UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 10:42 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 10:36 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What the actual fuck?

I guess what Free is saying is that forum rules don't apply to him and he should be able to say whatever the fuck he wants. Drinking Beverage

He seems miffed that I don't give a crap what he thinks.

That's not the point and you know it.

Please provide the evidence to prove that I ever made a threat against anybody.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 10:26 AM)Free Wrote:  All the evidence supports each other.

This is genuinely fallacious.

(29-09-2015 10:26 AM)Free Wrote:  So whatever your claims are, are bogus, and unsupported.

My "claim" is that the exact same body of "evidence" exists for phenomena which you categorically reject, and that you lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2015 11:17 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 10:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 10:26 AM)Free Wrote:  All the evidence supports each other.

This is genuinely fallacious.

(29-09-2015 10:26 AM)Free Wrote:  So whatever your claims are, are bogus, and unsupported.

My "claim" is that the exact same body of "evidence" exists for phenomena which you categorically reject, and that you lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Oh do you mean the logically fallacious false comparisons you keep making when no actual fair comparison can be made at all?

Is that what you mean? Okay let's work with that then ...

Let me demonstrate how they are not similar at all:

1. Comparing people with predisposed beliefs with people who do not have any predisposed beliefs is not a similarity. (Note: Confirmation Bias)
2. Comparing people who expected to see something unusual with people who do not expect to see something unusual is not a similarity. (Note: Fallacy of Assumption)
3. Comparing a very large group of people- thousands in fact- to a very small group of people is not a similarity. (Note: Herd Mentality)
4. Comparing an apparition that qualifies as "supernatural" to what has been claimed as an aircraft and not demonstrated as supernatural is not a similarity. (Note: Direct False Comparison)


So before this conversation can continue on with any degree of credulity, I would like an explanation from your perspective on how you believe there are anywhere near enough similarities between the comparisons of religionists such as those at Fatima, and the witnesses from the O'Hare UFO incident.

From my perspective, all I see in these "comparisons" that can even approach any semblance of credulity is the fact that both groups of people claim to have "seen something."

So, with that being the only possible comparison, and with all the other problems I listed that denote non comparison, I would like to see you, or anyone here, attempt to demonstrate how the comparison is true and/or fair.

The fucking floor is yours ...

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2015 11:29 AM by cjlr.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  Oh do you mean the logically fallacious false comparisons you keep making when no actual fair comparison can be made at all?

Psychics, Free. Psychics. Eyewitnesses. Government documents and investigations. Photo, audio, and video documentation.

Oh - and, naturally, "all the evidence supports each other".

What's your stance on psychics, again, Free? Remind me. Just for kicks.

(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  Is that what you mean? Okay let's work with that then ...

Let me demonstrate how they are not similar at all:

1. Comparing people with predisposed beliefs with people who do not have any predisposed beliefs is not a similarity. (Note: Confirmation Bias)

Indeed, confirmation bias is a thing. That has no particular relevance here. On what grounds do you think it is?

Do you suppose that this is never the case for the claimants in your pet cases, but always the case for everything you simultaneously reject?

This is supposed to make people take you seriously?

(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  2. Comparing people who expected to see something unusual with people who do not expect to see something unusual is not a similarity. (Note: Fallacy of Assumption)

What the fallacy of assumption actually means is begging the question. So, you've now invoked it incorrectly - because you're still talking about confirmation bias here.

Seriously, now. Try harder.

(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  3. Comparing a very large group of people- thousands in fact- to a very small group of people is not a similarity. (Note: Herd Mentality)

And just what numbers are you under the delusion that you are addressing, here?

I certainly included none in my previous post. I am not even sure how you would go about extracting them from anything I wrote. Did you, perhaps, just make them up?

Do note that group thinking and the tendency to conformity in accounts applies to all groups - but is that just another issue that magically ceases to apply when it comes to your pet obsession? One wonders.

(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  4. Comparing an apparition that qualifies as "supernatural" to what has been claimed as an aircraft and not demonstrated as supernatural is not a similarity. (Note: Direct False Comparison)

"Not demonstrated as supernatural" is not a valid objection, by your own reasoning. Since you cannot prove beyond all doubt that it is not possible, you've once again got nothing.
(note: I'm still not sure what you think you're referring to - I only just listed several traditional paranormal phenomena)

(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  So before this conversation can continue on with any degree of credulity...

That is not the word you're looking for.

(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  I would like an explanation from your perspective on how you believe there are anywhere near enough similarities between the comparisons of religionists such as those at Fatima and the O'Hare UFO incident.

At least that much finally makes sense. One problem:
I am not talking about Fatima this time, Free. I mentioned ghosts and psychics. Try to keep up.

You're... not big on the whole "reading" gig, are you?

(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  From my perspective, all I see in these "comparisons" that can even approach any semblance of credulity is the fact that both groups of people claiming to have "seen something."

So, with that being the only possible comparison, and with all the other problems I listed that denote non comparison, I would like to see you, or anyone here, attempt to demonstrate how the comparison is true.

The fucking floor is yours ...

Your entire "argument" in defense of your own claims consists of "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT".

Your entire "argument" against the unexplained and/or supernatural claims of others consists of "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT IS".

Do you see where the inconsistency lies?

Notwithstanding your apparent fixation with Fatima, which, the astute reading might have noticed, I wasn't talking about. So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
29-09-2015, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2015 12:36 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 11:25 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  Is that what you mean? Okay let's work with that then ...

Let me demonstrate how they are not similar at all:

1. Comparing people with predisposed beliefs with people who do not have any predisposed beliefs is not a similarity. (Note: Confirmation Bias)

Indeed, confirmation bias is a thing. That has no particular relevance here. On what grounds do you think it is?

Do you suppose that this is never the case for the claimants in your pet cases, but always the case for everything you simultaneously reject?

This is supposed to make people take you seriously?

Do you somehow think that just because you say that confirmation bias has no particular relevance that it somehow means that it doesn't have relevance?

Who would trust more? People who are biased and looking for something to confirm their bias, or people who have no confirmation bias and who stumble upon something accidentally?

And you think I should take you seriously?

Quote:
(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  2. Comparing people who expected to see something unusual with people who do not expect to see something unusual is not a similarity. (Note: Fallacy of Assumption)

What the fallacy of assumption actually means is begging the question. So, you've now invoked it incorrectly - because you're still talking about confirmation bias here.

Seriously, now. Try harder.

No, since they assumed to see something, then that an assumption that occurs before they supposedly seen anything to confirm their bias.

And it's not gone unnoticed that you couldn't disagree with it, even if we were to accept it as confirmation bias or fallacy of assumption.

So you will need to try harder.

Quote:
(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  3. Comparing a very large group of people- thousands in fact- to a very small group of people is not a similarity. (Note: Herd Mentality)

And just what numbers are you under the delusion that you are addressing, here?

I certainly included none in my previous post. I am not even sure how you would go about extracting them from anything I wrote. Did you, perhaps, just make them up?

You compared the Fatima situation- reportedly with 30,000 witnesses- to a handful of 12 witness at O'Hare.

Conclusion: False Comparison due to no comparison with the herd mentality at Fatima.

Quote:
(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  4. Comparing an apparition that qualifies as "supernatural" to what has been claimed as an aircraft and not demonstrated as supernatural is not a similarity. (Note: Direct False Comparison)[/b]

"Demonstrated" here meaning, for you, "someone said it might be". I think you and I have very, very different understandings of the word "demonstrated".

Incidentally, your next claim can't apply either. "Not demonstrated as supernatural" is not a valid objection, by your own reasoning. Since you cannot prove beyond all doubt that it is not possible, you've once again got nothing.
(note: I'm still not sure what you think you're referring to - I only just listed several traditional paranormal phenomena)

The objection is obvious, if it cannot be demonstrated as supernatural, and has been claimed to be a real physical object, then you cannot compare an apparition described as supernatural to an object described as physical.

That's a direct false comparison, not matter how you spin it.

Quote:
(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  I would like an explanation from your perspective on how you believe there are anywhere near enough similarities between the comparisons of religionists such as those at Fatima and the O'Hare UFO incident.

At least that much finally makes sense. One problem:
I am not talking about Fatima this time, Free. I mentioned ghosts and psychics. Try to keep up.

You're... not big on the whole "reading" gig, are you?

You are still using false comparisons. I am merely taking you back to the obvious ones.

Quote:
(29-09-2015 11:01 AM)Free Wrote:  From my perspective, all I see in these "comparisons" that can even approach any semblance of credulity is the fact that both groups of people claiming to have "seen something."

So, with that being the only possible comparison, and with all the other problems I listed that denote non comparison, I would like to see you, or anyone here, attempt to demonstrate how the comparison is true.

The fucking floor is yours ...

Your entire "argument" in defense of your own claims consists of "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT".

Bullshit, and a red herring. You cannot dispute the accusation of false comparisons and attempt to shift the argument with a non sequitur. That will not work here.

Quote:Your entire "argument" against the unexplained and/or supernatural claims of others consists of "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT IS".

False. Evidence has been provided and none of you will even try to dispute any of it, but rather merely try to hand-wave it away.

That won't work.

My point here is obvious. Since you have in the past on this thread attempted false comparisons between O'Hare and Fatima, then why should I trust any more of your comparisons?

Why should I trust you at all, or anybody else here who has lied to me, or lied about me, for that matter?

When you and anyone else here do not value your integrity enough to be honest insomuch as you need to wilfully and knowingly make false comparisons, false accusations, and outright lies to me, do you somehow think I will respect you or your opinions? The intentional deceit here by many of you is utterly shameful, and deserving of my harshest negative attitude toward you all.

I pity the face of atheism if any of you represent it.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 07:42 AM)Free Wrote:  What I accept as "true" is only the "possibility" of aliens visiting earth, as I have been stating since the beginning.

What I do not accept as true is your assertion that I am making some kind of positive claim that it's true that aliens ARE visiting earth, and that is a strawman in itself.
And if all you are arguing for is the "possibility" and not one person here, at least not I, has said that it's impossible then why have you felt the need to go on for 3 threads and 100+ pages in this one alone arguing a possibility no one says is impossible?
Positing possibilities only has value if those possibilities can be investigated through the scientific method and confirmed or rejected. However when investigated you don't get the answer you want, support for the alien hypothesis, so you declare by fiat that science can't answer this question.

Alien visitation is one potential hypothesis: An unfalsifiable one, without direct or indirect evidence, which creates hundreds more unexplained questions then it explains, has no predictive power, and has failed EVERY SINGLE attempt to validate it as correct.

Quote:All the evidence I have provided is circumstantial evidence to demonstrate a historical chain of evidence...
For an unknown phenomena. Not for Aircraft, and certainly not for extra terrestrial involvement. You have a chain of evidence that is, by your own account, wrong 99% of the time and doesn't even point to what you want it to.
You have a history of unknown aerial phenomena and that's it. Full stop.

Quote:demonstrate a cohesive chain of the evidence as a possible explanation for the possibility that aliens have visited earth
No Free, all the "evidence" you have provided offers ZERO explanation. At BEST, at the very best, it provides support for a unknown phenomena actually occurring, but it does not in anyway offer validation for the alien visitation hypothesis or any other explanation for that matter.
You have evidence to support belief that an unknown phenomena actually occurs, you have no evidence that provides a credible, scientifically backed, explanation of any kind let alone for aliens.

Quote: by using historical photographs
None of which add evidence to the alien hypothesis even if they had been proven to be genuine which they have not. They don't even prove aircraft having next to no features we would expect to find in an aircraft.

Quote:official government documents
Good your going to continue pretending. Fantastic.


Quote:and both historical and recent eyewitness accounts.
None of which offer even the slightest link or support for the alien hypothesis even if they weren't, to the account, unverified.

Quote:when crystal clear photographs are presented
That's funny, earlier when you were asked why in one of the busiest airports in the world, full of travelers, CCTV cameras, and with a robust plane spotting community there were utterly zero pictures taken and your response was that it didn't matter because everyone dismisses them as hoaxes. Yet here you are tying to argue the exact opposite, that UFO pictures would convince a judge.

What you are doing Free, is taking disparate "facts" and elements and trying to weave one continuous narrative even though no link between the facts has been established. This exactly what conspiracy theorists do.

Quote:and official government documents are presented
Which would immediately be shot down due to the fact what you are talking about is an opinion piece written BEFORE an actual in depth investigation was done, an investigation which utterly disputed and found no evidence WHATSOEVER to support that opinion.
I can find government documents from the highest of sources of government stating slavery as a common good and a right of white people. That does not mean it reflects the current view of government or that it's correct.

To present as proof an outdated document from BEFORE an investigation into the subject when you KNOW that the investigation found utterly no proof to support the claim is grasping at straws and dishonest.

What some minority of the government believed and what the government proved, or failed to prove, are very different and only one matters.

Quote:and numerous eyewitnesses are available
Accept that they are not are they? Not in the case of the O'Hare "incident" anyway. Oh sure a judge could subpoena the witness to testify in court but that hasn't actually happened. You are trying to argue from a possible future strength of your witnesses not what you actually have now. What you actually have now is unverified hearsay, from unknown witnesses, with zero corroborating physical evidence.
If you ACTUALLY presented your case as it ACTUALLY is now and has been presented to us you would be providing anonymous 3rd-4th hand hearsay, from at least 2 biased sources, with no physical evidence in support, that can't be evaluated, investigated, compared, contrasted, or even cross examined.

Then that testimony would be put against an unknown number of witnesses that saw nothing, the total lack of physical evidence, and no detection on the radar of any kind. A competent lawyer would shred the testimony.


Quote:then a judge absolutely would permit all of this as circumstantial evidence to support a position.
Position for what? O'Hare being possibly aliens? Lol no. Photos from as far back as the 1800's don't in anyway provide evidence for the alien hypothesis as a possible explanation for O'Hare. Your useless government documents from 1947 don't offer any support for an unexplained and unproven event nearly 60 years later. Your eyewitnesses are hearsay until put on the stand in person and NOT before, and even then their testimony has no physical evidence in support of it.
Even then if I ignore all that if i say, for the sake of argument, that all that could be used to build a circumstantial case.....the oppositions case is NOT circumstantial: it's factual and demonstrable. There is no physical or pictorial evidence of any kind to support a unidentified aircraft over O'Hare. Radar detected nothing. Not one person on the transcripts describes the UFO as an aircraft.

And even then it's support for the position that UFO's are a real phenomena, an unidentified phenomena. No photos, no government documents, and no eyewitnesses have ever established any kind of link at all to extra-terrestrials. None of this supports the alien visitation hypothesis.

Quote:This argument is NOT an argument science can answer.
Bullshit, if the origin of these testimonies and photos is a real thing happening in real life then it is absolutely a thing that can be investigated and verified by the scientific method. The fact that when we DO investigate this kinda stuff we find nothing in support of your "possibility" is not a failure of science it's a failure of your position to hold up to scrutiny and investigation.
This is literally a Christian Apologetic tactic.

Quote:This is an argument in which only a judge and/or a jury can deal with, and all the evidence I have provided is completely legitimate, cohesive, and cannot be dismissed via mere assertion.
Your photographs and witnesses can both be dismissed for a failure to meet their burden of proof, and a complete lack of supporting physical evidence. Your "government documents" can be dismissed as not an accurate description of the governments position currently, as unproven opinion, and in fact debunked as accurate by the governments own 12600+ sighting, decades long, investigation into the matter.

Quote:If you or anyone here thinks it is not evidence admissible in a court of law, you are fucked in the head, because it is absolutely legitimate.
Not for establishing ANYTHING to do with the O'Hare incident. Decades old unproven photos, and a memo nearly 60 years old at the time of the event provide zero evidence for the O'Hare incident. Even then sure you could submit it in a court of law and it would get utterly demolished as baseless, unproven, and not supported by the physical evidence.

You're acting as if there is only one lawyer in the room with the judge.

Here is a question for you Free: If all of this is such a compelling case, if the evidence is absolutely legitimate and could convince a judge/jury of the possibility...why hasn't such a case been undertaken? Why haven't you presented this to a court yourself?
I know the Cash-Landrum case was dismissed by a judge for the EXACT reason that the witnesses could not prove any of their claims.

If you think you will have better luck go ahead, but until you ACTUALLY present a case to a judge how about enough of you pretending what a judge would think and do.

Quote:The problem you are having is you simply don't fucking like the idea that I actually DO have evidence to support my position
Oh goodie now we are back to you pretending you know what I think again. Lovely. No Free the problem I have is that you present evidence that the UFO phenomena is a real thing that real people observe in the real world, and then you say it can't be answered by science because when science does try to answer it it doesn't find any support, and finally that nothing even tangentially "alien" has ever been linked to any of these documents, photos, or witnesses.

You think that by proving A you prove B, when A and B have not been shown to be linked at all. You're adding your own dots, to make the picture be what you want it to be.

You have evidence to support a position just not your position.

Quote:and you have absolutely NONE to dispute it
How about a decades long study investigating over 12,600 UFO claims and finding exactly ZERO evidence to support the idea that UFO's are alien aircraft?

Quote: logically fallacious deny without evidence position- aka Burden of Proof- because you have absolutely no other options.
You know....I've explained to you so many times that the withholding of belief on unproven claims is NOT the same as denying the claim is accurate. I've explained it so many times, a dozen or more, in fact that for you to repeat this again is either you being intentionally dishonest or just a symptom of a learning disability. Either you are too stupid to understand the difference, or you don't care to recognize that it exists because it's too hard for you to argue against.

Also pointing out that people have not met their burden of proof is a logical fallacy now is it? You are that desperate to maintain your narrative that you are going to say insisting on the burden of proof being met is a logical fallacy. You are actually mocking your opposition for actually following established logic.

I can not express how happy I am your run a computer store and have utterly no involvement in our countries educational or legal systems. I really don't think any kind of conversation can be had with a person that wants to pretend that the most basic tool of logic is a fallacy. I think it's getting close to time for me to put you in the bin with the other irrational lunatics like Call_of_the_wild, Pops, and WickedClown. I'm happy to debate positions but I'm decidedly uninterested in having to entertain a complete lack of skepticism and logical reasoning from my opponent while I do it. I'm battling on two fronts, your position and your insanity, and I have no interest in that.


Quote:Therefore the evidence stands, completely undisputed.
Only in your own mind Free, only in your own mind.Drinking Beverage

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
29-09-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 12:34 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 07:42 AM)Free Wrote:  What I accept as "true" is only the "possibility" of aliens visiting earth, as I have been stating since the beginning.

What I do not accept as true is your assertion that I am making some kind of positive claim that it's true that aliens ARE visiting earth, and that is a strawman in itself.
And if all you are arguing for is the "possibility" and not one person here, at least not I, has said that it's impossible then why have you felt the need to go on for 3 threads and 100+ pages in this one alone arguing a possibility no one says is impossible?
Positing possibilities only has value if those possibilities can be investigated through the scientific method and confirmed or rejected. However when investigated you don't get the answer you want, support for the alien hypothesis, so you declare by fiat that science can't answer this question.

Alien visitation is one potential hypothesis: An unfalsifiable one, without direct or indirect evidence, which creates hundreds more unexplained questions then it explains, has no predictive power, and has failed EVERY SINGLE attempt to validate it as correct.

Quote:All the evidence I have provided is circumstantial evidence to demonstrate a historical chain of evidence...
For an unknown phenomena. Not for Aircraft, and certainly not for extra terrestrial involvement. You have a chain of evidence that is, by your own account, wrong 99% of the time and doesn't even point to what you want it to.
You have a history of unknown aerial phenomena and that's it. Full stop.

Quote:demonstrate a cohesive chain of the evidence as a possible explanation for the possibility that aliens have visited earth
No Free, all the "evidence" you have provided offers ZERO explanation. At BEST, at the very best, it provides support for a unknown phenomena actually occurring, but it does not in anyway offer validation for the alien visitation hypothesis or any other explanation for that matter.
You have evidence to support belief that an unknown phenomena actually occurs, you have no evidence that provides a credible, scientifically backed, explanation of any kind let alone for aliens.

Quote: by using historical photographs
None of which add evidence to the alien hypothesis even if they had been proven to be genuine which they have not. They don't even prove aircraft having next to no features we would expect to find in an aircraft.

Quote:official government documents
Good your going to continue pretending. Fantastic.


Quote:and both historical and recent eyewitness accounts.
None of which offer even the slightest link or support for the alien hypothesis even if they weren't, to the account, unverified.

Quote:when crystal clear photographs are presented
That's funny, earlier when you were asked why in one of the busiest airports in the world, full of travelers, CCTV cameras, and with a robust plane spotting community there were utterly zero pictures taken and your response was that it didn't matter because everyone dismisses them as hoaxes. Yet here you are tying to argue the exact opposite, that UFO pictures would convince a judge.

What you are doing Free, is taking disparate "facts" and elements and trying to weave one continuous narrative even though no link between the facts has been established. This exactly what conspiracy theorists do.

Quote:and official government documents are presented
Which would immediately be shot down due to the fact what you are talking about is an opinion piece written BEFORE an actual in depth investigation was done, an investigation which utterly disputed and found no evidence WHATSOEVER to support that opinion.
I can find government documents from the highest of sources of government stating slavery as a common good and a right of white people. That does not mean it reflects the current view of government or that it's correct.

To present as proof an outdated document from BEFORE an investigation into the subject when you KNOW that the investigation found utterly no proof to support the claim is grasping at straws and dishonest.

What some minority of the government believed and what the government proved, or failed to prove, are very different and only one matters.

Quote:and numerous eyewitnesses are available
Accept that they are not are they? Not in the case of the O'Hare "incident" anyway. Oh sure a judge could subpoena the witness to testify in court but that hasn't actually happened. You are trying to argue from a possible future strength of your witnesses not what you actually have now. What you actually have now is unverified hearsay, from unknown witnesses, with zero corroborating physical evidence.
If you ACTUALLY presented your case as it ACTUALLY is now and has been presented to us you would be providing anonymous 3rd-4th hand hearsay, from at least 2 biased sources, with no physical evidence in support, that can't be evaluated, investigated, compared, contrasted, or even cross examined.

Then that testimony would be put against an unknown number of witnesses that saw nothing, the total lack of physical evidence, and no detection on the radar of any kind. A competent lawyer would shred the testimony.


Quote:then a judge absolutely would permit all of this as circumstantial evidence to support a position.
Position for what? O'Hare being possibly aliens? Lol no. Photos from as far back as the 1800's don't in anyway provide evidence for the alien hypothesis as a possible explanation for O'Hare. Your useless government documents from 1947 don't offer any support for an unexplained and unproven event nearly 60 years later. Your eyewitnesses are hearsay until put on the stand in person and NOT before, and even then their testimony has no physical evidence in support of it.
Even then if I ignore all that if i say, for the sake of argument, that all that could be used to build a circumstantial case.....the oppositions case is NOT circumstantial: it's factual and demonstrable. There is no physical or pictorial evidence of any kind to support a unidentified aircraft over O'Hare. Radar detected nothing. Not one person on the transcripts describes the UFO as an aircraft.

And even then it's support for the position that UFO's are a real phenomena, an unidentified phenomena. No photos, no government documents, and no eyewitnesses have ever established any kind of link at all to extra-terrestrials. None of this supports the alien visitation hypothesis.

Quote:This argument is NOT an argument science can answer.
Bullshit, if the origin of these testimonies and photos is a real thing happening in real life then it is absolutely a thing that can be investigated and verified by the scientific method. The fact that when we DO investigate this kinda stuff we find nothing in support of your "possibility" is not a failure of science it's a failure of your position to hold up to scrutiny and investigation.
This is literally a Christian Apologetic tactic.

Quote:This is an argument in which only a judge and/or a jury can deal with, and all the evidence I have provided is completely legitimate, cohesive, and cannot be dismissed via mere assertion.
Your photographs and witnesses can both be dismissed for a failure to meet their burden of proof, and a complete lack of supporting physical evidence. Your "government documents" can be dismissed as not an accurate description of the governments position currently, as unproven opinion, and in fact debunked as accurate by the governments own 12600+ sighting, decades long, investigation into the matter.

Quote:If you or anyone here thinks it is not evidence admissible in a court of law, you are fucked in the head, because it is absolutely legitimate.
Not for establishing ANYTHING to do with the O'Hare incident. Decades old unproven photos, and a memo nearly 60 years old at the time of the event provide zero evidence for the O'Hare incident. Even then sure you could submit it in a court of law and it would get utterly demolished as baseless, unproven, and not supported by the physical evidence.

You're acting as if there is only one lawyer in the room with the judge.

Here is a question for you Free: If all of this is such a compelling case, if the evidence is absolutely legitimate and could convince a judge/jury of the possibility...why hasn't such a case been undertaken? Why haven't you presented this to a court yourself?
I know the Cash-Landrum case was dismissed by a judge for the EXACT reason that the witnesses could not prove any of their claims.

If you think you will have better luck go ahead, but until you ACTUALLY present a case to a judge how about enough of you pretending what a judge would think and do.

Quote:The problem you are having is you simply don't fucking like the idea that I actually DO have evidence to support my position
Oh goodie now we are back to you pretending you know what I think again. Lovely. No Free the problem I have is that you present evidence that the UFO phenomena is a real thing that real people observe in the real world, and then you say it can't be answered by science because when science does try to answer it it doesn't find any support, and finally that nothing even tangentially "alien" has ever been linked to any of these documents, photos, or witnesses.

You think that by proving A you prove B, when A and B have not been shown to be linked at all. You're adding your own dots, to make the picture be what you want it to be.

You have evidence to support a position just not your position.

Quote:and you have absolutely NONE to dispute it
How about a decades long study investigating over 12,600 UFO claims and finding exactly ZERO evidence to support the idea that UFO's are alien aircraft?

Quote: logically fallacious deny without evidence position- aka Burden of Proof- because you have absolutely no other options.
You know....I've explained to you so many times that the withholding of belief on unproven claims is NOT the same as denying the claim is accurate. I've explained it so many times, a dozen or more, in fact that for you to repeat this again is either you being intentionally dishonest or just a symptom of a learning disability. Either you are too stupid to understand the difference, or you don't care to recognize that it exists because it's too hard for you to argue against.

Also pointing out that people have not met their burden of proof is a logical fallacy now is it? You are that desperate to maintain your narrative that you are going to say insisting on the burden of proof being met is a logical fallacy. You are actually mocking your opposition for actually following established logic.

I can not express how happy I am your run a computer store and have utterly no involvement in our countries educational or legal systems. I really don't think any kind of conversation can be had with a person that wants to pretend that the most basic tool of logic is a fallacy. I think it's getting close to time for me to put you in the bin with the other irrational lunatics like Call_of_the_wild, Pops, and WickedClown. I'm happy to debate positions but I'm decidedly uninterested in having to entertain a complete lack of skepticism and logical reasoning from my opponent while I do it. I'm battling on two fronts, your position and your insanity, and I have no interest in that.


Quote:Therefore the evidence stands, completely undisputed.
Only in your own mind Free, only in your own mind.Drinking Beverage

I'm just going to hand-wave your long well-thought out post away, so you know that you've wasted your time, just like you do to my posts.

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2015 12:57 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 12:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 12:34 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  And if all you are arguing for is the "possibility" and not one person here, at least not I, has said that it's impossible then why have you felt the need to go on for 3 threads and 100+ pages in this one alone arguing a possibility no one says is impossible?
Positing possibilities only has value if those possibilities can be investigated through the scientific method and confirmed or rejected. However when investigated you don't get the answer you want, support for the alien hypothesis, so you declare by fiat that science can't answer this question.

Alien visitation is one potential hypothesis: An unfalsifiable one, without direct or indirect evidence, which creates hundreds more unexplained questions then it explains, has no predictive power, and has failed EVERY SINGLE attempt to validate it as correct.

For an unknown phenomena. Not for Aircraft, and certainly not for extra terrestrial involvement. You have a chain of evidence that is, by your own account, wrong 99% of the time and doesn't even point to what you want it to.
You have a history of unknown aerial phenomena and that's it. Full stop.

No Free, all the "evidence" you have provided offers ZERO explanation. At BEST, at the very best, it provides support for a unknown phenomena actually occurring, but it does not in anyway offer validation for the alien visitation hypothesis or any other explanation for that matter.
You have evidence to support belief that an unknown phenomena actually occurs, you have no evidence that provides a credible, scientifically backed, explanation of any kind let alone for aliens.

None of which add evidence to the alien hypothesis even if they had been proven to be genuine which they have not. They don't even prove aircraft having next to no features we would expect to find in an aircraft.

Good your going to continue pretending. Fantastic.


None of which offer even the slightest link or support for the alien hypothesis even if they weren't, to the account, unverified.

That's funny, earlier when you were asked why in one of the busiest airports in the world, full of travelers, CCTV cameras, and with a robust plane spotting community there were utterly zero pictures taken and your response was that it didn't matter because everyone dismisses them as hoaxes. Yet here you are tying to argue the exact opposite, that UFO pictures would convince a judge.

What you are doing Free, is taking disparate "facts" and elements and trying to weave one continuous narrative even though no link between the facts has been established. This exactly what conspiracy theorists do.

Which would immediately be shot down due to the fact what you are talking about is an opinion piece written BEFORE an actual in depth investigation was done, an investigation which utterly disputed and found no evidence WHATSOEVER to support that opinion.
I can find government documents from the highest of sources of government stating slavery as a common good and a right of white people. That does not mean it reflects the current view of government or that it's correct.

To present as proof an outdated document from BEFORE an investigation into the subject when you KNOW that the investigation found utterly no proof to support the claim is grasping at straws and dishonest.

What some minority of the government believed and what the government proved, or failed to prove, are very different and only one matters.

Accept that they are not are they? Not in the case of the O'Hare "incident" anyway. Oh sure a judge could subpoena the witness to testify in court but that hasn't actually happened. You are trying to argue from a possible future strength of your witnesses not what you actually have now. What you actually have now is unverified hearsay, from unknown witnesses, with zero corroborating physical evidence.
If you ACTUALLY presented your case as it ACTUALLY is now and has been presented to us you would be providing anonymous 3rd-4th hand hearsay, from at least 2 biased sources, with no physical evidence in support, that can't be evaluated, investigated, compared, contrasted, or even cross examined.

Then that testimony would be put against an unknown number of witnesses that saw nothing, the total lack of physical evidence, and no detection on the radar of any kind. A competent lawyer would shred the testimony.


Position for what? O'Hare being possibly aliens? Lol no. Photos from as far back as the 1800's don't in anyway provide evidence for the alien hypothesis as a possible explanation for O'Hare. Your useless government documents from 1947 don't offer any support for an unexplained and unproven event nearly 60 years later. Your eyewitnesses are hearsay until put on the stand in person and NOT before, and even then their testimony has no physical evidence in support of it.
Even then if I ignore all that if i say, for the sake of argument, that all that could be used to build a circumstantial case.....the oppositions case is NOT circumstantial: it's factual and demonstrable. There is no physical or pictorial evidence of any kind to support a unidentified aircraft over O'Hare. Radar detected nothing. Not one person on the transcripts describes the UFO as an aircraft.

And even then it's support for the position that UFO's are a real phenomena, an unidentified phenomena. No photos, no government documents, and no eyewitnesses have ever established any kind of link at all to extra-terrestrials. None of this supports the alien visitation hypothesis.

Bullshit, if the origin of these testimonies and photos is a real thing happening in real life then it is absolutely a thing that can be investigated and verified by the scientific method. The fact that when we DO investigate this kinda stuff we find nothing in support of your "possibility" is not a failure of science it's a failure of your position to hold up to scrutiny and investigation.
This is literally a Christian Apologetic tactic.

Your photographs and witnesses can both be dismissed for a failure to meet their burden of proof, and a complete lack of supporting physical evidence. Your "government documents" can be dismissed as not an accurate description of the governments position currently, as unproven opinion, and in fact debunked as accurate by the governments own 12600+ sighting, decades long, investigation into the matter.

Not for establishing ANYTHING to do with the O'Hare incident. Decades old unproven photos, and a memo nearly 60 years old at the time of the event provide zero evidence for the O'Hare incident. Even then sure you could submit it in a court of law and it would get utterly demolished as baseless, unproven, and not supported by the physical evidence.

You're acting as if there is only one lawyer in the room with the judge.

Here is a question for you Free: If all of this is such a compelling case, if the evidence is absolutely legitimate and could convince a judge/jury of the possibility...why hasn't such a case been undertaken? Why haven't you presented this to a court yourself?
I know the Cash-Landrum case was dismissed by a judge for the EXACT reason that the witnesses could not prove any of their claims.

If you think you will have better luck go ahead, but until you ACTUALLY present a case to a judge how about enough of you pretending what a judge would think and do.

Oh goodie now we are back to you pretending you know what I think again. Lovely. No Free the problem I have is that you present evidence that the UFO phenomena is a real thing that real people observe in the real world, and then you say it can't be answered by science because when science does try to answer it it doesn't find any support, and finally that nothing even tangentially "alien" has ever been linked to any of these documents, photos, or witnesses.

You think that by proving A you prove B, when A and B have not been shown to be linked at all. You're adding your own dots, to make the picture be what you want it to be.

You have evidence to support a position just not your position.

How about a decades long study investigating over 12,600 UFO claims and finding exactly ZERO evidence to support the idea that UFO's are alien aircraft?

You know....I've explained to you so many times that the withholding of belief on unproven claims is NOT the same as denying the claim is accurate. I've explained it so many times, a dozen or more, in fact that for you to repeat this again is either you being intentionally dishonest or just a symptom of a learning disability. Either you are too stupid to understand the difference, or you don't care to recognize that it exists because it's too hard for you to argue against.

Also pointing out that people have not met their burden of proof is a logical fallacy now is it? You are that desperate to maintain your narrative that you are going to say insisting on the burden of proof being met is a logical fallacy. You are actually mocking your opposition for actually following established logic.

I can not express how happy I am your run a computer store and have utterly no involvement in our countries educational or legal systems. I really don't think any kind of conversation can be had with a person that wants to pretend that the most basic tool of logic is a fallacy. I think it's getting close to time for me to put you in the bin with the other irrational lunatics like Call_of_the_wild, Pops, and WickedClown. I'm happy to debate positions but I'm decidedly uninterested in having to entertain a complete lack of skepticism and logical reasoning from my opponent while I do it. I'm battling on two fronts, your position and your insanity, and I have no interest in that.


Only in your own mind Free, only in your own mind.Drinking Beverage

I'm just going to hand-wave your long well-thought out post away, so you know that you've wasted your time, just like you do to my posts.

Thumbsup

Riiiiight......because going line by line and showing you exactly why your arguments are spurious, where your "evidence" lacks any link to your conclusion, and giving detailed explanations on why you are violating nearly every single basic foundation rule of logic is "hand waving".

"Whaaaaaaa! I want a reasonable discussion!"

You're beneath contempt.

EDIT: Oh and it's not a waste of time to me at all if you don't/can't read it or respond to it. Like the rest of the irrational lunitic posters here I don't wright for YOU. Honestly, your ego. lol

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 12:59 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 12:54 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 12:37 PM)Free Wrote:  I'm just going to hand-wave your long well-thought out post away, so you know that you've wasted your time, just like you do to my posts.

Thumbsup

Riiiiight......because going line by line and showing you exactly why your arguments are spurious, where your "evidence" lacks any link to your conclusion, and giving detailed explanations on why you are violating nearly every single basic foundation rule of logic is "hand waving".

"Whaaaaaaa! I want a reasonable discussion!"

You're beneath contempt.

EDIT: Oh and it's not a waste of time to me at all if you don't/can't read it or respond to it. Like the rest of the irrational lunitic posters here I don't wright for YOU. Honestly, your ego. lol

Naw ... I disbelieve everything you say .. without even reading it. Everything is categorically denied.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(29-09-2015 12:59 PM)Free Wrote:  I disbelieve everything you say .. without even reading it.

One of the many marks of an irrational mind.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: