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.

 

Aliens made Pumapunku? (CampKill)

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Harte

Oh, that is unfortunate.

See, no mainstream scientist has ever believed the world was flat. In fact, the spherical shape of the planet has been known since Ancient Greek times. Yes, even during the "Dark Ages."

So, I'd suggest being a bit more careful in parsing your pro-AA arguments in the future. Your analogies indicate that you lack either the intellect or the education to rationally discuss the subject.

Harte


yeah and everyone today knows what a higgs-boson is.

hell, some don't know who joe biden is. and they can VOTE!

wtf does flat earther ignorant people have to do with science?

lol, what strawmen we build to bash.

i think i'll spark up my private CERN and mess around for a bit, i'll get back to you guys when my peer review comes in.

or do you just want to read my paper first? we can compare notes?


I think it's obvious that no one would deny that ignorant people exist. Here on ATS, this fact is illustrated practically every minute.

The post I responded to, however, stated that "mainstream scientists" believed the Earth was flat.

That statement was one of the illustrations I referred to in the second sentence of this post, and I pointed that out.

Harte




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Mr Mask

Undirected natural pansperima and directed panspermia are two different concepts. Both can be possible and are not creations of con men.

MM


now here's a good example of what I'm talking about. That doesn't even make sense. The point is incoherent. You are not interested in discussing the idea of life arising from outer space and even being guided intentionally by other species of sentient beings. You 'd rather harp on smearing people as if the gist of what we are talking about will go away. Basically a shrill ad hominem flailing, attention seeking, silly little rant.

It makes perfect sense to me. Are you reading it wrong?

If life on Earth is the result of panspermia, it still doesn't indicate anything about directed panspermia. IOW, panspermia can happen naturally and needn't be some alien biology project.

Natura panspermia, BTW, is provable. We could know one way or the other within the next century whether or not this occurred. Directed panspermia, while not unprovable, would require contact with the directors of the panspermia to prove; a very unlikely scenario.

Harte



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

Thanks for sharing your video, I found it entertaining, and for about 15 seconds I considered firing up the xbox to go shoot people, but after seeing your elite skills I realized that is why I quit playing that game.

As for AA, I could only watch part of a show and had to turn it off because of the constant stream of lies and far fetched ideas. If there is a rational substitute it doesn't make the final cut before the show airs.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

so if the universe is teeming with life that's been around for billions of years then why is it such a stretch to think there are beings that have been around much longer than us? That's the slippery slope with that because once you go there it explains everything very elegantly. Now you guys can curl up in your mechanistic fetal position and scream "YOU HAVE NO PROOF!!!"



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

it's funny you mention direct panspermia being unlikely because the Mask guy says it's possible so I guess you need to explain why you think it is unlikely.

I tend to think alien interventon is a more accurate description of what is going on in a general way. Still no account for the intentions of "why?", though.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

so if the universe is teeming with life that's been around for billions of years then why is it such a stretch to think there are beings that have been around much longer than us?

Who claims that this is a "stretch?"

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
That's the slippery slope with that because once you go there it explains everything very elegantly. Now you guys can curl up in your mechanistic fetal position and scream "YOU HAVE NO PROOF!!!"

And you can continue with your straw man argument that anyone that doesn't buy into the AAH also denies the possibility of the existence of alien intelligent life.

As an aside, isn't your "argument" (I hesitate to use the word in the context of your bogus characterization) supremely egotistical?
You postulate that, if intelligent alien species exist, then they MUST have visited here, with your insistence that skeptics refuse to believe in intelligent alien species.


originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

it's funny you mention direct panspermia being unlikely because the Mask guy says it's possible so I guess you need to explain why you think it is unlikely.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I stated that proving directed panspermia would be difficult since it would require contact with the aliens that directed the panspermia. Even if directed panspermia is true, it is entirely possible that the species that started it no longer exists. It is contact with that species that I characterized as "unlikely."

Harte



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Mr Mask

Undirected natural pansperima and directed panspermia are two different concepts. Both can be possible and are not creations of con men.

MM


now here's a good example of what I'm talking about. That doesn't even make sense. The point is incoherent. You are not interested in discussing the idea of life arising from outer space and even being guided intentionally by other species of sentient beings. You 'd rather harp on smearing people as if the gist of what we are talking about will go away. Basically a shrill ad hominem flailing, attention seeking, silly little rant.


No, this is where you fail to read and understand.

I basically agreed with you that both directed panspermia and undirected panspermia is possible.

You just went "incoherent" on your own accord for what reason?

Don't tell me I am not making sense when I plainly am. These are subjects I not only obsess about, but spends hours a day for close to 40 years studying in my free time.

Sir, it is you who failed to make sense in saying my reply was nonsensical, when it was blatantly agreeing with you. Get a grip and come back to me when you are ready to be civil and/or educated on any of these subjects.

MM



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

it's funny you mention direct panspermia being unlikely because the Mask guy says it's possible so I guess you need to explain why you think it is unlikely.

I tend to think alien interventon is a more accurate description of what is going on in a general way. Still no account for the intentions of "why?", though.


Directed panspemia "is possible" as stated by even some very respected minds in physics today. But yes, it is highly HIGHLY unlikely as said by "all" physicists of today who have spoken on the subject.

Research and learn...stop jumping to unpublished or unsupported assumptions based on mainstream entertainment, and you will go farther in debating matters of science.

MM
edit on 19-4-2014 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crystalwolf
I watch ancient aliens, and some of the stuff is far fetched, just don't take everything seriously. They do have some great evidence though. The may hype up the show a bit for the ratings, but there is no need to dog the show. If you don't like the show then don't watch it, no need to ruin it for everyone else. reply to: Mr Mask



100% of all information on the tv show AA is bunk and can easily be discredited and shown to be intentionally dishonest. The presenters and producers of all info on the show are even aware they are lying.

They have zero "great evidence" and present zero evidence at all.

All they present can be dismantled in mins with research. They present nothing that has not been debunked and shown to be false for over 2 decades now.

I challenge you to provide one bit of evidence from the show that you find great, so I can destroy it before your very eyes with little effort.

Thank you for providing this "great evidence" in advance.

Lastly, I am in the right of way in attacking this show. It is producing nonsensical people left and right. It is filling my world with zealots and misled people. I take that as a direct challenge to truth and science, and refuse to just close my eyes and let people swallow the BS-Pill. No sir...I will not ignore the madness this show has created around me, and I will continue to dismantle it as I see fit.

Thanks.

MM
edit on 19-4-2014 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: QuietSpeech
a reply to: Mr Mask

Thanks for sharing your video, I found it entertaining, and for about 15 seconds I considered firing up the xbox to go shoot people, but after seeing your elite skills I realized that is why I quit playing that game.

As for AA, I could only watch part of a show and had to turn it off because of the constant stream of lies and far fetched ideas. If there is a rational substitute it doesn't make the final cut before the show airs.


Thank you for the kind comments and for enjoying my video. I appreciate that very much.

MM



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

I'm just trying to figure out why you are so hyper offended by a television show as if it even matters.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mr Mask

I challenge you to provide one bit of evidence from the show that you find great, so I can destroy it before your very eyes with little effort.



www.therendleshamforestincident.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Mr Mask

where did you come up with that "highly unlikely" quote? and don't assume all I know I learned on a tv show. You do realize everything that show talks about happened independent from the show right? This is not the first time these subjects have been reported so why do you harp so much on the validity of the show as if the cases themselves depended on the show's credibility? that's what is incoherent to me. I don't know maybe I should watch one of your videos to get a better idea what's goin on inside that noggin of yours. not right now though, I choose to enjoy my evening.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

We have science telling us life is more than likely all over the place and that's where the forensic evidence comes into play. It's the smoking gun here on Earth.

what is your explanation?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Mr Mask

I challenge you to provide one bit of evidence from the show that you find great, so I can destroy it before your very eyes with little effort.



www.therendleshamforestincident.com...


Perfect example of a case that is over inflated by history channel and UFO outlets selling nonsense. Let me help you here. Please follow along.

1) Most importantly one must know the landscape of the area. Big lighthouse...right where the witnesses saw the UFO.

2) Three witnesses saw this "UFO" in the woods that night. All three give a dramatically different account of what they saw. Penniston and Burroughs reported lights they felt came from a mechanical object with a red light on top and blue lights below surrounded by a yellow haze. They both drew pictures of it in their reports. Penniston's illustration shows it obscured by trees and far off in the distance to the east (directly where the light house is)

3) Cabansag publicly reported that the only light they saw after actually leaving the base was the one that all three men eventually identified as a lighthouse or beacon beyond the farmhouse. Get that? one of the witnesses of said encounter said it was definitely a lighthouse and that all three had agreed.

4) Cabansag said in his detailed report that the yellow haze had simply been the glow from the farmhouse lightsand that there was no further incident on the way to the base.

5) Burroughs' and Penniston's stories have changed over and over throughout the years. Each time growing in size and nature. Even though the third witness has plainly reported it was a lighthouse.

6) In recent TV interviews, Burroughs and Penniston claimed that they saw the craft fly up out of the trees and fly around. This was never said in the original reports. It was added many years later to the story.

7) Penniston has also unveiled a notebook in 2003 (something he never reported having before this date) which he claims he wrote "during" their forest chase. He actually stated he wrote it DURING the "chase". Yet all the times and date are wrong. He never showed this notebook before 2003 and he unveiled it on a Sci-Fi Channel documentary in 2003.

8) We are to believe that these new details, new stories and this note book was not shared or spoken about since 1980??? And for some strange reason both these "liars" held these facts to themselves even though they were being very vocal about a UFO all these years? Use logic.

9) Burroughs has stated publicly more than once that Penniston did not make any notes during the episode and would not have had time to do so. This is now two witnesses calling Penniston a liar. If the two people with him are calling him dishonest, I hope you don't have trouble considering the possibility, since you know- you ARE quick to make large leaps in logic that suit your "UFO desires".

10) Penniston's story has also expanded over years to now include a 45 minute personal walkaround inspection of the object during which he took a whole roll of photographs (seized by the the Air Force, of course). But the written reports of all three men show this not to be true, and the other two witnesses say this is not true.

11) Only Cabansag's story (of a single pulsing light that was later determined to be a lighthouse), describes events that all three men agreed on. It also is consistent with the statements of others. Example, A1C Chris Arnold, who placed the call to the police also seeing the "UFO". his report is published and public and here it is.

There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were... Contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people.
"

12) Police arrived on the scene while Penniston, Cabansag and Burroughs were still in the woods. Here is what the police report said (also published and in the public)

"Air traffic control West Drayton checked. No knowledge of aircraft. Reports received of aerial phenomena over southern England during the night. Only lights visible this area was from Orford light house. Search made of area - negative.

13) the next morning some men reported landing craft marks in the dirt in the woods. Police investigated and the report was as such-

"There were three marks in the area which did not follow a set pattern. The impressions made by the marks were of no depth and could have been made by an animal.There were three marks in the area which did not follow a set pattern. The impressions made by the marks were of no depth and could have been made by an animal.

14) Local Forestry Commission worker Vince Thurkettle was also present at the examination he stated the marks were "rabbit diggings" and months old. He also stated the "burn marks in the threes" were ax marks for foresters (like himself) to mark trees for downing.

15) There are false stories that there was three nights of UFO sightings. There has never been reports of UFO sightings on the second night. But on the third night Col. Halt went out to investigate. This is what he saw. A light pulsing in the east (where the lighthouse was).

16) there are recordings of Halt on radio saying its a red pulsing light, yet his men all say it was yellow and he was wrong.

17) halt said publicly he didn't think it could be the lighthouse because the lighthouse was in the southeast. He was later corrected and told it was in the East. He was not aware of that.

18) Everything about the case has fallen apart and only History Channel and various UFO scammers still present this case as anything but closed. Its a joke and more than one liar is involved and making money off it all these years later.

NOW...i just took a good 15 mins of my life typing this. I am very sure you will ignore it all, like you have done with all presented evidence just to follow some fantasy idea that helps you believe in silly stories that make you feel enlightened or entertained.

I really do hope you seek the truth on this case though. it is one of the most debunked UFO cases of all timer. its only AA and UFO TV shows that paint it as "the biggest unexplained UFO case in history".


AND AS I TOLD YOU...100% OF ALL CRAP PRESENTED ON AA IS HOAXED AND HOGWASH AND THEY KNOW IT. They are selling you BS and you are buying. You wonder why a man who honors truth and seeks answers hates this rubbish? Because it gets in the way of truths I demand to know. I am not Anti-UFO. I demand research and truth...not foolish people following foolish stories made to fool lazy people who refuse to look at facts. it muddies the waters of truth when countless people like you are running around ignoring facts and letting this nonsense COVER UP the real truth behind UFOs.

MM

edit on 19-4-2014 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

We have science telling us life is more than likely all over the place and that's where the forensic evidence comes into play. It's the smoking gun here on Earth.

what is your explanation?


No...we have science telling us is it more likely and easier that life originated through the natural evolution of RNA into DNA and that it is most likely very easy for this to happen across the universe on countless planets, moons and even in mid-space.

You will find it very hard to find any impressive number of creditable scientists that think panspermia is more likely than RNA becoming DNA. And you will find almost NO scientists who believe in directed panspermia.

You take science, twist it and make it serve your TV show whims and desires. Sorry, science is not here to play fairy tales with people. its here to share truth and find answers. real ones.

MM



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Mr Mask

I'm just trying to figure out why you are so hyper offended by a television show as if it even matters.


I'm offended because I know there is something unusual that is appearing in our skies. And its being covered up by media selling lies on a multi-billion dollar networks.

I want answers. real answers. Not this malarky you have swallowed.

Since you have swallowed the BS, you will never know the truth. Ever. because you accepted the lie instead.

MM



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

We have science telling us life is more than likely all over the place and that's where the forensic evidence comes into play. It's the smoking gun here on Earth.

what is your explanation?


One more thing you are missing the point of. Science says life is most likely everywhere...so you take this as a smoking gun that panspermia by aliens was used on Earth? How can you even argue that logic? it would require "aliens" to seed trillions of planets instead of it simply evolving naturally everywhere.

Use logic. its a very keen weapon against nonsense.

MM



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Harte

We have science telling us life is more than likely all over the place and that's where the forensic evidence comes into play. It's the smoking gun here on Earth.

what is your explanation?

"My" explanation for why life is "all over the place?"

I note that you said that science tells us this is likely. Do you disagree?

News flash.
Life can arise on its own.

You have to have this anyway. After all, if aliens spermed us into existence, who spermed the spermers into existence?

Harte



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

we should get our heads around the first question of us being created by them before we start asking questions like where did THEY come from? You said "life can arise on its own" and I'll ask how you know that? Do you mean like cows growing out of mushrooms, or rocks spontaneously changing into amoebas? What are you talking about?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join