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.

 

Is there an organized effort to undermine the Aliens and UFOs forum?

page: 41
94
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

But Jacobs too had some trouble with a loon he was interviewing over the phone, that's why I confused them.

a loon? really? I am going to be blunt. David Jacobs is a panty sniffen a$$hole. You do realize that he was recorded, right? You people are really incredible with this. How much of the 180 hours of recorded hypnosis sessions performed over the phone did you listen to? let me guess. ZERO. She's a loon because she recorded her sessions and exposed an a$$hole? And didn't think it was right for him to play out his bizarre sexual alien rape fantasy with her while she was under hypnosis? And she is loon? Seriously, go believe in your stupid aliens.

So women that get sexually harassed are loons. got it.

and I was being sarcastic with my Mack comments. Jeez.

So you didn't look at one link I posted on the other page. So if you want to believe in aliens, ignore any case against them.
edit on 25-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant



Tangerine: asking a good question is not testable evidence that ET's exist.


You seem to want to reduce it to a science. Here is a question; why do abductions always seem to happen on lonely roads? Very rarely do they happen in cities. Why? If abductions are mistaken perceptions or delusions why do people only have delusions on lonely roads? Are cities delusion free areas or areas where misidentification is prohibited?

Why mostly on quiet roads?

It is questions like this that need to be answered.


There's no testable evidence that abductions happen at all so your question is moot. But, let's pretend that it's not moot. Claiming that something happened when dozens or hundreds of witnesses are not present and surveillance cameras and cell phone cameras are not present makes it much easier to get away with fabricating. Just a thought.

Another thought: paranormal events/strange phenomena are commonly reported in association with liminal locations. Roads intersecting woods or fields, for example, are liminal locations. This association in no way proves the existence of ETs. I suggest that you read George P. Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal for another take on strange phenomena that isn't anchored to the anvil of ET.
edit on 25-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2015 by Tangerine because: typo correction



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

But Jacobs too had some trouble with a loon he was interviewing over the phone, that's why I confused them.

a loon? really? I am going to be blunt. David Jacobs is a panty sniffen a$$hole. You do realize that he was recorded, right? You people are really incredible with this. How much of the 180 hours of recorded hypnosis sessions performed over the phone did you listen to? let me guess. ZERO. She's a loon because she recorded her sessions and exposed an a$$hole? And didn't think it was right for him to play out his bizarre sexual alien rape fantasy with her while she was under hypnosis? And she is loon? Seriously, go believe in your stupid aliens.

So women that get sexually harassed are loons. got it.

and I was being sarcastic with my Mack comments. Jeez.




You're debating a religious zealot. No amount of critical reasoning will persuade him of anything. The correct forum is the coliseum.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

The correct forum is the coliseum.


yeah, just mention Jacobs and I would make the movie "Gladiator" look like a Disney cartoon.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
Those who cite media contamination must argue that over the space of a few months Hill's description went across the atlantic to a remote village in France and enter the head of a man and made him see greys.


You would only have a case if these were the first two reports of little men and strange craft.

But there were reports of little beings and strange craft going back many years.

There were also decades (if not more) of images of little aliens with big heads (Bug Eyed Monsters) in science fiction magazines, books and films.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
Yes, for sure! But Jacobs too had some trouble with a loon he was interviewing over the phone, that's why I confused them.


If you're saying she was a "loon" and he conducted 180 hours of hypnotic sessions with her without realizing it out how can you defend him as a reliable researcher?



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The whole UFO subject is so diluted and the waters are muddier than ever before, that if the real deal was presented here or elsewhere, that it would be shot down as a hoax, CGI or otherwise without a thought. We live in a world of kneejerk reactions that are aimed toward fringe subjects. Its a common trend to shoot first and ask questions later on these subjects.

Thing about it is, staunch skeptics and staunch believers are just as bad as the other one is. Both are annoying.

I will always and forever remain on the fence regarding subjects like these. Its always best to keep an open mind about something until proven otherwise. Going into these subjects screaming OMG HOAX or OMG REAL DEAL without much thought is dumb on many levels. I stay off those bandwagons.
edit on 25-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
The whole UFO subject is so diluted and the waters are muddier than ever before, that if the real deal was presented here or elsewhere, that it would be shot down as a hoax, CGI or otherwise without a thought. We live in a world of kneejerk reactions that are aimed toward fringe subjects. Its a common trend to shoot first and ask questions later on these subjects.

Thing about it is, staunch skeptics and staunch believers are just as bad as the other one is. Both are annoying.

I will always and forever remain on the fence regarding subjects like these. Its always best to keep an open mind about something until proven otherwise. Going into these subjects screaming OMG HOAX or OMG REAL DEAL without much thought is dumb on many levels. I stay off those bandwagons.


You are confusing skeptics with debunkers. If you will forever remain on the fence regarding subjects like these, that suggests that you will not yield to testable evidence (not that any has, at this point, been forthcoming). Do you think that's wise?



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
The whole UFO subject is so diluted and the waters are muddier than ever before, that if the real deal was presented here or elsewhere, that it would be shot down as a hoax, CGI or otherwise without a thought. We live in a world of kneejerk reactions that are aimed toward fringe subjects. Its a common trend to shoot first and ask questions later on these subjects.

Thing about it is, staunch skeptics and staunch believers are just as bad as the other one is. Both are annoying.

I will always and forever remain on the fence regarding subjects like these. Its always best to keep an open mind about something until proven otherwise. Going into these subjects screaming OMG HOAX or OMG REAL DEAL without much thought is dumb on many levels. I stay off those bandwagons.


You are confusing skeptics with debunkers. If you will forever remain on the fence regarding subjects like these, that suggests that you will not yield to testable evidence (not that any has, at this point, been forthcoming). Do you think that's wise?


I guess you misunderstood me.

I am on the fence. Meaning, I don't automatically just assume something is real or fake without knowing the facts first. We have a lot of folks here, and even elsewhere, that are on that shoot first and ask questions later bandwagon. Both sides of the coin are extremely foolish. Staunch debunkers and staunch believers both.

Its why I keep an open mind to any/all possibilities until proven otherwise on any given fringe topic.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
And I think some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing and hearing themselves talk, LOL



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
The whole UFO subject is so diluted and the waters are muddier than ever before, that if the real deal was presented here or elsewhere, that it would be shot down as a hoax, CGI or otherwise without a thought.


When has this ever happened?

Or is it just another straw man argument?

Bragging about being forever on the fence isn't exactly the self flattery you seem to think it is.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
The whole UFO subject is so diluted and the waters are muddier than ever before, that if the real deal was presented here or elsewhere, that it would be shot down as a hoax, CGI or otherwise without a thought.



Or is it just another straw man argument?


Nope.

Its true, is why. A lot of people are quick to either believe right off the bat or disbelieve right off the bat. There is rarely any "in between" these days. It just all depends on which bandwagon you belong to.

And yes, staunch debunkers and staunch believers are equally annoying.
edit on 25-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
And are you trying to say that one needs to "choose a side"? To either be a debunker/skeptic or a believer? If so, then why?

Since when is remaining neutral on topics/subjects a bad thing? Is it so bad to find out the facts first on your own before you jump to a conclusion?
edit on 25-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
And what I meant by the topic being diluted and having muddy waters, is all of the hoaxes and fake videos posted over the years. Its the cry wolf syndrome. The real deal could rear its head and bite us on the butt and nobody would know due to everyone being so quick to cry hoax. It would be written off as a fake before it even stood a chance.

Then of course you'll have your believers who swear that its the real deal, like every other hoaxed video or report over the years. Only this time, they are right.

So yes, muddy waters. The entire subject is getting harder and harder to separate the wheat from the chaff due to it.
edit on 25-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger


Is it so bad to find out the facts first on your own before you jump to a conclusion?

Sounds like you are on our side. Welcome to team debunker!


edit on 25-1-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Bloodydagger


Is it so bad to find out the facts first on your own before you jump to a conclusion?

Sounds like you are on our side. Welcome to team debunker!



haha, hi


I'll call a spade a spade if need be. But if I cannot easily explain something on my own, I do not jump to a conclusion or ride someone elses coattails in saying that something is faked/hoaxed etc. I tend to stay off of those bandwagons.

And yes, there have most certainly been some hoaxes regarding this topic. A lot of them as matter of fact.
edit on 25-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
And are you trying to say that one needs to "choose a side"? To either be a debunker/skeptic or a believer? If so, then why?

Since when is remaining neutral on topics/subjects a bad thing? Is it so bad to find out the facts first on your own before you jump to a conclusion?


It's long been conceded by all serious ufologists that the vast majority of reported UFO sightings have prosaic explanations. The signal to noise ratio of youtube videos now is obviously even worse. So one could be unbiased in evaluating claims on their merit and still appear to less objective believers as a biased debunker.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant



Tangerine: asking a good question is not testable evidence that ET's exist.


You seem to want to reduce it to a science. Here is a question; why do abductions always seem to happen on lonely roads? Very rarely do they happen in cities.

In fact, at least as of several years ago, the greatest number of abductions happened in big cities.

In the US, the most happened in New York City, and the majority of those occurred in bedrooms of high rise apartments.

Strangely, there never were any witnesses other than the person that was suffering from sleep paralysis.

I mean the abductee.

Harte



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Strangely, there never were any witnesses other than the person that was suffering from sleep paralysis.

I mean the abductee.

I just want to clarify that the people that experience abductions have no signs of mental illness and its wrong to consider them mentally ill. The ones that don't think they were abducted by aliens and don't want to send their panties in for DNA testing to their history professors are bat $hit crazy.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
The whole UFO subject is so diluted and the waters are muddier than ever before, that if the real deal was presented here or elsewhere, that it would be shot down as a hoax, CGI or otherwise without a thought.



Or is it just another straw man argument?


Nope.

Its true, is why. A lot of people are quick to either believe right off the bat or disbelieve right off the bat. There is rarely any "in between" these days. It just all depends on which bandwagon you belong to.

And yes, staunch debunkers and staunch believers are equally annoying.


Again I ask, when has it ever happened that the "real deal" was presented here or elsewhere, only to be shot down as a hoax by "staunch debunkers"?



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join