UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2015, 11:31 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(25-09-2015 02:43 PM)Free Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 02:39 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  When all else fails, claim victory by fiat. Facepalm
It isn't a matter of winning or losing. It's strictly a matter of what one knows, and what others do not.

I imagine the irony of this statement is lost upon you, considering how much you've been overinflating (*cough* 4 witness not 12 experts *cough*) the evidence you think you have.


(25-09-2015 02:43 PM)Free Wrote:  When they have no education, nor have ever researched the topic, nor have any desire to do so, how then is their opinion qualified enough to believe or disbelieve?

Oh, like your supposed witnesses?

Or the biased 'research' group that cut up and omitted evidence to serve their own agenda?


(25-09-2015 02:43 PM)Free Wrote:  Intellectual honesty demands that their best position is to state is "I don't know."

Once again, the irony is lost upon you.

That's probably the most insufferable thing about you Free, your complete and utter lack of self awareness.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
26-09-2015, 11:40 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2015 12:12 PM by adey67.)
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.
There is too much flaming on both sides but I can understand the frustration of folks trying to get through to him. To my mind its ridiculous now. Neither side is going to gain anything this conversation is best terminated as it is now a question of who caves in first and who is the so called victor which is not the point really. I don't believe any of it , don't get me wrong I am on the side of rational logic. However I do respect frees fighting spirit for sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
26-09-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Oh goodie, pretending to be victorious before he even begins to address any points. This won't be loaded with self gratification and confirmation bias at all, no sir not at all.

Nice way to cultivate that rational and reasonable conversation you wanted. lolz.


Quote:This excludes the reality that some were viewing the object at less or more distances than others.
Oh look more moving the goal posts.
"Everyone who didn't see it was viewing it from a distance!"
"Everyone saw it from a distance that's how you see things in the air when you are on the ground."
"Everyone who didn't see it was viewing it from a FAR distance!"

To which I respond.....prove it. Provide locations for every single person who should have seen it but did not. I wanna know if this is another argument that was birthed in your ass.

Prove that they were too far away to have seen it, each and every one, individually.

Quote:I didn't ignore it, but addressed it.
Hahahhaha! You did no such thing Free. Out of the 5 or so I listed you addressed exactly 1, poorly, and entirely ignored all the others. While saying you weren't gonna ignore them. Didn't touch them at all. Seriously dude come on. Laugh out load

Quote: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.
I don't need to supply anything. They were in a confirmed position to see the phenomena and didn't, I don't NEED to supply any kind of explanation for that and if I did you would boohoo your little eyes out that it was speculation. If you have some evidence, and not your own speculation, to support why they wouldn't be able to see it then go ahead and provide it.

You made the claim, and frequently, that ALL witnesses report seeing an aircraft. All I have to do to dispute that is to provide witnesses that report seeing nothing or report seeing something else. Which I have.

Quote: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.
Nope. YOU have been talking about just the "12" who claim to have seen an aircraft and the rest of us have been addressing the claims in the light of ALL witnesses not just the cherry picked sample that supports your presupposition.

You made the claim, again multiple times, that all the witnesses claim to have seen an aircraft. This statement is true...if we only count the witnesses that made that claim. If we look at ALL the witnesses present we see that is just flatly absurd and incorrect.

Quote:Have you people not yet learned that I will easily expose your misrepresentations...
If it's so easy how come you keep failing to do so?Drinking Beverage

This has gone on for 130 pages because we are all asking for evidence and you refuse to supply it.

Quote:Again, they don't count as "witnesses" with those who all claim to have seen an aircraft, now do they?
They do not count as witnesses for your claim that all witnesses claim they saw an aircraft, they do however count as witnesses to the event. You don't get to cherry pick.

Quote: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.
And I don't need to. I merely have to provide witnesses that don't agree with your assertion that ALL witnesses saw an aircraft to dispute your assertion as true. Which I have.
If you have evidence to present that refutes their testimony go for it, until then their testimony counts. Sorry bud.

Quote:And can you prove any of this?
Can you prove your witnesses were actually where they said they were? Seeing as how I've been asking for proof for uh.... 3 threads now I think you can go first lol

That said...again ... I still don't need to provide anything other then witnesses that don't agree with your assertion and I absolutely have. Do you have any proof they couldn't have seen it from where they were?

Not all witnesses testify to having seen an aircraft. Sorry bud.


Quote: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.
And like I said your personal credulity is not an argument. Your inability to prove them wrong is not a proof that they are right. THEY have the burden of proof to prove their assertions, YOU have a burden of proof to prove the assertion if you want to repeat it or use it in an argument.

Until you meet that burden of proof their credibility is unproven and won't be allowed in conversation or debate as if it's a fact.

Quote:Therefore, you absolutely need to prove any grounds whatsoever to dispute the report in order to disqualify it
Wrong, I don't need to do a thing. It's not up to me to prove their claim false it's up to them to prove it true. They have a burden of proof not me. The fact you accept unproven things on faith is not my problem to refute.

Quote:So produce your evidence that what the Chicago Tribune has reported is false
Not my responsibility nor my position, provide evidence their claim is accurate which IS your responsibility and your position.

My position which I have explained over and over is that until they meet their burden of proof the correct position is to withhold belief NOT to label the claim as false. Unproven does not mean false, so pack up your strawman and go see your space wizard for a brain Tinman.

Quote:This is a very amateuristic attempt to qualify your false analogy.
It's not the analogy I'm defending but the proper application of consistent logic. Your claims aren't immune to logic just because they are not supernatural in nature. The nature of the claim is entirely irrelevant to the fact that claims are not considered to be true until they are DEMONSTRATED to be true and that a claim is not proof for it's self. Independent, verifiable, testable, demonstrable, and falsifiable EVIDENCE is required.

Oh and not every claim in the bible is supernatural in nature. Juss so ya know.

Quote: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.
Actually I didn't specify which claim in the Bible I was talking about but nice try. Books full of claims to the natural world and a claim being made is not proof for the claim. Your claims are not immune to the rules of logic just because you need them to be.

Quote: Beautiful attempt at a red herring..
That's not a red herring actually. You accept the reporter as being honest because you were able to investigate him, pointing out that you can't use your investigative powers (....such as they are) to tell if the witnesses are honest is not a red herring but a perfectly valid point. You are coming to one conclusion through good methodology and the other through faith. You don't apply your critical thinking consistently and THAT is not a red herring but a good goddamn point. Honestly do you EVER get theses right?

Quote:So again, what evidence do you have to doubt the honesty and integrity of the journalist
That's not even the point I'm making Free, keep up.

Quote:Absolutely mindless speculation...
Oh it's speculation all right, the difference is I don't treat MY speculation as if it's fact that can be argued from. Drinking Beverage

Quote:Again, do you find any evidence to dispute this claim?
You really really really don't like the burden of proof do you. Like at all. I don't have to provide anything it's up to the people making the allegations to prove that they are true. The default position of unproven claims is not "true until disproven". Do you have any memos, e-mails, or any other demonstrable evidence that any threats were made to airport staff?
Yes or No.


Quote:And all we have from you is more mentally fabricated bullshit
What it's OK when you do it but not when you think other people are? Aww poor baby.Rolleyes

You're tedious to a fault, and this topic is losing it's interest. If you have any actual evidence present it finally, If you can't then i see no point in entertaining your delusions much longer.

Evidence Free, do you have 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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
26-09-2015, 12:15 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 10:49 AM)Free Wrote:  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?

Any testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and demonstrable evidence of any kind would do it for me to be honest. I can give a small sample list of what I mean if you like.

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
26-09-2015, 12:18 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 10:58 AM)Free Wrote:  And that's the way I roll.

Accept that it's not because I actually remember how our first conversation on this topic went in the old thread where you were an absolute unprovoked cunt to me because someone ELSE was mean to you.

Selective Memory come prepackaged with your Persecution Complex or did you have to buy it separately?Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
26-09-2015, 01:03 PM
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's nice that you can play nice, but after he goes around throwing shit, some of us ape-descendants aren't gonna hold back for the sake of politeness. He's a dick and proud of it, so fuck him.

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
26-09-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes yes yes, and I keep proving you are fucking wrong about understanding possibilities by the virtue of a simple analogy.

You really don't.

(26-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  The Big Bang is a

False comparison.

Because, in case you forgot, the Big Bang theory does have evidence supporting 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
26-09-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 12:15 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 10:49 AM)Free Wrote:  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?

Any testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and demonstrable evidence of any kind would do it for me to be honest. I can give a small sample list of what I mean if you like.

Then the collection of evidence- which is extremely extensive- meets all those requirements.

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, 01:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 12:12 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Evidence Free, do you have it?

Yes, enough has already been presented to support the possibility that non human intelligence may have been responsible for the UFO at O'Hare. With those 12 witnesses, and the historical data from the US government confirming that this type of aircraft has existed for the past 68 years, then that is evidence that long before O'Hare, and long before the capability of mankind, this type of aircraft with this type of extreme performance was positively confirmed as being in existence.

The evidence from 1947 and onwards indicates that this type of aircraft, with this level of performance, exists.

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, 01:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 01:12 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 12:15 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Any testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and demonstrable evidence of any kind would do it for me to be honest. I can give a small sample list of what I mean if you like.

Then the collection of evidence- which is extremely extensive- meets all those requirements.

You don't understand what those words mean.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: