UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 05:55 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 05:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 04:54 PM)Free Wrote:  And this somehow proves that I lied to people?

How? How do you arrive at the idea that I have lied by posting those two quotes?

The quote regarding Kingschosen does not demonstrate any kind of a lie whatsoever.

And an admission that someone has a point somehow demonstrates that I have been deceptive or claimed my overall stance was illogical? That's not an indication of either, but rather an intellectually honest concession that someone else said something truthful, and truth is something I respect and will always concede to, unlike you.

You keep coming into this thread with hit-and-run accusations about me being some kind of a liar, when you post bullshit like this as if it somehow demonstrates your point?

And you wonder why I have such a negative attitude towards people such as yourself? You post shit like this as some kind of justification for your accusation, and it doesn't even bear any semblance whatsoever to any substance of your accusation.

You sir, are very disappointing.

Consider

I could have just reposted any of WD's posts to show you lying. This was only admitted once. You can try to spin as much as you want but you know deep down you have been lying to everyone, probably yourself first and foremost.

There was no admission of lies whatsoever. All you see are accusations, but none are supported by anything other than a perspective chosen rather than the reality given.

People will see what they want to see, and rarely will they see what is actually there. And people with like dispositions will see what each other sees, and not what is actually there. That's what happened with Whiskey's Bandwagon on the NARCAP report. All Whiskey's Bandwagon accomplished was to get everybody drunk on the hype ... until they woke up to the hangover that I delivered.

That's what bandwagons are all about, and until you understand that, you will always be on it, being lead around like a little lost puppy. But you will never be a leader if you are being lead around by a broken down bandwagon.

No one here is innocent, for all here are guilty of something whether it be dishonesty, deceptiveness, or some other vice. So when you or I or anyone else starts pointing our fingers at each other or others, we need to remember that with one finger pointing out at them, we have three others pointing back at ourselves.

In reality, aside from some kind of personal petty vindication for myself, there really isn't anything anybody- including myself- who participated in this thread can be proud of.

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, 06:50 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 05:21 PM)Free Wrote:  People will see what they want to see, and rarely will they see what is actually there.

You say the above, and yet continue this. Shocking Sadcryface2 Gasp Facepalm

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 06:50 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 05:21 PM)Free Wrote:  People will see what they want to see, and rarely will they see what is actually there.

You say the above, and yet continue this. Shocking Sadcryface2 Gasp Facepalm

Do you want to see what is actually there?

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, 07:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 07:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:50 PM)Banjo Wrote:  You say the above, and yet continue this. Shocking Sadcryface2 Gasp Facepalm

Do you want to see what is actually there?

I don't have time atm to deal with your other posts but I'm curious: what do you think is actually there?

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
20-09-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 07:55 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 07:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you want to see what is actually there?

I don't have time atm to deal with your other posts but I'm curious: what do you think is actually there?

You can deal with the other post if you want, or we can let it go and move along.

What is actually there are mistakes by NARCAP.

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, 08:13 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 07:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:50 PM)Banjo Wrote:  You say the above, and yet continue this. Shocking Sadcryface2 Gasp Facepalm

Do you want to see what is actually there?

Of course. Sadly nobody seems to know.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 08:49 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 08:52 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 08:13 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 07:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Do you want to see what is actually there?

Of course. Sadly nobody seems to know.

If you want to see what's there, you need to look for both sides of the truth, pro and con, and reveal what most simply cannot see.

You've seen me look and argue for the report to be accurate.

Now you will see me demonstrate its flaws.


NARCAP asserts the following:

"As discussed in Section 2.0, it is very likely that the taxi mechanic who spoke with ground control at 4:48:05 in Table 6 was witness B based on the similarity of details provided. If the estimate that they had seen the UAP thirty minutes earlier is accurate then the time would be at about 4:18pm."

Listed below is what NARCAP asserts as being Witness B

"4:48:05 pm A/C2 (witness B)45 "Oh, we saw it a half hour ago"

The above is not Witness B as they assert, but rather it is Witness C. Here's how you will know.

Firstly, They state that Witness C was the one who was in control of the radio communications:

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

Remember, Witness B & C are together. Now, Witness B in his interview with NARCAP describes the UFO as follows:

"…it was definitely not a blimp. I'll tell you definitely, it's not an airplane as we know it."

However, when we return to Table 6, to the part NARCAP asserts is Witness B - who was not the one with the raido- we see the following:

T "Who saw it?"
A/C2 "A whole bunch of us over at Charley concourse."
T "Really? You guys did? Who is this?"
A/C2 "United taxi mechanics (5 sec. pause). We thought it was a balloon but we're not sure."


1st Question: Why wouldn't NARCAP, who had Witness B with them during this investigation, simply ask Witness B if the above communications was him?

2nd Question: Since Witness B described to NARCAP that the object "…it was definitely not a blimp. I'll tell you definitely, it's not an airplane as we know it," why then would Witness B say, "We thought it was a balloon but we're not sure?"

The only evidence of who was using the radio is for Witness C, and it makes no sense for Witness B to be so adamant to NARCAP of what he saw after the fact, if he originally described it as "We thought it was a balloon but we're not sure."

Hence, since it was Witness C who had the radio as stated by NARCAP, therefore Witness C is the one who made the comments beginning at 4:48:05, and not Witness B at all.

NARCAP's stupidity in mistakenly assigning the conversation at the 4:48:05 mark to Witness B throws NARCAP's position in contradiction due to the previous statements of Witness B prior to Table 6, and what we see assigned to him by NARCAP in Table 6.


And that is what I mean by reading it properly. But then again, I have an advantage due to me studying and translating ancient texts for so many years. When you do that, your mind is trained on details and words constantly. That's probably why I can see this and other tiny minute details.

And besides, like I said, I set out to debunk this. I was not entirely unsuccessful.

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
20-09-2015, 09:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 08:49 PM)Free Wrote:  And that is what I mean by reading it properly. But then again, I have an advantage due to me studying and translating ancient texts for so many years. When you do that, your mind is trained on details and words constantly. That's probably why I can see this and other tiny minute details.

Son, you couldn't read your way out of a kindergarten class.

And we're still waiting on any actual evidence of what, if anything at all, was there.

"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
20-09-2015, 09:43 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 08:49 PM)Free Wrote:  And besides, like I said, I set out to debunk this. I was not entirely unsuccessful.

You realize of course that debunking the claim is entirely unnecessary to justify withholding belief in the claim correct?

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
21-09-2015, 12:01 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 08:49 PM)Free Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 08:13 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Of course. Sadly nobody seems to know.

If you want to see what's there, you need to look for both sides of the truth, pro and con, and reveal what most simply cannot see.

You've seen me look and argue for the report to be accurate.

Now you will see me demonstrate its flaws.


NARCAP asserts the following:

"As discussed in Section 2.0, it is very likely that the taxi mechanic who spoke with ground control at 4:48:05 in Table 6 was witness B based on the similarity of details provided. If the estimate that they had seen the UAP thirty minutes earlier is accurate then the time would be at about 4:18pm."

Listed below is what NARCAP asserts as being Witness B

"4:48:05 pm A/C2 (witness B)45 "Oh, we saw it a half hour ago"

The above is not Witness B as they assert, but rather it is Witness C. Here's how you will know.

Firstly, They state that Witness C was the one who was in control of the radio communications:

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

Remember, Witness B & C are together. Now, Witness B in his interview with NARCAP describes the UFO as follows:

"…it was definitely not a blimp. I'll tell you definitely, it's not an airplane as we know it."

However, when we return to Table 6, to the part NARCAP asserts is Witness B - who was not the one with the raido- we see the following:

T "Who saw it?"
A/C2 "A whole bunch of us over at Charley concourse."
T "Really? You guys did? Who is this?"
A/C2 "United taxi mechanics (5 sec. pause). We thought it was a balloon but we're not sure."


1st Question: Why wouldn't NARCAP, who had Witness B with them during this investigation, simply ask Witness B if the above communications was him?

2nd Question: Since Witness B described to NARCAP that the object "…it was definitely not a blimp. I'll tell you definitely, it's not an airplane as we know it," why then would Witness B say, "We thought it was a balloon but we're not sure?"

The only evidence of who was using the radio is for Witness C, and it makes no sense for Witness B to be so adamant to NARCAP of what he saw after the fact, if he originally described it as "We thought it was a balloon but we're not sure."

Hence, since it was Witness C who had the radio as stated by NARCAP, therefore Witness C is the one who made the comments beginning at 4:48:05, and not Witness B at all.

NARCAP's stupidity in mistakenly assigning the conversation at the 4:48:05 mark to Witness B throws NARCAP's position in contradiction due to the previous statements of Witness B prior to Table 6, and what we see assigned to him by NARCAP in Table 6.


And that is what I mean by reading it properly. But then again, I have an advantage due to me studying and translating ancient texts for so many years. When you do that, your mind is trained on details and words constantly. That's probably why I can see this and other tiny minute details.

And besides, like I said, I set out to debunk this. I was not entirely unsuccessful.

Tongue


Both sides of what truth???

No truth has been established. Just some nut job going on and on about eyewitness accounts from other likely nut jobs.

Geez man if you were on fire I doubt you'd realise it.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: