It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stanton Friedman, Bob Lazar, David Icke the Best and the worst

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xatnys
Me personally, I just picked up a used copy of one of his books. Tales from The Time Loop, and I'm giving it a read as my free time allows. He is a decent writer, but the first bit of the book seems very focused on "him", vanity? I dunno. I'll let you know how it continues..


How about the others? Have you read any of their work? What do you think of them?

Icke was one of the first ones I ran across when I got on the web and have read just about everything at his site.I wouldnt mind reading Ickes stuff if I could find one at say a used book store, but to be honest from what I have read at his web-site I just dont believe enough to shell out 20-30 dollars for a book.




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Hi Amuk,

No, I've not read any of his other books. I, much like you, have gone through a ton of the stuff on his site.

The thing that draws me into researching Icke is the fact that he's not the only one (maybe he's not even the first) to take a look at the importance of bloodlines to certain elite families.

There's some excellent research on the web and in books (Like "Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier), that goes a long way to show how certain families seem to conspire to "keep it all in the family".

When I first heard of Icke, and the whole reptilian thing, I just laughed my @$$ off for a good 2 weeks.

Then I decided I should look at what he said from another angle. Instead of thinking of the "reptoids"(or whatever) as an actual physical manifestation, I chose to view that as a more mental/psychological manifestation brought on by more ancient parts of the human brain. Maybe he meant that these folks were operating with a cold, reptilian-like method of conquest?

Surely I had seen many in my life and travels that acted rather "primitive" only concerned with self, would trample anyone to gain advantage. Those people, sadly, are everywhere.

So that line of thinking allowed me to read his articles without throwing it right out of my brain.

However, now that I've gotten far enough into his stuff that I actually had to buy a book, I know that my "reptoid brain" theory is not what he meant; rather he means they are an actual physical manifestation.

I have an open mind on the whole, so I decided not to discount him because it doesn't mesh with my views.

The things that bother me about this "reptoid" info are:

1. I believe a lot of this line of thinking of his came from a Ms. Arizona Wilder, who I believe he met and uses as a "channeling source". Being a lifelong student of human nature (almost at the expense of being part of human nature), I realize how easily it is for so-called "channeled info" to come from the person's mind and imagination, rather than from any external source. To know the truth of this woman's "reptoid" stuff would mean having to know this woman's motivations, but she seems to be even more abstract than Icke himself.

2. Icke also states that he's followed up this research into various ancient cultures that all seem to have held belief systems that revolved around "reptoid" gods that came down upon man. To me, this could be true.

However something that seems more true in a "common sense" way, is that such stories could be more so a product of early man's mythos of nature and the wild, unexplainable forces that he thought controlled his life. Certain things, that evoke fear in us to this day, evoked fear in early man as well. One such thing would have to be reptiles of various types.

Take for example the story of "Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden" and you find that Lucifer was in fact, portrayed as a serpent. Is this one of Mr. Icke's "smoking guns" that proves his theory? Are other tribes that worshiped or feared "Winged Serpents" also part of this "proof" of his?


Regardless, I can't believe him on those merits alone. However I have done a great deal of research into the ancient elite, and I have found various references of sects and orders that were built by the elites, as their seat of control. Some of these, such as "The Order of The Serpent" go back a LONG time, and filter outward in what seems to be a very calculating manner.

Still, not a smoking gun of "reptoids".


Probably the only thing that makes sense to me right at first sight, is his idea of their overall "plan" or rather their modus operandi for hiding themselves and their power and controlling covertly.

We humans are very militant and believe, via conditioning and possibly also via primal instincts, that the only way to conquer is via violence.

That is not the case. Many of the worlds most powerful and devious rulers have gathered their power peacefully, seeming to be "apostles of peace" until a time when they decided to use their acquired power in a a more...violent manner.

A very advanced civilization could take our world over without firing a shot. Have people in places of power help them "steer" the world to whatever goal they were after, and keep most of the population ignorant to the fact that they ever existed.

Amuk asked a great question a few post back about "Do we try to trick cattle? No, we just reach in, taser 'em and send 'em off to the packer". Not verbatim, but you get the idea.

There's a difference between us and cattle, several actually, depending on how you want to look at it.

We are aware, and therefore if we were aware of such a plan, I mean if you grew up knowing you were a "cosmic cow", then you'd harbor some fears and hatred that would eventually manifest itself on a large scale.

If they are really ruling use, it is likely they do so in the minority. So an organized uprising of many of us would not be in their best interests.

Another angle is that we are all lead to the doors of deception, they can't force us in due to "free will", but they can have us grow up with heavy amounts of societal conditioning that can ensure we don't take advantage of our "free will" and look to break free from their grasp.

That really makes sense if you take time to study people. Most people don't use "free will" (as in clear objective thought and rationalizing) on a daily basis, and that's with mundane things. Something of this scope, which youre taught from a small age doesnt exist in various ways, would be nearly impossible for most people to ever grasp or begin to rebel against.


This thing that we're all looking at/for, it's BIG, and when I say big, I mean really huge brother. The magnitude of this system is so large that our normal conditioned logic would have us believe it could never exist.

But I'm fairly; no I'm extremely confident that it does.



Sorry for the long diatribe, but you asked!



X



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xatnys

Sorry for the long diatribe, but you asked!



Actually I meant the other researchers


But it was a great post anyway. Even Icke I dont TOTALLY discount as I have said before there might be threads of truth running it but most of it I dont agree with. Like I have posted before it would be very simple to prove this theroy, all you would need is a DNA sample from one and since they are everywhere it should be easy to bribe a waitress or maid to get it for you.

What do you think of the Other researchers?

Who do you trust the most and who do you trust the least?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I'm sorry
.


Stanton Friedman, to me, is very credible. I think that he is possibly the best spokesman that the "UFO Community" has. The work he's done on the MJ-12 documentation really can't be discounted, and falls in line with a much broader view of conspiracy, even if he is not willing to go that route.

I mean, the MJ-12 list is like a "Who's Who" of cunning control, manipulation, and deceit. And not all dealing with ETI (not directly, at least). By just researching that document you can start to tie strands together about the NSA (which you never hear enough about, imho), or the Bush Family, which will lead you to other covert dealings and illicit activities that will span decades, cover the CIA, Zapata Oil, Halliburton on and on until present day. And the whole time, familiar names/family trees will pop up in the same or similar circles. The MJ-12 work (authentication effort) does a lot for more conspiracies than one would initially think.


Now as for Lazar, I feel that he is one of two things:

1. He's a total fraud as Mr.Friedman asserts. He never went to the Universities he's claimed, and really knows nothing about UFOs at least in their "secret government operations" sense. The only thing near a UFO that he's truly seen was when he was out near Groom Lake with Lear and a few others on a few occasions.

2. He's not nearly as foolish as his detractors would have us believe. In fact he is (unwittingly or otherwise) part of a concerted effort to lead UFO researchers on a path that leads to nothing. He would not be the first person to come to the community and lead them down a pointless road (Strawberry Ice-cream and Sitarr music as Mr.Friedman may remember). He has been paid or duped by the government to tell a tale that leads us away from something that we should all be looking at.

What though? Dulce? Still at Area 51? An international effort that is taking place somewhere else?

I'm not sure, so if Bob Lazar is a #2, he's done his job. Thanks Bob.


Hoagland. Hoagland, Hoagland, Hoagland.

Where to start... Sure, most well known for his work on "The Face on Mars" and various other "artifacts" which I think hold some weight, but there's a lot more to this guy than just that. I mean this guy has some really interesting stuff. I mean if you've ever dug around his site and looked at his almost "obsessive-compulsive" method of following certain tragedies (9/11 for example) and certain celestial positions at what he calls "key times", it's very interesting stuff that yet again, I think we can tie into other things.

Or his fascination with tetrahedral and how they are used throughout JPL and NASA's endeavors. I mean it seems that he's really on to something, I'm just not sure he knows *what* that something is, much less us.

I have stayed "in the loop" on him for years now, since hearing him on Bell's show. He seems passionate, which I admire, but not focused. I know it's a lot of info to cover, but why must he have 100 different angles going at any given moment? Or at least, why show them all to us rather than taking the most important ones and bringing them for people to review?

For most folks, following up one line of thought can consume their entire time in this field, much less having 1,000 fragments thrown at you.

If he were more organized and focused, I think that he could at least lead others to a ton of info. I respect him, and try to keep up to speed on the general direction(s) that he's traveling at any given moment.


X
***********************************************************
[Edit for Indigo: Hey there, and thanks for the kind words, they are appreciated. I decided it would be best to edit my above post, rather than make a new one and take us off topic.

I just wanted to say that I know where you're coming from. Years ago, I felt the same way. It's taken a lot of "hard knocks" for me to realize that you can't take your personal vision to anyone else and hope they will make it their vision too. Not the way we do anyways.

I mean, our governments do it on a daily basis via trauma-based conditioning and other methods ingrained in us under the guise of patriotism, morals, status quo etc. But that's not our road, so it doesn't work the same way for us.

It's like a little flower, the truth is. It's small and grows, if a strong breeze comes along, and pushes the flower's standing, it will make the stem strong and sturdy, capable of withstanding much force later in life.

However, if a furious wind comes against the little plant, and pushes too hard, it will snap it's stem under the strain, and there's no telling if it will ever recover, most don't. Those that do are never truly the same.

The same goes for points of view. Our line of questioning and discussion is our wind. We can always challenge each other and in doing so, we are all strengthened. But if we bellow our breeze too harshly, bad things happens, whole avenues of research can be lost to the offended party, who won't ever care to look down that path again.

You're an individual, most of us here are (or are trying to be). So your view is your own and I'm not trying to force mine on you. Just a gentle push that may help you further down the road.


I appreciate your thoughts though.


X


[edit on 27-11-2004 by Xatnys]

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Xatnys]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Xatnys, I applaud you for your two consecutive great posts, and I really hope the ATS team applaud you for them as well. However, I politely disagree with your sitting-on-the-fence approach.

I must agree I have a very fiery and warrior like mentality, and sometimes that gets the better of me, and it manifests for all to see. I should endaveaour to control these fits of rage, but I cannot help it, because I cannot tolerate ignorance and stupidity. This is an innate intolerance. I think a mixed blessing.

It's not that I am insulting anyone personally, when I call them "ignorant" What I am doing is calling a spade a spade. I don't just say "you're ignorant" I say "you're being ignorant" because they have a choice, and they are choosing ignorance.

Why do I have to say it? Yeah, I could just state my points, and leave them to say what they want. However, this does not work, and in many ways, is a form of ignorance itself. If we do not label ignorance, ignorance, or we are too hesistant to do, then we are inadvertantly supporting their ignorance. It's circular logic. This is why in over 50 years, we are still nowhere close to the truth. This is because we letting the collective ignorance, denial and stupidity of many iwould be nvestigators hold us back. Yes, as you said, a lot of so called "research" is about egos.

While we are here busy shooting at each other to death, things are going on in the world, bad thing I should say, that affect us all. The status quo is just keeping us from the truth.

Ignorance is like a disease, and all diseases can only be treated, by first identifying the cause. Now, can anyone at all disagree, by definition, Amuk's approach to Icke is close-minded? Can anyone disagree that his constant s'n-word'ing and ridicule of anyone who wants to take Ike's claims as research research, is trolling? No. We need to censor these kind of attitudes, because they do not allow intelligent discussion.

In short: I am talking a no BS approach with such kinds of behavior, because it is farily obvious, if we let it carry on, we are not going to get anywhere.

All I want, is intelligent open-minded discussion, without slander and defamation. Am I asking for too much? Or am I asking for what ATS rules solicit from someone who has been particularly assigned the role to uphold them. I have gone through this at many scientific forums, and I promised myself I would not get involved in it again, because debating with skeptics was like trying to have an intelligent discussion with a terrorist.

However, now that i've broken my promise to myself, in confidence that in a pro-conspiracy forum, that says it's denying ignorance, I expect what's been advertized: open-minded and intelligent discussion.

Anyway it appears your post has helped bring this thread slightly back on track, and for that you get another applause from me
I look forward to your comments on Icke's book.


EDIT: To Intrepid comments below: Blah, forget it. I am not going to act like a victim here. U2U me, if you read the last edit.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Indigo, we got this thread back on topic only to have you derail it again? If you want to add to the discussion, please do, otherwise troll elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Xatnys

Who do you think Least creditable? Lazar?

How about you, Intrepid?

Who do you trust the most and who do you trust the least?

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
How about you, Intrepid?

Who do you trust the most and who do you trust the least?


You have just dialled up the most skeptical person on this topic. In your survey, I posted that I believe that life exists in the universe but don't believe any other lifeform has visited Earth.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You have just dialled up the most skeptical person on this topic. In your survey, I posted that I believe that life exists in the universe but don't believe any other lifeform has visited Earth.


Skeptical is good. If we ever want to raise UFO and paranormal research from tabloid level to something serious than we must stop believing EVERY crack pot and trailer park abductee that comes along without questioning any of it. I am a little higher than you I think we have PROBABLY been visited but to what extent I don't know.

Mathematically speaking it would be almost impossible for us to be alone in the universe and to many people have seen UFO for ALL of them to be wrong. But that still leaves "what is a UFO"? It is not necessarily from another planet but I think its probable. The odds go down from there.

What do you think of Stanton's research on Roswell? I think its about the closest thing to a smoking gun the UFO community has.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
What do you think of Stanton's research on Roswell? I think its about the closest thing to a smoking gun the UFO community has.


I've actually been thinking about this. It IS the closest to credibillity but with my thinking about the disinformation that the gov't spews, maybe the whole thing is to get a portion of the populous to think they're hiding something in order to cover what they are doing. Ie: UFO's = experimental aircraft.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Amuk
What do you think of Stanton's research on Roswell? I think its about the closest thing to a smoking gun the UFO community has.


I've actually been thinking about this. It IS the closest to credibillity but with my thinking about the disinformation that the gov't spews, maybe the whole thing is to get a portion of the populous to think they're hiding something in order to cover what they are doing. Ie: UFOs = experimental aircraft.


I agree.

I think some of the UFO people are just that. If they can get enough attention on the crackpots than it discredits the serious researcher and buries the truth in a barrel of lies, scams and plain old mistakes.

This is why we MUST be skeptical of anyone and everyone, because honestly we have little if ANY proof that the UFOs aren't swamp gas. Luckily we are starting to have the science to test some of these theory's and put to rest the dead ends and concentrate on the promising leads. DNA, lie detectors, soil samples,etc, could lead us in the right direction a lot quicker than merely believing whatever is placed in front of us.

I think it was Sherlock Holmes that said "once you rule out everything else what you have left is the truth"

We as a community need to rule out what it aint before we can say what it is.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Indigo, we got this thread back on topic only to have you derail it again? If you want to add to the discussion, please do, otherwise troll elsewhere.


Did Indigo "derail" this thread before? He would have had to, to be able to derail it "agian".

Are you suggesting that being ridiculed BY A MODERATOR and then trying to "moderate the moderator" is derailing a thread? And if you are, how are the rest of us supposed to feel about comming forward with topics outside the norm in this forum, when we can look forward to this kind of comments by a Moderator? Perhaps I should just go get a tissue?

We're all looking for a place to exhange views and to search for the truth. I can certainly understand why Amuk is getting along with the thread now that his unfortunate way of commenting has been brought to the attention of the readers.

If this sort of "ha ha ha ha how can you believe in this noncense
" comments from a moderator does not create a reaction by the more mature attenders of this thread, then when will it stop? So he got back on track, but not before shooting back and acting the victim. Is this the same as going back on topic and should we all just pretend all is as it should be?

So the Moderator is exposed, he shifts, defends by attacking back, and then goes back into the discussion and pretends HE is being trolled.

The wolf, disguised as a sheppard. When the "Farmowner" doesn't look, he takes attacks the lamb. When exposed he whistles and goes about his work...waiting....waiting...

That is not the thread going back to topic, that's him playing the victim and hoping no one sees it.

I asked him to be tolerant and replied "go get a tissue". I think that just about sums it up.

Is that really what is needed to participate in a discussion here at ATS? Always keep a tissue ready in case a Moderator decides to let you have a piece of his mind


You guys set the rules, we respect them and decide if our thoughts are welcome or not here on this forum.

I think the ATS needs to come out and either support Amuk and his behavior so we know that this is the way of ATS, or come out and Moderate the tone.

I bring to your attention a post called "No more scoffing and ridicule..."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The issue here is not just this thread. This problem has apparently been big enough to post the above "reminder". How much weight does this post have to the readers if the very Moderators of this forum "derails" from this behavioral request themselves?
And when he is confronted and asked to "moderate" his ridicule has nothing more to say than "go get a tissue..." ?

Is this how ATS feels their moderators can best serve as rolemodels for their stated request for no riddicule ?

Indigo did nothing but answer the obvious attemt to shift blame by Amuk, who then rejoined the discussion in a polite manner to avoid further exposure.

The decency of ATS is what is really being discussed here, and the question is still felt in the air of this thread. Does Amuks ridicule stand the test of ATS behavior policy and does ATS feel that Amuk is living up to those standards.

We just want to know, so that we can know what to expect in the future.

Thank you.



Respectfully

Cade



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
What we have here are very different people joining in on the subjectmatter of UFO's. A BBC ancorman, a scientist and a former corporate employee under contract for the military.

Ofcause it's not really surprising that they have different approach to the subject, nor is it surprising that we all have different choise when choosing who we feel best speaks the language we "understand".

Personally I'm still waiting for a hobo, cracksmoking, Reptillian looking, stripper from Queens before I'll really get someone one MY wavelength
If you know what I mean...

If we shifted the subjectmatter of UFO's to let's say air-molecules. Both can't be seen (hoping you can follow my point). I think we would see the same guys having equal different things to say about that subjectmatter. The point being ofcause, that no one would claim these air-molecules didn't excist!

So we'll se very different people having very different angles on this subject and that is how it should be.

The are however those who do not whis that we wake up to this reality, as this would undermine their authority. They put out disinformation agents to lead us in the wrong direction, but be aware of something very important here. Some try to tell you the aliens do not excist and if they can't do that they try to scare you.

The scare tactics will be the way of the future, soon they will come out and tell us they are indeed real and that the reason for the secrecy is that they are hostile.
Why would they do this? to keep you running to them for protection is why.

Who are you running to now for protection for the terrorists? Who are the real perpetrators of the terrorist attacks?

Aahh the many questions, and so much confusion.

Look into your hearts, here lies all truth and wisdom, and indeed the love that we need to make it through the tough times ahead.


Sincerly

Cade



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Keep discussion on topic, otherwise useless posts will be removed.

Final warning.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Henry Kissinger once said: "If you really want to test a man's character...give him power"

Perhaps that is the test that our authorities have failed, the way they pull rank, and protect those who also posses rank. It is the position they admire before the person who holds it.
Always protecting each other, against the attacks from those who does not abide by rank. Not so much because they feel that justice is on their side, but because of the inner sense that once their "rank partner" falls, their own fall is closer.

So it is with the military, the intelligence community and just about every where else we simple pessants travel...or surf.

The UFO matter is a great threat to the rank holders inside the different branches of government. Be it the intelligence community or the military, NRO etc.

A wise man once said "in order to understand a mans actions, you must first understand his motivation"

Who has the greatest authority in the world? (Whispering: USA)
What nation has the loudest voice in the world? (Whispering: USA)
Why? (Whispering: strongest military power)
Who would earthlings respect the most if huge spacecraft decorated our blue sky? (Whispering: now you know the motivation for the greatest coverup in human history)

The point is that all these investigaros Friedman, Icke and Bob are all discussing the same "air-molecules" (UFO's) but have different angles. In my mind this actually further proves the excistance of UFO's when so different people with so different backgrounds, who disagree on so many issues, all agree that UFO's are here, they are real, and they watching!

This must be kept a secret, because when enough people of the earth have opened their minds, heart and arms the the existance of ET's the universal govenment will allow them to make open contact and we can live together.

The Rank guys are pulling rank to silence the voices of those crying for justice in the 911 attacks, those screaming for truth on the UFO matters, but you can find it elsewhere too...right now it's starring you in the face!


Sincerly

Cade

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Cade]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cade

The point is that all these investigaros Friedman, Icke and Bob are all discussing the same "air-molecules" (UFO's) but have different angles. In my mind this actually further proves the excistance of UFO's when so different people with so different backgrounds, who disagree on so many issues, all agree that UFO's are here, they are real, and they watching!


This is where we part, proof to me is tangible, something that can be measured, weighed, counted, whatever. I agree that with so much intangible evidence there is almost certainly something going on but until I see hard evidence I can not say I believe any of it. Some are more believable and some are less but the one thing they have in common is as far as I know NONE have offered something solid to lend credibility to their stories.

That is what we as a community need is the "smoking gun", stories can be made up, pictures can be faked, documents can be forged, etc; but our science is catching up with our SCI-FI, we can test samples of DNA, soil, matter, etc. One day we will find that piece or pieces of evidence that can not be denied.

But till then we MUST remain skeptical of stories with no evidence backing them up, failing to do so makes us our own worst enemy.
I am still interested in hearing more about lazar and hoagland, those are two I really dont know how to place.

Does anyone know of a researcher that we have overlooked?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I sure think this reptilian topic is leading us away from the relevant issues.......
mmm.....thats something to think about...could it be..Disinformation!!

People please dont fall into these traps, they are deviding us truthseekers...



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I see we are still just moving right along...

What we see here is really a great example of how the government has covered up the UFO topic for so long. The sence of tabu.

Instead of threat of exclusion, we have been exposed to the threat of ridicule by the media etc. And nothing is more feared than ridicule.

I once heard the claim that the fear of ridicule is the number one fear. Hence, once ridicule was the expected reaction from media, and then ofcause the public, it made a lot of people keep their mouth shut.

The fear of ridicule and the sense of tabu, combined with the threat of exclusion.

George Orwell once said: "At any given moment, there is a sort of all prevading orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss large and uncomfortable facts."

Sometimes this rings true even as long as the facts are just small but uncomfortable, or perhaps an embarresment to certain unnamed individuals.

Why would I try and convince anyone of anything. I'm on a journey towards the truth, and when you really go look for it, it slams you in the face!

The proof is abundant and manifold.
"The secret NASA transmissions"
"Disclosure Project - 4 hour witness VHS video"
"The case for the NASA evidence"
"Ancient Aliens"
"Alien Interview"
the 1907 (I think) major UFO crash in the Russia!
Etc.

Ofcause every one of these can be debunked!

It was debunked many many years ago that the earth was round, how else could we stand on it? If it was round we would fall off. This is common sence...untill you discover gravity.
Everyone said, there is no proof that the earth is round!

So even truth can be debunked. Everything can be debunked. But only ONE of these pieces of evidence has to be real for the subject matter to be real! The odds are against the disbelievers, but they will never care as truth was never their goal. What is this now?

Some put truth over comfort
Others put comfort over truth

You can be certain that everytime a credible UFO evidence comes out it will be ignored or debunked, THIS IS THE ONLY CERTAINTY!

Be carefull to always research with a blank mind or you will risk only finding what you were looking for...

Conformation that all is safe, and no UFO can be proved to be aliens.
or
Conformation that UFO's are everywhere.

Hense it becomes trivial for a believer to discuss with a disbeliever, as there is rarely any real discussion going on, but rather there is recruitment going on


Sincerly

Cade



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by motionknight
I sure think this reptilian topic is leading us away from the relevant issues.......
mmm.....thats something to think about...could it be..Disinformation!!

People please dont fall into these traps, they are deviding us truthseekers...


Perhaps you read my earlier post on this, but how can different people, with different angles, who all say that UFO's are here and real, be dividing us? Oh sure, we are discussing if there are ALSO Reptillians or only Greys, humanoids or also insects, but please realise that if we are discussing if the ALIENS are real, it cannot be because of these peole. They are all agreeing on the fact that the aliens are real!

I don't know if you can follow my logic on this?

Could it be that the disbelievers use them as a "lifting rod" to "prove" that any talk of Aliens are nonsense. Which ofcause is a very poor argument indeed.



sincerly

Cade

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Cade]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cade
Perhaps you read my earlier post on this, but how can different people, with different angles, who all say that UFO's are here and real, be dividing us?


The question never was which one and only one was real but which do you lend the most credibility to. 99% of what some think of as proof is nothing even close. A tale told by someone or a smudgy picture is not proof,but ALL the stories don't have to be true. JUST ONE, and that changes the world. Just as, mathematically speaking it would be almost impossible for there to be no other life in the universe, with so many stories on UFOs surly ALL are not false.

But just like by judging a planets mass, atmosphere, gravity, temperature we can narrow the search by quite a bit, we can test the stories to see which can be proved and which can be discounted.

That was the intent of this thread to find out which ones yall believed in and which ones you dont and which ones fall somewhere in the middle




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join