UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 08:26 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 08:14 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yet you have no idea how they could alter atmospheric physics, which is, you know, crucial to your hypothesis.

Have you looked into the g-forces or resistance involved in putting a 35' disc into orbit in two seconds? Broad face up, apparently?

What sort of energy might that maneuver require, and yet leave no trace? Any expenditure of energy leaves telltale marks -- heat, and/or noise. Were those reported? Was any propulsion/thrust source seen? Why no sound? Why no samage to the terminal underneath?

And -- why with all your experience are you overlooking such obvious questions?

Let me explain something to you, hypothetically.

Everything you said above is true according to human experience and technology. However, if aliens were to exist, we really cannot speak about what kind of technology they may possess.

They could be so technologically superior that we can't even begin to understand the physics they may have mastered.

As scary as this may sound, we humans may not be physically capable of producing the kind of intelligence required to understand some of the physics we are already aware of, let alone any physics we are not yet aware of.

Yes, I get that. But if you wish to posit that as an explanation, you should perhaps put some meat on them bones. Simply saying "they could do it" cuts no ice. How, and why, would they develop such technology?The obvious answer, that they wished to remain undetected, is rendered nugatory by the location they chose to display it, assuming your premises.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
14-09-2015, 10:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  We all know that any photo of any UFO is instantly met with "FAKE!" So a photo wouldn't make a bit of difference whatsoever.
How about any evidence whatsoever?

(14-09-2015 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  I would rest more easily if my "young mind" merely did see something that it could not understand. But the thing is, when you see something like this, it scares the memory of it into your mind so hard that you never, ever, forget it.
[Image: breaking-badfacepalmjesse-pinkmanannoyedamc.gif]
No your not emotionally invested in the subject at all.

(14-09-2015 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  The old man next door who seen it said, "I don't think they are from around here," in jest, but indicating he knew "somebody" was operating that thing.
Oh he knew did he? Well that solves the case then, why didn't you say so.

(14-09-2015 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  This was nothing naturally occurring.
Based on about 30+ seconds of alleged observation by two kids, an uncle who thought it was demonic, an old man, and some people next door.

(14-09-2015 08:13 PM)Free Wrote:  This was something all of us (except my uncle) later agreed upon as a craft of some kind, as it was so clearly visible as to not be any doubt about it.
Based on what expertise, what evidence, and how long after the fact?

Note: I'd like to point out that your account sounds utterly NOTHING like the O'Hare incident at all.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 08:26 PM)Free Wrote:  Let me explain something to you, hypothetically.

Everything you said above is true according to human experience and technology. However, if aliens were to exist, we really cannot speak about what kind of technology they may possess.

They could be so technologically superior that we can't even begin to understand the physics they may have mastered.

As scary as this may sound, we humans may not be physically capable of producing the kind of intelligence required to understand some of the physics we are already aware of, let alone any physics we are not yet aware of.
Inventing a narrative to justify a presupposition. Working from a conclusion backwards.

"Technology done it" is not a better hand wave then "magic done it". This is disgustingly unscientific.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 10:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 08:28 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 08:15 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Anecdote = worthless.

If you believe it is, then that's what it is to you. But that does not change my experience, and never will.

It's not a matter of belief that IS an anecdote. By definition.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
14-09-2015, 10:15 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(14-09-2015 08:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 08:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It is not, and has never been, evidence of alien visitation.

And stars and other objects all moving away from a seemingly central location is not, and has never been, evidence of a singularity that created the Big Bang.

Agreed?
That's testable, falsifiable, demonstrable, measurable and has nothing in common with a collection of wild assertions, with no measurable, demonstrable, or testable evidence and no internal consistency among the witnesses to the alleged event.

This is just stupid.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
15-09-2015, 12:24 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(10-09-2015 10:00 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  None of them ever resulted in the appearance of actual evidence in favor of alien visitation. All conclusions drawn to that effect were demonstrably baseless speculation.
Baseless?
Stop lying.

(10-09-2015 10:00 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, it's bunk because there are other explanations that better explain the phenomena.
Like Venus or Jupiter, or supposed radar glitches. Your gonna have to do better than that. If you read the reports and still think that the other explanations given are good explanations, I feel sorry for you. The explanations given are ridiculous!! Laugh out load

(10-09-2015 02:33 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Secondly, they want an official congressional hearing, but they are having trouble getting one.

(10-09-2015 10:00 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Gee. I wonder why.
Anything that would be this highly classified would have a problem getting to an official hearing. Use your brain please!

(10-09-2015 02:40 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Explain how Major Jesse Marcel who was one of the first on the scene in Roswell and is the one in the famous picture holding a piece of a downed weather balloon later on in life came out with what he really knew about the incident.

(10-09-2015 10:00 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Why? I have no idea. But Jesse Marcel is demonstrably lying about pretty much everything to do with Roswell and his degree of expertise in the field of aeronautics.
I don't know enough about the information presented in the link you provided, so I will look into it more. However, at first glance my first question is, where is this information coming from?

(10-09-2015 04:18 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Consider the COMETA report:

(10-09-2015 10:00 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have.

To use another's words, it's "an embarrassment… unsubstantiated data from questionable sources." And the one saying this, mark you, was a believer in alien visitation.

COMETA is bunk.
The link you provided is not very convincing. The author attacks the COMETA report by attacking the cases within the report. He attacks the Belgium Wave case by rightly pointing out that the picture taken by Patrick Marechal was a hoax. So because the picture was a hoax that all of a sudden means that what thousands of people saw over almost two years did not happen?
Give me a break!!Laugh out load

He also attacks the Belgium wave by stating that what the two officers saw was the planet Venus. Really Venus!! I hope he is not saying that with a straight face.
If you read the account you would see that a stationary planet in the night sky does not really look like a triangle craft with three white spot lights at every corner and a red light/ball/orb in the center which can detach from the craft itself. So Venus? Unlikely!
He also states that some of the first reports were from a disco light show. If true, so what? It means nothing in light of the rest of the almost two years worth of sightings.

The author then goes on to attack the 1976 UFO incident in Iran with two arguments against the case. The first is that the object seen was probably Jupiter. The second argument is that the F4 Phantom experienced problems with the avionics.
Again Jupiter? Really? Read the report, Jupiter does not fit the account.
As for the F-4's avionics, sure the F-4 has issues, but does that mean thats what happened? Read the report, these explanations are nonsense in light of the information expressed in the case.

All in all he does not do a very convincing job. More of the same old ridiculous explanations, denial and avoidance of the case as a whole.

The COMETA report stands, and the cases within it demand further official investigation and answers. The skeptical analyses and explanations of the COMETA report are hardly dissuasive for those who actually pay attention to the cases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 12:37 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Ah, welcome back OP Rolleyes

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
15-09-2015, 12:52 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Everyone seems to not value eyewitness testimony. They say it is not reliable. Ok sure eye witness accounts have been shown to be unreliable at times, but it has also been found to be reliable at other times. So do you throw the baby out with the bath water?
You especially don't throw out witness accounts when the other explanations are utterly ludicrous! Ludicrous because the explanation in no way matches the actual report.

Also explain UFO's being reported at nuclear missile facilities that resulted in the UFO's shutting down the nuclear missiles at multiple locations. You can hear about the events from the military witnesses here:




Explain why John Podesta, Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Obama's Counselor and Hillary Clinton's Chairman of her presidential campaign is pushing for disclosure.

-Obama aide John Podesta says ‘biggest failure’ was not securing the disclosure of UFO files





Also, why would Laurance Rockefeller be pushing for disclosure during Bill Clinton's presidency? You can read about the Rockefeller UFO initiative here:

-The Rockefeller Initiative
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 01:22 AM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 01:28 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 12:52 AM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Everyone seems to not value eyewitness testimony. They say it is not reliable. Ok sure eye witness accounts have been shown to be unreliable at times, but it has also been found to be reliable at other times. So do you throw the baby out with the bath water?
You especially don't throw out witness accounts when the other explanations are utterly ludicrous! Ludicrous because the explanation in no way matches the actual report.

'Eyewitness accounts' are so flawed, unreliable, and utterly lacking in objectivity; they aren't considered adequate evidence by science. Any researcher basing all of their 'evidence' upon eye witness testimony would never have their paper get past peer review.

What is more ludicrous? That a witness or witnesses have suffered from a mistaken, miss-remembered, miss-perception (which is so utterly common, you won't be able to perfectly remember the contents of the first few sentences I wrote without re-reading them)? Or that those lights in the sky really are physics-defying advanced alien spacecraft from another world? Facepalm

If lights in the sky are evidence of alien spacecraft, then this is evidence of giant evolution-defying sea monsters.

[Image: Godzilla%20-%209.gif]

Because dammit, I saw it! How can it not really be a giant sea-monster? That would be ludicrous!

Godzilla is real! Don't listen to the lies Hollywood tells you! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-09-2015, 03:07 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
I've tried to be open minded respectful and I have really had to stretch myself but this thread has just gone too batshit crazy now, I cant do it anymore my head hurts!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: