Don Ecker: December 29, 2013

[Randall]

So based upon Carl Sagan's skeptical opinion of the evidence, rather than an actual scientific analysis of the data, you accept his opinion. Correct?

I just thought you might be interested in what Sagan had to say. If not, that's OK with me. I respect Sagan's opinions more than most, and I've never seen anything based on Swann's work that isn't disputed as measuring up to standards of the scientific community. So maybe it would help if you could link us to an actual peer reviewed scientific paper that unequivocally demonstrates Swann's alleged powers.

BTW, hearsay is most definitely definable as first witness testimony.

Wrong above. See definition below from Encarta which clearly defines hearsay as "heard second-hand" not "first witness" as you incorrectly claim:

hearsay

hear·say noun
second-hand information: information that is heard from other people
adjective
heard second-hand: being or containing information heard from other people
​

So hearsay is for example, if you were to tell something someone told you to someone else. A firsthand experience or report is neither hearsay nor anecdote.

 

[TheMoon]

PS That paper is on the web, although not sure where at this point.

http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/human

I think this is your paper

 

[Jeff Davis]

I just thought you might be interested in what Sagan had to say. If not, that's OK with me. I respect Sagan's opinions more than most, and I've never seen anything based on Swann's work that isn't disputed as measuring up to standards of the scientific community. So maybe it would help if you could link us to an actual peer reviewed scientific paper that unequivocally demonstrates Swann's alleged powers.

Wrong above. See definition below from Encarta which clearly defines hearsay as "heard second-hand" not "first witness" as you incorrectly claim:

hearsay

hear·say noun
second-hand information: information that is heard from other people
adjective
heard second-hand: being or containing information heard from other people
​

So hearsay is for example, if you were to tell something someone told you to someone else. A firsthand experience or report is neither hearsay nor anecdote.

Hearsay Ufology, is ANY statement that his used as corroborative evidence in a court of law. You can cut it anyway you want Sir, but first person testimony is assuredly hearsay and neither proves, nor substantiates, the evidence that it is used to support.

So no, I am not wrong.

As far as Ingo Swann and SRI, if you are not fully aware by now of the statistical information available to the public via Targ and Puthoff''s empirically submitted findings in their publications, that admission alone after as much has been available for better than 30 years is not one that hopes to support your understanding of the matter. Do the leg work like anyone else. Like me for instance. You might have to buy a book. I apologize, but I lose patience quickly when it comes to willful ignorance of easily ascertained facts.

 

[Burnt State]

Just by way of follow up. I've been reading a lot of the material at the Consciousness and Paranormal thread where the SRI research has been called into question and most of their methodologies have been questioned along with their results. However there is some very interesting analysis that was completed around remote viewing by Utts but even these studies, while demonstrating unique, anomalous events, still have little to show by way of scientific proof of anything.

Ingo may have had some interesting talents but when you look at the history of remote viewing experimentation it is fascinating to see just how many sheep were being pulled over the eyes of the scientists. I don't feel that there has been convincing material that's been able to define a phenomenon as otherwise it would be currently in regular practice. A good hallmark of validity is whether or not these 'facts' are current or just part of an anomalous history that get repeated enough over time till they get accepted as internet or paranormal proof. I think both human mutilation and remote viewing belong to the grey baskets of anomalous historical events.

 

[Vance]

Very well put Burnt State, honest skepticism is always needed.

 

[Schuyler]

The position of the British is conspicuously absent from your rendition. It was British intelligence that unequivocally claimed there were WMD in Iraq.

Also, politics played a huge role in determining whether or not WMD were present. For example, US forces found artillery shells designed for gas, the same kind of gas the Iraqis had ALREADY USED against the Kurds in the north. The shells were "empty," but right next doors were canisters full of gas. Now it became a question of semantics. Had they just found WMD? NO! Why? Because the shells were empty of gas, therefore they couldn't be classified as WMD, even though it would have taken mere minutes to arm them from the gas stash right next to them.

The fact that the European community, which hates anything Israeli and loves anything opposed to Israel, were in Saddam's camp is not at all surprising. If they had their way Saddam and his sons would still be feeding Iraqi citizens into industrial shredders to maintain discipline (another fact "overlooked" by the leftist media and the Europeans).

 

[Decker]

Hey Schuyler ... great to see you drop by!

Decker

 

[Jeff Davis]

I don't agree with Ufology all the time but he is dead on correct above. In the legal sense, hearsay is any OUT of court testimony (not direct IN court testimony as Jeff incorrectly asserts). Outside of court, the term is often used to refer to things being presented second hand.

Yeah, I probably need to stop writing here since even the meaning of words is somehow in debate.

The dubious work of Swann (as well as Targ and Puthoff) may comfort the pious believer but the scientific standing is nonexistent.

Additionally one must wonder why believers can't name a single worthwhile accomplishment resulting from the imaginary powers of Swann.

Lance

Lance,
First off, I never stated that anything had to be stated in a court. Of course we are referring to the real and legal definition of hearsay which is any statement (reporting) (first person or not) used to substantiated evidence in a court of law. Of course it takes place outside the court, and is naturally first referenced outside the court's domain. We are referring to hearsay in respect to first person witness testimony of a UFO sighting. Context has a real relevancy here. ALL first person testimony used as evidence in a UFO sighting is assuredly hearsay if the person didn't literally see the UFO while the book was being written in which the reporting described the first person's witness.

Sorry, but first person testimony in a court of law is assuredly hearsay unless the person reporting the event is seeing the UFO in the courtroom. How could the transcribed reporting of an event not take place before (therefore OUTSIDE THE COURT) if not reported directly by the first witness IN THE COURT to substantiate the evidence in an effort to influence the judge's decision? Is the person writing the book the witness, or is the author reporting as much second hand? Even then, there is a special type of hearsay regarding such a highly unlikely form of testimony as first person spontaneous witness testimony.

 

[Burnt State]

So what is it about this thread that brings out more personality than critical discussion? Is it the subject matter? Or is the nature of paranormal/anomalous discourse something that is so riddled with emotion, inaccuracies and hardened viewpoints that debate descends automatically into the train wreck. Another fire, another microcosm of the paranormal universe on display. The coals are still warm boys and girls - keep those marshmallow sticks handy.

 

[Donnie Vienus]

So what is it about this thread that brings out more personality than critical discussion? Is it the subject matter? Or is the nature of paranormal/anomalous discourse something that is so riddled with emotion, inaccuracies and hardened viewpoints that debate descends automatically into the train wreck. Another fire, another microcosm of the paranormal universe on display. The coals are still warm boys and girls - keep those marshmallow sticks handy.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.It's when people have a total disrespect of someone elses opinion, thats when things get emotional.Condescension will rile the most placid of individuals.

 

[Jeff Davis]

So what is it about this thread that brings out more personality than critical discussion? Is it the subject matter? Or is the nature of paranormal/anomalous discourse something that is so riddled with emotion, inaccuracies and hardened viewpoints that debate descends automatically into the train wreck. Another fire, another microcosm of the paranormal universe on display. The coals are still warm boys and girls - keep those marshmallow sticks handy.

Quit whining. It's you that's most likely stocking up on marshmallows and sticks.

It's silly to get overly emotional about something I doubt we see anytime soon. Namely a legal proceeding involving UFO first person witness testimony as evidence. What exactly would we be attempting to conclude?

I am really heart broken about Lance.

 

[BlackRockLobster]

I've read this thread and in my opinion, Don is not someone I care to listen to. I am not a troll. I liked the episode and I've heard all of the archived shows, which went back to the first. But I have a very low tolerance for his vitriolic style of response. Hope he don't ban me! But I don't wanna hear him no more. I take liars over @$$holes, at least they entertain.

 

[Decker]

I've read this thread and in my opinion, Don is not someone I care to listen to. I am not a troll. I liked the episode and I've heard all of the archived shows, which went back to the first. But I have a very low tolerance for his vitriolic style of response. Hope he don't ban me! But I don't wanna hear him no more. I take liars over @$$holes, at least they entertain.

Excuse me? You called me an asshole? And what did I do to you? Never mind ... bye.

Decker

 

[boomerang]

At the risk of igniting another spontaneous combustion flame war--I enjoyed the latest Don Ecker interview. I disagree with his take on the WMD and Iraq. But so do a lot of folks.

Don is a walking Encyclopedia Of Ufology and I always enjoy hearing what he brings to the table.

 

[Randall]

Hearsay Ufology, is ANY statement that his used as corroborative evidence in a court of law. You can cut it anyway you want Sir, but first person testimony is assuredly hearsay and neither proves, nor substantiates, the evidence that it is used to support. So no, I am not wrong.

Even allowing for your moving of the goalposts into a legal context, your proclamation in the face of independent sources does not stand up:

Farlex Legal Dictionary: HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.

---------------------------------

You would be much further ahead recognizing that the nature of hearsay involves second-hand information, not firsthand experience, or reports verified as being by firsthand witnesses.

 

[Randall]

I've read this thread and in my opinion, Don is not someone I care to listen to. I am not a troll. I liked the episode and I've heard all of the archived shows, which went back to the first. But I have a very low tolerance for his vitriolic style of response. Hope he don't ban me! But I don't wanna hear him no more. I take liars over @$$holes, at least they entertain.

Don's can be crusty but his crust usually has texture and taste, and his commentary on Tim Good proved to me that he takes constructive information into account. We had exchanged some opinions on Tim Good, and Don filled me in on the phony credentials of Mel Noel, who had been included in Good's first book Above Top Secret. I think that information is a detail that Don had every right to comment on, and I was glad to have his insight on it. So I checked into Good's updated version Beyond Top Secret, and found that in addition to Good changing his opinion on MJ-12, he also removed the segment on the fake fighter pilot. On the show, Don mentioned that tidbit, which means he didn't simply dismiss my response, and was willing to adapt his position appropriately. So maybe you need to cut Don a little slack. I certainly see no reason to be so disrespectful. IMO he's been a tremendous asset to the field, and the DMR archive is a fantastic resource.

 

[flipper]

"Paracast" - "para" meaning "at the fringe" is quite accurate and acceptable. There´s lots of room for conspiracy theories of all gendres. The Paracast is a good title and I´d keep it.

I thought it was good because paranormal means beside what is normal.

 

[flipper]

Saddam was actively supported by the US for many years, and his brutality against the Kurds, in paticular, was well known and documented. This also applies to Israeli´s policy toward the Palestinians. In both cases (and others), the countries/regimes in question were/are useful to US interests and were/are allowed to continue with impunity. That´s good, old-fashioned, pragmatic Machiavellianism. But in the case of Iraq, oil was involved. Enter Dick Chaney.....and on and on and on...

One of the most common mistakes the public makes is the belief that politicians by nature are intelligent. In many if not most cases, this is untrue. In fact, the opposite is more often the case. Or as someone once said: Intelligent people never get involved in politics, simply because they´re intelligent.

To quote a great Indian sage, Srila Prabupada: "The sum total of the efforts of a fool is foolishness".

Enter GWB.

Pax Vobiscum.

I like what Michael Parenti says. "We should stop calling our politicians stupid and start calling them cruel."

 

[Jeff Davis]

Even allowing for your moving of the goalposts into a legal context, your proclamation in the face of independent sources does not stand up:

Farlex Legal Dictionary: HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.

---------------------------------

You would be much further ahead recognizing that the nature of hearsay involves second-hand information, not firsthand experience, or reports verified as being by firsthand witnesses.

Hearsay is a statement offered as evidence, first made prior, or outside the scope of a trial, which is just about every statement of value that is brought into the scope of a legal proceeding, as corroborative, or fully supportive evidence. Why? Because ANY statement, whether first hand reported or not, is hearsay until that same testimony has been offered in court under oath via the judge's scrutiny. So, ANY, UFO report made by anyone that has not made their report or statement under oath (FIRST) , is in fact HEARSAY, until as much has been accomplished. Get it? You were DEAD WRONG. Both you, and, know it all.

 

[Randall]

Hearsay is a statement offered as evidence ...

You really do have a problem accepting independent sources as supportive evidence don't you? Maybe you should just write your own dictionary.