It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

ChemChasers a new reality TV concept + local images

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 09:57 AM

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
What are the limitations in the facts that you referred to? You omitted to say.

Nice to see you following the approach of the new atheists (i.e., just keep asking, where's the evidence?)

Read it again. I'm not asking for evidence. If the facts I'm using have limitations (which I am reading as being not entirely correct, no?) then I'd like to know. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but if there is no conversation how will we ever know?

This is the only thing worth responding to because even this request, which appears honest, is nothing but rhetoric.

Says you? I don't play childish games. If I didn't want to talk I wouldn't ask. Now I'm wondering why you leapt to this conclusion, are you simply being evasive?

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 10:06 AM
a reply to: Petros312

In your link, I saw you posting about elevated levels of barium. When asked how this elevated level relates to what is considered to be safe levels and what are toxic levels, you completely lost the plot. I don't know why because I've not studied this aspect. A cynic might be inclined think that indicates that the answers wouldn't support your position. If they do, a simple reply would have sufficed.

That's not an example of debunker tactics. That's an example of a sensationalised claim being put forward with no contextual supporting data, even when requested. Without such data, how is anyone supposed to evaluate your claim?

Then of course, once this blood test is "debunked" it supposedly "debunks" every point made in the Shade video. And if not, then there are already posts that debunked every claim made in the Shade video and I just needed to find it all so that I too can forget about the limitations of the evidence being presented as "scientific."

You missed the point with that claim you've now made several times. It doesn't automatically debunk everything the movies claims. To do that each claim would need to be examined to see if it has merit. However, when a film or video can be seen to have completely misunderstood the information it has presented, if not lied about it as some have, only a fool would then not have any doubts as to that films general credibility of its journalistic standard. You surely don't need telling this, it is my opinion that you are blustering and obfuscating on purpose, which is very sad, if correct.
edit on 18-2-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)

new topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in