sky Scanner]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

The difference is that I haven't appealed to authority to use it as evidence. What it seems to ridiculous to me are the constant attempts to downplay and dismiss/deny the realities of the UFO phenomenon.

Good thing is that there is still no reference to the admiral being incompetent or drunk or that he is confused and he doesn't know that he says. At least there is some progress on this field.

Trying to get some of you believers to think anything beyond a 1 dimensional thought pattern is painful at times.

For the past 80yrs, there has been a whole array of people coming forward with claims about ET, a good proportion of these people have either decent, or impressive military careers. They make a claim, then when you push them on detail, or push them on projects that might replicate said "sighting" they all say "oh I'm not authorised to talk about that". So they've been authorised to say something, so the Pentagon must have cleared it or they'd been in breach, but the Pentagon has stopped them short of anything meaningful. 

Now why would a department,  who's very existence is built on keeping  secrets, do that? Have a think beyond your 1d view of everything,  and when you've come up with some ideas, let me know!

[MrAnderson]

@Trelane I don't mind if this thread was merged with a thread that was made sometime ago on a similar topic.

From what I have seen you were very anxious and run to the admin to have the thread merged so it can't be so visible to others. My thread was different through and it included a podcast about Tim Gallaundet. That is your motivation after all, you want these stories to be less visible or threads closed. It's crystal clear to me although the 'communication war' has been lost by your side long time ago.

@Unusual Tournament and @Hankenhunter

[MrAnderson]

On 10/9/2024 at 8:27 AM, HeyBim said:

I spent about ten minutes trying my best to write a reply that either wouldn't make me feel like I was banging my head against a wall, or that wouldn't most likely get me a warning.

So you know what, on your last line, I agree with you. I think I do want to take the conversation elsewhere, straight off the end of a cliff so it can crash and burn at the bottom and not have to continue.

Good and you realised that it didn't worth the effort to spend more time on it. The arguments presented by the skeptical community here are not very convincing and most times the conversation is going off topic.

[Hazzard]

7 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

The arguments presented by the skeptical community here are not very convincing and most times the conversation is going off topic.

Thats because you are derailing every single thread you post in. You simply dont understand what we are talking about, or the links we site as sources. 

You automatically take everything posted by skeptics as a threat or a stab at you!... and respond accordingly.

Your worthless drivel needs to stop!!

Edited October 11 by Hazzard