New Member

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thats all we ever have if you want to get metaphysical.

There is nothing controversial in this video, in terms of science - and therefore no scientific basis to reject it as false.

Are you claiming we should reject it as false?

I clearly stated what we should do. I shall restate:
We should make no assumptions as to the veracity of the video. We should define what evidence would confirm it to be true/accurate/unaltered and we should define what evidence would confirm it to be false/inaccurate/altered. The video should then be reviewed based upon those criteria and a conclusion reached.

 

[tonicblue]

No, you provided a hypothetical example and claimed that a court case based upon that scenario would not use the scientific method. Please provide a specific court case example that supports your claim that some court cases do not make use of scientific methodology.

Theres cases here. See particularly the quientin hann case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3055859.stm

The actual court process involves no scientific principles, it is merely the judgement of 12 people. Many cases, like the date rape ones, are simply about each persons word and their former conduct. No scientific evidence.

 

[gumboot]

He clearly states that he can use it to resolve any missing visual data relating to 9/11.

He does not. We're talking about interpreting images. He's saying if he can interpret images from Hubble, he can easily interpret images relating to 9/11. It's like saying, "I can drive a tank with a joystick, I'm confident I can drive your car." That doesn't men he is saying your car has a joystick.

-Gumboot

 

[tonicblue]

He does not. We're talking about interpreting images. He's saying if he can interpret images from Hubble, he can easily interpret images relating to 9/11. It's like saying, "I can drive a tank with a joystick, I'm confident I can drive your car." That doesn't men he is saying your car has a joystick.

-Gumboot

So you believe he can interpret hubble images of car license plates? He clearly says he can resolve missing visual data from 911. At which point Gravy, a wise man, called him delusional and put him on ignore.

 

[gumboot]

So you believe he can interpret hubble images of car license plates? He clearly says he can resolve missing visual data from 911. At which point Gravy, a wise man, called him delusional and put him on ignore.

I'm not saying I believe him. I'm merely clarifying that he did not say he controlled Hubble and he did not say he could use hubble in relation to 9/11.

The rest is up for grabs.

RAMS doesn't exactly express himself in clear english, and has an often odd choice of words and way of phrasing things. But I understand what he's saying.

Precisely the same thing happened in other threads where people thought he said something he didn't.

For what it's worth, I don't believe for a moment that he has "resolved", "interpreted" or otherwise come across hubble images of car number plates.

-Gumboot

 

[tonicblue]

I'm not saying I believe him. I'm merely clarifying that he did not say he controlled Hubble and he did not say he could use hubble in relation to 9/11.

The rest is up for grabs.

RAMS doesn't exactly express himself in clear english, and has an often odd choice of words and way of phrasing things. But I understand what he's saying.

Precisely the same thing happened in other threads where people thought he said something he didn't.

For what it's worth, I don't believe for a moment that he has "resolved", "interpreted" or otherwise come across hubble images of car number plates.

-Gumboot

What part of

I can resolve if there was issues of malice concerning 911 day or missing visual data

don't you understand.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Theres cases here. See particularly the quientin hann case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3055859.stm

The actual court process involves no scientific principles, it is merely the judgement of 12 people. Many cases, like the date rape ones, are simply about each persons word and their former conduct. No scientific evidence.

From your link:
Neil and Christine Hamilton - Charges were never brought.
Matthew Kelly - Police confirmed they would take no action, clearing Mr Kelly's name.
Quinten Hann - Found innocent
Craig Charles - cleared following a two-week trial

So, the first two never went to trial, thus making them irrelevant to your claim of "judgement of 12 people." For the second two, the article makes no statement as to what evidence was presented, thus they provide no support to your claim of "[n]o scientific evidence."

 

[scooby]

So you believe he can interpret hubble images of car license plates? He clearly says he can resolve missing visual data from 911.

This would put him about 6 light years away wouldn't it?

 

[tonicblue]

From your link:
Neil and Christine Hamilton - Charges were never brought.
Matthew Kelly - Police confirmed they would take no action, clearing Mr Kelly's name.
Quinten Hann - Found innocent
Craig Charles - cleared following a two-week trial

So, the first two never went to trial, thus making them irrelevant to your claim of "judgement of 12 people." For the second two, the article makes no statement as to what evidence was presented, thus they provide no support to your claim of "[n]o scientific evidence."

Please tell me what scientific evidence you think would be presented when the girl says she was raped and Mr Hann said it was consensual.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is nothing controversial in this video, in terms of science - and therefore no scientific basis to reject it as false.

Are you claiming we should reject it as false?

Are you talking about a specific actual video here, or a hypothetical video? Because if you're talking about a hypothetical video, there isn't enough information presented here (or in the post you followed up) to determine whether your hypothetical case is relevant, and if you're talking about the video Gumboot commented on, then Gumboot pointed out controversial issues relating to scientific analysis of the soundtrack, which give a scientific basis for at least considering the possibility of it being false.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please tell me what scientific evidence you think would be presented when the girl says she was raped and Mr Hann said it was consensual.

Medical evidence of the presence or absence of injury which could suggest a struggle would be a start.

Dave

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please tell me what scientific evidence you think would be presented when the girl says she was raped and Mr Hann said it was consensual.

Though the onus is on your shoulders I shall indulge you with a couple of examples:
* gynecologist testimony as to whether there is evidence of forced sexual entry
* toxicological evidence as to whether or not there were "date rape" drugs in her system

 

[gumboot]

What part of

don't you understand.

That doesn't appear to mention Hubble.

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I like they way Wildcat states it as absolute fact without any expert analysis of the video.

The explosion video is not faked either. I would like to get an audio expert to look at them both, but don't know any.

I like the way you state it as absolute fact, actually ignoring an expert analysis of the video.

If you're this convinced, then you can safely ignore any and all experts who say otherwise.

In my experience here, gumboot knows his stuff in these matters. You need only look through his contributiosn to realise that.

 

[Belz...]

So, there's been no official explanation?
Hmmm.

Who cares ? Any "official" explanation would be dismissed as shillery, right ?

 

[Belz...]

Why would you want someone that's an expert in faking something? Surely an expert in what real wiould be far better. Gumboot has shown that he is quite good at that. Perhaps instead of just dismissing his work a better path to follow would be to ask him to kindly show his data and working.

This is typical of twoofers, moving the goalposts to ensure that no amount of expertise can ever prove their pet theories wrong.

Contrary to what Skepticalcriticalsomethingsomething said, I doubt most truthers would accept it even if skywalker sound came forward and said it was fake.

 

[tonicblue]

Though the onus is on your shoulders I shall indulge you with a couple of examples:
* gynecologist testimony as to whether there is evidence of forced sexual entry
* toxicological evidence as to whether or not there were "date rape" drugs in her system

Heres a non rape related case since it is difficult to get transcripts.

This politician lied in a libel trial. The newspaper called for him to be charged with perjury. He was. He was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months. No scientific evidence presented.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aitken

 

[mortimer]

I like how CTers demand a professional analysis... and yet when I (a professional) offer my analysis, they dismiss it out of hand.

The engineers at Skywalker Sound could produce a 500 page analysis that demonstrates it is false and the CTers would still dismiss it.

-Gumboot

And they'd have every reason to. I mean, Skywalker Sound -> George Lucas -> Steven Spielberg -> JOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Heres a non rape related case since it is difficult to get transcripts.

This politician lied in a libel trial. The newspaper called for him to be charged with perjury. He was. He was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months. No scientific evidence presented.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aitken

From the link http://www.guardian.co.uk/aitken/Story/0,,208503,00.html from your link (showing application of the scientific method)

Aitken's action collapsed after the Guardian produced new evidence in the High Court on Wednesday: British Airways flight coupons and Budget car hire documents showed the ex-MP committed perjury about the payment of a bill for his controversial stay at the Paris Ritz in September 1993.
The documents proved that his wife, Lolicia, and his daughter, Victoria, then 14, had flown directly to Geneva, and had never visited Paris as he had told the High Court. His wife had flown back from Geneva, while her daughter went on to boarding school. That meant Mrs Aitken could never - as he insisted - have paid the bill for the Ritz, where the then minister for defence procurement spent time with Saudi businessmen. The Guardian said the bill had been paid by an Arab associate, in contravention of ministerial rules

Additionally, I would like to put out that you have (rather successfully) used a red herring. We were discussing scientific methodology/process, to wit, you stated, "There is no scientific method applied in a court. It relies on the judgement of jurors." You have since shifted the discussion to scientific evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_(law)) which is specific to "The educating witness teaches fact-finder (jury or, in a bench trial, judge) about the underlying scientific theory and instrument implementing theory."

Now, do you want to discuss scientific methodology or do you want to discuss scientific evidence?

 

[Belz...]

Taking it with a pinch of salt means tentatively accepting it as accurate, but not being surprised if new information comes to light that indicates it may be false.

That's the "guilty until found innocent" approach.

And as for Gumboot - no no no no no . We have enough sources of information to wade through as it is, without widening the field to include individual opinion in forums on the web.

Aren't your sources ALSO opinions in forums on the web ?

Lets stick to material where the effort has already been made to at least publish it on the web in some coherent form. If the video is fake, 'skeptics' will be checking and a suitable source will expose this sooner or later.

Well, if your reaction to those "suitable" sources is the same as your reaction to Gumboot's analysis, we can safely deduct that no amount of debunking will ever convince you.