UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 08:19 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 08:12 AM)Free Wrote:  But what has been proven here?

That you have exactly zero evidence to support your assertions and are quite willing to engage in blatantly dishonest intellectual practices in order to try and act as though you have any kind of justification at all.

(19-09-2015 08:12 AM)Free Wrote:  So all it comes down to is whether or not anyone chooses to accept the claim as being true or false.

I accept it as true, and most here accept it as false.

And you are very, very silly to do so.

"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
19-09-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 05:59 AM)jabeady Wrote:  There's something else I don't understand. A race of super-advanced beings have conquered special relativity, and use it to visit us for the purpose of ... what? Seems like a terrible waste of matter and energy for some pretty limited rewards.

Then these super-advanced beings who have conquered special relativity are absolutely horrible at keeping themselves and their super-advanced spacecraft with the special - relativity - conquering spacedrive out of our sight. What an odd combination of advancement and ineptitude. After all, if they're that intelligent, they should either be able to mask their activities entirely or, if they don't care whether we see them, surely they could conduct operations in full view without fear of our interference. What could we possibly do to mess with them?

It just doesn't make sense.

This is entirely speculative and exclusive. If they are a non human intelligence, we cannot say where they came from. The answer does not necessarily mean they came from another star system.

We have't even explored most of the earth yet, let alone our own solar system. We have no idea if they are from earth, or some other planet/moon in our own solar system.

Quote:BTW, I don't buy that airport employees wouldn't be carrying cell phones. They were simply too pervasive, if nothing else.

Since they have to move these aircraft while on the ground, and receive instructions from the tower controllers via radio frequencies, then it makes perfect sense.

United Airways has policies regarding mobile devices in which they can only be used above 10,000 feet due to interference. For people in the cockpit to be using cell phones while receiving instructions via radio would pose a danger for a certainty.

Some info here:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...vices.aspx

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
19-09-2015, 08:45 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 10:13 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We have attempted this before.

Free will respond by running off in circles screeching about how anecdotes are evidence, unconfirmed and unverified, possibly fake photographs of nothing in particular are also evidence, and so on.

And then he will accuse you of being, in his own words, "fucking retarded" for not accepting this.

Have fun.

ok... let`s try again:




There is no evidence of alien life.


Case closed. Or you will be shot.

I don't believe you.

So, shoot me.

Tongue

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
19-09-2015, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 10:58 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 08:12 AM)Free Wrote:  Look, I did everything I could to try and get you to read it properly.
Other than just quote directly from it when I ask you to sure, or answering basic questions, or not avoiding entire sections of responses multiple times, or not editing out criticisms from the quotes you are responding to, then ya sure you did everything you could.
Whatever helps you feel justified in being a shitbird.

Quote:There is no Table 6 on Page 32, it is page 37. (I have the official PDF, unlocked, so don't know what you have.)
http://www.narcap.org/files/NARCAP_TR-10.pdf From the NARCAP website. They seem to have removed the pictures from some reason so I would imagine that buggers up the page numbers.

Quote:Yes, the conversation is with Gateway 5668, also known as A/C1.
OK so it is on Table 6? Which I believe they label as recording #4 correct. I wanna make sure we are on the same page here lol



Quote:No, you failed to "understand" that Witness B is not Gateway 5668 aka A/C1 for the time period beginning at 3:57.
*sigh* If you go back to this thread I never once refer to Witness B as A/C1. I only ever call A/C2 "Witness B". Which. I will add, is very generous of me because A/C2 being Witness B is only assumed, not proven, but I'm willing to grant it for the sake of conversation.




Quote:But what has been proven here?

Absolutely nothing at all in regards to the claim. It can't be proven, ever.
Well first off we have proven that the testimony of Witness B is at best suspect and at worse a fabrication. Even if your timeline is correct (I'll be able to ascertain that once I know for sure if you are refuting to Table 6 time stamps) that still has Witness B&C reporting watching the aircraft leave before many other Witnesses (A and D for example) report seeing it for the first time, which would be rather impossible. Which leads us into another thing we have proven which which, when presented with this dilemma, NARCAP is willing to make up a time line which completely ignores the times given by Witness B&C while still using their testimony to establish other times in other parts of the report. Which is frankly shoddy investigative methodology at best and fraud at worst.

Secondly if the claim can't be proven ever than it's an untestable, unverifiable, unfalseifiable assertion and there is zero rational reason to accept the assertion as true. To accept claims that are not demonstrably true is to give up reason and critical thinking.

Quote:So all it comes down to is whether or not anyone chooses to accept the claim as being true or false.

I accept it as true, and most here accept it as false.
Actually that's not accurate. I don't have to accept the claim as true or false and I don't in fact. I don't think there claim is true. I don't think their claim is false. I think their claims is unproven and unverified. What they claim could very well be 100% true or 100% false...but they have given me (and you) exactly zero evidence that can be tested in an effort to verify their claim (which is the job of the person making the claim, to prove it) and their testimony it's self is unproven and unverified.

I don't reject their claim because I think it's false, I reject the claim because it's an unproven claim and have exactly ZERO rational reason to accept unproven assertions as true. I don't do it with god claims, Sasquatch claims, UFO claims, or any other unproven assertion. These people made a claim to have witnesseed soemthing and the burden of proof to prove that they did is on THEM. It's not up to us to debunk or disprove claims, it's up tot he person making the claim to prove it factual.

You accept it for personal reasons, not rational reasons.

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
19-09-2015, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 12:36 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 10:53 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 08:12 AM)Free Wrote:  Look, I did everything I could to try and get you to read it properly.
Other than just quote directly from it when I ask you to sure, or answering basic questions, or not avoiding entire sections of responses multiple times, or not editing out criticisms from the quotes you are responding to, then ya sure you did everything you could.
Whatever helps you feel justified in being a shitbird.

I wouldn't have let this go on so long if you hadn't come at me with both guns a-blazing with such derogatory remarks towards me. But I can accept some of the responsibility for your attitude because in reality I started it with attitude towards you right out the gate.

I was angry at everyone, and you jumped in at the wrong time.

Quote:
Quote:There is no Table 6 on Page 32, it is page 37. (I have the official PDF, unlocked, so don't know what you have.)
http://www.narcap.org/files/NARCAP_TR-10.pdf From the NARCAP website. They seem to have removed the pictures from some reason so I would imagine that buggers up the page numbers.

That's probably it. Or you may have a file association issue in which images on websites do not appear properly, or at all, in your browser. This indicates two possible reasons; you either have some malware, or the most likely problem is that the default program to open images in your web browser has been changed. It's an easy fix if that's the case.

Quote:
Quote:Yes, the conversation is with Gateway 5668, also known as A/C1.
OK so it is on Table 6? Which I believe they label as recording #4 correct. I wanna make sure we are on the same page here lol

Yes.

Quote:
Quote:No, you failed to "understand" that Witness B is not Gateway 5668 aka A/C1 for the time period beginning at 3:57.
*sigh* If you go back to this thread I never once refer to Witness B as A/C1. I only ever call A/C2 "Witness B". Which. I will add, is very generous of me because A/C2 being Witness B is only assumed, not proven, but I'm willing to grant it for the same of conversation.

Okay.

Quote:
Quote:But what has been proven here?

Absolutely nothing at all in regards to the claim. It can't be proven, ever.
Well first off we have proven that the testimony of Witness B is at best suspect and at worse a fabrication. Even if your timeline is correct (I'll be able to ascertain that once I know for sure if you are refuting to Table 6 time stamps) that still has Witness B&C reporting watching the aircraft leave before many other Witnesses (A and D for example) report seeing it for the first time, which would be rather impossible. Which leads us into another thing we have proven which which, when presented with this dilemma, NARCAP is willing to make up a time line which completely ignores the times given by Witness B&C while still using their testimony to establish other times in other parts of the report. Which is frankly shoddy investigative methodology at best and fraud at worst.

I am referring to Table 6, recording 4.

But witness B & C do not make any reference to the UFO until about the 4:48 mark on Table 6. The tower controller is talking to other aircrafts looking to park the airplanes.

Witness C was who was in radio contact with the tower at the 3:57 mark:

"During their taxiing witness C was in radio contact with inbound ground control for directions to their destination; he would have used the call sign "United maintenance -44."

Wink

But witness B was with him.


Quote:Secondly if the claim can't be proven ever than it's an untestable, unverifiable, unfalseifiable assertion and there is zero rational reason to accept the assertion as true. To accept claims that are not demonstrably true is to give up reason.

No, to reject claims from multiple witnesses who all claimed to have seen something that each of them identified as an aircraft is irrational, in my view. Their corroborated stories most certainly are worthy of credulity. In regards to them identifying the object as an aircraft, there is absolutely nothing extraordinary with that particular part of this case at all.

The purported performance of the craft is another issue.

Quote:
Quote:So all it comes down to is whether or not anyone chooses to accept the claim as being true or false.

I accept it as true, and most here accept it as false.
Actually that's not accurate. I don't have to accept the claim as true or false and I don't in fact. I don't think there claim is true. I don't think their claim is false. I think their claims is unproven and unverified. What they claim could very well be 100% true...but they have given me exactly zero evidence to test and verify their claim (which is the job of the person making the claim)and their testimony it's self is unproven and unverified.

It's unproven for a certainty, but I accept that what they seen there was an aircraft. I cannot accept, as reasonable, that 12 or more people experienced with aircraft would not be capable of identifying something as an aircraft of unknown origin or design.

Quote:I don't reject their claim because I think it's false, I reject the claim because it's an unproven claim and have exactly ZERO rational reason to accept unproven assertions as true.

I accept it because it is much more unlikely that, along with many others, 12 credible witness experienced with various types of aircraft would not be able to identify something as being an aircraft of unknown origin and design. I find it completely irrational to reject this claim, for there is nothing wrong with it.

Quote: I don't do it with god claims, Sasquatch claims, UFO claims, or any other unproven assertion. These people made a claim to have witnesseed soemthing and the burden of proof to prove that they did is on THEM. It's not up to us to debunk or disprove claims, it's up tot he person making the claim to prove it factual.

You accept it for personal reasons, not rational reasons.

I accept it for both reasons.

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
19-09-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  I accept it for both reasons.

No, you don't.

You don't have a single rational justification for your belief in alien visitation. You only have presupposition and non sequitur.

"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
19-09-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 12:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  I accept it for both reasons.

No, you don't.

You don't have a single rational justification for your belief in alien visitation. You only have presupposition and non sequitur.

"But I accept it because
a. presupposition
b. non-sequitur

How can you deny that that is rational Huh 12 witnesses 12 witnesses 12 witnesses you're an idiot 12 witnesses"

Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
19-09-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 01:00 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 12:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you don't.

You don't have a single rational justification for your belief in alien visitation. You only have presupposition and non sequitur.

"But I accept it because
a. presupposition
b. non-sequitur

How can you deny that that is rational Huh 12 witnesses 12 witnesses 12 witnesses you're an idiot 12 witnesses"

Rolleyes

The reason you can't understand is because you are not employing proper rationality.

You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to reject the corroborated claim of twelve expert witnesses who all say that what they had seen was an aircraft of unknown origin or design.

It is no less rational to accept their claim than it is to accept the claim of a another group of professionals who claimed to have seen a sea creature that had never before been seen in the deep ocean.

12 expert witness claim to have seen an aircraft of unknown design and origin. Please explain to me what is so irrational about that?

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
19-09-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:OK so it is on Table 6? Which I believe they label as recording #4 correct. I wanna make sure we are on the same page here lol

Yes.
OK but....that's the time stamps you told me were in error. That the report identifies an error in table 6 recording 4 that 22:55 UTC = 3:55 is wrong. You said that NARCAP identifies this problem, acknowledges it, chose to leave it on the paper in the report but do it's times as if 22:55 UTC =4:55. Which would make the time they start taxing at 3:57 ACTUALLY 4:57.
In fact paint me doubly confused cause in post #1038 you said that:
Quote:Witnesses B & C heard chatter about the UFO at around 3:57, just before they started to move the airplane.
But in post #883 you say that Witness B hears the first call at 4:30...

Then colour me entirely perplexed because in that same post, #883,when I say :
Quote:Radio communications with the inbound ground controller showed that they began their taxi at 3:57:30 pm (see Table6).
..you have this to say:
(16-09-2015 07:54 PM)Free Wrote:  The 3:57:30 time is supposed to read as 4:57:30, 1/2 hour after Witness B first heard the call at around 4:30.
So in one post 3:57 is an error that should read 4:57 and that's why I'm wrong and then in another post 3:57 is accurate and the starting point for your time line and that's why I'm wrong. You are telling me multiple different things Free, and they are all mutually exclusive.


Quote:I am referring to Table 6, recording 4.

But witness B & C do not make any reference to the UFO until about the 4:48 mark on Table 6.
Where they say they saw it LEAVE at 4:18 (a half hour ago) between 12-14 minutes BEFORE Witness A and Witness D report seeing it for the first time. Which is not physically possible.

Quote:No, to reject claims from multiple witnesses who all claimed to have seen something that each of them identified as an aircraft is irrational, in my view.
It's only irrational to reject a claim if the claim has been tested and verified accurate. To reject claims that have NOT been tested and verified as accurate is entirely rational, and it's even MORE irrational to accept a claim that has been defined by the claimant as unfalsafiable and unproveable.

The time to believe a claim is true is after that truth value has been demonstrated to be factual.

Quote:Their corroborated stories most certainly are worthy of credulity.
Their stories are not corroborated. We do not allow anonymous hearsay to reinforce anonymous hearsay ever especially when it's entirely possible that the 9 Witnesses in the NARCAP report could be the entirely same people the reporter allegedly interviewed for the Tribune article..which would mean they are just agreeing with their won testimony which is about as far away as one can get from corroboration.
We can't even verify that a single witness interviewed exists let alone that they were there when they say and that their memory is correct. There are too many layers of unproven to take the claims at face value.

Quote:In regards to them identifying the object as an aircraft..
*sigh* Free...
The only verifiable testimony we have on what people identified the UFO as is on the transcript and at NO POINT in the transcript does anyone call it an aircraft or relate that anyone else has called it an aircraft. We have, disc, metal disc, and balloon. Even if we allow the unproven hearsay of unknown people we still have the above plus "bird". The closest we get at the time of the sighting is a "disc shaped object" not an aircraft.

There is no consensus in the actual evidence or in the testimony that it was an Aircraft. There is no consensus on what it was at all.

Also....I've said this a few times now but I'll say it again... even if I pretend for a moment that all 12 witnesses saw what they believe to be an aircraft that's still a cherry picked sampling of witnesses. You can not take just the ones that saw an aircraft cut out the ones that did NOT see an aircraft and say there is consensus among witnesses that the UFO was an aircraft. This is textbook confirmation bias.

Quote:The purported performance of the craft is another issue.
Yes it is and even there the testimony is at odds. One witness claiming it shot strait up and another claiming it flew between 200 and 400 feet laterally before entering the clouds. These are contradictions in the testimony.

Quote:It's unproven for a certainty..
The time to accept a claim as true is AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true not before.

Quote:I accept it because it is much more unlikely that, along with many others, 12 credible witness
Enough of this already. Prove they are credible. I'm tired of this assertion, prove their credibility.

Quote:I find it completely irrational to reject this claim, for there is nothing wrong with it.
There is EVERYTHING wrong with it starting from the ground up with the fact the witnesses have not been proven to be there, their credibility is unproven, and so much more.
If the object shares no visual similarities with an aircraft how would one go about identifying it as an aircraft from sight alone? If it does not look like an aircraft how can I tell it's an aircraft by looking at it and JUST looking at it? As I said before when you made a fallacious comparison to the automobile I can identify an automobile by finding automobile parts on it: an engine, a bumper, wheels, a windshield, a driver, a boot, a muffler so forth and so on. I identify it as an automobile by comparing it to other automobiles.
So how do you identify an object as been like another object when the first object has no similarities to the second object?

Quote:I accept it for both reasons.
I'm sorry Free but no you do not, and you would not accept what you do in this case on any other subject and your time here has proven that because you do NOT accept such shit reasons in other threads on other topics.

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
19-09-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  The reason you can't understand is because you are not employing proper rationality.

Well, someone here isn't, anyway.

(19-09-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to reject the corroborated claim of twelve expert witnesses who all say that what they had seen was an aircraft of unknown origin or design.

Save that it is not corroborated, reported by experts, or stated by twelve people.

(19-09-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  It is no less rational to accept their claim than it is to accept the claim of a another group of professionals who claimed to have seen a sea creature that had never before been seen in the deep ocean.

That claim would also not be accepted without evidence.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: