UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2015, 04:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Lemme just remind you in case you've forgotten that you've yet to post any actual evidence and have repeatedly lied about the bullshit you claim as evidence, in addition to insulting anyone and everyone who disagreed with you. Having exhausted everyone's reserve of patience you then proceeded to kindergarten threats, now you've eagerly seized on this stupid shit of me reporting your post...

Are you actually gonna prove anything ever? Or is the wanking gonna come to an end when you achieve some sort of release?

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, 05:14 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 04:52 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 04:26 PM)Free Wrote:  If you think that accepting a report of "12 credible witnesses claimed to have seen an aircraft of unknown design and origin" is in any way at all irrational or delusional, then perhaps you would like to attempt to explain how it is irrational or delusional?
Quote:you are cheery picking witnesses,

I have not singled out a single witness, let alone cherry picked any, and I am only relating the report made by the Chicago Tribune. If you think I have then I would need to see those posts of mine.

Quote: the credibility of your witnesses has not been demonstrated,

I am only going by the news reports and videos from the Chicago Tribune. They claim that all the witnesses are credible, and they also claim they were all employees of United Airways, ranging from pilots to mechanics, from supervisors to managers.

I have been given no reason to consider that 12 people who work with aircraft daily would not be somehow credible in claiming to have seen a particular aircraft that they could not identify as per design or origin.

Can you give me a reason why- if you could accept the report of the Chicago Tribune as being truthful- as to why you would think these experienced people would not be credible?

Quote: their testimony VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS,

Is this not an assertion? We do not know if any known physics have been violated. Yes, the performance of the craft seems to be extreme, but because we have no idea what could propel it we cannot conclude that any kind of physics has been violated.

"We just don't know" is the reasonable answer here.

Quote: you have not even provided verified testimony of witnesses you have presented 3rd-4th hand hearsay passed through at least 2 entirely bias organizations, the burden of proof that what they claim is true has not yet been met, and your position is untestable and unfalsifiable.

All I want you to do is concentrate on the news report from the Chicago Tribune and view it as you would any other type of news report. Forget about Narcap, they are a non factor in regards to the claim, for they were just a hired gun used to analyse the tapes and the transcripts, and we both know NARCAP is confirmation biased. I do not deny that. In fact I can prove it.

If you can view the news report from the Chicago Tribune as you would other reports that involve anonymous people, then you need to explain why you would doubt their claim about having these twelve witnesses, and about what these twelve witnesses said.

Quote:Given all these problems which you repeatedly ignore to maintain your "12 credible witnesses claimed to have seen an aircraft of unknown design and origin" narrative yes, yes it is entirely irrational.

But those problems you bring up also bring other problems with those problems that need to be addressed and answered with honesty, such as my questions of your problems listed above.

I am looking for your reasoning so that I can understand how you can justify your opinion of me.

I am not asking you to agree with my position on this, but only looking for why you are so adamant that I am not being rational or reasonable about this.

So if we can explore the answers to my questions it may be possible for some understanding to emerge. The biggest problem on this thread has been the emotional involvement of everybody involved, not just me. We need to knock off all the bullshit and just get down to the mechanics of this discussion.

And thank you for actually answering this post.

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, 05:48 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2015 06:51 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 04:55 PM)morondog Wrote:  Lemme just remind you in case you've forgotten that you've yet to post any actual evidence and have repeatedly lied about the bullshit you claim as evidence, in addition to insulting anyone and everyone who disagreed with you. Having exhausted everyone's reserve of patience you then proceeded to kindergarten threats, now you've eagerly seized on this stupid shit of me reporting your post...

Are you actually gonna prove anything ever? Or is the wanking gonna come to an end when you achieve some sort of release?

Let me remind you, or in case you've not considered it ...

This debate is an epistemological discussion that focuses upon either a belief or disbelief in a claim. Nothing here can ever be proven or disproven, for the point of this discussion is to provide reasoning, rationale, and supporting evidence to further the arguments to support the beliefs or disbeliefs proposed.

If you are interested in that kind of discussion, then by all means participate in it with the understanding of what kind of a discussion this actually is.

But if you want to continue with this crap of stabbing at each other, that's up to you.

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, 09:18 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  I have not singled out a single witness, let alone cherry picked any, and I am only relating the report made by the Chicago Tribune. If you think I have then I would need to see those posts of mine.
I have mentioned several times that there are FAR more than 12 witnesses and the vast majority, many of them who would be experts in avionics themselves (not that that matters) either made no report of seeing an object of any kind, even when pointed to the exact location, or actively report seeing absolutely nothing.

You say 12 is enough to justify belief I say every other person who was there and saw absolutely nothing when they should have is good reason to doubt the claim of 12 anonymous people talking to a Jurno. It's called selection bias and it's very very bad because it does exactly what it has done: gives a false impression of the data.

Quote:I am only going by the news reports and videos from the Chicago Tribune. They claim that all the witnesses are credible, and they also claim they were all employees of United Airways, ranging from pilots to mechanics, from supervisors to managers.
OK but the claim, much like the bible, is not proof of the claim. Without proof of identity the only evidence we have is this: that the Jurno made a claim. He could be lying. They could be lying. Even if no one is lying their claims could be ENTIRELY wrong for a number of reasons that are not their fault. To engender belief a claim must either meet it's burden of proof or provide an avenue of investigation that could establish one way or another the accuracy of the claim.

The intellectually honest and logically sound position is to withhold belief. This is true in any situation on any topic at any time. This does not mean we accept the claim as false, just that we withhold belief. Which is not the same thing.

Without evidence or a path to evidence to accept the claim as true, even if you have no proof to refute the claim, is a faith based position.

Quote:....12 people who work with aircraft daily...
This is not in evidence. It is irrational to claim as true that which is not evidently or demonstrably true. You are accepting this claim as true based on faith. IF you want to have a conversation on faith that's fine but I deal with FACTS and the above is not a fact because facts are demonstrably true.

The claim that they are who the Jurno says they are is unproven. It is an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim and as such belief should be withheld.

Quote:would not be somehow credible in claiming to have seen a particular aircraft that they could not identify as per design or origin.
For starters professionals are not infallible and in fact experts are wrong frequently. Secondly I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer on how people could, from sight alone, identify as an aircraft a thing which has exactly ZERO recognizable aircraft like features. Thirdly and lastly the number of people who report seeing soemthing other than an aircraft or nothing at all far outstrips the number that claim an aircraft.

Quote:Can you give me a reason why- if you could accept the report of the Chicago Tribune as being truthful- as to why you would think these experienced people would not be credible?
If I could accept it I would believe...and the fact I believe would be less than worthless in determining if the claim was true or not. I'd also be irrational because I would be accepting as true that which is not evidently or demonstrably true. The time for belief is when the claim has been proven and not before.

Quote:Is this not an assertion? We do not know if any known physics have been violated.
No it is not, and yes according to the testimony it violates the laws of physics. If the ship cut a hole in the clouds then it is effecting the air around it, if it is effecting the air around it then it's speed should cause a sonic boom and the fact that it does violates the laws of physics. This is a single example of several.

Quote:Yes, the performance of the craft seems to be extreme, but because we have no idea what could propel it we cannot conclude that any kind of physics has been violated.
And this is, as has been said before, "space wizardry". You have a conclusion and are working backwards trying to make evidence fit the conclusion. When you have evidence that would seem to invalidate your conclusion you resort to making up stories.

If you want to say that it's not a violation of physics because it's possible their tech can violate the laws of physics you now have to provide evidence of this or the claim can rationally be rejected as nothing more than an ad hoc pseudo-justification. "What ifs" do not even address, let alone, explain away real problems.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Quote:"We just don't know" is the reasonable answer here.
Not actually it's really not. If you present a hypothesis and your hypothesis requires the violation of the Laws of Physics, and you present NO EVIDENCE to explain why this is, the reasonable answer is to reject the hypothesis as unsound.

You are trying to explain away problems in your unverified and unfalsifiable hypothesis with unverified and unfalsifiable stories.

It's irrational and no one not even you would accept it in any other situation.

Quote:All I want you to do is concentrate on the news report from the Chicago Tribune and view it as you would any other type of news report.
It's not any other news report though. It's a news report with anonymous people making extraordinary claims which also require the violation of physics and with no evidence it's true in the slightest.

Quote:If you can view the news report from the Chicago Tribune as you would other reports that involve anonymous people, then you need to explain why you would doubt their claim about having these twelve witnesses, and about what these twelve witnesses said.
If I treat it as any other news story with nothing but, and that is important: nothing but, anonymous witnesses I would.....withhold belief until such time as their claims have been proven. This is not unusual at all.
If anonymous people told me I could fly by flapping my wings I would very seriously withhold belief, if not out right reject the claim, because it's an extraordinary claim and violates the laws of physics. I would also be right to do so even if it turned out I COULD fly by flapping my arms.

Quote:I am not asking you to agree with my position on this, but only looking for why you are so adamant that I am not being rational or reasonable about this.
You have accepted as true that which is not evidently or demonstrably true. You are operating under a faith based system (trust in the Jurno), and working from a conclusion backwards in multiple instances. Your position violates both Occom's Razor and Hitchen's Razor as well as physics. You try to plug holes in your hypothesis with ad-hoc justifications which are themselves also not evidently or demonstrably true. Lastly you entirely ignore the purpose for the burden of proof and exactly why we have it in our logic arsenal.

Quote:And thank you for actually answering this post.
You are welcome.

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
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
21-09-2015, 09:21 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Nothing here can ever be proven or disproven,

Here is the problem with that: proving it is the responsibility of the person making the claim if they want to be believed. That you have chosen to accept as true what they say BEFORE they have met their burden of proof is why you your position is rationally and logically unsound.

We, nor anyone else, has any obligation whatsoever to disprove anything to justify disbelief or the withholding of belief.

The burden of proof is a thing and is very very important.

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
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
21-09-2015, 09:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:21 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Nothing here can ever be proven or disproven,

Here is the problem with that: proving it is the responsibility of the person making the claim if they want to be believed. That you have chosen to accept as true what they say BEFORE they have met their burden of proof is why you your position is rationally and logically unsound.

We, nor anyone else, has any obligation whatsoever to disprove anything to justify disbelief or the withholding of belief.

The burden of proof is a thing and is very very important.

A beginner's course in the Burden of Proof, because it's evidently clear that Free still doesn't have a fucking clue.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 11:54 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  But if you want to continue with this crap of stabbing at each other, that's up to you.

After derailing your own thread with pointless aggression, you try to pull this? Fuck you again.

Anyway, you've proven that discussing the topic of the thread with you is about as profitable as discussing quantum mechanics with a chicken. You have been trolling for the past 50 odd pages. Why should I waste my time, other than to point out your stupid trolling?

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
22-09-2015, 09:31 AM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2015 07:42 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 09:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 05:14 PM)Free Wrote:  I have not singled out a single witness, let alone cherry picked any, and I am only relating the report made by the Chicago Tribune. If you think I have then I would need to see those posts of mine.
I have mentioned several times that there are FAR more than 12 witnesses and the vast majority, many of them who would be experts in avionics themselves (not that that matters) either made no report of seeing an object of any kind, even when pointed to the exact location, or actively report seeing absolutely nothing.

Yes, this is true. However, all those who reported seeing nothing were attempting to view it from a distance, and the reports do indicate that at least one of those persons only glanced in the direction for a couple seconds and concluded it was a bird.

But if you really think about this, you need to ask a question: Since he was at such a distance, and birds are never stationary, how then could he identify it as a small bird from such a distance? If you think it's possible to accept this one person's claim that it was a bird from such a distance, how then can you reject 12 people who claim it was an aircraft when many of them were directly underneath it?

Those others who didn't file a report have their reasons, and we cannot speak to that. All we can work with is what the 12 said, not what a few others didn't say.

Quote:You say 12 is enough to justify belief I say every other person who was there and saw absolutely nothing when they should have is good reason to doubt the claim of 12 anonymous people talking to a Jurno. It's called selection bias and it's very very bad because it does exactly what it has done: gives a false impression of the data.

12 is enough to justify belief for a certainty, and again we cannot speak for those who said nothing because we do not know their story. O'Hare is a large airport, and the object was seen over gate C 17, which is exactly where United Airways is. What you need to understand here is that all the witnesses are from United Airways, and ask why.

The UFO was over the United Airways section of the airport, and that is why they are all United Airways witnesses. Therefore, we cannot speak for the employees of other airlines in regards to what they may or may not have seen, but we can reasonably ascertain that they didn't say anything because they simply were not at the location where they could see anything.

Quote:
Quote:I am only going by the news reports and videos from the Chicago Tribune. They claim that all the witnesses are credible, and they also claim they were all employees of United Airways, ranging from pilots to mechanics, from supervisors to managers.
OK but the claim, much like the bible, is not proof of the claim. Without proof of identity the only evidence we have is this: that the Jurno made a claim. He could be lying. They could be lying.

I don't think you can make a fair comparison here between a religious book and its supernatural attributes to a claim made by several credible witnesses that bears no resemblance to a supernatural claim.

Yes, the journalist could be lying, but we don't have any good reason to suspect he is, and plenty of reason to suspect he isn't. For one thing, there is absolutely nothing "dirty" about this journalist from my investigations, and also if he was lying about speaking to these witnesses then why hasn't somebody from United Airways called him out on it?

After all, if he was lying, you would expect United Airways to dispute it because the journalist already embarrassed them by catching them in a lie regarding them not knowing anything about the UFO, when the reality is the journalist uncovered the fact that United Airways tried to intimidate those employees into not speaking to the media or anybody else about the UFO.

United Airways had plenty of reason to dispute the claim by the journalist, but they didn't, and the reason is that they couldn't without being caught in even more lies.

And, when you look at the other available evidence, the only ones whom we can claim were lying about all this was management from United Airways and the FAA. That evidence comes from the Chicago Tribune and is supported by what is found right on the tapes. And neither United Airways nor the FAA deny the claim of the Chicago Tribune.

Quote:Even if no one is lying their claims could be ENTIRELY wrong for a number of reasons that are not their fault. To engender belief a claim must either meet it's burden of proof or provide an avenue of investigation that could establish one way or another the accuracy of the claim.

Again, I find it very unlikely that, as the Chicago Tribune reported, that the twelve witnesses (and more actually) that they interviewed- who all claimed to have actually eye-balled the object- could be wrong.

I am not saying it's impossible, but rather given their credibility as professionals in the airline business I cannot view the possibility that they could all be wrong as being anything more than being very remote.

Quote:The intellectually honest and logically sound position is to withhold belief. This is true in any situation on any topic at any time. This does not mean we accept the claim as false, just that we withhold belief. Which is not the same thing.

Without evidence or a path to evidence to accept the claim as true, even if you have no proof to refute the claim, is a faith based position.

I do not agree. There is simply no good reason to disbelieve the report any more than we would have good reason to disbelieve any other news report. In other news reports we often see perhaps just one or two anonymous witnesses being interviewed by a reporter, and those witnesses have corroborated stories. We can either believe them or disbelieve them, because we do have that choice.

But when we have such a large number of witnesses all saying the same thing, should we disbelieve them? It is reasonable to conclude that they are all wrong? What are the odds of 12 credible airline professionals all being wrong about something as simple as claiming they all seen an aircraft?

You know as well as I do that the more witnesses who's stories can all be corroborated it exponentially increases belief that what they are saying is the truth. In this case, we have 12 people, intimately familiar with aircraft, all claiming to have seen something they all identified as an aircraft of unknown design and origin.

In other cases where we have such a large amount of witnesses to a crime etc, how often have you ever seen them all to be wrong? I don't think you can cite a case that resembles this in regards to the number of witnesses who's credibility is established by their profession.

If you wouldn't suspend belief to another case such as a murder case which had numerous witnesses, when some of the those witnesses are not even professionals, then why should you do it here with 12 credible and professional witnesses?

Remember the O.J. Simpson trial? Did you form an opinion on his guilt or innocence before the verdict was read? Most everyone did because that is what we do as human beings. We make judgements based upon the evidence and the arguments presented, and those opinions will generate belief one way or the other.

Therefore, according to my reasoning above, suspending belief is not logical, and not reasonable, and not intellectually honest given the facts of this case. I reached a decision based upon all the available supporting evidence.

Quote:
Quote:....12 people who work with aircraft daily...
This is not in evidence. It is irrational to claim as true that which is not evidently or demonstrably true. You are accepting this claim as true based on faith. IF you want to have a conversation on faith that's fine but I deal with FACTS and the above is not a fact because facts are demonstrably true.

It is evidence to support their credibility, and credibility is everything in this case. Their profession demonstrates their credibility as being experts in the aviation business. It cannot be irrational to honestly recognize the fact that these witnesses' credibility is established due to their profession. In fact, I find it completely unreasonable and irrational to suggest that they have no credibility.

Intellectual honesty demands that they be respected as credible professionals.

Quote:The claim that they are who the Jurno says they are is unproven. It is an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim and as such belief should be withheld.

Again, we have no evidence and no good reason to doubt the integrity of the journalist. Since we wouldn't doubt the integrity of any other story involving 12 credible witness, we therefore have no good reason to doubt the integrity of this one.

We cannot assert that the integrity of the journalist is questionable here, since we cannot find evidence to support that assertion. There simply is no evidence to suggest that the journalist in any way presented anything other than the facts.

In fact, everything that we can prove about what the journalist reported has, in fact, been proven, such as the denial of both United Airways and the FAA.

You need to understand that this journalist did not go there to report on a UFO. He is a transportation journalist who writes stories involving everything from bike lanes to airport issues. He went to O'Hare to report on a story that had safety implications due to some kind of aircraft being capable of causing a collision.

He never expected to hear what he heard from those witnesses.

Quote:
Quote:would not be somehow credible in claiming to have seen a particular aircraft that they could not identify as per design or origin.
For starters professionals are not infallible and in fact experts are wrong frequently. Secondly I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer on how people could, from sight alone, identify as an aircraft a thing which has exactly ZERO recognizable aircraft like features

I am not saying they are infallible, what I am saying is that when 12 professionals all agree on what they observed, then the odds are very good that what they claim to have seen is actually what they claimed to have seen.

These 12 professionals, experienced with aircraft, identified what they seen as being a dark grey metallic disc, observed by some as producing a spinning action, and observed by others as slightly moving in some instances. It is not unreasonable for them, or us, to conclude that what they were observing was an aircraft, since none of them concluded it to be anything but an aircraft.

Therefore, we have a consensus of 12 professionals in the aviation industry that what they seen was an aircraft.

Quote:Thirdly and lastly the number of people who report seeing soemthing other than an aircraft or nothing at all far outstrips the number that claim an aircraft.

The number of people who claimed to have seen something other than an aircraft can be counted on 1 or 2 fingers, and their disinterest in what was there is clearly documented. This by no means can ever possibly "out-strip" a claim by 12 professionals who all agree on what they saw. It is not reasonable to conclude to that end.

Those who seen nothing cannot be considered, for they have not said anything in this case. Thousands of people are at that airport at any given time, and it is unreasonable to expect that all of them would be in a position to see what was claimed to have been seen.

The evidence also indicates that the tower controllers were not able to see directly above them, so therefore that eliminates any chance at all they could see anything.

Hence, all we have are are a number of witnesses who worked outside on the ground, and a couple managers/supervisors who went outside to confirm what the ground workers were saying.

Nobody else was in a position to see anything above Gate C 17, aside from the many witnesses who didn't work for United Airways or the O'Hare Airport, and who were outside in the parking areas near Gate C 17.

Quote:
Quote:Can you give me a reason why- if you could accept the report of the Chicago Tribune as being truthful- as to why you would think these experienced people would not be credible?
If I could accept it I would believe...and the fact I believe would be less than worthless in determining if the claim was true or not. I'd also be irrational because I would be accepting as true that which is not evidently or demonstrably true. The time for belief is when the claim has been proven and not before.

If the claim was proven, you could not be in a position of "belief." Rather, you would be in a position of knowledge. This discussion is all about how reasoning, rationale, and supporting evidence can be used to demonstrate certain levels of belief or disbelief in a claim.

Looking for "absolute" proof as being the only means to qualify reasonable belief is no more necessary in this case than it is in how we assign levels of belief in anything else, such as Evolution and the Big Bang. We cannot conclusively prove that evolution and the Big bang are absolutely 100% correct, but yet we accept them based upon the available evidence as well as the arguments to support them.

Therefore, you will not find absolute proof here any more than you will find absolute proof of evolution or the Big Bang. I am not saying the evidence here is as good as evolution by any means, but only demonstrating how belief can be supported by what is reasonable, rational, and by the supporting evidence.

Whiskey, not all things that people believe in can be fairly compared to a position of religious faith. Religious faith provides no evidence to support the supernatural entity religious folks claim to exist. We all know from experience how all these proclaimed gods of these various faiths have fallen into the graveyard throughout human history. There has never even been any very poor documented evidence demonstrating the existence of any of these gods. In fact, there has never ever been any evidence at all. Religions are based completely on faith that their god exists, not on any degree of supporting evidence.

In regards to this case, however, it is not an issue of anything that can be compared to a religious faith whatsoever. If we can accept the Chicago Tribune report as true as being a reasonable position, then all of these witnesses corroborated stories of an actual physical existence of a physical aircraft are likewise not unreasonable, and cannot be compared whatsoever to the claim of the existence of a non physical supernatural entity.

It is unreasonable to compare a claim of a physical object to the claim of a supernatural object.

There are two sides to this claim:

1. 12 experienced and credible professionals in the aviation industry all clam and agree that they seen an aircraft of unknown origin and design.

2. Some of these professionals claim that this aircraft's performance far exceeded the capabilities of any known aircraft they had ever encountered.

In regards to # 1 above, there is nothing unreasonable, irrational, nor extraordinary about that part of claim. It is simply unusual, and the object is merely some unknown type of aircraft.

In regards to # 2, this can be viewed as extraordinary, but since we do not know or understand the origin of this craft, we cannot claim it's performance as being irrational or unreasonable based upon our ignorance. We simply do not know enough to make a determination here.

Quote:
Quote:Is this not an assertion? We do not know if any known physics have been violated.
No it is not, and yes according to the testimony it violates the laws of physics. If the ship cut a hole in the clouds then it is effecting the air around it, if it is effecting the air around it then it's speed should cause a sonic boom and the fact that it does violates the laws of physics. This is a single example of several.

But, how can we prove that it has violated the laws of physics? We cannot merely say it has violated the laws of physics without proof of some kind. To make this claim valid, we definitely need evidence other than what the witnesses claim to have seen.

Hence, there really isn't any kind of good evidence to suggest that the laws of physics have been broken at all. You can only speculate here, but without actual evidence, the speculation is unsupported.

Quote:
Quote:Yes, the performance of the craft seems to be extreme, but because we have no idea what could propel it we cannot conclude that any kind of physics has been violated.
And this is, as has been said before, "space wizardry". You have a conclusion and are working backwards trying to make evidence fit the conclusion. When you have evidence that would seem to invalidate your conclusion you resort to making up stories.

No, I am asking for evidence to support the assertion that the laws of physics have been broken here, and nothing else.

You know as well as I do that you will need evidence to support that assertion, and claiming something as "space wizardry" is pointless and demonstrates nothing. I am not working from any conclusion here, but you are.

You are concluding they broke the law of physics, and I am asking you to demonstrate how. But we both know you cannot do that, and the reason is because there is no evidence to support that assertion.

Can you reasonably disagree with me here when your own entire argument here is all about evidence?

Quote:if you want to say that it's not a violation of physics because it's possible their tech can violate the laws of physics you now have to provide evidence of this or the claim can rationally be rejected as nothing more than an ad hoc pseudo-justification. "What ifs" do not even address, let alone, explain away real problems.

Take a look at what you said above and you will see a contradiction, for how could it not be a violation of physics if it's possible that their tech did violate the laws of physics?

Whiskey, this doesn't make any sense at all. My position again is that it has not been demonstrated that any laws of physics were actually broken here.

Quote:That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Therefore we can dismiss the assertion that the laws of physics were broken here.

Quote:
Quote:"We just don't know" is the reasonable answer here.
Not actually it's really not. If you present a hypothesis and your hypothesis requires the violation of the Laws of Physics, and you present NO EVIDENCE to explain why this is, the reasonable answer is to reject the hypothesis as unsound.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Therefore we can dismiss the assertion that the laws of physics were broken here.

Quote:You are trying to explain away problems in your unverified and unfalsifiable hypothesis with unverified and unfalsifiable stories. It's irrational and no one not even you would accept it in any other situation.

I am not doing any such thing. Everything I have said in this post is honest, rational, reasonable, and only deals with the facts of this case. This discussion is not about conclusive proof, and never can be.

It's only all about acknowledgement of possibilities, and the possibility that these twelve professionals seen an aircraft of unknown origin and design is definitely high enough to warrant belief.

Quote:
Quote:All I want you to do is concentrate on the news report from the Chicago Tribune and view it as you would any other type of news report.
It's not any other news report though. It's a news report with anonymous people making extraordinary claims which also require the violation of physics and with no evidence it's true in the slightest.

Anonymous people are in the news all the time as just a couple of witnesses, but how often do you have 12 anonymous people in the news all claiming the same thing?

Your view that 12 professionals in the aviation industry identifying an object as being an aircraft of unknown design is somehow extraordinary does not jibe with reason here, for there is nothing unreasonable or extraordinary about that particular part of this case.

And again, there is no evidence that the laws of physics have been violated, and that fact is really indisputable. We cannot have any special pleading on that at all.

Quote:
Quote:If you can view the news report from the Chicago Tribune as you would other reports that involve anonymous people, then you need to explain why you would doubt their claim about having these twelve witnesses, and about what these twelve witnesses said.
If I treat it as any other news story with nothing but, and that is important: nothing but, anonymous witnesses I would.....withhold belief until such time as their claims have been proven. This is not unusual at all.

Again, how many news stories have you ever seen with this many anonymous witnesses, credible due to their profession?

You won't ever find a case quite like this. Not ever.

Quote:
Quote:I am not asking you to agree with my position on this, but only looking for why you are so adamant that I am not being rational or reasonable about this.
You have accepted as true that which is not evidently or demonstrably true.

And people do that all the time with many things. Courts do it also because all evidence is subjective. Judges make decisions based upon whether the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of an accusation, yet how many times have we seen people wrongly convicted? My point here is that conclusiveness cannot be achieved in many situations, therefore decisions on the truth of a claim are based upon the available evidence and arguments provided, and most times the decision is correct, but also sometimes it's not.

Some theories are accepted as having anything from some good evidence to a lot of good evidence. But all theories that even have some evidence will generate enough belief to seek out the truth of the claim, for without "faith" in the evidence, no one can be inspired to search for more evidence. Faith is by no means wholly restricted only to religious convictions. We all have a propensity to believe in one thing or another. It's human nature.

Not much can conclusively be demonstrated as true 100%, let alone situations in which evidence and arguments are subjective insomuch as one person believes it, while another does not.

Demonstrating something conclusively is not required to generate belief in a claim. We cannot conclusively demonstrate thousands of positions, yet here we are, supporting things because we have some evidence, and some good arguments to support said belief.

In conclusion ...

1. I accept as true that the journalist from the Chicago Tribune did in fact interview these witnesses and others, and reject as false that this journalist in any way misrepresented the facts in this case or lied, since we have no reason, rationale, or evidence to suggest that he did.

2. I reject any claims that I have been unreasonable, irrational, or intellectually dishonest in my acceptance of this claim, as I find nothing irrational, unreasonable, or intellectually dishonest with accepting a claim as being truthful that 12 credible professionals all agreed that they had seen an aircraft who's origin and design they could not identify.

3. I reject as reasonable that the other couple of witnesses, who could not agree on what the object was, could in any way dispute the claims of the other twelve who did agree on what it was, and who each made a positive identification of the object as being an aircraft.

4. I reject claims that I have been irrational or unreasonable because- although extraordinary and unusual- the purported performance of this aircraft does not justify the claim of its existence as being unreasonable or irrational.

5. I reject as false the assertion that any physics have been broken, as I find no evidence that any laws of physics were broken by this aircraft.


Hey dude, now THIS is the kind of rational and reasonable discussion I have been asking for.

Well done.

Thanks.

Thumbsup

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
22-09-2015, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2015 10:19 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(21-09-2015 11:54 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  But if you want to continue with this crap of stabbing at each other, that's up to you.

After derailing your own thread with pointless aggression, you try to pull this? Fuck you again.

Anyway, you've proven that discussing the topic of the thread with you is about as profitable as discussing quantum mechanics with a chicken. You have been trolling for the past 50 odd pages. Why should I waste my time, other than to point out your stupid trolling?

Well then might I suggest you simply stop participating in this thread since it apparently irks you insomuch as to whine to the admins and mislead them into believing a threat was made when the context of this discussion conclusively demonstrates that no such threat was ever made? It has been your intention to try and get me banned for some time now, as THIS OTHER POST again demonstrates your attempt to manipulate the admins into doing what you want.

You sir, are ridiculously dishonest, manipulative, and shameful, and your attempts to further manipulate the opinions of others regarding me on this thread is not lost on me at all. You are very transparent.

Drinking Beverage

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
22-09-2015, 08:47 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
If you have not seen strange lights in the sky, this is what people are talking about. I have seen the same thing on multiple occasions although not as numerous and as bright a "power up" as shown here. I have a high powered laser that I use as well. Not sure what they are, but they are there.

Yes the peoples reactions may be distracting, but watch a least a few minutes of it.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: