UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
By the way, for those posts that I have not replied to, I apologize. I do not have a computer at home and I can only post on my down time and breaks on my computer at work. So more than likely I will not get around to everyone's posts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 07:33 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 06:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 06:08 PM)Free Wrote:  Not sure why you didn't simply click the links at the Wiki site, which take you to the Chicago Tribune archives which broke the story, and which tells us the situation regarding them forcing the Freedom of Information Act upon the FAA and United Airways. Go to the link below, and read top to bottom, and you will see you can click to Page 2. It's on Page 2, underneath the header "Federal agency backtracks."

I've read it.

It is not, in any way, evidence of a conspiracy. At best, and this is assuming that the report is entirely correct, it is evidence that the FAA gave a wrong answer - and then immediately gave up the information it was allegedly trying to hide. Rather a poor excuse for a conspiracy, if you ask me.

Oh there's more, and we'll get to that later.

Quote:
(15-09-2015 06:08 PM)Free Wrote:  No, there is no direct evidence.

Save that literally everything else in the report only makes any sense if it occurred at 4:55 and that the UTC time stamp clearly indicates 4:55 CST.

And this take us right back to Whiskey's post about the time-line, which you seem to think he threw into suspect. But let's put his assertions to the test and see what the real truth here actually is:

Here's his quote:

WhiskeyDebates Wrote: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.

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.

Whiskey's position is that because the reports shows different time-lines it MUST mean NARCAP lied in the report. He then goes on a tangent about how the time-line he's reading cannot possibly be accurate, and claims the whole thing to be bogus. His language is very colorful, humerous even, but it isn't enough to hide the truth.

I told you Whiskey didn't actually read the file, for he states above his assertion of "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

If he would have read the file, he would have noticed that the NARCAP report explicitly tells us that the FAA's inbound ground controller's statement is not consistent with the rest of times listed in the report. Here is the record:

"The above time estimates appear to be at variance with the FAA's 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. Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour, that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error, or for some other reason? Without definitive data we will assume that the UAP departed at about 4:34 pm. (+/- 1 min.) This time is important for the discussions of the hole in the cloud of Section 5.0, possible radar contact, and when ATC personnel looked for it from the control tower.


The NARCAP report- in the interests of intellectual honesty- then adjusts for the FAA's blunder regarding the time-line, and then goes on to explain the rest of the time-line. If they did not adjust for the FAA's error, then we would be stuck with the tower telling the pilot "avoid the ah ... UFO" at 3:55, 17 minutes before anybody said anything.

Therefore, Whiskey's assertion that the NARCAP report somehow "lied" is but an exposed lie in itself, and is nothing but an attempt to deceive anyone who is reading this topic.

I warned you, and everyone else, that this would happen with him.

That is exceptionally shallow, especially since the document itself makes the time variance fully known, and it is not NARCAP's error, but rather the FAA. NARCAP merely points it out on the FAA document, recognizes the FAA mistake, and adjusts for the mistake.

Whiskey's assertions here about the attempted deception regarding the time-line can be dismissed ... completely.

I will return later to expose the rest of the bullshit.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 07:38 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Free how can you recognise a UFO when you cannot even recognise a lost cause?

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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
15-09-2015, 07:41 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Oh there's more, and we'll get to that later.

Uh huh.

(15-09-2015 07:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Whiskey's position is that because the reports shows different time-lines it MUST mean NARCAP lied in the report.

I don't know or care whether or not NARCAP falsified the time stamp. It is irrelevant, since we know the time stamp is wrong anyway. The transcript is from 4:55, not 3:55, and that doesn't change no matter what caused the inaccuracy.

The tower was still not aware of any alleged UFO prior to the initial report at 4:18. There is still no evidence of a conspiracy carried out by the FAA to hide the information. There is still no verification of the identities of the "witnesses" or the information contained in their reports. Leaping from "it was an unknown craft" to "it was aliens" is still irrational.

You still have no argument.

"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
15-09-2015, 07:43 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:38 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Free how can you recognise a UFO when you cannot even recognise a lost cause?

Hey dude.

I understand how much I have annoyed you. But you need to understand that I know when someone is lying to me, or lying to you in this discussion, and I can get vicious about it.

So before you judge me just remember that Unbeliever- to his credit- finally conceded a point on the issue of anecdotal evidence, and WhiskeyDebates was just exposed for lying to everybody who is reading this thread.

It isn't over. All I ask is for you to pay very close attention, and give it a chance.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 07:44 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:24 PM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  So I present the above account and all that is offered in return is the planet Venus!
Seriously!! Wake up!! Stop with your ridiculous nonsense and be honest with yourself!

Venus???? Really? Really???

Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

You still have nothing better than "it was not conclusively identified". Leaping from that to "it was aliens" is still very, very silly.

(15-09-2015 07:24 PM)JonMJ33 Wrote:  Eye witness accounts are here to stay whether you like it or not, and they need to be taken more seriously so that further investigation can be done!

The investigation has been done. The result is, always and invariably, nothing.

Eyewitness accounts leading to investigation is fine. You pretending that anecdotes are, in and of themselves, evidence is not.

"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
15-09-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Since all we have in regards to any kind of "evidence" to support belief in the Big Bang is "eyewitness" observations of objects in the universe moving away from what appears to be a central point...
Are you fucking serious? The ONLY evidence we have of the Big Bang is the promises of scientists that they have observed a single spacial phenomena? Did you actually just type the above?

HOLY.SHIT.

(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  oh and maybe a couple of other things that seem to indicate as such ...
Maybe?! A "couple of other things"?!

You mean decades of interdependently verified, tested, demonstrated evidence including multiple verified experiments, the fact that it's the only known theory that explains CMB, that it explains the abundance of hydrogen and helium, or that we have numerous computer models that make who knows how many successful predictions based off the BBT every single year?

So ya motherfucker, a "couple of things".


(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  I want a direct "yes" or "no" answer to that question above.
No one gives a fuck what you want. Observations become evidence once they have been verified accurate and not before. The scientific method does not rely on what scientists claim to have observed (anecdotes) at ANY POINT in the process, it relies on demonstrable and verifiable data. This is shit they teach in grade 3 science class.


(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me see a show of hands children! What did you learn about anecdotal evidence today?
I learned that you still don't fucking know that anecdotes are not evidence. I also learned that you are a scientifically ignorant hillbilly who's not content to lie about the evidence in just one case but in fact willing to lie about the evidence contributing to the wide spread acknowledgment of the Big Bang Theory as factually accurate.


(15-09-2015 08:19 AM)Free Wrote:  .....without a scientist(s) first observing objects moving away from a central point, no scientists could generate any kind of "belief" in a Big Bang or a singularity insomuch as to continue the investigation.
You continue to betray a complete lack of knowledge on how the Big Bang Theory came about and gained acceptance. First off eyewitness is a FIRST hand account of an event, not a person who looks at the after effects of an event. A person who does blood splatter analysis is not a fucking eyewitness to a murder. An arson investigator is not a fucking eyewitness to the arson. A scientist investigating objects moving away from a central point is not a fucking eyewitness to the Big Bang. Observation does not mean the same thing as eye witnessing. You are inserting faulty terminology to make shitty DISHONEST comparisons.

The Law of Cause and Effect is what leads the scientists to KNOW that this fucking effect has a fucking cause.

Even if I grant you idiotic notion that observation=belief (which it fucking does not) they are "eyewitnesses" to .....planets moving away from a central point (Not a big bang/Singularity) so that would "generate a belief" in......the idea that planets are moving away from a central point. It does not "generate belief" in a Big Bang or a singularity as a cause any more than it does in fairies, God, or that the planets are all going through a rough time in their relationship and just need a little space Ok?

What ACTUALLY lead to the belief in the BBT by the public at large, the scientific community, and by the scientists making the observation was the fucking huge mountain of indisputable, falsifiable, testable, reproducible, demonstrable independently verified and verifiable EVIDENCE. Do you know what would have happened if those scientists presented to peer-review a report that included nothing by their own personal anecdotes and no testable, reproducible, demonstrable data or even no data of any kind? NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE ANECDOTES DO NOT GENERATE BELIEF.
[Image: 3stqet.jpg]
The bigger problem you have is even that nonsense above is not even a good comparison of what you actually brought to the table so let me reword the above to better fit it.
Do you know what would happen if a biased organization submitted for peer review a report containing interviews of a cheery picked sample of anonymous, unproven, undocumented 3rd and 4th hand accounts taken from interviews heald by a second biased organization at an unknown time which were recalled from memory after the fact, which do not agree with each other, with no corroborating physical evidence, which contained no demonstrable, testable, reproducible, or measurable data or even data of any kind whatsoever? NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE THEM, AND THEY WOULD BE BLACKLISTED, BECAUSE THAT IS FUCKING INSANE.

If you actually submitted your "evidence" for actual review you would be the equivalent of Andrew Motherfucking Wakefield. You have repeatedly falsified your "evidence" by falsifying the number of whiteness, falsifying the quality of their testimony, falsifying both the testimony it's self and the internal consistency of said testimony, falsifying the known credibility of your witnesses. You have exaggerated your evidence beyond reason.

And, AND, AND you have the fucking gall, the fucking NERVE to do all this while bitching about other peoples alleged use of false comparisons? What a fucking joke.
[Image: CR_so_fuck_you.gif]



(15-09-2015 08:22 AM)Free Wrote:  You are done.

Nothing you say will hold an ounce of credibility whatsoever. There isn't an intellectually honest bone in you entire fucking body.

Could you be a bigger hypocrite? You sir get to shut the absolute fuck up with this kind of crap when you are STILL repeating lies that "there were 12 witnesses" when it's been shown that's not the case at all, that "all 12 witnesses reported seeing an aircraft" which is not the fucking case at all, that they are " professional and credible" of which there is no evidence at all. While also deliberately lying when you said I had no source and was making stuff up WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY quoting me with my source in the quote as well as logs, charts, time stamps, and fucking page numbers in the same damn post you made the accusation in.

You do NOT get to call ANYONE ELSE dishonest. You fucking lying hypocrite.

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
15-09-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:43 PM)Free Wrote:  So before you judge me just remember that Unbeliever- to his credit- finally conceded a point on the issue of anecdotal evidence

I conceded nothing. I have been saying this same exact thing since the beginning of the thread. I honestly have no idea why you were shocked by my acknowledgement that backing up anecdotes with actual evidence makes any given case quite a bit stronger.

You simply fail to understand what is said to you.

"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
15-09-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:46 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Since all we have in regards to any kind of "evidence" to support belief in the Big Bang is "eyewitness" observations of objects in the universe moving away from what appears to be a central point...
Are you fucking serious? The ONLY evidence we have of the Big Bang is the promises of scientists that they have observed a single spacial phenomena? Did you actually just type the above?

HOLY.SHIT.

(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  oh and maybe a couple of other things that seem to indicate as such ...
Maybe?! A "couple of other things"?!

You mean decades of interdependently verified, tested, demonstrated evidence including multiple verified experiments, the fact that it's the only known theory that explains CMB, that it explains the abundance of hydrogen and helium, or that we have numerous computer models that make who knows how many successful predictions based off the BBT every single year?

So ya motherfucker, a "couple of things".


(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  I want a direct "yes" or "no" answer to that question above.
No one gives a fuck what you want. Observations become evidence once they have been verified accurate and not before. The scientific method does not rely on what scientists claim to have observed (anecdotes) at ANY POINT in the process, it relies on demonstrable and verifiable data. This is shit they teach in grade 3 science class.


(15-09-2015 07:05 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me see a show of hands children! What did you learn about anecdotal evidence today?
I learned that you still don't fucking know that anecdotes are not evidence. I also learned that you are a scientifically ignorant hillbilly who's not content to lie about the evidence in just one case but in fact willing to lie about the evidence contributing to the wide spread acknowledgment of the Big Bang Theory as factually accurate.


(15-09-2015 08:19 AM)Free Wrote:  .....without a scientist(s) first observing objects moving away from a central point, no scientists could generate any kind of "belief" in a Big Bang or a singularity insomuch as to continue the investigation.
You continue to betray a complete lack of knowledge on how the Big Bang Theory came about and gained acceptance. First off eyewitness is a FIRST hand account of an event, not a person who looks at the after effects of an event. A person who does blood splatter analysis is not a fucking eyewitness to a murder. An arson investigator is not a fucking eyewitness to the arson. A scientist investigating objects moving away from a central point is not a fucking eyewitness to the Big Bang. Observation does not mean the same thing as eye witnessing. You are inserting faulty terminology to make shitty DISHONEST comparisons.

The Law of Cause and Effect is what leads the scientists to KNOW that this fucking effect has a fucking cause.

Even if I grant you idiotic notion that observation=belief (which it fucking does not) they are "eyewitnesses" to .....planets moving away from a central point (Not a big bang/Singularity) so that would "generate a belief" in......the idea that planets are moving away from a central point. It does not "generate belief" in a Big Bang or a singularity as a cause any more than it does in fairies, God, or that the planets are all going through a rough time in their relationship and just need a little space Ok?

What ACTUALLY lead to the belief in the BBT by the public at large, the scientific community, and by the scientists making the observation was the fucking huge mountain of indisputable, falsifiable, testable, reproducible, demonstrable independently verified and verifiable EVIDENCE. Do you know what would have happened if those scientists presented to peer-review a report that included nothing by their own personal anecdotes and no testable, reproducible, demonstrable data or even no data of any kind? NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE ANECDOTES DO NOT GENERATE BELIEF.
[Image: 3stqet.jpg]
The bigger problem you have is even that nonsense above is not even a good comparison of what you actually brought to the table so let me reword the above to better fit it.
Do you know what would happen if a biased organization submitted for peer review a report containing interviews of a cheery picked sample of anonymous, unproven, undocumented 3rd and 4th hand accounts taken from interviews heald by a second biased organization at an unknown time which were recalled from memory after the fact, which do not agree with each other, with no corroborating physical evidence, which contained no demonstrable, testable, reproducible, or measurable data or even data of any kind whatsoever? NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE THEM, AND THEY WOULD BE BLACKLISTED, BECAUSE THAT IS FUCKING INSANE.

If you actually submitted your "evidence" for actual review you would be the equivalent of Andrew Motherfucking Wakefield. You have repeatedly falsified your "evidence" by falsifying the number of whiteness, falsifying the quality of their testimony, falsifying both the testimony it's self and the internal consistency of said testimony, falsifying the known credibility of your witnesses. You have exaggerated your evidence beyond reason.

And, AND, AND you have the fucking gall, the fucking NERVE to do all this while bitching about other peoples alleged use of false comparisons? What a fucking joke.
[Image: CR_so_fuck_you.gif]



(15-09-2015 08:22 AM)Free Wrote:  You are done.

Nothing you say will hold an ounce of credibility whatsoever. There isn't an intellectually honest bone in you entire fucking body.

Could you be a bigger hypocrite? You sir get to shut the absolute fuck up with this kind of crap when you are STILL repeating lies that "there were 12 witnesses" when it's been shown that's not the case at all, that "all 12 witnesses reported seeing an aircraft" which is not the fucking case at all, that they are " professional and credible" of which there is no evidence at all. While also deliberately lying when you said I had no source and was making stuff up WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY quoting me with my source in the quote as well as logs, charts, time stamps, and fucking page numbers in the same damn post you made the accusation in.

You do NOT get to call ANYONE ELSE dishonest. You fucking lying hypocrite.

WhiskeyDebates! You've just been caught out lying to everybody in this thread! What will you do now??

[Image: mickey-mouse.jpg]

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 07:50 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:43 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 07:38 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Free how can you recognise a UFO when you cannot even recognise a lost cause?

Hey dude.

I understand how much I have annoyed you. But you need to understand that I know when someone is lying to me, or lying to you in this discussion, and I can get vicious about it.

So before you judge me just remember that Unbeliever- to his credit- finally conceded a point on the issue of anecdotal evidence, and WhiskeyDebates was just exposed for lying to everybody who is reading this thread.

It isn't over. All I ask is for you to pay very close attention, and give it a chance.

Mate you're 20 goals down with 5 minutes on the clock. It's over.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: