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.

 

criss angel discussion...

page: 83
13
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


When the thread is on it's 83rd page, please don't join and start responding to posts on page one. We have gone 82 pages since then. Please read the last few pages at least before adding your point of view. Then you would be able to make an intelligent post that is current with the discussion.

Thank you.




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by keymaster
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


When the thread is on it's 83rd page, please don't join and start responding to posts on page one. We have gone 82 pages since then. Please read the last few pages at least before adding your point of view. Then you would be able to make an intelligent post that is current with the discussion.

Thank you.


Whatever. I found his post as relevant as any other in the past 82 pages. I don't think you have the right to tell him how respond to the OP. After all, the thread is about responding to the OP...doh!



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


The reason I posted that is that the last 83 pages have been a back and forth discussing exactly what he is asking. If he would have read the last ten pages he would have realized that and could have maybe added something that we haven't already covered. I'm not being a jerk, merely asking that he try and catch up a little. Rehashing the same points will get us no closer to an answer.



Where does he find sooo many people capable of falsely displaying such emotion? And we think Hollywood actors are good


We spent pages and pages talking about how Criss Angel has stooges at many of his events. We have proven that actually. The same people have been caught on film pretending that they have never met CA.




Originally posted by Vector J
Due, i'm getting sick of saying this, IT'S ALL AN ILLUSION. IF it was real, donlt you think he'd be shocking the entire woorld with his power?


The answer to that is no.
Let's ASSUME that everything he does is real "magic power", just to prove a point.
So let's ASSUME he REALLY walked on water, using "magic powers".
Shock the entire world, of course not.
Because it would look EXACTLY like it does in his show.
Then people, who won't "believe it until I see it", won't believe it anyway, would they? They would say "he's using wires". You know I'm right.
He WOULD shock the world ONLY when the government came forward on TV and said it was real.
I don't know how he does it, so as an open minded person, I say "I don't know how he does it".
Does he use wires? If you believe so, prove it.
The problem being no one has, and no one probably ever will.
Strange things DO happen in this world...

Yes, IF. But the world is not based on if. The world is based on fact. We have shown several ways he could have performed the walk on water feat.

We don't necessarily believe he is using wires. He is however, an illusionist. We have spent the last 83 pages trying to prove the fact that he does use tricks to perform his illusions and that it isn't some "power." We have shown possible ways for him to have performed almost all of his illusions. The problem with your argument is that there is no proof of a man being able to levitate. None. Science has shown that time and again. That would put the need for proof on the side of the people who believe he can levitate. The only proof that has been given by that side is video from YouTube, which we have shown is not admissable as evidence.

About the infamous walk on water illusion.

If he could levitate, why would his feet even touch the water? Couldn't he just float a couple inches across the top?

It would be really cool if a person could levitate. However, until someone can prove that someone can, I am still going to say that it's impossible. I have to go with the side of science and hard facts. There are just too many if's for me to believe.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


"... in a state of chronic denial ..." does not always mean one is in denial about all things that are the "impossible". I am "in a state of denial" about Criss Angel levitating and using this Chi TK source until proven otherwise.

As for the crowds who are so awestruck making comments "he's amazing". If you paid closer attention, you'd see that those comments really show no evidence they were comments directed at what they just saw (nevermind if they were instructed on what to say). They take the best comments, and edit them into the film to give the illusion they were directed at whatever he did in those moments.

If only you could open your mind to take a look at "new perspectives". You just watch and say to yourself, well that was amazing, and all those people said so, and so that just proves it was. I wasn't there, but I'll take their word for it. That's enough for me. If that's how easy you can be taken, you have alot to un-learn.

As for the Walk On Water. After watching a full version of it again, at the beginning of the show he says it will be "an ILLUSION". These are the statements you never hear on the edited youtube vids - 2 minute segments from 22 minute shows are what you use for your open-minded facts. After he's finished the walk, a quick shot of the pool behind him shows an underwater walkway. The Prop is shown. It was easy to see because the swimmers had moved away to the sides and weren't churning up the water, it was still. He just walks along it like his feet go down on a flat surface, there's no buoyancy to his steps.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by violet]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I would guess that Eyewitness86 is too overwhelmed now and has disappeared from this thread...you only can be so totally ignorant for just so long...

Now I guess he went back to his dogs and motorcycles, smoking some more cannabis, playing backgammon, shaking his jewelry and challenging cops at every opportunity. (Or so he claims in his profile anyway...)

// k



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I cant believe it went on for this long!

How gullable are people!



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kickass
I would guess that Eyewitness86 is too overwhelmed now and has disappeared from this thread...you only can be so totally ignorant for just so long...

Now I guess he went back to his dogs and motorcycles, smoking some more cannabis, playing backgammon, shaking his jewelry and challenging cops at every opportunity. (Or so he claims in his profile anyway...)

// k


No need to attack him because his stance is different than ours. His hobbies are not in question and should not be brought into this discussion. Attacking the person and not the argument will result in a textbook loss of the debate. We really dont need to drop ourselves to such a level when the evidence supports our position.

On a side note, I'm glad the major arguments are over in this thread. It dragged on wayyyy to long. I've said this before but here it is again: Congrats to everyone, its well deserved.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I agree that this was sort of uncalled for, but I was so d*mn annoyed that Eyewitness86 always, always, *always* bashed people on the head, calling them names (IN VERY LARGER LETTERS!) as soon as they didnt support his side and now that he "lost", he just disappeared up in smoke and not even saying anything....which was of course just how he behaved during the discussions, when he was presented evidence contrary to his beliefs.

And saying that smoking dope is a hobby of his in his presentation is just weird.

I dont know about you, but in my eyes, this doesnt do any good to his strange ideas and his standing.

I mean, would you take me serious if I stated that my hobbies included smoking weed, stealing stuff, occasionally raping people and challenging law enforcement as often as I can? I bet you wouldnt and just find me plain weird. And if I propsed that the earth was flat despite what everyone else said and calling everyone else DENIERS! I bet you would think that I had smoked too much weed, wouldnt you?


// k

[edit on 27-9-2007 by kickass]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
No need to attack him because his stance is different than ours. His hobbies are not in question and should not be brought into this discussion. Attacking the person and not the argument will result in a textbook loss of the debate. We really dont need to drop ourselves to such a level when the evidence supports our position.


I feel the alleged "attacks" on the gentleman were in part due to his assaults and insults on others...and the fact that he provided NO proof for his argument.

The gentleman put his profile up for view it is relevant..he wants members to know where he stands. His inability to forward a cogent, salient argument was frustrating to many. His attitude made his personality as part of the debate. The quality of a witness...(especially an eyewitness:lol
is relevant...if that witness has influences upon them that may cloud their judgement...it is relevant.

As for losing the text book argument. The argument, I feel, was lost by the CA cult many pages ago...the gentleman could not see that it was so. But silence wasn't for him so he sniped, ignored, insulted...done anything but forward an argument.

I feel anyone non delusional and not under the influence of "chemicals" would have read this thread and realised CA doesn't have paranormal powers. I was puzzled by the gentleman's continued non acceptance of the obvious...while offering no supporting evidence of his stance. Once I was aware of the gentle mans character..I realised that his argument had no merit...and as such I am happy to laugh off what he says...

End of.

2 cents...



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kickass
I agree that this was sort of uncalled for, but I was so d*mn annoyed that Eyewitness86 always, always, *always* bashed people on the head, calling them names (IN VERY LARGER LETTERS!) as soon as they didnt support his side and now that he "lost", he just disappeared up in smoke and not even saying anything....which was of course just how he behaved during the discussions, when he was presented evidence contrary to his beliefs.


If you go back to about page 40'ish, youll see my first post in this thread, Ive been here from then and still fought till almost the last page, when i left the thread after getting sick of the insults. I also called him on it at least 2 times. Believe me, I was fed up just as you were.



And saying that smoking dope is a hobby of his in his presentation is just weird.

I dont know about you, but in my eyes, this doesnt do any good to his strange ideas and his standing.

Then it does not good for our standing either. This may come as a shock to you, but others on our side (cant name names for fear of violation of TAC) use, or have used, cannibis or other mind altering/conciousness expanding substances. (They) are still able to form cogent thoughts and provocative arguments. Should we completely ignore or dismiss an argument point because of the lifestyle choices of those that presented them?

Besides, his profile just says "Cannibis", period. not smoking, growing, eating, touching, or anythign else.



I mean, would you take me serious if I stated that my hobbies included smoking weed, stealing stuff, occasionally raping people and challenging law enforcement as often as I can? I bet you wouldnt and just find me plain weird.

If your hobbies included rape and theft, yes. Challenging law enforcement and enjoying a substance that grows in abundance, naturally, no.

Side note:
What IF CA did have abilities, and it was because of mind altering/conciousness expanding chemicals? Would you call him crazy or wierd if he told you he developed levitation abilities after drinking Ayahuasca or smoking cannibis?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Then it does not good for our standing either. This may come as a shock to you, but others on our side (cant name names for fear of violation of TAC) use, or have used, cannibis or other mind altering/conciousness expanding substances. (They) are still able to form cogent thoughts and provocative arguments. Should we completely ignore or dismiss an argument point because of the lifestyle choices of those that presented them?


I'd have to agree wth this! Although some people smoke way too much of it and seem to "tap in" to other realms. Maybe they really do, who knows. Interesting though if CA smokes it! If eyewitness smokes it, that's his choice. But adding to that raping? Stealing & his other stances on things, indeed makes him come off as having extreme ideas. He seems angry and bitter, and isn't able to look at things from different perspectives, although he thinks he does, and likes to tell everyone else they don't. He talks down to people who don't share his views.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Let's stop with the taking the debate to a personal level. Talk about the subject, not the poster. It all ends up mean spirited anyway you cut it.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
What the hell is this about rape? Who said that? Where did that come from? That is an outrage and a reason for me never to bother with this thread again. Where have I ever posted one word about rape?

Some moron says I challenge cops and includes something about rape that is totally a lie and a slur with no basis in fact...and then another person repeats it; low class garbage that no decent person would stoop to. That sickens me to read that...the person who said that should be asahmed, but will not be for obvious reason of having no morals, so I will leave it to civilized and decent readers to know the facts: I have NEVER ever posted a single word about rape or anything even remotely connected, and to state I did that is an outright lie and should be ignored.

I would not have posted here again but was outraged when I read that..some people just have no class at all; we may disagree , but to slander without cause is not forgiveable to me. If an apology is not forthcoming from the person who said that, not only will all here know that they are a liar and slandered, but perhaps a Mod will see fit to have a chat with the offender about making such unfounded and stupid comments.

No wonder this thread is best done and over with, if all one can do is see total lies attributed to them..sick.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
What the hell is this about rape? Who said that? Where did that come from? That is an outrage and a reason for me never to bother with this thread again. Where have I ever posted one word about rape?



Do you actually read what people post, or do you pcik and choose?
here is where this rape issue came into play:

originally posted by kickass
I mean, would you take me serious if I stated that my hobbies included smoking weed, stealing stuff, occasionally raping people and challenging law enforcement as often as I can? I bet you wouldnt and just find me plain weird.

Source

As you can see, the comment was not actually about or directed to you. Voilet mis-read it here:

originally posted by voilet
If eyewitness smokes it, that's his choice. But adding to that raping? Stealing & his other stances on things, indeed makes him come off as having extreme ideas.


S/he believed that the rape or stealing comments were quoted from your profile.



Some moron says I challenge cops and includes something about rape that is totally a lie and a slur with no basis in fact...and then another person repeats it; low class garbage that no decent person would stoop to. That sickens me to read that

i just clarified what happened, and frankly with the whole case in mind, I dont see how its possible you read the whole thing through and through. You saw one word and jumped to a conclusion.



I would not have posted here again but was outraged when I read that..some people just have no class at all; we may disagree , but to slander without cause is not forgiveable to me. If an apology is not forthcoming from the person who said that, not only will all here know that they are a liar and slandered, but perhaps a Mod will see fit to have a chat with the offender about making such unfounded and stupid comments.

Considering this whole thing is a complete misread and misunderstanding, an appology from one party is warrented. But i dont think said party should feel so ashamed for having misread something. nor does a mod need to get involved, as this really is a non-issue. Finally, wouldnt this, if it were a true representation of what happend, be a case of libel, not slander?

Side note: If you actually read my posts after this one: here i'd think you'd see me putting up a pretty good defence for you, despite our differences.

I agree, this thread should die and say dead, unless someone (perhaps you) are willing to discuss the idea i put forth in this post: here


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
What IF CA did have abilities, and it was because of mind altering/conciousness expanding chemicals? Would you call him crazy or wierd if he told you he developed levitation abilities after drinking Ayahuasca or smoking cannibis?


[edit on 28-9-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
THANK YOU InSpiteOf for clearing that up..you are right, I DID jump and get upset when I read that word: Rape. It is so far from what I am that I got very pissed off. The fact that Violet misinterpreted it was an example of how one foolish comment can spread..she assumed it was from myu profile: But how many people put rape and theft as positives on their profiles? None I am sure. So the poster who alluded to that nonsense was at fault for making a comment that could easily be taken as a quote, while another repeated it without actually checking the profile herself, and then I jumped the gun myself..so we are all due for a break from this silliness.

Why did a Criss Angel discussion turn to ME? I NEVER once insulted anyone PERSONALLY, although I was critical, in an intellectual sense, about DENIERS in general, but never have I singled anyone out for slander and I never will. The deniers are just angery with me for holding a firm line and holding their feet to the fire on not having any proofs or rational basis for their denials of the events we discussed; they feel badly that they can never seem to find any proof or evidence, and always must rely on supposition and conjecture instead of evidence. They attack the messenger and not the facts.

Anyway, if the use of substances could lead to enhanced esoteric abilities, it would no doubt be the '___' type drugs that would make a difference: Terrence McKenna has a lot to say about this: Personally, I think that for sure certain pathways may be activated from SOME substances for brief periods, a wholesale change would be difficult to envision, as effects only last a while. In most cases, the use of substances is probably a negative as far as further enlightenment goes, perhaps with some exceptions..BUT an interesting idea none the less.

At any rate, I feel that we have reached the end of this thread, as both sides have given it their best shot: The results: Criss Angel continues to amass a fortune from doing events that NO ONE has ever shown to be done with props: Only people who insist that props MUST be there due to preconceived notions can possibly believe that they exist, as no evidence has ever been shown that supports a belief in props.

The things that deniers have brought to the table are NOT evidence, but allegorial offerings without evidence or substance, supposition requiring FAITH to believe in: We, on the other hand, have presented irrefutable proofs that no logical person could deny: Film and witnesses and a TOTAL lack of contrary evidence. If a jury was deciding this based on the cases presented, I have NO DOUBT that they would return a verdict of INNOCENT to the charge of using props in the high levitations. If you believe otherwise, OK and I respect that: Just do not make it personal and ugly. No one is saying that you have no right to believe what you want, only that there is no basis in fact for such beliefs. Civil enough? Good.

My best to all and from now on I will let this die a quick death and move on to threads where some semblance of reason can be maintained and some good accomplished from continued debate. It is over for me, and I assume PaulRichard too, as we have been unable to enlighten anymore people and arguing is a waste of time. Best to all of you, no hard feelings, I forgive those who slandered me and I apologize sincerely if I offended anyone in the heat of battle. Better to let bygones be bygones. Peace!!



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
people and arguing is a waste of time. Best to all of you, no hard feelings, I forgive those who slandered me and I apologize sincerely if I offended anyone in the heat of battle. Better to let bygones be bygones. Peace!!


I agree, shake hands and agree to argue and yell at eachother another day. There is no reason to go to a personal level of attack. Argue the points not the person as much as possible.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Eyewitness86,
I didnt ever propose that you do and you will see this quite clearly if you care to scroll up a bit instead of going ballistic...

And you must admit that you came off very angry and insulting at people in this thread - even though you claim you didnt do it personally but you called everybody that didnt see your side DENIER and a lot of other stuff that IMHO agnried me.

But lets call it a day here and agree that we disagree...





[edit on 30-9-2007 by kickass]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by eyewitness86
What the hell is this about rape? Who said that? Where did that come from? That is an outrage and a reason for me never to bother with this thread again. Where have I ever posted one word about rape?


As you can see, the comment was not actually about or directed to you. Voilet mis-read it here:

originally posted by voilet
If eyewitness smokes it, that's his choice. But adding to that raping? Stealing & his other stances on things, indeed makes him come off as having extreme ideas.


S/he believed that the rape or stealing comments were quoted from your profile.


Thankyou InSpiteOf for correcting my mistake. I did misunderstand it.

Eyewitness I apologize for 'repeating" it. I was out of line to do so.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   
The "next page" in this thread never shows up to see new posts. I had to change it from page 83 tp 84 in the address bar to find this page and my last post! I'm trying another post to see if works ...

Once again, I sincerely apologize to Eyewitness. I misunderstood and was out of line with what I posted.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I can't see the last posts either on this thread only, must be a mindfreak!

The metamorphosis show was on yesterday with the girl assistant that might be the same girl levitated twice by CA. I was tired and forgot to DVR it, did anyone check it out?




top topics



 
13
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join