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: 91
13
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Care to show us an example of a high levitation with props - and to show those props?


Care to show us independant footage of Criss Angels high levitations?

No, im sure you dont. For the same reason that I dont want to show you an example of a high levitation with props. Mind you since you didnt specify it had to be in open air, I offer you the classic David Copperfield levitations. It uses unseen props, but they are there.


I didn't come up with that term. But I do note that it is not as insulting as a number of words that were thrown in my direction in this thread.

Such comments didnt come from me. We've had our disagreements and butted heads, but we've both managed to aviod name calling up untill this point. id appreciate it if, at least when reffering to me, if you didnt call me a "Zero Person"


My judgment was challenged. So I countered by questioning your own, which you have admitted to doing. You don't trust your own perceptions, so why should we?

Im sorry im a little slow right now, can you break it down for me? Where exactly did i question my preception?



Oh my... you aren't giving up now are you?

No, just offering perspective. Dont you get a little tired of being so condesending?


Whether your OOBE happened or not is also a judgment and/or a perception.


Uh huh, and im not questioning whether I had one or not. To me, I know I had one, and thats all i need.

Edit to add: If i caused offense by questioning your judgement, it was not my intent. So if you did take it that way, I offer my appologies.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by InSpiteOf]




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
As stated, David Copperfield is an illusionist. He has no Gift of Chi-Telekinesis and this is why he doesn't levitate in the open air or fly around golf courses like Criss Angel. Criss Angel, who does have such a Gift - or at least DID in the videos we referenced - can levitate in the open air without props.

To all applicable persons...we should accept InSpiteOf's request to no longer be referred to by that term that was recently used.

Is "denier" okay?




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
They understandably are not motivated to care to prove it. What is their motivation? To put up with people like you? Now THAT I DON'T BUY.


I didnt mean to imply that they would post such footage to help with the argument on either side, merely that the footage would inevitably help one side or the other.

If it were me, I would post that footage online out of sheer amazement. I would want as many opinions on it as possible. Maybe thats just me.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
To all applicable persons...we should accept InSpiteOf's request to no longer be referred to by that term that was recently used.

Is "denier" okay?




Despite the attitude, yes "Denier" is just fine.

Zero People, despite its context, reminds me of one to many unhappy feelings that I really dont want to relive. I think the term is mean and rude.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
They understandably are not motivated to care to prove it. What is their motivation? To put up with people like you? Now THAT I DON'T BUY.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I didnt mean to imply that they would post such footage to help with the argument on either side, merely that the footage would inevitably help one side or the other.

We actually agree on this.


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
If it were me, I would post that footage online out of sheer amazement. I would want as many opinions on it as possible. Maybe thats just me.

If it is at all possible, maybe you should take a trip to Vegas and take some shots yourself of the man in action or inaction as the case may be.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
We actually agree on this.


Common ground is good




If it is at all possible, maybe you should take a trip to Vegas and take some shots yourself of the man in action or inaction as the case may be.


unfortunately, it isnt possible. You cant walk into a CA show with a camrea.

That is why it makes no sense that his crowds are unbaised and free willed. Not one single person at his events have their own camrea's or camera's attached to phone to record what he is doing?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
You cant walk into a CA show with a camera.

Oh I am sure that with the help of some fellow ATS-ers, that problem can be eventually overcome.

Many would love to assist you with that.





posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Paul_Richard
 


I hope they assist with the funding for such a task. Im a little busy supporting my household as my mother cant work. I dont have a disposable income to use on a CA adventure. Like I said, feel free to send your blanks cheques.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 



I'm probably as poor or more so than you are.

Hey...maybe we could start a fund raiser


But I for one am not interested in what CA does on a stage. Rather, his high levitations and teleportations that he does outside any building, in the open air.

Someone from ATS will eventually get that captured on film, despite the obstacles. Call that a prediction if you like.





posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
An argument that neither you or any other denier/Zero Person has been able to counter effectively.


Ahem

Please continue this facinating debate without applying insulting lables to the opposing sides in the debate. Such ad hominem are a violation of the T&C of the site and if your argument needs to resort to these kind of tactics, then its perhaps time to rethink your position / stance on the issue(s) being debated.

If you find yourself unable to debate the issue at hand with a modicum of civility, then may I reccomend you browse the myriad of threads here on ATS and take a break from this one.


Thank you for your attention to this matter
FredT, moderator

[edit on 1/11/08 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I can assure you that any labels given were in fun and not meant as a serious disparagement. We have goner back anfd forth for too long to want to hurt anyones feelings...we may diagree, but we can do so without being disagreeable!! I will refrain from attaching labels to the opposition and understand why it may cross the line to a degree...but no harm intended.

Now, onward with the show!!



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Could someone please explain what a "Zero Person" is? I missed alot of this thread and did a web-search but found nothing, so forgive me if it was pointed out before. Just a definition, I'll say no more. Thankyouplease



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
A "Zero person" referred to those that do not believe in CA. Those that do believe in CA think that we have provided Zero evidence to support our claim, hence Zero People.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 

FredT, moderator,

I have some official inquiries to make to you since you decided to publicly post your warning to me instead of sending me a private U2U.

First, why did you decide to pick a quote that I made on Page 90 of this thread when we were in the process of amending the problem on our own on Page 91?

Page 91:


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
To all applicable persons...we should accept InSpiteOf's request to no longer be referred to by that term that was recently used.

Is "denier" okay?

Next I reference a quote on Page 87:


Originally posted by Arawn
The trouble is Paul Richard, you're not enlightening anyone here. We all think you and EW86 are completely bonkers!

Secondly, isn’t calling someone insane more insulting than calling someone a denier or a zero person (inferring only that they have no confirming evidence or cogent argument to support their case and nothing more)?

My next reference is a quote directed to me from Page 88:


Originally posted by Arawn
You think Criss Angel can actually fly across buildings?!! Says it all really, you plonker.

Just in case you don’t know what a plonker is:


Plonker is a slang term of British or Australian origin whose meaning has evolved over time. Partridge in the third edition of his A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English in 1949 recorded the term as "low" slang for penis, "since ca. 1917". The term remains in recent use with that meaning.

Source: Wikipedia

Thirdly, so calling me insane and the male genitalia is okay by you, but me referring to someone as a denier is not


The perception on this end is that you are abusing your power as a moderator, especially since no warning posts were made regarding the above insults which I gracefully accepted.

If it is your subtle intention to BULLY ME into no longer posting my opinion in this thread, you and everyone else in here now knows that you have been successful in doing so



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
The whole thing is out of hand tbh. It's just back and forth verbal ping pong, with no end product EVER GOING TO BE CONCLUDED. We say something, you say it's wrong. You say something, we say it's wrong.


Secondly, isn’t calling someone insane more insulting than calling someone a denier or a zero person


At the end of the day Paul, you never told us why you started to name us this way. I personally believed it was degrading our intelligence. Calling us Zero, was a way suggesting we were even lower than 'standard humans', which I found a bit big headed from your part. Like are you the next prophet or something?! I thought it meant we were Zero, as in the lowest form of humanity, JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOU.

At the end of the day, we will always believe the other side is trying to get out of the debate and facts because they haven't supplied us with concrete evidence. EITHER SIDE!

We sorted out the name calling like men, (even though it's been going on through some sort or another throughout most of the 91 pages!) - degrading peoples intelligence etc, so it's no need to take it deeper than this. Just keep to the debate (which will never have an end - as neither side has given enough evidence for either opinion to be conclusive) and cut out the intelligence demeaning remarks. You post on a public forum, so should be able to accept other peoples opinions. If you can't handle it, go elsewhere.

If we all agree on this, then we can move forward and just debate the evidence found, instead of stooping to 'lack of intelligence' name calling - FROM BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED.

I don't know when the name calling started, but I'm sure it wasn't on one of these recent pages. All I know is, we can stop this nonsense here and now if you all agree?

[edit on 12-1-2008 by Arawn]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arawn
At the end of the day Paul, you never told us why you started to name us this way.

I adopted it from Eyewitness86 - which is evident from the posts from both of us - and I had already agreed to stop using it because InSpiteOf was offended by the term.

Is the word "denier" alright by you?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I adopted it from Eyewitness86 - which is evident from the posts from both of us - and I had already agreed to stop using it because InSpiteOf was offended by the term.

Is the word "denier" alright by you?


Ahh sorry then Paul. I have EW86 ignored and didn't see him use it. I thought the term was used by you and meant we have zero intelligence. Now I see it means Zero belief, which is totally different


Denier is fine. We deny, you believe.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
It means ZERO EVIDENCE, not zero belief! You have a belief, it is just incorrect, thats all.

I will NOT agree to the statement above that says that neither side has given evidence sufficient to make an informed decidion: WE HAVE in fact presented quite a bit of evidence, evidence that would hold up in a court since no valid refutation has ever occurred.

We have shown videos that NO ONE has EVER shown to be hoaxed..and witnesses who have never been paid to lie, and no evidence has ever been presented that shows the opposite. The evidence is there, just like with the 9-11 events, but some people just will not accept the evidence because to do so would mean denying ignorance and accepting the fact that all of the ' anomalies ' about Criss are in fact proofs that their position is untenable.

Criss never has even one other person duplicate or surpass his events. Criss has never been exposed, not even alleged, to have paid witnesses to lie or paid employees or anyone else to lie. There are NO PROPS visible or alleged by any reputable source and they cannot be seen by any of the many films made by Criss or the bystanders.

In other words, they have ZERO evidence, while we have reams. They simply refuse to admit that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west.... by simply ignoring the compass and relying on their own ' instincts ' to tell them what the truth is. Of course they will never accept any evidence given: it would undermine their entire reality based set of perceptions and caue them great trauma: to believe that a person can overcome the laws of physics seems to be unthinkable to them, yet most of them would believe that on 9-11 the laws of physics were set aside for a frew hours!!

I know that this will not change any minds of deniers...they are too stuck in their limited mindsets to see the obvious, but at least we can make sure that the last word is one that is valid and makes sense:

ZERO evidence that any of the Deniers claims are real; lots of evidence that Criss uses NO PROPS in the high levitations.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
There you go again, using so many words, but saying very little.


Originally posted by eyewitness86
It means ZERO EVIDENCE, not zero belief! You have a belief, it is just incorrect, thats all.


Gee, much like the belief that CA can defy gravity?



WE HAVE in fact presented quite a bit of evidence, evidence that would hold up in a court since no valid refutation has ever occurred.


Oh really? Well please, summerize this evidence.


We have shown videos that NO ONE has EVER shown to be hoaxed..

Accept those strange anomolies in both the golf course video (EG: The giant shadow of what appears to be a crane) and the Building Two Building levitation.



and witnesses who have never been paid to lie,

Im sorry, I must have missed the page where you interviewed witnesses and presented their independant testimony, can you link to those pages?



and no evidence has ever been presented that shows the opposite.


Accept the evidence of those dupicate audience members.

Man, you have a nack for ignoring the facts, ill give you that.



The evidence is there,


You said it.



just like with the 9-11 events,


I wonder what Paul_Richards stance is on 9/11?



but some people just will not accept the evidence because to do so would mean denying ignorance and accepting the fact that all of the ' anomalies ' about Criss are in fact proofs that their position is untenable.


Which anomalies specifically? The strange motions he makes with his arms and legs before every levitation? The strange pointed shoulder area of his jacket in the golf course levitation?



There are NO PROPS visible or alleged by any reputable source and they cannot be seen by any of the many films made by Criss or the bystanders.


Where are those video's by the way? Oh wait, you mean the video's from Criss Angels camrea that Criss Angels production team gets a hold of before we see them...



In other words, they have ZERO evidence, while we have reams.


If you have reams, them you should be able to list your most cogent pieces of evidence for us.


it would undermine their entire reality based set of perceptions and caue them great trauma: to believe that a person can overcome the laws of physics seems to be unthinkable to them, yet most of them would believe that on 9-11 the laws of physics were set aside for a frew hours!!


There you go again making comparasons that dont apply and assumptions about things you know little of.

All you have is a lot of hot air and an empty bag. You may be able to get it into the air but you cant stay up.

In closing, Ive listed a few points that raise flags about CA's operations. Points that remain un-refuted by you, infact, they are points that remain largely ignored by you.

Your continued comparason of our position to those that believe in the "official story" of 9/11 is laughable. You say we believe in the official story of 9/11 but do not believe in the official story of Criss Angel, all the while, you believe in the official story that Criss Angel spouts. We continue to poor over independant footage while you present nothing but the official video's How interesting.



[edit on 15-1-2008 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Sorry, YOU believe in the ' stuff Criss Angel spouts". He dalies around with definitions and does not want people to know he does not use props, as that would make him isolated and alone in Vegas as the only one of his kind. He prefers the label of ' illusionist ' as it makes him lots of money and since no one can ever seem to show any props, he can allow the people with little knowledge to imagine that props are there after all.

It BENEFITS Criss to keep on the fence about how he does what he does. He NEVER claims that he is using props, and he does not deny that he does not use them. He wants people like the deniers to keep on believing in what they imagine rather than what they see; as long as people are not sure then the mystery remains.

All the other ' points ' made above have been refuted over and over again with logic and fact, and it does no good. I have listed the primary points over and over again, but each time I do all we hear is some silly, ridiculous and totally UNlikley excuses for what is seen. SHADOW of a crane? Where? There are no shadows of cranes on the golf course!! There are however many witnesses flabbergasted at what they saw...but wait..of course you will say they are all paid off and loyal forever, right?

See why it is useless? No matter how lame or silly the excuse, a denier will throw it out there like it was actually significant when it is not. You must believe that all people for some odd reason never ever violate their oaths to Criss. No employee ever leaves mad and wants to expose Criss. No witness ever alleges a pay off, never. Such loyalty and silence is of course foolish in the extreme but the deniers count on it as a mainstay of the imaginings.

In a little while, I am going, ONCE AGAIN, to list the primary reason that deniers have zero evidence and we have plenty. Naturally, many deniers will prefer the outlandish and odds defying silliness to take the place of hard cold fact but thats their problem, not mine. Hopefully there are a few souls out there with the abilioty to discern the facts and not the imaginings.




top topics



 
13
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join