The usual Kevin election post.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't agree:

.) the site has authentic testimonies, so the site is legit;

.) you have no data to counter these testimonies.

UFO sites also have "authentic" testimonies.

You're right. I have no data that something didn't happen. Do you have data that Jupiter didn't explode today?

 

[Ion]

UFO sites also have "authentic" testimonies.
...

Then you got the point:

Kevin' site has the authentic testimonies by Eaton, Cobb and Conyers.

So Kevin' site is not questionable, but is legit.

This teaches you to focus on the evidenced data in the site, not on the name of the site.

...
You're right. I have no data that something didn't happen. Do you have data that Jupiter didn't explode today?

When there will be good evidence that Jupiter exploded, and you have no evidence that Jupiter didn't explode, then Jupiter exploded.

Similarly, in the case of vote recounting in Ohio, when Eaton, Cobb and Conyers have good evidence of fraud, and you have no evidence to counter it, then fraud occurred.

You cannot say that something didn't happen (Jupiter didn't explode, fraud didn't occur in the vote recount in Ohio) when you don't measure up to the evidence in the positive claim that was made and disprove the positive claim without good counter evidence.

 

[RandFan]

It doesn't matter how it reads to you.

Eaton's, Cobb's and Conyers' testimonies are authentic.

So the site is not questionable like you wrote, it has authentic testimonies.

oooohh...authentic! Wow! Nothing like authentic. Of course the testimonies on most if not all woo-woo sites are "authentic". So what?

Regarding the value of these testimonies, can you counter them with your data against theirs?

Still not getting it are you. Can you counter the "authentic" testimonies of alien abductees? These were the basis for a scientific study. I guess they must be true since I don't have any "data" to counter them. Sheesh. Like I said, this is insulting and disappointing for an alleged "skeptics" site. Thanks for taking us down a notch.

BTW, you won't get it but let me note to those playing at home the fact that a testimony is or isn't authentic has little bearing on the argument. To asert that the claim is correct simply because a testimony is authentic is fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

the site has authentic testimonies, so the site is legit;

Illogical, fallacious. Many woo-woo sites have "authentic" testimonies. Means nothing.

you have no data to counter these testimonies.

Patently fallacious. Have you ever, even once checked out a site on logic and fallacy?

 

[RandFan]

Kevin' site has the authentic testimonies by Eaton, Cobb and Conyers.

So Kevin' site is not questionable, but is legit.

Fallacious.

Similarly, in the case of vote recounting in Ohio, when Eaton, Cobb and Conyers have good evidence of fraud, and you have no evidence to counter it, then fraud occurred.

What evidence? You mean the kind that proves Hitler is still alive, that people are abducted by aliens and that santa claus is real.

You cannot say that something didn't happen (Jupiter didn't explode, fraud didn't occur in the vote recount in Ohio) when you don't measure up to the evidence in the positive claim that was made and disprove the positive claim without counter evidence.

When you have proof you let us know, 'k?

 

[Ion]

oooohh...authentic! Wow! Nothing like authentic. Of course the testimonies on most if not all woo-woo sites are "authentic". So what?
...

So you concentrate on the data itself, not on the name of the site.

That was simple...

...
Still not getting it are you. Can you counter the "authentic" testimonies of alien abductees?
...

Then, read this:

...
When there will be good evidence that Jupiter exploded, and you have no evidence that Jupiter didn't explode, then Jupiter exploded.

Similarly, in the case of vote recounting in Ohio, when Eaton, Cobb and Conyers have good evidence of fraud, and you have no evidence to counter it, then fraud occurred.

You cannot say that something didn't happen (Jupiter didn't explode, fraud didn't occur in the vote recount in Ohio) when you don't measure up to the evidence in the positive claim that was made and disprove the positive claim without good counter evidence.

In your case when the 'authentic' testimonies of alien abductees have good evidence to have been happening, and you have no good counter evidence evidence that alien abductions didn't happen, then alien abductions did happen.

It's a matter of evidence and matching counter evidence.

 

[RandFan]

So you concentrate on the data itself, not on the name of the site.

Data has little value. It is a claim with testimony which all but you recognize is not evidence of much.

That was simple...

Simply nothing. Thanks anyway.

Then, read this:

Fallacious, poor logic, sad, pathetic, disappointing. Randi devotes much of his time pointing out such poor reasoning. You should take some time reading his commentary each week.

 

[Ion]

Data has little value.
...

Data is the difference between proof and no proof.

...
Fallacious, poor logic, sad, pathetic, disappointing.
...

Am I supposed to take your sentiment for truth, just because you say so without data?

No, thanks.

To counter evidence you have to have:

counter evidence.

And you don't.

You might as well go to sleep.

 

[RandFan]

In your case when the 'authentic' testimonies of alien abductees have good evidence to have been happening, and you have no good counter evidence that alien abductions didn't happen, then alien abductions did happen.

Really?!

It's a matter of evidence and matching counter evidence.

So, when there was no counter evidence that the earth was flat then the earth was flat.

When there was no evidence that the sun was the center of the galaxy then the sun revolved around the earth. Hey the evidence was very good and at one time there was no "counter evidence".

I can't wait for Kevin to come to your defense...nah, Kevin isn't that stupid. I doubt he has the balls to admit your argument is fallacious though.

 

[Ion]

...
So, when there was no counter evidence that the earth was flat then the earth was flat.
...

It was thought with the available evidence that the earth was flat.

Counter evidence, toping the evidence, proved that it was round, not flat.

What is missing in your skepticism of Ohio fraud, is good counter evidence to top the good evidence already available.

 

[RandFan]

Data is the difference between proof and no proof.

What I meant is that the data at the site has little value. Not that data in general has little value.

Am I supposed to take your sentiment for truth, just because you say so without data?

We can only hope that you will learn what logic and fallacy is.

To counter evidence you have to have:

counter evidence.

No, you have to PROVE your claim.

And you don't.

You might as well go to sleep.

And James Randi has no counter evidence that leprechauns are not real, that there is no Santa Claus, etc.

Your smugness is misplaced. You are making illogical argument. Telling me that I lack counter evidence to “authentic” testimony or supposed evidence is simply fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

No.

There was no good evidence that the earth was flat.

Sure there was. It looked flat. When people walked in one direction they never came back to the same point.

The evidence was so good everyone was certain it was flat for a very long time.

 

[Ion]

Sure there was. It looked flat. When people walked in one direction they never came back to the same point.

The evidence was so good everyone was certain it was flat for a very long time.

I changed my post into better expressing myself, here:

It was thought with the available evidence that the earth was flat.

Counter evidence, toping the evidence, proved that it was round, not flat.

What is missing in your skepticism of Ohio fraud, is good counter evidence to top the good evidence already available.

 

[RandFan]

It's a matter of evidence and matching counter evidence.

So, when there was no counter evidence that particles could escape the mass of the sun then particles couldn't escape the mass of the sun.

The argument is fallacious Ion but keep making it. I love it when someone buries themselves with poor reasoning.

 

[Ion]

...
No, you have to PROVE your claim.
...

The proof of fraud, is in Eaton's affidavit:

.) changing the tabulator of a voting machine;

.) the asking of falsifying the recount data, by asking to write on a board the counts of the voting machine that recount officials were to pretend to be obtained also thru the hand recounts, so that they match by cheating;

they are documented evidence in Kevin's link.

Where is your counter evidence?

 

[RandFan]

It was thought with the available evidence that the earth was flat.

A light shines...could it be?

Counter evidence, toping the evidence, proved that it was round, not flat.

Yes, yes, that there was evidence that it was flat did not make it flat.

What is missing in your skepticism of Ohio fraud, is good counter evidence to top the good evidence already available.

Sad, sad, sad...

That I don't have evidence doesn't make your claim correct. By your own admission data could come forward in the future to prove the claim wrong, right?

The truth is that the supposed evidence is of little value and the fact I don't have counter evidence proves NOTHING!

 

[Ion]

...
That I don't have evidence doesn't make your claim correct. By your own admission data could come forward in the future to prove the claim wrong, right?
...

With the available evidence today:

there is fraud in the Ohio recount.

 

[RandFan]

The proof of fraud, is in Eaton's affidavit:

Empirical? Are affidavits fool proof, 100% accurate and never falsified?

changing the tabulator of a voting machine;

Perhaps but not proven.

the asking of falsifying the recount data, by asking to write on a board the counts of the voting machine that recount officials were to pretend to be obtained also thru the hand recounts, so that they match by cheating;

Having read James Randi's commentary for 3+ years I know that things are not always as they appear and just because someone claims something doesn't mean that it is true or that the events testified to were not painted in a light to fit the claimants bias or what the person wants the events to look like.

they are documented evidence in Kevin's link.

Where is you counter evidence?

Still not getting it.

 

[RandFan]

With the available evidence today:

there is fraud in the Ohio recount.

Oh really, you can prove that? Based on one afadavit? There is no possibility that there are other explanations and the events were painted in a way to fit the claimants views? This is very typical of conspiracy theories btw. That you don't regognize this is proof that you lack basic critical thinking skills.

I don't know if there was fraud or not. I do know that any honest critical thinker would not make your conclusions on such flimsy evidence.

 

[Ion]

To:

Empirical? Are affidavits fool proof, 100% accurate and never falsified?
...

and:

...
There is no possibility that there are other explanations and the events were painted in a way to fit the claimants views?
...

Well,

like I said you have to top the evidence with counter evidence.

No counter evidence is put forward right now.

Earlier in the thread, it is shown that the owner of Triad refuses to testify in an affidavit.