That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:11 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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

Nope. Insufficient evidence and an incomplete list.

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, 05:18 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 05:11 PM)Free Wrote:  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

Nope. Insufficient evidence and an incomplete list.

It's not even a matter of any more evidence. That is all the evidence there is. That's all you get. That's all Occam's Razor has to work with.

You can put 100 things on that list and the answer will always be a).

I have tried everything to debunk this. There simply is not one shred of evidence to contradict those eyewitness statements.

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, 05:23 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 05:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. Insufficient evidence and an incomplete list.

It's not even a matter of any more evidence. That is all the evidence there is. That's all you get. That's all Occam's Razor has to work with.

You can put 100 things on that list and the answer will always be a).

I have tried everything to debunk this. There simply is not one shred of evidence to contradict those eyewitness statements.

There is no need to debunk those statements - they are untestable, unsupported, unevidenced claims.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim and neither they nor you have fulfilled it.

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, 05:27 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  It's not even a matter of any more evidence. That is all the evidence there is. That's all you get. That's all Occam's Razor has to work with.

You can put 100 things on that list and the answer will always be a).

I have tried everything to debunk this. There simply is not one shred of evidence to contradict those eyewitness statements.

There is no need to debunk those statements - they are untestable, unsupported, unevidenced claims.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim and neither they nor you have fulfilled it.

Again, it is not a matter of conclusiveness. This will never be proven conclusively.

I rate their testimony as being 90% credible for numerous reasons, which you can only understand with an in-depth investigation. There is only a 10% doubt in my mind that they did not see an aircraft.

And I think that is very reasonable.

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, 05:44 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 05:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. Insufficient evidence and an incomplete list.

It's not even a matter of any more evidence. That is all the evidence there is. That's all you get. That's all Occam's Razor has to work with.

You can put 100 things on that list and the answer will always be a).

I have tried everything to debunk this. There simply is not one shred of evidence to contradict those eyewitness statements.

Eyewitness testimony has been shown time and time again to be unreliable, even from experts.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
01-12-2014, 06:31 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 05:44 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 05:18 PM)Free Wrote:  It's not even a matter of any more evidence. That is all the evidence there is. That's all you get. That's all Occam's Razor has to work with.

You can put 100 things on that list and the answer will always be a).

I have tried everything to debunk this. There simply is not one shred of evidence to contradict those eyewitness statements.

Eyewitness testimony has been shown time and time again to be unreliable, even from experts.

That may be true with 1, 2, or even 3.

But 12?

That's where the probability factor plays a big part in all this, as well as the credibility factor.

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, 08:02 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  There was no dishonesty applied
I'm sorry but yes Free there was. When I ask you entirely relevant questions, when inform you of the fallacies you are making and then provide examples and demonstrations that you are, when I ask questions that show the double standard you are using in your disproportionate trust in eye witness testimony and you actively go out of your way to avoid addressing this stuff at all, going so far as to selectively edit them out of the quote when you respond to other things, you ARE being deliberately dishonest at worst and at best you are being deliberately evasive.

However when you assert with out demonstration things like:
Quote:Since the rest of what you said is but more of the same inability to reason intelligently, there's no point in responding to it.
Quote:....the rest of what you said is not worthy of comment.
about those inconvenient elements you are not just being dishonest you are acting like a petulant child. The fact I have had to bring the exact same objections to your attention 5+ times and you are STILL avoiding them is just idiotic and strains the credibility you are objective.


(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  YOU agreed with Chas' statement that there was no evidence whatsoever, which most definitely included the eyewitness testimony of what they saw.
So you claim you're not dishonest and then you deliberately misrepresent a position that has already been clarified to you multiple times? He and I are both saying, and this has been clarified multiple times now, that the testimony it's self can not be used to gauge the accuracy of the testimony on how it maps to reality. That has to be done independently by corroborating evidence of which there is none. THAT is what I at least am saying.
I'll say it again:There is evidence they think they saw something, there is evidence that they believe it to be an aircraft of unidentified origin. There Is NO corroborating evidence to conclude that what they claim to have seen was in fact what they believe it to be. To do that you would have to physically examine the object it's self which they have not done.

I'm not comfortable saying it is an aircraft for the sole reason that it has not been demonstrated to be one and it's considered rationally sound to withhold belief on things which remain undemonstrated.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
I've called you dishonest and Ive explained why and offered reasonable demonstrations. you once again assert I'm being dishonest, you assert I'm making shit up (hilarious given your stance on the subject in question), you assert I'm attempting to cover my tracks, you assert I'm trying to back track and you provide ZERO examples and ZERO demonstrations.
You can assert whatever you like Free, but I've SHOWN you to be dishonest and you have just asserted it.

I'M doing my best to address ever single point you make that I can and YOU are doing everything you can to AVOID addressing as many points I have made as you can get away with.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  End of fucking discussion.

No. Drinking Beverage

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  
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?
That's a nice strawman you got going there, I'll be seeing a lot more of them I'm sure. Drinking Beverage
1.) I never called watching the History Channel "serious investigation". You made that up.
2.) I watched the special AS WELL AS everything you recommended I do. A statement included in literally the thing you quoted, so your implication that my "serious investigation" amounted to watching a made-for-TV dramatization was.....that's right everyone but you guessed it: Dishonest!
3.) Oh I also went to that website you linked earlier. You know... the one hosting "new Photo's of the Loch Ness Monster"......and Japanese street ghosts, and mass possession by evil spirits.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  You haven't the 1st fucking clue how to investigate these types of things.
I know not to go into a investigation while operating under a presupposition because that has a tendency towards confirmation bias. Try it some time.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  It's obvious to me you didn't investigate this issue at all.
I investigated exactly what you suggested I investigate and because I didn't confirm your presupposition I must not have done it at all? Hahah. No. Take your assertion and your attempt to dictate to ME what I have done and shove it up your belligerent ass.
I came to a different conclusion then you did because I did not go into the investigation already assuming the conclusion.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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?
I tell you what, when you get the list of things you have actively avoided answering down to one, I'd be happy to comment on the one thing I missed. I'd be more then happy to provide you with a list so you can conveniently ignore them again all in one go. Drinking Beverage Seriously though, I'd be happy to list them.


(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
That's impressive, you managed to create a stawman of me creating a strawman. Feel free to go back through this entire thread and show me where I have said that you stated that what they have seen was conclusively 100% proven. In fact that entire little tirade had nothign to do with the part you quoted, I didn't even use the word conclusive. So ..yaaaa... Knew I'd be seeing those strawmen again. Laugh out load
(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.
You are not stating that what they saw was conclusively an aircraft, you are stating that they are stating that what they saw was conclusively an aircraft.
Oh man that's super different.Rolleyes

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Except that I have never stated that at all so ....yay more fucking Strawmen. It's easy for an accusation to seem dishonest when you make up the fucking accusation. If only there was a word for that..... *cough*dishonest*cough*

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  YOU, like many here, require excessive evidence such as a little green man to come spend Christmas with you
Oh look more strawmen AND someone telling me what I think and what I consider reasonably compelling! That's the last straw. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Fuck yourself, Alex Jones.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  and even then I have no doubt that your lack of honest skepticism will compel you to believe or accept it.
Oh look! Another assertion that I lack honest skepticism without a demonstration or any example that I do. Continue fucking yourself, I'm bored of you asserting stuff.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

[Image: picard-facepalm.jpg~original]

*sigh* You're doing it wrong.
Quote:A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon
Quote:Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle (which) states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Your hypothesis as you have stated it is that they saw a aircraft and that the most likely explanation is that it's extraterrestrial in nature.
The hypothesis ranges from "they were mistaken" to "they saw an aircraft but it was of an here to unknown human design".
Yours requires VASTLY more assumptions then mine and is thus the least probable. You have to assume they correctly identified it as an aircraft. You have to assume that it was piloted. You have to assume that the craft was piloted by an alien, which requires the assumption that there ARE aliens that they are intelligent, that they are intelligent enough to leave their planet and have the desire to do so, that they can ignore or supersede all known laws of physics to get here, that they have some reason for doing so and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  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?
Once again, sorry to lose you to Catholicism brah, though clearly it was not that far of a fall.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  It has become clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about here,
That's a conclusion one would come to if one was engaged in all kinds of strawmanning so no surprise you think that. Drinking Beverage

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  no investigative skills,
Except that I'm not the one engaged in rampant confirmation bias and publicly jacking off his own presuppositions.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  do not have the first clue how to apply "Occam's Razor,"
Says the guy using it wrong AND conveniently neglecting to apply it to the alien part of his hypothosis, You know...the part where it actually does show you are the least likely to be right. gee, wonder how that happened.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  do not understand "probabilities,"
Shame you did not demonstrate that. What is it with you and rampant assertions?

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  and have chosen to portray my position with so much contempt as to employ radical dishonesty.
Except I didn't 'cause every time you claimed that it was a strawman.

(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.

Yes you absolutely do, it's not up to us to debunk it and prove it was not an alien craft it's up to you and anyone else saying it's likely to be one to prove it.

(01-12-2014 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  I am merely posting the evidence. It isn't my evidence, so there is nothing for me to prove.

Um....hahaha No, hahah. Like....hella no. The fact that you are not the originator of the evidence does not mean your free from having to prove it if you are presenting it as evidence.

"I don't have to prove Paul met Jesus, it's not my evidence I don't have to prove it even though I'm actively presenting that position as evidence."

There is a reason you haven't gotten a single ounce of support at all in this debate, and it's shit like that. Oh no wait..... I'm sure it's just every single other person that disagrees with you that's wrong and can't investigate at all. Makes sense.
Hobo

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
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
01-12-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 08:02 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  There was no dishonesty applied
I'm sorry but yes Free there was. When I ask you entirely relevant questions, when inform you of the fallacies you are making and then provide examples and demonstrations that you are, when I ask questions that show the double standard you are using in your disproportionate trust in eye witness testimony and you actively go out of your way to avoid addressing this stuff at all, going so far as to selectively edit them out of the quote when you respond to other things, you ARE being deliberately dishonest at worst and at best you are being deliberately evasive.

However when you assert with out demonstration things like:
Quote:Since the rest of what you said is but more of the same inability to reason intelligently, there's no point in responding to it.
Quote:....the rest of what you said is not worthy of comment.
about those inconvenient elements you are not just being dishonest you are acting like a petulant child. The fact I have had to bring the exact same objections to your attention 5+ times and you are STILL avoiding them is just idiotic and strains the credibility you are objective.


(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  YOU agreed with Chas' statement that there was no evidence whatsoever, which most definitely included the eyewitness testimony of what they saw.
So you claim you're not dishonest and then you deliberately misrepresent a position that has already been clarified to you multiple times? He and I are both saying, and this has been clarified multiple times now, that the testimony it's self can not be used to gauge the accuracy of the testimony on how it maps to reality. That has to be done independently by corroborating evidence of which there is none. THAT is what I at least am saying.
I'll say it again:There is evidence they think they saw something, there is evidence that they believe it to be an aircraft of unidentified origin. There Is NO corroborating evidence to conclude that what they claim to have seen was in fact what they believe it to be. To do that you would have to physically examine the object it's self which they have not done.

I'm not comfortable saying it is an aircraft for the sole reason that it has not been demonstrated to be one and it's considered rationally sound to withhold belief on things which remain undemonstrated.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
I've called you dishonest and Ive explained why and offered reasonable demonstrations. you once again assert I'm being dishonest, you assert I'm making shit up (hilarious given your stance on the subject in question), you assert I'm attempting to cover my tracks, you assert I'm trying to back track and you provide ZERO examples and ZERO demonstrations.
You can assert whatever you like Free, but I've SHOWN you to be dishonest and you have just asserted it.

I'M doing my best to address ever single point you make that I can and YOU are doing everything you can to AVOID addressing as many points I have made as you can get away with.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  End of fucking discussion.

No. Drinking Beverage

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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?
That's a nice strawman you got going there, I'll be seeing a lot more of them I'm sure. Drinking Beverage
1.) I never called watching the History Channel "serious investigation". You made that up.
2.) I watched the special AS WELL AS everything you recommended I do. A statement included in literally the thing you quoted, so your implication that my "serious investigation" amounted to watching a made-for-TV dramatization was.....that's right everyone but you guessed it: Dishonest!
3.) Oh I also went to that website you linked earlier. You know... the one hosting "new Photo's of the Loch Ness Monster"......and Japanese street ghosts, and mass possession by evil spirits.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  You haven't the 1st fucking clue how to investigate these types of things.
I know not to go into a investigation while operating under a presupposition because that has a tendency towards confirmation bias. Try it some time.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  It's obvious to me you didn't investigate this issue at all.
I investigated exactly what you suggested I investigate and because I didn't confirm your presupposition I must not have done it at all? Hahah. No. Take your assertion and your attempt to dictate to ME what I have done and shove it up your belligerent ass.
I came to a different conclusion then you did because I did not go into the investigation already assuming the conclusion.

(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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?
I tell you what, when you get the list of things you have actively avoided answering down to one, I'd be happy to comment on the one thing I missed. I'd be more then happy to provide you with a list so you can conveniently ignore them again all in one go. Drinking Beverage Seriously though, I'd be happy to list them.


(01-12-2014 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
That's impressive, you managed to create a stawman of me creating a strawman. Feel free to go back through this entire thread and show me where I have said that you stated that what they have seen was conclusively 100% proven. In fact that entire little tirade had nothign to do with the part you quoted, I didn't even use the word conclusive. So ..yaaaa... Knew I'd be seeing those strawmen again. Laugh out load
(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.
You are not stating that what they saw was conclusively an aircraft, you are stating that they are stating that what they saw was conclusively an aircraft.
Oh man that's super different.Rolleyes

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Except that I have never stated that at all so ....yay more fucking Strawmen. It's easy for an accusation to seem dishonest when you make up the fucking accusation. If only there was a word for that..... *cough*dishonest*cough*

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  YOU, like many here, require excessive evidence such as a little green man to come spend Christmas with you
Oh look more strawmen AND someone telling me what I think and what I consider reasonably compelling! That's the last straw. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo​ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Fuck yourself, Alex Jones.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  and even then I have no doubt that your lack of honest skepticism will compel you to believe or accept it.
Oh look! Another assertion that I lack honest skepticism without a demonstration or any example that I do. Continue fucking yourself, I'm bored of you asserting stuff.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

[Image: picard-facepalm.jpg~original]

*sigh* You're doing it wrong.
Quote:A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon
Quote:Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle (which) states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Your hypothesis as you have stated it is that they saw a aircraft and that the most likely explanation is that it's extraterrestrial in nature.
The hypothesis ranges from "they were mistaken" to "they saw an aircraft but it was of an here to unknown human design".
Yours requires VASTLY more assumptions then mine and is thus the least probable. You have to assume they correctly identified it as an aircraft. You have to assume that it was piloted. You have to assume that the craft was piloted by an alien, which requires the assumption that there ARE aliens that they are intelligent, that they are intelligent enough to leave their planet and have the desire to do so, that they can ignore or supersede all known laws of physics to get here, that they have some reason for doing so and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  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?
Once again, sorry to lose you to Catholicism brah, though clearly it was not that far of a fall.


(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  It has become clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about here,
That's a conclusion one would come to if one was engaged in all kinds of strawmanning so no surprise you think that. Drinking Beverage

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  no investigative skills,
Except that I'm not the one engaged in rampant confirmation bias and publicly jacking off his own presuppositions.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  do not have the first clue how to apply "Occam's Razor,"
Says the guy using it wrong AND conveniently neglecting to apply it to the alien part of his hypothosis, You know...the part where it actually does show you are the least likely to be right. gee, wonder how that happened.

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  do not understand "probabilities,"
Shame you did not demonstrate that. What is it with you and rampant assertions?

(30-11-2014 11:54 AM)Free Wrote:  and have chosen to portray my position with so much contempt as to employ radical dishonesty.
Except I didn't 'cause every time you claimed that it was a strawman.

(01-12-2014 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  No I do not.

Yes you absolutely do, it's not up to us to debunk it and prove it was not an alien craft it's up to you and anyone else saying it's likely to be one to prove it.

(01-12-2014 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  I am merely posting the evidence. It isn't my evidence, so there is nothing for me to prove.

Um....hahaha No, hahah. Like....hella no. The fact that you are not the originator of the evidence does not mean your free from having to prove it if you are presenting it as evidence.

"I don't have to prove Paul met Jesus, it's not my evidence I don't have to prove it even though I'm actively presenting that position as evidence."

There is a reason you haven't gotten a single ounce of support at all in this debate, and it's shit like that. Oh no wait..... I'm sure it's just every single other person that disagrees with you that's wrong and can't investigate at all. Makes sense.
Hobo

Okay, I will let you have the last word.

I'm bored with this. Thanks to everyone for your contributions.

Thumbsup

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, 08:30 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 08:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, I will let you have the last word.

I'm bored with this. Thanks to everyone for your contributions.

Thumbsup

Lol I think you left one of your toys on the way out. I'm kinda disappointed that I won't get an actual response to any of the points I made pages ago. Oh well It was bound to happen, one of us had to get tired it's gotta take just as long to make up shit up as it takes me to correct it.


Man...........this would have been really embarrassing if this was all a big misunderstanding and you actually think Mexicans did it.

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
01-12-2014, 09:00 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(01-12-2014 08:30 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 08:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, I will let you have the last word.

I'm bored with this. Thanks to everyone for your contributions.

Thumbsup

Lol I think you left one of your toys on the way out. I'm kinda disappointed that I won't get an actual response to any of the points I made pages ago. Oh well It was bound to happen, one of us had to get tired it's gotta take just as long to make up shit up as it takes me to correct it.


Man...........this would have been really embarrassing if this was all a big misunderstanding and you actually think Mexicans did it.

Sorry I didn't respond to some of your posts. There was just too much coming at me from everyone, and also some time constraints here irl.

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: