UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 04:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 04:29 PM)Free Wrote:  You can click the "dozens more" and search for yourself. That's why the link is there.

I have.

There's nothing.

Good, nothing for "you."

But here's something for you:

[Image: 04.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
16-09-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 07:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 05:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Several have pointed out known facts about the fallibility of human perception and interpretation.

And the observed cloud phenomenon is more simply explained as a natural phenomenon.

That dents it.

Yes, several have pointed that out, but none have demonstrated within reason or with a legitimate comparison how 12 credible witnesses, proficient at identifying various aircraft, could identify something as an aircraft from several different vantage points and distances.

The problem here, Chas, is that this particular event is so unique that there simply isn't anything that can be compared to it.

Yes, I have seen all the cloud formation information online, but this is more than just information about that.

People's minds make stuff up all the time to fill in non-existent lines connecting existing dots.

I completely disagree that any compelling evidence has been presented to make me increase my estimate of the reality of non-human activity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-09-2015, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2015 05:41 PM by Chas.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(13-09-2015 07:49 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  I recognized your statement that you were addressing the possibility from the get-go.

Thank you.

Quote:Just that it's unlikely.

Agreed, but not impossible in my view.

Quote:That crosses the line into ridiculous. An intelligent species with advanced technology that we have no evidence for?
Where are they hiding? Atlantis? Shangri La? Consider

Not sure why this is any more "ridiculous" than how you and others view the concept of interstellar aliens visiting earth.

If another animal evolved on earth that was more intelligent than we are, they could have evolved into a technologically superior species millions of years ago.

As humans, we tend to think we can understand intelligence, and also tend to assign a level of intelligence to all creatures around us, as if we actually are correct in doing so.

We tend to compare other species on earth to ourselves, and even humanize them all to some degree.

But the reality here Chas is we don't even understand how our dog thinks, or how he perceives things. We can't even have a good conversation with another species yet, aside from commands to our dogs, or sign language with apes.

So can we fairly think that an advanced intellectual species also living on earth would perceive and understand things even remotely similar to the human equation?

My point here is that, from your perspective, you are humanizing how another species would think they had to "hide" from us in some effort to qualify your position that it is ridiculous for another intelligent species to be living on our planet.

We do not know anything about such a species, which is true, but we also don't know anything about other species we constantly discover on a regular basis either ... until we do discover them.

You may find this conceivable, I don't. There is no evidence of another technological species, there is no good place for them to be hiding.

Quote:Yes, it's a long shot, but it's certainly a shorter distance than interstellar travel, and with new species being discovered regularly, I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

No, it's ridiculous.

Quote:I actually find it more plausible than interstellar aliens.

Why?

Quote:
Quote:Do you mean that some events actually occurred, or that the explanation is aliens?

Just that the event occurred as I described it. The alien postulation is actually merely a side point.

Quote:How about the zillion other things that it might be?

Okay, start listing them and see if they fit the claim.

I already did this, and ran out of things that could even come within a breath of "It was an aircraft that they could not identify."

How about there was an aircraft and there was a meteorological event, and the observers' minds filled in the blanks with what they were the most familiar?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 05:41 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 04:52 PM)Free Wrote:  Good, nothing for "you."

Nothing for anyone.

Evidence is evidence, no matter who you are. You have none.

"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
16-09-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 05:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 07:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes, several have pointed that out, but none have demonstrated within reason or with a legitimate comparison how 12 credible witnesses, proficient at identifying various aircraft, could identify something as an aircraft from several different vantage points and distances.

The problem here, Chas, is that this particular event is so unique that there simply isn't anything that can be compared to it.

Yes, I have seen all the cloud formation information online, but this is more than just information about that.

People's minds make stuff up all the time to fill in non-existent lines connecting existing dots.

That is true, but the problem I have with that in this case is that per the interviews with these witnesses, all were adamant that it was an aircraft. Some were asked about cloud formations and weather phenomenons and scoffed at the suggestion to the point of ridiculing it.

Quote:I completely disagree that any compelling evidence has been presented to make me increase my estimate of the reality of non-human activity.

The only thing that keeps me in the perspective of non human activity is the purported performance of the purported aircraft. If it performed as spectacularly as claimed- which is virtually identical to what we witnessed back in 1973- then that gives me, personally, more than the average quantity of reason to determine that a non human intellect is possible.

I cannot speak for the rest of you in terms of what your personal levels of belief in this can be, but rather can only relate this case to you from the virtue of personal experience, which of course is virtually unfalsifiable and verifiable, although in my case 3 of us are still alive.

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
16-09-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 05:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 04:52 PM)Free Wrote:  Good, nothing for "you."

Nothing for anyone.

Evidence is evidence, no matter who you are. You have none.

What? Didn't I give you a little green man already? What more do you want?

Facepalm

There's just no pleasing some ungrateful people ...

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
16-09-2015, 06:15 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 06:11 PM)Free Wrote:  That is true, but the problem I have with that in this case is that per the interviews with these witnesses, all were adamant that it was an aircraft.

No. Of the eight witnesses listed in the NARCAP report, only four stated that they saw something. Of those, one dismissed it as a bird and one dismissed it as a balloon, while the third simply stated that he saw something "aluminum, from below".

We have been over this multiple times before.

(16-09-2015 06:11 PM)Free Wrote:  The only thing that keeps me in the perspective of non human activity is the purported performance of the purported aircraft. If it performed as spectacularly as claimed- which is virtually identical to what we witnessed back in 1973- then that gives me, personally, more than the average quantity of reason to determine that a non human intellect is possible.

We have absolutely no reason to believe that there was a craft, let alone that it behaved at described.

And we've been through this before as well.

I don't know why I'm bothering at this 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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
16-09-2015, 07:09 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(08-09-2015 11:34 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Pilot of the UFO

[Image: strike_1.jpg]

I've seen a ufo on eight different occasions. One that I saw I was able to calculate the size because I saw it go behind a mountain peak and I scaled it off of a GIS topo map. it was over 600 ft long. As to what it was I can't say, hence the unidentified part. Are they evidence of aliens? No. They are evidence of something strange for sure. Not knowing what it was I saw has knawed at me ever since I'll admit but I can not make the leap to extra terrestrials.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 07:13 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 07:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Thank you.


Agreed, but not impossible in my view.


Not sure why this is any more "ridiculous" than how you and others view the concept of interstellar aliens visiting earth.

If another animal evolved on earth that was more intelligent than we are, they could have evolved into a technologically superior species millions of years ago.

As humans, we tend to think we can understand intelligence, and also tend to assign a level of intelligence to all creatures around us, as if we actually are correct in doing so.

We tend to compare other species on earth to ourselves, and even humanize them all to some degree.

But the reality here Chas is we don't even understand how our dog thinks, or how he perceives things. We can't even have a good conversation with another species yet, aside from commands to our dogs, or sign language with apes.

So can we fairly think that an advanced intellectual species also living on earth would perceive and understand things even remotely similar to the human equation?

My point here is that, from your perspective, you are humanizing how another species would think they had to "hide" from us in some effort to qualify your position that it is ridiculous for another intelligent species to be living on our planet.

We do not know anything about such a species, which is true, but we also don't know anything about other species we constantly discover on a regular basis either ... until we do discover them.

You may find this conceivable, I don't. There is no evidence of another technological species, there is no good place for them to be hiding.

I believe there is evidence to demonstrate the possibility of the existence of another technological species. Of course this evidence is subjective, but when we examine some old photographs from 60 + years ago, and from a time before the terms UFO and flying saucer were coined or even thought about, we have very good reason in the modern age to give some possibilities some legs.

The Cave Junction UFO was photographed in 1926 or 1927 by a volunteer fireman. Never debunked.

George Sutton UFO 1932 Never debunked.

And far more listed year by year here

As well as a history of UFO reports here.

All this old stuff is the best evidence to support belief in non human intelligence being behind some of these old photos and historical reports.

So yes, the circumstantial evidence to support an increased belief in non human intelligence exists, but again it is all subjective. The idea that any of the really old photos and reports are some kind of hoax just doesn't seem reasonable for that period of time where we see photos of saucer shaped craft in a period of time before UFOs and "flying saucers" were ever thought of.

Quote:
Quote:Yes, it's a long shot, but it's certainly a shorter distance than interstellar travel, and with new species being discovered regularly, I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

No, it's ridiculous.

Considering the historical evidence presented above, I do not see anything ridiculous about the possibility whatsoever. Reports and photos of such saucer shaped crafts have persisted for the past 100 years, therefore a history and time-line of them possibly being here continuously, exists.

Quote:
Quote:I actually find it more plausible than interstellar aliens.

Why?

Because of what I said above, and because we don't know what else could exist on this earth, especially in our oceans.

Quote:
Quote:Just that the event occurred as I described it. The alien postulation is actually merely a side point.


Okay, start listing them and see if they fit the claim.

I already did this, and ran out of things that could even come within a breath of "It was an aircraft that they could not identify."

How about there was an aircraft and there was a meteorological event, and the observers' minds filled in the blanks with what they were the most familiar?

You are speculating, and that is fine. But they checked the weather for that day, and nothing out of the ordinary was reported.

And as far as your suggestion that they "filled in the blanks with what they were the most familiar," all of them described an aircraft, and depending on the vantage point, they all described the same thing from their vantage points.

And none of them were familiar with a saucer shaped aircraft.

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
16-09-2015, 07:22 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 11:50 AM)Free Wrote:  All of this is explained by the fact that we have written transcripts from the FAA that show us the clerical errors, and the fact that NARCAP also obtained all the voice recordings from 3 tapes they received as a result of the Freedom of Information Act filing.

Cool and I can find these original transcripts and voice recordings ...where exactly? Because I went through every reference and even did a digital search for "www." in the document and I could find no link to the originals. So I went to their website and aside from having entire section of the website designated to how to give them money(surprise) I couldn't find the original transcripts or recordings or any links to them. I find it odd that they DO included in the references anonymously sourced news reports and other publications by the author but not the evidence that is the basis of their entire report. Did NARCAP make this evidence publicly available and if so where?

Also Figure 10 was produced by NARCAP not FFA so the FAA fucking up does not explain why the author of the report contradicts their own Figure 10 several times.

Page 38
"The phenomenon we are attempting to explain is described in the words of one of the witnesses: At around 4:30 in the afternoon of November 7 several employees of United Airline company witnessed a “disc shapped [sic] object” that was seen “hovering over gate C17 at the C concourse” of the Chicago O’Hare International Airport."

Page 10
"In the first version, the details provided to NARCAP by witness B are given. He said that while they were parked they both overheard a radio message from the flight crew of the B-737-500 at gate C17 talking on their company frequency about, "...a circle or disc shapped (sic) object hovering over gate." This fact tends to confirm that at least one of the two cockpit crewmen in the B-737-500 looked up at the object, i.e., either witness G and/or H.

Witness B continued, "At frist (sic) we laughed (sic) to each other and then the same pilot said again on the radio that it was about 700 feet agl (above ground level)... The radio irrupted (sic) with chatter about the object and the ATC controller that was handling ground traffic made a few smart comments about the alleged UFO siting (sic) above the C terminal."
According to witness B then they began to taxi the airplane to the west around taxiway Alpha (approaching United Concourse C on their right). Radio communications with the inbound ground controller showed that they began their taxi at 3:57:30 pm (see Table6).


So we have witness B testifying that they heard the call of a "disc shapped (sic) object" that was seen "hovering over gate" C17 which according to the report was at 4:30pm. This is confirmed on page 28 in Recording 1(Table 3) at 4:30. Then we have witness B claim that they laughed it off AND THEN they began taxing the airplane....which the report lists as being over a half an hour in the past at 3:57:30.

1.) Witness B hears the call at 4:30.
2.) Witness B hears a second call.
3.) Witness B begins taxing at 3:57:30.

Hmmm....

So if the times on the transcripts are correct then the testimony of Witness B has them START taxing nearly 33 minutes into the PAST. If the times on the transcripts are wrong and 22:55 UTC = 4:55 pm and not 3:55 that has their taxi time starting at 4:57:30 which would give us a time lien of ...

1.) Witness B hears the call at 4:30.
2.) Witness B hears a second call.
3.) Witness B begins taxing at 4:57:30.

Which is a total acceptable time line......with it's own problems. Namely that on the transcript A/C2 (claimed to be Witness B) says at 4:48:05 that they saw it a half hour ago which would be at 4:18(+/-).... 39 minutes before they began taxing and 12 minutes before the original call went out at 4:30...which would be perfectly fine (nothing in the transcripts refutes this timeline) HOWEVER....the anonymous and unproven testimony of Witness B says it happened WHILE they were taxing which could happen no earlier than 4:57 also known as nearly 10 minutes after they communicated having seen it and nearly 50 minutes into the future of when they said they saw it.

Summery: If 22:55 UTC = 3:55 pm is correct then Witness B's anonymous and unproven testimony that they saw it while taxing takes place 33 minutes before it should and if 22:55 UTC = 4:55 pm is correct then Witness B's anonymous and unproven testimony takes the even nearly an hour into the future.

The issue with the time stamps is irrelevant because either way Witness B's testimony does not and up and is false.


Side Note: I'd like to take the time to issue a personal statement:The fact that I have read a single page of the report was done out of courtesy to you Free. Because I didn't actually need to to dismiss your claim of a aircraft over O'Hare. You brought me a report that has not passed peer-review or even been submited for peer-review, published by a biased organization with most of the "research" done by a second even shadier biased group, containing no testable, demonstrable evidence, built almost entirely on anonymous, unproven, 3rd and 4th hand hearsay.
Let me be clear: In NO other field of inquiry, presented by ANY other person, on even vastly vastly more mundane claims, would I have even LOOKED at the report. I would have dismissed it as nonsense the second it was presented to me. If a creationist brought me a report that they claimed disproved evolution and it resembled what you have presented here I would have not read a letter of it. If an anti-vaxxer had brought the above quality of reporting to prove vaccines cause autism I shant have read a stitch of it.

Keep that in mind.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: