UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 01:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And "we don't know", no matter how hard you wish it were otherwise, is not equivalent to "aliens".

Which is why, when pressed - and only when explicitly pressed - he'll pretend he's just asserting the "possibility".

I don't think it's fooling anyone, but there it is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
OK so now you are just flat out fucking lying then because I did exactly what I claimed to do in the last thread and I do it below and asides from the weather report (which is evidence) I used ONLY evidence contained in YOUR source. You are fucking lying.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Assertions are not evidence, and the sooner you learn that the better.
Facepalm
ALL of your evidence is based on anonymous, unnamed, unproven, often second hand or greater assertions with ZERO corroborating evidence of any kind and no agreement among it's self.

Your.....your entire line of evidence is assertion. You keep arguing that 12 people making assertions IS evidence.

Jesus Fuck.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  And with ease i will destroy it again.
Delusional.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Are you fucking stupid?
I mention REPEATEDLY I'm using the NARCAP report that YOU gave to me ages ago. I even give times, measurements, testimony, transcripts, fucking mention tables from the report, and even give FUCKING page numbers and time stamps and YOU FUCKING QUOTE THEM in your response you asshat.

Fucking seriously?


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: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.

So really you are trying to tell me what my motivations are. You are pretending like you know my thoughts better than I do. Also asserting it is not proving it. Ya I don't have time for this level of lying delusional conspiracy shit so I'll just tell you to take your Sye Ten Bruggencate style arguments and fuck right off.

(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.
Accept you only do that, and in fact have passive-aggressively tried to insult people in other threads for acting this way, when someone criticizes your pet crazy.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  But what I am not is the kind of person who jumps on Bandwagons and toes the community line to play it safe.
"lol conspiracy"

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Both skepticism and rationalism are balanced with an open mind with me
You constantly and consistently display the exact opposite on this particular subject.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  I do not take both of those qualities so far as to make a mockery of them...
This is an assertion you have made in the past and in no way at all demonstrated and it ONLY happens, you only ever accuse people of this, when they disagree with YOU.
So i say again "lol conspiracy".

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  So go ahead, hurl your ad hominems

Hahaha you absolute hypocrite.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  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!"

You ABSOLUTE hypocrite.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  When the fact of the matter is, you are demonstrably using logical fallacies
Except that every time you try to demonstrate it you fail horribly.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  and not actually addressing my argument at all, in any way, whatsoever.
Oh so taking YOUR witness testimony from YOUR sources and showing how it says the complete opposite of what you claim it does is not addressing your argument at all? Uh-huh. Delusional nutter.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Lets look at a few of the NARCAP report witness descriptions:

See you even quote my source while claiming I'm not using any and just posting bullshit. You are a lier.


(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. 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?
Actually I did! Big Grin

And then I did something, I realized that a report doing triangulation based on 2nd-3rd hand oral accounts from anonymous, unnamed, unverified witnesses conducted after the fact and from fucking memory by one pro UFO organization and given to another pro UFO organization to publish 7 months after the fact with no way to actually measure the distances due to a lack of physical evidence and no way to know if the people giving the measurements were actually there (anonymous testimony, some of it from a fucking blog) or that they remember correctly, or that they remember correctly but even measured correctly the first time can NOT be considered as reliable evidence and it DEFINITELY can't be described by YOU as proof that "all witnesses agree with each other".

In your court room nonsense if put on the stand every single witness would give a completely different testimony on the altitude of the craft. The Witnesses that YOU keep saying are reliable and credible are not the ones doing the triangulation, they are the ones given ENTIRELY OPPOSING TESTIMONY.

Your fucking evidence is weak.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
I actually DID know this, which is why I said and you quoted "ranging from 6 feet up to 24 (possibly higher)". You can read my post above on the quality and veracity of your "triangulation" above. This was done based on oral testimony from memory after the fact not by the witnesses themselves but by a pro UFO group given to another pro UFO group with no evidence it came from anyone actually there.
You made the claim that the testimony of the witnesses said the same thing and it does not. If put on a stand the testimony of the witnesses would give completely different accounts.

Don't bring that weak ass shit into my kitchen.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Vantage points, distances et al. Those under it seen it spinning from the bottom. Those viewing a side angle could not see this feature.
based on anonymous unproven oral testimony given from memory and then arriving in the report as 3-4th hand information which is unverified in it's source. Weak.
Again you said that their testimony agreed and "some could see it spinning and some didn't see it spinning at all" is the literal exact opposite of internally consistent testimony. Weak.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  
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.
Irrelevant considering you made the claim that ALL, ALL, "professional and credible witnesses report seeing an aircraft". Well here is two of those witnesses that say they think it's a balloon but can't be sure. They don't say it's an aircraft but can't be sure, they don't say they defiantly saw an aircraft. You are deliberately misrepresenting the testimony to fit your narrative.

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.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  No one is ignoring the misses.
Bullshit in your answer below you ignore Eagle 419, UAL44, UAL446, the unnamed pilot who makes no report after being pointed to it, and Gate 5668.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  You do understand that the UFO was above the tower near Gate C17 and could not be seen from the tower, right?
While the the NARCAP report makes the claim that if the UFO was at 1900 feet the tower would not have been able to see the UFO the diagram in the report showing the visual range shows that they absolutely would be able to. Absolutely. This is an assertion made by the pro ufo NARCAP that goes against their own evidence.



(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.

Deal with that. That is the claim here.
Run goal posts run! All of a sudden it's "with a clear vantage point" and not just "All 12 credible and professional witnesses saw an object they identified as an aircraft"?

Witness B and C had a clear and unobstructed view of the UFO and thought it could be a Balloon. Another witness in the report had an unobstructed view and thought it was a bird. Eagle 419, UAL44, UAL446, the unnamed pilot who makes no report after being pointed to it, and Gate 5668 all had unobstructed views and either report seeing absolutely nothing or make no report at all.
You keep trying to say it's 12 witnesses when it's not, it's much more then 12 and most of them saw nothing at all. These witnesses count in the witness total and so does their testimony in your court room nonsense.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Again, "vantage points."
At no point int he report at all does it say that witnesses were unable to see the hole in the sky do to vintage points. It lists ONE witness who related what another witness say (that the object punched a hole in the clouds). You also have been presenting your case as if there was agreement that the object punched a whole in the cloud when at best you have a second hand story with no corroboration.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  You mean they "previously" thought it was a balloon, but were not sure at that point in time.
His exact words were “We thought it was a balloon, but we're not sure”, he was talking about an event 30 minutes in the past hence "thought" and nothing in his quote suggests he thought it was anything other than a balloon (an aircraft for example) just that he thinks it's a balloon but he's not sure.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  I pointed out earlier how, from a side angle, the craft could be mistaken for a balloon.
You have not established that it was a craft that could be mistaken for a balloon and not a balloon that could be mistaken for a craft. Your evidence as the, according to you, "fact" that everyone of the witnesses reported a craft except that's not the case at all.

(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.
They never at any point say they thought it was anything but a balloon they could not be sure of. You keep inserting the fucking word "craft" despite none of them using or describing anything they thought to be a craft. You are inserting your bias directly into the testimony to make it say things that are not reported.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Nice. A balloon blows a hole in the clouds?
And you have evidence that a fucking space ship does blow "perfectly"round holes in the clouds? Go fuck yourself and your passive-aggressive smiley bullshit.

In fact the whole point of that is to show that the person reporting that another person claimed to see the object punch a hole in the clouds didn't actually see it himself so is relating second hand information to a UFO group, making it 3rd hand information, which was then given to, and published by NARCAP, making the report of an object punching holes in clouds 4th hand information.

(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  All times are estimates, with each witness being interviewed long after the fact.
Woooooow...does interviewing a witness long after the fact and getting testimony from memory make the testimony slightly less reliable and prone to error? That is soooooo cool and also one of the FUCKING MAIN POINTS IVE BEEN USING TO REFUTE YOUR SHIT.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  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.
Right but if he claims to see the hole at 4:22 then he is seeing the object LEAVE a full 10 minutes before anyone else see the object it's self. Is it a motherfucking TARDIS now, cause that timeline is physically impossible. That impossibility is also why the NARCAP report flat out lied and created a new timeline saying that 22:55UTC is 3:55pm CST when 22:55 UTC is 4:55pm CST.

Let me explain it better:
Witness B claims in the report that he saw it WHILE taxing UAL44 Maintenance. The transcript at 4:48 says says that he saw it "a half an hour ago" which would place it at 4:18 but lets just go with 4:22 to keep it in line with the above time. Here is the problem: The NARCAP report Table 6 (page 37) shows that UAL44 Maintenance didn't start taxing until 4:57pm nearly 40 goddamn minutes AFTER the anonymous Witness B claims the event happened.
This is physically impossible. Which is why the NARCAP report tries to change the time from 4:55 to 3:55.

He can't claim to have seen it WHILE taxing UAL44 Maintenance at 4:22 if taxiing didn't start until 4:57. Witness B is either two separate people (guy on transcript, separate guy giving testimony used int he report) or has a memory so unreliable the rest of his testimony is worthless.


(14-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  You're not doing very good here dude.

Big Grin
You are delusional, I've already debunked your original claim of "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." ...again.

Your original claim lists 12 witnesses when those are only the witnesses supporting (thought not actually) your position, that many of them do NOT identify an aircraft, and that none of their testimony agrees.

I'm fucking destroying you.

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
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
It must be that UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch and the rest are reflective only on a different portion of the visible spectrum band......

That'd explain why pictures taken are ALWAYS BLURRY.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I'm fucking destroying you.

He's just going to give you the same response as Unbeliever and I got, Whiskey:
"NUH UH CUZ I WANT TO BELIEVE AND U R SMELLY FALLACY AND I M SO SMRT TROLOLOLOL"

But, points for effort?

... 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, 02:15 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 02:20 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 11:38 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(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.

Exaggerate much? Read your thoughts?

No, I am pointing out from past experience how you constantly appeal to the Bandwagon Fallacy as a means of attempting to validate your position.

You've demonstrated that tendency here and elsewhere. It's indisputable.

Quote:
(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.

And again you assert without having a clue what you are asserting about. The one thing you constantly ignore is the claim of these 12 witnesses, and you avoid that claim because cannot debunk it. Here it is again:

12 professional and credible witnesses, experienced with aircraft, claim to have seen an aircraft of unknown origin that they could not identify hovering over Chicago O'Hare Airport on Nov 6, 2006.

That's the claim. That's what you debunk. You do not attempt to debunk it with assertions and sub-par investigations.

Quote:
(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.
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 I have pointed out your Fallacy of Exclusion for arriving at this conclusion. Has it occured to you even once that the reason I defend this case so vigorously is because of my education, experience, and experiences? An emotional attachment is the far likely of the options to consider here, but you exclude what I have so admantly stated in favour of your pet theory.

Considering the evidence- my claims of why I defend this case- you can rightfully be accused of yet another fallacy of Misrepresenting my Position, aka Strawman.

Quote:
(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.

YOU have constantly suggested that, according to the consensus of people on this forum, that I somehow need to take a step back and re-evaluate my position because, according to you we have 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."

The Bandwagon Fallacy is like a two-way street. You can either be driving it, or you can be riding in it, and you are riding it.

Quote:That's not an appeal to the bandwagon, that's an appeal to Occom's Razor.

No, it's Bandwagon. "Everyone else thinks this, so I do too."

That is precisely your position.

Quote: 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.

You obviously don't fully understand this thread. Unbeliever starts the band wagon with a long list of logically fallacious false comparisons and strawman arguments, and people in this thread supported him without realizing how stupidly fucking wrong he was.

And then YOU jump on that same bandwagon, that has been conclusively demonstrated to be driven by logical fallacies, and then say to me that I should somehow listen to this logically fallacious band wagon because the odds are that they right and I am wrong?

No.

Anybody on that bandwagon are all wrong. That point has been demonstrated.

Quote:
(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.

Well then Mr Bandwagon "genuis," if you think he was correct about anecdotal evidence then let's see you demonstrate HOW he was correct in his assertion that 12 oral witnesses who's testimony can be corroborated does not increase believability in the truth in comparison to a single eyewitness testimony.

It will be fun to watch another person make a fool of themselves with that, so the floor is yours.

Let's see it.

Big Grin

Quote:
(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.

And yet another strawman. How many times have you seen me say here that aliens were a probable explanation?

Find it.

My position was stated earlier that I hold a higher degree of possibility to the alien question here because of my experience and education. Nowhere have I ever stated it was the most probable explanation. I have even shown where it is at 20% possibility, with man-made being the most possible.

I never said anything, aliens or man-made, were "probable."

So your bandwagon ride just keeps moving along by the use of yet another fucking Strawman fallacy.

Quote:
(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.

That's your, obvious unlearned and grossly wrong opinion. You clearly do not have a fucking clue how the evidence was viewed and evaluated. You don't even understand how one observer, looking at the object from a distance, would know that the object was just under the cloud ceiling, and how the cloud ceiling would be measured that day to approximate the height of the object, and how that compared to another observer, directly under the object, who would not be able to gauge height with a good deal of accuracy.

You have no idea why those discrepancies occur, and how they can be used to determine the actual height of the object.

That's called "triangulation," which is something you don't have a fucking clue about because you haven't fully studied the case.

And your example of your ignorance here is glaringly obvious.

Quote:
(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.

Well then perhaps you might ask him about how oral evidence cannot be used to generate truth of a claim, and then you might be going somewhere. Go back and read the thread.

Anyone who says that oral evidence is not evidence to support belief in a claim is a fucking retard.

And ask him about comparing the religious zealots as Fatima to these 12 witnesses. Ask him to demonstrate how his comparison is not fallacious.

Big Grin

Quote: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.

The problem with your comparison above is the fact that an actual attempt at a conspiracy to withhold information was exposed in this case. It was also reported that the witnesses were told to "shut up about it or get fired."

And again you are attempting a strawman by suggesting that I have "concluded as fact" something when the only conclusion I have postulated is a list of possibilities.

I merelt conclude that an alien explanation is "possible" given the facts of this case. My most "possible' explanation is a man-made vehicle.

So again, are you misrepresenting my position from the band wagon? Absolutely.

Quote:
(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.

Another strawman. Already explained.

Keep going, the more you talk, the more you prove my point about you.

Quote:
(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.

It's not a matter of whether or not you said you were right, that's not what the bandwagon is.

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

And you are definitely on the band wagon.

Quote:
(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....

I am a cunt. I am a prick. I am the bastard from hell.

I am not all those things because of any emotional connection. I am all those things because that is who "Free" is.

Mind you, in real life I bear absolutely no comparison at all to Free. None whatsoever. In fact, if you met me you would be thinking that I could not possibly be the guy you are talking to here.

I can be "Free" here, and if I want to be a cunt, a prick, and a bastard, then I can. You see, it's the entertainment value. Staff looking over my shoulder at this conversation literally end up in tears of laughter at what goes on in this forum, and the type of poster "Free" actually is.

Seriously, it's a hoot.

Big Grin

Quote:
(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.

A wild assumption isn't it? You don't know what I have been doing for the past 30 years, and yet can arrive at this conclusion?

Want to explain how you can evaluate the position of someone when you don't have a clue what they have done?

Quote: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.

Well now, many times in this discussion I have stated how I have debunked many UFO claims. Why did I debunk them if you think that I start out assuming them to be true?

There's damn few UFO cases that impress me, and this one at O'Hare is by far the most difficult one to debunk. I can't debunk it, and nobody here can debunk it either. All we are left with is this:

12 credible professionals, experienced with aircraft, identified an object as being an unidentified and unknown aircraft hovering over Gate C 17 at Chicago Airport on Nov 7, 2006.

Quote:
(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.

And you have been shown how you don't have a clue with the height of the UFO position stated earlier in this post.

Let me explain something to you about how to investigate the height of the object, and what to look for to find a real problem.

Triangulation.

If each and every one of those witnesses said the object was located at the approximately same height while they were looking at it from different vantage points, I would have thrown this case out immediately.

What the height discrepancies demonstrate is that since they were all viewing it from different vantage points, there would be no way possible for those under it to be able to approximate its height accurately. The very fact that these discrepancies exist demonstrate no collaboration between the witnesses as far as the height was concerned, because if they all said the object was the same height when we know those who were under it would not be able to gauge the height, then yes ... a hoax.

The same is true for those who seen it spinning. Those under it could see the bottom spinning, while those viewing from an angle could not. Again, these discrepancies demonstrate no hoax.

Because of different vantage points, we cannot claim any of them to be lying about what they seen, because all of them seen the object from different perspectives, and would naturally see different characteristics unavailable to others.

The discrepancies in this case are actually what makes it so much more believable, because if they all said and described all the same characteristics, height, et al, while they were viewing it from different vantage points, we know they would be lying for a certainty.

