UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2015, 08:52 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 08:40 PM)Free Wrote:  It is, as I said, evidence to demonstrate the possibility.

No, it isn't.

(17-09-2015 08:40 PM)Free Wrote:  Evidence is always subjective, for everything

No, it isn't.

You do not understand what "evidence" means.

"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
17-09-2015, 09:15 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2015 09:18 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 08:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 08:40 PM)Free Wrote:  It is, as I said, evidence to demonstrate the possibility.

No, it isn't.

(17-09-2015 08:40 PM)Free Wrote:  Evidence is always subjective, for everything

No, it isn't.

You do not understand what "evidence" means.

Well now, "genius," the following is the standard definition of evidence:

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

So let's hear from you on how your defintion of "evidence" should be the one that whole world needs to adapt to.

The floor is yours. Go!

Popcorn

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 09:18 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 09:15 PM)Free Wrote:  "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion."

You have not presented anything which supports your assertions. You have presented non sequitur gibberish and tried to label it as evidence.

The laws of logic are not subject to your childish delusions.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
17-09-2015, 09:21 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 09:18 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 09:15 PM)Free Wrote:  "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion."

You have not presented anything which supports your assertions. You have presented non sequitur gibberish and tried to label it as evidence.

The laws of logic are not subject to your childish delusions.

Red Herring Alert!

[Image: RED%2BHERRING.png]

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 09:27 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 09:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Red Herring Alert!

That is not what "red herring" means.

I use the same definition of "evidence" as anyone else. You have simply failed to present any.

Saying that something is evidence does not make it so. It must allow the logical inference of the truth of whatever you are attempting to support with it. Unidentified things, almost by definition, are not evidence of anything, since you cannot get from "unknown" to anything else without first supplying some evidence of what the unknown actually is.

And no, anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how much you want to whine about it. They are likewise unknown quantities. You cannot quantify one unknown using another unknown.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
17-09-2015, 09:32 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 09:27 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 09:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Red Herring Alert!

That is not what "red herring" means.

I use the same definition of "evidence" as anyone else. You have simply failed to present any.

Saying that something is evidence does not make it so. It must allow the logical inference of the truth of whatever you are attempting to support with it. Unidentified things, almost by definition, are not evidence of anything, since you cannot get from "unknown" to anything else without first supplying some evidence of what the unknown actually is.

And no, anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how much you want to whine about it.

Nawww ... its a red herring. Since I have conclusively proven that I have supplied evidence to support my assertions- otherwise there wouldn't be any pictures posted, documents linked to, videos et al- then your claim that no evidence was supplied to support my assertions is not only HORRIBLY wrong, but is nothing but a red herring to detract from the truth.

You see, it wouldn't matter if I threw a picture of a frisbee up on here and claimed it to be evidence of UFOs, it would still be evidence. What it comes down to is the strength of the evidence.

But it's evidence nonetheless.

And you are a red herring in of itself.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 09:36 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Nawww ... its a red herring. Since I have conclusively proven that I have supplied evidence to support my assertions- otherwise there wouldn't be any pictures posted, documents linked to, videos et al- then your claim that no evidence was supplied to support my assertions is not only HORRIBLY wrong, but is nothing but a red herring to detract from the truth.

That's still not what "red herring" means.

(17-09-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  You see, it wouldn't matter if I threw a picture of a frisbee up on here and claimed it to be evidence of UFOs, it would still be evidence.

No, it wouldn't.

And we're off around in circles again, because you don't understand basic logic. Or English.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
17-09-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
[Image: resized_ancient-aliens-invisible-somethi...1824f9.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like kingschosen's post
17-09-2015, 10:11 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Free has reached triple facepalm.

[Image: 2f7.png]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2015, 10:47 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Ugh, so much wrong to unpack from one post.

(17-09-2015 08:08 PM)Free Wrote:  1 tape, the one we question here, is in variance with the others.
With all my posts you haven't bothered to answer your getting confused on what point your addressing. I'm not talking about any variance in time stamps, I'm talking about this:
Quote:When did the UAP leave? This is an important yet difficult question to answer. It is possible to identify only an approximate range of times. Witness A said it left after about two minutes after he first saw it, or at about 4:32 pm. 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" 22 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.
I'm talking about a variance between the eye witness testimony and the certified accurate time stamps. Not about an, alleged, inconsistency between various time stamps.

The above passage the author is NOT talking about two time stamps being at variance with each other he is talking about witness testimony being at variance with the time stamps. He then goes on to posit an explanation, admit there is no data backing up this postulation, and then makes up a number anyway.

(17-09-2015 08:08 PM)Free Wrote:  With that assumption, witness B, at 4:48 PM said he had seen the UAP "about a half hour ago," which would be approx around 4:18 PM.
And I'm back repeating a refutation that you have refused to addresses about a half a dozen times I've made it. Let me be clear what I am about to write is a hypothetical:
Lets pretend that this is true that it is an error on the time stamps that the correct time for 22:55 UTC = 4:55 and that NARCAP makes this correction. So Witness B claims at 4:48 to have seen it a half hour ago at 4:18. However Witness B also claims to have seen it while taxing United 44. For both those testimony to be true the absolute latest Witness B could have begun taxing United 44 is at 4:18 when he claims to have seen it. However if 22:55 UTC = 4:55 then according to the "corrected" time stamps he didn't start taxing United 44 until 4:57pm.....almost 40 minutes AFTER he said he saw it while taxing.

So if the time stamps are correct Witness B's testimony is false. If the time stamps are incorrect and we apply NARCAPS corrections then Witness B's testimony is false.

There is no scenario where the totality of Witness B's testimony is accurate.

(17-09-2015 08:08 PM)Free Wrote:  The tower mentions that "somebody reported a UFO," with a time stamp of 3:58, which tells us that sometime before 3:58 the UFO was reported, and that contradicts everything on the other tapes.

BUT, the problem with that is the other tapes show that it was Sue who reported the UFO to them at the tower twice, at 4:30 and 4:47.
.......
How is that a problem? Sue isn't the original reporter of the UFO. In fact in the transcript at 4:30 Sue says someone ELSE has reported a UFO:
Quote:"Well, that's what a pilot in the ramp area at C17 told us. They saw some flying disc above them. But we can't see above us."

Sue is saying this at 4:30 and 4:47 to the FAA Area Supervisor. At 3:58 it's not the FAA Area Supervisor but the FAA Inbound Ground Controller saying that someone has reported a UFO.

That's not in anyway shape or form a variance between the time stamps. Someone informed FAA Inbound Ground Controller at 3:58 and then Sue informed the the FAA Area Supervisor at 4:30.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: