UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  But ... this case all comes down to whether or not you make a choice to believe or disbelieve that the 12 witnesses, deemed credible due to being familiar with various aircraft, actually seen a UFO.

And whether or not that choice is rational.

And what conclusions we draw from that, and whether or not those are rational.

A hint: concluding that alien visitation is a plausible explanation is not rational.

(15-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  So what do we do about that? Do we dismiss it out of hand? Or do we investigate the claim to measure it's truth value?

We investigate, obviously.

It just so happens that investigation turns up a big, fat zilch.

"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
15-09-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 11:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  But ... this case all comes down to whether or not you make a choice to believe or disbelieve that the 12 witnesses, deemed credible due to being familiar with various aircraft, actually seen a UFO.

And whether or not that choice is rational.

And what conclusions we draw from that, and whether or not those are rational.

True.

Quote:A hint: concluding that alien visitation is a plausible explanation is not rational.

Perhaps, but concluding it is "possible" is rational, considering what we know about this vast universe. What it comes down to here are degrees of possibility. My feeling on what is "plausible" is that it defines a possibility as being high enough on the scale as to be very persuasive, where other possibilities lower on the scale may not be persuasive at all, but still possible.

Quote:
(15-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  So what do we do about that? Do we dismiss it out of hand? Or do we investigate the claim to measure it's truth value?

We investigate, obviously.

It just so happens that investigation turns up a big, fat zilch.

I haven't seen much here. Even Whiskey's investigation into the triangulation issue revealed he didn't go far enough. He didn't actually read the report, because in the report the triangulation issue is far more detailed than what he posted.

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
15-09-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 11:29 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:A hint: concluding that alien visitation is a plausible explanation is not rational.

Perhaps, but concluding it is "possible" is rational, considering what we know about this vast universe.

Only if your definition of "possible" is so loose as to be meaningless. You could assert that it's possible for aliens to be the perpetrator in a murder case with equal validity.

"Possible", as you are trying to use it, is worthless.

(15-09-2015 11:15 AM)Free Wrote:  I haven't seen much here.

Then you didn't pay attention.

There is no verification possible for anything the "witnesses" say. There isn't even verification of their having been there. There are only nine "witnesses" listed in the report, and of those, only four actually claim to have seen anything strange, and of those, one said it was a balloon and the rest couldn't agree on what they saw.

And this is without going into things like all the people who should have seen something and didn't, or the "witnesses" listed who saw nothing or were simply added to the list because they happened to be standing next to another witness at some point.

Even looking exclusively at the three witnesses who apparently saw something, there is no verification that any of their reports were accurate. Your obsession with triangulation is utterly irrelevant, since it uses entirely speculative figures. It is in no way evidence of anything.

There is absolutely no evidence of alien visitation in the report.

"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
15-09-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 10:42 AM)Free Wrote:  Since you have been demonstrated as exhibiting characteristics unbecoming that of an honest person, everything you say now is held in suspicion of treason of reason.
Sadcryface So a delusional twat thinks I'm dishonest. I'm heartbroken.

Quote:Until you admit my point regarding anecdotal evidence, nothing you can say can be trusted, nor taken seriously.
Your "point" is not true. So there's no way I'm gonna tell you you were right all along.

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, 11:49 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
On a positive and totally irrelevant note, my rep is now 5^3 Smile Thanks Free, you pointless dickhead.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-09-2015, 12:02 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 12:12 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 11:37 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Then you didn't pay attention.

There is no verification possible for anything the "witnesses" say. There isn't even verification of their having been there. There are only nine "witnesses" listed in the report, and of those, only four actually claim to have seen anything strange, and of those, one said it was a balloon and the rest couldn't agree on what they saw.

And this is without going into things like all the people who should have seen something and didn't, or the "witnesses" listed who saw nothing or were simply added to the list because they happened to be standing next to another witness at some point.

Even looking exclusively at the three witnesses who apparently saw something, there is no verification that any of their reports were accurate. Your obsession with triangulation is utterly irrelevant, since it uses entirely speculative figures. It is in no way evidence of anything.

There is absolutely no evidence of alien visitation in the report.

Here is some evidence that directly challenges your quote above.

Firstly, the Chicago Tribune investigation demonstrated that there was in fact a conspiracy to withhold information about the incident. That is a matter of public record, and they still believe other information is being withheld, and I will show you why.


It seems the first mention of an object was at 3:58 pm:

"The above time estimates appear to be at variance with the FA'As inbound ground controller's statement made at 3:58:09 pm to Gateway flight 5668 to "...use caution for the ah, UFO" which is the first official mention of a UFO by the FAA."

http://www.narcap.org/reports/TR10_Case_18a.pdf

Here we have the inbound ground controller at 3:58 PM advising inbound aircraft to use caution in regards to the UFO.

However, the report from the 12 witnesses didn't start coming in until 4:15 PM:

"This report presents the results of an investigation into an interesting incident at O'Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006 at about 1615 hrs (4:15 pm) CST that had definite safety implications. O'Hare UFO News Report a number of highly reliable airline employees and others reported seeing a round, revolving, gray, metallic appearing object "

http://www.narcap.org/reports/TR10_Case_18a.pdf

What we see here is obvious. The tower controllers knew the UFO was present even before the witnesses did. All of this is in the official documents. What this demonstrates is that the object was known some 17 minutes before the 12 witnesses started to report it, and that information was attempted to be covered up, and is still being covered up today.

The questions that need to be answered here are obvious.

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
15-09-2015, 12:17 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 12:20 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 12:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Here is some evidence that directly challenges your quote above.

It really doesn't.

(15-09-2015 12:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Firstly, the Chicago Tribune investigation demonstrated that there was in fact a conspiracy to withhold information about the incident.

No, it didn't. Hilkevitch himself, the reporter in question, stated, in response to the video that you posted earlier in the thread, that "Conspiracy theorists certain that the government routinely covers up evidence supporting real UFO sightings viewed the off-air banter as proof enough. Never mind that I hadn't provided any confirmed information that I hadn't already reported."

(15-09-2015 12:02 PM)Free Wrote:  It seems the first mention of an object was at 3:58 pm... <snip>

WhiskeyDebates has already pointed out all the issues with the report's timeline. For those who missed it:

Quote:Right but if he claims to see the hole at 4:22 then he is seeing the object LEAVE a full 10 minutes before anyone else see the object it's self. Is it a motherfucking TARDIS now, cause that timeline is physically impossible. That impossibility is also why the NARCAP report flat out lied and created a new timeline saying that 22:55UTC is 3:55pm CST when 22:55 UTC is 4:55pm CST.

Let me explain it better:
Witness B claims in the report that he saw it WHILE taxing UAL44 Maintenance. The transcript at 4:48 says says that he saw it "a half an hour ago" which would place it at 4:18 but lets just go with 4:22 to keep it in line with the above time. Here is the problem: The NARCAP report Table 6 (page 37) shows that UAL44 Maintenance didn't start taxing until 4:57pm nearly 40 goddamn minutes AFTER the anonymous Witness B claims the event happened.
This is physically impossible. Which is why the NARCAP report tries to change the time from 4:55 to 3:55.

He can't claim to have seen it WHILE taxing UAL44 Maintenance at 4:22 if taxiing didn't start until 4:57. Witness B is either two separate people (guy on transcript, separate guy giving testimony used int he report) or has a memory so unreliable the rest of his testimony is worthless.

This isn't a conspiracy. This is an error within the report itself and an issue with the inaccuracy of one of the witness' accounts.

"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
15-09-2015, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 12:48 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 12:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 12:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Here is some evidence that directly challenges your quote above.

It really doesn't.

(15-09-2015 12:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Firstly, the Chicago Tribune investigation demonstrated that there was in fact a conspiracy to withhold information about the incident.

No, it didn't.

Yes, it did.

That is a matter of public record.

Quote:
(15-09-2015 12:02 PM)Free Wrote:  It seems the first mention of an object was at 3:58 pm... <snip>

WhiskeyDebates has already pointed out all the issues with the report's timeline. For those who missed it:

Quote:Right but if he claims to see the hole at 4:22 then he is seeing the object LEAVE a full 10 minutes before anyone else see the object it's self. Is it a motherfucking TARDIS now, cause that timeline is physically impossible. That impossibility is also why the NARCAP report flat out lied and created a new timeline saying that 22:55UTC is 3:55pm CST when 22:55 UTC is 4:55pm CST.

Let me explain it better:
Witness B claims in the report that he saw it WHILE taxing UAL44 Maintenance. The transcript at 4:48 says says that he saw it "a half an hour ago" which would place it at 4:18 but lets just go with 4:22 to keep it in line with the above time. Here is the problem: The NARCAP report Table 6 (page 37) shows that UAL44 Maintenance didn't start taxing until 4:57pm nearly 40 goddamn minutes AFTER the anonymous Witness B claims the event happened.
This is physically impossible. Which is why the NARCAP report tries to change the time from 4:55 to 3:55.

He can't claim to have seen it WHILE taxing UAL44 Maintenance at 4:22 if taxiing didn't start until 4:57. Witness B is either two separate people (guy on transcript, separate guy giving testimony used int he report) or has a memory so unreliable the rest of his testimony is worthless.

None of what Whiskey says here has anything at all to do with my previous quote. He doesn't even mention it, because he doesn't even know about it. Also, you should be aware that in regards to the time issues, Whiskey only gave you information he wanted you to see, but what he didn't give you is the information from the report on the explanations of the time variances. Instead of providing you with those explanations, he only provided you with his own version of the events using the information that the report already knew about and admitted.

In short, Whiskey intentionally withheld information from the report in an effort to present a version of the time-lines that do not constitute the actual position in the report at all.

He decided to exclude extremely relevant information.

Quote:This isn't a conspiracy. This is an error within the report itself and an issue with the inaccuracy of one of the witness' accounts.

Ummm ... nothing in that quote of Whiskey's says anything about what I have said. Not a thing.

You need to understand that what I am using here are the FAA documents that demonstrate that the tower controllers were aware of the UFO before anybody else. These documents are time-stamped, not approximations as per the witnesses.

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
15-09-2015, 12:48 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 12:52 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes, it did.

That is a matter of public record.

Repeating this doesn't make it any more true. If it is, you can give a source.

(15-09-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  None of what Whiskey says here has anything at all to do with my previous quote. He doesn't even mention it, because he doesn't even know about it.

Showing that the timeline in the report is inaccurate has everything to do with a conspiracy theory hinging on timing in the report.

(15-09-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to understand that what I am using here are the FAA documents that demonstrate that the tower controllers were aware of the UFO before anybody else. These documents are time-stamped, not approximations as per the witnesses.

No, you are using the report's transcripts of the FAA documents, and the time stamps they give are wrong, as Whiskey pointed out.

From Table 6, page 37: "Tape start time: 22:55 UTC = 3:55pm."

This is wrong. 22:55 UTC is 4:55 p.m. CST, not 3:55. And no, daylight savings time would not help. 22:55 UTC is 5:55 CDT, so it would actually make them more wrong.

Hell, the report itself even points this out in the preceding paragraph: "The fourth recording was for the period 4:47:39 to 4:47:58 pm".

"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
15-09-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 12:48 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes, it did.

That is a matter of public record.

Repeating this doesn't make it any more true. If it is, you can give a source.

Sure.

The Chicago Tribune.

"Both United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) first denied that they had any information on the O'Hare UFO sighting until the Chicago Tribune, which was investigating the report, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The FAA then ordered an internal review of air-traffic communications tapes to comply with the Tribune FOIA request which subsequently uncovered a call by the United supervisor to an FAA manager in the airport tower concerning the UFO sighting."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27H...O_sighting

The Freedom of Information Act request is a matter of public record.

Quote:
(15-09-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  None of what Whiskey says here has anything at all to do with my previous quote. He doesn't even mention it, because he doesn't even know about it.

Showing that the timeline in the report is inaccurate has everything to do with a conspiracy theory hinging on timing in the report.

It's time-stamped. This is the FAA's record, not the witness reports.

And its not wrong.

Quote:
(15-09-2015 12:24 PM)Free Wrote:  You need to understand that what I am using here are the FAA documents that demonstrate that the tower controllers were aware of the UFO before anybody else. These documents are time-stamped, not approximations as per the witnesses.

No, you are using the report's transcripts of the FAA reports, and the time stamps they give are wrong, as Whiskey pointed out.

From Table 6, page 37: "Tape start time: 22:55 UTC = 3:55pm."

This is wrong. 22:55 UTC is 4:55 p.m. CST, not 3:55.

Hell, the report itself even points this out in the preceding paragraph: "The fourth recording was for the period 4:47:39 to 4:47:58 pm".

Again, it's the FFA's time-stamped report, not the witnesses approximations.

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: