UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 12:22 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 09:19 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  .....suspected you of using Confirmation Bias because you appeared to only be looking for things that would prove it wrong.
That's one of the ways you do peer-review dipshit, by trying to find things wrong with it. So you are basically saying that when you first started reviewing the report you at no point tried to find things wrong with it? That explains sooooo much.Laugh out load

Firstly, you are not a peer, "dipshit."

No, if ALL you are looking for is some kind of mistake, then that's ALL you will ever be looking for and find, if it exists.

Quote:
(19-09-2015 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  The report and times are actually all correct.
Except that 22:55 is not 3:55. Rolleyes

So..hahaha...So when you said this to Unbeliever:
Quote:I will concede in the interests of intellectual honesty that the information I could glean from the Table 6 document does seem indicate a time-line 1 hour later than the time stamps, although it isn't definitive.
You were deliberately lying to to him and every single person involved in the conversation in an attempt to trick someone 40 pages later. Your not even talking to me when you are telling other people the times seem it be wrong. Hahaha really?

Again, you didn't read it properly, but I won't fuck you around again, and instead show you what you didn't read, why I said it wasn't definitive, and why I was indeed being intellectually honest about it.

As I said, it was not definitive, and that reason is obvious. Table 6 also has times for 4:47 forward, and right at the top of Table 6 it says the following:

"The fourth recording was for the period 4:47:39 to 4:47:58 pm (19 seconds total) between the Inbound Ground Controller Position at O'Hare and various aircraft that had landed and were taxiing to their gates.

He also directed other airplane surface movements. There are several interesting conversations found here. (Table 6)
."

The 4th recording in Table 6 is explained as being in regards to the 4:47:39 to 4:48:05 pm (minus about 5 seconds for the "pause") time-stamps near the bottom of Table 6, but he also includes previous conversations beginning at the 3:55 pm time.

To you, the Table would seem confusing because you didn't read what the report is actually saying. Table 6 covers all conversations between 21:57:20 UTC, to 21:59:11 UTC, and then picks it up again at 22:47:39 UTC to 22:48:05 UTC.

The "Tape start time: 22:55 UTC = 3:55 pm" is a reflection of all times of these two conversation, and admittedly appears confusing. That is why I said "in the interests of intellectual honesty ..."

Now, would you like to retract the accusation of "You were deliberately lying to to him ..." and accept correction, or would you prefer to remain appearing like someone who is lying about me?

It's your choice, and your integrity.

Quote:You know what? I'm not even mad. I can't physically be mad at this. If this wasn't such a patently obvious case of cognitive dissonance at work I might be. You said mutually exclusive things, arguing to contrary timelines depending on the criticisms you were getting, and now when you look like a lying stuncunt who can't keep his story strait your making up excuses to why you are talking out both sides of your mouth.

So here is the thing Free. Considering that, according to you, you have been deliberately and maliciously lying to every single person in this thread for over 40 pages in an attempt to make other people look bad (which....wow that's a bad plan lol) why should I believe you THIS time when you say the times are correct when in the past you have flipped flopped back and forth from the times are right to the times are wrong to the times are right about a billion times?

In fact if you are willing to purposely, maliciously, and systematically (according to you) lie to the entire assembly of this thread for 40+ pages of conversation to make a single person "look bad" why should I or anyone else believe anything you have said in this thread or any other for that matter?


If your defense of your lying is that you are lying on purpose...that's ...that's a shitty defense.

Keep in mind that your first substantial post on this subject, directed towards me used so many derogatory terms as to make a sailor blush. It was here that I knew that you hadn't read the report at all, and continues to boast about my supposed lack of understanding of the report, and then you finished the post with:

Quote:I'm fucking destroying you.

So I said, "uh-huh," and waited, very patiently, for everyone to get on your little bandwagon. The end result was that YOU, and anyone who supported your fucked up post, got fucking destroyed.

Seriously, what do you think I meant at this post when I said:

Quote:You're not reading the report, and because of that, you have ZERO points to address.

I gave you enough hints, and enough chances.

The noose is coming ...

I let you hang yourself, and hang anybody who sided with you.

Dude you got played like a well-oiled fiddle and that's all there is to it. Now get over it.

Therefore, the rest of this can be dismissed as inaccurate and unnecessary, since my explanation above and in previous posts eliminates any need of any further response.

Quote:
Quote:All times are estimates. Time works out to approximately 4:22 PM according to NARCAP's estimates, but that time could easily have been closer to 4:30 pm when they seen that it was gone about a "half hour ago." We just don't know.
And they could have easily been at 4:22 which is the testimony ACTUALLY given. You have a conclusion and you are ignoring testimony that does not fit that conclusion.

Hate to keep harping about this dude, but again you didn't read.

Actually, no testimony was given for 4:22. That time is an estimate made by NARCAP, not a statement made by a witness.

Dude, you actually need to READ this with no confirmation bias or else you simply cannot see what it is actually in this report.

I know this because I made the same mistake as you when I first seen this report and set out to debunk it like I debunk hundreds of others. I know what you are doing but ... you're doing it wrong.


Quote:
Quote:It's rational to accept the claims of seasoned professionals.
Still waiting for the proof that they are who you say they are. Until then they are "anonymous source" not "seasoned professional source". This expertise you keep assigning to your witnesses hasn't been demonstrated.

Since the Chicago Tribune and other news outlets who interviewed them all claim that they are United Airways employees, then obviously they would be professionals.

That in itself is indisputable, and so what it all really comes down to is whether or not you accept the Chicago Tribune's report, and their reason for the witnesses desire to be anonymous, or you simply don't accept it.

You can make all the unsubstantiated claims you want, but at the end of the day you either accept or reject the report because you don't have anything else.

That's the bottom line here, and the reality you are faced with.

Quote:Let me put to you another question for you to ignore like dozens of others: lets say there are 12 witnesses. Lets say that they all claim to have seen an aircraft. If you had the exact same testimony you had now but only 11 were actually there and the 12th was a complete fake how would you tell the difference?

You are making this claim without evidence. However, I cannot find a fucking liar in all this. I tried for months. Go ahead and look. There is absolutely nothing out there that actually directly challenges this report at all.

One would think that if they were lying or whatever, that somebody else from United Airways would step up, even anonymously, and say something to that effect. But dude, there's nothing. Ziltch.

It's not unreasonable to use an argument from silence here if it can be reasonably ascertained that if they lied or perpetrated a hoax, someone else within their employment would indicate it.

But nobody has ever contested the claim or said they were lying, except the FAA and United Airways management, who were forced to backtrack after the Chicago Tribune filed a Freedom of Information Request.

You don't think I have tried to debunk this case? You have no idea how far I took my skepticism in this case. But there comes a point to where you make a decision on where you draw the line between rational skepticism and denialism. Once you cross that line, you can no longer claim intellectual honesty, and that is the line I drew here.

I am not "Unbeliever" in this case. You can tell he is a denialist easily by simply examining all his replies to me and start counting the times he uses the word "No," in reply to virtually everything I say. He does not acknowledge any points whatsoever, and denies all of them. It is his psychological defence mechanism against disturbing ideas that motivates him to be the way he is.

And hell will freeze over before I ever stoop to that level of intellectual dishonesty.

The rest of everything you said will only result in both of us going round and round with differing opinions and will not result in any conclusion, ever.

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
20-09-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 10:12 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Let me put to you another question for you to ignore like dozens of others: lets say there are 12 witnesses. Lets say that they all claim to have seen an aircraft. If you had the exact same testimony you had now but only 11 were actually there and the 12th was a complete fake how would you tell the difference?

You are making this claim without evidence.

That is not a claim. That is a legitimate and vital question - it is, in fact, rather the whole point of this discussion, and the fact that you still do not understand this after nearly a hundred pages is yet another indicator of your complete failure to grasp even the most basic principles of logic, skepticism, or rationality.

(20-09-2015 10:12 AM)Free Wrote:  I am not "Unbeliever" in this case. You can tell he is a denialist easily by simply examining all his replies to me and start counting the times he uses the word "No," in reply to virtually everything I say. He does not acknowledge any points whatsoever, and denies all of them.

Perhaps you should try making some points that aren't blatantly, utterly wrong, then.

"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
20-09-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Wink
(20-09-2015 10:12 AM)Free Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 09:19 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  That's one of the ways you do peer-review dipshit, by trying to find things wrong with it. So you are basically saying that when you first started reviewing the report you at no point tried to find things wrong with it? That explains sooooo much.Laugh out load

Firstly, you are not a peer, "dipshit."

No, if ALL you are looking for is some kind of mistake, then that's ALL you will ever be looking for and find, if it exists.

We kinda did, dipshit

Also, dipshit, Whiskey wasn't claiming to be your peer. He was just saying that in general scientific method, you *expose your shit to criticism*. You don't go *looking for confirmation*. You've got it backwards. Also, no one *wants* to be your peer, if that means being as kak-stupid as you.

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
20-09-2015, 01:47 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 01:50 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  Wink
(20-09-2015 10:12 AM)Free Wrote:  Firstly, you are not a peer, "dipshit."

No, if ALL you are looking for is some kind of mistake, then that's ALL you will ever be looking for and find, if it exists.

We kinda did, dipshit

Also, dipshit, Whiskey wasn't claiming to be your peer. He was just saying that in general scientific method, you *expose your shit to criticism*. You don't go *looking for confirmation*. You've got it backwards. Also, no one *wants* to be your peer, if that means being as kak-stupid as you.

Firstly, you found fuck all, dipshit.

Secondly, dipshit, you have demonstrated that you also cannot understand what you are reading, for I did not say that Whiskey was claiming to be a peer of mine, since I made no claim of myself being a peer.

And that alone demonstrates it isn't me who is stupid here.

Dipshit.

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
20-09-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Rolleyes fucken troll

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
20-09-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 01:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes fucken troll

Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that if you figure you can dish it out that you're not going to get it dished right back at you.

If you are going to continue your lies regarding me, I have a fucking "big noose" for you to hang yourself with too.

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
20-09-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 01:57 PM)Free Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 01:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes fucken troll

Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that if you figure you can dish it out that you're not going to get it dished right back at you.

If you are going to continue your lies regarding me, I have a fucking "big noose" for you to hang yourself with too.

Big Grin

Oooohhhhhhh Rolleyes Fucken troll.

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
20-09-2015, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 02:22 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 02:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 01:57 PM)Free Wrote:  Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that if you figure you can dish it out that you're not going to get it dished right back at you.

If you are going to continue your lies regarding me, I have a fucking "big noose" for you to hang yourself with too.

Big Grin

Oooohhhhhhh Rolleyes Fucken troll.

Is that all you can claim? You jumped on Whiskey's bandwagon, waiting to see how I would respond, and then when I waited patiently for all the hate from you people to manifest itself in all it's ugly glory, I presented the facts and with one shot took you all down.

That isn't a troll, but rather the actions of a very patient debater who picked the perfect time to drive home an indisputable point regarding how Whiskey and some of you others had not properly read the report at all, and how all your claims regarding me and that report were unwarranted, juvenile, and completely inappropriate.

It's fine when you are on the dishing end isn't it? But no, when you are on the receiving end and get completely out-played, all you can do is cry "foul."

Take your beating like a man and move on.

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
20-09-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
You have lost the right to a serious answer. You have lied and played games this entire thread. Fuck you, fuck your bullshit. Clear?

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
20-09-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 02:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  You have lost the right to a serious answer. You have lied and played games this entire thread. Fuck you, fuck your bullshit. Clear?

Dude, you got out-played, not because of any lies, but rather due to someone having the patience to demonstrate a point about the fucking bandwagon in this thread, and how an uneducated consensus is a fallacious position to hold.

You can walk away from this hating me, but I can guarantee you that you will not be so quick to jump on another bandwagon constructed with scotch tape and glue, but rather one that is built solidly and is sturdy.

So you can either look at this with anger and hatred, or you can look at it from the point of humor, because anyone not involved with this thread and who doesn't know any of us at all would be laughing their ass off at how this game of wits was played on all of you.

Being angry is not the only way to be in respect to this thread. There are so many hilarious things in this thread that it cannot be completely taken seriously.

There IS a bright side.

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: