UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2015, 09:05 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 09:27 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
I think this was a double post, but I can't be sure. Can you click the spoiler and find out?

Thanks.

Do you have a cunt?

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, 09:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 08:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 08:45 PM)Free Wrote:  We have argued enough for you to have learned by now that when I know someone has a point, I will acknowledge it.

But if I believe they don't, I will argue with them until they convince me they are right or I prove them wrong, for if they don't provide a convincing argument, then I am not wrong.

Its' all about how I am approached in a debate. If someone takes a swing at me, I will go for their throat. If they are reasonable, I can be reasoned with.

Tone policing isn't debate.

True.

Quote:Your standards for what constitutes a "convincing argument" are themselves inherently subjective, of course, particularly when challenging sincerely held presuppositions, and when that standard is in direct, explicit contradiction of a great number of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people...

Of course it is subjective, but that is the same way for most people. Each of us begins from a point of belief in the truth of our held positions, and then test them against others. For some of us, our life experiences- particularly those grounded in real physical events- can contribute some rather unusual beliefs such as those I ascribe to.

Yes, my reality is certainty subjective to everyone here, but it needs to be. We all have our "little green man hiding in our closets", and while some will talk about it, others will not risk the exposure.

Quote:Saying you're [apparently] wrong and [demonstrably] unsubsantiated in your position is not a personal attack. There's no need to treat it as one.

That depends on who the person is that is saying it. If that person has a history of being dishonest towards me, I don't even listen to what they say. Generally, their statements are disregarded out of hand.

Like I said, if you can be reasonable, I can be reasoned with. I think that is true for us all.

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, 09:25 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 08:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 08:51 PM)Free Wrote:  I don't think that my personal experience is worth more than external corroboration at all. Sure I value it, but if I can find external corroboration for or against, then I welcome it either way.

And when that corroboration is wishful thinking, unfalsifiable special pleading?

That opinion is subjective. I post reasonable analogies to explain a position of belief which is only subjective according to those who cannot relate to it. Yes, it is unfalsifiable for a certainty, but so is anybodies personal reality.

Do we always need to examine each other's personal reality from a position of whether or not it unfalsifiable? No matter what belief we have, be it aliens, or even the Big Bang, each and every one of us is subjected to apologetics in defence of it if anyone opposes it.

Yes I know, where you see an "extraordinary claim" from your reality may not be so extraordinary from another's reality.

That's what personal experience with our realities is, and there's really not much we can do about it.

It's life.

Quote:
(15-09-2015 08:51 PM)Free Wrote:  I only reject so many other's subjective experiences because they do not relate to me, and/or they are far too dubious.

"Others" here being the entire established scientific corpus. I guess that's an option.

Again, it's a difference in our personal realities and life experiences. It really doesn't matter what the corpus asserts to anybody, for if beliefs are entrenched from a confirmed shared experience grounded in a confirmed physical event ... there's not a god damn thing anybody can do about it.

And that's life too. It happens. Weird shit happens.

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, 09:31 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Holy fuck-nuts.

I guess it's interesting to see fundamentalist incredulity isn't limited to just the theists.

Thanks Free!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-09-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:05 PM)Free Wrote:  I think this was a double post, but I can't be sure. Can you click the spoiler and find out?

Thanks.

Do you have a cunt?

"Winning" 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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-09-2015, 09:37 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  That opinion is subjective. I post reasonable analogies to explain a position of belief which is only subjective according to those who cannot relate to it. Yes, it is unfalsifiable for a certainty, but so is anybodies personal reality.

You post godawful presuppositional analogies. There's a difference.

(15-09-2015 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  Do we always need to examine each other's personal reality from a position of whether or not it unfalsifiable? No matter what belief we have, be it aliens, or even the Big Bang, each and every one of us is subjected to apologetics in defence of it if anyone opposes it.

The big bang is a coherent, falsifiable, scientifically grounded theory, which constitutes the best available explanation for all presently observable data.

That's a far cry from "a wizard did it", Free.

(15-09-2015 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes I know, where you see an "extraordinary claim" from your reality may not be so extraordinary from another's reality.

We all share the same reality. Some choose not to engage with it.

(15-09-2015 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  That's what personal experience with our realities is, and there's really not much we can do about it.

It's life.

That someone out there believes something, no matter how devoutly, is not grounds to give it any serious consideration.

You, yourself reject innumerable claims, even when unfalsifiable. You are simply unable to consistently apply a single set of standards.

(15-09-2015 09:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:"Others" here being the entire established scientific corpus. I guess that's an option.

Again, it's a difference in our personal realities and life experiences. It really doesn't matter what the corpus asserts to anybody, for if beliefs are entrenched from a confirmed shared experience grounded in a confirmed physical event ... there's not a god damn thing anybody can do about it.

And that's life too. It happens. Weird shit happens.

Ah! So you are going full KC.
(to wit: MY FEELS ARE MY FEELS NO MATTER WHAT REALITY SAYS)

That, at least, I can live with. It is honest. But it is an explicit admission that your personal convictions are rooted in inextricably subjective and ineffably incommunicable personal experience.

Which makes the cavalcade of personal insults you've spewed not only (revealingly?) pathetic but admittedly useless. What, then, could you possibly have hoped to accomplish by them?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-09-2015, 09:38 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 09:31 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Holy fuck-nuts.

I guess it's interesting to see fundamentalist incredulity isn't limited to just the theists.

Thanks Free!

Y'know, I've said it before, and I've no doubt it'll need be repeated:

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
15-09-2015, 10:48 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:33 PM)Free Wrote:  I will return later to expose the rest of the bullshit.

Slight problem(s) though with the transcripts as presented by NARCAP.
[Image: 1c2bb910-44a9-418b-aa8d-6c46c1f7fa8f_zpsp3fiyfyl.jpg]

Everyone might have to come back to this one from time to time, but here is what is important:
Note the recording number and the time listed.
Note the number of recordings.

[Image: a3f622ae-3ce5-47c7-88c8-23441881ee7d_zps1ogwvean.jpg]
This section of the report lists Table 3 as representing Recording #1 with a time between 4:30 and 4:32. Despite being a nearly a full minute sort, given that it was an approximation, this largely gels with Figure 10 in the first picture. No real problem so far.
Please note however that this transcript only contains start and stop times.
[Image: Screenshot_2015-09-15-20-57-531_zpshin7xagn.jpg]
The first sentence above Table 4 calls this the "second recording" and takes place between "4:47 and 4:49pm" and lasts for 89 seconds. However if you go back to Figure 10 you will see that the second recording is for the time 4:52 and 4:53 so they have confused which call belongs to which. However then then go on to list Table 4 as having Recording #3 so it seems do not notice this error and display the correct ( 3rd) recording.
Please note however that this transcript, as can be seen below, only contains a start time and no stop times despite a stop time being mentioned in Figure 10.
[Image: b8fdf99b-8990-416c-9127-8e318db96f23_zpskpjzmgz3.jpg]
Again the reports author errors in saying that Table 5 is a transcript of the 3rd recording at 4:52-4:53pm when according to Figure 10 recording #3 is at 4:47-4:49pm. Again however Table 5 actually uses Recording #2, the correct one, so the authors error, while amateurish and repeated twice in a row, is not actually damaging.
A few things to note is that this transcript features ONLY a start time and NO end time. (this is important in a bit) It should also be noted that the recordings are presented out of order, #1 ->#3 ->#2.
[Image: Screenshot_2015-09-15-21-01-541_zps0vah5ewl.jpg]
The author of the report lists the forth recording at 4:47:39-4:47:58 lasting for 19 seconds and informs the reader this exchange is Table 6. However Figure 10 lists no recording starting or ending at that time, and in fact has completely different times for Recording #4. Table 6 then goes on to list ENTIRELY different times from the authors assertion.
[Image: Screenshot_2015-09-15-21-03-501_zpsmfw7pldh.jpg]
Lasting far longer than 19 seconds.
[Image: 7cb46741-d241-41b8-bdbc-cc97c0829fe3_zps3du4zaxb.jpg]
Also please note that in Table 6 every single line has a time stamp on it. This is only true for transcripts alleged to be before 4pm and this is missing from EVERY other transcript which has at best in one case both a start and a stop time and in the others ONLY a start time.
[Image: Screenshot_2015-09-15-21-06-341_zpsej3eek21.jpg]
The time stamp on every line even ends in Table 6 once it's dealing with post 4pm times listing only a start time (the original start time for table 6 according to the author of the report) and one other time ...exactly the time when A/C2 (asserted by the author to be Witness B) talks about "seeing it, a UFO (not a craft Tongue) a half hour ago".
I'd also like to draw attention to the fact that there is a gap in table 6 over nearly an HOUR, which means that the transcripts in the report are edited and not the originals.
It also seems that everything from 3:57:20 -3:59:11 shouldn't be in table 6 at all because he says that table 6 starts at 4:47:39 and ends at 4:47:58 and lasts 19 minutes in total. In fact even Figure 10 lists no recordings starting at 4:47:39 and ending at 4:47:58 OR starting at :3:57:20 and ending at 3:59:11.
Furthermore Figure 10 lists 5 recordings but Recording #5 is no where to be found in the report.

Some questions:
How can Figure 10 possibly be accurate if it lists end times which don't appear anywhere in the transcripts?
Where did the transcripts from 3:57:20-:3:59:11 come from given that the author says recording #4, which is table 6, starts and ends nearly an entire HOUR after that? Why are they included in table 6 at all, and where do they actually belong?
Where is recording 5?
Why does a single transcript (the one that's not even supposed to be in table 6) contain time stamps for each instance while the others only include Start times, and a single stop time? Why does this then revert back to normal once we get the the correct times for Table 6? Why aren't the time stamps constantly applied? Did the FAA give NARCAP transcripts with dozens of missing time stamps or did NARCAP delete the other time stamps? Why does this inconsistency ONLY occur in times which don't seem to belong in the table they are in and during the "timezone" error?

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
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
15-09-2015, 10:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:44 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Your personal incredulity is not an argument.
So you honestly believe it was Venus?
If people really believe that was Venus after reading that account of the Belgium Wave, then HOLY SHIT we are lost as a people!! Why am I even talking to someone who cant tell the difference between Venus and a description of something that is OBVIOUSLY NOT Venus!!!

(15-09-2015 07:44 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You still have nothing better than "it was not conclusively identified". Leaping from that to "it was aliens" is still very, very silly.
That's why its called the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, and more investigation is needed!!!! Is it really that hard to understand???

(15-09-2015 07:44 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The investigation has been done. The result is, always and invariably, nothing.
I don't remember any governments jumping in and doing any exhaustive investigations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2015, 11:03 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 11:42 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(15-09-2015 07:49 PM)Free Wrote:  WhiskeyDebates! You've just been caught out lying to everybody in this thread! What will you do now??

Ignore your assertion considering the fact that when investigated the Tables and Figure 10, and the authors own writing contradict each other in such away as to make a manipulation of the timeline obvious(inserting mystery transcripts into where they are not supposed to be).
Then I'll wait for you to actually address the content of the post you just quoted instead of calling me a lier, and avoiding every criticism in there (oh ...oh...whats that? that's the fallacy train? Shame you can't ever seem to spot your ownDrinking Beverage ). And while I'm doing that apparently, as I did above, I'll shred the reliability of the transcripts as presented by a biased organization by bringing attention to the fact that they are presented by NARCAP out of order, with missing time stamps, fabricated time stamps, and that the author of the report contradicts the Figure 10 in the report and can't even seem to figure out which recording goes where.

This is why we do not let biased organizations issue reports on the very subject they are biased for. What peer-review did this report pass through again? Oh right.

Please Free, tell me again how we only have "eyewitness" observation of a single phenomena to prove the Big Bang Theory.

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
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: