That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 10:45 AM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 10:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  How about pictures, video, or radar records? Those would be nice.

Pictures would not convince me, nor would video. That has been explained. If that is what would convince you, then take a look at this picture and voila, there you have a picture.

Photoshop anyone?

Multiple photos/videos from multiple sources makes that unlikely. If so many are seeing things, where is the evidence?

Quote:
Quote:Extraterrestrials visiting Earth is not an extraordinary claim? Shocking

You're daft. Drinking Beverage

Why would it be? You seem like a reasonable man, and with the universe as vast as it is, why would it be extraordinary?

I think it's inevitable.

Since there are no technologies or even physical principles currently known that make it practicable, it is an extraordinary claim.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-11-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 10:50 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  There is evidence that they saw some unidentified object or phenomena that they think could maybe be an aircraft, there is no evidence that what they think they saw was actually an aircraft. Its called an Unidentified flying object for a bloody reason.

I guess you didn't read any transcripts, or watched any video interviews, did you?

They are stating conclusively that what they seen was an aircraft. They emphatically deny that it was anything but an aircraft.

Quote:I'm not trolling you, I'm raising objections to your fallacious justifications, your poor analogies, and your insistence that because they think its an aircraft therefor it is.

You keep insisting that they "think" it was an aircraft. The evidence indicates they have no doubts whatsoever that it was an aircraft.

They are all making a positive claim of fact, not speculating.

Quote:If they think its an aircraft based on alleged similarities to human aircraft then its more likely to be a human made aircraft that has yet to be revealed to the public. Which would rationally explain the rush to cover it , but that's just conjecture.

No, they conclusively determined that it was an aircraft in which the design of it does not fit with all known human designs. They eliminated balloons, swamp gas, weather phenomenon, and anything else, except an aircraft.

Quote:Which is exactly what any lawyer worth his salt would say if a witness claimed he believed it was an aircraft. Conjecture.

Yes, any lawyer can say that. But after the 12th, 13th, 14th etc witnesses has testified, the lawyer would look pretty damn stupid repeating his own point of doubt in the face of expert testimony.

That's the same scenario as if 12 people came to you telling you the same thing and one after one you keep saying, "I don't believe you."

At what point do you accept the truth of what is being aid to you? 20 witnesses? 100? 1000? 10000?

When?

The Arizona UFO of 1997 had thousands of witnesses, including the governor, yet that is still not enough?

When the demand for evidence goes beyond all reason, then honest skepticism has been abandoned. I am not saying that it proves anything conclusively, but it most definitely warrants the deserved respect of "credibility."

If thousands of witnesses cannot persuade you to at least approach the situation as something that is credible, then your position on any of this is suspect of a lack of intellectual honesty.

You can be a skeptic all you want, but are you really a reasonable one?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 12:22 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2014 12:25 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 11:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 10:45 AM)Free Wrote:  Pictures would not convince me, nor would video. That has been explained. If that is what would convince you, then take a look at this picture and voila, there you have a picture.

Photoshop anyone?

Multiple photos/videos from multiple sources makes that unlikely. If so many are seeing things, where is the evidence?

There are multiple photos all over the place, but expecting videos from 2006 when phones were just getting going with photo capabilities only is a bit over the top in expectations.

Even multiple photos would not be sufficient to quell the "photoshop" claims in 2014, and neither would multiple videos.

Quote:
Quote:Why would it be? You seem like a reasonable man, and with the universe as vast as it is, why would it be extraordinary?

I think it's inevitable.

Since there are no technologies or even physical principles currently known that make it practicable, it is an extraordinary claim.

When I look at all the species on earth, and see different levels of intelligence with "perhaps" mankind being at the top of the chart, I have no problem accepting that some other animal living somewhere else in the universe has far more intelligence than mankind could ever hope to accumulate.

Just because we don't know, does not mean it is unknown to some other species. We should not expect our conventional thinking to apply to the rest of the universe, just as many here have suggested to me in other threads. Wink

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 10:50 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  There is evidence that they saw some unidentified object or phenomena that they think could maybe be an aircraft, there is no evidence that what they think they saw was actually an aircraft. Its called an Unidentified flying object for a bloody reason.

I guess you didn't read any transcripts, or watched any video interviews, did you?

They are stating conclusively that what they seen was an aircraft. They emphatically deny that it was anything but an aircraft.

Quote:I'm not trolling you, I'm raising objections to your fallacious justifications, your poor analogies, and your insistence that because they think its an aircraft therefor it is.

You keep insisting that they "think" it was an aircraft. The evidence indicates they have no doubts whatsoever that it was an aircraft.

They are all making a positive claim of fact, not speculating.

Quote:If they think its an aircraft based on alleged similarities to human aircraft then its more likely to be a human made aircraft that has yet to be revealed to the public. Which would rationally explain the rush to cover it , but that's just conjecture.

No, they conclusively determined that it was an aircraft in which the design of it does not fit with all known human designs. They eliminated balloons, swamp gas, weather phenomenon, and anything else, except an aircraft.

Quote:Which is exactly what any lawyer worth his salt would say if a witness claimed he believed it was an aircraft. Conjecture.

Yes, any lawyer can say that. But after the 12th, 13th, 14th etc witnesses has testified, the lawyer would look pretty damn stupid repeating his own point of doubt in the face of expert testimony.

That's the same scenario as if 12 people came to you telling you the same thing and one after one you keep saying, "I don't believe you."

At what point do you accept the truth of what is being aid to you? 20 witnesses? 100? 1000? 10000?

When?

The Arizona UFO of 1997 had thousands of witnesses, including the governor, yet that is still not enough?

When the demand for evidence goes beyond all reason, then honest skepticism has been abandoned. I am not saying that it proves anything conclusively, but it most definitely warrants the deserved respect of "credibility."

If thousands of witnesses cannot persuade you to at least approach the situation as something that is credible, then your position on any of this is suspect of a lack of intellectual honesty.

You can be a skeptic all you want, but are you really a reasonable one?

These Phoenix Lights? Consider

NOT. ONE. DAMN. PICTURE. Nada, zip, zilch.

Sorry, dude, your wanting it to be true doesn't make it true.

You are a True Believer™ and have lost all objectivity in this.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 11:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  Multiple photos/videos from multiple sources makes that unlikely. If so many are seeing things, where is the evidence?

There are multiple photos all over the place, but expecting videos from 2006 when phones were just getting going with photo capabilities only is a bit over the top in expectations.

Even multiple photos would not be sufficient to quell the "photoshop" claims in 2014, and neither would multiple videos.


All of the photos are crappy. Every single one. What are the odds?

Quote:
Quote:Since there are no technologies or even physical principles currently known that make it practicable, it is an extraordinary claim.

When I look at all the species on earth, and see different levels of intelligence with "perhaps" mankind being at the top of the chart, I have no problem accepting that some other animal living somewhere else in the universe has far more intelligence than mankind could ever hope to accumulate.

Just because we don't know, does not mean it is unknown to some other species. We should not expect our conventional thinking to apply to the rest of the universe, just as many here have suggested to me in other threads. Wink

You miss the point. Again.

We don't know that the scale of travel as supposed is even possible. Might there be beings who do have that capability? Sure.

But we have no credible evidence for that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 01:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  There are multiple photos all over the place, but expecting videos from 2006 when phones were just getting going with photo capabilities only is a bit over the top in expectations.

Even multiple photos would not be sufficient to quell the "photoshop" claims in 2014, and neither would multiple videos.


All of the photos are crappy. Every single one. What are the odds?

That's my point. Whether any of them are real or not, who knows? Most UFO photos are fake anyways.

Quote:
Quote:When I look at all the species on earth, and see different levels of intelligence with "perhaps" mankind being at the top of the chart, I have no problem accepting that some other animal living somewhere else in the universe has far more intelligence than mankind could ever hope to accumulate.

Just because we don't know, does not mean it is unknown to some other species. We should not expect our conventional thinking to apply to the rest of the universe, just as many here have suggested to me in other threads. Wink

You miss the point. Again.

We don't know that the scale of travel as supposed is even possible. Might there be beings who do have that capability? Sure.

But we have no credible evidence for that.

I never missed the point. We cannot know what other species are capable of, nor do we have any *official* evidence for that.

My point was only that we cannot assign our conventional thinking to assume that any other intelligent species would be incapable of visiting earth

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 02:46 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2014 03:10 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  I guess you didn't read any transcripts, or watched any video interviews, did you?

They are stating conclusively that what they seen was an aircraft. They emphatically deny that it was anything but an aircraft.


You keep insisting that they "think" it was an aircraft. The evidence indicates they have no doubts whatsoever that it was an aircraft.

They are all making a positive claim of fact, not speculating.


No, they conclusively determined that it was an aircraft in which the design of it does not fit with all known human designs. They eliminated balloons, swamp gas, weather phenomenon, and anything else, except an aircraft.


Yes, any lawyer can say that. But after the 12th, 13th, 14th etc witnesses has testified, the lawyer would look pretty damn stupid repeating his own point of doubt in the face of expert testimony.

That's the same scenario as if 12 people came to you telling you the same thing and one after one you keep saying, "I don't believe you."

At what point do you accept the truth of what is being aid to you? 20 witnesses? 100? 1000? 10000?

When?

The Arizona UFO of 1997 had thousands of witnesses, including the governor, yet that is still not enough?

When the demand for evidence goes beyond all reason, then honest skepticism has been abandoned. I am not saying that it proves anything conclusively, but it most definitely warrants the deserved respect of "credibility."

If thousands of witnesses cannot persuade you to at least approach the situation as something that is credible, then your position on any of this is suspect of a lack of intellectual honesty.

You can be a skeptic all you want, but are you really a reasonable one?

These Phoenix Lights? Consider

NOT. ONE. DAMN. PICTURE. Nada, zip, zilch.

Photoshopped!

Quote:Sorry, dude, your wanting it to be true doesn't make it true.

You are a True Believer™ and have lost all objectivity in this.

I am saying credible, not conclusive. What are you saying? You want pics? They are everywhere.

I have not lost any objectivity on this subject. It is not a matter of being a "true believer" as much as it is a matter of probabilities. I am not 100% certain that alien life is visiting the earth, but I do indeed believe that the probability of them visiting the earth far exceeds the probability that they are not visiting earth.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 11:20 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2014 11:25 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
I have a general rule. It's not always right but it's been a good yard stick in the past for me. Once is an event, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

You now have a pattern of dishonestly avoiding criticisms and demonstrations of logical inconsistencies in your reasoning. I've asked you several times to address the issue of your fallacious analogy, your complete violation of Occam's razor, and a host of other problems and you have deliberately avoided them, over and over and over. You did make time to nit pick over the usage of the word "saw".

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  I guess you didn't read any transcripts, or watched any video interviews, did you?
Not only did I do that, I actually I sat down and watched the entire History channel special on it. It was laughably bad, and I wish I had not. One of the "investigators" is wearing hat with "UFO" branded right on it. Impartial investigating there.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  They are stating conclusively that what they seen was an aircraft. They emphatically deny that it was anything but an aircraft.
Good for them but the strength of their belief does not dictate reality and they have utterly no corroborating evidence.
Their claim does not become any more proven because they really really believe it for realsies guyz.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  You keep insisting that they "think" it was an aircraft. The evidence indicates they have no doubts whatsoever that it was an aircraft.
Am I supposed to be convinced because they made a judgment call and believe their own claim? 'Cause a claim is the only "evidence" that has been provided.

"Their claim indicates that they they have no doubts whatsoever that their claim is accurate". Whoopty-fucking-do.

They can have "no doubts whatsoever" and while they are doing that I'll provide dozens of examples of witnesses that had "no doubt whatsoever" that were shown to be fucking WRONG.
THE STRENGTH OF THEIR CONVICTION DOES NOT INCREASE IT'S FUCKING ACCURACY OR AUTHORITY.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  They are all making a positive claim of fact, not speculating.
Claim. Claim. Claim. CLAIM.

They are not making a claim to fact, which they have not established as true in anyway at all. They are making a deceleration of shared opinion, which is not the same thing as a fact. If you have no corroborating evidence with which to justify your personal opinion on a subject then you are engaged in literately the motherfucking definition of speculation!

spec·u·la·tion
noun \ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\

: ideas or guesses about something that is not known

They do not KNOW what they saw.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  No, they conclusively determined that it was an aircraft in which the design of it does not fit with all known human designs. They eliminated balloons, swamp gas, weather phenomenon, and anything else, except an aircraft.
Then you and I have extremely different ideas on what the words "conclusively determined" means, because they in no way did that. You are just asserting things again and it's beginning to grow tedious.
For fuck sake they could not even "conclusively determine" it's size (between 22 and oh you know ...[b]4 fucking times that at 88 feet). If I described the Empire State Building as between 1454 feet and 5816 feet no one in their right mind would say "hey that sounds like a conclusively determined height".

If you expect me to believe they conclusively determined anything about the object based on 120 seconds of observation, on an object as small as 22 feet from nearly 2000 feet away based on nothing other then "they say so" you are going to be disappointed.
I'm not the damn gullible.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes, any lawyer can say that. But after the 12th, 13th, 14th etc witnesses has testified, the lawyer would look pretty damn stupid repeating his own point of doubt in the face of expert testimony.
Conjecture remains conjecture no matter the number of people conjecturing.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  That's the same scenario as if 12 people came to you telling you the same thing and one after one you keep saying, "I don't believe you."

At what point do you accept the truth of what is being aid to you? 20 witnesses? 100? 1000? 10000?

When?
I don't know why don't you tell me what the magic number is?
I'm sorry to hear about your conversion to Catholicism.

The number of people it takes to convince me of something is entirely dependent on what they are trying to convince me of. If the claim is an ordinary everyday occurrence 1 is enough. If the claim is that aliens traveled a absolute minimum of 26ish Trillion miles in a craft as small as 22 feet across to hover over a random structure for no discernible reason for 120 seconds and then leave without warning then its gonna take a a lot more then 12 motherfuckers who were so far away that they could not make out any kind of accurate detail on a craft that size to convince me.
I'm not that gullible.
One is an everyday occurrence and the other is not conclusively shown to happen EVER. Extraordinary claims, of which yes this is one, demand extraordinary evidence. 12 people say so is not extraordinary evidence.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  The Arizona UFO of 1997 had thousands of witnesses, including the governor, yet that is still not enough?
You know what else it has? A proposed natural explanation (which I'm sure you will reject). From the source YOU used:

Quote:There is some controversy as to how best to classify the reports on the night in question. Some are of the opinion that the differing nature of the eyewitness reports indicates that several unidentified objects were in the area, each of which was its own separate "event". This is largely dismissed by skeptics as an over-extrapolation from the kind of deviation common in necessarily subjective eyewitness accounts. The media and most skeptical investigators have largely preferred to split the sightings into two distinct classes, a first and second event, for which two separate explanations are offered:
First event

The first event — the "V", which appeared over northern Arizona and gradually traveled south over nearly the entire length of the state, eventually passing south of Tucson — was the apparently "wedge-shaped" object reported by then-Governor Symington and many others. This event started at about 20:15 MST over the Prescott area, and was seen south of Tucson by about 20:45 MST.

Proponents of two separate events propose that the first event still has no provable explanation, but that some evidence exists that the lights were in fact airplanes. According to an article by reporter Janet Gonzales that appeared in the Phoenix New Times, videotape of the v shape shows the lights moving as separate entities, not as a single object; a phenomenon known as illusory contours can cause the human eye to see unconnected lines or dots as forming a single shape.

Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed high altitude lights flying in formation using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43× magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.[18] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". When Stanley first gave an account of his observation at the Discovery Channel Town Hall Meeting with all the witnesses there he was shouted down in his assertion that what he saw was what other witnesses saw. Some have claimed that Stanley was seeing the Maryland National Guard jets flying in formation during a routine training mission at the Barry M. Goldwater bombing range south of Phoenix. [19]
Second event

The second event was the set of nine lights appearing to "hover" over the city of Phoenix at around 10 pm. The second event has been more thoroughly covered by the media, due in part to the numerous video images taken of the lights. This was also observed by numerous people who may have thought they were seeing the same lights as those reported earlier.

The U.S. Air Force explained the second event as slow-falling, long-burning LUU-2B/B illumination flares dropped by a flight of four A-10 Warthog aircraft on a training exercise at the Barry Goldwater Range at Luke Air Force Base. According to this explanation, the flares would have been visible in Phoenix and appeared to hover due to rising heat from the burning flares creating a "balloon" effect on their parachutes, which slowed the descent.[20] The lights then appeared to wink out as they fell behind the Sierra Estrella, a mountain range to the southwest of Phoenix.

A Maryland Air National Guard pilot, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, responding to a March 2007 media query, confirmed that he had flown one of the aircraft in the formation that dropped flares on the night in question.[20] The squadron to which he belonged was in fact at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona on a training exercise at the time and flew training sorties to the Barry Goldwater Range on the night in question, according to the Maryland Air National Guard. A history of the Maryland Air National Guard published in 2000 asserted that the squadron, the 104th Fighter Squadron, was responsible for the incident.[21] The first reports that members of the Maryland Air National Guard were responsible for the incident were published in The Arizona Republic newspaper in July 1997.[22]

Military flares[23][24] such as these can be seen from hundreds of miles given ideal environmental conditions. Later comparisons with known military flare drops were reported on local television stations, showing similarities between the known military flare drops and the Phoenix Lights.[4][5] An analysis of the luminosity of LUU-2B/B illumination flares, the type which would have been in use by A-10 aircraft at the time, determined that the luminosity of such flares at a range of approximately 50–70 miles would fall well within the range of the lights viewed from Phoenix.[17]

Dr. Bruce Maccabee did an extensive triangulation of the four videotapes, determining that the objects were near or over the Goldwater Proving Grounds.[25] Page 5 of Dr. Maccabee's analysis refers to Bill Hamilton and Tom King's sighting position at Steve Blonder's home. Blonder has worked with Dr. Maccabee to fully include his sighting position in the triangulation report. Maccabee has also refined three other sighting positions and lines of sight in 2012.[26]


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  When the demand for evidence goes beyond all reason, then honest skepticism has been abandoned.
If you think that the demand for more evidence then "these guys all say so" is unreasonable then you are completely insane. You would not accept this as sufficient in any other area of your life where claims of this extraordinary nature are made. You are letting personal bias interfere with the consistent application of logic.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  I am not saying that it proves anything conclusively, but it most definitely warrants the deserved respect of "credibility."
Only to a person with this presupposition and an emotional investment in the subject being true. The claim that they saw something here to as yet unidentified is given all do credibility. The claim that it is unidentified and unfamiliar to the witnesses and there for likely to be the craft of a space alien is given none at all because that leap has not be demonstrated to be reasonable.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  If thousands of witnesses cannot persuade you to at least approach the situation as something that is credible, then your position on any of this is suspect of a lack of intellectual honesty.
So I guess you consider the Virgin Mary Causing the Sun to dance as credible because of the number of witnesses? Cause I mean ..if thousands of witnesses cannot persuade you....

No. This assertion that if I don't agree with your demonstrably fallacious way of reasoning is a lack of intellectual honesty on my part is it's self fallacious and is made fucking laughable by your continued avoidance of counter arguments and DEMONSTRATIONS of your fallacious reasoning in a blatantly dishonest way.
You have no authority to claim, and you provide no justification for your assertion, that I am intellectually dishonest especially given the fact that there are natural, non-spaceman fueled, explanations in the very source you used.

I don't care how many people claim something because I utilize testable, demonstrable evidence and scientific theories with accurate predictive capabilities to comport my beliefs. You clearly don't.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  You can be a skeptic all you want, but are you really a reasonable one?
What are the odds that that a person approaching the question with no agenda, no presuppositions, no emotional and personal investment, and demanding evidence beyond CLAIMS is less reasonable then the person with a clear agenda, presupposition, emotional investment, who is making wildly unsupported assumptions and leaps, who is committing multiple fallacies and in complete opposition to Occam's razor who is excepting outrageous claims as credible based on the most unreliable evidence there is?

Yes I'm reasonable, this is not my pet obsession. I'd be perfectly fine if aliens were proven to visit us and I'd be perfectly fine if it was proven to be false, but I'm not going to entertain any idea as credible because a bunch of people assert it's true and conveniently have no evidence to support it.

I have a higher standard then that.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
01-12-2014, 08:37 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2014 09:50 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(30-11-2014 11:20 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I have a general rule. It's not always right but it's been a good yard stick in the past for me. Once is an event, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

You now have a pattern of dishonestly avoiding criticisms and demonstrations of logical inconsistencies in your reasoning. I've asked you several times to address the issue of your fallacious analogy, your complete violation of Occam's razor, and a host of other problems and you have deliberately avoided them, over and over and over. You did make time to nit pick over the usage of the word "saw".

There was no dishonesty applied, and there was no nitpicking done. YOU agreed with Chas' statement that there was no evidence whatsoever, which most definitely included the eyewitness testimony of what they saw.

YOU are being dishonest here. Do not blame me for what you agreed to, nor do you purposely make shit up to cover your fucking tracks, nor do you use the word "nit-picking" to backtrack on your fucking statements.

You said what you said. End of fucking discussion.


Quote:
(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  I guess you didn't read any transcripts, or watched any video interviews, did you?
Not only did I do that, I actually I sat down and watched the entire History channel special on it. It was laughably bad, and I wish I had not. One of the "investigators" is wearing hat with "UFO" branded right on it. Impartial investigating there.

The History Channel, huh? A made-for-TV dramatization to inspire ratings, and you call that "serious" investigation? Tell me you are not fucking serious?

You haven't the 1st fucking clue how to investigate these types of things. It's obvious to me you didn't investigate this issue at all. You have made absolutely no comment on the official report and what it states its conclusion on in pages 53 & 54, and why it made that conclusion. No one here has addressed that scientific conclusion, and you want to talk to me about avoiding anything you've said?

Quote:
(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  They are stating conclusively that what they seen was an aircraft. They emphatically deny that it was anything but an aircraft.
Good for them but the strength of their belief does not dictate reality and they have utterly no corroborating evidence.
Their claim does not become any more proven because they really really believe it for realsies guyz.

And yet AGAIN you have miserably failed to read anything I have said. Go ahead, backtrack through this entire thread and show me where I have said anything where I stated the evidence of what they seen was 100% conclusive.

These fucking statements of yours absolutely reek of complete and utter dishonesty on your part. You, and others here, consistently wrongfully portray my position as one of conclusiveness as opposed to me posting ad nausium that my position on the O'Hare incident is 70% credible, a far fucking cry from conclusiveness.

YOU, like many here, require excessive evidence such as a little green man to come spend Christmas with you, and even then I have no doubt that your lack of honest skepticism will compel you to believe or accept it.


Quote:
(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  You keep insisting that they "think" it was an aircraft. The evidence indicates they have no doubts whatsoever that it was an aircraft.
Am I supposed to be convinced because they made a judgment call and believe their own claim? 'Cause a claim is the only "evidence" that has been provided.

No you are not supposed to be "convinced" to the point of accepting it as definitive proof of what they seen. What you are supposed to do is apply intellectual honesty and rationalize how more than a dozen eyewitnesses- ALL of whom are highly experienced with aircraft- could identify what they seen as an aircraft.

And THAT is where you can use Occam's Razor.

I did. It points to them as *gasp* seeing an aircraft. Imagine that?

Occam's Razor Application:

12 persons highly experienced with aircraft claim to have seen a type of aircraft they could not identify over Chicago Airport in 2006.

a) They seen an aircraft they could not identify.
b) It was swamp gas.
c) It was mass hallucination.
d) It was a weather phenomenon.
e) They all lied.
f) It was not an aircraft.

Answer = a.


Quote:[quote]"Their claim indicates that they they have no doubts whatsoever that their claim is accurate". [quote]

Whoopty-fucking-do.

They can have "no doubts whatsoever" and while they are doing that I'll provide dozens of examples of witnesses that had "no doubt whatsoever" that were shown to be fucking WRONG.
THE STRENGTH OF THEIR CONVICTION DOES NOT INCREASE IT'S FUCKING ACCURACY OR AUTHORITY.

The strength of their numbers as witnesses absolutely does indeed increase the credibility factor, or do you even fucking understand that?

How many times have we heard "It's only his word against mine?" But when you have 2 people saying something, well then do you not think it becomes easier to accept as the truth? What about 5 people all saying the same thing?

How about more than one dozen? How about 1000? 10,000? Etc?

If you don't get this, it has become clear to me (and already has) that you are being intellectually dishonest.

It has become clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about here, no investigative skills, do not have the first clue how to apply "Occam's Razor," do not understand "probabilities," and have chosen to portray my position with so much contempt as to employ radical dishonesty.

Because of this, the rest of what you said is not worthy of comment.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 11:20 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I have a general rule. It's not always right but it's been a good yard stick in the past for me. Once is an event, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

You now have a pattern of dishonestly avoiding criticisms and demonstrations of logical inconsistencies in your reasoning. I've asked you several times to address the issue of your fallacious analogy, your complete violation of Occam's razor, and a host of other problems and you have deliberately avoided them, over and over and over. You did make time to nit pick over the usage of the word "saw".

There was no dishonesty applied, and there was no nitpicking done. YOU agreed with Chas' statement that there was no evidence whatsoever, which most definitely included the eyewitness testimony of what they saw.

YOU are being dishonest here. Do not blame me for what you agreed to, nor do you purposely make shit up to cover your fucking tracks, nor do you use the word "nit-picking" to backtrack on your fucking statements.

You said what you said. End of fucking discussion.


Quote:Not only did I do that, I actually I sat down and watched the entire History channel special on it. It was laughably bad, and I wish I had not. One of the "investigators" is wearing hat with "UFO" branded right on it. Impartial investigating there.

The History Channel, huh? A made-for-TV dramatization to inspire ratings, and you call that "serious" investigation? Tell me you are not fucking serious?

You haven't the 1st fucking clue how to investigate these types of things. It's obvious to me you didn't investigate this issue at all. You have made absolutely no comment on the official report and what it states its conclusion on in pages 53 & 54, and why it made that conclusion. No one here has addressed that scientific conclusion, and you want to talk to me about avoiding anything you've said?

Quote:Good for them but the strength of their belief does not dictate reality and they have utterly no corroborating evidence.
Their claim does not become any more proven because they really really believe it for realsies guyz.

And yet AGAIN you have miserably failed to read anything I have said. Go ahead, backtrack through this entire thread and show me where I have said anything where I stated the evidence of what they seen was 100% conclusive.

These fucking statements of yours absolutely reek of complete and utter dishonesty on your part. You, and others here, consistently wrongfully portray my position as one of conclusiveness as opposed to me posting ad nausium that my position on the O'Hare incident is 70% credible, a far fucking cry from conclusiveness.

YOU, like many here, require excessive evidence such as a little green man to come spend Christmas with you, and even then I have no doubt that your lack of honest skepticism will compel you to believe or accept it.


Quote:Am I supposed to be convinced because they made a judgment call and believe their own claim? 'Cause a claim is the only "evidence" that has been provided.

No you are not supposed to be "convinced" to the point of accepting it as definitive proof of what they seen. What you are supposed to do is apply intellectual honesty and rationalize how more than a dozen eyewitnesses- ALL of whom are highly experienced with aircraft- could identify what they seen as an aircraft.

And THAT is where you can use Occam's Razor.

I did. It points to them as *gasp* seeing an aircraft. Imagine that?

Quote:[quote]"Their claim indicates that they they have no doubts whatsoever that their claim is accurate". [quote]

Whoopty-fucking-do.

They can have "no doubts whatsoever" and while they are doing that I'll provide dozens of examples of witnesses that had "no doubt whatsoever" that were shown to be fucking WRONG.
THE STRENGTH OF THEIR CONVICTION DOES NOT INCREASE IT'S FUCKING ACCURACY OR AUTHORITY.

The strength of their numbers as witnesses absolutely does indeed increase the credibility factor, or do you even fucking understand that?

How many times have we heard "It's only his word against mine?" But when you have 2 people saying something, well then do you not think it becomes easier to accept as the truth? What about 5 people all saying the same thing?

How about more than one dozen? How about 1000? 10,000? Etc?

If you don't get this, it has become clear to me (and already has) that you are being intellectually dishonest.

It has become clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about here, no investigative skills, do not have the first clue how to apply "Occam's Razor," do not understand "probabilities," and have chosen to portray my position with so much contempt as to employ radical dishonesty.

Because of this, the rest of what you said is not worthy of comment.

Drinking Beverage

You pretty much went full pigeon again. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: