UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 07:00 AM)Free Wrote:  
(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

Ah yes, the famous percentages 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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
14-09-2015, 08:05 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 08:13 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 01:48 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  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.

No, what I am going to demonstrate below is how you constantly appeal to the lurkers with your liberal use of logical fallacies in an effort to elicit likes, reps, and a few laughs via attempts to ridicule.

Get ready for a rough ride, because this will not be good for you.

Quote:
(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.


Really? Watch below how you will be demonstrated as either lying, completely unaware, or enormously stupid. Pick one.

Quote: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?

And that is the Bandwagon Fallacy. Or do you not even know what it is?

"Bandwagon Fallacy: The belief that an argument is valid because a majority of people accept it."

Yet, the main player here, Unbeliever, has clearly demonstrated a complete and total breakdown on his integrity and, sacrificing it all, denies it in the face of conclusive evidence the following:

1. He doesn't have a fucking clue what my position actually is, despite it being pointed out numerous times.
2. He has no idea how multiple eyewitness with corroborated oral testimony exponentially increase the belief in the truth of a claim.
3. Demonstrably uses false comparisons.
4. Demonstrably misrepresents my views.

And here YOU are appealing to his misguided and completely wrong "authority" by hoping on his Band Wagon?

That's 1 logical fallacy. More to come.

Quote: 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".

You assume I am emotionally invested, without considering the possibility that my position is instead based upon a very extensive education on this subject? I have said numerous times about how long I have studied this subject, and you ignore that completely by insisting that the reasons I am defending my position is because of some kind of emotional situation?

This fallacy is known as the Fallacy of Exclusion:

Quote: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.

And yet not one of you (except Chas) can bring me an argument that isn't ripe with demonstrable innumerable logical fallacies, such as what you are doing constantly in this post right here.

You can not demonstrate someone as being wrong with the use of numerous logical fallacies which, to most of you, are all you are capable of doing.

For example, you do not attempt to use 1 person verses 12 in an argument regarding the value of anecdotal evidence, such as what Unbeliever tried to do. This is a False Comparison.

You do not attempt to compare a religious gathering of people who are predisposed to beliefs and who have a very high expectation of seeing something extraordinary to a group of 12 professional and credible witnesses not predisposed to beliefs or the expectation of seeing something unusual. Another False Comparison.

And then, because those false comparisons noted above get used, you are therefore misrepresenting my position, which is known as a Strawman.

So the bandwagon you so admantly support is the Bandwagon of Logical Fallacies, and if that's where you feel comfortable, well dude you are in for one rough fucking ride with me.

Big Grin

Quote: 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.

More Band Wagon.

Since your assessment of the people assumes they are using honest skepticism and quality rationalism, then you are Begging the Question.

Quote: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.

Begging the Question.

You don't seem to understand that if everyone here is agreeing with the arguments that have been conclusively demonstrated as being logically fallacious, then everybody is simply wrong.

And you want to say to me that the people in this discussion are actually using honest skepticism and solid rationalization?

Well dude, welcome to the Bandwagon.

I have time constraints. I will be back later to deal with the rest of your logical fallacies, which are obvious and numerous.

If you want an argument with me, I do not suggest you take alliance with those here who cannot posit an argument without it being logically fallacious, or without it misrepresenting my views.

Otherwise, I will tear it to shreds.

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, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 09:33 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
WhiskeyDebates Wrote:
(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%.

You did no such thing. You "asserted" it was true only, but provided no stitch of evidence whatsoever to demonstrate your point. You posited an opinion that was completely unevidenced.

Assertions are not evidence, and the sooner you learn that the better.

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

And with ease i will destroy it again.

Quote:
(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.

And those sources were what? Do you think you can just post bullshit and assertions without demonstrating what you are talking about here?

Assertions. Unevidenced. Dismissed.

Quote:
(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?

You.

You are doing it right now.

Welcome to the fucking Bandwagon.

How the fuck that wasn't obvious to you is amazing.

Big Grin

Quote:
(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.

Awww, I am really broken up about this. Yes, I can be a belligerent cunt. I can be an arrogant bastard. I can be a prick to anyone at any time. I can be all those things for a certainty.

But what I am not is the kind of person who jumps on Bandwagons and toes the community line to play it safe. Both skepticism and rationalism are balanced with an open mind with me, and I do not take both of those qualities so far as to make a mockery of them insomuch as to bring them to the point of denialism.

So go ahead, hurl your ad hominems at me like a caveman throwing rocks at the moon, but keep in mind ... you'll never hit the fucking moon.

Quote: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.

And of course, we must not forget your usual go-to logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

That should get you a couple likes, and maybe even a rep point, eh? We may even see in your rep margin where some idiot from here will say, "You really thrashed Free's arguments! Good job!"

When the fact of the matter is, you are demonstrably using logical fallacies and not actually addressing my argument at all, in any way, whatsoever.

Big Grin

Quote:
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%.

Well guess what? Further investigation will reveal that they were able to triangulate the height of the object. Those who were directly under it would not be able to tell with any great certainty how high it actually was, while those who viewed it from a side angle had a much better vantage point.

Didn't think about that did you?

Quote:No agreement on size of object ranging from 6 feet up to 24 (possibly higher). A difference of 400%.

Actually, some reported it to be even larger following triangulation. Again, the triangulation demonstrates it was approximately 35 feet, but you didn't do an in-depth study of the case, you wouldn't know this.

Quote:No agreement on the object spinning or not, some say that it was motionless and some saying it was spinning very fast.

Vantage points, distances et al. Those under it seen it spinning from the bottom. Those viewing a side angle could not see this feature.

Quote: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.

And guess what? They are not among the people with the best vantage points.

Quote: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.

No one is ignoring the misses. You do understand that the UFO was above the tower near Gate C17 and could not be seen from the tower, right?

Quote: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.

But guess what?

All 12 of the credible professional witnesses with a clear vantage point identified an aircraft of unknown origin and design.

Deal with that. That is the claim here.

Big Grin

Quote:
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.

Again, "vantage points."

Quote: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.

You mean they "previously" thought it was a balloon, but were not sure at that point in time. I pointed out earlier how, from a side angle, the craft could be mistaken for a balloon. But as you can see by their descriptions above regarding the performance of the craft, their tune about a balloon quickly changed.

Quote: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.

Nice. A balloon blows a hole in the clouds?

Big Grin


Quote: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.

All times are estimates, with each witness being interviewed long after the fact. Your math is wrong here. If, at 4:55, the witness said he seen it about 1/2 hour previous, then that is perfectly correct according to his testimony.

Compare 4:22 and add 1/2 hour = approx 4:55.

Will be back later.

You're not doing very good here dude.

Big Grin

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, 09:50 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 09:56 AM by adey67.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
Free this might come across as an attack but its really a question, you said that 99% of UFO reports/sightings are bunkum including the rendlesham incident but you are convinced that that the Chicago airport incident is genuine, lets suppose everything you say is true and this is a genuine unexplainable incident (I don't know I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment because I am not familiar with it in any way) doesn't that still leaves a massive disparity in debunkable/rubbish claims/incidents versus credible claims and therefore affect the probability of alien visitation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 10:03 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 10:09 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 09:50 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Free this might come across as an attack but its really a question, you said that 99% of UFO reports/sightings are bunkum including the rendlesham incident but you are convinced that that the Chicago airport incident is genuine, lets suppose everything you say is true and this is a genuine unexplainable incident (I don't know I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment because I am not familiar with it in any way) doesn't that still leaves a massive disparity in debunkable/rubbish claims/incidents versus credible claims and therefore affect the probability of alien visitation?

Yes it does.

However, while others have been debunked, you are still left with a very large number of unexplained incidents, and from that group you can ascertain which ones from among them stand the best chance of increasing the possibility of non human intelligence being present on the earth.

The Chicago O'Hare incident demonstrates the best case evidence to promote possibility in non human intelligence being present on the earth due to the descriptions of the aircraft, it's performance, the credibility of the witnesses, the attempted cover-up of the incident by government agencies, and the evidence of the absence of any official credible explanation of the object.

In regards to these reports, airline agencies and the military have a very long history of covering up any UFO incidents for the simple reason that nobody wants to deal with it due to all the red tape involved. Since they don't know what they are, it's easier to deny the incident rather than spend hours being vigorously debriefed by government officials who are attempting to ascertain whether or not the UFO was some kind of spy craft invading American air space, or what it was.

In short, it's too grievous to file a report, which makes this case special because we have 12 credible witnesses who dared to file a report despite all the grief. They felt it was important enough to come forward.

And that says something right there.

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, 10:08 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Thanks it wasn't intended as an attack I give you my word
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 10:08 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Thanks it wasn't intended as an attack I give you my word

lol

I don't blame you of being wary of those of us in this discussion. But on this forum, this happens daily. As atheists, we are allied to the fight against oppression that theism attempts to impose upon people.

But we are also ordinary people with differing views and differing beliefs on different things. Personality clashes will happen here, inevitably.

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, 10:15 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
So the chance of alien life forms being amongst us in your opinion is higher than simply visitation ? I must be honest I struggle with that idea
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
At work.

My only remark is that a 35' object is not something which is going to be travelling interstellar distances.

Hence my question to Free of "Where did it effectivly go to?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
14-09-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 10:15 AM)adey67 Wrote:  So the chance of alien life forms being amongst us in your opinion is higher than simply visitation ? I must be honest I struggle with that idea

We honestly do not know.

All I can say with any certainty is that I believe in the possibility of either aliens visiting us from somewhere else in the universe, or else they may be from earth or our own solar system.

It is speculation based upon reasoning, as well as the historical evidence regarding this subject.

Most here do indeed acknowledge the possibility of aliens existing in the universe, and some will even say there is a remote possibility that they have visited us.

But the difference between them and me is that I ascribe a higher degree of possibility to alien visitation then they do based upon my education, experience, and experiences.

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: