UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:07 AM)Free Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Which part didn't I real properly?

The part where 8 airline employees are listed, only six of whom are actually quoted?

The part where out of four further accounts, two are from the same source (hint: that means one person) and one is explicitly called spurious for disagreeing with the others?

The part where elementary school arithmetic escapes you?
(oh wait - that really isn't in the report!)


You've reached creationist levels of reality denial.

In fact you've reached presup levels of reality denial, because you need to go so far as to denigrate the very concept of "knowledge" in order not to have to walk back from your pathetic claims.

Yep, you just keep that neck of yours nice and warm. We'll see how this goes.

So... I can't help but notice how this isn't in any way a rebuttal.

Are you even going to try, anymore?

Or is masturbation and smilies all you've got left?

Big Grin

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
21-09-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Rolleyes

You've got to the point where playground threats is the best you can muster. Holy fuck, how much further can you fall?

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
21-09-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 09:07 AM)Free Wrote:  Yep, you just keep that neck of yours nice and warm. We'll see how this goes.

So... I can't help but notice how this isn't in any way a rebuttal.

Are you even going to try, anymore?

Or is masturbation and smilies all you've got left?

Big Grin

Here's my original post:

(18-09-2015 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Nope.


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.

Hint:

You don't get to make up the rules in regards to the witnesses portrayed in the report just so you think you can twist things in to your favour.

Here's a few more reports:

Witness J.H.
Witness 'Rampagent X

Most of the witnesses were very willing to cooperate with NARCAP immediately after the event but
before their management found out about the public's response. Now, several months after this incident,
some of the eye witnesses are experiencing typical aftermath effects. One of the witnesses wrote
NARCAP saying, "…sorry for being paranoid, but this information cannot be tied to any XXXXX
employee and must not publicly disclose my location. It is identifying. … I cannot have sources
continuing to show me as the leak as it builds a case against me…. Anyway, I totally trust you and want
to make sure you know exactly what will identify me so something isn't accidentally disclosed."
NARCAP has done everything it can to keep the identities of all witnesses confidential.

A passenger of an aircraft landing at O'Hare Airport at this same time submitted the following
chatline comment:
"Asked a United pilot about this ironically as we were landing
into Gate c17 at Ohare. (sic) He said it indeed was something a lot of
his peers saw. He also stated that no pilot in his right mind
would go on record with as serious and at the same time "goofy
sounding" claim unless they were convinced they saw something
extraordinary. He followed up this comment to it being like
reporting little green gremlins on the wing of the plane, unless
you want to be doing desk duty for the rest of your career, there
are some things you just don't say.
"We proceeded to talk about it and I came to the conclusion that
if as he stated about 100 people saw this object and the sighting
was in Nov. 2006, WHY is it taking 6 weeks to make the press …
unless there's some SERIOUS type of government investigation
going on that is...........hmm"28

The phenomenon we are attempting to explain is described in the words of one of the witnesses: At
around 4:30 in the afternoon of November 7 several employees of United Airline company witnessed a
“disc shaped [sic] object” that was seen “hovering over gate C17 at the C concourse” of the Chicago
O’Hare International Airport.51 The object, which could not be identified by witnesses as any known
aircraft, was said to be “holding very steady and appeared to be trying to stay close to the cloud cover."

E. Other Ground Observer Reports of UAP in the Area90
E.1 Interview 1 with Ms. J.H. (February 6, 2007)
Sam Maranto, MUFON, Illinois State Director91
The witness was turning off Mannheim Road into O’Hare to terminal five when she first noticed the
object in the sky.

1. 27 -- Eyewitness posted on January 26, 2007 at 19:27

Well, into the fray I go...I saw the ORD UFO. I first sighted it while at the intersection of Irving Park Rd. and
Mannheim Blvd., and again for just a bit 98 when I got to the parking lot of the international
terminal. I was picking up a friend, an American Airline cockpit officer who was flying in
from Charles de Gaulle International Airport. His plane, scheduled for a 4:55pm arrival time,
was delayed because of the object.

And several more are posted in the report.

So you do not get to change the conditions that I clearly illustrated just so you think you get some advantage. You don't get to exclude reports from other witnesses just because you disbelieve them due to being posted on other websites.

You don't get to to misrepresent the report in any way, shape, or form, because that is intellectually dishonest.

My position was merely that the report has accounts from several witnesses who did not work for United Airways, as my post above conclusive demonstrates.

It doesn't matter in the slightest where they got these reports from, for my point was only to demonstrate that the NARCAP reports lists many other non-United Airways people as witnesses.

Enjoy your fucking noose.

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
21-09-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:07 AM)Free Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Which part didn't I real properly?

The part where 8 airline employees are listed, only six of whom are actually quoted?

The part where out of four further accounts, two are from the same source (hint: that means one person) and one is explicitly called spurious for disagreeing with the others?

The part where elementary school arithmetic escapes you?
(oh wait - that really isn't in the report!)


You've reached creationist levels of reality denial.

In fact you've reached presup levels of reality denial, because you need to go so far as to denigrate the very concept of "knowledge" in order not to have to walk back from your pathetic claims.

Yep, you just keep that neck of yours nice and warm. We'll see how this goes.

Big Grin

Free, please refrain from making threats like this -- even if it's supposed to be a joke. This is why theists think there's some weird double standard goijng on here.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Hint:

You don't get to make up the rules in regards to the witnesses portrayed in the report just so you think you can twist things in to your favour.

No. I just read them.

(21-09-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Here's a few more reports:

Witness J.H.
Witness 'Rampagent X

Which I already included. Because I can read, and you can't.

Do note that several times Rampagent X is called into question for making impossible claims and contradicting other accounts, within the very report you're pretending to have read.

Can you please try harder?

(21-09-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  And several more are posted in the report.

It's not "several". The directly attributable accounts are explicitly enumerated.

I ask again: can you read?

(21-09-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  So you do not get to change the conditions that I clearly illustrated just so you think you get some advantage. You don't get to exclude reports from other witnesses just because you disbelieve them due to being posted on other websites.

So an impossible-to-quantify number of reports from impossible-to-verify "other websites" is how you get to your divinely writ 12.
(I can only assume you're not talking about the four accounts given in the NARCAP report, because we've been over that already, and you're as dead wrong on that claim as ever)

Okay. But that still doesn't make 12, and it still doesn't mean they're experts, and it still doesn't mean they agree, and it still doesn't mean anything at all.

(21-09-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  You don't get to to misrepresent the report in any way, shape, or form, because that is intellectually dishonest.

You, of course, operate under no such petty restrictions.

(21-09-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  My position was merely that the report has accounts from several witnesses who did not work for United Airways, as my post above conclusive demonstrates.

It doesn't matter in the slightest where they got these reports from, for my point was only to demonstrate that the NARCAP reports lists many other non-United Airways people as witnesses.

It does not list "many". It lists four accounts. Can you read?

(21-09-2015 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Enjoy your fucking noose.

Child, you are just sadder than a sack of drowned puppies.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Just a FYI Free - I reported your post. Not that I think you're remotely capable, but your blustering macho bullshit shouldn't get a pass.

ETA: Thanks Moms Smile

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
21-09-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  Just a FYI Free - I reported your post. Not that I think you're remotely capable, but your blustering macho bullshit shouldn't get a pass.

Hey - that's another thing he's got in common with the cranks!

I've had internet tough guy threats from the anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers, too. For some reason it's always the conspiritards busting 'em out, and not the apologists.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
21-09-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Hey - that's another thing he's got in common with the cranks!

He *is* a crank. I've got no respect left for him. Even if he said something sensible on another topic, it's forever tainted by his total lack of rationality in this thread. People *can* doublethink, I've seen it myself. But... well yeah, there's the respect thing.

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
21-09-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:27 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 09:07 AM)Free Wrote:  Yep, you just keep that neck of yours nice and warm. We'll see how this goes.

Big Grin

Free, please refrain from making threats like this -- even if it's supposed to be a joke. This is why theists think there's some weird double standard goijng on here.

Awww ... the poor babies complained about an obvious analogy and twisted it into an actual threat, and you don't see this?

This is desperation at its finest.

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
21-09-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 09:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Hey - that's another thing he's got in common with the cranks!

He *is* a crank. I've got no respect left for him. Even if he said something sensible on another topic, it's forever tainted by his total lack of rationality in this thread. People *can* doublethink, I've seen it myself. But... well yeah, there's the respect thing.

Crankery 101:

1. Just repeat the same tired, dishonest, and debunked claims over and over and over and over and over and over again. More eyewitness make something more true, and therefore, repetition makes statements truer. You use this to your advantage by repeating your own statements - every time you do, they become more true!

2. To speed the process along, don't forget to constantly insult people. Because feels are sacrosanct and repetition equals truth, anyone who disagrees must be some variety of lying retard. When more than one person disagrees with you, accuse them of being fallacious because of it.

3. If really pressed, just point out that nobody can have true perfect knowledge anyway, and therefore it would be irrational to refuse to entertain literally every possibility no matter how unsubstantiated or incoherent. If confronted on how you, yourself freely and categorically deny all woo but your own pet, refer to step 2.

4. Eventually, people will stop taking you seriously or even responding to you. This means you win! After all, if they could address your claims, surely they would have by now, right? And step 1 has that entirely taken care of.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: