SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share
Write and post your long form essays and articles on The SelectSmart.com Post.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19

Posted by Hornswoggle 
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 05, 2014 08:10PM
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again
> - square one - we have credible testimony and we
> have the old lady. Who's word is more likely to
> stand up in a court of law?

Neither's word would count as credible evidence to support their claim because each claim is an incredible claim.

In the 1600s, anecdotal evidence could get someone convicted of being a witch. With the advent of modern science, this is no longer the case. Either claim -- angel or alien -- would be laughed out of court if only anecdotal evidence were given in support of it.
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 05, 2014 08:26PM
OJ Simpson's legal team claimed the police detectives planted incriminating evidence at Nicole Simpson's apartment in order to frame him - a crime that would mean the death penalty for the detectives in question if they were caught - and the jury bought it and found OJ innocent. I - and a lot of legal experts like Vincent Bugliosi (for instance) - find that an "incredible claim" that did hold up in court, Dick.

I think your 4-sided triangle "logic" rules are tripping you up.

Again. eye rolling smiley
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 05, 2014 11:38PM
That's a fine example of what I'm talking about. See, to you, in terms of believability, there seems to be little or no difference in someone's saying the police framed him by planting evidence and in his saying that aliens framed him by planting evidence. You need to use more common sense in making the determination about what is more likely to be true in a given situation.
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 12:06AM
Indy,

Navy - you used the term "uncle" 3 times to describe the deceased person. So if I am not to use that term to describe the dead guy - which other term would you rather I presume to use?

A careful reading of the opening lines of the story shows your mistake : A friend of mine recently had her uncle pass away. Another family member swears up and down that at the funeral she saw the uncle's [not "her uncle's"] spirit carried upward by two angels.

She cares about dead guy [sic] enough to show up to see him off - obviously she is affected by his death.

No. That is not necessarily so. That's an assumption. Everyone who shows up at anyone else's funeral is not necessarily affected by their death. Not by a loooong shot.

The term is "character witness" - look it up.

Incorrect. Another assumption. My posts show that the family rolls their eyes at the 70 year old's claim. How they view her character is not known. She could be the respected matriarch of the family, and they roll their eyes and speak in hushed tones because her claim is so uncharacteristic of her.

"I'll let you know if it ever happens."

Why not right now? Hypothetically speaking — If someone that you feel is credible tells you that they saw an angel, what does that mean to you? Does that make the existence of angels more probable in your eyes?
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 12:57AM
Dick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a fine example of what I'm talking about.
> See, to you, in terms of believability, there
> seems to be little or no difference in someone's
> saying the police framed him by planting evidence
> and in his saying that aliens framed him by
> planting evidence. You need to use more common
> sense in making the determination about what is
> more likely to be true in a given situation.



Really? Where did I say anything about aliens planting evidence? The proper comparison would be SEEING GHOSTS as opposed to SEEING ALIENS.

Didn't they cover THAT in your "logic" class? eye rolling smiley
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 12:58AM
Navy... I'm kind of busy here. Send me a PM when you're ready to get back on point, k?
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 06:47AM
So you really believe that if someone claims to have seen an angel that their professional training and/or their good reputation lends credibility to their claim? You actually believe that? Wow. eye popping smiley

Certainly, somewhere in the history of all policemen, pilots and astronauts, a few of them must have claimed to have seen a ghost or a leprechaun. Heck, there's no end to the list of fanciful creatures Indy might believe in.
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 04:42PM
I posted this story a few months ago. It's about policemen in Mexico who claim in all sincerity to have seen a witch. At least one of these policemen passed physical and psychological tests afterwards which showed him to be sane and healthy. If Indy were consistent, he would take this as strong evidence that witches exist. That he doesn't take these officers' testimonies about the existence of witches seriously shows just how inconsistent and arbitrary he is in his use of personal anecdote as evidence.

[www.rense.com]
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 10:17PM
Wait a minute - previously your... ahem... "logic" led you to conclude (yes conclude) that I had to believe in witches based on what I said about the police officers' experience. Now you're going in the opposite direction?


Navy - I didn't say we are to believe everything a more credible witness claims - I said we add more credence to their claim. So if someone with a solid reputation claims to have seen a ghost or angel in their everyday lives, I would add more credence to that claim and might actually investigate in order to see what it was exactly that might cause them to believe they had witnessed something out of the ordinary (like the Mexican police). That's the difference between being sober and responsible and lucid and some crackpot, emotionally-compromised senile old woman whose family doesn't even believe her account.
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 10:38PM
Indy,

"Navy - I didn't say we are to believe everything a more credible witness claims - I said we add more credence to their claim."


Yeah, no kidding. Hand me some bullsh*t like saying that you're too busy and I'm going to feel free to put words in your mouth.

"So if someone with a solid reputation claims to have seen a ghost or angel in their everyday lives, I would add more credence to that claim and might actually investigate in order to see what it was exactly that might cause them to believe they had witnessed something out of the ordinary (like the Mexican police)"

Wait a minute, which is it? Does the claimant's good reputation lead you to add more credence to the veracity of the claim? ... that if they claim to have seen an angel, you are more likely to believe that the angel was actually there?

...or does their good reputation make you more likely to believe that they believe what they are saying, that they're not just telling a story, possibly for mischievious purposes, or attention getting, or whatnot.
________________________

Incidentally, what makes you think the detectives in the OJ case might have been gotten the death penalty if they had been found to have planted evidence? I wasn't aware that false evidence was a capital crime.
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 11:08PM
Navy2711 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "So if someone with a solid reputation claims to
> have seen a ghost or angel in their everyday
> lives, I would add more credence to that claim and
> might actually investigate in order to see what it
> was exactly that might cause them to believe they
> had witnessed something out of the ordinary (like
> the Mexican police)"
>
> Wait a minute, which is it? Does the claimant's
> good reputation lead you to add more credence to
> the veracity of the claim? ... that if they claim
> to have seen an angel, you are more likely to
> believe that the angel was actually there?
> ...or does their good reputation make you more
> likely to believe that they believe what they are
> saying, that they're not just telling a story,
> possibly for mischievious purposes, or attention
> getting, or whatnot.


Like the Mexican police, I am more likely to believe they saw something and would honor their reputation by at least checking into it.


> Incidentally, what makes you think the detectives
> in the OJ case might have been gotten the death
> penalty if they had been found to have planted
> evidence? I wasn't aware that false evidence was
> a capital crime.



Planting false evidence in a capital crime case - not just false evidence.

Straight from Vincent Bugliosi's mouth (via Wikipedia)...

Bugliosi wrote at length about the allegations that LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman had planted a bloody glove in order to frame Simpson. He argued that in order for Fuhrman to do this, there would have had to have been a broad-reaching conspiracy between Fuhrman and the other officers who worked the case. Bugliosi pointed out that it was highly improbable that Fuhrman and anyone else involved in the case would have tried to frame Simpson, as California law of the time provided that anyone who planted evidence in a death penalty case could have faced the death penalty themselves.

[en.wikipedia.org]


As I like to say - you learn something new from Indy every day. smoking smiley
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 11:11PM
Part one:

Indy, has it ever occurred to you that you come to hold a particular belief for non-rational, psychological reasons that are largely, if not entirely, conciously unknown to you and that only later, after you already hold the belief, do you rationalize your belief by trying to come up with plausible seeming reasons for your holding it?
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 11:25PM
Sidenote: Bugliosi's reasoning seems to make it improbable that OJ or anyone else murdered his former wife in those circumstances. After all, California law at the time provided that anyone who murdered someone in the way in which OJ was accused of murdering Nicole could face the death penalty.
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 11:26PM
Indy,

"Like the Mexican police, I am more likely to believe they saw something ... "

Yes, but that something could have been anything. Are you more likely to believe, based on the claimant's good reputation, that that something was what the person claimed it was (a witch, an alien, etc)? Or are you simply more inclined to investigate further?
_________________

Interesting — didn't know that about California law and false evidence. I wonder how far that extended? Would fabricating evidence after the investigation of the crime scene have also been a capital crime? How about supressing evidence found at the crime scene? That could be tricky.
Re: I saw 2 UFOs about midnight PST 9/18-9/19
February 06, 2014 11:37PM
I am more likely to believe it is worth further investigation.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!