Anyone ever seen a UFO?

Dywyddyr said:
Because, once again, you provide no sources. And you have already shown a predilection for choosing to believe "popularised" versions of events over facts.


Not what I said.


Yet you choose to believe the TV programme over actual statements from police forces. Statements where they directly contradict the claims of the TV programme.


A TV programme is not evidence.
Click to expand...

thats the thing. the police did not directly contradict the cliams he enforced them. if he had not taken into account the call to his fellow dispatchers who had received the call and went out before him to search at night for this women on the side of the road, he would of never found the car. he did not know what the lady saw was a vision. he went out to the area she claimed the women was seen thinking it was possibly the one they have been looking for who disappeard with her son days ago.

Oh here is my homey spider todays picture.
 
whynot said:
thats the thing. the police did not directly contradict the cliams he enforced them.
Click to expand...
Lie. As shown by my links and quotes.

if he had not taken into account the call to his fellow dispatchers who had received the call and went out before him to search at night for this women on the side of the road, he would of never found the car. he did not know what the lady saw was a vision. he went out to the area she claimed the women was seen thinking it was possibly the one they have been looking for who disappeard with her son days ago.
Click to expand...
You're still using ONLY the TV programme as a source. :rolleyes:
 
Here is a possible flying humonoid!

one-giant-leap-for-a-jetpack-trailblazer-2282211.html


still don't know what your talking about as far as the lie is concern!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...jetpack-trailblazer-2282211.html?action=Popup
 
Dywyddyr said:
One more time: it was a TV show. These are programmes designed to hold an audience and are not necessarily truthful.


Then you don't know what I'm saying.


Empty claim.


Correct.
Click to expand...

True they can be misleading in shows. But this was not just a show. It was a documentary, with the actual eye witnesses coming on and talking about what happen. Including the police officer himself, verbally admitting to what took place and how he got a intuitive idea to check out the area and that is how he found the car and saved her son. If he had not been talking to his fellow officers about the psychic 's claim of a women laying out of the road in the very location the car went over, than the son would not be here today.

I'm not just using tv shows for my claims but eye witness testimony. maybe you need to reread the site and how the show has found these accounts. Most of them were seeked out , and were asked to go over their accounts, after news papers and media got a hold of it.

You can also say that the news is misleading. that you can not believe what they report because its based on eye witness accounts. but most people take the news with a grain of salt to.
 
Last edited:
whynot said:
True they can be misleading in shows. But this was not just a show. It was a documentary, with the actual eye witnesses coming on and talking about what happen.
Click to expand...
Therefore it was a TV show. With ratings to care about.

Including the police officer himself, verbally admitting to what took place and how he got a intuitive idea to check out the area and that is how he found the car and saved her son.
Click to expand...
Which is denied by the reports I linked to.

What is said on TV is NOT to be taken as truthful.

I'm not just using tv shows for my claims but eye witness testimony.
Click to expand...
You are aware that eye witness testimony is just about the least reliable form of evidence there is, aren't you?
 
eye witness testimony is not the least reliable. who ever says that is wrong. because science would not be what it is today if that were true.:D

since most of science is based on observation.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Wrong.


Rubbish.
Those who say that happen to be the police, the courts and science.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification


Also rubbish. In fact utter rubbish.


Bull. Shit.
Get a clue.
Click to expand...

o.k. you do know that your information is obtained by wiki is also tainted by hearsay? the percentage is a estimated guess by one peticular person who is making a claim? they also put out there possible cases that, ect. as in making claims that are not supported? so wiki has to be taken with a grain of salt as well.

this evidence observation is also talking about one peticulor type of witness, one that is being traumatized by an event, is usually confused by the victimizer who does not want to be recognised and so doing can purposely confuse the witness by wearing dark clothing, eye wear, hats, ect.

but as Ive said. with the case we're talking about, which you have to take each individual claim as a separate issue, there is the collaborating evidence all around that points to something strange and unknown occuring. reguardless of what each one believes possible.

so its not bull shit.
 
whynot said:
o.k. you do know that your information is obtained by wiki is also tainted by hearsay?
Click to expand...
That would be why I gave the link with the words "START HERE". Read it, and then check the links given. :rolleyes:

the percentage is a estimated guess by one peticular person who is making a claim?
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

this evidence observation is also talking about one peticulor type of witness, one that is being traumatized by an event, is usually confused by the victimizer who does not want to be recognised and so doing can purposely confuse the witness by wearing dark clothing, eye wear, hats, ect.
Click to expand...
Check. The. Links.
Or do you wish me to spoon feed you?

but as Ive said. with the case we're talking about, which you have to take each individual claim as a separate issue, there is the collaborating evidence all around that points to something strange and unknown occuring. reguardless of what each one believes possible.
Click to expand...
In other words, you're going to continue believing what you want to regardless of the facts.

so its not bull shit.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Your final claim was (and still is) nonsense.
 
whynot said:
You've seen a ufo too?

Please details!!!
Click to expand...

i was about 10. my whole family and cousins also saw it.. it was by far the brightest thing in the sky clear warm night. the object "looked like a start" started moving west picking up speed then suddenly stopped for a second then started very quickly moving to the north fast and faster until it looked like a streak then it was gone in a blink of an eye. to this day every now and again we talk about what it could have been
 
Dywyddyr said:
That would be why I gave the link with the words "START HERE". Read it, and then check the links given. :rolleyes:


No it isn't.


Check. The. Links.
Or do you wish me to spoon feed you?


In other words, you're going to continue believing what you want to regardless of the facts.


Wrong. Your final claim was (and still is) nonsense.
Click to expand...

Lets see. The information says on wiki itself they do not hold up to what is true or correct being presented.

Now for facts:

1. the information I'm reading is misleading, is made by a small group of people which as we know is not all inffliable. a court perceeding that was made but here is what I'm after.

what do the courts base their facts on?

its based on a small group of accounts made on what specific dates?

how is this census on all cases relate to the small amount that would only be possible to obtain in a given time period?

its obviously based on heresay, opinionated judements on views of a small amount of cases.

very misleading to me in my opinion.

also how do they prove that said cases from past, and to present day have been proven falsely accused by dna, when none can be obtained vs those few cases in comparison to how many are out there that lay in limbo?

again very misleading of facts.

I would guestion something that can not be proven one way or the other in my opionion what your arguement lies with is misleading facts.;)
 
whynot said:
Now for facts:
1. the information I'm reading is misleading
Click to expand...
Wrong. That's your assumption, not a fact.

what do the courts base their facts on?
its based on a small group of accounts made on what specific dates?
Click to expand...
Also wrong.

also how do they prove that said cases from past, and to present day have been proven falsely accused by dna, when none can be obtained vs those few cases in comparison to how many are out there that lay in limbo?
again very misleading of facts.
Click to expand...
And now you're just being incoherent.

I would guestion something that can not be proven one way or the other in my opionion
Click to expand...
Yes, the final two words expose the flaw in your argument. Your OPINION is not what counts with regard to proof or not. You have already shown yourself to be singularly uninformed, rather badly educated and not given to looking at anything that contradicts your previously-formed beliefs.

what your arguement lies with is misleading facts.;)
Click to expand...
Also false.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Wrong. That's your assumption, not a fact.


Also wrong.


And now you're just being incoherent.


Yes, the final two words expose the flaw in your argument. Your OPINION is not what counts with regard to proof or not. You have already shown yourself to be singularly uninformed, rather badly educated and not given to looking at anything that contradicts your previously-formed beliefs.


Also false.
Click to expand...

its not my assumption its the facts. you can not make a claim based on things you can not prove. They can not prove anything because the facts are that most the cases out there are still in limbo and can not be proven one way or the other.

the whole basis on evidence and obtaining information is from observation. the claim that personal observation is the worse kind of evidence is a false claim.:rolleyes:

prove me wrong! than you can call me incoherent.:cool:

and it sounds like most the people who believe this have their own personal assumptions being made. that is it assumptions. no proof. no facts to back them up.

take me to court on this and i'd have it over thrown. on the basis their is not enough facts and just misleading assumptions being made.
 
whynot said:
its not my assumption its the facts. you can not make a claim based on things you can not prove.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. It HAS been proven. Read. The. Links.
Try this one.
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

They can not prove anything because the facts are that most the cases out there are still in limbo and can not be proven one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Specious argument. Non-sequitur.

the whole basis on evidence and obtaining information is from observation. the claim that personal observation is the worse kind of evidence is a false claim.
Click to expand...
Wrong wrong and wrong.
In science any observation is verified, repeated and verified again. Ad nauseam. Eyewitnesses see a one-off occurrence and then are expected to give reliable testimony. Please learn the difference.
Hint: one reason that observations are independently verified is because is has long been known to science that our senses are not reliable.

prove me wrong! than you can call me incoherent.:cool:
Click to expand...
The links you were given (or more correctly, the links on that page) proved you wrong.
And as for "incoherent", your own posts show that amply.

and it sounds like most the people who believe this have their own personal assumptions being made. that is it assumptions. no proof. no facts to back them up.
Click to expand...
Wrong. As shown.

take me to court on this and i'd have it over thrown. on the basis their is not enough facts and just misleading assumptions being made.
Click to expand...
And stupid with it.

You're a troll.
I'm done with this thread.
 
In fact, I remember watching a show on people who wanted to prove this claim!

Yeah a show you would probably watch for once because of your opinionated views.

They used a unidentified flying object scenario for this claim.

Using a setting that some unknown thing had crashed landed in the area, they took a group of people out to the site.

Along the way they were asked to observe the surrounding and what they felt was going on.

Using a black helicopter, a man in a camouflage outfit and a gun standing out like a stake out person on top of the hill above the observers as they passed by.

With this short report of what took place, the observers came back with different views of what they felt had been observed.

One was talking about military and how she felt was happening at the time.

The people concluded whom were doing the test that the observers were very bad eye witnesses based on what they felt was observed.

However I disagree with this assumption being made. I do not think she was wrong on what she claimed. If a man in an outfit with a gun was in a stance like that its not too far off to make this claim. Imo!

Also the helicopter was very effective in making her believe this.

But all and all she was very good at observing.

She did see a man in outfit similar to military standing with a weapon.

She did see a helicopter and there was the claim of a unknown crash from others.

So all in all observation is not all that bad to go by. After all everyone goes by this everyday of their lives. Should we question what we see everyday as being true?
 
ok since your gonna make me out to be a troll. i left myself open for arguement sake.

there was no gun. there was only a stick.

so now my account is flawed. ;)

so does that prove or disprove me as a good witness?

or make a statement of all eye witness testmony as flawed?

no it does not prove anything.

so im gone with threats. bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top