THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

[DmonSlyr]

Let's play another game.

Here is a great analysis that the filming of 911 was in many cases edited and not true. The majority of the world took the videos from the media at face value, "its the MSM, why would they lie and manipulate the public". Just like the videos of UFOs. Did the MSM ever have to prove their footage was edited and hiding things? No, they haven't, but the world takes it at face value. How is this any different than UFO videos? It's assumed that they are not lying. Just like videos presented in court.
 

[nrshida]

It's a fallacy to believe that something that someone presented is false without any backup or proof to suggest what they presented is false.

No that's incorrect. It is of course not a fallacy to ask for verifiable evidence to support or hypothesis.

Its whats wrong with your reasoning, not mine.

To remind you, please check, I did not present any reasoning of my own. My comment was precisely confined to the validity of your assertion and pertains to foundations of logical reasoning long-established by very intelligent people.

It's not a media that has conditioned me, it's me proving the media has lied over and over again that has conditioned me not to trust them...

Well you've just described a form of conditioning wherein automatically taking the opposite position is valid. It isn't. Anyway I wasn't referring to that but to the notion that conclusions you've arrived at yourself are equatable to those held by experts who employ rigorous method. It isn't.

Like I said already, you can believe exactly what you please, that's your prerogative and indeed responsibility. What you can't do is assert you know anything about it simply because your internal criteria has been satisfied. Not how it works. Belief ≠ evidenced reasoned theory in accordance with other known phenomenon and throwing out all the radar chaff you have will never change that.

Why don't you PM John Locke and complain. Or Carl Sagan for that matter 

[DmonSlyr]

No that's incorrect. It is of course not a fallacy to ask for verifiable evidence to support or hypothesis.


To remind you, please check, I did not present any reasoning of my own. My comment was precisely confined to the validity of your assertion and pertains to foundations of logical reasoning long-established by very intelligent people.


Well you've just described a form of conditioning wherein automatically taking the opposite position is valid. It isn't. Anyway I wasn't referring to that but to the notion that conclusions you've arrived at yourself are equatable to those held by experts who employ rigorous method. It isn't.

Like I said already, you can believe exactly what you please, that's your prerogative and indeed responsibility. What you can't do is assert you know anything about it simply because your internal criteria has been satisfied. Not how it works. Belief ≠ evidenced reasoned theory in accordance with other known phenomenon and throwing out all the radar chaff you have will never change that.

Why don't you PM John Locke and complain. Or Carl Sagan for that matter 

Go back and review the posts I made after the one to you. The video is not the hypothesis. The video is the video. The hypothesis is "this video is fake" therefore you have to prove its fake. That is the logic. Just like the man in the pub showing everyone his video of the crop circle. He says "it's true, it's right here on my camera". What more evidence can he show you that it's real and not fake? If you said, nah man that's fake. You are making the claim, you have to prove the claim or most will say it's true under the "good faith" assumption. Which is how MSM works. Do they ever have to prove their videos and films? No.

[nrshida]

The hypothesis is "this video is fake" therefore you have to prove its fake. That is the logic.

No, that's simply an attempt at an expedient reversal of logic. I'm sorry you don't understand, I do feel a bit bad for you. In contrast to some of the abhorrent unintelligentsia of the AH forum I don't dislike you. I have tried in sincerity to help you out 

[DmonSlyr]

No, that's simply an attempt at an expedient reversal of logic. I'm sorry you don't understand, I do feel a bit bad for you. In contrast to some of the abhorrent unintelligentsia of the AH forum I don't dislike you. I have tried in sincerity to help you out 

Tell that to every man in prison due to video evidence of their crimes then 

I don't dislike you or people in argeument and logic debates. I dislike when they try to make me and others feel bad because I don't agree with their idea of argument and logic.

My simple argument is "if you say the video is fake, then you have to prove it".

Your argument is "the video is fake and therfore they have to prove its not".

The qualm is that In a rational debate, you have to start with the premise that they are presenting in good faith. You are starting with the premise that they are not, but not backing up that claim. See the difference?

[FLS]

If you present video as evidence the burden of proof is on you. There is no requirement to prove it wrong. There is certainly a presumption of good faith but there is also the necessary practice of verifying the evidence that you provide.

[DmonSlyr]

Regardless of the haters and deniers. Let's get back on the subject. Here is a great presentation in 2009 from a very knowledgeable source. Who has been studying this for a long time and written a few books on the subject. This is my sorta beginners guide presentation for those who are interested in the phenomenon.

https://odysee.com/@PROJECTCAMELOT:d/richard-dolan-at-the-project-camelot:c

[DmonSlyr]

If you present video as evidence the burden of proof is on you. There is no requirement to prove it wrong. There is certainly a presumption of good faith but there is also the necessary practice of verifying the evidence that you provide.

The video IS the "proof" they are presenting, lol. If I go into a pub and say "I've got a film of a UFO making crop circles". That's my proof. It lends far more "credibility" than me simply saying I saw one. I tell them, I saw a UFO making crop circles. Here is the "proof" with a video I took.  What else is the person going to show other than a recording? Again, refer back to my posts explaining this.

Yall need to go re-watch My Cousin Vinny.

[CptTrips]

[guncrasher]

The video IS the "proof" they are presenting, lol. If I go into a pub and say "I've got a film of a UFO making crop circles". That's my proof. It lends far more "credibility" than me simply saying I saw one. I tell them, I saw a UFO making crop circles. Here is the "proof" with a video I took.  What else is the person going to show other than a recording? Again, refer back to my posts explaining this.

Yall need to go re-watch My Cousin Vinny.

the fly billions of miles thru space to make circles, think about that.  would be impressed and believe it if the make circles in the white house lawn. that would be proof.


semp

[DmonSlyr]

the fly billions of miles thru space to make circles, think about that.  would be impressed and believe it if the make circles in the white house lawn. that would be proof.


semp

I would suggest watching the presentation I just posted.

[guncrasher]

I would suggest watching the presentation I just posted.

the guy is selling books.  not a very good start, you buy one.  i'll wait for circles at the white house lawn.  now that would be a real proof.


semp

[-gg-]

I believe it when they give me hard evidence. Otherwise it's interesting, but I don't take anything they're saying as even close to being factual.

[Brooke]

Regardless of the haters and deniers. Let's get back on the subject. Here is a great presentation in 2009 from a very knowledgeable source. Who has been studying this for a long time and written a few books on the subject. This is my sorta beginners guide presentation for those who are interested in the phenomenon.

https://odysee.com/@PROJECTCAMELOT:d/richard-dolan-at-the-project-camelot:c

An interesting fellow.  I'd have to go through his book or books, though, as his presentation is a brief overview of those.

[nrshida]

I dislike when they try to make me and others feel bad because I don't agree with their idea of argument and logic.

Right here is the flaw in your education, upbringing, background, culture, whatever it is: it is not our idea of argument or logic. It is not a case of equal preference of one thing over an other. The foundation of a rigorous argument was laid several hundred years ago and forms the background of millions on man-hours of work and thought. Those who use it have more to assert over those who don't. You can throw up whatever YouTube video you like or movie scene which 'explains it' but you have nothing convincing to say unless you accept the rules of the 'game'.

My simple argument is "if you say the video is fake, then you have to prove it".

No that's wrong.

The qualm is that In a rational debate, you have to start with the premise that they are presenting in good faith.

No that's wrong again. Even a premise (or a hypothesis) you've arrived at yourself must be treated with scepticism. It's just the way the mind of a homo sapiens flows. Having evolved in a cluttered environment it's a known predisposition which is therefore compensated for in the above mentioned workflow. It's just unfortunately that that shape of mind is vulnerable to this.

In general (UFOs, man-made climate change etc. notwithstanding) your sin is that you form an idea and gather evidence to support that idea, dismissing that which does not accord with your idea. In other words, you let your 'theory', your 'premiss' or your 'feeling' filter all of the 'data' you find in a cart-before-the-horse stylee. It isn't unreasonable to come up with a hypothesis and then validate it against other known phenomena and knowledge BUT! with the idea that you are trying to disprove it, not prove it.

Regardless of the haters and deniers.

I want to take issue with this point as it's teetering on the edge of an ad hominem argument which is disrespectful and you already criticised Captain Trips for doing the same. I am not a hater, nor have I forwarded my own thoughts on aliens. What I have been doing in this thread is showing you where your chain of reasoning is flawed and the implications of that.

Pertinent to this discussion:-

"Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan (circa 1995).

It is bordering on primitive pre-religion to not be able to tolerate ambiguity. In fact there is quite a lot of that around and it's still far better than making 5h!t up to fill in gaps.