UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2015, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2015 09:08 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
Whiskey's Bandwagon Disassembly

Part 1

Created & Choreographed By Free


Synopsis: This will be a 4 Part series examining the mind or lack thereof of subject known as "WhiskeyDebates," in an effort to determine whether or not this supposed individual can actually physically exist in the natural world.

Hence, we shall begin ...

(25-09-2015 03:04 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(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.

This excludes the reality that some were viewing the object at less or more distances than others. It is clear and obvious that those who's vantage point was directly underneath could see the object directly overhead with more clarity than those from horizontal distances. Also, specific distances from the object also come into play, as well as obstructions from viewing the object such as towers etc.

Quote:I gave you a very sort list earlier of people who absolutely should have seen something and did not which you largely ignored.

I didn't ignore it, but addressed it. You claim they should have seen the object but didn't explain why they didn't see it. You cannot simply conclude that someone didn't see the object without also addressing it with "why or why not." You need to supply the reason why they didn't see it, and since you didn't, you don't have a legitimate argument from silence here.


Quote:
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.

And right there we see yet another feeble attempt to misrepresent my position, since according to the context my position clearly illustrates that we have been speaking of the 12 witnesses (and others) who identified it as an aircraft, and not those who claim they seen a bird or anything else.

Have you people not yet learned that I will easily expose your misrepresentations and corner you in your lies? How the fuck can this subject go on for 130 pages and you still think you can lie?

Amazing.


Quote: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.

Again, they don't count as "witnesses" with those who all claim to have seen an aircraft, now do they? And for those who say they saw nothing, you fail to qualify this as a legitimate argument without explaining why or why not they saw nothing. For example, did they have vantage point, or where they inside? Were they impeded in any way, or did they look directly at the area where the craft was supposed to be and seen nothing?

And can you prove any of this? You have no point here until you do.

Quote:
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.

Like I said, I accept the report from the Chicago Tribune as being truthful and find no evidence to dispute it's truthfulness, and plenty of evidence to qualify it as being truthful, and that is the proof that exists.

Therefore, you absolutely need to prove any grounds whatsoever to dispute the report in order to disqualify it, and you have miserably failed to do that. Until you do, you are merely asserting with no grounds for support.

So produce your evidence that what the Chicago Tribune has reported is false, and then maybe you can have some semblance of a point. Until then, you have fucking squat. Nada. Ziltch.

Quote:
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:[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.
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.

This is a very amateuristic attempt to qualify your false analogy. Your defense of it is that "I don't like it?" That's not a defence at all, but rather an attempt to dodge the obvious.

You are attempting to compare something described as physical to something that is described as not being physical; something from the natural to something that is supernatural.

Your attempt to compare this absolutely fails in epic proportions, and demonstrates that you simply haven't a clue how to make a fair comparison.

Quote:
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

Beautiful attempt at a red herring, but you know me ... you won't get away with it.

So again, what evidence do you have to doubt the honesty and integrity of the journalist in regards to this report?

Quote:
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.

Absolutely mindless speculation, but you don't seriously think you have actually disputed anything here with this reporter with any evidence aside from what you fabricate in your own mind, do you?

No no no ... of COURSE you don't!

Quote:
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?

Again, do you find any evidence to dispute this claim? Since it's a very public accusation, do you find United Airways or the FAA complaining anywhere in the public media about how the reporter somehow lied? Do you find any evidence whatsoever to dispute the claim?

No ... you ... fucking ... DIDN'T.

And all we have from you is more mentally fabricated bullshit that doesn't have a single stitch of evidence to support it when- if the accusations were false- it is extremely reasonable for United Airways and the FAA to publicly complain about it.

Again, you got squat.

To be continued ....

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
26-09-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 07:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 07:39 PM)Free Wrote:  You have no idea who I am, and never will.

Big Grin

Sure we do. You are an asshole. Drinking Beverage

That claim, we've got a whole mountain of objective, verifiable evidence for Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-09-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
"All we are saying is give peace a chance"
Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
26-09-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Popcorn

I have to say that under the onslaught Free is holding his own.
I also want to add that I've gone toe-to-to with him and found it interesting and stimulating without it ever resorting to flaming. I'm not at all sure how this thread devolved to where it is today but I, for one, think it unfortunate.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
26-09-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 09:56 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Popcorn

I have to say that under the onslaught Free is holding his own.
I also want to add that I've gone toe-to-to with him and found it interesting and stimulating without it ever resorting to flaming. I'm not at all sure how this thread devolved to where it is today but I, for one, think it unfortunate.

Yeah I kinda like free. But 131 pages without any evidence on the horizon is kinda silly and a waste of time.

What do they say about insanity?

Doing this on a rationalist website is pointless from the start when everyone is going to say, and has, "Show me the evidence."

Funny reading though. Big Grin

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 09:56 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I have to say that under the onslaught Free is holding his own.

In what way, precisely?

Presenting any sort of evidence? He has utterly failed to do that.

Actually responding to the points raised against him rather than strawmanning pointlessly? He has utterly failed to do that.

Providing any reasonable distinction between aliens and wizards as potential explanation for unknowns? He has utterly failed to do that.

Coming to terms with the most absolutely basic principles of logic and rationality? He has utterly failed to do that.

I am confused as to what it is you think, exactly, that he has done to make anything even approaching a sound case for his position.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-09-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 10:00 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 09:56 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Popcorn

I have to say that under the onslaught Free is holding his own.
I also want to add that I've gone toe-to-to with him and found it interesting and stimulating without it ever resorting to flaming. I'm not at all sure how this thread devolved to where it is today but I, for one, think it unfortunate.

Yeah I kinda like free. But 131 pages without any evidence on the horizon is kinda silly and a waste of time.

What do they say about insanity?

Doing this on a rationalist website is pointless from the start when everyone is going to say, and has, "Show me the evidence."

Funny reading though. Big Grin

You shouldn't be in here dude.

But I will not be an asshole to you, because you do not deserve it. Therefore, I will simply ask you a question that the others will not answer, and I will keep it simple.

Aside from conclusive evidence such as a verified alien entity landing on earth and interacting publicly for the whole world to see, what kind of evidence would you expect that would enable you to conclude that alien life could already possibly be visiting earth?

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
26-09-2015, 10:58 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2015 11:21 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 09:56 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Popcorn

I have to say that under the onslaught Free is holding his own.
I also want to add that I've gone toe-to-to with him and found it interesting and stimulating without it ever resorting to flaming. I'm not at all sure how this thread devolved to where it is today but I, for one, think it unfortunate.

It got to this position back on Page 17 when Unbeliever began to lie about what my position on aliens visiting earth was actually was, by insisting I was making a positive claim that they are, when on Page 8 in a conversation with Pablo I had clearly outlined my views on it.

After that, others such as morondog, cjlr, and Whiskey jumped on that lying bandwagon and continued with that lie, as well as faulty comparisons et al, generally being fuckwads, and then from there they get me being a complete and total asshole towards them.

I don't take any shit from anybody, and if they want to be fuckwads, then they invite my attitude towards them, which is perfectly fucking justified.

And that's the way I roll.

Smokin

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
26-09-2015, 10:59 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 10:49 AM)Free Wrote:  You shouldn't be in here dude.

But I will not be an asshole to you, because you do not deserve it. Therefore, I will simply ask you a question that the others will not answer, and I will keep it simple.

Aside from conclusive evidence such as a verified alien entity landing on earth and interacting publicly for the whole world to see, what kind of evidence would you expect that would enable you to conclude that alien life could already possibly be visiting earth?

We have been over this already. Talking about what could "possibly" be happening, in the sense that you use it, is absolutely worthless. You could say that it is "possibly" wizards with the same validity.

"Possibly" is worthless.

"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
26-09-2015, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2015 11:19 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 10:59 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 10:49 AM)Free Wrote:  You shouldn't be in here dude.

But I will not be an asshole to you, because you do not deserve it. Therefore, I will simply ask you a question that the others will not answer, and I will keep it simple.

Aside from conclusive evidence such as a verified alien entity landing on earth and interacting publicly for the whole world to see, what kind of evidence would you expect that would enable you to conclude that alien life could already possibly be visiting earth?

We have been over this already. Talking about what could "possibly" be happening, in the sense that you use it, is absolutely worthless. You could say that it is "possibly" wizards with the same validity.

"Possibly" is worthless.

Yes yes yes, and I keep proving you are fucking wrong about understanding possibilities by the virtue of a simple analogy.

The Big Bang is a theory in which evidence exists to demonstrate the "possibility" that a singularity once existed. Yet, you cannot claim that the evidence conclusively proves that a singularity ever existed.

So you are in a position of "belief" if you think a Big Bang actually happened, because you cannot conclusively prove that a singularity existed. You believe it existed because the available evidence denotes that possibility.

And it doesn't fucking matter whether or not you disagree that the historical UFO evidence indicates alien visitation of not, because you don't get to claim what is evidence, or what is not evidence any more than a theist gets to claim that the evidence to support a Big Bang is not evidence at all.

You are in a simple position of disbelief in aliens visiting earth, just like a theist is in a position of disbelief in the Big Bang.

And why are you in a position of disbelief? Because just like a theist is with the Big Bang, you have no decent education in the field of UFO studies.

If you and the others don't like that, our dearly departed George Carlin has a few words for you:

"Fuck the fucking fuckers."

- George Carlin R.I.P

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: