Originally posted by kleverone
Originally posted by Prote
As an example....
The tower being a soul collector is not the thing to focus on so why is it that a person attacks the less important provable part of a
Not to sound harsh but please show me proof of such a tower. And not some image from 9 miles away. You claim to have proof so please
Oh I see the error. Yes that should have said "attack the less important un
provable part of the theory" i.e. the towers function as a soul
collector rather than the tower existing in the first place.
Besides, saying something is provable is not claim I have proof. Thanks for the attitude though. I'm not claiming to have proof, I'm saying that if
there is a physical construct, that is provable or disprovable, the towers purpose should be the focus after
we establish whether or not there
is indeed a tower.
What the towers' function is, is irrelevant.
It is when the claim being made about the relevence of a soul collecting tower is the latter of a two-part claim, the first being in direct
correlation to the first.
If you want to think that way, that's your perogative, don't get uptight about it. For me, the latter is irrelevant without proving the former. If
there WAS a tower on the moon, what it does is the next step to figure out. The fact I may not agree with it being a soul collector doesn't mean that
a tower exists or doesn't exist. A tower COULD be there but have a different function. Who gives a toss what it does? If you want to dismiss the
possibility of there being a tower there because you can't believe it's a soul collector, fill your boots.
So if I totally disbelieve the latter of ones claim based on the assumption of lies, I should take the first part at face value because you are
convinced that such a tower exists in the first place?
What? Believe what you like, I won't stop you and my opinion shouldn't challenge you. I never said I believed there was a tower, I said the
important thing is to establish a tower exists in the first place. Now I just think you like to argue.
These are the provable elements yet there are more taking a cheap shot than there are trying to disprove that these physical
constructions are not there. Why?
Because this has not been proven. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it true. I personally believe that there are
structures on the moon that were not created by humans as we understand, but I do not have proof, only intuition. Please understand that I am not
trying to be harsh but I do not discriminate when it comes to debating. If I thought that my own mother was wrong, I would call her out on the spot.
Whatever. I never stated my beliefs on the tower, only made the point that John's theory is attacked for the non provable part i.e. the function of
the tower and not the provable part, i.e. the physical construction. .
Now I'm confused I thought these were provable claims?
You have just contradicted yourself in one post I need another Hefeweisen
Maybe you should lay off them not grab another. Physical constructs on the moon are provable... maybe not now or next year, but they are provable,
it's physcial. It's function is what everyone attacks him for... my point is that IMO, this is putting the cart before the horse.
I think that we should focus on proving or disproving the existence of the tower before slapping him for saying it collects souls. If you think that
him saying it collects souls is a credibility destroyer and therefore, deductive reasoning leads you to dismiss the former claim (which is what I
think you're saying), then don't worry, many people think like that and I suspect you're in the majority.
Some of us think differently and many before you make the mistake of thinking that guys like me are gullible and believe things when in reality
that's incorrectly assumptive. We are simply weighing up the presented evidence and theories in an attempt to slot it into our own frame of
understanding and dismissing an as yet UNPROVED claim of the tower because we don't like the soul part is not the way I want to process the
As a result, I want the right to listen to John's theory as much as you guys want to ban him for hoaxing and depriving the rest of us from enjoying
it. When you can prove to me that a tower DOES NOT exist, we'll talk. I've done enough research to think that not all he says is pie in the sky.