Schooling Skeptics: How to Recognize and Analyze Evidence of NHI/UAP Existence


I’m an English teacher, so I get really irked when I see English-speaking skeptics say “lack of evidence,” when they don’t understand what “evidence” means and instead mean proof. 99.9% of skeptics seem to suffer from this linguistic-impairment.

Dear skeptics: Don’t say there’s “no evidence.” Simply say either:

“I don’t know what evidence means or how to assess it and use it, and I’m talking about proof.” “It doesn’t meet my personal standards in terms of strength or amount of evidence.”

Those are the only two possible scenarios here, and I see them over and over again on here.

There are 80 years of multiple forms of evidence here, but you’re waiting for actual physical proof and you think that’s what evidence is.

Let me make this very clear for you:

Evidence is clues, nothing more.

It is your job, as someone with a functioning brain, to then take those clues and assess them to come to a reasonable opinion or conclusion.

Evidence:
Requires drawing inferences, using deductive and inductive reasoning, and looking to see what evidence corroborates other evidence.

Proof:
Does not require critical-thinking skills the way evidence does. You see a craft sitting in your living room or it lands in your hand, that’s proof, and you don’t have to expend too much cognitive energy on thinking about it to figure out what it is.

You learned about evidence in elementary school:
When I’m teaching first graders reading comprehension skills, a big part of this involves teaching them how to evaluate evidence. This is done with contextual clues in stories, which are a form of evidence.

Me: Johnny why do you think there’s a fire behind the building even though you can’t see it?

Johnny: Because the fireman said so.

Me: Is there anything else here that tells us there is a fire?

Johnny: Yes, I see smoke.

Could it be something else, despite all this evidence it’s a fire? Of course, but the AMOUNT of evidence telling you it’s a fire, the AMOUNT OF CORROBORATION, should lead any rational, logically thinking person to a sound conclusion that there is a 99.9% chance that there’s a fire.

If your neighbor tells you there’s a fire, that’s called anecdotal evidence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evidence

It’s a weak form of evidence when it’s only your neighbor saying it. When the fireman says it, a trained observer, it becomes MUCH stronger. When five firemen tell you this and they all corroborate, that corroboration strengthens it more.

This type of evidence is considered valid in criminal court cases all over the world and is admitted alongside all other evidence in court cases. An intelligent person looks not just at anecdotal evidence, but ALL the other evidence, then looks to see what corroborates, what doesn’t, etc.

Those are not simply “beliefs,” as you’re painting them. Those are called informed beliefs, and the evidence is what informs them of this. We are not blindly believing someone who takes a stand in a court case. We are stacking that up with other clues that we have, because DNA is not available in every single case to definitely prove something.

In this case you have a lot of fireman telling you what’s behind the building, and a ton of smoke, but you are completely incapable of analyzing and making sense of it. You need to visually see that fire to come to a reasonable belief or conclusion it’s there. That fire is the “evidence” you’re referring to, because again, you don’t know what evidence is, you’re simply ignoring it because you don’t know what to do with it like Johnny does.

You may have been taught by a teacher like me in elementary school on how to analyze contextual clues and to draw inferences from them, but you’ve abandoned that as an adult, and the stigmatization and 80 years of people being told this isn’t real is why you do that.

It’s a cognitive bias that is deeply ingrained in many people, and in your case, that bias is stronger than your ability to assess evidence and therefore outweighs it and prevents you from even recognizing the evidence AS evidence.

Informed believers look at ALL the evidence:

Objective evidence (radar showing objects performing maneuvers that would require us to have an entirely new field of science in not only propulsion, but also physics.)

Legislative evidence (yes, actions are evidence, often strong evidence, especially when they’re corroborated and triangulated. David Grusch said we have NHI, the legislation says right in print they received “CREDIBLE evidence,” and a top colonel (Nell) is corroborating his claims.)

Empirical evidence (military personnel injured with radiation-like illnesses consistent with electromagnetic radiation, like John Burroughs and Cabenza, and all those Garry Nolan studied, and those studied here.)

Situational evidence (we have training ranges, we don’t fly our most top-secret technology in front of jets with cameras after it’s been recorded and leaked for China and Russia to see over and over again with more details coming out about their characteristics for China and Russia to hear. We don’t injure our own soldiers like John Burroughs up there by landing in a forest and allowing him to approach a radioactive craft)

etc. etc. etc. etc. (I can’t fit 80 years of that in a post)

The previous Director of Intelligence is flat-out telling you it’s tech and it’s not ours, not our adversaries, and they ruled that out.

A sitting congressman on the House Armed Services Committee told you he and two others saw something that he “can’t attach to any human origin,” at Eglin AFB, and did the base deny his description of it?

Did they admonish him for describing to our adversaries what you would argue is top-secret USA tech? No they then said they forwarded it to AARO. So again, you’re using reasoning here, by looking at their actions, and this especially goes for anyone trying to politicize this because it was Republicans who said that (I’m a liberal).

THAT is ALL evidence, CONTEXTUAL CLUES just like little Johnny has contextual clues of a fire.

Say it’s not enough evidence for you, say you want proof, but don’t say there’s no evidence just because you don’t recognize it or refuse to acknowledge it.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
This is a cop out as virtually all the evidence mentioned above is as extraordinary as evidence gets. The Director of National Intelligence ALONE saying these things is quite extraordinary, unprecedented, as are all these other things. What gets more extraordinary than that? 100% Proof.

Actual crafts in your living room, because you won’t believe videos or pictures with AI and CGI. That is not extraordinary evidence. You can’t get more extraordinary without crossing over from evidence to proof at this point, so again, just say you require proof and can’t assess evidence on your own.

submitted by /u/LazarJesusElzondoGod
[link] [comments] 

Read More