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.

 

Dulce Underground Base Alien War Question

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
you're running in circles folk.

the man was politely asked to provide evidence, to be specific, this:


yfxxx said

Most importantly, no testimonials (by no-one, not even the POTUS ), only physical evidence! We've had enough stories by now. For starters, the evidence could be: - Photographs of artifacts on the surface of the alleged facility, like e.g. vents, access doors, surveillance equipment, intrusion sensors, whatever. Photos must include a readable display of a hand-held GPS receiver, so that others can independently verify the location of said artifacts. There must be some access to the facility, and because the surface is allegedly no restricted area, one should be able to obtain such photographic evidence. - Videos of operations near the alleged base, in a quality which makes it possible to actually discern something. Nighttime video which shows only blobs of light won't do. Again, a GPS display must be in frame at least once. (As for the GPS data requirement, it's simply necessary because otherwise you could photograph/film just about anything anywhere.) More advanced evidence would involve smuggling of material by base personnel. So, photographs and videos from inside the base would be appreciated, together with GPS receiver data. So far, all this evidence could also be faked. Therefore the more complex (and therefore difficult to fake for amateurs) a video is, the more compelling it is as evidence. Therefore I exclude printed documents, because these are just too easy to fake.. Sorry, but extraordinary claims require more than "vanilla" evidence. Finally, the best evidence would of course be physical artifacts, like, say, an alien tool. I think we can assume that the aliens brought some of their hardware themselves. A metallurgic lab can quickly prove, if some artifact is of terrestrial origin or not. At least, a piece of metal which could be extraterrestrial takes more means to fake than are available to the general public. I agree that such an alien artifact would only be very strong evidence of the presence of extraterrestrials on this planet, but not necessarily at Dulce.


that is specific enough, i believe.

so unless some evidence along those lines is provided we can make a conclusion that Dulce base is made up or very questionable at best.
(by 'we' i mean those who don't believe in fairy tales)

give the man time to gather the evidence and present it. he can't do it if he's arguing about it here with you
.




posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by shadow fax
i have a secret place in my house where i keep some extra cash, im not telling you where that secret hidden place is: does it really exist?

Why not? There is nothing unusual at all about such a hidden place.


you, over and over, fail to see the point.



What you apparently do not understand is:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

If I say I've seen a deer in the woods near my home, you might believe me at face value, or be content with evidence which shows that there is indeed a wood in the vicinity of my home, where the existence of deer has been documented in the past. There's nothing unusual about my claim.

If, on the other hand, I claim that I've seen a unicorn in the woods, you should ask for much more evidence, simply because the existence of a living unicorn totally contradicts accepted knowledge about this species (i.e., that it's only a fairy tale being). In such a case, you should not be convinced, if my only evidence is my own word and, say, a phony-looking document saying that unicorns had been seen in the woods in 1648.


like i said: checkout christianity and the story about the main character. see what i mean?



If you demand proof, then its only logical that you fund the aquisition of that proof.

As I already said, I mainly wanted to know if there exists any compelling evidence for "Dulce". I do not "demand" evidence, let alone proof. If none comes forward, I will simply continue to file the "Dulce" story away as a tall tale.


so if JL or anyone else tells you that they have compelling evidence then you believe it? thats easy!




I can tell BMW inc. that i want one of their top of the line limo's but without paying for it, i wont even get an official picture of it.

False analogy. Everyone knows that BMW makes high-end cars, so the claim that they have "special" models, which are not generally shown to the public, is effectively self-evident. If, on the other hand, someone claimed that they also make interstellar spaceships, I definitely wouldn't even consider believing this until they show at least a good photograph and some technical data.

Regards
yf


only false if you fail to understand the situation this analogy is substituting. it was in reference to the testing of evidence by an outside company. it costs money, you want product: you pay for product. pretty basic really.

ciao!
Jay



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow fax
for further explanation regarding the futility of yfxxx's and Tim's quest please refer to the idea's of some smart dudes:

en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot


Now what shall I say?!


To quote from the page about Russell's "teapot" analogy (emphasis by me):


Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

This is exactly what I'm saying! As the "skeptic" in this debate, it's not my task to disprove (or prove) the "Dulce" claim. The claim is de facto unfalsifiable anyway, because complete lack of evidence is interpreted by "believers" simply as a grand cover-up, while actual counter-evidence can always be dismissed by "believers" as "disinformation".

Therefore, the default state of any rational person should be that of non-believer in the "Dulce" story. If evidence is provided that the base does exist, said person should be ready to change their mind (depending on how "good" the evidence is). But so far, no such evidence has come forward, and therefore I keep dismissing the story. I don't believe in the "Dulce base" for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, dragons and almost any gods which have been worshipped in human history.

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A

"yes. what has been, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proven is that if this secret hidden underground base does exist:

...

but as long as nobody starts digging, nothing is proven conclusively."

Shadow, you’ve contradicted yourself there a bit haven’t you. It’s been proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt but at the same time it hasn’t been proven conclusively?

Why do you seem to be so against John providing evidence? Are you saying you’re happy to believe anything he says without evidence? If so why?


... is that if this secret hidden..." read it again Mike, pay specific attention to the word IF.

im saying im happy with john telling his story and him believing what he will. i dont need proof. i believe what i want, regardless of what someone says here. basically, i dont really care about dulce, be fun if it was true, so what if its not.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
it was a reference to dawkins' remark that in most cases, such is futile



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow fax

Originally posted by yfxxx
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!


hmmm, ever heard of Christianity?

Yes, I have
. But I'm not a Christian, partly(!) because of what I said above about extraordinary claims
. And by the way, I won't fall to the "Argument to majority" fallacy, either
.

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow fax
like i said: checkout christianity and the story about the main character. see what i mean?

I answered that one in my other reply.


so if JL or anyone else tells you that they have compelling evidence then you believe it? thats easy!

Can't you read, or what?!? How often do I have to repeat it:

No. More. Tales!

So, if Mr. Lear or anyone else only tells me about "compelling evidence", I don't care. I want to see the evidence!

Heck, I didn't know my English is that bad
!

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I apologise Shadow, I misread your post.

However if you don’t care about this then why are you so against him providing evidence?

You might be happy to either dismiss or believe John regardless of what he posts in the way of proof but other people aren’t.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ellroy
you're running in circles folk.

the man was politely asked to provide evidence, to be specific, this:


yfxxx said
...


that is specific enough, i believe.

Thank you
.


so unless some evidence along those lines is provided we can make a conclusion that Dulce base is made up or very questionable at best.
(by 'we' i mean those who don't believe in fairy tales)

give the man time to gather the evidence and present it. he can't do it if he's arguing about it here with you
.

Good point. I'll try to stop arguing in circles with Shadow Fax about who needs to prove what. I'll wait for the evidence to be presented ...


Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
can i not read? hmm, youre getting a bit frustrated in your reply. relax, have a drink.
here's why i wasn't sure. You said:


As I already said, I mainly wanted to know if there exists any compelling evidence for "Dulce". I do not "demand" evidence, let alone proof. If none comes forward, I will simply continue to file the "Dulce" story away as a tall tale.


you "want to know if there exists" and "do not demand evidence, let alone proof". hence my question. i interpret this as: "i dont need to physically see proof, someone just needs to tell me if it exists".

granted, english is not my mother tongue, but i think my reading/writing skills arent too bad.

im out, time for sleep
namaste.
Jay



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadow fax
you "want to know if there exists" and "do not demand evidence, let alone proof". hence my question. i interpret this as: "i dont need to physically see proof, someone just needs to tell me if it exists".

No, I meant it as: "I want to know if 'Dulce' exists. But if there is no evidence for it, then I won't press on with demands for evidence, I will simply continue to believe that it doesn't exist." So, by not "demanding" evidence, I just wanted to say that I can happily live without it, but not that I will believe the story on mere hearsay. Sorry for the confusion!


granted, english is not my mother tongue,

Neither is it mine.


but i think my reading/writing skills arent too bad.

Sure, no problem!

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
This is NOT aimed at anyone, because I've seen it over and over from most Everyone promoting the Dulce story!

Folks the Dulce story is built on the following Logical Fallacies that keep coming up over and over in the "Alleged Proof":

Wishful Thinking
Argument From Ignorance (ironic when we consider the ATS Motto)
Straw Man
Association fallacy (we're all guilty of this, we're looking at Dulce as a 2-sided debate)
Appeal to consequences (how many times have we used the old standby: I'll complain to the moderator?)
Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question (famous lines include: If it's secret, do you think they would leave clue? Did you read my post?)
Ad Hominem (All the fun little names and discreditment efforts like: your spelling is horrorable! (News Flash: How well someone spells has nothing to do with the relivence of their question or point)
Argumentum Ad Populum (The Majority can't be wrong) (just because most people believe something doesn't mean it's correct or true. For the Record the Majority CAN be wrong.)
Proof by Example
Affirming the Consequent (we're using this to prove our credentials)

How about if we drop the Personal Attacks and the Logical Fallacies. Then we can try this dicussion again. I'm sorry to say it, but this thread is becoming the biggest collection of examples of Logical Fallacy on all of ATS. So for, all that we've really proven on either side it that we should all go back and check our Logic!

Respectfully,
Tim



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
I don't believe in the "Dulce base" for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, dragons and almost any gods which have been worshipped in human history.



This is certainly a very revealing statement.

Let me take the reference to 'dragons' first. Dragons, although portayed often as myths were real entities. Some lived in the sea and lakes and other bodies of water; some lived on land; Chinese and Korean dragons flew or floated through the air. Dragons predate recorded history but are referenced in some fashion in nearly all early writings.

If you Google 'dragons' there are over two and a half million references

If you Google 'Dulce Underground Alien Base' there are only 62,800 references.

So what I am pointing out is if you are having trouble with the fact that dragons were real entities and roamed the earth well before and probably sometime after the beginning of recorded history then you are certainly not going to be able to grasp the existence of the Joint US/ALIEN Underground Base known as Dulce.

It would like trying to teach a small child the concept of trigonometry. The child has to have a basis in mathematics in order to understand its higher concepts.

If you started trying to explain the concept of trigonometry to a small child the child would probably divert the conversation to "Do you want to make mudpies with me?" A small child is more familiar with mudpies than with the higher concept of mathematics. In kindergarten a child will be taught addition and subtraction. Later the concept of multiplication and division will be introduced. Even later geometry and algebra. All of these mathematical concepts are building blocks to understanding higher concepts of mathemetics.

This same analogy is true for the Joint US/Alien Underground Base at Dulce. It is so far out of the realm of basic human education that it is totally unbelievable. Humans generally don't even believe aliens exist so how are they going to grasp a Joint US/Alien base? They are not. They can't. They don't have the background or building blocks of information to be able to understand or believe that it exists.

Similarly giving a yound child a calculator and telling him to use the calculator to check the validity of trigonometric concepts would be futile. More likely the child is either likely to try to eat the calculator or bang it on the floor. This would be similar to giving you an alien tool. You might look at it, then shake it, then try to taste it before you take it to a scientific laboratory who might try to cut it open with a lazer to see what is inside! Or they might try to chip off a piece and run a spectrographic analysis on it. The point is they would not immediately understand the use of the alien tool and would think the answer to its use would be better understood by breaking it open to see what was inside.

Similar to introducing TV to tribal natives that have known nothing more complicated than fire and water for their entire existence. Show them a TV and they want to break it open to see the little people inside.

So it is with the Joint US/Alien Underground Base of Dulce. You lack the buiding blocks of knowledge and acquired information to even be able to relate to this concept much less understand it.

I can't force you to acquire knowledge. This is something that you have to want to do on your own. And until you do, your grasp of a Joint US/Alien Underground Base in Dulce, NM will be limited to any and all evidence which can be manufactured and/or faked or alien beyond your present understanding.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
John, you’re filibustering.

Let’s move away from the aliens talk; I have no problem with the concept of the US owning and operating classified facilities, I have the “building blocks” to be able to understand this possibility. So do you have any evidence that a secret base exists at Dulce? We can talk about what populates this base later.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

How about an alien tool that was rectangular with smooth rounded edges about 1 inch wide by 2 inches long and about 1/2" thick? Sapphire in color and so smooth it is slippery and difficult to hold on to. It looks like a large precious stone and would definately rival anything that could be bought at the most prestigious jewelry boutiques on New York's Fifth Avenue. Would you buy this as an alien tool?



I can have it tested.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The problem really is related to not comprehending the implications in passage of time, the concept of life spans longer than 100 years, and the inability to get past the idea that there might be something bigger or greater or more technologically or scientifically capable than humans in the universe and its various dimensions. You need to start with step 1, so that by the time you arrive at step 50, you know what signs to look for, understand the complexities of the information, grasp the potentiality of something of this magnitude and then your questions will more readily reveal falsehood and truth.

However, starting from the position of pure skepticism on any related or seemingly related topics, will only put you back on square one, waste everyone's time, and personally, I'd prefer Mr. Lear expended his energies in ways that are less counterproductive. He has alot of information in that skull of his, and to waste it with the infinitely receeding horizons of hardcore skeptics, is frankly, a travesty. Essentially, this is an area he specializes in. There's not many people in this area of science that have as much experience and data as he does. It's like wasting the time of a scientist so that you can nay say everything that comes out of his mouth. You need to get the gist of the information first, before you can ever proceed to creating a set of relevant questions or demands. You're not there yet.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
i agree Undo.




BTW. is there a rule about posts having to be longer than 1 line of text?



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
So why can’t he post the evidence for those who have this supposed requisite of UFO understanding and how do you I am not one of them?



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
So why can’t he post the evidence for those who have this supposed requisite of UFO understanding and how do you I am not one of them?


It isn't just the UFO question. It's the alien question. The alien interaction with governments question. The hidden agenda question. The alien war question. Etc.

For example, if you have no reason to believe there are aliens. Some people believe in UFOs but feel they are government tech not alien inspired goverment tech or alien craft. Some feel that even if we are being visited, that our governments are simply not important enough in the larger scheme of things - afterall, what could we offer them that they couldn't simply take without our permission, or what could we have that they didn't already have access to either way. These are all relevant avenues of inquiry that add to the overall questions of what, if anything, is going on at "Dulce."



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Ok so why can’t he post the evidence for those who have this supposed requisite of UFO/alien/etc understanding and how do you/does he know I am not one of them?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join