I doubt you will demonstrate the honesty required to acknowledge this point, but it is my hope you do, because that is how this stuff works in investigations. The police do this all the time at accident scenes with measurements and witnesses.

Triangulation.

And YOU just got fucking destroyed.

So let me see a show of hands from your supporters of those who think the triangulation practice is somehow invalid, and let's see how well they agree with you now that your ass has been so fucking handed to you that you look like an intellectually inept retard who doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

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, 02:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  The one thing you constantly ignore is the claim of these 12 witnesses, and you avoid that claim because cannot debunk it. Here it is again:

12 professional and credible witnesses, experienced with aircraft, claim to have seen an aircraft of unknown origin that they could not identify hovering over Chicago O'Hare Airport on Nov 6, 2006.

That's the claim. That's what you debunk. You do not attempt to debunk it with assertions and sub-par investigations.

Free. You poor man.

That is not the claim.

Have you read your own goddamn source? Because that is not what it says.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  The one thing you constantly ignore is the claim of these 12 witnesses, and you avoid that claim because cannot debunk it. Here it is again:

12 professional and credible witnesses, experienced with aircraft, claim to have seen an aircraft of unknown origin that they could not identify hovering over Chicago O'Hare Airport on Nov 6, 2006.

That's the claim. That's what you debunk. You do not attempt to debunk it with assertions and sub-par investigations.

Free. You poor man.

That is not the claim.

Have you read your own goddamn source? Because that is not what it says.

Your poor man.

Your link leads to the case file. The claim is by many of those in the case file:


At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27H...O_sighting

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, 03:03 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Free. You poor man.

That is not the claim.

Have you read your own goddamn source? Because that is not what it says.

To be clear, the report lists nine "employee witnesses", labeled as A through I, all of whom allegedly asked that their identities remain concealed for the purposes of the report.

Even of these anonymous - meaning unconfirmed, and could be anyone - witnesses, only witnesses A, B, and H actually spoke directly to the authors of the report about a UFO over the airport. The rest of the witnesses, so far as I can tell, did not speak to the report's authors, and in several cases hadn't claimed anything to do with UFOs at all. They seem to have been added for no reason other than to pad the numbers.

No information is forthcoming from witness C, witness D allegedly heard other people talking about a UFO before sighting it and so was primed (his input comes from another analysis of the event), witness E was just standing next to D at some point, witness F dismissed the sighting as a bird, witness G refused to speak to the report's authors, and witness H claims to have seen something aluminum, from below.

So. Not twelve witnesses. Not so much as a single identified one, and no more than four who actually claim to have seen something - and not a one who "conclusively" identified it as an aircraft. All of their accounts have conflicting details.

And this is entirely without going into the whole matter of all the rest of the people at the airport not seeing anything.

"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, 03:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:34 PM)Free Wrote:  Your link leads to the case file. The claim is by many of those in the case file:

At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27H...O_sighting

You literally just cited an unreferenced line from a Wikipedia article.

"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
14-09-2015, 03:07 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 12:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(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 fact that all of these have been mentioned multiple times yet you still ask this idiotic question leads one to question your facilities.

The fact that you keep bringing it up consistently demonstrates my point about the Band wagon.

Here:

Quote:The first apparition at Zeitoun was recorded on the evening of April 2, 1968 when a Muslim bus mechanic named Farouk Mohammed Atwa, who worked across the street from the church of Saint Mary in Zeitoun, thought he saw a woman attempting suicide by jumping from the structure. Two other men also noticed a white figure on the top of the church[1] and the sighting was reported to the police.

[2] A crowd gathered on the site and the police attempted to disperse it. According to the police, the sighting was just a reflection of the light from the street lamps.[2] However, the crowds reportedly viewed the sighting as a clear apparition of Saint Mary, and so, the attempts by the police to disperse the crowd were unsuccessful.[2] The event itself ended after a few minutes.

What elements do you see there? Let us count the ways:

1. We have a church.
2. We have a report by a person of a possible suicidal woman on the church.
3. The police arrive and state it was just a light.
4. A bunch of Christians in a Muslim dominated area show up at a CHURCH.
5. Suddenly we now have a bunch of believers showing up expecting to see something.
6. The crowds grow as the expectation of a vision increases.
7. "Oh look, did you see that? It MUST be the Virgin mary" and the crowd goes wild.

And and and ...

Fuckoff.

FALSE COMPARISON.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: