UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2015, 11:27 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 11:09 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hey I have a question Free. What makes you so sure that this couldn't be done by humans? If you're gonna assert that an advanced super-race could co-exist on Earth without us noticing, *what if they were us*?


Sadly, while Free is quite happy for a tiny 35 meter vehicle to be extra-terrestrial (Or, rather, something that no Human could have created) they are seemingly disinclined to actually posit as to how such a craft got here from where ever it was sent.

Other than *Hand-wavium* or *They've been here all along... we've just not noticed anything* Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
13-09-2015, 11:39 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
I have another question, since we saw something unusual and are postulating shit about it, I assert that it was GOD. Beat that Free. GOD came down to Chicago and did fucken random shit in a 35 ft diameter perfectly circular aircraft and then pissed off back to outer space. How is that a less reasonable explanation than aliens?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 01:48 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Back from vacation, lets get stuck in.


(12-09-2015 01:39 PM)Free Wrote:  Nothing was rebutted several months ago, ever.
You are either lying or completely delusional about how our previous conversation progressed Free. I'll get into this below.

(12-09-2015 01:39 PM)Free Wrote:  You have demonstrated a propensity to point towards the Bandwagon Fallacy as if it is some kind of evidence that you were right
This would be a good point if I had ever actually done that. I have never once said or even implied that my position is the correct one BECAUSE people agree with me nor that your position is wrong BECAUSE people don't agree with you. I said that if you, as a person, who is demonstrable and frankly unnervingly emotionally invested is a subject come to a website full of people who demonstrate in every single other subject you could name here the ability to impartial and objectively evaluate a topic which is more likely? That the person with the previously mentioned extreme emotional investment in a subject is unable to remain objective or that every single rational person with exactly ZERO investment in the subject suddenly and for no reason became, simultaneously and instantly, completely irrational and failed to be objective and refused to acknowledge "evidence".
I was not at any point saying you are wrong because no one agrees with you, I was saying no one agrees with you because you are demonstrably wrong. When you can come to a place full of profession level skeptics and rationalists with a clear and documented history of healthy skepticism and rationality and get exactly zero public support AT ALL that should, to another person who values those qualities, raise a very large red flag in your mind that your position is flawed either fundamentally or mechanically.
It's far more likely that the emotional invested person is wrong then that every single rational person you have talked to here is wrong simultaneously and only on this one subject.
TL;DR: I never once said I was correct because people agreed with me.

(12-09-2015 01:39 PM)Free Wrote:  Your arguments all centered on Fallacy of Ridicule, but you never actually rebutted a fucking thing. Ever.
Again you are either delusional toward the conversation we had and it's progression or you are completely lying. When I took your claim that "12 witnesses, highly experienced with aircraft, identified an aerial object as being an aircraft of unknown origin hovering over Gate C 17 at Chicago O'Hare Airport on Nov 7, 2006." and went through your own sources and showed definitively that the EXACT opposite of that is true that was not an argument centered entirely on the Fallacy of Ridicule and to imply that it was is 100% dishonest. 100%.

I'll re-type my debunking of that below because it will be quicker than going through the whole thread previous to find it.

(12-09-2015 01:39 PM)Free Wrote:  But that kind of tactic does not elude me, and I have no problem pointing it out.
Except that it clearly does because you keep inventing fallacies out of thin air.

(12-09-2015 01:39 PM)Free Wrote:  Using logical fallacies and faulty reasoning does not make a rebuttal.
No it does not but going through your own sources and showing how they do not say the things you say they do is not just a rebuttal but a complete dismantling of your position.

(12-09-2015 01:39 PM)Free Wrote:  And I am not on the forum to get a pile of likes and rep points, unlike some posters around here, who jump on the Bandwagon and toe the community line out of fear of attacks of their personage.
Right like I said "lol conspiracy". I tell you what name a single person here who is posting on the subject opposing you or just agreeing with your opposition that is doing so out of a desire to "toe the community line" and not out of a genuine belief that you are wrong and then bloody prove it. Once you fail that why don't you stop trying to pretend you know the motivations and thoughts of other people like an arrogant wanker?

This might be something more then utter bullshit story time from you if it was not for the fact that multiple people involved in this conversation that disagrees with you had not in the past openly disagreed with with each other on multiple subjects over the course of the forums life. Frequently quite heatedly too.

(12-09-2015 01:39 PM)Free Wrote:  I am who I am, and if you don't like that, or who I am, I have no fucking concerns about it at all.
Couple of things: That's the battle cry of every single belligerent cunt trying to justify being a belligerent cunt instead of being a better, less belligerent, person. The fact that you don't care if someone finds you to be a belligerent cunt doesn't excuse you when you act like a belligerent cunt.
Secondly from the very post you quoted :
(12-09-2015 12:52 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Look though Free I like you.....
So tell me is the flying saucer you ride in your imagination named "The Persecution Complex"? My problems with you aren't that I dislike you, or who you are, or what fucking hat you wear on Thursdays but 100% because you deliberately misrepresent and exaggerate your supporting "evidence", are irrational and lack objectivity on this issue, and that you act like a belligerent cunt at the drop of a hat in threads like this, and you get pissy when we don't accept your baseless speculation as acceptable answers to real problems with your hypothesis.

Ahem.

Lets get to the meat and potatoes of this nonsense.

Quote:....12 witnesses, highly experienced with aircraft, identified an aerial object as being an aircraft of unknown origin hovering over Gate C 17 at Chicago O'Hare Airport on Nov 7, 2006.

PART 1 - Witnesses-


Lets look at a few of the NARCAP report witness descriptions:

No agreement on altitude ranging from 500 feet to 1800. A difference of over 360%.
No agreement on size of object ranging from 6 feet up to 24 (possibly higher). A difference of 400%.
No agreement on the object spinning or not, some say that it was motionless and some saying it was spinning very fast.
Witness B says that they (B&C) “We thought it was a balloon, but we're not sure”.
A different witness says he thought it was a bird and stopped watching it.

I could keep going but lets look past your confirmation bias and at a whole bunch of witnesses that DIDN'T see anything.

Ground control asks Eagle 419 AND UAL44 if they see anything. They report back that they see nothing.
Ground control mentions to Gate 5668 that someone saw a UFO, gate reports no visual sighting.
ATC is asked if they see anything. They report they see nothing.
UAL446 left gate C17 at 4:10pm, took off at 4:34pm, and got within less than 1500 ft of the supposed UFO, and no one reported anything at all.
At least one witness reports pointing out the UFO to a pilot who subsequently made no report of any kind according to transcripts.

Can't count just the hits and ignore the misses.

Summery: The witnesses do not agree at all on the altitude or the size of the object or if it was rotating. One thought it was a balloon, one thought it was a bird. Some witnesses report seeing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. There are other areas of disagreement I didn't even touch on.

PART 2 -The Cloud Hole-


The report has this to say: “The phenomenon we are attempting to explain is described in the words of ONE of the witnesses.” (page 44) “According to testimony given to NARCAP by ONE witness, after looking away for a short while, the witness “noticed that the craft..[was]... no longer there but there was an almost perfect circle in the cloud layer where the craft had been,. The hole disappeared a few minutes later.”

Not all witnesses report seeing the hole.

Witness B says that the object was out of his site when it vanished however claims his partner saw it go "“But my partner watched it go up into the clouds and (it) left a hole there.” Please note that these are the fellows who thought it was a balloon, but were not sure.
This witness also said they looked back to see a “smooth round hole” at 4:22pm (+/- 3 mins) “I guess it had just left.” B estimates the hole was open for 2 minutes.
SPECIAL NOTE: If the times given by this witness as listed in the report are accurate then he witnessed the hole a full 10 minutes before the other witnesses saw the object that supposedly caused the hole. This throws the accuracy of both the witness and the report in question. Which is not helped by....
EXTRA SPECIAL NOTE: Witness B claims he saw the object while taxing United 44 across the airport. However table 6 of the Report wrongly states that 22:55UTC is 3:55pm CST. It's actually 4:55pm CST. Which means that Witness B could not have seen the object while taxing United 44, because he is on tape WHILE taxing united 44 saying he saw it "a half hour ago".
This section of the transcript is broken up, presented out of order in an attempt to preserve the narrative.

Witness B also makes some flat out false statements which can be found in foot notes: He claims the controller said that they couldn't see it from the tower. (No such comment is in the transcript) He claims ground control said “there was nothing there that would reflect lights” (No such comment is in the transcript)

Back to the Cloud Hole though: Here is a weather report for THAT morning.
Quote:The weather's cooperated nicely with Chicago-area voters in each election since at least 1996, sparing the area extremes of temperature and significant precipitation. Tuesday may wind up this area's best Election Day of all in terms of weather. Though haze and cloudiness will be extensive, precipitation is to remain downstate, and computer models predict drying above a thick low cloud deck--a process expected to scour several sun-blocking mid and high level cloud decks out of Chicago skies. Thus, even though low clouds may hang on, the effect of eliminating clouds above may be to allow skies to brighten. And, air may sink just enough to open holes in the low overcast over at least sections of the metro area this afternoon.
The weather CALLED for holes in the cloud cover to possibly happen that day hours before it did at at least one location.

PART 3 -Court Room-


This is a argument you frequently make and i entirely refuted last time so i'll keep it simple.
Objection 1: Your witnesses are not in agreement with each other on even 1 single detail even though you pretend the exact opposite.
Objection 2: Even if all were in agreement (and they are not) if 12 or 200 people make a claim that Jim uttered death threats at Jill and there is no physical evidence of any kind that JIM IS A PERSON WHO EVEN FUCKING EXISTS then the court does not find Jim guilty.
Objection 3: All the witnesses are anonymous, some of the testimony in the report is from a anonymous BLOG, some of the testimony given is proven (above) to be false, some of the testimony is from one pro UFO group giving another Pro UFO group (the group that did the report) testimony from annonymous sources that are, in one case with witness B, second hand with B....third hand with the original group.....4th hand in the report....
Objection 4: In an ACTUAL court case the fucking defendants fucking lawyer gets to fucking cross examine the fucking witnesses. This was not done AT ALL.
Objection 5: because all the witnesses are anonymous and none of their testimony is consistent we have no way of knowing and no reason to believe that these are ACTUAL witnesses.

Summery: You have GROSSLY and DELIBERATELY over exaggerated the quality of your "evidence". This was pointed out to you months ago and the fact that you are continuing to do it is blatantly deliberate. For you to accuse me of bringing nothing but fallacies is a lie.

I'll leave with this quote from the original Tribune piece in 2007:
Quote:"But I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out very clearly, and it definitely was not an [Earth] aircraft," the mechanic said.
That [Earth] that I bolded? Those brackets mean that the word was added by the author or the editor and is not a part of the direct quote.Which means the original quote actually says "But I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out very clearly, and it definitely was not an aircraft"


Your argument is bunk and I shouldn't have to repeat this shit months later cause you want to pretend it never happened.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 02:45 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Hey Free Smile How does it feel to have your legs cut off from underneath you? I ask merely for information Laughat

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:02 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
This "let's poke Free with a stick" digression is fun and all, but it's so far from the OP, I'm surprised Moms hasn't come by with her scissors. Dodgy

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:04 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  This "let's poke Free with a stick" digression is fun and all, but it's so far from the OP, I'm surprised Moms hasn't come by with her scissors. Dodgy

What? He's just taken over where OP left off. I think most of the thread has been on topic, insofar as a topic can be discerned.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:45 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 06:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  This "let's poke Free with a stick" digression is fun and all, but it's so far from the OP, I'm surprised Moms hasn't come by with her scissors. Dodgy

What? He's just taken over where OP left off. I think most of the thread has been on topic, insofar as a topic can be discerned.

Are you fucking serious right now? Looks from here like a bunch of bullies picking on the retard. Not that Free's developmentally disabled, but it has been clearly demonstrated that he has the blinders fully secured in this area. It's only continuing because there ain't no topic. Rolleyes

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:51 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 06:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  What? He's just taken over where OP left off. I think most of the thread has been on topic, insofar as a topic can be discerned.

Are you fucking serious right now? Looks from here like a bunch of bullies picking on the retard.

Like I said, fully on topic. Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 07:00 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 11:09 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hey I have a question Free. What makes you so sure that this couldn't be done by humans? If you're gonna assert that an advanced super-race could co-exist on Earth without us noticing, *what if they were us*?

Free Wrote:"Was it imagination? 1%
Was it a lie? 1%
Was it a hoax? 1%
Was it mass hallucination? 1%
Was it man-made? 40%
Was it alien? 20%
Was it various other? 36%?"

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid851746

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
14-09-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 06:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Are you fucking serious right now? Looks from here like a bunch of bullies picking on the retard.

Like I said, fully on topic. Rolleyes

I never liked you. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: