UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 07:13 PM)Free Wrote:  Of course this evidence is subjective

Evidence is not subjective. It is either evidence or it is not.

(16-09-2015 07:13 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

Even assuming that these are all genuine, you still run headfirst into the fact that "unknown" does not equal "aliens".

You have no evidence of alien visitation. At best, what you have are some unexplained photographs that do not serve as evidence of aliens any more than they do of leprechauns.

"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, 07:52 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  Hey Kings,

I have tried to be.
Absolute bullshit.

I'm sorry you might have a memory lasting a few weeks at best but I don't. In That Damn UFO Tread YOU started acting like a hostile asshole towards me even before I uttered a single swear. Your excuse then was that SOMEONE else had been mean and hurt your widdel feelin's earlier in the thread as if that justified turning hostile to other people.

AND THEN you made the That Damn Bigfoot thread to passively-aggressive continue a conversation about your fucking stupid "12 witnesses" under false pretenses trying to TRICK people into agreeing with your stance in another thread (Damn UFO). You tried to play the boo hoo victim card THEN and you are tying to do it NOW.

Fuck you then, and fuck you now.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  If they cannot be honest, then they should not attempt an argument at all.
And if you actually believed this you would have left the thread yourself because you have been lying for MONTHS about the quality and the number of your witnesses, have been lying about what they claim, and even lied when you asserted I had no sources and was making up bullshit WHILE quoting me listing my source, Figures, Tables, and fucking page numbers.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  And when such speculation is supported with evidence grounded in reality, all they can point to is the speculation part while ignoring the well grounded reality.
Speculation can not be backed up by speculation. Speculating that a alien race with interstellar transportation is not "supported by evidence" when you back it up with speculation that aliens exist which, while EXTREMELY likely, hasn't actually be shown to be the case which makes it speculation. Life on earth is evidence only for life on Earth.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  They want a little green man, and nothing else matters.
I don't want little green men because I don't NEED little green men because you haven't established that there was a craft over O'Hare. Your assertion that 12 witnesses all report seeing a craft is demonstrably false because 12 is both a made up number and also a cherry picked sample of witnesses that agree with your aircraft assertion (except that they don't actually because...) and even then at no point is the transcript is it ever described as anything other than a "disc" or a "balloon possibly". The ONLY reference to an aircraft (which is not the description of "all 12" witness) comes from an unnamed, anonymous, unverified, source, months after the fact, at best from memory at worst 100% fabricated, presented by a biased organization filtered through another biased organization.

I don't need no fucking little green men any more than I need little green strawmen.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  And we see this from this group of supposedly scientifically "endowed" individuals who almost all believe that a singularity once existed to create a Big Bang, yet all they have is circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support their belief in their own "little green man."

Already refuted this line of stupid, I noticed you have avoided it though so allow me to reiterate.
NO. We have math which shows it, over lapping fields of study which all make predictions based on VERIFIED, PROVEN, DEMONSTRABLE, evidence and data. It requires no promises from scientists that they "tots saw it you guyz!" (anecdotes).


(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  But thank you for your kind words, I will consider them carefully and endeavour to incorporate them into my attitude.
It's nice to see you make no effort on this at all if your posts after this are any consideration. Also I thought being a belligerent and hostile cunt was a "persona"?

You're like a Russian Nesting Doll of lies.

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
16-09-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 07:22 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(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?

They are in the possession of the Chicago Tribune. Since they filed the Freedom of Information Act, the tapes and transcripts were sent to them.

Quote:Did NARCAP make this evidence publicly available and if so where?

NARCAP is the organization hired by the Chicago Tribune to analyse the data on the transcripts and the tapes, and file a report. That`s all their interest was in this case file.

Quote:
Quote: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....

That's the one hour variance I was telling you about earlier due to the FAA clerical error. The 3:57:30 time is supposed to read as 4:57:30, 1/2 hour after Witness B first heard the call at around 4:30.

The report explicitly acknowledges this variance, but continues to use the document anyways with the caveat that they will "assume" the FAA document intended the time to be 1 hour later. Here are the parts you need to see:

"Witnesses B and C watched the object from the cockpit of a an empty B777 for at least 3.2 minutes (and as long as 5 minutes) sometime between 3:57:30 pm and about 4:18 pm. The UAP had gone by about 4:20 pm when they had reached their destination at the United maintenance hanger. Thus, according to them the object probably departed around 4:18 pm. Witness D said the object "disappeared within a fraction of a second"23 after he had been looking at it for approximately one minute (i.e., at about 4:33 or 4:34 pm) depending on how long it took him to reach the viewing location at Gate C5."

"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 report knows that something was wrong with the times on the FAA transcripts, for if the transcripts were to be considered correct we would have to assume that the tower operators knew the UFO was there long before the witnesses did.

So they assumed the error, and continued on with the report while being mindful of the error and without changing anything. It was a reasonable assumption on their part, and Unbeliever acknowledges this as well. All the times listed on the FAA document are in error by 1 hour.

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, 08:05 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.
Except that they don't. Except that the testimony in the report is from anonymous, unproven, unverified sources presented 3rd-4th hand by two biased organization.

YOU. ARE. LYING. ABOUT. THE. STRENGTH. OF. YOUR. WITNESSES.

Goddamn.

Let me ask you a question: If it didn't resemble any aircraft how did they know it was an aircraft? Did they see a cockpit? A pilot? Thrusts? An engine? Wings? A turbine? Rotters?

If it's got no qualities of an aircraft how could anyone identify it as an aircraft, let alone from 1500+ feet away, on a cloudy day in 120 seconds or less? It also didn't have any qualities of a fucking toaster or a dolphin.

And don't say "because all the witnesses are experts in aircraft" because that HASN'T been established because they are ALL unverified, unproven, anonymous claims.

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
16-09-2015, 08:33 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 08:05 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(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.
Except that they don't. Except that the testimony in the report is from anonymous, unproven, unverified sources presented 3rd-4th hand by two biased organization.

YOU. ARE. LYING. ABOUT. THE. STRENGTH. OF. YOUR. WITNESSES.

Goddamn.

Let me ask you a question: If it didn't resemble any aircraft how did they know it was an aircraft? Did they see a cockpit? A pilot? Thrusts? An engine? Wings? A turbine? Rotters?

If it's got no qualities of an aircraft how could anyone identify it as an aircraft, let alone from 1500+ feet away, on a cloudy day in 120 seconds or less? It also didn't have any qualities of a fucking toaster or a dolphin.

And don't say "because all the witnesses are experts in aircraft" because that HASN'T been established because they are ALL unverified, unproven, anonymous claims.

All the witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity to the Chicago Tribune because, according to the investigation, it was revealed that they were threatened with dismissal if they talked about it. This was verified by the Chicago Tribune's interviews with numerous employees, including many who are not among the 12 main witnesses.

Some of these witnesses were interviewed in silhouette by various TV stations, and/or were interviewed by numerous media outlets on condition of anonymity.

Here's one video.

Another here.

Another here.

Original Article at the Chicago Tribune (2 pages)

Here's one thing to consider. Nobody at United Airlines denies any of this, and nobody at the FAA denies any of this.

This report has never been denied by anybody.

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, 08:38 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 07:52 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  Hey Kings,

I have tried to be.
Absolute bullshit.

I'm sorry you might have a memory lasting a few weeks at best but I don't. In That Damn UFO Tread YOU started acting like a hostile asshole towards me even before I uttered a single swear. Your excuse then was that SOMEONE else had been mean and hurt your widdel feelin's earlier in the thread as if that justified turning hostile to other people.

AND THEN you made the That Damn Bigfoot thread to passively-aggressive continue a conversation about your fucking stupid "12 witnesses" under false pretenses trying to TRICK people into agreeing with your stance in another thread (Damn UFO). You tried to play the boo hoo victim card THEN and you are tying to do it NOW.

Fuck you then, and fuck you now.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  If they cannot be honest, then they should not attempt an argument at all.
And if you actually believed this you would have left the thread yourself because you have been lying for MONTHS about the quality and the number of your witnesses, have been lying about what they claim, and even lied when you asserted I had no sources and was making up bullshit WHILE quoting me listing my source, Figures, Tables, and fucking page numbers.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  And when such speculation is supported with evidence grounded in reality, all they can point to is the speculation part while ignoring the well grounded reality.
Speculation can not be backed up by speculation. Speculating that a alien race with interstellar transportation is not "supported by evidence" when you back it up with speculation that aliens exist which, while EXTREMELY likely, hasn't actually be shown to be the case which makes it speculation. Life on earth is evidence only for life on Earth.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  They want a little green man, and nothing else matters.
I don't want little green men because I don't NEED little green men because you haven't established that there was a craft over O'Hare. Your assertion that 12 witnesses all report seeing a craft is demonstrably false because 12 is both a made up number and also a cherry picked sample of witnesses that agree with your aircraft assertion (except that they don't actually because...) and even then at no point is the transcript is it ever described as anything other than a "disc" or a "balloon possibly". The ONLY reference to an aircraft (which is not the description of "all 12" witness) comes from an unnamed, anonymous, unverified, source, months after the fact, at best from memory at worst 100% fabricated, presented by a biased organization filtered through another biased organization.

I don't need no fucking little green men any more than I need little green strawmen.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  And we see this from this group of supposedly scientifically "endowed" individuals who almost all believe that a singularity once existed to create a Big Bang, yet all they have is circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support their belief in their own "little green man."

Already refuted this line of stupid, I noticed you have avoided it though so allow me to reiterate.
NO. We have math which shows it, over lapping fields of study which all make predictions based on VERIFIED, PROVEN, DEMONSTRABLE, evidence and data. It requires no promises from scientists that they "tots saw it you guyz!" (anecdotes).


(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  But thank you for your kind words, I will consider them carefully and endeavour to incorporate them into my attitude.
It's nice to see you make no effort on this at all if your posts after this are any consideration. Also I thought being a belligerent and hostile cunt was a "persona"?

You're like a Russian Nesting Doll of lies.

Seems to me we need to get Kingschosen back in here to have a little talk with you too.

Big Grin

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, 08:41 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 07:27 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 07:13 PM)Free Wrote:  Of course this evidence is subjective

Evidence is not subjective. It is either evidence or it is not.

(16-09-2015 07:13 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

Even assuming that these are all genuine, you still run headfirst into the fact that "unknown" does not equal "aliens".

You have no evidence of alien visitation. At best, what you have are some unexplained photographs that do not serve as evidence of aliens any more than they do of leprechauns.

You are so adamant that I am saying, "it's aliens" that it's actually gone past the point of angering me to the point of I think you are hilariously ridiculous.

We'll let the lurkers judge.

Carry on.

Big Grin

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, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2015 10:05 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 07:54 PM)Free Wrote:  They are in the possession of the Chicago Tribune. Since they filed the Freedom of Information Act, the tapes and transcripts were sent to them.
So what you are saying is that the original transcripts and original recordings are with the Chicago Tribune? Well they are not on the website of the Tribune and oh ya that's irrelevant because...

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  NARCAP is the organization hired by the Chicago Tribune to analyse the data on the transcripts and the tapes, and file a report.
..The fucking Tribune then GAVE THE DAMN originals to NARCAP to analyze which means that NARCAP had the originals despite not listing them as a reference and not putting them online and accessible for review. So we have exactly ZERO way to know if what is in the NARCAP report (a biased organization) is ACTUALLY accurate? So now we have no way to even prove that those are accurate. Lovely.
Anonymous data AND anonymous witnesses. Fan-fucking-tastic.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  That's the one hour variance I was telling you about earlier due to the FAA clerical error. The 3:57:30 time is supposed to read as 4:57:30, 1/2 hour after Witness B first heard the call at around 4:30.
And you goddamn selectively edited out the part of my post that deals EXACTLY WITH THAT. Witness B's testimony doesn't make any sense if we adjust for the missing hour or if we don't.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  The report explicitly acknowledges this variance
No it fucking doesn't Free. Here is the exact quote:
"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?"

The two (ANONYMOUS) testimonies do not match the time stamps so the author asks IF an error in the, certified accurate, tapes could be to blame, if the UFO stayed for almost a full hour, or some other reason.
IT does not "acknowledge a variance", it asserts one as a possible explanation. Here however is the best part:

"Without definitive data we will assume that the UAP departed at about 4:34 pm."

It's got no data for it's possible explanations so the author MAKES UP A FUCKING TIME.....MAKES UP A FUCKING TIME....MAKES UP A MOTHERFUCKING TIME to try and make it's anonymous, unproven, unverified testimony make sense.

Quote:The report knows that something was wrong with the times on the FAA transcripts
No it does not, it POSITS a error in the, fucking certified accurate, time logs as a possible explanation for why their fucking anonymous sources contradict each other.

Quote:All the times listed on the FAA document are in error by 1 hour.

If you hadn't selectively edit out the rest of my post you would know that that makes the testimony of Witness B wrong too in the other direction.

[Image: Jack-Nicholson.gif]

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
16-09-2015, 08:43 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Is this stupid shit still going on???

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
16-09-2015, 08:50 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 08:43 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 07:54 PM)Free Wrote:  They are in the possession of the Chicago Tribune. Since they filed the Freedom of Information Act, the tapes and transcripts were sent to them.
So what you are saying is that the original transcripts and original recordings are with the Chicago Tribune? Well they are not on the website of the Tribune and oh ya that's irrelevant because...

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  NARCAP is the organization hired by the Chicago Tribune to analyse the data on the transcripts and the tapes, and file a report.
..The fucking Tribune then GAVE THE DAMN originals to NARCAP to analyze which means that NARCAP had the originals despite not listing them as a reference and not putting them online and accessible for review. So we have exactly ZERO way to know if what is in the NARCAP report (a biased organization) is ACTUALLY accurate? So now we have no way to even prove that those are accurate. Lovely.
Anonymous data AND anonymous witnesses. Fan-fucking-tastic.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  That's the one hour variance I was telling you about earlier due to the FAA clerical error. The 3:57:30 time is supposed to read as 4:57:30, 1/2 hour after Witness B first heard the call at around 4:30.
And you goddamn selectively edited out the part of my post that deals EXACTLY WITH THAT. Witness B's testimony doesn't make any sense if we adjust for the missing hour or if we don't.

(16-09-2015 12:22 PM)Free Wrote:  The report explicitly acknowledges this variance
No it fucking doesn't Free. Here is the exact quote:
"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?"

The two (ANONYMOUS) testimonies do not match the time stamps so the author asks IF an error if the, certified accurate, tapes could be to blame, if the UFO stayed for alost a full hour, or some other reason.
IT does not "acknowledge a variance", it asserts one as a possible explanation. Here however is the best part:

"Without definitive data we will assume that the UAP departed at about 4:34 pm."

It's got no data for it's possible explanations so the author MAKES UP A FUCKING TIME.....MAKES UP A FUCKING TIME....MAKES UP A MOTHERFUCKING TIME to try and make it's anonymous, unproven, unverified testimony make sense.

Quote:The report knows that something was wrong with the times on the FAA transcripts
No it does not, it POSITS a error in the, fucking certified accurate, time logs as a possible explanation for why their fucking anonymous sources contradict each other.

Quote:All the times listed on the FAA document are in error by 1 hour.

If you hadn't selectively edit out the rest of my post you would know that that makes the testimony of Witness B wrong too in the other direction.

[Image: Jack-Nicholson.gif]

Okay, me and Unbeliever had this discussion yesterday, and if you so desperately want to believe that the tower controller knew about the UFO 17 minutes before any of the other witnesses well then ... halleluya ... what we have here is an official from the government at FAA acknowledging the UFO before anybody else.

What you are saying is that the government was the first ones to acknowledge the UFO, because that is what the transcript indicates if we keep the time listed at 3:57 instead of 4:57.

Way to go, genius.

Big Grin

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: