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.


popular't patsies?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:07 AM
While I'm not one of those buying into the 911 conspiracy angle...I do think that Popular Mechanics has shown a history of leaning heavily on the skeptic side. Whether this is due to the bent of the owners and editors, or some conspiracy, etc. is unknown by me, but suffice to say, the bias is, and always has been, evident with this particular magazine...

Just look at the history of their stance on UFOs and you'll see what I mean...

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:14 AM
Well gazrok maybe its because a magazine dedicated to explaining and highlighting modern mechanical innovations is by nature skeptical of anything that can not be explained by precise scientific and/or engineering principles.
While I will admit you have given me much food for thought as to the possible existance of extraterrestrial craft vsiting earth. I have yet to see any hard proof. You have shown me evidence of events that defy explanation under mainstream knowledge, however that is still not the same as proof of existance.
PM can prove why the internal combustion engine works, it can prove that a car goes a certain speed it can not however either prove the existance of ET's or explain them.
As to this thread, I will take PM over rense any day of the week.

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:33 AM
I can see, and agree with this point, were it not for past articles IGNORING the evidence and then seizing upon FALSE evidence to prove their agenda.

I can also show you an article they did regarding Roswell, and it was a complete farce. They focused on ONE thing (which is a falsified daily log, showing no different activity at the base during the days in question) to try and disprove the whole thing...completely ignoring the numerous civilian and military witnesses, including senior officers, the officiall press release initially from the base, numerous other verified documents, etc. We KNOW the log is false, because it is blown apart by other information such as that from the RECEIVING flight bases, such as in Ft. Worth and Wright Field. They show the planes coming in from Roswell, yet this daily log shows no planes leaving.... Hmmm...
I'll dig up the article if you like, though a simple Google should find it easily (Popular Mechanics Roswell).

Here you go...

The obvious bias and ignorance of information by this article's author honestly makes me sick to my stomach...

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Gazrok]

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:40 PM
Gee, Gazrok, I'm sorry you're sick to your stomach. I have good results with chamomile tea....

But I don't see anything wrong with the Popular Science article except that it disagrees with what you already believe. Even Stanton Friedman, who is certainly sympathetic to the Spaceship Guys assertions, admits there is no evidence that he or any other enthusiast has seen:

"He [Friedman] believes convincing evidence of an alien landing exists but that it has yet to be disclosed."

So if it hasn't been "disclosed", then there is no evidence that you can point to, is there?

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:00 PM
i like PM or else i wouldn't buy it. i am NOT a very political person at all,but it seemed to me like when dealing with sensitive subjects,they throw in some facts here,some gov't official names there,and call it a day. i thought science was for science's sake and who cares what the gov't thinks. i dunno...i just had a problem with the way the article was presented(and if ya haven't figured it out yet i'm a bush hater(although pretty much still a rebuplican..go figure)) thanks for everyone's insight. it is appreciated.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in