UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 03:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 03:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Ahhh ... the old time worn and trusted "Let's fall back to using faulty comparisons when all else fails" trick.

Now I wonder how I knew that was coming?

Facepalm

You're just riding your one man bandwagon. See how easy this is?

You see, I have this little box. And in that little box I place people who demonstrate far too much intellectual instability to actually provide an intelligent argument to me. And from time to time I will open that little box and screw with their little heads, knowing they are far too intellectually decrepit to even know what's going on.

It's all about the entertainment value, you see?

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
17-09-2015, 05:27 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  It's already been proven that Whiskey doesn't understand the report from NARCAP, let alone the rest of the case file. His mistakes in evaluating it are obvious and have been pointed out.
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that if you ignore my posts and don't respond to their content that you can pretend like it doesn't exist. This is not the case. YOU have made errors, see last post and below, and they have been pointed out and your responded with...
[Image: 35682665.jpg]
..which doesn't point out my errors fucko.


(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  He didn't know about the time-stamps
I do know about them that's why I have pointed out that the time stamps be they accurate or inaccurate show the testimony of witness B is false. What i got in response to this fact was ..nothing more than an evasion. You have not dealt with the bolded section at all.

(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  why they are wrong
They are certified accurate by the FFA and the report even acknowledges this.

You're lying.

(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  and that NARCAP themselves pointed out the blunder on the FAA's report.
NARCAP in no way points out ANY blunder. They claim that the physical evidence (time stamps) COULD be wrong as a possible explanation for why their hearsay testimony does not add up when compared to [b]actual [/b]evidence. They then proceed to make up new times based on no data at all.

They point out no blunders at all they posit them out of thin air as an excuse for their shitty testimony.
You're lying.

(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  Instead, he blames NARCAP, when it was them who found the mistake?
They found no mistake, and I blame NARCAP for creating numbers out fo thin air with no data to try to explain away shity testonomy that does not agree with the facts.

(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  It's hilarious, and it's even more hilarious how many here praised his supposed "evaluation" without ever realizing how fucking wrong he was.
It's not wrong you are making shit up. They do not demonstrate any errors in the time stamps they even say they have ZERO data to support the idea that there could be an error and then proceed to make up fake times anyway.

(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  I knew how wrong he was immediately
Clearly not. You are pulling imaginary support from a document that does not support what you are saying. They pointed out no blunders.

You're lying.

(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  and merely waited for everybody to hop on his band wagon ... so I could blow the wheels off of it.
And your own bias, dishonestly, and incompetence as an investigator/analyst caused you to fail both publicly and spectacularly.

(17-09-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  No offence of course ... but it was hilarious, and I think I am entitled to a few laughs here.
And you would be just as wrong here as you were above chuckles.

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
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 12:36 PM)Free Wrote:  On the contrary, the history of UFOs as well as blah blah blah

UFO does not equal aliens.

If the presence of UNIDENTIFIED phenomena is evidence for aliens then it's just as equal evidence for wizards. You keep equivocating. No alien has ever been linked to a UFO so you can't use evidence of a phenomena that's never been linked to aliens as even circumstantial evidence for aliens. To say that it's circumstantial evidence for aliens but not wizards when NEITHER one has been successfully linked to UFO's is special pleading and more presup christian nonsense.

Goddamn. This is simple shit.

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
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 05:11 PM)Free Wrote:  You see, I have this little box. And in that little box I place people who demonstrate far too much intellectual instability to actually provide an intelligent argument to me. And from time to time I will open that little box and screw with their little heads, knowing they are far too intellectually decrepit to even know what's going on.

It's all about the entertainment value, you see?

Drinking Beverage

Your delusions aren't even entertaining at this point.

They're just rather sad.

"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
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
17-09-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 01:30 PM)Free Wrote:  Actually, these people all identify that what they had seen was an aircraft. That is known.
Not it's not cause no they don't. The only identification we have at O'Hare that can ACTUALLY be demonstrated to come from a person who was there is that of a balloon, maybe.

You're just repeating debunked lies.

(17-09-2015 01:30 PM)Free Wrote:  All the historical documents and historical photos indicate and demonstrate aircraft. That is known.
Really all of them? Prove it. Prove that very single historical document indicates AND demonstrates an aircraft.
Infact find one historical document that actually demonstrates that an object which is still to this day unidentified is an aircraft. Do you know what "unidentified" even means?

(17-09-2015 01:30 PM)Free Wrote:  With what is known, we can reason. And we can reason with what is known that these objects being identified as aircraft did not exist to the human race even as little as 80 years ago. Yet, here we have documents and photos depicting these aircraft.
Aircraft have been asserted as explanations for unidentified objects but not proven or demonstrated. Get your head outta your ass.

(17-09-2015 01:30 PM)Free Wrote:  We can reason that the only other option to the human equation in the 1920s and 1930s, and even earlier, is non human intelligence, since humans did not posses any such technology at the time. This is known.
A.) Assuming they are actually aircraft which you haven't demonstrated they are.
B.) Even if it is an aircraft it's not the ONLY option in fact. It could be time traveling humans from the future. It could be a lot of things. Aliens being less likely then time travelers because we can show that humans exist, we can show human tech exists, and we can show that human tech is still advancing.

You're full o' shit son.

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 05:51 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 09:00 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 08:50 PM)Free Wrote:  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



So what if shes the first, the third, the 9th, or the 10000000000th? I don't give a fuck if she is because it still means that the the testimony given by Witness B is UTTERLY false and that the Report MADE UP FUCKING NUMBERS to make their testimony work.

You are fucking lying AND avoiding dealing with any of the content of my posts. Witness B testimony is false if it's 3:57 or 4:57 and they MADE UP FUCKING NUMBERS.

No no no.

You just read it wrong. Read it again. I'm giving you a chance here. See? I'm being nice!

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
17-09-2015, 05:56 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 02:18 PM)Free Wrote:  Nope.
Yuuup.

Quote:Their observations were verified by the observations of other multiple eyewitnesses.
No they were not as not all witnesses you "aircraft" to describe it, in fact at no point in the transcripts does anyone call it a aircraft. Secondly testimony is considered verified and accurate with it correctly maps to the physical and testable evidence not when you compare it to other testimonial assertions.

Quote:If you point at an aircraft
Not established that it was. People pointed to an UNIDENTIFIED phenomena.

Quote:and call it an aircraft
You mean like the guy who pointed it out to people and called it a balloon? Fuck off lol.

Quote:and everybody who is with you verifies your claim by also relating that it's an aircraft
Which never happened lier. Not only did not everyone who saw it identify it as an aircraft but numerous people who were instructed to it's location saw absolutely nothing. Not just no aircraft but NOTHING. You are still pretending that your cherry picked sample of unproven witnesses is the only one that counts.

Lying.

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 06:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 02:39 PM)Free Wrote:  The same way that someone who had never seen the Stealth Bomber before identified it as an unknown aircraft.
A stealth bomber has wings, a cockpit, armaments, and an engine. The flying disc according to you did not resemble a aircraft in ANYWAY. So if it has no features of an aircraft how can you identify it from sight as an aircraft.
This:
[Image: Banana-Single.jpg]
..does not resemble an aircraft in any way. Is it an aircraft?

Fucking weak as shit in my kitchen.


Quote:I could be going out on a limb here but ...
Allow me to saw it off for you.


Quote:if you had never seen a make and model of a certain automobile before, yet seen it driving around, would you deny that you had seen an automobile?
No because I can recognize it as having qualities of an automobile you fucking idiot. It has tires i can see and touch, it has an engine I can see and hear and touch, it has a windshield, it has a boot I can open and close if I want to, it has a fucking driver, it has RECOGNIZABLE QUALITIES OF AN AUTOMOBILE WHICH IS HOW I IDENTIFY IT AS AN AUTOMOBILE.

Mean while you yourself have said that the UFO it didn't resemble an aircraft in any way. You bitch about false comparisions? Jesus you really can't spot one even when it's coming out of your mouth 4 inches below your fucking eye.

Quote:It's not an automobile when it performs like one?
You said the UFO DIDN'T preform like a aircraft!

Quote:If only intellectual honesty existed here ...
He said oblivious to the fact he's the only one contributing to it.

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
17-09-2015, 06:09 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 03:51 PM)Free Wrote:  The 12 witnesses were interviewed by the Chicago Tribune.

And their testimony is unverified, unproven hearsay and can be dismissed until their identities can be known and their credibility as witnesses can be determined.
[Image: rejected-stamp.jpeg]

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 05:11 PM)Free Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 03:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're just riding your one man bandwagon. See how easy this is?

You see, I have this little box. And in that little box I place people who demonstrate far too much intellectual instability to actually provide an intelligent argument to me. And from time to time I will open that little box and screw with their little heads, knowing they are far too intellectually decrepit to even know what's going on.

It's all about the entertainment value, you see?

Drinking Beverage

This is only true if you keep yourself in a box.Drinking Beverage

Which if you don't you really should start, keep the box away from an internet connection so the rest of us don't have to deal with you out and out IGNORING arguments that prove you are lying.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: