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.

 

Larry King Live to talk about UFOs Friday

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.


Why did you even quote that AD?

Your own arguement is nothing but little Straw Men, when you 'stereotype' everyone as 'profiteers'.




posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Pity none of the supporters had the balls or the knowledge to say that the metal fragments of the beamships hull, prior to final stage of construction, were given by Bill Meier to the then top scientist of IBM, Marcel Vogel, who analyzed them, through various microscpopes recorded them on VHS, , and stated.., I see metals of absolute purity bonded to other metals of absolute purity, so this must be a cold process, unknown to us on earth. See theyfly.com and jump lightyears ahead of the bunch on Larrys show. Also not mentioned is the alien autopsy films. No they are not fakes, the Kodak designation on the edge of the film was a triangle and a square, meaning that the B and W film was made during that period, 1947 ish, and no longer produced after 1952. It would not have stored long enough to make a fake using modern tricks. On a docu, an expert admitted it would be impossible today to fake the part where the surgeon cuts the scalp with a scalpel and blood comes out. Go figure..



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I wanted to reach through my screen and strangle that idiot Shermer. The guy didn't let anyone talk, all he did was cut everyone off mid-sentence and blather on with his stupidity and negativity. Man, what a jerk. Buzz Aldrin seemed heavily into cover-up mode, almost status-quo like. Symington is definitely winning points with me, and I used to abhor the guy after his ET-suit ridicule press conference of the phoenix lights. He could actually be a strong candidate in the disclosure fight in the future if he sticks to his current aggressiveness on the matter.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman


Originally posted by Access Denied
Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.


Why did you even quote that AD?

Your own arguement is nothing but little Straw Men, when you 'stereotype' everyone as 'profiteers'.

Because it's true. Everyone on that show had something to sell, including Buzz, who used to try to sell my Dad on his Mars Cycler concept.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Well, AD, everyone's got an agenda, I think the best you can do is to decide for yourself WHAT is true, not WHO has the most truth. I don't think ranking experts is helpful, I think they all have pieces of the puzzle. Judge the message, don't judge the messenger.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
2. your going to have to do better than some anonomous source, its funny the "research team" of Moore, Shandera & Friedman talked alot about "inside sources" too- none of it could be verified....


What about the Project Magnet document (page 1, page 2, page 3) declassified - mainly because a draft of the original document was found at the Archives of the University of Ottawa (page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5) - by the Canadian Government in 1979?

On it is stated that the a small group headed by Vannevar Bush was created to investigate UFOs in the US. Vannevar Bush who happens to be on the MJ12 documents list of participants.

Is this information irrelevant? Or you think Friedman and company also planted this document in the archives of the University of Ottawa?

Even if they planted the document, why would the Canadian Government declassify and release a document confirming a bogus document?

You can't deny the authenticity and relevance of this document.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I caught the last 20 or so minutes and thought it was a bunch of crap.Mostly what Aldrin said really irked me.I think he was merely covering what he knew.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Because it's true. Everyone on that show had something to sell, including Buzz, who used to try to sell my Dad on his Mars Cycler concept.


So what?

Just because you've written a Book does not make you a 'profiteer'!



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
I wanted to reach through my screen and strangle that idiot Shermer. The guy didn't let anyone talk, all he did was cut everyone off mid-sentence and blather on with his stupidity and negativity. Man, what a jerk. Buzz Aldrin seemed heavily into cover-up mode, almost status-quo like. Symington is definitely winning points with me, and I used to abhor the guy after his ET-suit ridicule press conference of the phoenix lights. He could actually be a strong candidate in the disclosure fight in the future if he sticks to his current aggressiveness on the matter.


I felt the same effin way! The phones where too busy to voice my opinion =[



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Watched the show last night and have to say it could of went better. It was a very unorganized debate with constant interuptions. I thought Stanton held his own but I agree with others, he should move on to some more recent events instead of concentrating so much on Roswell. The out of the blue guy was plugging his dvd and kept anouncing the fact that military personel admit ufo's are real. The skeptic I wanted knock out, constant interuptions, probe comments and stupid little green men jokes. Also claiming eye witnesses are not viable, I agree to a point but if eye witness testimony holds up in the court of law it should have some credence. His most annoying statement was "we have no solid scientific evidence" well if the government did have this tech. of course it will be keep secrete. Liked the govenor, buzz and marcel seemed lost and the lady seemed genuine to me. Larry is just a dope and his mundane tone was irritating, I can't beleive how succesful he became.... Well war will make ya famous I guess. Anyways I'm done rambling. Any news is good news for the ufo community reguardless of how unorganized the debate was. Now to shoot for the Oreilly factor or hannity and colmes

ah nevermind there noone can get a word in edge wise on those shows



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Watched it and that Sherman guy who happens to be THE professional debunker of UFo's (even to the point where the Phoenix lights which were seen by hundreds of thousands) i think that guy is making good money debunking everything. He's a creep.

His voice is the loudest.


Larry, well, i knew he wouldnt ask anything interesting. Somebody ought to tell him not to rest his fist on his chin all the time- He's the king of dullness!

There was nothing new here that i hadnt seen or heard before and i think it was a waste of time.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Horrible!!

What a group of self-promoters!! Even Friedman would not let go his book and for being called one of the premier guy in the subject of UFO, I saw a man very ill-prepared, no documents, no clear explanation nothing! I was planning to go to his convention that is here pretty soon, screw that now.

That other guy would not stop promoting his DVD!, dont he knows that everybody has watched already for free!

Sherman is a joke! I mean for how long his been talking the same crap?!! and profiting with it!!!!

Aldrin surprise me with his attitude towards the panel.

Symington and surprisingly George Noory were the best spoken guys in their short time. I have never seen or listen to George I thought he was a joke too.

The UFO comunnity needs fresh faces, why the dont ask some of the people from this site to go on those shows?

What a dissapointment!


[edit on 14-7-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I watched all 3 airings of the show. I found that all of the people on the UFO side were either just trying to push a product, or they were too old and slow because they seemed like they were having trouble spitting out a complete sentence. Is it just a coincidence that the skeptic was the one who could articulate his thoughts better than the rest and actually speak louder? UFOlogy needs some young blood.

If was sitting there I would have said something like, "Okay Stan, what's going on here? Let's get the ball rolling man. Enough with the 'uhhms' 'uhhhs' etc."

There is so much to discuss in this UFO field and it seemed like they weren't even anxious to touch on much at all. I could have spit out clear and concise facts about at least 4 specific cases in about 30 seconds. These guys were just up there B.Sing about their books or DVDs or whatever other crap they're offering. CNN should give me my own UFO related talk show and I guarantee I'd have the public talking. Do you honestly think many regular people even stopped to watched this show as they were flipping through the channels? I think overall the broadcast set UFOlogy back instead of helping it...

[edit on 14-7-2007 by Diplomat]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
BTW, George Noory was just there to show off his new hairpiece


Why go black? Wouldnt a brown have looked more natural?



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   


why would the Canadian Government declassify and release a document confirming a bogus document?

sorry i dont quite follow- which of the MJ-12 documents do these canadian ones prove authentic? Vannevar Bush may well have been appointed to look into ufos it doesnt mean it was called mj12 and that they recovered an alien spaceship- or that any of the mj-12 docs are real.

looks to me the perpetrators knew about this and used it for their mj12 hoax. If all thats real of course



1. You don't consider Jesse Marcel, Jr. a UFOlogist? He's been doing research himself for years.

No, i consider him a very poor roswell witness- And i dont think you would find many people in the field who refer to him as one either.


2. You said only 3 UFOlogists believed in MJ-12 - I debunked that and that's all that point was about, not who told him or whether or not he was anonymous.

I said "about 3" there are a couple more but none of them taken seriously. They go by the thoery the docs are fake but the content is real.


[edit on 14-7-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I just read the script and haven't actually seen the show, but from my point, it has been exactly the kind of show, they wanted the people to see.

First, let's be honest - even when hating the shermen guy, "we" have to admit, that he is right in one point - unfortunately after 60 years of ufology, there is still no undeniable proof available to the public. Sad thing, but fact.

Ufology (only that, no "exopolitics" or other surrogate religious stuff please) has been presented to the public in the actual state it is in, imo - dismal, chaotic, unorganized and kind of weird.
The way i see it, there is more infighting then dealing with the actual topic. Aliens are peaceful, aliens are hostile, aliens are abducting people for food/research/fun, aliens can be summoned by laser lights and happy happy thoughts, "i have the absolute truth ( for sale 600$ upwards ) and all others are sharlatans" blabla.
Shouldn't it be our first concern to once and for all check, IF aliens are actually visiting, before we start to analyze "their" motives ?

Maybe i'm alone here, but as i see it, there won't be any mayor progress with ufology until this has been established as truth. It is sad, that there's so much money to be made with the topic and the people that just "want to believe" I see ufology as a science like any other and therefor there are certain rules, which have to be applied.

just my 0.02$



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil J. Fry
I see ufology as a science like any other and therefor there are certain rules, which have to be applied.


Phil, I agree with your way of thinking and I have been an enthusiastic observer for a long time. I will suggest, though, that UFOlogy is less of a science than it is a phenomenon (or set of phenomena) that are certainly observable but require an explanation that is scientifically sound. That is yet to emerge...at least to plain folks like us. 'Show me the science' is a terrifically unromantic response to attempts at explaining general weirdness (of which there really is an inordinate amount), but it is the most reasonable one.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
there he is on Google :

video.google.com...


Google Video Link


Enjoy !!

[edit on 14-7-2007 by webstra]

[edit on 14-7-2007 by webstra]

[edit on 14-7-2007 by webstra]

[edit on 14-7-2007 by webstra]

[edit on 14-7-2007 by webstra]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I’d just like to point out that several posters here are saying Michael Shermer, Publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, was being rude and “kept interrupting everyone” but a review of the transcripts shows Stanton Friedman was the one who started it by interrupting Shermer and calling him names when it was Shermer's turn to talk…

transcripts.cnn.com...


KING: Michael, what do you make of all of this?

MICHAEL SHERMER, PUBLISHER, "SKEPTIC" MAGAZINE: Well, I think it's good to start with separating two separate questions -- are there extraterrestrial intelligences somewhere in the cosmos and have they come here?

So, we have no evidence for either one. The probabilities are probably we're not alone, so -- but it's a vast, empty universe, it's hard to get here and so forth.

The set of evidences used to prove that they've come here are sub what we would expect in a scientific debate. For example, if you're a biologist and you want to name a new species, you have to actually have a type specimen, an actual body. So I always say to the Loch Ness monster people or Big Foot or aliens, show me the body.

I mean once we have that, then we have what scientists consider to be empirical data, where we can dissect it, photograph it, discuss it, look at it and so forth.

So far, this is still at the level of grainy videos, blurry photographs and anecdotes about things that go bump in the night.

KING: But what about strange metals being taken away --

SHERMER: Well --

KING: -- and told not to say anything about it?

SHERMER: OK.

So, first of all, do governments lie?

Do they have security cover-ups?

Do they have military secrets?

Yes, of course. So --

KING: But while --


SHERMER: This is in the middle of the cold war. These -- this debris that was shown in the photograph was described as -- and it looks like -- balsa wood, tape, balloons. And, in fact, this is Project --

FREIDMAN: Not true, Larry.

SHERMER: -- this is Project Mogul.

So, in the middle of the cold war we're launching these high altitude balloons to monitor Soviet upper atmosphere nuclear explosions.

FREIDMAN: Larry, we're simply ignoring the evidence. Dr. Shermer isn't a skeptic, he's a debunker. He starts with the presumption there's nothing to this. The explanation is away from the reality.

There's no question that that stuff isn't part of what Jesse Marcel brought in.


SHERMER: Wait. This looks like balsa wood and tape --

FREIDMAN: Of course, it does.

(CROSSTALK)

FREIDMAN: But that's not what was found --

SHERMER: And that's what they said it is.

FREIDMAN: That's not what was found --

SHERMER: Yes, it is.

FREIDMAN: -- out in the desert.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This stuff was switched.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They switched it. This is not what --

FREIDMAN: The original descriptions on July 8th are very different. The rancher was grabbed, brought back into town, fed a whole new story with information that simply doesn't fit reality.

SHERMER: But, of course, because --

FREIDMAN: The mogul balloon explanation doesn't fit.

SHERMER: It --

FREIDMAN: The materials are wrong, the location is wrong, the timing is wrong.

SHERMER: Would it -- would it surprise anybody to learn that our government told people don't say this, do say that, because we're in the middle of a cold war?

FREIDMAN: That isn't the question.

SHERMER: Of course. That is what happened.

FREIDMAN: The question is to look at the evidence and what he saw --

MARCEL: I saw something totally different from that --

KING: Now, he saw --

(CROSSTALK)

Of course from there it went downhill even further…

Friedman never let Shermer get a word in edgewise.


There's NO QUESTION???


Not as long as Stan has anything to say about it. No wonder all Shermer could do was smile.


[edit on 14-7-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
webstra , thanks for the link

lmao at friedman whipping out his latest book to make his point. "the betty and barney hill case goes back to 1961 this is my new book on the subject" (holds it up on screen for a while) LOL




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join