UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.

Uh-Huh

Keep looking. It's right there. It might bite you.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
So what we learn from this is that Free's an idiot Smile

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, 03:21 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 03:14 PM)morondog Wrote:  So what we learn from this is that Free's an idiot Smile

Naw, what you are learning is how inedpt some of you actually are in this subject. Take for example my indisputable take-down of Whiskey's assertion that because the eyewitness reports don't completely agree with each other that it somehow makes the reports invalid.

Here it is again:

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.

So ... by all means, jump on his band wagon. I dare ya.

Come on ... I know ya wanna!

Laugh out load

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 03:33 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 03:21 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Liar. You'd have proudly stated how that made your evidence stronger.

Quote: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.
So I repeat my previous question. How if you can't determine the height can you be sure that it was 35 ft in diameter? Notwithstanding that your witnesses are not in agreement as you claim.

Quote: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.
So literally every problem has a magical solution right there. No noise? Oh it's because spinning objects produce sound which is confined on one axis and none of the observers happened to be there. Oh there was a noise? Well that just reinforces my point. It vanished in 2 seconds? Oh some observers didn't even see it? Well that just reinforces my point that when they looked *it already wasn't there* because it had left for outer space.

Quote: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.
You know that this *exact* argument is used by those who argue that the discrepancies in the Gospels prove that they are true?

Quote: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.
Am I being dishonest enough for you? Simply disagreeing with you is grounds for this accusation it seems.

Quote:Triangulation.
I know what triangulation is dipshit. I'll give you a clue. It's not a magic word which means you win an argument.

Quote:So ... by all means, jump on his band wagon. I dare ya.

Come on ... I know ya wanna!

Laugh out load

LOL Dodgy Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy to keep people from finding out the TRUTH!!!11!

You deranged nitwit.

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, 03:39 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 03:33 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 03:21 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Liar. You'd have proudly stated how that made your evidence stronger.

Quote: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.
So I repeat my previous question. How if you can't determine the height can you be sure that it was 35 ft in diameter? Notwithstanding that your witnesses are not in agreement as you claim.

Quote: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.
So literally every problem has a magical solution right there. No noise? Oh it's because spinning objects produce sound which is confined on one axis and none of the observers happened to be there. Oh there was a noise? Well that just reinforces my point. It vanished in 2 seconds? Oh some observers didn't even see it? Well that just reinforces my point that when they looked *it already wasn't there* because it had left for outer space.

Quote: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.
You know that this *exact* argument is used by those who argue that the discrepancies in the Gospels prove that they are true?

Quote: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.
Am I being dishonest enough for you? Simply disagreeing with you is grounds for this accusation it seems.

Quote:Triangulation.
I know what triangulation is dipshit. I'll give you a clue. It's not a magic word which means you win an argument.

Quote:So ... by all means, jump on his band wagon. I dare ya.

Come on ... I know ya wanna!

Laugh out load

LOL Dodgy Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy to keep people from finding out the TRUTH!!!11!

You deranged nitwit.

Awww this is just way too cute!

A post full of ad homs just for me? You shouldn't have!

Here let me put these ad homs in water and set them by the window so they get some sunlight.

I'm touched, really!

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(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!"

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.

I repped him for dissecting your argument in his previous post.

The only person who seems really worried about it, though, is you.

I'm still wondering how you're going to explain going 100' AGL to "orbit" in two seconds without a sonic boom or vapor condensation. How might those aliens change the way our atmosphere behaves?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 04:22 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:16 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(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!"

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.

I repped him for dissecting your argument in his previous post.

You should rep his again for pity, since my response to him was devastating.

Quote:I'm still wondering how you're going to explain going 100' AGL to "orbit" in two seconds without a sonic boom or vapor condensation. How might those aliens change the way our atmosphere behaves?

You expect me to know that?

Or is it not possible for you to consider that if they possibly exist ergo they also possibly have a technology that does not work the way ours does?

If they are alien, you cannot "humanize" them.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  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.

[...]

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.

Pretty sure hearsay isn't admissible in court. That should definitively take care of Free's poorly-chosen comparison.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 03:09 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You literally just cited an unreferenced line from a Wikipedia article.

Uh-Huh

Keep looking. It's right there. It might bite you.

Big Grin

It's really not.

Just make whatever asinine "point" you think you have and be done with it.

(14-09-2015 03:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Naw, what you are learning is how inedpt some of you actually are in this subject. Take for example my indisputable take-down of Whiskey's assertion that because the eyewitness reports don't completely agree with each other that it somehow makes the reports invalid.

Here it is again:

Triangulation.

That is in no way an "indisputable take-down" of the fact that the reported sightings of the object fail to support one another. It is a desperate post hoc attempt to try and reconcile conflicting data, and is entirely irrelevant regardless since the data it is using cannot be verified as accurate.

(14-09-2015 03:21 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

You heard it here first, folks: discrepancies between testimonies make the case stronger.

"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, 04:27 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:25 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Pretty sure hearsay isn't admissible in court. That should definitively take care of Free's poorly-chosen comparison.

I have pointed this out to him previously on multiple occasions.

He responds by linking to a page on Canadian death threat laws which directly contradicts him and claiming that it proves me wrong, so there you are. He's completely disconnected from reality on this front.

(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  You should rep his again for pity, since my response to him was devastating.

As you can see here.

This is one of the most blatant cases of Dunning-Kruger that I've ever seen.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: