UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 02:24 PM)Free Wrote:  The possibility exists, and it's been proven.

Only in the same way that the possibility of wizards exists and has been proven.

(25-09-2015 02:24 PM)Free Wrote:  You do not get to decide whether or not the evidence supports the possibility

We rather do, because, unlike you, we understand what "evidence" means.

(25-09-2015 02:40 PM)Free Wrote:  It's rational, well researched, evidenced, reasoned

It is precisely none of those things.

(25-09-2015 02:40 PM)Free Wrote:  In my view, it is completely irrational to conclude that no possibility exists, or that the possibility is unworthy of consideration.

That is because you are a very, very silly person with no understanding of rationality.

"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
25-09-2015, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2015 04:06 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(22-09-2015 09:31 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes, this is true. However, all those who reported seeing nothing were attempting to view it from a distance.
Everyone was viewing it from a distance Free....that's how you view things in the air while you are on the ground. From a distance. I gave you a very sort list earlier of people who absolutely should have seen something and did not which you largely ignored.

Quote: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?
You're assuming I do. I don't need to accept his opinion that it was a bird is accurate to do what his presence serves to do in my point. You made the claim that all witnesses say they saw an aircraft and that is, wither he is right about the bird or not, false. Same thing with the man who said he thought it was a balloon maybe, and all the people who saw nothing. They all count as witnesses too, you can not just use the ones that support your favored conclusion. While I suspect you will shift the goal posts again the point remains: multiple witnesses disagree with your assertion that ALL witnesses claim to have seen an aircraft.
You are deliberately exaggerating the strength of your case and it's grown tedious.

Quote:What you need to understand here is that all the witnesses are from United Airways, and ask why.
Prove it. Prove that the witnesses are actually employees of United Airways, and before you even try no "I have no reason to think they are not" is not a positive identification of the witnesses thus that we can establish their professional capacity at O'Hare.
Until you prove their credibility and their presence there and that their testimony is accurate to the person I'm deleting/editing your posts that treat this unproven assertion as fact.

Quote: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.

[/quote]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.[/quote]
Well you would be wrong. The nature of the claim, either natural or supernatural, matters not one tiny bit. The claim is not proof for the claim. You can not like me comparing your faith to another faith all you want but logic does not take a holiday just cause it's not being applied to Jesus or unicorns. The same rules apply to your claim that apply to those claims.

Quote: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...
Now lets investigate the witnesses to see if they are lying ...oh wait we can't. Undecided

Quote:and also if he was lying about speaking to these witnesses then why hasn't somebody from United Airways called him out on it?
Honestly? I have never ran one of the largest and busiest airports on an entire continent but if I had to guess I would say that they have bigger things to worry about than a nobody Jurno reporting on spaceships over America especially when no actual evidence exists that it was even there. Drinking Beverage

Quote: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.
It's like talking to a fucking wall with you sometimes. This, the above, is an ALLEGATION that has not been PROVEN a fact that has been pointed out to you again and again and again. Do you have any actual demonstrable evidence this took place? Memos, e-mails, letters?

Quote:and the reason is that they couldn't without being caught in even more lies.
While I like a good story as much as the next guy, lets not pretend you know the motivations of an entire company OK? This little incident didn't harm O'Hare in the slightest PR wise (outside of the tin foil brigade) so completely ignoring a report by a nutjob organization and the anonymous reports pasted on to a nobody traffic reporter probably ain't the biggest concern for, again, one of the largest airports on the continent.

Quote:That evidence comes from the Chicago Tribune and is supported by what is found right on the tapes.
You mean the part in the tapes where exactly ZERO people claim to see an aircraft? Drinking Beverage

Quote: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.
That's nice but your personal credulity is not an argument.

Quote: credibility as professionals in the airline business
Dismissed as the unproven assertion that it is. Prove it or stop pretending it has been.


Quote:I do not agree.
Then you are disagreeing with logic because that's how it works. Without a demonstration of truth is is irrational to hold a position as true. That it has not been demonstrated to be false, does NOT make it rational to hold it as true when THAT position has not been demonstrated.
Failing to prove something wrong does not mean you have proved it right. This is Logic 101.

Quote:There is simply no good reason to disbelieve the report
Like a fucking brick wall. How many times do I have to repeat that not accepting a claim as true is not the same thing as accepting the claim is false. To determine if a claim is true or false you require testable and demonstrable evidence that you can use to determine the accuracy of the claim. You have none, have provided none, and as such the rational and honest thing to do is to withhold belief in the claim until such time as that evidence can be found and compared to the claim. Withholding belief does not mean we take the position the claim is false. I'm really tired of explaining this.
You believe that it's true because you have personal reasons for wanting it to be true and NOT because it's been demonstrated to be true. It's irrational.

Quote: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.
Yes and they are FREQUENTLY wrong, almost ALWAYS talking about ordinary things, and always talking about something demonstrable in reality.


Quote:We can either believe them or disbelieve them, because we do have that choice.
You can but to believe without evidence is irrational. We can also withhold belief until evidence is presented which is what logic would have us do.

Quote: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?
I just had to delete a whole bunch of your arguments for relying entirely on a foundation that is not demonstrably true. You have not established their credibility and until you do you are not allowed to make arguments as if you had. I'm done with it, it's tedious as hell.

However as to the above: I would suspend belief in witnesses who report a murder on a person that can't be shown to exist at any point in time. We are not going back into that stupid court room nonsense of yours, and given your history with it you should be the last one to want to go back.

Quote:Most everyone did because that is what we do as human beings.
Right, and most people are irrational who make bad decisions based on emotion and what they WANT to be true and not the actual evidence. This is why we have the Scientific method, rationality, and logic. I wish you would apply them consistently.

Quote:We make judgements based upon the evidence and the arguments presented, and those opinions will generate belief one way or the other.
And there is utterly ZERO evidence in support of the claim made by those claiming spaceships over Chicago which is why your position of belief in unproven claims is irrational.

Quote:Therefore, according to my reasoning above
That was not reasoning Free. There is no actual evidence in support of the claim, the lack of evidence means that belief should be withheld. This is true in all unproven claims at all points in time across all of the universe. Your special little case is not exempt from this. More over trying to use a case WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE where people came to a belief as support for your belief in a case which has ZERO FUCKING EVIDENCE is just laughably dishonest.
Do you think that if the DA had supplied no evidence of O.J Simpsons but had just made the claim that he was guilty that that would be enough to convince a Jury that he was? Do you think it should be?


Quote:It is evidence to support their credibility...
Someone saying his anonymous friends are credible is not evidence they are. Evidence is demonstrable, his claim is not demonstrable, so it's not evidence.

Quote:and credibility is everything in this case.
Actually it's not, not at all really. What is "everything" in this case is the exact same thing in every other claim or hypothesis: testable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence. Given that you have none the credibility of your witnesses is irrelevant frankly. Don't be confused I harp on about their credibility because you are assuming as fact that which is not demonstrably so and you asked me to explain to you your irrationality and that's an example of it. There could be 30 of them they could all ACTUALLY be saying the same thing, and they could be experts in interstellar travel, alien history, and spacecraft and it wouldn't matter int he slightest to me at all. Evidence matters. Facts matter.

Actually now that I think of it, how many of your experts in human aircraft would be qualified to work on the Space Shuttle?


Quote: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.
It is when their fucking profession is not established because they are fucking anonymous. They could be baggage handlers and the guy who runs the fucking fuel truck for all you ACTUALLY know.

Quote:In fact, I find it completely unreasonable and irrational to suggest that they have no credibility.
First off, again, your personal credulity is not an argument and secondly I never said they had no credibility. I said their credibility has not been established so to claim that they are credible is dishonest and irrational. Things actually have to be proven before you can argue they are true.

Quote:Intellectual honesty demands that they be respected as credible professionals.
After, and not bloody before, either of those things has been proven to me I'll be happy to do just that. Drinking Beverage

Now I get to go on another deleting spree because of your asserting as fact that which is not. Fun times.

Quote:Those who seen nothing cannot be considered...
You have exactly zero idea how a court case actually functions do you. People present at an alleged event who claim to have been present for the alleged event and seen absolutely no event take place in any way shape or form are JUST as important witness wise as the ones who claim an event happened. When there is exactly ZERO evidence of the event claimed having happened their testimony is even more important.
You do not get to continue your confirmation bias feeding cherry picking with me.

You made the claim that ALL witnesses saw an aircraft and that claim is now entirely debunked.

Quote: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.
Good thing I never said all of them would be then huh?


Quote:Hence, all we have are are a number of witnesses
Entirely and completely false. I gave you a very partial list of people who SHOULD have seen something but didn't, which you ignored, and then lets take into account that O'Hare has one of the LARGEST plain spotting communities in the world, and that gate C17 has a glass ceiling so anyone in gate C17 is a potential witness, and I could keep going. You're not going to be allowed to cherry pick bud, sorry.

Quote:Nobody else was in a position to see anything above Gate C 17...
Other then literally every single person in gate C17.

Quote:Looking for "absolute" proof..
How about ANY demonstrable proof at all to support the claim? I never once made any comments about absolute proof, I made requests for a single fucking bit of it to support the claim. The claim is not proof for the claim. You realize that exactly ZERO people including Darwin himself, believed that evolution was true BEFORE testable demonstrable and falsifiable evidence was presented right? That in fact MANY biologists of the time flat out rejected it as believable...and then changed their minds when the ACTUAL EVIDENCE was shown.

You keep wanting to compare your nonsense with no supporting evidence for the claim with things that have an abundance of evidence and it's getting rather tedious. Your claim has exactly ZERO in common with what you are repeatedly comparing it to.

Quote:We cannot conclusively prove that evolution and the Big bang are absolutely 100% correct.
Hate to break it to you Free but that Evolution is a reality is 100% proven.

Quote:Therefore, you will not find absolute proof here
How about ANY evidence at all, seeing as how I never asked for absolute proof, to support the claim you are trumpeting which is not just the same claim repeated? Something testable, falsifiable, and demonstrable.

Quote:but only demonstrating how belief can be supported by what is reasonable, rational, and by the supporting evidence.
Which you don't have.

Quote:Religious faith provides no evidence to support the supernatural entity religious folks claim to exist.
You have provided no evidence to support the unknown aircraft your witnesses claim exists. So that's one in the faith box.

Quote:We all know from experience how all these proclaimed gods of these various faiths have fallen into the graveyard throughout human history.
By failing to meet their burden of proof. Just like you/Jurno/Witnesses have. Two in the faith box.

Quote: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.
You have exactly zero demonstrable evidence supporting the claim of an unknown aircraft over O'Hare. Zero. That's three now.

Quote:Religions are based completely on faith that their god exists, not on any degree of supporting evidence.
And you have exactly ZERO supporting evidence that can been tied to any aircraft of unknown origin over O'Hare. Four.

There is not a functional difference between your stance and the stance of a religionist. Drinking Beverage

Quote:If we can accept the Bible report as true as being a reasonable position, then all of these witnesses corroborated stories of an actual physical existence of a physical Jesus are likewise not unreasonable, and cannot be compared whatsoever to the claim of the existence of a physics defying spaceship.
Drinking Beverage

Quote:It is unreasonable to compare a claim of a physical object to the claim of a supernatural object.
If you think this is what I'm getting at you missed the entire point of what I was saying. Or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent my point. Either or.

Quote:There are two sides to this claim:
Both of which I deleted because you continue to present as fact that which has not been shown to be fact. Your entire deleted argument is dismissed. If you want to tell me your position is entirely reasonable while falsely presenting it no skin of my back, I can just delete it and move on. Make your arguments form the FACT they are anonymous hearsay or don't make them at all.

Quote:But, how can we prove that it has violated the laws of physics?
Oh look you're of the position it's wrong to make unproven claims based on the witness testimony but only if they cause problems for your unproven claims based on witness testimony. How goddamn shocking.

Quote:We cannot merely say it has violated the laws of physics without proof of some kind.
Nor can we call witnesses credible professionals without proof of some kind, nor can we say it was an aircraft without proof, or that it went from there to orbit in 2 seconds without proof, and on and on and on.

Quote:To make this claim valid, we definitely need evidence other than what the witnesses claim to have seen.
Also applies to your claims Free, a fact people have been saying to you for 3 threads and several hundred pages.

The above is EXACTLY why you are irrational, because you only apply critical thinking and skepticism to the things you don't WANT to be true. Apply Hitchens' Razor to all the things you personally believe are true but are not actually DEMONSTRABLY TRUE and get back to me.

Quote:Hence, there really isn't any kind of good evidence to suggest that the laws of physics have been broken at all.
If we can argue that it actually is an airship, which you have been doing for ages now, then there actually is. It's called Maths.

Quote:You can only speculate here, but without actual evidence, the speculation is unsupported.
So your entire position basically is unsupported.

Quote:No, I am asking for evidence to support the assertion that the laws of physics have been broken here, and nothing else.
No you're selectively applying critical thinking only to things that disagree with your conclusions and it's bloody annoying. I will point out we have been asking for evidence in support of the assertions made about the craft for...uh...3 threads now.

That said, if we don't treat the account of the witnesses as true (and why would we really?) then no there is no evidence the craft breaks the laws of physics.....because there is not evidence for a craft to begin with. Drinking Beverage

Quote:You know as well as I do that you will need evidence to support that assertion
Or any assertion for that matter. You know...like the ones you have been making for 3 threads now? Logic continues to effect ALL assertions not just the ones you don't like.

Quote:and claiming something as "space wizardry" is pointless and demonstrates nothing.
I'm not claiming the craft breaking the laws of physics is "space wizardry" I'm claiming the excuses you have pulled out of your ass to explain away why, according to the testimony, the craft would have to break the laws of physics is not the case is nothing more than a hand wave of "space magic".

You are telling me I can't make supported assertions when EVERY attempt to explain away problems as "they could have the tech" is just that : unsupported assertion without a shred of evidence.

Quote:I am not working from any conclusion here, but you are.
Wrong on so many levels I'm amazed you lived through they typing of that.

Quote:Can you reasonably disagree with me here when your own entire argument here is all about evidence?
So you are allowed to make a bunch of bullshit arguments, in support of the claim you believe, that have no supporting evidence of any kind but no one else is allowed to argue AGAINST those bullshit claims with anything but absolutely demonstrable evidence?
Ya, you are not allowed to make any arguments to me that are not demonstrable true and I'll delete any that you try to present. If you are only gonna apply rules to everyone but you ...why do I even bother with you?

Quote:My position again is that it has not been demonstrated that any laws of physics were actually broken here.
And it's our position that it has not been demonstrated that any non-human airship exists or was seen over Chicago and that you are irrational for believe it was without the demonstration of existence.

Apply your critical thinking consistently bud.


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

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.
Oh look here you are applying Hitchens' Razor only to the arguments that disagree with you. THIS IS WHY YOU ARE IRRATIONAL. As well as intellectually dishonest.

Quote:I am not doing any such thing.
Yes you fucking are free, but I don't require you to acknowledge it so if you want to go on believing you are rational as if irrational people are the best judges of their own rationality you go right ahead.

Quote:It's only all about acknowledgement of possibilities, and the possibility that these twelve professionals ...
Oh good we are already back to you ignoring Hitchens' Razor when it comes to your own unproven claims.


Quote: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?
The number is irrelevant, until evidence is presented the default position is not belief because we are not credulous dullards. Anonymous people report on things that can be shown to exist in reality. Your comparisons are grabage and I'm deleting them from here on out, I don't have time/interest to deal with your Gish Gallop nonsense.

Quote:Your view that 12 professionals in the aviation industry identifying an object as being an aircraft of unknown design is somehow extraordinary...
That's not my position at all so take your strawman and head on down the Yellow Brick Road if you would be so kind Tinman.

Quote:And again, there is no evidence that non-human spaceships exist and visit airports, and that fact is really indisputable. We cannot have any special pleading on that at all.
Drinking Beverage Apply your logic consistently.

Quote:Again, how many news stories have you ever seen with this many anonymous witnesses, with entirely unproven credibility?
The number is irrelevant, the complete lack of evidence to support their claims is the the issue. Fucking hell it could be 400 and I'd still withhold belief, just like I do with every new age bit of "medical" knowledge I see pop up. I wait for the fucking evidence and THEN I decide because I'm not a gullible credulous asshat.

Quote:You won't ever find a case quite like this. Not ever.
Not if i keep letting you entire into argument shit that has not been proven. But I won't, so I don't have to worry.

Quote:You have accepted as true that which is not evidently or demonstrably true.
Quote:And people do that all the time with many things.
So? It's still irrational to do so. People are not known for their rationality like...at all.
Quote:Courts do it also because all evidence is subjective.
Not it's not, and who every told you this should be ashamed. Evidence, testable evidence, is measurable and can make predictions that can be verified as accurate. It's not subjective it's empirical.

Quote:Judges make decisions based upon whether the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of an accusation..
Ya evidence, please fucking provide some that's not just the same(it's not) claim repeated 12 fucking times.

Quote:yet how many times have we seen people wrongly convicted?
Lots! Many of which were do to faulty eyewitness testimony, sometimes from multiple people. You know what gets those false convictions over turned most of the time? DNA evidence. Which is NOT "subjective".


Quote:My point here is that conclusiveness cannot be achieved in many situations
And in those situations we withhold belief until such time as the claim can be verified. Look...I get that you NEED an answer, you have talked about that in the past, but your NEED of an answer does not make inventing ones out of thin air rational.

Now that said....the lack of evidence in support of your position does not mean it's "unknowable or unprovable" as you have claimed before. Maybe..just maybe..your position does not have any evidence because it's wrong. *shrug*


Quote:therefore decisions on the truth of a claim are based upon the available evidence
Of which you have zero. You are still under the impression that if a claim can't be shown right or wrong we have to make a decision one way or the other...and we don't in fact we shouldn't. We withhold belief.

Quote:Some theories are accepted as having anything from some good evidence to a lot of good evidence.
And exactly ZERO hypotheses are accepted as a theory without a preponderance of evidence. You don't have a theory, you have a assertion with no supporting evidence.

Stop exaggerating your case.


Quote: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.
Everything you just wrote is wrong, right from your usage of the word theory to the end, and is not how we do science. Not only that but "you have "faith" in science" is LITERALLY a Christian apologetic talking point.
You know exactly what I mean when I say you have faith. It ain't that. Believing in something and having faith is something are not the same thing. You have "faith" and I don't.

Quote:Demonstrating something conclusively is not required to generate belief in a claim.
To hold a belief rationally it must accurately reflect reality and it requires a demonstration of accuracy to do this. The time to hold a belief is when that belief is shown to be accurate and not before.

Quote:1. I accept as true that the journalist ....
Personal incredulity is not evidence or an argument. That you accept as true that which is not proven true is why you are viewed as irrational by the people here. That's all there is to it.

Quote:I reject any claims that I have been unreasonable...
Your rejection or acceptance of your irrationality does nothing to change the fact you are irrational.

Quote: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.
Then you fail to understand why i brought up the witnesses that disagree with your witnesses. Your rejection of it is also irrelevant because you are not the sole custodian of the claims or reality for that matter. Though you like to pretend your opinion is the only one that matters.

Quote:I reject claims that I have been irrational or unreasonable because- although extraordinary and unusual....
Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. Got any regular evidence, let alone extraordinary?

Quote: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.[/b]
And if you fucking applied Hitchens' Razor to your own claims you would see that there is no evidence that an aircraft even existed.

Quote:Hey dude, now THIS is the kind of rational and reasonable discussion I have been asking for.
If you think I have forgotten your behavior in this thread or the two others you are very very mistaken. So let me be really really clear:

You have in NO WAY earned a reasonable discussion and definitely not a respectful one. When you ask for a reasonable discussion while telling be people they can be your bitch, or while calling everyone who disagrees with you retards or any of the other shit you have vomited on to the forum, you do NOT get to cry when the people you call retarded don't want to treat you well. And no the fault of your attitude is 100% your goddamn fault, and not anyone else.

You got a responsible response from me, and will continue to get them, not because I think you deserve them, because I really really don't, but because if I treat you the way you deserve to be treated you spend the entire time addressing every single thing that I say ACCEPT for the points I'm making. This is the only way I can get you to stop masturbating to your own insults long enough to post answer my damn questions correctly. Censored

Why I'm slightly annoyed here at the end of the post is because I DID give a reasonable and more or less polite (for me) post and I got .......irrational arguments, the same reposting of the same reposted nonsense I've been dealing with the entire time, and the same cherry picked application of logic only to things you don't support, and the same arguments from authority where the authority hasn't even been demonstrated.

Honestly this is beginning to bore me, I have no idea why I thought I could demonstrate to an emotionally invested, irrational, conspiracy theorist that he was irrational. 'Cause you know...they are the best at self evaluation. Frusty Frusty

Edit: Sweet merciful wall of text Batman.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
25-09-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 02:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 02:40 PM)Free Wrote:  Because other people do support my conclusion. They just will not engage in this thread because they see what happens when someone dares to take a stand on what they believe to be true here.
Yeah, they get asked to substantiate it Rolleyes How scary is that Gasp

With your lot of pseudo sceptics? Who would want to join in on this discussion and support the view that alien life visiting earth is possible?

You don't think they all know what you and the others have been doing here? You don't think they see the neg rep gang bang and vitriol?

You have no idea what you've done to yourselves as far as trust and respectability is concerned. My position on this subject has been known since my introductory post on this forum, so it's nothing new to most people here.

But for you and the others ... you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted, and that you would much rather troll a person than actually demonstrate the maturity to actually engage in an intelligent discussion.

The # 1 thing I have been messaged about is the lack of maturity you and the others on the "bandwagon' have demonstrated.

But you are too close to it to see it.


Quote:
Quote:It's rational, well researched, evidenced, reasoned, and demonstrates an obvious possibility.
"Obvious" huh? Like that incident was "obviously" an aircraft which "obviously" was seen by human observers to go orbital in seconds. If it's so goddamn obvious why's your alleged evidence so shit?

What do you actually think would be good evidence to denote a possibility? That's a very important question, so you will need to outline what evidence would be required.

You think about that, and I mean think about it. And then ask yourself if the standard of evidence you require exceeds what is necessary to qualify a possibility.

A landed UFO with alien occupants is not required for a possibility to exist, for that would denote conclusive evidence. Therefore, you tell me what kind of evidence you would expect to qualify it as a possibility.

Quote:
Quote:In my view, it is completely irrational to conclude that no possibility exists, or that the possibility is unworthy of consideration.
I granted you that the possibility exists already. It's also possible that your brain is inhabited by pixies. I submit that *that* hypothesis is as worthy of consideration.

Come on, demonstrate that it is *probable* that aliens have visited Earth. That's your position right? "Possible" is a given, because there's no way to say that it's *impossible*, in the same way that there's no way to say that pigs can't use antigravity when no one's looking.

Here you go with misrepresenting my position again with the use of the word "probable."

How you can be so intellectually dishonest is more of a mystery than UFOs could ever be.

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
25-09-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 03:05 PM)Free Wrote:  You don't think they all know what you and the others have been doing here? You don't think they see the neg rep gang bang and vitriol?

Again, I'm fairly certain that everyone here can see precisely what is going on.

This thread began quite courteously. In fact, even now it hasn't gone much beyond "deluded fool" on my part, and even that only came after dozens of pages of direct insults from you. You, on the other hand, have taken every opportunity to insult and denigrate everyone who points out your fallacious statements, and have basically been throwing one long, continuous tantrum since page twenty.

Yes, everyone reading this sees your reputation dropping like a stone. Yes, everyone reading this can see that you have been trash-talked by almost every other participant.

The key here, however, is that everyone can see that you earned it.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
25-09-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 03:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Here you go with misrepresenting my position again with the use of the word "probable."

How you can be so intellectually dishonest is more of a mystery than UFOs could ever be.

So you are arguing merely that it's *Possible*? You find it necessary to have a whole fucking thread of > 100 pages all of which is you talking horseshit about some mythical 12 witnesses who can see stuff going into orbit, all to argue that it's *possible*? It's fucking *possible* that it was fucking Santa Claus Rolleyes

You judged it something like 20% probable (IIRC, I'll find the post if you challenge my recollection) that the Chicago O'Hare incident was aliens. Where'd you pull that probability from and how the fuck is that not arguing for probable over possible?

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
25-09-2015, 03:18 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 02:40 PM)Free Wrote:  Because other people do support my conclusion.
And that tells us......what exactly??Consider

Quote:They just will not engage in this thread because they see what happens when someone dares to take a stand on what they believe to be true here.
And I got a message in my e-mail from the Jolly Old Queen of England and she says that 100% of the House of Commons thinks your a cunt, they just don't want to join the conversation here because they are all terribly sensitive and your bully bullshit will make them sad.

But they TOTALLY exist. Rolleyes

I'm so happy for you Free, clinching the big goddamn pussy demographic. Anonymous supporters to go with your anonymous hearsay. How lovely.Drinking Beverage


Honestly if anyone is reading this and actually supports the conclusion that aliens are visiting earth please feel free to join the conversation. We are not hostile to Free because he believes in aliens we are hostile to him because he's an asshole, tries to present as fact that which has not been proven, and refuses to acknowledge that his position has exactly zero demonstrable evidence to support it.

If you can provide evidence to support your belief, can be not a massive bag of cunt, and won't present pretend facts I'd personally love to hear from you. I'm being 100% serious by the way, I know I can be a razorbladed son of a bitch, but if you have any ACTUAL evidence I'd love to see it. Free doesn't, but if you do feel free to sub him out.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 03:05 PM)Free Wrote:  The # 1 thing I have been messaged about is the lack of maturity you and the others on the "bandwagon' have demonstrated.
The guy talking about nooses, calling everyone fucking retards, and telling people they can be his bitch is who people ran to to whine about the lack of maturity?

Uh-huh, sounds legit bro. Rolleyes

EDIT: Are.....are you a poe.. Free? I'm not being comical I'm seriously asking, because you have been starting to seem like the longest con game I have ever seen.

I'm seriously considering it.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 03:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Honestly if anyone is reading this and actually supports the conclusion that aliens are visiting earth please feel free to join the conversation. We are not hostile to Free because he believes in aliens we are hostile to him because he's an asshole

Quite.

As mentioned above, Free was the instigator in this situation. The conversation began quite cordially. He was the one who stooped to shit-slinging when people pointed out how silly he was being, and the insults he has earned only came following a series of comments he made along the lines of "I'll let you continue to be my bitch if you admit I've been right this whole time".

And no, that's not an exaggeration; that's something he actually said. I'd pull up the link myself, but I honestly doubt anyone reading this doesn't know that it's true already, so I don't see much point. This is just on the off chance that someone has stumbled in towards the end.

I have no problem with people who believe that aliens are visiting Earth, though I will be quite blunt in my assessment of any arguments put forth to support that belief. You are free to believe whatever you like, and while I might tell you that you are being rather silly, I do not go beyond that.

Free has not been insulted because of what he believes. He has been insulted because he is being a reprehensible, lying, caustic ass who prefers to throw tantrums and sling insults rather than respond to simple, straightforward arguments.

If you share his beliefs, feel free to join in. So long as you have more emotional maturity than a six-year-old, and refrain from calling people "your bitch", you can be assured of a civil, if blunt, reception.

"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
25-09-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 03:11 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 03:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Here you go with misrepresenting my position again with the use of the word "probable."

How you can be so intellectually dishonest is more of a mystery than UFOs could ever be.

So you are arguing merely that it's *Possible*? You find it necessary to have a whole fucking thread of > 100 pages all of which is you talking horseshit about some mythical 12 witnesses who can see stuff going into orbit, all to argue that it's *possible*? It's fucking *possible* that it was fucking Santa Claus Rolleyes

You judged it something like 20% probable (IIRC, I'll find the post if you challenge my recollection) that the Chicago O'Hare incident was aliens. Where'd you pull that probability from and how the fuck is that not arguing for probable over possible?

Listen fool, and get a little education here:

Probable:

1. likely to occur or prove true:

2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probable

So how the fuck can you equate 20% as being probable? You have been arguing that I have been saying "probable" when you don't even understand the meaning of the fucking word?

Seriously?

Laugh out load

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
25-09-2015, 07:23 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 03:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 02:40 PM)Free Wrote:  Because other people do support my conclusion.
And that tells us......what exactly??Consider

It tells you that my position on this forum is not solitary, exactly.

Quote:
Quote:They just will not engage in this thread because they see what happens when someone dares to take a stand on what they believe to be true here.
And I got a message in my e-mail from the Jolly Old Queen of England and she says that 100% of the House of Commons thinks your a cunt, they just don't want to join the conversation here because they are all terribly sensitive and your bully bullshit will make them sad.

But they TOTALLY exist. Rolleyes

I'm so happy for you Free, clinching the big goddamn pussy demographic. Anonymous supporters to go with your anonymous hearsay. How lovely.Drinking Beverage

It is lovely, actually. And don't kid yourself, a sharp tongue is by no means any kind of an indication of a keen mind. But don't feel bad, a lot of other people don't have any brains either, and if you ever decide to get a lobotomy, make sure you get a toupee to hide the scars, and then if you learn to control that fucking slobbering you should function well enough to shit your pants.

Big Grin


Quote:Honestly if anyone is reading this and actually supports the conclusion that aliens are visiting earth please feel free to join the conversation. We are not hostile to Free because he believes in aliens we are hostile to him because he's an asshole, tries to present as fact that which has not been proven, and refuses to acknowledge that his position has exactly zero demonstrable evidence to support it.

Me? An asshole? You talk so much shit that I can smell it on your breath from a mile away. Seriously, your asshole must be insanely jealous of how much shit actually comes out of your mouth.

If your bullshit could ever bounce you would fucking end up in orbit.

Big Grin

Quote:If you can provide evidence to support your belief, can be not a massive bag of cunt, and won't present pretend facts I'd personally love to hear from you. I'm being 100% serious by the way, I know I can be a razorbladed son of a bitch, but if you have any ACTUAL evidence I'd love to see it. Free doesn't, but if you do feel free to sub him out.

Free has proved his point.

And there's nothing you can do about it.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: