That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 04:48 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 04:29 PM)Free Wrote:  The problem with evidence is obvious. Unless the president went on national news with an alien standing beside him no one would believe it. Even then, the "irrational" skeptics would deny it ever happened.

As humans, we tend to see things from a human perspective, naturally. We cannot assume that if aliens exist they would have a "world view" that would even closely resemble anything human.

Why would an alien civilization want to contact a human civilization? Why would they even care if anyone seen them?

If any of those UFO reports are true- pictures videos et al- then what they demonstrate to me is that aliens don't give a rat's ass if we know about them or not. They are not here to "fix the problems mankind has on earth." Their motives are self-serving.

Oh good, it's make believe story time at the Conspiracy Hut. Add some dragons, everything is always better with dragons. Drinking Beverage

I like how those not making a giant presupposition are the irrational ones. Drinking Beverage

(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
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-12-2014, 04:54 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 04:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 04:48 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Oh good, it's make believe story time at the Conspiracy Hut. Add some dragons, everything is always better with dragons. Drinking Beverage

I like how those not making a giant presupposition are the irrational ones. Drinking Beverage

Oh I agree.

You know, like those who presume that at least 12 credible witnesses experienced at identifying aircraft were all mistaken about seeing an aircraft.

Yeah ... I know what you mean.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 10:53 AM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  The 12 were "airport employees", including ramp personnel. You inflate their expertise and credibility.

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

Actually there were far more witnesses than 12. I am using 12 who have been identified as having a high level of expertise with aircraft. From pilots to mechanics, et al.

This is a persuasive argument. I have been saying that for many pages now. It is designed to demonstrate my opinion, using all available resources.

I see the objections, but most objections I have seen so far are speculations that do not actually contest the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses. Anybody can say, "Maybe it was this, " or "Maybe it was that," but has anyone here actually pointed to any real evidence to contest the oral testimony of these witnesses?

For example, how about a weather report that shows unusual weather activity at the Chicago airport?

How about a witness who observed this weather phenomenon that caused a hole in the clouds?

How about a witness who publicly recanted their original statement?

How about a few people who experienced some kind of hallucination effect at the airport that day?

How about at least 1 person who actually seen the object in the sky and positively identified it as a known aircraft?

NONE of this, or anything like it, has been presented by anybody here. Not one stitch of actual evidence to dispute the claims.

Mere speculation in the face of eyewitness testimony does not work on ANY level.

I would like actual evidence that can actually dispute these claims.

Is that too much to ask?

For the record, I have debunked so many UFO reports that I lost count. But this one? I have not been successful with debunking this one at all.

And unfortunately, neither has anyone else here actually debunked this incident. It requires credible evidence to debunk, not mere speculation.

So now you have the reasons why I defend this incident with such ferocity. I am supposed to defend it because the argument is intended and proclaimed to be a persuasive argument. Your position, and other people's position here, is to debunk this incident.

So let's see a real effort, and not a bunch of speculative bullshit.

Drinking Beverage

Nope, I need do nothing of the kind. You are making a claim and you have no persuasive evidence. The speculative bullshit is all yours.

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, 04:57 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 04:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 04:48 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Oh good, it's make believe story time at the Conspiracy Hut. Add some dragons, everything is always better with dragons. Drinking Beverage

I like how those not making a giant presupposition are the irrational ones. Drinking Beverage


I know right? Laugh out load

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2014 05:10 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 04:54 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 04:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I like how those not making a giant presupposition are the irrational ones. Drinking Beverage

Oh I agree.

You know, like those who presume that at least 12 credible witnesses experienced at identifying aircraft were all mistaken about seeing an aircraft.

Yeah ... I know what you mean.

Drinking Beverage
Rolleyes
Edit: That's not even a presupposition. You know that right?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:53 AM)Free Wrote:  Actually there were far more witnesses than 12. I am using 12 who have been identified as having a high level of expertise with aircraft. From pilots to mechanics, et al.

This is a persuasive argument. I have been saying that for many pages now. It is designed to demonstrate my opinion, using all available resources.

I see the objections, but most objections I have seen so far are speculations that do not actually contest the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses. Anybody can say, "Maybe it was this, " or "Maybe it was that," but has anyone here actually pointed to any real evidence to contest the oral testimony of these witnesses?

For example, how about a weather report that shows unusual weather activity at the Chicago airport?

How about a witness who observed this weather phenomenon that caused a hole in the clouds?

How about a witness who publicly recanted their original statement?

How about a few people who experienced some kind of hallucination effect at the airport that day?

How about at least 1 person who actually seen the object in the sky and positively identified it as a known aircraft?

NONE of this, or anything like it, has been presented by anybody here. Not one stitch of actual evidence to dispute the claims.

Mere speculation in the face of eyewitness testimony does not work on ANY level.

I would like actual evidence that can actually dispute these claims.

Is that too much to ask?

For the record, I have debunked so many UFO reports that I lost count. But this one? I have not been successful with debunking this one at all.

And unfortunately, neither has anyone else here actually debunked this incident. It requires credible evidence to debunk, not mere speculation.

So now you have the reasons why I defend this incident with such ferocity. I am supposed to defend it because the argument is intended and proclaimed to be a persuasive argument. Your position, and other people's position here, is to debunk this incident.

So let's see a real effort, and not a bunch of speculative bullshit.

Drinking Beverage

Nope, I need do nothing of the kind.

Because you are not capable of doing it, which has been demonstrated conclusively.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope, I need do nothing of the kind.

Because you are not capable of doing it, which as been demonstrated conclusively.

Drinking Beverage

Oh, fuck off - you have the burden of proof.

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, 05:07 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 05:03 PM)Free Wrote:  Because you are not capable of doing it, which as been demonstrated conclusively.

Drinking Beverage

Oh, fuck off - you have the burden of proof.

No I do not. I am merely posting the evidence. It isn't my evidence, so there is nothing for me to prove.

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.


Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 05:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, fuck off - you have the burden of proof.

No I do not. I am merely posting the evidence. It isn't my evidence, so there is nothing for me to prove.

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.


Big Grin

There is no objective evidence, so the answer is g) unknown.

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
01-12-2014, 05:11 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no objective evidence, so the answer is g) unknown.

Let's put that into Occam's Razor:

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.
g) Unknown.

Answer = a.


Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: