UFO: The Greatest Story Ever Denied.

[_Ray A]

In real courts in the United States, speculation is not admissible for presentation to a jury.

In real courts in the United States, the party making a claim has the burden of proof. The plaintiff---the ufologist---does not get to provide rampant speculation about an event he cannot explain, and then demand that the defendant---the person who does not find the evidence to be compelling---present the ufologist's case for him.

In real courts in the United States, speculative diagrams are not evidence of anything, and therefore are not admissible. Diagrams or demonstrative exhibits only become admissible when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation for what is purported to be explained in such a demonstrative exhibit.

In real courts in the United States, insufficiency of the evidence is a valid basis for rejecting a party's claims.

Sure. Being unable to provide proof for a court is not evidence that something didn't happen, exactly as described. You should know that. Unless you were OJ's lawyer.

[_Darth J]

And are you seriously claiming that Julian Assange was really arrested so he would not leak UFO documents?

I did not.

So you brought it up because...........

Would this be part of that three-way U.S./U.K./Sweden conspiracy to cover up "the truth"?

Anything is possible. None of the charges have so far been proved.

Very good, Ray. He is presumed innocent. Now if you can just keep going with your sudden acceptance of the concept of "burden of proof."

For behaving like most ordinary 39 year old heterosexual single men who have the usual amount of testosterone and who find willing consensual partners, Mr Assange has been placed on Interpol's most wanted list and without a trial thrown behind bars and bail refused. Mr Assange is not an accused murderer, rapist, thief or violent thug. At most, he's a sexual libertine who took advantage of a trip to Sweden, the land of sexual libertines.

Presented with these facts, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than Mr Assange's arrest and incarceration is simply political persecution. It is obvious that neither Mr Assange nor Wikileaks has committed any real crime because despite the bleating of US politicians baying for his blood, they haven't found any law that has been broken. In fact, they've got him on ice behind bars while they're scrambling to create one!

Assange Charge.

Was this supposed to refute my finding it to be unlikely that genuine classified information about UFO's is being leaked?

If, per this opinion, the U.S. is scrambling to manufacture charges against Assange, why is the government not doing likewise to silence all these people who are disclosing allegedly secret UFO information?

[_Ray A]

You are making it abundantly clear that you are incapable of discussing your beliefs without contrived insinuations about the character or motives of your interlocutor. Again, just like a typical Mopologist.

My irony meter just went through the roof!

[_Ray A]

If, per this opinion, the U.S. is scrambling to manufacture charges against Assange, why is the government not doing likewise to silence all these people who are disclosing allegedly secret UFO information?

That's why they want a Congressional hearing, so the facts about what is hidden can match what witnesses are saying. Assange wasn't merely a witness, claiming certain things - he was going to release official secret government and CIA documents - and had he done that he would not have had to say a single word, or make any "claims". The public would have seen it with their own eyes.

[_Darth J]

In real courts in the United States, speculation is not admissible for presentation to a jury.

In real courts in the United States, the party making a claim has the burden of proof. The plaintiff---the ufologist---does not get to provide rampant speculation about an event he cannot explain, and then demand that the defendant---the person who does not find the evidence to be compelling---present the ufologist's case for him.

In real courts in the United States, speculative diagrams are not evidence of anything, and therefore are not admissible. Diagrams or demonstrative exhibits only become admissible when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation for what is purported to be explained in such a demonstrative exhibit.

In real courts in the United States, insufficiency of the evidence is a valid basis for rejecting a party's claims.

Sure. Being unable to provide proof for a court is not evidence that something didn't happen, exactly as described. You should know that. Unless you were OJ's lawyer.

Being unable to provide proof is not evidence of anything.

Much like our friend Droopy, your knowledge of the O.J. Simpson case also appears to be based on the tabloids. You are overlooking the fact that he was found liable in the civil wrongful death lawsuit. That's because the plaintiff in that case was able to meet the burden of proof.

Like apologists for various beliefs tend to do, you are trying to use lack of evidence as evidence. This is otherwise known as arguing from ignorance. You have not provided any positive evidence that what may have been a sophisticated laser effect actually was an extraterrestrial encounter. Until you do so, I have no reason to come up with an alternative explanation because you have not established that there is anything to rebut.

Last chance, Ray. Do you want to send more invective apologist banter my way, or would you like me to watch your documentary so I can make an informed judgment about what it has to say?

[_Darth J]

You are making it abundantly clear that you are incapable of discussing your beliefs without contrived insinuations about the character or motives of your interlocutor. Again, just like a typical Mopologist.

My irony meter just went through the roof!

Okay. Where is the personal invective about your character or motives that I made about you?

[_Darth J]

If, per this opinion, the U.S. is scrambling to manufacture charges against Assange, why is the government not doing likewise to silence all these people who are disclosing allegedly secret UFO information?

That's why they want a Congressional hearing, so the facts about what is hidden can match what witnesses are saying. Assange wasn't merely a witness, claiming certain things - he was going to release official secret government and CIA documents - and had he done that he would not have had to say a single word, or make any "claims". The public would have seen it with their own eyes.

It is a claim, Ray. It is an unproven assertion. I have no evidence before me that the information that UFO truthers claim is classified is in fact classified.

Do you understand that your talking about Congressional hearings has nothing to do with the question of why people leaking supposedly classified UFO information are not being prosecuted?

I mean it, Ray. I will watch your documentary, or I will engage your pointless, unsupported apologist character attack on me, but I won't do both.

[_Ray A]

In real courts in the United States, speculation is not admissible for presentation to a jury.

Then counter-speculation about speculation would be just as useless.

In real courts in the United States, speculative diagrams are not evidence of anything, and therefore are not admissible. Diagrams or demonstrative exhibits only become admissible when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation for what is purported to be explained in such a demonstrative exhibit.

So, we must rest on your theory (fact) that it was a "laser beam" effect. Nice.

In real courts in the United States, insufficiency of the evidence is a valid basis for rejecting a party's claims.

But regardless of "court procedure", this shows nothing about what "really happened". Courts are not bastions of Absolute Truth. You should know that.

Much like our friend Droopy, your knowledge of the O.J. Simpson case also appears to be based on the tabloids. You are overlooking the fact that he was found liable in the civil wrongful death lawsuit. That's because the plaintiff in that case was able to meet the burden of proof.

I am aware of that, but this was not established in the OJ court trial, but in a "wrongful death" lawsuit.

Like apologists for various beliefs tend to do, you are trying to use lack of evidence as evidence. This is otherwise known as arguing from ignorance. You have not provided any positive evidence that what may have been a sophisticated laser effect actually was an extraterrestrial encounter.

And you have not provided any evidence it wasn't. Now stop the phony lawyer games.

Last chance, Ray.

Opt out anytime you like and go watch it (finally).

[_Ray A]

I mean it, Ray. I will watch your documentary, or I will engage your pointless, unsupported apologist character attack on me, but I won't do both.

You obviously don't realise that by calling me "an apologist" is itself a character attack, and meant to put me in the same category as Mormon apologists. (DCP and other apologists are going to love the irony of that.)

[_Darth J]

In real courts in the United States, speculation is not admissible for presentation to a jury.

Then counter-speculation about speculation would be just as useless.

Exactly. Which is why your labeling my UFO-agnosticism as UFO-hard atheism is going nowhere.

In real courts in the United States, speculative diagrams are not evidence of anything, and therefore are not admissible. Diagrams or demonstrative exhibits only become admissible when there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation for what is purported to be explained in such a demonstrative exhibit.

So, we must rest on your theory (fact) that it was a "laser beam" effect. Nice.

Hey, all I know is what I read on pro-UFO blogs.

In real courts in the United States, insufficiency of the evidence is a valid basis for rejecting a party's claims.

But regardless of "court procedure", this shows nothing about what "really happened". Courts are not bastions of Absolute Truth. You should know that.

Well, yes, it does have something to do about what really happened. But a trier of fact, whether a jury or a judge, does not know what really happened. Even people who personally witnessed whatever is at issue do not agree on what really happened (if they did agree, there would be no reason for a trial, which is to decide factual disputes). The court procedure is for a person who was not there to try to arrive at a reasonable conclusion about what is likely to have really happened.

I'll allow you some time for the analogy to UFO claims to sink in.

Much like our friend Droopy, your knowledge of the O.J. Simpson case also appears to be based on the tabloids. You are overlooking the fact that he was found liable in the civil wrongful death lawsuit. That's because the plaintiff in that case was able to meet the burden of proof.

I am aware of that, but this was not established in the OJ court trial, but in a "wrongful death" lawsuit.

So what? The prosecutors did not make their case in the murder trial. Similarly, the assertion that space aliens are real means nothing if it cannot be proven.

Like apologists for various beliefs tend to do, you are trying to use lack of evidence as evidence. This is otherwise known as arguing from ignorance. You have not provided any positive evidence that what may have been a sophisticated laser effect actually was an extraterrestrial encounter.

And you have not provided any evidence it wasn't. Now stop the phony lawyer games.

I don't have to provide evidence to rebut something that does not have a prima facie case. That is a real lawyer game.

Last chance, Ray.

Opt out anytime you like and go watch it (finally).

Gee, thanks. Are you going to keep posting love letters in the meantime?