That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2014, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2014 09:39 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 08:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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.



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?


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.



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?


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

Nope.

If someone is going to be dishonest enough as to wrongfully deny their own statements, wrongfully portray my position, wrongfully investigate the claims (History Channel? LOL), ignore obvious probability factors, and show pretense about Occam's Razor, then do I need to say anything more?

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.


I spelled it out like it is.

Big Grin

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, 09:57 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 08:59 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 08:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  You pretty much went full pigeon again. Drinking Beverage

Nope.

If someone is going to be dishonest enough as to wrongfully deny their own statements, wrongfully portray my position, wrongfully investigate the claims (History Channel? LOL), ignore obvious probability factors, and show pretense about Occam's Razor, then do I need to say anything more?

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.


I spelled it out like it is.

Big Grin

g) They mistook something that either was not there or was not what they thought it was and projected their interpretation onto it.

G is far more likely and if you were not disingenuous as hell on this subject you would admit it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 10:00 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 09:57 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 08:59 AM)Free Wrote:  Nope.

If someone is going to be dishonest enough as to wrongfully deny their own statements, wrongfully portray my position, wrongfully investigate the claims (History Channel? LOL), ignore obvious probability factors, and show pretense about Occam's Razor, then do I need to say anything more?

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.


I spelled it out like it is.

Big Grin

g) They mistook something that either was not there or was not what they thought it was and projected their interpretation onto it.

G is far more likely and if you were not disingenuous as hell on this subject you would admit it.

Your assessment is a fucking insult to skepticism and intellectual honesty. 12 persons who positively claimed to have seen an aircraft of a type they could not identify, and who all described it the same way, somehow seen something that was not there?

You are saying "mass hallucination." You have chosen c.

Try again.

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, 10:07 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:00 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 09:57 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  g) They mistook something that either was not there or was not what they thought it was and projected their interpretation onto it.

G is far more likely and if you were not disingenuous as hell on this subject you would admit it.

Your assessment is a fucking insult to skepticism and intellectual honesty. 12 persons who positively claimed to have seen an aircraft of a type they could not identify, and who all described it the same way, somehow seen something that was not there?

You are saying "mass hallucination." You have chosen c.

Try again.

They saw something they identified as an aircraft - or misidentified.

It is your credulous approach that is the insult to skepticism.

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
01-12-2014, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2014 10:13 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:00 AM)Free Wrote:  Your assessment is a fucking insult to skepticism and intellectual honesty. 12 persons who positively claimed to have seen an aircraft of a type they could not identify, and who all described it the same way, somehow seen something that was not there?

You are saying "mass hallucination." You have chosen c.

Try again.

They saw something they identified as an aircraft - or misidentified.

It is your credulous approach that is the insult to skepticism.

12 people, who on a daily basis identify aircraft somehow misidentified an aircraft?

Is that what you are saying? I will give you 1 chance to correct what is so obviously fucking wrong with that.

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, 10:14 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:09 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  They saw something they identified as an aircraft - or misidentified.

It is your credulous approach that is the insult to skepticism.

12 people, who on a daily basis identify aircraft somehow misidentified an aircraft?

Is that what you are saying? I will give you 1 chance to correct that.

Drinking Beverage

Their mindset is "it's up in the air, it must be an aircraft". But what they think they saw was unlike any aircraft they'd ever seen. Consider

Your argument is not in the least compelling.

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
01-12-2014, 10:16 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:09 AM)Free Wrote:  12 people, who on a daily basis identify aircraft somehow misidentified an aircraft?

Is that what you are saying? I will give you 1 chance to correct that.

Drinking Beverage

Their mindset is "it's up in the air, it must be an aircraft". But what they think they saw was unlike any aircraft they'd ever seen. Consider

Your argument is not in the least compelling.

Dude,

If 12 experienced people misidentified an aircraft, does that means it is not an aircraft?

Even if you are saying that they misidentified what they seen as an aircraft, you have chosen ...

f) It was not an aircraft.


Try again.

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, 10:20 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:16 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Their mindset is "it's up in the air, it must be an aircraft". But what they think they saw was unlike any aircraft they'd ever seen. Consider

Your argument is not in the least compelling.

Dude,

If 12 experienced people misidentified an aircraft, does that means it is not an aircraft?

Even if you are saying that they misidentified what they seen as an aircraft, you have chosen ...

f) It was not an aircraft.


Try again.

I have chosen nothing. They don't know what they saw and neither do you.

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
01-12-2014, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2014 10:30 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:16 AM)Free Wrote:  Dude,

If 12 experienced people misidentified an aircraft, does that means it is not an aircraft?

Even if you are saying that they misidentified what they seen as an aircraft, you have chosen ...

f) It was not an aircraft.


Try again.

I have chosen nothing. They don't know what they saw and neither do you.

Okay, so the evidence in this is that 12 persons, highly experienced with aircraft, all positively claimed to have seen an aircraft of unknown origin, and all described it virtually identical. The evidence indicates that they know they seen an aircraft.

Occam's Razor clearly indicates they all know they seen an aircraft.

You have indeed made a choice. You have chosen to dispute the results of Occam's Razor.

I cannot help you if you don't like that result.

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, 10:41 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:26 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have chosen nothing. They don't know what they saw and neither do you.

Okay, so the evidence in this is that 12 persons, highly experienced with aircraft, all positively claimed to have seen an aircraft of unknown origin, and all described it virtually identical. The evidence indicates that they know they seen an aircraft.

Occam's Razor clearly indicates they all know they seen an aircraft.

You have indeed made a choice. You have chosen to dispute the results of Occam's Razor.

I cannot help you if you don't like that result.

The 12 were "airport employees", including ramp personnel. You inflate their expertise and credibility.

What I don't like is your lack of objectivity.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: