|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 22, 2010 23:11:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 22, 2010 23:42:07 GMT -4
If I were Reuters, I'd be ashamed of my fact checkers on that one. Robert Hastings presented his "evidence" over on BAUT and was found to be wrong on a substantial number of major points.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Sept 22, 2010 23:43:56 GMT -4
Like the difference between a blog and a forum...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 23, 2010 2:19:49 GMT -4
Oh, Gods, yes. Bleah!
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 23, 2010 3:28:53 GMT -4
Yeah, I watched the subject of the missile base getting shut down being discussed on Bad Astronomy forum and I thing Mr Hastings (sure it was he) took part? He did not provide any proof and glaring holes in the Missile affair that is pushed were obvious. Questions were not answered or avoided. Then another story comes out that says the world is just a normal place with normal problems and ET must have been on a day off that day.
Onto this press release, I believe they (ubiquitous they) have done this before by the Disclosure Project?? Memory gets fuddled some times but one of them claims well over 50 species of Aliens have been in contact yet there is never ever a shred of evidence. Are these in any way related or is it a breakaway faction?
My money is on "stands to reason" argument. This is the argument you get in pubs after a few sherbets. You know the type or argument, few people nattering away and the story is confirmed despite any facts because it stand to reason as the gubbmint refuse to say they are in contact.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 23, 2010 10:15:46 GMT -4
If you will notice the header on this says
See where it says PRNewswire. That is a service that allows anyone to issue a press release for a fee. It is not a news service that actually checks its sources and this is not a Reuters news service article. Reuters routinely reposts PRNewswire releases without verification because businesses use PRNewswire to release information about their activities.
This is not a news article, it is a paid press release with no more credibility than is given by its authors, which appears to be minimal.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 23, 2010 12:08:43 GMT -4
Well, I've always been skeptic about the UFOs... I'm not. There absolutely are Objects, which may actually have been or only appear to have been Flying, which were, at least at the time of the relevant observation, Unidentified.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 23, 2010 15:24:18 GMT -4
If you will notice the header on this says See where it says PRNewswire. That is a service that allows anyone to issue a press release for a fee. It is not a news service that actually checks its sources and this is not a Reuters news service article. Reuters routinely reposts PRNewswire releases without verification because businesses use PRNewswire to release information about their activities. This is not a news article, it is a paid press release with no more credibility than is given by its authors, which appears to be minimal. Okay, then Reuters should be ashamed they'd allow their name to be put on press release journalism.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 23, 2010 19:57:19 GMT -4
Well, the reason I posted it is the word Reuters on that... I certainly want to see what will come out of that...
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 24, 2010 3:32:05 GMT -4
Reuters (a part of the Thompson-Reuters company) does many things to compile and transmit information. One of which is to distribute press releases. In doing so they do not originate or verify the information and this release is clearly marked for what it is. Lots of people need to be able to release information to the public rapidly and cheaply and many people rely on that easy availability of that information. In acting as a distributor, Reuters does not in any way verify or endorse the quality of the information. The source of this release is clearly labeled and it is the readers responsibility to understand that. It would be irresponsible of Reuters to censor the availability of people to reach the public with information in a timely manner. Even such nonsense as this.
Any importance the reader has placed on this being posted on the Reuters site has been placed in error. Its source is clearly labeled.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 27, 2010 15:07:03 GMT -4
Placing aside all the sources... what if...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 27, 2010 15:15:02 GMT -4
"What if" what? "What if" it had some validity? It doesn't. There is no viable evidence to suggest that it does. Almost every single statement Robert Hastings ever presented has been shown to be flawed in some important way. Why bother speculating about it?
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 27, 2010 19:54:29 GMT -4
"What if" what? "What if" it had some validity? It doesn't. There is no viable evidence to suggest that it does. Almost every single statement Robert Hastings ever presented has been shown to be flawed in some important way. Why bother speculating about it? Because, even if the guy has flawed evidence, there must by a small grain of truth in his statements and, by debating, we might be able to find out what's wrong with the guy... On the other hand, there's also the possibility of us being wrong... come on, it's funny to debate about this!
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 27, 2010 21:24:32 GMT -4
Because, even if the guy has flawed evidence, there must by a small grain of truth in his statements and, by debating, we might be able to find out what's wrong with the guy... Sometimes I miss sarcasm in posts. Please tell me this is sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 27, 2010 22:27:59 GMT -4
Because, even if the guy has flawed evidence, there must by a small grain of truth in his statements and, by debating, we might be able to find out what's wrong with the guy... What's wrong with Robert Hastings is that he can't admit when he's wrong. There is no truth to his statements. If Robert Hastings said experts say the sky is blue, I'd ask for the names of his experts. "Debate" implies two sides.
|
|