UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:05 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  No, there are 12.

The report at Narcap shows them all.

The NARCAP report lists eight "witnesses", only two of whom actually claim to have seen anything more than a balloon or a bird and two of which are by the report's own admission just assumed to exist.

You haven't read it either.

Keep going.

Big Grin

Quote:
(18-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  The Chicago Tribune claims it interviewed them all

No, it doesn't.

And we're still running in circles. This thread is over. I suggest that we all just let it die, because the only thing that we are accomplishing at this point is...

...well. Nothing, really, other than letting Free continue to delude himself into thinking that anyone cares about his idiocy.

Yes they did. Keep going.

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
18-09-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  No, there are 12.

Nope.

(18-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  The report at Narcap shows them all.

It does not.

If it does, and everyone else is wrong about it, then it should be utterly trivial for you to provide the relevant citation or excerpt.

I challenged you to do this days ago, and somehow, mysteriously, you never did.

It's okay; I'll wait.

I mean, surely you've actually read the document you claim as a foundational source for your, ah, "argument", yes? I should hate to think of you as to be so dishonest as to blatantly and categorically misrepresent it, when it represents so much of your purported evidence. Because that would just be sad for all of us to see.

Where is that citation?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
18-09-2015, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 10:19 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  No, there are 12.

Nope.

(18-09-2015 09:54 AM)Free Wrote:  The report at Narcap shows them all.

It does not.

If it does, and everyone else is wrong about it, then it should be utterly trivial for you to provide the relevant citation or excerpt.

I challenged you to do this days ago, and somehow, mysteriously, you never did.

It's okay; I'll wait.

I mean, surely you've actually read the document you claim as a foundational source for your, ah, "argument", yes? I should hate to think of you as to be so dishonest as to blatantly and categorically misrepresent it, when it represents so much of your purported evidence. Because that would just be sad for all of us to see.

Where is that citation?

Hint: Table 1 shows 8 eyewitness from United Airways in the report.

The rest of the report shows eyewitness who either didn't work for United Airways, or who wouldn't admit to working for United Airways.

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
18-09-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Hint: Table 1 shows 8 eyewitness from United Airways in the report.

No, it doesn't. It shows four "eyewitnesses", two of whom dismissed the sighting as something totally mundane.

(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  The rest of the report shows eyewitness who didn't work for United Airways.

No, it doesn't. It talks about how none of the tower control personnel saw the object, two other staff members passed on reports of the object, and one supposed eyewitness that they "interviewed" claims to have been a passenger at the terminal, but she was posting on AboveTopSecret.com, so... yes. Everything I said about that site previously still stands.

So, at best, this increases the number to nine, assuming that you are willing to accept an anonymous, unverified series of blog posts on AboveTopSecret as "eyewitness testimony".

If you're going to lie so blatantly and shamelessly, you might at least try to make the lie a little more impressive or helpful to your case. What is the point in lying about the number of witnesses when you haven't bothered to lie about whether or not their testimony is verifiable?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-09-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:19 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Hint: Table 1 shows 8 eyewitness from United Airways in the report.

No, it doesn't. It shows four "eyewitnesses", two of whom dismissed the sighting as something totally mundane.

(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  The rest of the report shows eyewitness who didn't work for United Airways.

No, it doesn't. It talks about how none of the tower control personnel saw the object, two other staff members passed on reports of the object, and one supposed eyewitness that they "interviewed" claims to have been a passenger at the terminal, but she was posting on AboveTopSecret.com, so... yes. Everything I said about that site previously still stands.

So, at best, this increases the number to nine, assuming that you are willing to accept an anonymous, unverified series of blog posts on AboveTopSecret as "eyewitness testimony".

Your denialism is now extreme. You no longer entertain me.

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
18-09-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:20 AM)Free Wrote:  Your denialism is now extreme. You no longer entertain me.

Big Grin

Rather than acting like an ass, posting nonsense, and returning that point of negative reputation as if it means anything, you could simply expose me as an idiot before the world by showing where I am wrong.

Quote the report. That is all that you have to do, and everyone here will be able to see how much of an idiot I am.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
18-09-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Hint: Go to Page 118.

That should shut everybody up, because it lists so many eyewitness that they are too numerous to mention. Including other eyewitness working for United Airways who wouldn't speak directly to NARCAP out of fear of being identified.

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
18-09-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Hint: Table 1 shows 8 eyewitness from United Airways in the report.

Only some of whom are actual contacts the authors actually spoke to.
(relevant quote - "Unfortunately, witness I could not be located for an interview", bottom of page 16)
(even more relevant quote - "Unfortunately, the negative reaction of United management and some of his co-workers caused witness C to be totally unwilling to cooperate in any way with this investigation. A detailed questionnaire was mailed to him on November 24, 2006 but he did not respond." page 9 note 8. Marvel at how a lack of response doesn't prevent the authors from counting his "testimony", and never mind the part where they outright invent a reason for his non-response. This is incredibly dishonest!)

Notwithstanding how Whiskey has already made plain that even the accounts that are included explicitly contradict each other. The table shows fewer than 8 eyewitnesses. Some were never contacted. Fewer than 8 is not 12.

(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  The rest of the report shows eyewitness who didn't work for United Airways.

Yes; posters to a conspiracy theory website from months after the fact. Magically, when it comes to your special pleading baby, this counts as testimony. When it comes to ghosts or cryptids... meh. Of course, when it comes to those who were passengers at the airport, they certainly can't be accorded the "expert" status you repeatedly gave all 12. Notwithstanding how anything from months later is so far beyond useless as to be laughable.
(even the report says as much to cover its ass:
"Nevertheless, Ms. J.H. was interviewed earlier by Mark Allin, (AboveTopSecret.com director) and Linda Moulton Howe so it isn't possible to accurately assess the likelihood of prior leading or biasing here [ed]." Page 118 note 91)

Incidentally, and to highlight the bias of the authors, at several points the report cites poster 'rampagentX' from abovetopsecret where useful and yet in others it explicitly calls that account spurious.
(e.g. page 17: "Witness 'Rampagent X' located somewhere near concourse C thought it was about twenty feet diameter. These are remarkably similar estimates."
versus page 5 note 3: "It is very unlikely that witness A is "rampagentX" who posted a spurious account [ed] on the AboveTopSecret.com BLOG.")

So when it comes to your "12 expert eyewitnesses agree", there weren't 12, they aren't experts, and they didn't agree. According to your own purported source material.

...

None of this equals 12. You keep using that number. Why? I really, truly don't understand. Neither where you got it from - okay, we know you got it from an unsourced sentence on Wikipedia, but what I really mean is why you credit that - nor why you cling to it so desperately.

You'd be that tiny bit more honest if you'd just said several. Or at least six. But you somehow internalised 12 and refuse to admit you might have been wrong about anything.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
18-09-2015, 10:48 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 10:52 AM by cjlr.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Hint: Go to Page 118.

That should shut everybody up, because it lists so many eyewitness that they are too numerous to mention. Including other eyewitness working for United Airways who wouldn't speak directly to NARCAP out of fear of being identified.

There are four accounts in the appendix, two of which are from the same person, and one of which is explicitly called spurious elsewhere in the report.

So that's 2, and it's 3 if we want to be really generous. If we add that to the 6 airline employees who were actually quoted...
3
+6
=9

9 is not 12.

Check. Fucking. Mate.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
18-09-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Hint: Table 1 shows 8 eyewitness from United Airways in the report.

Only some of whom are actual contacts the authors actually spoke to.
(relevant quote - "Unfortunately, witness I could not be located for an interview", bottom of page 16)
(even more relevant quote - "Unfortunately, the negative reaction of United management and some of his co-workers caused witness C to be totally unwilling to cooperate in any way with this investigation. A detailed questionnaire was mailed to him on November 24, 2006 but he did not respond." page 9 note 8. Marvel at how a lack of response doesn't prevent the authors from counting his "testimony", and never mind the part where they outright invent a reason for his non-response. This is incredibly dishonest!)

Notwithstanding how Whiskey has already made plain that even the accounts that are included explicitly contradict each other. The table shows fewer than 8 eyewitnesses. Some were never contacted. Fewer than 8 is not 12.

(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  The rest of the report shows eyewitness who didn't work for United Airways.

Yes; posters to a conspiracy theory website from months after the fact. Magically, when it comes to your special pleading baby, this counts as testimony. When it comes to ghosts or cryptids... meh. Of course, when it comes to those who were passengers at the airport, they certainly can't be accorded the "expert" status you repeatedly gave all 12. Notwithstanding how anything from months later is so far beyond useless as to be laughable.
(even the report says as much to cover its ass:
"Nevertheless, Ms. J.H. was interviewed earlier by Mark Allin, (AboveTopSecret.com director) and Linda Moulton Howe so it isn't possible to accurately assess the likelihood of prior leading or biasing here [ed]." Page 118 note 91)

Incidentally, and to highlight the bias of the authors, at several points the report cites poster 'rampagentX' from abovetopsecret where useful and yet in others it explicitly calls that account spurious.
(e.g. page 17: "Witness 'Rampagent X' located somewhere near concourse C thought it was about twenty feet diameter. These are remarkably similar estimates."
versus page 5 note 3: "It is very unlikely that witness A is "rampagentX" who posted a spurious account [ed] on the AboveTopSecret.com BLOG.")

So when it comes to your "12 expert eyewitnesses agree", there weren't 12, they aren't experts, and they didn't agree. According to your own purported source material.

...

None of this equals 12. You keep using that number. Why? I really, truly don't understand. Neither where you got it from - okay, we know you got it from an unsourced sentence on Wikipedia, but what I really mean is why you credit that - nor why you cling to it so desperately.

You'd be that tiny bit more honest if you'd just said several. Or at least six. But you somehow internalised 12 and refuse to admit you might have been wrong about anything.

I have provided many links to the Chicago Tribune story, with numerous videos in which the reporter tells you he has interviewed these witnesses.

That's all there is. I can't keep doing this for you people if you won't read the report properly, or won't even follow the links to investigate this properly.

What more can I do if you people will not investigate it?

Huh

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: