UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 05:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If it didn't sink in for the 3,291st time, it's not going to sink in on the 3,896th time.

(14-09-2015 05:03 PM)Free Wrote:  Judge: Did you see an unknown aircraft?
12 Witnesses: Yes your Honor.
Judge: I accept their claim as truth. Case dismissed.

Well, what do you know. cjlr is psychic.

And the case for that is now officially stronger than Free's case for alien visitation.

"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, 05:08 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  You should rep his again for pity, since my response to him was devastating.

That's pretty funny, right there. Your response was tepid and unconvincing, and didn't merit any reply at all in my view.

As an aside, do you post in front of a mirror?

(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?

I expect you to have some possible explanation. The laws of physics don't take the day off because you say "ETs did it!" You still have to explain why the air didn't behave as it does in every other circusmstance.

(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  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?

They have technology that prevents sonic booms? How? And more to the point, why?

They have technology to prevent vaporization at acceleration? How? And more to the point, why?

You're multiplying entities needlessly.

(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  If they are alien, you cannot "humanize" them.


And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them. Answer the questions put to you above -- why did physics take the day off that day?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 05:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them. Answer the questions put to you above -- why did physics take the day off that day?

Because aliens are space wizards.

Sadly, you aren't going to get through to him on this front any more than anyone else has managed to make him realize that anecdotes are not evidence. He's speculating baselessly. He knows he's speculating baselessly. He just thinks that, for some reason, it constitutes an actual explanation.

"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
14-09-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 05:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  You should rep his again for pity, since my response to him was devastating.

That's pretty funny, right there. Your response was tepid and unconvincing, and didn't merit any reply at all in my view.

Yet you replied nonetheless?

Can I have some of your drugs?

Quote:As an aside, do you post in front of a mirror?

No, I smashed them all out because I see aliens in them.

Consider

Quote:
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  You expect me to know that?

I expect you to have some possible explanation. The laws of physics don't take the day off because you say "ETs did it!" You still have to explain why the air didn't behave as it does in every other circusmstance.

Possible, perhaps. But knowledge? No.

Quote:
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  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?

They have technology that prevents sonic booms? How? And more to the point, why?

They have technology to prevent vaporization at acceleration? How? And more to the point, why?

You're multiplying entities needlessly.

That's asking for knowledge. How would I know what their technology could be?

Quote:
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  If they are alien, you cannot "humanize" them.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them. Answer the questions put to you above -- why did physics take the day off that day?

If Miram took a dump but the toaster reeked of blind spots infesting the inside of the outside of your brain, does it make a noise?

I expect a fucking answer dude!

Dodgy

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, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 05:30 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 05:17 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 05:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  That's pretty funny, right there. Your response was tepid and unconvincing, and didn't merit any reply at all in my view.

Yet you replied nonetheless?

Can I have some of your drugs?

Lol, you don't understand. I meant that your reply to him didn't merit a reply from him. I obviously haven't replied to that watery, hand-waving stuff, and if you haven't noticed by now, I've felt that way for a few days. I'm not in the habit of trying to nail Jell-O to the wall, and I'm certainly not going to start today.

(14-09-2015 05:17 PM)Free Wrote:  Possible, perhaps. But knowledge? No.

Let's hear it, then. If you want this tale of yours to be believable you'll need to explain why physics acted differently that day.

(14-09-2015 05:17 PM)Free Wrote:  That's asking for knowledge. How would I know what their technology could be?

I'm asking for speculation, because so far as we can tell, those two effects can't be negated. If you're going to speculate that they were negated, why should you suddenly draw up shy when as to speculate as to how or why?

Having a fit of conscience? Run down a dead-end alley? You've not been shy about speculating before, why's the cat got your tongue now?

(14-09-2015 05:17 PM)Free Wrote:  If Miram took a dump but the toaster reeked of blind spots infesting the inside of the outside of your brain, does it make a noise?

I expect a fucking answer dude!

Dodgy

Nice dodge. Own your silly hypotheticals. "If they had something that would cancel out sonic booms"! Have you actually thought about what that sentence means? No, you clearly haven't. They'd have be be slowing molecules so that they don't collapse upon the vacuum such speeds create. Why would they do that? Stealth? If they were concerned about stealth, what are they doing over one of the world's busiest airports?

No, this is clearly ad-hoc nonsense, in a fine display of argumentum ex culo.

The suggested order of operations is thinking before you post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
14-09-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Exaggerate much? Read your thoughts?
I asked you to give me an example of a person who does NOT post because he thinks your fucking wrong and DOES post to "tow the company line" out of fear and you said that I did that.
For you to claim to know that i post out of fear or to tow a company line and not out of my EXPRESS and REPEATED instance that I think your nonsense is actual nonsense would require you to know MY thoughts better then I do.
So no I am not exaggerating as the only way to support your baldfaced assertion that I post out of fear of looking bad to my peers (ha!) would require you to be able to read my mind.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Not only is it NOT indisputable I've already debunked it by saying several times that I have never at any point said my argument is the correct one because it's popular, the substance of my arguments has never relied on them being popular to be correct, and that the value of them comes form how many likes I get.

Pointing out that you brought childish bullshit to professional bullshit detectors who can demonstrate it to be bullshit and repeated do demonstrate it being bullshit means that you should probably reevaluate bringing bullshit or at least the quality of your bullshit. It's not bullshit because it's popular to call it bullshit but because it has been shown by every other rational person to be bullshit beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you want to act like a delusional asshole and pretend we are not making legitimate concerns and just rabidly clicking like every time the super secret TTA handshake bat-signal goes out you go right a head but frankly I'm done dealing with this ASSERTION which i have disproved multiple times and which you just repeat with no modification once it's been debunked.
I have never said my position was any more correct, not even an ounce, because other people liked it. I'm throwing that bullshit distraction and baseless assertion in the bin.


(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.
Are you fucking stupid, are you seriously this fucking stupid? Taking that exact quote by you and going through YOUR sources and showing that the claim by you is factually WRONG in nearly every way is my ENTIRE argument and I wouldn't be able to do that if I fucking ignored the thing you slimy lying cunt.
I haven't ignored it at all it's been the ENTIRE FOCUS of my attack.




(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Has it occured to you even once that the reason I defend this case so vigorously is because of my education, experience, and experiences?
Already asked, and already answered so here is a brief reposting: That is exactly why I think you defend your position. That it is based on your "education", "experience", and "experiences", that is the basis for your belief. Emotion comes into when you display a clear and willful lack of objectivity and rationality to the many legitimate criticisms of your position, and resort to acting like a giant unstable cunt on JUST THIS SUBJECT AND THIS SUBJECT ALONE.
The fact that you are educationally invested into the subject does not mean you can't be emotionally invested in the subject as well and considering this is the ONLY subject where you act like an emotional unstable and volatile asshole I'd say that the postulation that you are emotionally invested to the point of rabidness is entirely founded.
Your personality on this forum completely switches the second you get on this subject.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  
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.
I deleted the rest of your bandwagon nonsense because I've already debunked it and you just mindlessly repeated it with no new evidence to back it up so it's not worth my time to just repeat the debunking. However this I had to comment on.

I have never expressed any sentiment that I believe you are wrong because everyone else does to. I have said repeatedly I think you're wrong because your methodology is sloppy, your ability to research is sub par at best, you actively lie about what your sources say even when confronted with direct quotes from witnesses that say the opposite, you engage in willful confirmation bias by repeatedly mentioning only 12 witnesses that agree with you (they don't actually) and ignoring every single other witness present who saw nothing, and invent from thin air entire narratives with zero evidence, and a whole host of pseudo-investigative nonsense.

I have never stated or implied that "Everyone else thinks this, so I do too." So you can take your flagrant attempt to strawman my position and to try and tell me what my position is and go fuck yourself.

Further more pointing out that it's far more likely that a single irrational person lying about the quality of his evidence is wrong than it is for dozens of rational (sorry you haven't shown at all that they are not) people to be simultaneously wrong on the exact same subject at the exact same time in the exact same way is ENTIRELY an argument from Occom's Razor and NOT the bandwagon because the popularity of the opinion is not the reason it's less likely your right you chucklefuck.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Unbeliever starts the band wagon with a long list of logically falla blah blah fucking blah
Every single fallacy you have pointed to me involving Unbeliever has proven to be without merit and frankly on a few occasions utterly ridiculous. People agreed with him cause his shit was internally consistent and factually accurate which is more than you can say.
Comparing your dumbass story time idea that aliens could be living along side humans with out us aware of it as a technologically advanced civilization undiscovered by humans with a technologically advanced civilization undiscovered by humans is a completely fair comparison your just fuckin' butthurt he compared your flying space men to bigfoot. Boo Hoo.

And then YOU jump on that same bandwagon, that has been conclusively demonstrated to be driven by logical fallacies[/quote]
No it has not, your accusations are unfounded, not internally consistent, and often demonstrably wrong, and his points still stand. That you can convince yourself you are right does not mean you have convinced anyone else.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  That point has been demonstrated.
Nope it has not, not the the satisfaction of anyone but you. Certainly not to mine. Fuck I'm already bored of this nonsense.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  if you think he was correct about anecdotal evidence...
I don't think he is correct I know he is correct because the plural of anecdotal is not evidence. Secondly it's irrelevant because you do NOT HAVE 12 WITNESSES ALL SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING so you don't even have your own criteria.

Tell me how believable is 12 witnesses with you have a great deal more witnesses that testify that they saw absolutely nothing, when several of your witnesses make NO REMARKS AT ALL about an aircraft, and when your witnesses have exactly zero evidence to back up the claim that there was something there?
How much stronger as a percent (%) would your evidence be if there was 13 witnesses?

YOU ARE GROSSLY AND DISHONESTLY EXAGGERATING THE STRENGTH OF YOUR WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  My position was stated earlier that I hold a higher degree of possibility to the alien question here because of my experience and education.

Can you offer any evidence at all that you have anything bordering on qualifications to make an assessment of how possible something of this nature is and that you are not just pulling random numbers out of your ass. Because in one of the old threads your numbers are entirely different. Almost like they are arbitrary.Drinking Beverage

You keep talking about how much of an expert you are yet your results and your methodology are horrendously inaccurate so why should I treat you like a an expert and not another tinfoil hatter making up nonsense?


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  I have even shown where it is at 20% possibility
You haven't shown that at all. You asserted it to but you haven't provided an ounce of math or evidence to back up that number.


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  That's your, obvious unlearned and grossly wrong opinion.
No it's actually not fucko, it's based on a direct reading of the witness statements in your source. YOU said that all the witnesses of which you said there was 12 (there was way more) all described a craft (they don't). They don't agree with the hight (of which triangulation is NOT a part of their testimony) on the size (of which triangulation is not a part of their testimony) or the colour or the presence of lights (which by the way in the past you claimed they ALL saw lights) and a host of other things.

I'll get to your "triangulation" don't you worry.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Actually I understand all that. Can you provide a single shred of evidence that the heights given by people months after the fact to a pro-UFO group, given to another pro-UFO group by unnamed, unproven, unaccredited, anonymous witnesses are in anyway accurate? You got your cart before your horse.
Do you have any physical evidence that we can evaluate to know if the NARCAP report and it's numbers are accurate? This is important given their obvious bias and willingness to fudge data I went over earlier. Or are we supposed to accept anonymous 3rd-4th hand claims made from memory and passed through 2 bias sources?

Triangulating made up numbers by people who might not have been there wont get you any accurate numbers. can you solve these problems?

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  You have no idea why those discrepancies occur, and how they can be used to determine the actual height of the object.
I do actually but the same issue as above I raise again. You haven't established the reliability of your sources and for at least Witness B I have established his unreliability in so far as quotes found in the report are concerned.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  That's called "triangulation," which is something you don't have a fucking clue about because you haven't fully studied the case.
Have and do and won't buy the numbers until you can show that the sources and the methods used by 2 biased organizations is accurate. So far I have ZERO reason to believe that they are.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  And your example of your ignorance here is glaringly obvious.
So glaring it seems it blinded you to the fact that that's complete bullshit.Drinking Beverage


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Anyone who says that oral evidence is not evidence to support belief in a claim is a fucking retard.
Oral evidence in this case IS the claim, and the claim can't be used to justify the claim no matter how many people repeat it and oh fucking ya i almost forgot YOUR 12 GODDAMN WITNESSES ARE NOT THE ONLY WITNESS AND THEY DON"T EVEN AGREE WITH EACH OTHER ON A SINGLE FACT.

You are trying to say that 12 people saying the same thing is good reason to find the claim believable when in fact there are plenty of people saying the exact opposite and even those that say they saw something have entirely different beliefs on what they saw.

Even if i was to say sure, 12 witnesses all saying the same thing makes the claim more believable.....you have the fact that they are NOT saying the same thing drags how believable the claim is right back down...and THEN you have the fact that multiple witnesses present at the time saw nothing at all, far more then did see soemthing, and now the claim is even less believable. Only YOUR witnesses have exactly zero supporting physical evidence, and mien can point to the complete lack of any photographs, CCTV footage, or the fact the radar indicates there was nothing there...and now your witnesses have next to no case.
You are pretending like you have the only witnesses and that's laughably dishonest.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  And ask him about comparing the religious zealots as Fatima to these 12 witnesses.
Tell you what how about you give me the name of every single eye witness of yours so I can investigate them and discover if any of them have a history of mental illness, a preconceived belief in UFOs, substance abuse or any other thing that be a contributing factor. So I'm not having to rely on your ASSERTIONS that they don't.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  It was also reported that the witnesses were told to "shut up about it or get fired."
Citation needed, and then prove that that was a thing that actually happened. You have any physical date (e-mails, memos, the like) that proves this assertion?

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  I merelt conclude that an alien explanation is "possible" given the facts of this case.
There are exactly no facts in this case that point to aliens at all, that can't be attributed to other natural factors or man made objects (though I will remind you that not every witness, not even the majority, claim to have seen an object or even a craft). Space faring Aliens have no more place on this list then any other unproven entity.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Bandwagon Fallacy: The belief that an argument is valid because a majority of people accept it.
And I have never said that my argument was valid because the majority believe it. So fuck off you lying lil' shit.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
uh-huh. Sorry mate I'm calling bullshit because "Free" only acts like a cunt in threads about THIS EXACT subject. You don't act like that with Q or any of the other Christians that come here posting ACTUAL fallacies. Your defense that "I'm an asshole cause that's the character I play here" is just..sad and pathetic. Sure your not actually a cunt, your jsut an "actor" uh-huh.Rolleyes


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Mind you, in real life I bear absolutely no comparison at all to Free. None whatsoever.
Really so in real life you don't believe in ridiculous bullshit based on faulty, nonexistent, or made up evidence? Send that free here then.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  In fact, if you met me you would be thinking that I could not possibly be the guy you are talking to here.
That is literally true of every single person on the internet I have never seen a picture of. So ...yes? I guess?

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Just...sad and pathetic.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  A wild assumption isn't it?
Not really you claim to have spent years learning to research, get educated, and develop your experiences to the point you can call yourself an expert and yet be bumblefuckingly bad at investigating the O'Hare, spotting inconsistencies and fabrications in the NARCAP report, and failing to realize that you can't just include witnesses that support your conclusion. So no I really don't think it's a stretch to say you have been doing it wrong for decades if the end results are so damn wrong.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Want to explain how you can evaluate the position of someone when you don't have a clue what they have done?
I'm evaluating the results of your education and observing that they are horrendously prone to confirmation bias, wild speculation, narrative fabrication, misrepresenting the evidence, and over, dramatically, over exaggerating your case.


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
I did it in an evening with access to the report and google. Try harder in the future. Also we don't have to disprove(debunk) the claim that there was an object there, it's up to the people making that claim to prove it. That has never happened. There is no reason to believe, when the majority of available witnesses don't even say there was an object, that there was an object.


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
We are not left with this at all as no one claim in that is actually factually accurate. Your methodology is sloppy to the point of being just strait up nonexistent.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  And you have been shown how you don't have a clue with the height of the UFO position stated earlier in this post.
No I know exactly how one COULD triangulate the position of a UFO based on multiple sightings from different locations. What you haven't shown is that any of those numbers came from acctual witnesses, are actually accurate, and have not be fudged by either one of the two KNOWN pro-UFO organizations involved in the report.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  I doubt you will demonstrate the honesty required to acknowledge this point....
Hahaha.Haaaaa.
I was never disputing that triangulation is not a thing that exists or could be used in this situation. i was disputing that:
A.) Your claim that the witnesses gave the same description of a craft is wrong, they didn't. Either in height, shape, size, lights, spinning, colour or even timeline.
B.) All the measurements given by witnesses were done anonymously, from memory months after the fact, run through TWO bias organizations and thus you have no idea if the numbers that make up the triangulation is even accurate.

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  And YOU just got fucking destroyed.
You're adorable when your trying to copy your intellectual betters.Drinking Beverage

(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  So let me see a show of hands from your supporters of those who think the triangulation practice is somehow invalid
Never claimed that it was invalid, just that you have no idea if the math is accurate, reliable or not made up, making it effectively useless in proving if anything was there.

You said everyone agreed on what they saw. They didn't. In anyway at all.


(14-09-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  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
Delusional. But yes lets do.Drinking Beverage

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, 05:32 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  You should rep his again for pity, since my response to him was devastating.
Not even remotely.Laugh out load

(14-09-2015 04:22 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

Space Wizards. Investing narratives to fill the holes in the alien craft hypothesis. Working backwards from a conclusion.

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
lol, Free's going for Internet points. How cute.

Free, in a real discussion, making your interlocutor look bad is secondary to putting forth a cogent argument. Since today is unsolicited advice day, I'd advise you to tighten up your lackadaisical argumentation and quit worrying about strutting around the ring claiming victory. It makes you look childish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 05:36 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 05:25 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Every single fallacy you have pointed to me involving Unbeliever has proven to be without merit and frankly on a few occasions utterly ridiculous. People agreed with him cause his shit was internally consistent and factually accurate which is more than you can say.

I'm blushing.

Regardless, Free, you're even more delusional than I thought if you think that anyone here is at all convinced by anything you've said. I have pointed out that your argument is fallacious even taking its premises as granted. Whiskey has taken the time to point out why your premises are invalid (and I went on to add a few more details, but that's largely irrelevant). You fail on both counts, and everyone reading this thread sees it.

And no. No, this is not the bandwagon fallacy. You don't understand what that is, either.

"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, 05:36 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..

Right but it might say something else entirely because it's no longer 4th hand information you fucking idiot. We don't allow hearsay in court BECAUSE OF THE FACT IT SO RARELY REPRESENTS WHAT IS ACTUALLY SAID BY THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT.

GodDAMN son.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: