UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2015, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2015 05:40 PM by Chas.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 01:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 01:20 PM)morondog Wrote:  Then where is that evidence? 'Cos it sure as fuck isn't in this thread.

And around and around we go.

United States Air Force General Nathan Twining sent the following report to the Secretary of the Air Force, Brigadier General George F. Schulgen:

1. As requested by AC/AS-2 there is presented below the considered opinion of this command concerning the so-called "Flying Discs." This opinion is based on interrogation report data furnished by AC/AS-2 and preliminary studies by personnel of T-2 and Aircraft Laboratory, Engineering Division T-3. This opinion was arrived at in a conference between personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2, Office, Chief of Engineering Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and Propeller Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3.

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.

e. The apparent common description is as follows:-

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.


The above is evidence, and according to their investigation the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the United States Government officially recognized the positive existence of this particular type of aircraft.

No, the above is testimony. It is hearsay unsupported by any physical evidence, not even clear pictures or recorded radar traces.

Quote:In response to the above memo, the Secretary of the Air Force, Brigadier General George F. Schulgen, wrote:

1. An alleged "Flying Saucer" type aircraft or object in flight, approximating the shape of a disc, has been reported by many observers from widely scattered places, such as the United States, Alaska, Canada, Hungary, the Island of Guam, and Japan. This object has been reported by many competent observers, including USAF rated officers. Sightings have been made from the ground as well as from the air.

2. Commonly reported features that are very significant and which may aid in the investigation are as follows:

a. Relatively flat bottom with extreme light-reflecting ability.

b. Absence of sound except for an occasional roar when operating under super performance conditions.

c. Extreme maneuverability and apparent ability to almost hover.

d. A plan form approximating that of an oval or disc with a dome shape on the top surface.

e. The absence of an exhaust trail except in a few instances when it was reported to have a bluish color, like a Diesel exhaust, which persisted for approximately one hour. Other reports indicated a brownish smoke trail that could be the results of a special catalyst or chemical agent for extra power.

f. The ability to quickly disappear by high speed or by complete disintegration.

g. The ability to suddenly appear without warning as if from an extremely high altitude.

h. The size most reported approximated that of a C-54 or Constellation type aircraft.

i. The ability to group together very quickly in a tight formation when more than one aircraft are together.

j. Evasive action ability indicates possibility of being manually operated, or possibly by electronic or remote control devices.

k. Under certain power conditions, the craft seems to have the ability to cut a clear path through clouds -- width of path estimated to be approximately one-half mile. Only one incident indicated this phenomenon.

Hence, we have 2 official documents from extremely high ranking United States military personell who confirm the existence of this particular aircraft, which bear a very striking resemblance to the one at O'Hare in both design and performance, as well as it "blowing a hole in the clouds."

This is evidence from official military sources, and it is available in the National Archives. These are not people merely speculating, these are people who's correspondence actually confirm the existence of this particular type of aircraft.

And that's barely the tip of the iceberg. There are 10 official government documents.

This is the same military that had a psychic warfare department. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-09-2015, 05:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 04:43 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 04:25 PM)Free Wrote:  Yep, so is every book ever written, including all educational books on physics, history, all sciences etc.

Now prove them all false.

Big Grin
lolwut?

That documents exist is not in contention (fucking hell government documents aren't even what I asked for) by anyone Free.

Seriously asking now, do you even understand what I'm asking for?

Yep, you are asking for a UFO to sit down on your lawn, and 5 little green men come out and say, "Hey man, got any good drugs?"

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, 05:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 02:42 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 02:35 PM)morondog Wrote:  Unless there are 12 of them in perfect agreement, and they all happen to be aircraft experts Dodgy

Sure they can be wrong, but that has never been demonstrated, and that's why it is evidence.

No. Facepalm
They are making a claim - the burden is on them to demonstrate it's true.

It is not evidence.

Quote: There is no evidence whatsoever that those two letters from the US government were wrong about anything, nor any evidence that the witnesses at O'Hare were wrong about what they described.

Again, no. Facepalm
They are making a claim - the burden is on them to demonstrate it's true.

Quote:Hence, for just you to be right, everybody else must be wrong. Yet, you are not a witness nor an investigator such as those high ranking military officials, or the 12 who were professionals in the airline industry.

So, explain to me why I should accept your doubts when you are not a witness or investigator, and why I should choose your arguments over all these other highly qualified people?

Can you compare to any of them?

It doesn't matter. Their testimony is not objective evidence .

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-09-2015, 05:33 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 05:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 02:42 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure they can be wrong, but that has never been demonstrated, and that's why it is evidence.

No. Facepalm
They are making a claim - the burden is on them to demonstrate it's true.

It is not evidence.

Quote: There is no evidence whatsoever that those two letters from the US government were wrong about anything, nor any evidence that the witnesses at O'Hare were wrong about what they described.

Again, no. Facepalm
They are making a claim - the burden is on them to demonstrate it's true.

Quote:Hence, for just you to be right, everybody else must be wrong. Yet, you are not a witness nor an investigator such as those high ranking military officials, or the 12 who were professionals in the airline industry.

So, explain to me why I should accept your doubts when you are not a witness or investigator, and why I should choose your arguments over all these other highly qualified people?

Can you compare to any of them?

It doesn't matter. Their testimony is not objective evidence .

Therefore, using your very own logic, all the evidence used to support "belief" in a singularity is not actually evidence to support belief in a singularity?

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, 05:50 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 05:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, using your very own logic, all the evidence used to support "belief" in a singularity is not actually evidence to support belief in a singularity?

No.

That is not "the logic presented". The logic presented is basic. A third-grader could understand it. Anecdotes are claims, and claims are not evidence to support themselves, no matter how many people make the claim or who they are. To say that they can be is circular reasoning; to argue that they can be in this case but not in the case of ghosts, Bigfoot, and Jesus is special pleading; to say that the claims must be actively proven false before being rejected is the burden of proof fallacy.

You attempt to prop up this absolute train wreck of illogical thinking with tu quoque red herrings constructed on straw men versions of actual scientific theories. When people point out that you have not supplied any actual evidence whatsoever, you resort to ridicule rather than reasoning, and run about calling your opponents liars rather than actually demonstrating any lies or flaws in the points raised.

And, when really pressed, you resort to blatantly dishonest motte-and-bailey argumentation, trying to act as though you have never claimed to have actual evidence, but only evidence for the "possibility", which is a meaningless phrase on every level.

This is not complicated, Free. I am not exaggerating when I say that a third-grader could have reasoned their way through this. But you are so determined to force in a case for your pet beliefs that you have committed a laundry list of fallacies that goes beyond even the above, already ludicrous list.

This is not something that you can argue against. This is not something that is going to go away. Unverified claims are not evidence, not even if they come from military officials.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
26-09-2015, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2015 06:09 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 05:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 05:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, using your very own logic, all the evidence used to support "belief" in a singularity is not actually evidence to support belief in a singularity?

No.

That is not "the logic presented". The logic presented is basic. A third-grader could understand it. Anecdotes are claims, and claims are not evidence to support themselves, no matter how many people make the claim or who they are. To say that they can be is circular reasoning; to argue that they can be in this case but not in the case of ghosts, Bigfoot, and Jesus is special pleading; to say that the claims must be actively proven false before being rejected is the burden of proof fallacy.

You attempt to prop up this absolute train wreck of illogical thinking with tu quoque red herrings constructed on straw men versions of actual scientific theories. When people point out that you have not supplied any actual evidence whatsoever, you resort to ridicule rather than reasoning, and run about calling your opponents liars rather than actually demonstrating any lies or flaws in the points raised.

And, when really pressed, you resort to blatantly dishonest motte-and-bailey argumentation, trying to act as though you have never claimed to have actual evidence, but only evidence for the "possibility", which is a meaningless phrase on every level.

This is not complicated, Free. I am not exaggerating when I say that a third-grader could have reasoned their way through this. But you are so determined to force in a case for your pet beliefs that you have committed a laundry list of fallacies that goes beyond even the above, already ludicrous list.

This is not something that you can argue against. This is not something that is going to go away. Unverified claims are not evidence, not even if they come from military officials.

Now isn't that interesting?

The claim that a singularity may have existed is just a claim?

Therefore, every last stitch of evidence that you, or any scientists observes and attempts to use as evidence to support the singularity at the time of the Big Bang may in fact actually not be evidence of the singularity at all!

Isn't that interesting?

So according to your logic, Chas' logic,and the logic of science, NONE of the evidence used to create belief in the singularity/Big Bang is actually evidence.

NONE!

Get it?

And guess why?

Because it MIGHT actually indicate something else completely different, right?

Right? Are we capable of following along now, people?

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, 06:08 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 06:06 PM)Free Wrote:  Now isn't that interesting?

The claim that a singularity may have existed is just a claim?

And, again, you straw man blatantly.

There is actual evidence of the Big Bang, Free. Continuing to stick your fingers in your ears and play silly games with refusing to admit this does nothing but make you look like still more of a fool.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
26-09-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 06:08 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 06:06 PM)Free Wrote:  Now isn't that interesting?

The claim that a singularity may have existed is just a claim?

And, again, you straw man blatantly.

There is actual evidence of the Big Bang, Free. Continuing to stick your fingers in your ears and play silly games with refusing to admit this does nothing but make you look like still more of a fool.

No, there is absolutely not one single stitch of evidence that a singularity EVER existed.

NONE.

Are you telling me that the Big Bang THEORY is now conclusively proven as fact?

Is that what you now need to say, "Unbeliever?"

Your ass just got handed to you.

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, 06:15 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-09-2015 04:43 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  lolwut?

That documents exist is not in contention (fucking hell government documents aren't even what I asked for) by anyone Free.

Seriously asking now, do you even understand what I'm asking for?

Yep, you are asking for a UFO to sit down on your lawn, and 5 little green men come out and say, "Hey man, got any good drugs?"

Smokin
So you don't understand what I'm asking for. Awesome.

So in your mind there is nothing between "anonymous hearsay" and "aliens landing on your law" as far as evidence goes. Awesome.

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, 06:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(26-09-2015 06:11 PM)Free Wrote:  No, there is absolutely not one single stitch of evidence that a singularity EVER existed.

NONE.

Oh, shut up.

(26-09-2015 06:11 PM)Free Wrote:  Are you telling me that the Big Bang THEORY is now conclusively proven as fact?

Nice attempt to dodge the issue. Whether or not the Big Bang theory is actually correct or not is irrelevant. The point is that there is actual evidence supporting it. It is formulated in accordance with this evidence. It is not accepted on claim alone.

Your pet idea has no such support.

(26-09-2015 06:11 PM)Free Wrote:  Your ass just got handed to you.

You are a very, very silly person.

"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: