UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2015, 03:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 02:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 02:33 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The complete lack of self awareness in this post is hilarious.

> implying that Free has ever been self-aware regarding any of the idiocy he's posted

bruh

Again I like Free when he is not posting on this particular subject. He's had some absolutely knock out posts in response to some of our more demented religious posters. He's just not objective or rational on THIS specific subject.

I don't however have any desire to melign his person and his entire presence here because of his pet crazy and his inability to talk to others about it without acting like a cunt about it. That's why I said he should just avoid them. I'll correct his last post to me when I get home because it's wrong and demonstrably so.

I still like him though, even when he acts this way every time the subject comes up.

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
12-09-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 02:55 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 06:50 PM)Free Wrote:  So let's move along here and try something.

Let us assume that the following was true:

"12 people, very familiar with aircraft, observed an aircraft hovering over Chicago O'Hare Airport that was described as being metallic grey in colour, approximately 35 feet in diameter, having an unknown oval design, and therefore it's origin unknown. They described the aircraft's performance as something that greatly exceeded any performance of any aircraft they have ever seen, as they claim the object went from earth to orbit in about 2 seconds, creating a perfect circular hole in the clouds."

Okay, now assuming that what they seen was an aircraft, then what type of aircraft can match the description above?

It doesn't match an aircraft at all.

It doesn't match any known aircraft.

Quote:No comment about engine noise.

This assumes there was any kind of known engine to make any noise.

Quote:No comment about any discernible features.

Yes there is. It was oval saucer shaped, dark grey metallic, approximately 35 feet diameter, and spinning.

Quote:Heck... may as well have been a balloon for all that description works out for.

If you think so.

Smile

Quote:How do they know 'Earth orbit'? I don't think people can see that high... also... once it passes through the cloud layer (Other than the hole)... how are they going to even guess at the altitude?

Consider

It was seen going almost straight up for just a couple seconds. It could be seen in those couple seconds disappearing out of sight high above.

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
12-09-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
You guys are still going on about this? Lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 03:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 02:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  > implying that Free has ever been self-aware regarding any of the idiocy he's posted

bruh

Again I like Free when he is not posting on this particular subject. He's had some absolutely knock out posts in response to some of our more demented religious posters. He's just not objective or rational on THIS specific subject.

I don't however have any desire to melign his person and his entire presence here because of his pet crazy and his inability to talk to others about it without acting like a cunt about it. That's why I said he should just avoid them. I'll correct his last post to me when I get home because it's wrong and demonstrably so.

I still like him though, even when he acts this way every time the subject comes up.

Everyone has something that they are not fully rational about I guess with me its magpies I still salute them to this day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 05:18 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 03:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Again I like Free when he is not posting on this particular subject. He's had some absolutely knock out posts in response to some of our more demented religious posters. He's just not objective or rational on THIS specific subject.

I don't however have any desire to melign his person and his entire presence here because of his pet crazy and his inability to talk to others about it without acting like a cunt about it. That's why I said he should just avoid them. I'll correct his last post to me when I get home because it's wrong and demonstrably so.

I still like him though, even when he acts this way every time the subject comes up.

Everyone has something that they are not fully rational about I guess with me its magpies I still salute them to this day.

I've got mine as well : Glasgow Celtics is the single greatest sports team that has ever or will ever exist in time or space and I will fuckin' glass anyone who says otherwise.

I'm dead serious.

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
12-09-2015, 07:12 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
I believe in UFOs in principle. Because humans are capable of creating them to probe other worlds. I don't believe earth has been visited by extra-terrestrial UFOs.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 03:44 PM)Free Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 02:55 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  It doesn't match an aircraft at all.

It doesn't match any known aircraft.

Quote:No comment about engine noise.

This assumes there was any kind of known engine to make any noise.

Quote:No comment about any discernible features.

Yes there is. It was oval saucer shaped, dark grey metallic, approximately 35 feet diameter, and spinning.

Quote:Heck... may as well have been a balloon for all that description works out for.

If you think so.

Smile

Quote:How do they know 'Earth orbit'? I don't think people can see that high... also... once it passes through the cloud layer (Other than the hole)... how are they going to even guess at the altitude?

Consider

It was seen going almost straight up for just a couple seconds. It could be seen in those couple seconds disappearing out of sight high above.

Blink

WHAT!?

NO Free.

It does not even remotely resemble ANYTHING like what an aircraft IS, let alone known, unknown or even crazy retro-mechaninic artwork kind of known air thing.

Come on, NO mention of ANY engine noise?

W.T.F.?

Unless it's a blimp/zepplin? It's standing on a tail(s) of some kind of thrust.

If you're going to hand waive away something like that?

Okay, it's sky wizards (Not a deity) it's simply sky wizards.

Heck, the SR-71 is a hundred feet of black awesomeness.. and it's LOUD, okay?

This thing is only 35 feet across... yet is 'hovering' (Not floating?) thence zips straight up and makes a hole in the clouds (Any guesstimates quoted on how big that hole was, btw?)

Notice? NO mention of a trans-sonic shock effect or even visible signs of such?

This coming from some 12 'experts' who FAILED TO NOTICE such an obvious thing of physics?

It's quoted as being a bluntish spheroid. The drag at trans and sonic speeds would have been horrendous! There should have been other effects noted as its speed supposedly gained such velocities and NONE are mentioned.

The description doesn't match reality, let alone an aircraft.

If all you're going to do is happily waive your hands and quote 'Sky wizards'? Yah, I'll just Popcorn
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
12-09-2015, 08:41 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 05:14 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  You guys are still going on about this? Lol.

You gotta admit its an interesting exchange . Everyone on all sides of this are way smarter than me though, I wouldn't last 30 seconds debating any of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2015 09:18 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 12:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Demonstrate the truth claim of both the red herring...

Bringing up irrelevancies is a red herring.

Well now that's an obvious attempt at avoidance, isn't it? Claiming something to be a red herring because you wrongfully assert it is irrelevant?

In case your mind has been lost in all of this- and I suspect it has- the conversation we were having involved how oral evidence is considered evidence. Here are the relevant posts:

cjlr Wrote:
Free Wrote:Also, again ad nausium, oral evidence from 12 credible witnesses is excellent evidence indeed, in any court.

No, it isn't. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

And my response to that was:

Free Wrote:If oral evidence can be used to prove the existence of a death threat, and result in a truth claim being considered true, then likewise in this case it also can apply.

And you call that a red herring? Irrelevant? Since it directly addresses your objection, and does not veer off topic, there can be no red herring, or do you not even understand what a red herring is?

Argument A is presented by person 1.
Person 2 introduces argument B.
Argument A is abandoned.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...ed-herring

Like I said, the only red herring here is your accusation of one, when none existed. A solid argument against your objection has been posted, and the only recourse was for you to avoid it by falsely claiming it was a red herring.

So uncool.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  ... and the strawman and then we can talk.

Misrepresenting others is a straw man.

Which is what you do continuously, as well as claiming red herrings against your adversary when none exist.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Good grief, are you attempting to use the Bandwagon Fallacy here? Really? You do not need to sink this low, for I respect that you are too intelligent for that type of behaviour.

So, you can use transparently awful appeals to popularity

Where? Who on this forum am I appealing to?

Quote:If I were adamant in maintaining a position that a forum full of skeptics saw as ludicrously credulous, I would hope that the experience would prompt some introspection. You evidently do not possess that faculty. Oh, well.

Like I said before, you do not speak for everyone on this forum. I have my allies who will not post on this topic because they see what abuse is in store for them.

But I am hardened, and there's nothing you can hit me with that I can't bounce back from. I prefer to go it alone rather than jump on the bandwagon fallacy like so many of you constantly do.

I don't need anybody repping me or liking my posts to stand my ground, and nobody should be so shallow.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  And ...assuming "nobody?"

You seem to enjoy taking broad sweeps with that brush of yours.

You do not speak for everyone, I assure you.

Who here has been convinced by your drivel?

Show of hands, guys. Let me know!

Explained above. Some of the most popular people on this forum are in this discussion, and some of those who are less popular simply do not want to get on their bad side.

No one likes to be the victim of abuse by some of you ... retarded bastards. I can handle it, others not so well.

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Have we turned over every stone on earth yet, let alone our solar system?

And the reason you can't see the dragon in my garage is 'cuz he's invisible, Free.

Give me a fucking break.

Oh this should be good.

Let's see how you can make this comparison valid. I would be keenly interested in looking at your reasoning, which undoubtedly will require you to make fallacious and/or wrongful claims about the available evidence again.

But go ahead; do it anyway. Entertain me. Perhaps you will show me some evidence for a garage dragon?

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  You think an extraterrestrial visitation from another star system is more likely rather than non human intelligent life existing within our own solar system, when you already ridiculed the extraterrestrial possibility?

Interesting. Tell me why a interstellar visitation is more likely as opposed to non human intelligence within our own star system.

Since there is no evidence, it's irrelevant - my entertaining your vacuous unsubstantiated "speculation" accomplishes nothing.

Yep, as I thought. Run away.

Quote:If we first assume a whole bunch of facts not in evidence, I suppose I could muster an opinion. Why should I bother?

Well, for one thing, YOU suggested it?

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  And your horrible math...

That's not math, it's a syllogism.

And it's horrible.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  ... grossly misrepresents by position, I suppose, as a feeble and meager attempt to ridicule. Or did you not notice the transitive verb "can" to indicate possibility?

It might work if it stated "A did X, and possibly B did Y"

Now, that is more intellectually honest.

Agreed?

That's an irrelevant distinction. A fallacious conclusion doesn't become valid just because you try to hide behind maybes.

Nice red herring. My point was how you attempted to misrepresent my position by intentionally omitting the transitive verb of "can" to denote possibility, and you then attempt to dismiss that fact by introducing a different argument.

Now that's a red herring, son. Learn from it.

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Firstly, did you not notice the verb "surmise?"

We humans, and other life forms on earth, are evidence of intelligent life existing in the universe. We can reason with this evidence how it may be possible for other non human intelligent species to evolve elsewhere in the universe.

We are evidence, and from that evidence we can reasonably surmise.

That's not how evidence works, Free.

That's how possibilities work, dude. Since our own very existence can serve as a precedent of how intelligent life can evolve in the universe, we can most definitely say that it is possible that this same process of evolution can happen elsewhere in the universe.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Nope, sorry but you don't get to change the rules.

There are no rules. Because you're explicitly talking about unknowns.

Ummm ... this is in relation to your God claim? Continue below ....

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  My description of God above is the most common description known, and is what is generally regarded to be the one most of us here are atheistic about.

Your definition doesn't mean shit to other people. They, as it turns out, have their own.

Well then by all means please provide evidence for anyone I would consider to be a god. Heck, you can even provide just a little evidence to support the possibility!

Go for it. I can wait.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Yeah about that ... just try to explain to your dog about how the computer works and see what kind of reaction you get.

Go ahead. Then, fill us in on the details of that very interesting "discussion."

Thanks for throwing in a non sequitur?

You are awfully desperate. If you cannot see how that correlates with your arguments, nobody can help you. But I will explain why anyhow:

In previous posts we discussed how our own species, and other species on earth have evolved, with mankind evolving intellectually and technologically. My point was to demonstrate how, since the process of evolution worked on earth, how it could also work similarly elsewhere.

I then posted this:

Quote:Mankind's accomplishments can be used as evidence that it is possible for intelligent life in the universe to travel to other worlds.

Since we can accept the above as evidence to support possibility, then possibility is established, however remote.

Point being, our own history is the evidence to support the possibility I claim above. However, you attempted to red herring the conversation by responding to the above quote with the following:

Quote: cf God.

I then challenged you with the following:

Quote:For you to make the comparison valid, demonstrate with any evidence how a supernatural/metaphysical/divine existence of something we can regard as God can exist.

To which you replied with:

Quote:Not supernatural, merely beyond the limits of our present knowledge. Many possible definitions of God fall comfortably within that range.

After all, you yourself literally just acknowledged that non-human intelligent entities might possess abilities "beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding". Are you even listening to yourself?

Which brings us to my reply below, which circumvents your red herring to bring the subject back on point:

Quote:Yeah about that ... just try to explain to your dog about how the computer works and see what kind of reaction you get.

With the sequitur being that in the context of that exchange, an alien race may possess abilities as vastly different from humans as human abilities are from that of a dog.

We're moving on ...

Quote:
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  You are so alive with these false comparisons today!

Were 4 billion witnesses interviewed to see if their stories all said the exact same thing?

Are you attempting to use a hypothetical scenario regarding 4 billion religious people claiming something about their god, to compare to 12 eyewitness of an aircraft and other available evidence?

Really?

I think, if you really, really tried, you might just find a religious statement of faith that more than 12 people would agree too, Free. Does that make it more compelling? Why or why not?

You can't make this comparison no matter how hard you try. You are attempting to compare a set of religious people with a preconceived belief system and who all are predisposed to beliefs in the same thing to another group of people who show no signs of any preconceived beliefs, and not predisposed to beliefs in aliens?

To make this comparison valid all 12 of the witnesses would need to have previously shared a belief system in UFOs and aliens, and be predisposed to expecting something to happen.

They were not predisposed, hence the comparison is not valid. It is for this exact same reason why the Fatima attempt at comparison is not valid. They are both false comparisons.

I can assure you, you will not find anything you can compare to this case fairly. I know, because I tried. This case is so unique I have never seen anything like it.

So forget about making comparisons, you won't find any. And by making false ones, you look ridiculous.

Quote:You can't even abandon your presuppositional aircraft, for fuck's sake. And you think that makes you look any better than the other flavours of presuppositionalist out there?

I accept that it was an aircraft because of all the available evidence. An aircraft is the only explanation that cannot be eliminated by any other explanation. I'll tell you exactly why:

12 credible witnesses, and dozens more, witnessed this object blowing a hole in the clouds as it accelerated exceedingly fast upwards.

Will swamp gas do that? No.
Will a cloud formation do that? No.
Will a weather phenomenon do that? Possibly, but extremely unlikely. None reported. None ever witnessed to be able to do that.
Will a secret military craft do that? Possibly, however ... hanging out over one of the world's busiest airports says nothing for "secret." Unlikely.
Will a hoax do that? No.
Was it a drone? Very unlikely. 2006 drones were very rare, and this object described was much too large.

So just keep adding things to the list and watch how all are eliminated, then you can ask the question:

If 12 credible people who were very familiar with aircraft claimed to have seen an aircraft of unknown origin and design hovering over Chicago O'hare airport, then what is it that would be reasonable to conclude that these 12 people seen?

None of this will get you any physical evidence at all that it was an aircraft, but what it will get you to is flawless reasoning on what it most likely wasn't, and all that will leave you with is what they claimed it to be.

So what it all comes down to is whether or not, with all evidence considered, you believe the claim.

I do. I have reasoned why, and have no reason not to.

12 credible people who were very familiar with aircraft seen an aircraft of unknown origin and design hovering over Chicago O'hare airport.

I believe it, you don't, and that's all there is to it.

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
12-09-2015, 09:13 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(12-09-2015 08:31 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 03:44 PM)Free Wrote:  It doesn't match any known aircraft.


This assumes there was any kind of known engine to make any noise.


Yes there is. It was oval saucer shaped, dark grey metallic, approximately 35 feet diameter, and spinning.


If you think so.

Smile


It was seen going almost straight up for just a couple seconds. It could be seen in those couple seconds disappearing out of sight high above.

Blink

WHAT!?

NO Free.

It does not even remotely resemble ANYTHING like what an aircraft IS, let alone known, unknown or even crazy retro-mechaninic artwork kind of known air thing.

Come on, NO mention of ANY engine noise?

W.T.F.?

Unless it's a blimp/zepplin? It's standing on a tail(s) of some kind of thrust.

If you're going to hand waive away something like that?

Okay, it's sky wizards (Not a deity) it's simply sky wizards.

Heck, the SR-71 is a hundred feet of black awesomeness.. and it's LOUD, okay?

This thing is only 35 feet across... yet is 'hovering' (Not floating?) thence zips straight up and makes a hole in the clouds (Any guesstimates quoted on how big that hole was, btw?)

Notice? NO mention of a trans-sonic shock effect or even visible signs of such?

This coming from some 12 'experts' who FAILED TO NOTICE such an obvious thing of physics?

It's quoted as being a bluntish spheroid. The drag at trans and sonic speeds would have been horrendous! There should have been other effects noted as its speed supposedly gained such velocities and NONE are mentioned.

The description doesn't match reality, let alone an aircraft.

If all you're going to do is happily waive your hands and quote 'Sky wizards'? Yah, I'll just Popcorn

You may not realize this, but your entire argument above has virtually eliminated the object as being any kind of man-made aircraft.

Go look at what you posted again. You won't believe what you, yourself, are saying.

Popcorn

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: