UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 11:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

It never was. It includes aspiring "physicists" who "believe" that a singularity once existed based upon the circumstantial evidence.

And yes, I can make the comparison for the simple reason that you believe that the singularity existed when there is no direct evidence of the existence of the singularity.

Fascinating! You apparently know more about what I believe than I do!

"Singularity" is a term referring to the conditions at which presently prevailing theories break down. Accepting them as I do, I certainly conclude that there exist limits at which presently prevailing theories break down. Only a retard would call that a gotcha.

But no, you utterly fail to understand what "circumstantial" means, if you think prevailing scientific consensus is "circumstantial".

(18-09-2015 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  No matter what you subscribe to, whether it is the Big Bang, evolution, or any theory that is incomplete in regards to total conclusiveness, you are in a state of belief.

And that makes you absolutely no different than a theist in that respect alone.

And now you are forced into an apologetics situation, because you will need to defend what you believe to be true, when we both know it would be pointless for you to even both because you cannot conclusively prove what you assume to be the truth.

And that, alone, is truth in itself.

"You don't have perfect knowledge and absolute proof therefore facts don't matter and I can't be wrong NYAH NYAH NYAH".

In the real world it is occasionally of some utility to differentiate between facts and feelings. And apparently you, yourself do so in enough spheres of your life so as to exist independently outside a medical institution. Good for you!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 12:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  It never was. It includes aspiring "physicists" who "believe" that a singularity once existed based upon the circumstantial evidence.

And yes, I can make the comparison for the simple reason that you believe that the singularity existed when there is no direct evidence of the existence of the singularity.

Fascinating! You apparently know more about what I believe than I do!

"Singularity" is a term referring to the conditions at which presently prevailing theories break down. Accepting them as I do, I certainly conclude that there exist limits at which presently prevailing theories break down. Only a retard would call that a gotcha.

But no, you utterly fail to understand what "circumstantial" means, if you think prevailing scientific consensus is "circumstantial".

(18-09-2015 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  No matter what you subscribe to, whether it is the Big Bang, evolution, or any theory that is incomplete in regards to total conclusiveness, you are in a state of belief.

And that makes you absolutely no different than a theist in that respect alone.

And now you are forced into an apologetics situation, because you will need to defend what you believe to be true, when we both know it would be pointless for you to even both because you cannot conclusively prove what you assume to be the truth.

And that, alone, is truth in itself.

"You don't have perfect knowledge and absolute proof therefore facts don't matter and I can't be wrong NYAH NYAH NYAH".

In the real world it is occasionally of some utility to differentiate between facts and feelings. And apparently you, yourself do so in enough spheres of your life so as to exist independently outside a medical institution. Good for you!

It's irrelevant in regards to the level of reason and rationality anyone has in regards to what they believe to be true.

For the truth is, it is still a position of belief regardless.

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
18-09-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 12:27 PM)Free Wrote:  It's irrelevant in regards to the level of reason and rationality anyone has in regards to what they believe to be true.

For the truth is, it is still a position of belief regardless.

Right, so we're down to ignoring what was said and posting gibberish, then. Wonderful.

I think we're done here.

"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
18-09-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Personally I find it intriguing and somewhat humorous how a theist, KingsChosen, can demonstrate more intellectual honesty about his position than anybody I have seen among most of the atheists in this thread.

Way to go people; a theist demonstrates more integrity than you do. Laughat

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
18-09-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 12:41 PM)Free Wrote:  Personally I find it intriguing and somewhat humorous how a theist, KingsChosen, can demonstrate more intellectual honesty about his position than anybody I have seen among most of the atheists in this thread.

Way to go people; a theist demonstrates more integrity than you do. Laughat

You know fuck all about integrity, especially considering how you've ran through the entire Theistic Apologetics Playbook in defense of your own delusional fuckery.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-09-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 01:29 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 12:41 PM)Free Wrote:  Personally I find it intriguing and somewhat humorous how a theist, KingsChosen, can demonstrate more intellectual honesty about his position than anybody I have seen among most of the atheists in this thread.

Way to go people; a theist demonstrates more integrity than you do. Laughat

You know fuck all about integrity, especially considering how you're ran through the entire Theistic Apologetics Playbook in defense of your own delusional fuckery.

It's personal, and don't take this too seriously, but I simply do not like you as a person.

Don't blame yourself, because it isn't you, it's me.

There are just some people I can't stand, and you are one of them.

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
18-09-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 01:33 PM)Free Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 01:29 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You know fuck all about integrity, especially considering how you're ran through the entire Theistic Apologetics Playbook in defense of your own delusional fuckery.

It's personal, and don't take this too seriously, but I simply do not like you as a person.

Don't blame yourself, because it isn't you, it's me.

There are just some people I can't stand, and you are one of them.

Thumbsup

Well, the feeling is mutual.

And you're right, I won't worry, because I know it's not my fault you're such a dumbass. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 01:40 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 01:33 PM)Free Wrote:  It's personal, and don't take this too seriously, but I simply do not like you as a person.

Don't blame yourself, because it isn't you, it's me.

There are just some people I can't stand, and you are one of them.

Thumbsup

Well, the feeling is mutual.

And you're right, I won't worry, because I know it's not my fault you're such a dumbass. Drinking Beverage

That's the spirit! Go with that!

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
18-09-2015, 07:28 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 07:49 AM)Free Wrote:  "Witnesses B (left cockpit seat) and C (right seat), both United aviation mechanics, were about to taxi an empty commercial jet airplane from the International ramp initially near D2 to the United Service Center hanger on the north side of the airport. At this point there are two slightly different alternative versions of what happened next."
No, I'm not chasing your fucking stupid ball around any more. A few pages back you pointed me to a completely different page (Page 15) that you claimed showed NARCAP identifying an error in the time stamps. I showed you why that's not the case and that they just assert one as an explanation for why the testimony Witness A and Witness B (Which is what the author is taking about when he writes ..."The above time estimates appear to be at variance with the FAA's inbound ground controller's statement....") don't agree with the Certified Accurate time stamps. Now you're trying to direct my attention AWAY from it to something else.

Is this:
Quote:When did the UAP leave? This is an important yet difficult question to answer. It is possible to identify only an approximate range of times. Witness A said it left after about two minutes after he first saw it, or at about 4:32 pm. Witnesses B and C watched the object from the cockpit of a an empty B777 for at least 3.2 minutes (and as long as 5 minutes) sometime between 3:57:30 pm and about 4:18 pm. The UAP had gone by about 4:20 pm when they had reached their destination at the United maintenance hanger. Thus, according to them the object probably departed around 4:18 pm. Witness D said the object "disappeared within a fraction of a second" after he had been looking at it for approximately one minute (i.e., at about 4:33 or 4:34 pm) depending on how long it took him to reach the viewing location at Gate C5.
The above time estimates appear to be at variance with the FAA's inbound ground controller's statement made at 3:58:09 pm to Gateway flight 5668 to, "...use caution for the ah, UFO" which is the first official mention of a UFO by the FAA. Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour, that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error, or for some other reason? Without definitive data we will assume that the UAP departed at about 4:34 pm. (+/-1 min.)
Where, according to you, they identify an error in the time stamps or not and if not why the flying fuck did you direct me to it when I asked where the hell they identify a problem with the time stamps?

They identify a problem getting their eyewitness testimony to match the time stamps and that is it. In fact looking at it again I also notice that Witness B and C says it left at about 4:18. Witness A says it left at 4:32. Witness D says it left at 4:34. Given that these can't all be right (though they can all be wrong..or made up) the author then asks a question "what could possibly explain why these times seem to be in variance" and then posits a whole bunch of stuff, then says "hey we have no data to support this assumption but we are just gonna assume it left at 4:34.
So here NARCAP is directly and purposely ignoring the testimony of it's own witnesses B and C who said it left at 4:18. Why would they do that? Because the testimony of Witness B and C completely contradicts Witness A and D because according to Witness B and C they saw it LEAVE THE AREA before (12 minutes before) Witness A testifies he/she saw it FOR THE FIRST TIME which is physically impossible. Witness B and C testify they saw it LEAVE THE AREA before ( 13-14 minutes before) Witness D testifies he/she saw it FOR THE FIRST TIME which is physically impossible.
By assuming 4:34 as the correct time the UFO leaves they are COMPLETELY ignoring the Testimony of Witness B and C which place it nearly a quarter of an hour before.

Now I want to get back to a point I have made about 7 or 8 times now and you have avoided every time I've made it.

If the logs are correct and 22:55 UTC = 3:55 then Witness B head the call at 4:30 then STARTED taxing. However (again assuming correct time stamps) taxing began at 3:57...a half hour before he claims to in his testimony. He also claims to sees the craft leave at 4:18 ..despite testifying that he heard the call at 4:30 and laughed it off.

If the logs are not correct and 22:55 UTC actually = 4:55 then the correct time A/C2 (Witness B) starts taxing is 4:57. He hears the report of a UFO at 4:30, laughed it off, then starts taxing at which, just to reiterate, is at NO EARLIER than 4:57 according to the NARCAP "corrected" time stamps. Yet A/C2 (Witness B) testifies at 4:48 (nearly 10 min before a possible taxi time) that they saw the UFO "a half hour ago" at 4:18 (nearly 40 min before a possible taxi time) which Witness B testifies in the report they saw WHILE TAXING which, once again to drive the point home, is according to NARCAPS own "corrected" times puts at 4:57.

If the FFA time stamps are correct and not in error then the testimony of Witness B is false.
If the FFA times stamps are incorrect, and we apply the "corrections" of NARCAP, then the testimony of Witness B is false.

There is no version of events where the testimony of Witness B is correct. I'd actually like you to deal with this fact finally. The WHOLE thing, not just the first half with the second half edited out.

Witness B is false with correct time stamps and false with "corrected" time stamps. What say you to this?


I look forward to you asserting I'm not reading the report and addressing ZERO of my points.

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
18-09-2015, 07:36 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 08:34 AM)Free Wrote:  No one has answered the question of how science can help with the claim of:

"At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17."
If the event took place in reality, space, or time then it has an effect on the real world and thus is ENTIRELY in the domain of the scientific method. In fact the scientific method is the ONLY way we could get accurate, verifiable, testable evidence in support or refutation of the claim.

The second you claim an event happened in reality it's a job for the scientific method to determine what happened.
[Image: e1a6bc8b7cad763a61a9574da0e8bf02.jpg]
The fact that your claim fails to get passed step #2 does not mean that your claim is immune to the scientific method. It just means your hypothesis is shit because you can't test it at all.

"At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing Jesus Christ hovering over Gate C-17."
Would you accept that the scientific method has no place investigating this claim and why or why not?

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: