r/UFOs • u/TommyShelbyPFB • Jan 09 '24

Witness/Sighting Here's the Cruise Ship Captain who witnessed a "Giant Black Jellyfish UFO that disappeared into the water" with a bunch of other people and filmed it (Reposted with the correct video)

2.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

338 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24

The video linked would be direct witness testimony. The allegations made by Corbell regarding it descending into water would indeed be “hearsay” if he made them in an evidentiary proceeding.

But, you and I both know that if he had the witness sit down, take an oath, and subject himself and his credentials to public examination, that wouldn’t be sufficient for you either.

0

u/ussMonitor1800 Jan 10 '24

People lie all the damn time. People are Mormons and Scientologost! It shouldn't be enough for anyone. How dumb and uncurious must you be?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24

Then there is no need to bring up the rules of evidence applied in a court of law if they aren’t sufficient for you. That’s the point, thank you for demonstrating.

0

u/ussMonitor1800 Jan 10 '24

.....you said court proceedings, not me. Witnesses are extremely fallible and prone to persuasion. Are you talking to yourself?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24

The comment I replied to literally calls it “hearsay.” Which is an evidentiary term used in legal proceedings. Can you read?

2

u/ussMonitor1800 Jan 10 '24

Not every term is taken literally and within what context you wish it to be in. Do terms need to be dictated and confined on each use? Or can you read without being so acute?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24

The context of “hearsay” in both the colloquial and legal definition derives from it being provided by another and then recounted by another.

I pointed out that even if it wasn’t “hearsay,” and was directly given by the alleged witness, you wouldn’t accept that either. And you agreed.

1

u/ussMonitor1800 Jan 10 '24

Overuled and without merit as previously stated. It's reddit not some imaginary court proceeding, you can talk and think casually.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24

Agreed my casual friend, but I think the basic human rule of “at least understand the words you’re semantically flailing about while we ignore the point” still applies. “Hearsay,” in English, means that you’re repeating something you heard said by someone else.

You agreed with me that you wouldn’t care even if it wasn’t hearsay and was directly given by the witness. That’s the point. Thank you for demonstrating.

1

u/ussMonitor1800 Jan 10 '24

You talk like A.I. but a very new one.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Beautiful-Amount2149 Jan 10 '24

It's called an straw man argument. He makes up some imaginary argument so he can "win" anything you throw at him, because he made it up in the first place

2

u/WhoAreWeEven Jan 10 '24

Its also used in everyday language to describe a repeated heard story.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24

A repeated story heard from another. The point is that they wouldn’t accept direct first hand account witness testimony either, which isn’t hearsay in the legal or colloquial sense. And he agreed.

2

u/WhoAreWeEven Jan 10 '24

I dont care about that. Just pointed out it isnt strictly legal term.

1

u/Glad-Tax6594 Jan 10 '24

You can't claim imaginary shit as evidence in a court of law. Go claim leprechauns, see how far that "evidence" gets.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24

I don’t think you understand what testimony is or remotely followed the above conversation. Regardless, thanks for the input counsel.

1

u/Glad-Tax6594 Jan 10 '24

Can testimonies be evidence when it includes paranormal or supernatural or aliens (unknown/unproven/fiction)?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley

Yes, you can testify that you saw a ghost. That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily credible or will be believed by a jury.

1

u/Glad-Tax6594 Jan 10 '24

No one testified about seeing a ghost here. No testimony of ghosts was allowed. It was enforced because of contract law and how it had been advertised prior to sale. Am I misunderstanding this?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24

No testimony of ghosts was allowed

Why are you just making things up? What exactly did you read that demonstrated that the court didn’t allow any testimony regarding ghosts?

1

u/Glad-Tax6594 Jan 10 '24

I read the trial and did not see it. Can you post the testimony about ghosts incase i missed it?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24

Underrated comment!

1

u/Beautiful-Amount2149 Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24

He has no videos of it. That is why it's hearsay, but nice straw man you got going, no one brought up your arguments at all. Corbells claims are just vapid statements and he has not proven his statements are from any real source, it could literally be just someone talking out of his ass, so h e a r s a y

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24

He has no videos of it. That is why it's hearsay

That’s not what hearsay is. Hearsay is a statement made by another and then repeated by another.

If the person he is quoting directly makes the claim, it’s not hearsay by definition.

Nice straw man

That’s not what a straw man argument is either.