News

**Joshua Flynn** · (This post was last modified: 10-27-2012 03:01 AM by Joshua Flynn.)

DrPostman Wrote:

Otherwise you should prove that
the invisible pink unicorn in my garage DOESN'T exist!

Given invisibility is a non-wavelength (light passes through unhindered) and pink is a reflective property, we can ascertain by simple contradiction it does not exist.

You also didn't say it was non-solid or silent. So 5 minutes with either a paint bucket, sonar device, radar gun or banana should suffice.

Likewise, if one claims something is debunked (which is a positive assertation), one is claiming to have evidence of a debunking process. If one does not have the debunking process to hand, one cannot claim it is debunked. To claim there is only two states: debunked or proven, is a classic either-or fallacy. What about the third one: unknown? A piece of information may also have parts of it true and parts of it false - so one has to debunk the whole and not just a part. Credibility alone isn't sufficient a basis to refute (a classic 'the boy who cried wolf' fallacy).

Or to put it alternately: don't claim something has occurred (debunking) if you cannot back it up with the responding evidence.

Or by this logic I could reason, I could say 'I have debunked you're smart, therefore you're an idiot'. I apparently don't need to supply any proof of this debunking.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 129698 10-27-2012 03:01 AM

Joshua Flynn Wrote:

DrPostman Wrote:
Otherwise you should prove that
the invisible pink unicorn in my garage DOESN'T exist!

Given invisibility is a non-wavelength (light passes through unhindered) and pink is a reflective property, we can ascertain by simple contradiction it does not exist.

You also didn't say it was non-solid or silent. So 5 minutes with either a paint bucket, sonar device, radar gun or banana should suffice.

Likewise, if one claims something is debunked (which is a positive assertation), one is claiming to have evidence of a debunking process. If one does not have the debunking process to hand, one cannot claim it is debunked.

Or to put it alternately: don't claim something has occurred (debunking) if you cannot back it up with the responding evidence.

Or by this logic I could reason, I could say 'I have debunked you're smart, therefore you're an idiot'. I apparently don't need to supply any proof of this debunking.

Well stated. chuckle

**Your Mom** lop guest User ID: 49364 10-27-2012 03:10 AM

SecretGeek Wrote:

Your Mom Wrote:
LoP Guest Wrote:
STILL WAITING ON ALL OF THOSE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DEBUNK LINKS...

PUT UP OR

(Yes, this means you Galaxy. Yes, this means you Your Mom.)

Well,the name Sorcha Faal is enough for me.

Well, although you have yet to reply to me in this thread, you did provide a link to your thinking and your claim. That should be rewarded as an attempt to backup your belief, which could be very accurate by the way. Also, you came back to this thread and communicated. YOU DID NOT HIDE LIKE A COWARD. Therefore, I am giving you a positive rating. TY.

Thanks for that SG.

A recording of a Coast to Coast episode with George Noory quoting a Sorcha Faal article is not enough to convince me of anything. Some other proof backing up the claims would be required. You may also note that not once did I say it was debunked! The credibility of the sources coupled with the incredulous nature of the claims, leaves me doubt it's authenticity, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You have spent a great deal of time researching things, well done,and you have highlighted one of the reasons the US is so eager to stay in Afghanistan. I was totally unaware of the wealth of natural resources available there and surprised by one - asbestos. I didn't think that was still being used.

**Joshua Flynn**

Put it this way: if sorcha faal said the sky was blue, then by the rationale put forward, we'd have to say 'but the sky isn't blue, because he always lies' (and thus the 'all cretins are liars' paradox occurs).

Instead, it would be more perfluous not to dismiss (although lowering the probability of a given statement's truthfulness would be valid), but to investigate the given claims to see if research confirms or denies the source's validity.

I'm personally of the opinion sorcha faal is a hack, but 'bait and switch' attempts where a person who has a credibility smear reports a truthful claim, with a fallacious and classic ad hominem/poisoning the well/guilt by association attack being made (you seriously can't believe the sky is blue, because hitler told you the sky is blue!) is used to infer the information is not credible. AKA the boy who cried wolf.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 129698 10-27-2012 03:23 AM

Joshua Flynn Wrote:

Put it this way: if sorcha faal said the sky was blue, then by the rationale put forward, we'd have to say 'but the sky isn't blue, because he always lies' (and thus the 'all cretins are liars' paradox occurs).

Instead, it would be more perfluous not to dismiss (although lowering the probability of a given statement's truthfulness would be valid), but to investigate the given claims to see if research confirms or denies the source's validity.

I'm personally of the opinion sorcha faal is a hack, but 'bait and switch' attempts where a person who has a credibility smear reports a truthful claim, with a fallacious and classic ad hominem/poisoning the well/guilt by association attack being made (you seriously can't believe the sky is blue, because hitler told you the sky is blue!) is used to infer the information is not credible. AKA the boy who cried wolf.

Indeed, it's not like misinformation and disinformation don't have a common value and even perhaps a certain amount of truth now and then.

**SwordofGideon**

I see the thread has grown abundantly.

Pi Infinity User ID: 3.14159265 10-27-2012 05:34 AM

Don't want to see this one slide.

Back to the top of the page you go.

chuckle

**SecretGeek**

DrPostman Wrote:

That last link should be good enough for any of you. It's a pure and
simply admission that it's all a hoax.

TY for your insight. I read the last two links. I see your point. I am thinking.

**SecretGeek** · (This post was last modified: 10-27-2012 03:28 PM by SecretGeek.)

The best I can tell, the report by Faal this thread is based upon, is a well thought out masterpiece of fiction interlaced with factual events using valid links to general references. The report is so clever, it makes me want to research the items in it just for the sake that most of the connecting items are interesting. Here is the link again of the report this thread is based upon, for those want to study the creative reporting style....
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1432.htm

For example, I can verify most of the mentioned items in the report independently. But, when putting the items together, the only reference to the time frame and places is the report itself, with a couple exceptions like the Navy Seals dying. That is why I call it a masterpiece. I am very impressed. I could continue to research each item and post interesting information. But, how do I tie each item into a specific time frame and place without a reference?

Therefore, unless someone can find another reference document tying all or some of the elements mentioned in the document to the time frame and place in question, I am considering this thread and topic to be debunked. I will look a little bit more for such a reference, but based upon what I have read so far, I would say it is slim pickings.

Dr. Postman for the apparent win.

**Ðґℙ☺ṧ⊥мαη**

Joshua Flynn Wrote:

DrPostman Wrote:
Otherwise you should prove that
the invisible pink unicorn in my garage DOESN'T exist!

Given invisibility is a non-wavelength (light passes through unhindered) and pink is a reflective property, we can ascertain by simple contradiction it does not exist.

You also didn't say it was non-solid or silent. So 5 minutes with either a paint bucket, sonar device, radar gun or banana should suffice.

Oh, I should have mentioned it's magical too. I figured that would
be a given. Magic makes anything possible. Or didn't you know?

Joshua Flynn Wrote:

Likewise, if one claims something is debunked (which is a positive assertation), one is claiming to have evidence of a debunking process. If one does not have the debunking process to hand, one cannot claim it is debunked. To claim there is only two states: debunked or proven, is a classic either-or fallacy. What about the third one: unknown? A piece of information may also have parts of it true and parts of it false - so one has to debunk the whole and not just a part. Credibility alone isn't sufficient a basis to refute (a classic 'the boy who cried wolf' fallacy).
Or to put it alternately: don't claim something has occurred (debunking) if you cannot back it up with the responding evidence.
Or by this logic I could reason, I could say 'I have debunked you're smart, therefore you're an idiot'. I apparently don't need to supply any proof of this debunking.

No matter how you try to spin it you cannot prove a negative. It's
like proving God doesn't exist.

LoP Guest Wrote:

Well stated.

Not so much. Ever heard of parsimony?

Joshua Flynn Wrote:

Put it this way: if sorcha faal said the sky was blue, then by the rationale put forward, we'd have to say 'but the sky isn't blue, because he always lies' (and thus the 'all cretins are liars' paradox occurs).
Instead, it would be more perfluous not to dismiss (although lowering the probability of a given statement's truthfulness would be valid), but to investigate the given claims to see if research confirms or denies the source's validity.
I'm personally of the opinion sorcha faal is a hack, but 'bait and switch' attempts where a person who has a credibility smear reports a truthful claim, with a fallacious and classic ad hominem/poisoning the well/guilt by association attack being made (you seriously can't believe the sky is blue, because hitler told you the sky is blue!) is used to infer the information is not credible. AKA the boy who cried wolf.

So, the burden is upon us to prove that EVERYTHING from David Booth
(Sorcha Faal in drag) is false?

What part of parsimony does that fall under? The assertion was not
something obvious like the color of the sky. The assertion was an
extraordinary claim which requires at least some evidence, if not of
the extraordinary kind!

**Ðґℙ☺ṧ⊥мαη**

SecretGeek Wrote:

For example, I can verify most of the mentioned items in the report independently. But, when putting the items together, the only reference to the time frame and places is the report itself, with a couple exceptions like the Navy Seals dying. That is why I call it a masterpiece. I am very impressed. I could continue to research each item and post interesting information. But, how do I tie each item into a specific time frame and place without a reference?

I will give Booth props for inventiveness. There are always elements
of truth in the lies he weaves. He should have been a creative writer
instead of this failed Sorcha Faal gig.

**SecretGeek**

DrPostman Wrote:

SecretGeek Wrote:
For example, I can verify most of the mentioned items in the report independently. But, when putting the items together, the only reference to the time frame and places is the report itself, with a couple exceptions like the Navy Seals dying. That is why I call it a masterpiece. I am very impressed. I could continue to research each item and post interesting information. But, how do I tie each item into a specific time frame and place without a reference?
I will give Booth props for inventiveness. There are always elements
of truth in the lies he weaves. He should have been a creative writer
instead of this failed Sorcha Faal gig.

I think you saved me about 40 hours of research. I appreciate that. I could create threads based upon each item in the report, and learn much, which is what I enjoy the most. But, without sufficient documentation, it is fiction. I like fiction but I have to draw a line somewhere.

**SwordofGideon**

SecretGeek Wrote:

DrPostman Wrote:
SecretGeek Wrote:
For example, I can verify most of the mentioned items in the report independently. But, when putting the items together, the only reference to the time frame and places is the report itself, with a couple exceptions like the Navy Seals dying. That is why I call it a masterpiece. I am very impressed. I could continue to research each item and post interesting information. But, how do I tie each item into a specific time frame and place without a reference?
I will give Booth props for inventiveness. There are always elements
of truth in the lies he weaves. He should have been a creative writer
instead of this failed Sorcha Faal gig.

I think you saved me about 40 hours of research. I appreciate that. I could create threads based upon each item in the report, and learn much, which is what I enjoy the most. But, without sufficient documentation, it is fiction. I like fiction but I have to draw a line somewhere.

But it's not necessarily a total fail.

Sometimes stories haft to be sensationalized to extreme degrees in order to get people to pay attention.

This is done with children's stories all the time, and could be a condescending tactic by the writer to sensationalize a story in order to get the "children" to read it.

Perhaps it is his hope that some children would have a fondness for the story and follow up/investigate further and find the real stories, like deaths and perhaps trillions of dollars in minerals and ores?

The lithium.......

In our modern society, batteries.

As far as UFO's, who knows. I'm thinking the powers that are would be better capable of keeping secrets by now. They do have people more fearful of them at this stage of the game, unlike the Roswell incident. But everyone forgot the one outside of kingman Az.

The old red lake bed was a gunnery range........

There was a third, but I forget off the top of my head where it crashed.

But would it be far fetched to say perhaps they were shot down in Arizona and crashed in various places?

Perhaps it was a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time for them.

Everyone was looking for enemy aircraft, and 3 unknown objects come flying in from the west........

But this would be speculation and there's no proof.

Except maybe a couple of slip ups from a man who headed up the initial investigation at Roswell.

There is no proof.

But, just because the proof isn't tangible, it doesn't means it didn't happen.......

Many will speculate that the increase in knowledge and technology started in that era and we have all the advances we have today because of it.

Yet, one eagle stole/took over what another eagle had. It was the same era after all.

So, do you want to believe all our advancements came from aliens? Or Germans?

Or perhaps a mixture of both.........

Remember, hitler was notorious for ancient artifacts.

And like our gov. There's no telling what they found either.

Everything was secret and forgotten, except the pieces they felt were trivial perhaps, like a spear etc. religious objects.

But those artifacts that were for the war effort, only silence.