Memory, and eye witness accounts have been proven to be highly suspect. DNA evidence is regularly overturning convictions based on "cast iron" eye witness evidence.
The scary, the strange, the paranormal...
- Thread starter crazyclimber
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Memory, and eye witness accounts have been proven to be highly suspect. DNA evidence is regularly overturning convictions based on "cast iron" eye witness evidence.
There you go being rude again. I'd think someone on a bushcraft forum would already understand that rednecks are the only truely normal people.
Last edited:
I'm bowing out now, as it is pointless to debate with people who do not know the meanings of "proof", "evidence" or "fact".
I leave you with this little parable to illustrate my point.[video=youtube;ZCBe7-6rw4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBe7-6rw4M&feature=player_embedded[/video]
I leave you with this little parable to illustrate my point.[video=youtube;ZCBe7-6rw4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBe7-6rw4M&feature=player_embedded[/video]
I didn't say they weren't. I just noted that it always seems to be some farmer in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses that gets abducted by aliens. Doubtless you have lots of counter examples.
That may be but none the less eyewitness testimony is still highly regarded in the justice system. Rightly or wrongly. Zarkwon's comment was that it was considered weak by the justice system and that's utterly false.
Actually I don't track the examples so, no, I don't. That wasn't my point. I don't particularly believe in abuctions either. For that matter I agree that most sightings are probably imagined or faked. Notice I said "most." You already stated that "if" another species actually exists and can travel here hidden from our knowledge; it would be improbable that they would allow random sightings. I don't argue that. I do ask this however; even if all the sightings and reports are false (fake or imagined) does that in and of itself negate the possibility that there is other life in space? Does it negate the possibility that they have the ability to travel here undetected? Maybe they're hovering out there now laughing at our fake attempts? I just ask you to go back into scientific mode now and allow that because we have not discovered something (in this case another life form, particularly an advanced one) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even if there are attempts to fake it.
After all I'm not saying all those UFO reports are true, Just that the possibility of another intelligent species exists. Maybe some of those reports have some basis and maybe not. So what?
In front of a judge perhaps but the legal system as a whole is reforming the way it deals with eyewitness testimony.
Now you change it from "redneck" to "farmer" Remember this: If you're going to speak ill of farmers, don't talk with your mouth full.
If you read back I have never said there is no other life. You are misrepresenting me. I have said already that with the vast incomprehensible size of space it is unthinkable to me that other life does not exist. My feeling is that life in some form is common throughout the universe (as opposed to us being a special creation). Of course it may be possible that there are aliens watching us. The whole point in all of this is that I require evidence in order to accept a proposition. There is none for alien ufo's, god, ghosts, soul, spirit, faeries, goblins, invisible pink unicorns or pixies that I would call credible and the arguments against are much more convincing than the arguments for. Evidence is key. Otherwise we are just making stuff up and we can just believe anything. This is dangerous as it opens us up to abuse by those who would take advantage of us and convince us to blow people up or stone people to death or mutilate the genitalia of the young etc. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
As I understand the term Redneck, it refers to poor white farmers in the deep south of the U.S. Perhaps I am wrong.
Not that I've seen. DNA is a wonderful tool but it hasn't supplanted eyewitness testimony by a long shot. It has however had a tremendous effect on lessening perjury. Part of the reason DNA doesn't have the effect that most people seem to believe is its cost. It's only used in cases with high consequences such as murder, rape, etc. Civil cases and lower criminal cases don't rise to the level to call for the expense of DNA testing.
In front of a judge and jury. BTW a jury doesn't have as much leeway as most people imagine; the judges instructions are very strict and at any time he can have a juror removed.
I'll check this thread again later today but for now I have to bow out and get some real work done.
This thread has become a shouting match and completely off topic so I’m out:sulkoff:
There has been some shouting but a large part of this debate has been between zarkwon and myself. Although we disagree I think we've both been relatively civil. To each other at least. It is off topic though. We've completely hijacked it.
Last edited:
Partly yes and partly no. The term originated in West Virginia (not the "deep" South) in the early 20th century. There was a war (literally) between the coal mine owners and their union employees. The union members began wearing red bandanas tied around their neck to symbolize their unity. A New York Times reporter saw it and dubbed them "rednecks." Since then the term has come to be used to describe Southerners (whether rural or urban), farmers (whether Southern or not), hunters, fishermen, bushcrafters (basiclly anyone whose outdoor interest includes anything more than a "look but don't touch" type) It is usually a deragatory term for someone from any of these cultures without regard to economic status (rich, poor or in between); another way of saying "country or Southern white trash." A far cry from the original miners who were fighting for a fair wage and safe working conditions.
You were using it deragatorily in your statement, "Who knows indeed? If they have supposedly been watching us...not to mention abducting (insert any group here that you believe would not be a credible witness)..."
Last edited:
It's not that I ask you to accept either a god (in any religious tradition) or aliens exist. What I propose is simply that the POSSIBILITY exists and should not be discounted simply because proof does not yet exist. I'm not trying to convince you that either exists; just trying to get you to stop scoffing at those who do believe. Look back at some of the comments on this thread and you'll find many such scoffing remarks. The thread is long now and I really don't remember if your posts contained a vehement denial or if it was someone else. Who did it isn't my point anyway. Just that there is no proof there is or is not a god. No proof there is or is not an intelligent alien life. Why cain't we agree to simply keep looking, researching; and have an open mind?
Because the fact that it is not possible to disprove god or ufo's or pixies or invisible pink unicorn's does not mean they are all equally likely to exist as not. Should we all believe in invisible pink unicorns and teach our impressionable kids about them at school and have them pray to them and follow the rules the high pink priest has made up for them? No.
Lots of love and kisses. Zarkwon.
Is that better? Less offensive to anyone with delicate sensibilities now I hope.
Lots of love and kisses. Zarkwon.
Is that better? Less offensive to anyone with delicate sensibilities now I hope.
Your pretty close to just trolling the thread now and trolling leads to thin ice so watch your step.
