Re: Ruppert: Advice for Whistleblowers

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:48:56 GMT, KittyKat <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

I'll answer this at another tine, I've got things to do today -- like living
my life. <grin>  This conversation is a repeat of one from years and years
ago, so delaying it won't make much difference in the scheme of things...

BUT, I've got really fun stuff to do this afternoon, like wrapping Xmas
presents and playing with lingerie.  So, see ya later when I have more time 
I can devote to rehashing what constitutes evidence.

I'll be back in a few, perhaps as late as next week.

actually I doubt if 'heresay' could be considered 'evidence' whether it 
was pre-determained or whatever you want to call it. A 'discussion' used 
in the context of evidence would probably be inadmissible in a court of 
law without actual physical proof and even that could be considered 
'circumstancial'.

 How can you predetermine what constitutes 'evidence' particularly 
since you claim you are only an 'observer'?? And by the same token 
according to your words how can your 'evidence' even exist to be 
predeterminedly discussed by yourself or anyone else if as you claim you 
are only the observer and such existance has no merit of proof of 
existance???So what you are really saying is that:

                        -alien existance does not depend on evidence
                        -evidence exists independently from observer
                        -you observed the EVIDENCE independantly
                        -alien existance does not depend on OBSERVATION 
of the evidence
                        -the evidence you saw proves nothing since 
evidence does not PROVE alien existance nor DEPEND on it.
                        -You want to apply the 'Rules of Evidence' or 
whatever. In this case we determined we wanted actual physical proof 
which would thereby constitute 'evidence' as predetermined. I am using 
your stated rules of predetermination,( or rather an agreement of sorts 
as to what we find acceptable as evidence in this case something TANGIBLE)
                        -you cannot produce anything TANGIBLE, which 
would be considered EVIDENCE, but cannot be use since the existance of 
aliens does not depend on it as proof of EVIDENCE or TANGIBLE anything
Kinda of like a catch 22. Provide the tangible as evidence that evidence 
does not prove anything tangible.
                        -what you are saying is NOTHING



_______________
  " The aliens do not belong to me nor does their existence depend on 
what I or you say or on human belief structures or on evidence. 
Secondly, I am not the creator of evidence.  The observer does not 
create the evidence.  Evidence edists independently of the observer."
_______

no name wrote:

 On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:17:03 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <ugly_bob42@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"no name" <oobie@doobie.com> wrote in message
news:d7cetvgtar7tja3uaouvrpllstg3djoat6@4ax.com...

On 10 Dec 2003 09:34:31 EST, House Widdershins 
<sinistre@concentric.net>
wrote:

X-No-Archive: Yes.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:40:50 GMT, no name <oobie@doobie.com> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:27:47 -0800, "Ugly Bob" 
<ugly_bob42@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"no name" <oobie@doobie.com> wrote in message
news:n1qbtv4360nt1p7t8179ek72t3jf741gif@4ax.com...

On 09 Dec 2003 10:06:07 EST, House Widdershins


<sinistre@concentric.net>

wrote:

X-No-Archive: Yes.
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:59:33 GMT, no name <oobie@doobie.com> 
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 06:05:14 GMT, Th� Wh�l�fl�ff�r ���ti���m
<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:

CIA involvement in drugs in Panama


When will George Bush and the CIA realize that all governments on


earth

now

know about what they're doing.  The world money cartel can not 
buy


alien

technology with their drug money.



There has to be aliens before there can be "alien technology."

HTH



Indeed.  And there are.  And there's an alien saucer at Groom.  And


that's

known by wolrd governments too.  You see Bush and Co. would like


everyone

to

believe there isn't, but there is. Bush wanted to sequester the 
fact

and

the

technology and keep it for his bosses.  That was a bit short 
sighted

of

him.

HTH <grin>



No, it doesn't. If, however, you were to come up with something
a little more tangible...



That's your job.



Nope. You made the claim, you get to back it up with hard, physical
unambiguous evidence. Don't have any? That's what I thought.



ROFLMAO  Surely you're not that stupid?  One does not need evidence of
evidence.



How about some tangible evidence that confirms the existence (on
earth) of these aliens of yours? That's not asking too much, is it?




First; let's clarify something, the aliens are not mine.  The aliens 
do not
belong to me nor does their existence depend on what I or you say or on
human belief structures or on evidence. 
Secondly, I am not the creator of evidence.  The observer does not create
the evidence.  Evidence edists independently of the observer.

Thirdly: In any discussion between two parties, if there isn't a
predetermined agreement on what constitutes evidence (the rules of 
evidence)
then the discussion is derailed right from the beginning.

In other words you are making this up? I dont see the others talking in 
circles. Just you! You think your clever, But your not! Try some 
evidence for a change

                                                    -Ugly Bob

Widdershins

   Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
             http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html

Three lies on one line.