UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2015, 10:55 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  What it comes down to is the strength of the evidence.

And the strength of your evidence is next nonexistent.

Every single witness is anonymous, unverified, and unproven and that's if they were giving testimony directly but they are not so it becomes 3-4th hand hearsay. Their accounts vary wildly, almost none of their individual calculations agree with each other, nor can we actually test their calculations to see if even a single one of them is correct.

There is no radar evidence, not physical evidence, not video evidence, not pictorial evidence ( and there really REALLY should be), your "aircraft" has almost no effect on reality at all and even flat out ignores established Laws of Physics.

None of your postulations has a shred of evidence which is not you making FURTHER postulations.

Your evidence is shit and would be thrown out of court and peer-review the second you submitted 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
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 11:06 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 10:55 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 09:32 PM)Free Wrote:  What it comes down to is the strength of the evidence.

And the strength of your evidence is next nonexistent.

Every single witness is anonymous, unverified, and unproven and that's if they were giving testimony directly but they are not so it becomes 3-4th hand hearsay. Their accounts vary wildly, almost none of their individual calculations agree with each other, nor can we actually test their calculations to see if even a single one of them is correct.

There is no radar evidence, not physical evidence, not video evidence, not pictorial evidence ( and there really REALLY should be), your "aircraft" has almost no effect on reality at all and even flat out ignores established Laws of Physics.

None of your postulations has a shred of evidence which is not you making FURTHER postulations.

Your evidence is shit and would be thrown out of court and peer-review the second you submitted it.

His 'evidence' is not enough to to get someone convicted of jaywalking in court... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2015, 11:24 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  His 'evidence' is not enough to to get someone convicted of jaywalking in court... Drinking Beverage

Funnily enough, he actually tried to use jaywalking as an example of something that you can get convicted of based entirely on hearsay earlier in the thread.

"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
17-09-2015, 11:52 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 11:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  His 'evidence' is not enough to to get someone convicted of jaywalking in court... Drinking Beverage

Funnily enough, he actually tried to use jaywalking as an example of something that you can get convicted of based entirely on hearsay earlier in the thread.

Really? Hearsay is now admissible in court?

That's a special kind of stupid... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 12:06 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Armchair psychoanalysis time, yippee Smile

Free says he thinks scientific method is best way of getting to true explanations of phenomena, then goes on to spend the rest of the thread trying to argue why this particular area should not be subject to the scientific method.

When faced with something he can't argue he ignores it, accuses the poster of being stupid, lying, committing logical fallacies or sometimes just makes some "Well I still believe it so Laughat" one liner that he thinks is ridiculously funny. The poster will usually respond with some version of "Fuck you" and he'll go "Why so angry?"

Occasionally he'll get forced into a corner (e.g. by Cjlr earlier in the thread) and get as far as admitting that he's not given us a proper reason to believe him, but then he waits a few hours and goes back to posting the same already-debunked crap - such as his laughable "12 witnesses" claim, which he's so committed to now that he can't back out.

He's deployed literally word for word some of the arguments creationists use. Stuff like "The discrepancies between the testimonies actually prove that the witnesses are more trustworthy" - an argument much used by Christians re the Gospels. Stuff like "Well you weren't there so how can you tell if the witnesses are lying" - literally taking the words straight out of Ken Ham / Ray Comfort's mouth. Stuff like "I don't know how it'd work, aliens might have the most amazing technology" - basically the same as the Christee's "Well, the resurrection is a *mystery*, if we knew how it worked it wouldn't be a mystery and God wouldn't need to be involved".

To me it's classic troll behaviour, except... it's kinda more like desperate last-ditch defence of delusion. When he's finally forced right back onto the ropes he suddenly tries to pretend that he's only arguing that aliens are "possible" - something that no one disputes - and not that he's arguing that "aliens have visited Earth" is a *plausible* hypothesis.

Keep plugging that dyke Free.

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
18-09-2015, 07:49 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 08:16 AM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 06:21 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 05:51 PM)Free Wrote:  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

I read it again, now here read what you copied from the report again:

Quote:"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."

" Does this difference in time suggest... that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error...?"

Please tell me where in that the NARCAP identifies an error in the time stamps WHICH HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED ACCURATE and doesn't just posit one exists with no evidence in support of the postulation.

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

Please tell me how exactly this is not NARCAP making up a time out of no data.

I fucking read it. I fucking understand it. You try now.

No, you haven't read it yet. You have been spending so much time looking for things wrong with it that you are only skimming over it. I can tell.

I am still going to extend some kindness to you and ask again that you actually read the report. I will give you a hint so that if you follow it I will know whether or not you actually read it:

"Witnesses B (left cockpit seat) and C (right seat), both United aviation mechanics, were about to taxi an empty commercial jet airplane from the International ramp initially near D2 to the United Service Center hanger on the north side of the airport. At this point there are two slightly different alternative versions of what happened next."

Believe me, I will absolutely know if you read it or not. You don't try to fool me with telling me you read it, when I have read it over a dozen times and have actually taken notes, extensively, on this case.

Next Hint:

"In the first version, the details provided to NARCAP by witness B are given."

Read it, and let me know when you have found the "second version."

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
18-09-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 12:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Armchair psychoanalysis time, yippee Smile

Free says he thinks scientific method is best way of getting to true explanations of phenomena, then goes on to spend the rest of the thread trying to argue why this particular area should not be subject to the scientific method.

When faced with something he can't argue he ignores it, accuses the poster of being stupid, lying, committing logical fallacies or sometimes just makes some "Well I still believe it so Laughat" one liner that he thinks is ridiculously funny. The poster will usually respond with some version of "Fuck you" and he'll go "Why so angry?"

Occasionally he'll get forced into a corner (e.g. by Cjlr earlier in the thread) and get as far as admitting that he's not given us a proper reason to believe him, but then he waits a few hours and goes back to posting the same already-debunked crap - such as his laughable "12 witnesses" claim, which he's so committed to now that he can't back out.

He's deployed literally word for word some of the arguments creationists use. Stuff like "The discrepancies between the testimonies actually prove that the witnesses are more trustworthy" - an argument much used by Christians re the Gospels. Stuff like "Well you weren't there so how can you tell if the witnesses are lying" - literally taking the words straight out of Ken Ham / Ray Comfort's mouth. Stuff like "I don't know how it'd work, aliens might have the most amazing technology" - basically the same as the Christee's "Well, the resurrection is a *mystery*, if we knew how it worked it wouldn't be a mystery and God wouldn't need to be involved".

To me it's classic troll behaviour, except... it's kinda more like desperate last-ditch defence of delusion. When he's finally forced right back onto the ropes he suddenly tries to pretend that he's only arguing that aliens are "possible" - something that no one disputes - and not that he's arguing that "aliens have visited Earth" is a *plausible* hypothesis.

Keep plugging that dyke Free.

No one has answered the question of how science can help with the claim of:

"At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27H...O_sighting

Now, if you or anyone here can demonstrate how science can do anything with that claim, I am all ears.

Rolleyes

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
18-09-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 11:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  His 'evidence' is not enough to to get someone convicted of jaywalking in court... Drinking Beverage

Funnily enough, he actually tried to use jaywalking as an example of something that you can get convicted of based entirely on hearsay earlier in the thread.

Another lie?

My position was that a jaywalker was eyewitnessed as breaking the law by a number of people, who informed the police.

Your lack of intellectual honesty has gone far past the point of even being questioned, and entered into the realm of the absolutely absurd.

I view your mentality exactly the same way I view the mentality of a young earth creationist.

You are both denialists and liars, and a total embarrassment to rationality and reason.

You sir, are very disgusting, but also quite entertaining so I will keep you off my ignore list for that reason only.

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
18-09-2015, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 09:09 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 08:40 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 11:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Funnily enough, he actually tried to use jaywalking as an example of something that you can get convicted of based entirely on hearsay earlier in the thread.

Another lie?

My position was that a jaywalker was eyewitnessed as breaking the law by a number of people, who informed the police.

Except the case your trying to draw a parallel to the testimony IS is entirely anonymous hearsay.

I'd also be curious to see a case where a person was brought to trial and convicted of jaywalking based on just eyewitness testimony and no physical evidence whatsoever.

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
18-09-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(18-09-2015 08:40 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 11:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Funnily enough, he actually tried to use jaywalking as an example of something that you can get convicted of based entirely on hearsay earlier in the thread.

Another lie?

My position was that a jaywalker was eyewitnessed as breaking the law by a number of people, who informed the police.

Laughat "Another lie", proceeds to restate the exact thing he was accused of saying.

Rolleyes Christ.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: