UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 12:53 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 12:50 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:42 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Occam's Razor kicks ass.

[Image: Banner.jpg]

"For a shave so close, you won't believe it." Tongue

"An improbably close shave." Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like pablo's post
11-09-2015, 01:05 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 12:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 12:14 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  This almost snuck past me. A 45° turn is not "sharp" for many airplanes. As an Air Force firefighter stationed at Carswell AFB in Fort Worth, TX, right across the runway from the General Dynamics factory, about once every ten days I saw an F-16 just out of production stress-tested in an aerobatic show lasting about ten minutes, ranging from chandelles to vertical climbs and rapid turns that exceeded 90°.

Never mind the 5G Su-35 with its "Cobra" maneuver, a 3G fighter like the F-16, or the F-15, Tornado, and even the B-1B bomber can pull a very rapid 45° turn. I've seen 'em do it. And accelerating out of a turn is standard practice, because as anyone who knows a little about airplanes knows, when you turn you lose lift, and to compensate, you step on the gas. Once the wings are level again, you will naturally accelerate, because the engine power that was in the turn used to maintain altitude is now turned back again to motive force.

Love how ol' Free is *absolutely dead certain* that nothing natural or man-made can act like that. It's like those guys who come with their "Science cannot explain..." Rolleyes

Working on a flightline will make you a hard-nosed sonofabitch, because it's an unforgiving environment. You had to know what you were looking at, you had to know what your were seeing and dealing with, and if you didn't you were a crispy critter.

I've seen old, old planes do shit you wouldn't imagine, from a 10,000' flat spin pulled out 1,000' AGL, to an F-16 go from a 70 mph drag-and-lag at 60° AOA to a vertical boom-and-zoom at 300 mph in five seconds.

Having seen what I've seen. not limited to what I've written above, this horseshit about a "rapid 45° turn" is laughable. Roll tight and pull sharp elevator in a handy fighter, and the maneuver's done in a second, literally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
11-09-2015, 01:09 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
But......aliens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hobbitgirl's post
11-09-2015, 01:16 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Having seen what I've seen. not limited to what I've written above, this horseshit about a "rapid 45° turn" is laughable. Roll tight and pull sharp elevator in a handy fighter, and the maneuver's done in a second, literally.

Way back in 1968 when making the film, The Battle of Britain, many of the film crew ridiculed the stunt pilots who were mock dogfighting. The reason was that many of the crew had been watching dogfights above England through WWII. They said the pilots were not flying aggressively enough. Turns during real life dogfights were right on the edge. People turning literally for their lives.

The pilots were then instructed to do so. From then on the dogfights became more realistic. And these were 1930's era aircraft.

Thumpa is absolutely correct. 45 degrees is nothing. Especially today.

Don't underestimate humanity. Especially humanity building weapons of war.

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
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
11-09-2015, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 03:22 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 01:16 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Having seen what I've seen. not limited to what I've written above, this horseshit about a "rapid 45° turn" is laughable. Roll tight and pull sharp elevator in a handy fighter, and the maneuver's done in a second, literally.

Way back in 1968 when making the film, The Battle of Britain, many of the film crew ridiculed the stunt pilots who were mock dogfighting. The reason was that many of the crew had been watching dogfights above England through WWII. They said the pilots were not flying aggressively enough. Turns during real life dogfights were right on the edge. People turning literally for their lives.

The pilots were then instructed to do so. From then on the dogfights became more realistic. And these were 1930's era aircraft.

Thumpa is absolutely correct. 45 degrees is nothing. Especially today.

Don't underestimate humanity. Especially humanity building weapons of war.

To be fair, an old 40s-era Merlin-engined fighter could outturn almost anything, because they had power-on-demand, once fuel injection was added into the design. But even clunky old jet fighters with high wing-loading and weak turbines -- like the F-4 Phantom or MiG-21 were very nimble, and could ass it up straight for a time. An F-16 or Tornado? Fugeddaboutit. Those were planes even in that era, with thrust-to-weight ratios that could push the metal straight up into the air, wings not necessary. I've seen them do it, accelerating in a vertical climb. 45° turns are commonplace and unimpressive to anyone who has worked on an active flightline -- even a commercial flightline.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
11-09-2015, 02:18 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 06:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't agree.
Dismissing an unevidenced claim does not determine its truth value, it dismisses it because the truth value cannot be evaluated.

I missed this in the scrum.

As per usual, there's no actual disagreement here. We're phrasing the same thing in different ways.

"The assertion must be considered false" is not the same thing as "the assertion actually is false". The latter is a fallacy - having no evidence regarding the truth value of a claim does not necessarily mean that the claim is false. There are other ways to determine that, and they do refer to a lack of evidence towards it being true, but this comes with a set of special qualifiers that I'm not going to get into here.

The former, however, is just what you said phrased slightly differently. "We must consider the assertion false" refers to the fact that we will behave as though the unevidenced assertion is not true, not a statement that it is definitively so.

This is where the language is important. Dismissing a claim is not the same as considering it false, it is the same as ignoring it as never having been made and not worth discussing.

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
11-09-2015, 02:19 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 08:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 08:10 PM)Free Wrote:  Well speculation is, in fact, all we can do.

Well, no. We can do many other things.

Posit "a wizard did it" apropos of nothing, for one.

(10-09-2015 08:10 PM)Free Wrote:  No one here can say conclusively what it actually was, aside from demonstrating according to all the eyewitnesses that- according to them- it was definitely an aircraft they could not identity.

Which is not conclusive in any way, shape, or form, for reasons outlined many times previously in this thread.

As a note to everyone else, since at this point it is fairly obvious that Free has placed me on his ignore list: asking questions about the details of any of the incidents he presents is pointless. It is, in fact, exactly what you should not do.

The details of the accounts he puts forth are irrelevant unless he can supply some actual evidence that they are accurate, and that what they saw was actually an aircraft. No details of any sort are relevant until these two things have been established.

You will also note that Free, despite all his claims to the contrary, is once again pushing what he considers actual evidence of alien visitation, not just stating that it is possible. He remains disingenuous and irrational.

These are not small issues, and they are not things that anyone participating in this thread should forget.

In many similar discussions, both on this site and elsewhere, I have debated posters similar to Free. Stevil in the garage dragon thread is one example, but perhaps the best is Jabba, who believes that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

Jabba has run the debate around in circles for literally three years at this point. His methods are very simple and repetitive, but they almost always work: he states that something completely irrelevant, such as the fact that there is genuine blood on the Shroud or that there is reason to doubt the results of dating tests applied to it, is evidence that the Shroud is genuine. The debate on this singular point will go on for a few pages, and then Jabba will put forth another (previously-debunked, but a while back so that most of the posters participating in the present will not remember it) point like this.

What Jabba never does - what he cannot do - is present actual evidence that the Shroud of Turin is two thousand years old.

He can't, because there isn't any, and without that evidence, nothing else he says matters. Unless he can show that the Shroud is two thousand years old, there is no evidence that it could have been the burial shroud of Jesus. But he ignores this, and runs the debate around a loop in order to avoid having to admit he has no evidence. Instead, he goes on and on about how his "interim conclusions" that the blood is real, that the dating is wrong, that the artist would have to be a "genius" to create the imagery, and so forth, and then states that he has presented evidence that the Shroud is real.

This is exactly what Free is doing now. He is presenting point after irrelevant point in the hopes that no one will force him to confront the elephant in the room: that he has no evidence that the accounts he throws at us are accurate, or that the objects described in them are actually craft of any sort, let alone alien ones. His "interim conclusions" are that there are too many "expert eyewitnesses" all claiming the same thing (which is bunk), that alien life existing raises the possibility of alien life having visited Earth (bunk), that things like the STS-48 incident are "explainable" (bunk), that astronomers see evidence of alien craft all the time (come on, you know the words!), and so on. And he will keep raising each of these in turn so long as people allow him to do it, because it means that he doesn't have to deal with the main issue.

There is only one way to deal with it.

The posters on the ISF do it to Jabba occasionally, until a new poster comes in and indulges his idiocy and sets the thread off on a tangent again. I did it to Stevil in the garage dragon thread.

There is only one question that is relevant here, and until Free answers it, nothing else he says matters:

What is your evidence that the accounts you present are accurate and that the objects they describe are alien craft?

Slightly disappointing that Free would run from your arguments like a coward rather than actually face them. But what does one expect from a person whose main argument boils down to "We don't know what this is so I know exactly what this is".

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
11-09-2015, 02:25 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 05:13 PM)Free Wrote:  The following is an actual video from that day which has a conversation between a pilot flying at 35000 feet and the tower, near Chicago O'Hare Airport, near the time of the mass sighting. He reports a UFO, with video. This comes from the Operations center:




That is not an "actual video". Weeping

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
11-09-2015, 02:28 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 02:34 AM by Chas.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 06:50 PM)Free Wrote:  Interviewer: "You don't believe it was a weather phenomenon?"

'Joe', Airplane Mechanic: "Not at all. Not for a minute."

Joe positively eliminates his imagination, weather phenomenon, and any aircraft known to him with complete assuredness.

No, Joe does not eliminate those possibilities except for himself. He makes assertions only about what he believes is true.

His assuredness about weather phenomena is misplaced.

Joe's assuredness is not 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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
11-09-2015, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 07:20 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:19 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 08:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Well, no. We can do many other things.

Posit "a wizard did it" apropos of nothing, for one.


Which is not conclusive in any way, shape, or form, for reasons outlined many times previously in this thread.

As a note to everyone else, since at this point it is fairly obvious that Free has placed me on his ignore list: asking questions about the details of any of the incidents he presents is pointless. It is, in fact, exactly what you should not do.

The details of the accounts he puts forth are irrelevant unless he can supply some actual evidence that they are accurate, and that what they saw was actually an aircraft. No details of any sort are relevant until these two things have been established.

You will also note that Free, despite all his claims to the contrary, is once again pushing what he considers actual evidence of alien visitation, not just stating that it is possible. He remains disingenuous and irrational.

These are not small issues, and they are not things that anyone participating in this thread should forget.

In many similar discussions, both on this site and elsewhere, I have debated posters similar to Free. Stevil in the garage dragon thread is one example, but perhaps the best is Jabba, who believes that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

Jabba has run the debate around in circles for literally three years at this point. His methods are very simple and repetitive, but they almost always work: he states that something completely irrelevant, such as the fact that there is genuine blood on the Shroud or that there is reason to doubt the results of dating tests applied to it, is evidence that the Shroud is genuine. The debate on this singular point will go on for a few pages, and then Jabba will put forth another (previously-debunked, but a while back so that most of the posters participating in the present will not remember it) point like this.

What Jabba never does - what he cannot do - is present actual evidence that the Shroud of Turin is two thousand years old.

He can't, because there isn't any, and without that evidence, nothing else he says matters. Unless he can show that the Shroud is two thousand years old, there is no evidence that it could have been the burial shroud of Jesus. But he ignores this, and runs the debate around a loop in order to avoid having to admit he has no evidence. Instead, he goes on and on about how his "interim conclusions" that the blood is real, that the dating is wrong, that the artist would have to be a "genius" to create the imagery, and so forth, and then states that he has presented evidence that the Shroud is real.

This is exactly what Free is doing now. He is presenting point after irrelevant point in the hopes that no one will force him to confront the elephant in the room: that he has no evidence that the accounts he throws at us are accurate, or that the objects described in them are actually craft of any sort, let alone alien ones. His "interim conclusions" are that there are too many "expert eyewitnesses" all claiming the same thing (which is bunk), that alien life existing raises the possibility of alien life having visited Earth (bunk), that things like the STS-48 incident are "explainable" (bunk), that astronomers see evidence of alien craft all the time (come on, you know the words!), and so on. And he will keep raising each of these in turn so long as people allow him to do it, because it means that he doesn't have to deal with the main issue.

There is only one way to deal with it.

The posters on the ISF do it to Jabba occasionally, until a new poster comes in and indulges his idiocy and sets the thread off on a tangent again. I did it to Stevil in the garage dragon thread.

There is only one question that is relevant here, and until Free answers it, nothing else he says matters:

What is your evidence that the accounts you present are accurate and that the objects they describe are alien craft?

Slightly disappointing that Free would run from your arguments like a coward rather than actually face them. But what does one expect from a person whose main argument boils down to "We don't know what this is so I know exactly what this is".

I have not run from his arguments like a coward, as you so wrongfully and stupidly insist.

He was ignored for the following reasons:

1. Constant False Comparison Fallacies: He continues to point to false comparisons, such as the last one in which I replied to him, wasting my time reviewing his bullshit reasoning.

2. Ignoring Evidence: He wrongfully insists that oral testimony given via multiple eyewitness testimonies is not evidence, when every court in the civilized world demonstrates that it is.

3. Misrepresenting My Views: Due to # 1 & 2 above, he misrepresents my position, and also by not being capable of distinguishing between a positive claim and and a claim of possibility, he constantly insists that I am making positive claim of the existence of alien visitation when I have clearly, numerous times, have been stating it as being but one of the aforementioned possibilities.

4. Chas has demonstrated Unbeliever's other faulty reasoning blunders at least twice in this thread now, and there are numerous others.


So before you think I am somehow running away from that fallacious and intellectually dishonest fuckwad due to your foolhardy insistence regarding any supposed quality of his posts, perhaps you should give me one good reason I should take his faulty fucking claims seriously enough to not ignore him?

If he's got you fooled, then you are as fucking stupid as he is.

Big Grin

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: