UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 10:32 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 10:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

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

We have no idea what a 35' foot alien object can actually do. The concept of "distance" may not have any meaning to them at all if they have some kind of technology that allows them to travel with no regard for distance. Distance may not be the measurement used in how they travel to earth.

This is of course entirely speculative.

Quote:Hence my question to Free of "Where did it effectivly go to?"

We do not know. It was simply ... gone.

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, 10:44 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
At work.

So...... 'Hand-wavium' magic, then?

Not even going to start talking about harnessing gravity? Or plugging into 'Zero-point' energy?

A 35' object can just *Poof* do anything?

Sorry Free, I'm out. Have fun with your ideas. There's not much to really talk about from here. *Waves*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Get ready for a rough ride, because this will not be good for you.

It's only a flesh wound!

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

Precisely none of these happen.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  And here YOU are appealing to his misguided and completely wrong "authority" by hoping on his Band Wagon?

That is in no way what he did.

You do not understand what the bandwagon fallacy - or any of the other fallacies you rattle off as if name-dropping them means something - actually consists of.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  You assume I am emotionally invested, without considering the possibility that my position is instead based upon a very extensive education on this subject?

Your seeming obsession with making sure that everyone knows exactly how knowledgeable you claim to be on this subject is one indication of your emotional investment.

Add this to your blatant motte-and-bailey practices, the way that you devolve into childish insults when unable to actually rebut the arguments presented, the double standard you employ regarding evidence and plausibility, and the way that you so desperately throw the names of any fallacy you can think of at your opponents, hoping to fluster them rather than actually rebut, and it becomes rather obvious.

If you want people to think that your position is based on rationality rather than emotional investment, perhaps you should stop acting like an indignant pre-schooler.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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 don't understand what those fallacies you keep accusing others of actually are. You got god of the gaps mixed up with the concept of logical inference, for goodness' sake.

I'd go over them all again, but honestly, I've done it enough times at this point. Anyone who is interested can look up my previous posts. I'd just be repeating myself here.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

You certainly can.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Well guess what? Further investigation will reveal that they were able to triangulate the height of the object.

Using unverified figures so that the results are meaningless, yes.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  All 12 of the credible professional witnesses with a clear vantage point identified an aircraft of unknown origin and design.

Circular again, and no, they didn't.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  But as you can see by their descriptions above regarding the performance of the craft, their tune about a balloon quickly changed.

Which actually casts doubt on the veracity of their claims.

(14-09-2015 10:03 AM)Free Wrote:  However, while others have been debunked, you are still left with a very large number of unexplained incidents

Precisely none of which actually contain evidence in favor of alien visitation.

(14-09-2015 10:25 AM)Free Wrote:  We have no idea what a 35' foot alien object can actually do.

Yes, because aliens are wizards.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
14-09-2015, 11:08 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 05:33 PM by adey67.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
My brain hurts
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  No, what I am going to demonstrate below is how you constantly appeal to the lurkers with your liberal use of logical fallacies
You keep trying to throw every fallacy you can think of at every single person here in the hops that they will stick and now I have to waste my time debunking that nonsense instead of debunking the O'Hare nonsense. Lovely.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  in an effort to elicit likes, reps, and a few laughs via attempts to ridicule.
Here is where you pretend you can read my thoughts and motivations and figure out why I type and for what purpose. So...ya couple things:
A.) I notice that the only time you have ever at all expressed any exasperation at my style of writing is when it happens to disagree with you.
B.) Aren't you the one who told someone in this very thread that if they did something particular they could "continue being your bitch" and post dozens of passive-aggressive smiles? Be less hypocritical Free.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Get ready for a rough ride, because this will not be good for you.
You kept promising this in the last thread and all I got was 12 anonymous, unnamed, unproven, witnesses who don't agree with each other on a single detail AT ALL. I could fall asleep at the wheel on a ride that clam.


(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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?

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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."
Yes I do understand what it is and at no point did I say you are wrong because your position is unpopular or that we are right because our position is more popular. I asked you which is more likely, that one person emotionally invested in a topic, could be wrong or that every single other person with a DEMONSTRATED track record of rational and objective evaluation in other subjects with no emotional attachment to the subject could be wrong simultaneously, in the exact same way, all at once, and only on this one subject.
That's not an appeal to the bandwagon, that's an appeal to Occom's Razor. Your position(that every otherwise rational person here shit their brain out all at once, and that you are 100% correct) is far less likely than the opposite.
So I guess I'm picking D: You don't know how or when to apply your own fallacy correctly.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Yet, the main player here, Unbeliever, has clearly demonstrated a complete and total breakdown on his integrity
Only in your mind as many people here, myself included, has been able to pick out points where you make wild accusations of fallacies at him, and others, which are just false. Telling a person they can be your bitch, and a few of the other things you have said, makes you entirely unqualified to comment on anyone else integrity Free.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  1. He doesn't have a fucking clue what my position actually is, despite it being pointed out numerous times.
That's because you have a stated position (Aliens are a possible explanation) and a position you actively try and support (aliens are a probable explanation). The position which you actively reinforce is not your stated position and you keep bouncing from your active position to your stated position every time someone calls, justifiably, bullshit on your active position.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  2. He has no idea how multiple eyewitness with corroborated oral testimony exponentially increase the belief in the truth of a claim.
The plural of anecdote is not evidence. Your eyewitnesses do NOT corroborate each other and that is according to your own sources.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  3. Demonstrably uses false comparisons.
Which one was this? I might have missed it because the only one I saw was where he compared your nonsense about a technologically advanced species living along side humanity undetected to another technologically advanced species living along side humanity undetected which was ENTIRELY justified.
I will say this though: I wouldn't have done that. What you were doing is weaving a narrative out of exactly zero evidence whatsoever to support a conclusion that's under attack and he should have just tossed that in the bin right off the bat. Taking disparate ideas or unrelated "facts" and using them to weave a narrative is exactly, and I mean exactly, what conspiracy theorists do.
Working from a conclusion backwards which you were doing, and not from the evidence to a conclusion should not be addressed in anyway other than to point out how utterly unscientific and irrational it is.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  4. Demonstrably misrepresents my views.
When you claim your position is to show aliens as possible while you are trying to justify your belief that they are probable then your views aren't consistent enough to misrepresent. From what I remember of his posting almost all of his objects stem from the fact that you DO NOT STOP at "aliens are possible". Your actively supported view is not the same as your actively stated view.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  That's 1 logical fallacy.
Which you failed to support. I have not said I am right because my position is popular.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  You assume I am emotionally invested, without considering the possibility that my position is instead based upon a very extensive education on this subject?
They are not mutually exclusive....in fact I'd say the longer you study a specific subject the more invested you become both emotionally and intellectually however that's not the point.
Considering how rabid and cuntish you get on this topic and JUST this topic I really REALLY don't feel I have to demonstrate you are emotionally invested in this subject.

And yes I have considered your time spent researching this which brings me to....

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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?
First off doing the same action wrong for 30 years will make you an expert at that action and you would still be doing it wrong. Your investigation of O'Hare is sloppy, badly researched, and the evidence you use does not support your stated conclusions. However no I don't think you defend your position because you are emotional I very much believe that you believe your position is correct. I happen to think it's for bad reasons, but yes I believe you legitimately defend your position because you believe it's true. Even that you want it to be true.
I think your emotional investment puts blinders on you when it comes to real and legitimate problems with your hypothesis and from genuine criticism.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  This fallacy is known as the Fallacy of Exclusion:
Not excluding your history of UFO investigations, in fact the sloppy and amateurish investigation you have done on this incident is one of my criticisms of your position.

I will also point out that you have completely ignored the criticisms of other people out of hand, because they don't have your "experience" (even though some do have experience in this field and have come to the opposite conclusion, a fact you don't address). so your fallacy, once again, does not apply.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
The entire last half of my post shows you are wildly exaggerating the conciseness of the "witnesses", that their testimony does not match your constructed narrative, and that parts of your story (the hole punch) had sufficient explanation BEFORE THE EVENT EVEN HAPPENED. Furthermore the two fallacies you tried to pin on me don't even apply to what you are trying to pretend they do.
Your evidence does not say what you say it says and that is not a logical fallacy it's a motherfucking fact.


(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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
Other than the transcripts we have zero evidence that the witness testimony in the report even comes from the people in the transcripts because all the witnesses are anonymous, unnamed, and offer no evidence that they were actually there. The only reliable and demonstrably true/reliable testimony is what is contained int he transcripts and MULTIPLE times in those transcripts "professional and credible witnesses" report seeing absolutely nothing.
You are grossly and deliberately exaggerating the quality of the witnesses. You also keep saying 12 witnesses when the fact is there were dozens more witnesses present for the event which saw no object at all. You are engaged in willful confirmation bias by repeatedly leaving out "professional and credible witnesses" that COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOUR FUCKING NARRATIVE.


(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  So the bandwagon you so admantly support is the Bandwagon of Logical Fallacies...
This is false in two ways the first being that I've already refuted your childish and amateurish attempt to apply the bandwagon fallacy to me and secondly because most of the fallacies you try to attach to other people are wrong as well as shown above.



(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  More Band Wagon.
Nope because what you quoted in no way says you are wrong because no one agrees, it's another example of how no one agrees with you because you are demonstrably wrong, utilize faulty reasoning, lack objectivity, and make claims about the quality of your evidence that don't reflect reality. The rest of us fail to do this so we can see your obvious bullshit for the obvious bullshit it is.
You are not wrong because your position is unpopular, your position is unpopular because you are wrong.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Since your assessment of the people assumes they are using honest skepticism and quality rationalism..
Because you have failed to demonstrate on dozens of occasions they are not rational or legitimate criticisms of your nonsense I can safely toss this amateurish diversion in the bin as well.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
I don't need to understand that because you have not demonstrated conclusively or at all that they are fallacious. I do not agree with your conclusions and have shown how multiple attempts by you to paint people with the fallacy brush are factually incorrect as well as ignorantly and amateurishly applied.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Entirely wrong every time you used it prior and entirely wrong now. Your case for their irrationality is factually incorrect and does not stand up to scrutiny.

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  I have time constraints. I will be back later to deal with the rest of your logical fallacies, which are obvious and numerous.
So obvious that your track record of applying them is 0%. Rolleyes

(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Otherwise, I will tear it to shreds.
You failed in the previous thread to do that even once, and you failed to do it above. How about you stop being so damn proud of your fucking self when your so woefully incompetent on a subject you claim to be an expert in?

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 08:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Of the literally millions of UFO reports that have been made throughout history, I find it implausible that every last one of them is false.

The number of people who have reported seeing God, "feeling him in their hearts", hearing his voice, witnessing his miracles, etc. vastly exceeds the number of UFO reports. Yet you seem to be absolutely sure that all of those are false. Double standard, much?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
14-09-2015, 12:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 11:44 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 08:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Of the literally millions of UFO reports that have been made throughout history, I find it implausible that every last one of them is false.

The number of people who have reported seeing God, "feeling him in their hearts", hearing his voice, witnessing his miracles, etc. vastly exceeds the number of UFO reports. Yet you seem to be absolutely sure that all of those are false. Double standard, much?

If you think you can make a fair comparison between a God claim and the O'Hare incident, let's see 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
14-09-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 11:44 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The number of people who have reported seeing God, "feeling him in their hearts", hearing his voice, witnessing his miracles, etc. vastly exceeds the number of UFO reports. Yet you seem to be absolutely sure that all of those are false. Double standard, much?

If you think you can make a fair comparison between a God claim and the O'Hare incident, let's see it.


The fact that all of these have been mentioned multiple times yet you still ask this idiotic question leads one to question your facilities.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
14-09-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 10:03 AM)Free Wrote:  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.

If it's the same report you cited last time, then I have a simple question for you:
Can you find a direct citation wherein 12 eyewitnesses are referred to?
(you know - the number you've fetishised?)

Recall that you previously were dead wrong about what the report claimed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
14-09-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 11:38 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You keep trying to throw every fallacy you can think of at every single person here in the hops that they will stick and now I have to waste my time debunking that nonsense instead of debunking the O'Hare nonsense. Lovely.

It's a Gish gallop variant. The basic idea is to sling enough shit at your opponents to keep them from having time or energy to deal with the core issues of your argument.

It's why I generally prefer to fisk. Cut through the bullshit and deal with the actual core ideas in play.

(14-09-2015 11:38 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  That's because you have a stated position (Aliens are a possible explanation) and a position you actively try and support (aliens are a probable explanation). The position which you actively reinforce is not your stated position and you keep bouncing from your active position to your stated position every time someone calls, justifiably, bullshit on your active position.

As I have mentioned previously, this is called the motte and bailey argument. It is, like everything other tactic Free employs, inherently dishonest.

(14-09-2015 11:38 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 08:05 AM)Free Wrote:  3. Demonstrably uses false comparisons.
Which one was this? I might have missed it because the only one I saw was where he compared your nonsense about a technologically advanced species living along side humanity undetected to another technologically advanced species living along side humanity undetected which was ENTIRELY justified.

That's what he is talking about. He refuses to accept that Bigfoot and similar claims are an appropriate comparison to draw, for... no reason at all, apparently. Save that "there are fewer witnesses in that analogy", which is staggeringly stupid for a number of reasons.

(14-09-2015 11:38 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I will say this though: I wouldn't have done that. What you were doing is weaving a narrative out of exactly zero evidence whatsoever to support a conclusion that's under attack and he should have just tossed that in the bin right off the bat.

Oh, I did. I just used an analogy to illustrate why, and that stuck in his craw a bit.

(14-09-2015 11:38 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

So does this. He won't accept it, no matter how many sources are given to him confirming that it is true.

He also refuses to accept that, without actual evidence to back it up, there is no difference between "anecdote" and "eyewitness testimony".

(14-09-2015 11:38 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You are grossly and deliberately exaggerating the quality of the witnesses. You also keep saying 12 witnesses when the fact is there were dozens more witnesses present for the event which saw no object at all. You are engaged in willful confirmation bias by repeatedly leaving out "professional and credible witnesses" that COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOUR FUCKING NARRATIVE.

Selective thinking, yes. Which is why I haven't bothered with actually going over the "eyewitness testimony" point-for-point as you did; it doesn't matter to him, because he has never actually used the information put forth in it.

Free is not concerned with what the evidence actually says. He cares only for those parts of it which can be selectively interpreted, twisted, and exaggerated to support his preferred conclusion. He does not, and has never, cared what the anecdotal accounts he puts forth actually claim, or how they measure up to one another.

But it doesn't matter anyway, because, even assuming that every one of his twelve "expert witnesses" said the same thing, it still isn't evidence of alien visitation. It's an unknown, yes, but it's just an unknown.

And "unknown", no matter how much Free wishes otherwise, does not equal "aliens".

(14-09-2015 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  If you think you can make a fair comparison between a God claim and the O'Hare incident, let's see it.

The comparison has been made many times in this thread. There is, for example, the Miracle of the Sun incident, along with hundreds of other smaller, lesser-known claims of divine manifestation and intervention. There are also, for non-theistic analogies, Bigfoot and reptiloids, Atlantis for your claim of a technologically-advanced neighbor civilization, and so on and so forth.

And there is, once again, the entire art of stage magic, where people whose entire careers rest on their ability to accurately observe and see through illusion regularly and consistently get things that they have trained in for years, things that they have themselves performed hundreds of times, wrong.

But again, even discarding everything else, the very best you have is "we don't know".

And "we don't know", no matter how hard you wish it were otherwise, is not equivalent to "aliens".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: