UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:34 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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.

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

But that's just the thing, Free. You aren't actually reading the source you purport to worship.

The statement in the Wikipedia article is unsubstantiated. If the source document I linked to - the one you originally provided - isn't the source of that claim - and, get ready to eat shit, because it isn't - then where, precisely, does it come from?

I'm just curious.

I'm asking for the in-line citation from the original source document. Can you provide that?

If it's really there, this should be very, very easy for you to do. Why haven't you?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-09-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(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.

Then why did you earlier in the thread write that they reported seeing the "exact same thing"?

You really have to make up your mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
14-09-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  
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.

FUCK YOU A WIZARD DID IT

That's not an argument, Free. That's special pleading to justify a presupposition.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-09-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 03:39 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 03:33 PM)morondog Wrote:  Liar. You'd have proudly stated how that made your evidence stronger.

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.

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.

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

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

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


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

The irony here is palpable.

(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
14-09-2015, 04:33 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 04:41 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:25 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(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.

Except for the fact that if the issue went to court, the eyewitness would be testifying himself, and therefore your assertion of hearsay would be thrown onto the Fallacy Bandwagon just like the rest of Whiskey's ridiculous lack-of-a-brain assertions have been heaped onto it.

See how easy it is to dispose of your thoughtlessness, and his? Two birds with one stone; gotta love it.

If you want to back the wrong horse, you might reconsider and then donate the money to charity instead. It might make you feel good.

Drinking Beverage

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, 04:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Except for the fact that if the issue went to court, the eyewitness would be testifying himself, and therefore your assertion of hearsay would be thrown onto the Fallacy Bandwagon just like the rest of Whiskey's ridiculous lack-of-a-brain assertions have been heaped onto it.

If the witness didn't have any actual evidence to back up his claims, it would be thrown out.

This isn't complicated.

"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, 04:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 04:16 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  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.

I already asked/pointed that out before and pretty much got the same response.

Okay, look Free... Just because "It's Aliens!" doesn't mean they can change the Earth's laws of physics.

Yes, okay (Again, big maybe but what the heck ever) we have a teeny, tiny little 35' interplanetary thing..... Zipping through the atmosphere like that normally MUST produce effects.

Your sources do not cite such effects.. there fore...

Looking forwards to any answer... kind of...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
14-09-2015, 05:00 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 04:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Except for the fact that if the issue went to court, the eyewitness would be testifying himself, and therefore your assertion of hearsay would be thrown onto the Fallacy Bandwagon just like the rest of Whiskey's ridiculous lack-of-a-brain assertions have been heaped onto it.

If the witness didn't have any actual evidence to back up his claims, it would be thrown out.

This isn't complicated.

If it didn't sink in for the 3,291st time, it's not going to sink in on the 3,896th time.

Oh, well.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:33 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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.

Except for the fact that if the issue went to court, the eyewitness would be testifying himself, and therefore your assertion of hearsay would be thrown onto the Fallacy Bandwagon just like the rest of Whiskey's ridiculous lack-of-a-brain assertions have been heaped onto it.

Not necessarily. Those witnesses who only heard other reports would be tossed out.

(14-09-2015 04:33 PM)Free Wrote:  See how easy it is to dispose of your thoughtlessness, and his? Two birds with one stone; gotta love it.

You keep telling yourself that, kid.

(14-09-2015 04:33 PM)Free Wrote:  If you want to back the wrong horse, you might reconsider and then donate the money to charity instead. It might make you feel good.

Drinking Beverage

I don't recollect asking your advice, but thanks anyway, I suppose. Since we're handing out unsolicited advice, I'd suggest you iron out your double-standards before you cast any more aspersions about integrity. You're talking out both sides of your mouth here, and also when you assert that they all reported seeing the same exact thing only to back away from such a ridiculous notion as twelve identical reports when confronted on the matter.

I'm here having a discussion with you, and don't care about backing any horse ... I'm not terribly popular around here, don't care if I am or aren't, and think that you're waving that around as a means of poisoning the well against anyone who disagrees with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
14-09-2015, 05:03 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 05:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 04:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If the witness didn't have any actual evidence to back up his claims, it would be thrown out.

This isn't complicated.

If it didn't sink in for the 3,291st time, it's not going to sink in on the 3,896th time.

Oh, well.

Judge: Did you see an unknown aircraft?
12 Witnesses: Yes your Honor.
Judge: I accept their claim as truth. Case dismissed.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: