Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
- Status
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Keep up Rramjet. You're spoiling the flow of the thread.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Then not only were they crap observers and crap witnesses, they were also crap draftsmen...
... Those drawings are rubbish.
You stated:
I stated in reply:
“ETA: Actually, I don't think I ever got an answer to this hypothetical before, so I'll try again. Rramjet: suppose someone tells you that a man has been stabbed to death in your front room whilst you were out. On returning to your home, you can find no sign that anyone has entered since you left. There is no body in the front room. There is no trace of blood. Other people in the area did not see the murderer or the victim enter your home. Do you go with the lack of evidence and conclude there was no murder, or do you support the eyewitness?”
(emphasis mine. Rr)I stated in reply:
“In your hypothetical murder story there are two groups of witnesses. One group tells you a murder occurred. The other group tells you they saw no victim or perpetrators enter the house. Which group do I believe? I would have to do some basic research before I could answer the question. First I would obtain another opinion – ask the police for example (do they have a victim – is there a missing person report – have they conducted any investigation? etc). I would then look at the details of the case – who was where and when in relation to the time of the murder. I would then do some background on the witnesses themselves (credibility/reliability). If it seems that it was possible (according to all above sources) that a murder could have occurred (and I had the resources) I would then conduct a forensic examination of the area. Yet even after all the above I might not be in a position to positively answer yes or no as to whether a murder occurred or not.”
There are witnesses saying that they saw a murder. There are witnesses saying they saw nothing. Who is correct? YOU asked the question! I answered that ONLY an investigation of the type outlined can give us ANY hope of resolving the issue. In hindsight however, I would probably look into the credibility/reliability of the witnesses as a first step before undertaking further investigation as outlined. But WHAT IS your point?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
lolwut?
<--- The Plot™ ........... Rramjet™ --->
Sage advice.
<--- The Plot™ ........... Rramjet™ --->
Your opinion or perspective on the world is obviously not the only perspective there is. So perhaps you should think a little more clearly about things before posting again?
Sage advice.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Soz Sledge
Of course! That’s IT! …LOL. The answer to the whole mystery obviously lies in unfounded ad hominem attacks …and now we have to ask ourselves why scientists don’t save themselves all the trouble and bother of investigating things when they could apply Stray Cat investigative technique (as outlined in his statements above)?
Oh…and now the drawings are “rubbish”? …but I thought you were using them to prove a point. Spurious as that point was, it still relied on the veracity (of your incorrect interpretation) of the drawings!
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
What's a UFO debunker, Rramjet?
Stop it Stray Cat.
These are not the blimps we are looking for.
They were handled lots of pages ago, no need to recycle.
But it was YOU who gave us the contradictory eyewitness testimony. I already stated (corrected the sequence of investigation) that I would have to assess the credibility/reliability of the eyewitnesses as a FIRST step.
Moreover, there is no reason to assume that if a murder had taken place that the murderer would not have done his best to clean up after himself and thus no obvious physical evidence is not a conclusive factor. ALL the evidence must be examined. ALL the evidence... YOU seem to be obsessed with the physical evidence to the exclusion of all other evidence. THAT is NOT the way any investigation should or would proceed in the real world.
IF I found that the person who "witnessed" the murder was not credible or was otherwise unreliable - and given the lack of physical evidence - then that is about as far as I would go. HOWEVER, IF the witness to the murder WAS found to be credible and reliable, then obviously further investigation would be warranted.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Context Rramjet.
For a draftsman to draw them, they are rubbish.
For someone with no technical drawing skills they are not bad.
For a 10 year old doodling in a text book margin, they are acceptable.
For a 2 year old, they would be considered quite advanced.
As a visual representation of what was seen above Rogue River that day, they are blimps.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Yeah sorry Toke... I did try to just refer Rramjet back to the relevant posts where all this stuff was discussed in great detail a few months ago.
Yeah sorry Toke... I did try to just refer Rramjet back to the relevant posts where all this stuff was discussed in great detail a few months ago.
Not really your fault, it appears that he is out of best cases and is starting to recycle.
Obviously it "suits" me NOT to have had a murder occur in my lounge room! - so according to you I should then simply dismiss the whole thing out of hand. But the fact that I might want to reassure myself by assessing the reliability of the witnesses somehow bothers you?
As to the process of assessing witness reliabliity then I could refer to the methodology outlined in such places as (type in the search term "assessing witness reliability" into your favourite search engine). A little research would then tell be the best way to proceed from there. Otherwise I am sure libraries could supply me with the scholarly reference articles needed.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
What evidence is there other than physical evidence, Rramjet?
For that matter, if you rang the police in the situation I outlined, do you think they'd launch a full forensic investigation? Face it: you just like playing at CSI. The rational response to the situation I outlined is to conclude the solitary eyewitness claiming murder is wrong. Similarly, you ignore the evidence in all your UFO cases in favour of an undefined claim of something "not mundane." You're not interested in finding out what happened. As with every other religious loon and conspiracy nut, you're interested in being special. Well, you are. But not in a good way.
For that matter, if you rang the police in the situation I outlined, do you think they'd launch a full forensic investigation? Face it: you just like playing at CSI. The rational response to the situation I outlined is to conclude the solitary eyewitness claiming murder is wrong. Similarly, you ignore the evidence in all your UFO cases in favour of an undefined claim of something "not mundane." You're not interested in finding out what happened. As with every other religious loon and conspiracy nut, you're interested in being special. Well, you are. But not in a good way.
...but this is merely unfounded ad hominem attack. It merely represents YOUR opinion and you have NOT demonstrated the veracity of that opinion.
...and "they ARE blimps"?
First, there was just the ONE object!
Second can I now quote you on that categorical?
(just making sure, because up until now "blimp" was a mere "possibility" and I have been "chastised" for (allegedly) assuming that the UFO debunkers actually MEANT the categorical ...which of course they DO ...they just don't admit it as you have just done)
- Status