UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 05:49 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 05:54 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 05:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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.

Oh, well.

Judge: Did you see an unknown aircraft?
12 Witnesses: Yes your Honor.
[Image: OBJECTION!.jpg]
Opposition Attorney: Excuse me your Honor but under cross examination we have found that several of the witnesses brought forth in fact did NOT claim to seen an aircraft but (among others) an object NOT identified as an aircraft, a possible Balloon, a possible bird. We would also like to enter into evidence the testimony of these other few dozen witnesses that were present during the event in question.
Judge: Alright new witnesses did any of you see an unknown aircraft?
Several dozen new witnesses: Fuck no your honor.
Judge: Hmmmm.....

You dishonest shit.
I like how in your little example of a court case you don't think there are any competing testimony, cross examination, and that the judge can determine the truth of a claim with a single fucking question.

Outs my kitchen with your weak ass shit.

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
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Well, I've lost all respect for Free. Sorry mate but you brought this upon yourself.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 06:17 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 02:06 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  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?

You need to chill dude. It's only a discussion.

Okay, I will ignore all ad homs, but I will point our problems with your position without coming down so hard as to invoke these kinds of emotional responses. So let's take a look at what your position is here on the case itself, minus all personal attacks et al.

So you will see all posts with only personal attacks removed so we can just concentrate on your points.

Quote:
(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.

My problems with this are listed below:

1. This does not dismiss the triangulation issue, nor does it actually address it's findings.

2. It attempts to attack the credibility of the report, but does not provide any basis to support the attack other than some length of time being of some concern. However, it does not acknowledge the length of time it would require to prepare the report, nor does it consider that the report may have gotten it's information months previous to the release of the report.

3. It assumes the possibility that the witnesses were not actually witnesses to the event in support of the report, when there is no basis or reason to doubt that they weren't.

4. This position does not consider the fact that if the witnesses did enter a court of law to give testimony, and discrepancies were pointed out in regards to the proposed aircraft's height in the sky, shape, and spinning effect, an expert in triangulation would be called as an expert witness to explain why the discrepancies are present.

That expert would explain that the discrepancies are due to each witnesses vantage point, and how from their vantage point such characteristics would be more visible to some than to others, or how some characteristics would not be visible at all to some witnesses. The expert would show diagrams to display the location of each witness at the airport, and demonstrate how his triangulation of their vantage points could create a more accurate height and size of the craft.

I will review some of your other positions shortly, likely post by post, as these post are getting far too long and time intensive.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:25 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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?

...

Consider

Waiting...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:36 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 06:41 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 04:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 02:34 PM)Free Wrote:  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?

If you go back to the Wiki site, you will find links to the article in the Chicago Tribune, as well as as a written commentary on the Wiki from the reporter who broke the story. Investigate the story online, and watch the YouTube videos, particularly this one.

This video is a leaked video depicting the reporter from the Chicago Tribune speaking with the anchor at the new station just previous to the news broadcast, which incidentally went world-wide very quickly.





How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:44 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 04:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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?

If you go back to the Wiki site, you will find links to the article in the Chicago Tribune, as well as as a written commentary on the Wiki from the reporter who broke the story. Investigate the story online, and watch the YouTube videos, particularly this one.

This video is a leaked video depicting the reporter from the Chicago Tribune speaking with the anchor at the new station just previous to the news broadcast, which incidentally went world-wide very quickly.






Oh for the love of...

That is the same damned fake UFO that has been circulating since I was a child. And I am now 51.

You mean their designs have not improved in over 40 years and are always photographed at the same angle???

It's long been considered a fake! Since I was a kid in fact.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:49 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:44 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 06:36 PM)Free Wrote:  If you go back to the Wiki site, you will find links to the article in the Chicago Tribune, as well as as a written commentary on the Wiki from the reporter who broke the story. Investigate the story online, and watch the YouTube videos, particularly this one.

This video is a leaked video depicting the reporter from the Chicago Tribune speaking with the anchor at the new station just previous to the news broadcast, which incidentally went world-wide very quickly.






Oh for the love of...

That is the same damned fake UFO that has been circulating since I was a child. And I am now 51.

You mean their designs have not improved in over 40 years and are always photographed at the same angle???

It's long been considered a fake! Since I was a kid in fact.

Dude, the picture you see there is for illustrative purposes only. Watch the video, the picture isn't real.

Laugh out load

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:54 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, I will ignore all ad homs

Said, apparently, without a trace of self-awareness.

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  My problems with this are listed below:

1. This does not dismiss the triangulation issue, nor does it actually address it's findings.

Yes, it does. It states very clearly that those findings are meaningless because they are based on unsupported figures which are, at best, entirely speculative.

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  3. It assumes the possibility that the witnesses were not actually witnesses to the event in support of the report, when there is no basis or reason to doubt that they weren't.

Save that they all refuse to let themselves be identified, and that alien visitation proponents - along with global warming denialists and similar types of pseudoscientific idiots - are known to lie through their teeth when it suits them.

But it is largely irrelevant, since, even assuming that they are all who they claim to be, there is still no evidence establishing that their accounts are accurate.

(14-09-2015 06:36 PM)Free Wrote:  If you go back to the Wiki site, you will find links to the article in the Chicago Tribune, as well as as a written commentary on the Wiki from the reporter who broke the story.

Not a single one of those links states that there were twelve witnesses.

Because there weren't.

"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, 06:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Dude, the picture you see there is for illustrative purposes only. Watch the video, the picture isn't real.

And the video itself is unimportant. It's just Hilkevitch repeating the same unsubstantiated claims. There is no evidence presented at any point.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
14-09-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to chill dude. It's only a discussion.
[Image: mind-blown.gif]

The complete lack of self awareness by those two sentences is almost infant like.

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, I will ignore all ad homs,
Good, you will actually have a better track record of identifying them by saying exactly nothing. Drinking Beverage

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  .... without coming down so hard as to invoke these kinds of emotional responses.
Oh get your ignorant head out of your ass Free, you didn't invoke an "emotional response" because you "came down to hard". That's just laughable you arrogant arrogant shit. I asked if you were fucking stupid because you accused me of using unsourced made up bullshit in THE exact same post where you quote me ...listing my sources. After responding numerous times to arguments WITH my damn sources in them, as well as references to figures, time stamps, transcripts, and quotes.
It stops being "just a conversation" when you resort to lying through your fucking teeth and you do NOT get to try and take take umbrage when the trap closes on your lying dick.


(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  1. This does not dismiss the triangulation issue, nor does it actually address it's findings.
Triangulation is not an issue that I need to even concern myself with as you have yet to establish your sources for this data as real people, giving real testimony. AT BEST you have anonymous sources(including a fucking BLOG), working from memory, at a later date (possibly months later), passed through two bias organizations, with no corroborating evidence.
There are about 8+ different layers of reasonable doubt here.


2. It attempts to attack the credibility of the report, but does not provide any basis to support the attack other than some length of time being of some concern. [/quote]
Absolutely false.
Anonymous sources (which you assert are credible and professional for...reasons despite a total lack of information on them) is a source for concerns.
Repeating 3rd-4th hand hearsay as credible (which you also do) is a source for concern.
Factual errors in the timeline of events in BOTH directions (its wrong if the reports right, and it's even more wrong if it's not) are a cause for concern.
The bias both from NARCAP, and from the organization doing the interviews (maybe!) is a cause for concern.
The inconsistencies between what the author(s) of the report claim the evidence says and what their own figures shows (that the tower could have easily seen the UFO) is a cause for concern.
The fact that the testimony from "Witness B" after the fact does not match the testimony from Witness B on the transcript is cause for concern.

Really tired of swimming against your conformation bias.

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  However, it does not acknowledge the length of time it would require to prepare the report,...
In the time between the event happening and the interviews taking place at least one witness tells an entirely different series of events. (Witness B)
Secondly if they got it 20 minutes after it bloody happen they are still, in the report, conveying 3rd-4th hand information. Which is hearsay. In every single instance accept the transcripts, and most of the testimony given after the fact does not match the transcripts.

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  nor does it consider that the report may have gotten it's information months previous to the release of the report.
They may have. And they may have gotten it a month before publication. This is idle speculation, and I'll have none of it given the weight of the already present concerns over the veracity and reliability of the report.

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  3. It assumes the possibility that the witnesses were not actually witnesses to the event in support of the report, when there is no basis or reason to doubt that they weren't.
Just as an example: Witness B's testimony follows a completely different timeline than witness B in the transcript. His after the fact testimony makes either every other persons testimony suspect (having seen it leave before anyone else saw it arrive) or his testimony is self refuting (his claim after the fact puts his sighting nearly 40 minutes after the claim on the transcript).
The fact that the sources are anonymous, can't be investigated or verified in anyway, and even in one case come from a fucking blog post is enough evidence to justify doubt. MORE than enough.

(14-09-2015 06:13 PM)Free Wrote:  4. This position does not consider the fact that if the witnesses did enter a court of law to give testimony...
I'm not interested in your story time nonsense, and I'm frankly tired of hearing your "court room this, court room that" bullshit when you keep failing to display a single ounce of a clue how that case would ACTUALLY go.
Pro tip: It involves more than one goddamn question.

IF the witnesses did entire court it. IF. More fuckin' story time, hazzah. Well Free IF that happened it would be ALL of them and not just yours. How about you bring the fucking witnesses to court and stop writing courtroom fan fiction about how you think it would go if only your witnesses were there and no one asked them any questions, and there where no other witnesses saying the opposite.

Name me a single witness that you have called "professional and credible". Just one. Name one. How in the sweet fuck did you ascertain that an anonymous witness was credible or not especially in light of one giving wildly contradictory testimony?

This is the case you find so compelling? Really?

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: