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.

 

Reptillians - There is NOTHING to prove they exist

page: 16
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.
If you take into account all of our ancient myths and legends they paint quite the image.

And you must remember that even the "scholars" are forming they're assumptions about ancient mythology on biases.


You have not taken into account all of 'our' ancient myths and legends. You have taken into account only the ones that support your weak claim.

Its actually based on years of study and peer review and debate. You know the difference between scholars with no quotes and scholars with quotes? Scholars with no quotes spend years getting accredited, defending theses, forming theories and digging in the field to prove them out. Scholars with no quotes mostly flock to ATS, spend minutes on google, then purport themselves as experts.

So we are meant to take all of that accumulated field work, the analysis, the scholarly debate over centuries and throw it away because somehow you googled reptilians and got a hit? Unlikely.

How can you do more to enhance your credibility? Do you have a link to your PHD?




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by wytworm
 


And as far as reptilians goes, your lack of not seeing one doesn not make you an eyewitness. Quite the opposite actually.


Thats right. It makes me an eye witness of them not existing. There are about 5 billion more of us than of you.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by wytworm]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarcastic

Seems to me when we completely unravel and decode DNA we'll understand the genes and abilities that are common to some humans and reptiles.

Until that work is done we are all just still guessing.


We already know we share a brain struture with reptiles:


The R-complex is named for the most advanced part of the brain higher mammals share with reptiles. It is responsible for rage[1], xenophobia[1], and basic survival fight-or-flight responses[1]. Often, the R-Complex can override the more rational function of the brain and result in unpredictable, primitive behavior in even the most sentient of creatures, humans included. A well developed and healthy neo-cortex can monitor R-Complex activity in sentient beings. The Reptilian complex is the most ancient part of a very successful brain scheme, evolutionarily speaking.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarcastic

Seems to me when we completely unravel and decode DNA we'll understand the genes and abilities that are common to some humans and reptiles.

Until that work is done we are all just still guessing.


We already know we share a brain struture with reptiles:


The R-complex is named for the most advanced part of the brain higher mammals share with reptiles. It is responsible for rage[1], xenophobia[1], and basic survival fight-or-flight responses[1]. Often, the R-Complex can override the more rational function of the brain and result in unpredictable, primitive behavior in even the most sentient of creatures, humans included. A well developed and healthy neo-cortex can monitor R-Complex activity in sentient beings. The Reptilian complex is the most ancient part of a very successful brain scheme, evolutionarily speaking.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Reptiles are non-verbal and practically non-vocal yet they form mating groups therefore they communicate.

I think humans who are very good at non-verbal communication and maybe even telepathic must have some reptile jeans.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 





I am an eye witness. I have never seen one. Do you dispute my eye witness testimony? Shall we count the eye witnesses on either side?


I'm an eye witness to. I've never seen any cosmic strings, and I think noone ever has. Jeah, that's it, String theory must be wrong.


[edit on 28/5/08 by enigmania]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 



String theorists have not yet completely described these theories, nor have they determined if these theories relate to the physical universe or how.[1] The logical coherence of the approach, however, and the fact that string theory can include all older theories of physics, have led many physicists to believe that such a connection is possible. In particular, string theory is the first candidate theory of everything, a way to describe all the known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong) and matter (quarks and leptons) in a mathematically complete system. On the other hand, many detractors criticise string theory because it has not yet provided experimentally testable predictions.


Like I described earlier, String-theory is just a theory, thought up to connect a lot of dots, and answer questions. It describes all the known natural forces and matter.

It's not like they have evidence of strings, or that they have seen strings. It is just a model to connect and explain things.

So you can say the theory is based on scientific evidence, just like Reptillian theory is based on historic evidence.

Just because you feel the scientific evidence is more credible than the historic evidence, doesn't make the Reptillian theory less credible.

At least it shouldn't, from a "Deny Ignorance" standpoint.

Until proven, they're both theories, and should be treated with the same respect.




Seek your therapist's advice on feelings of persecution. That is wholly your invention and gets no traction from me.


This is a pathetic statement and it says more about you, than me.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


hat article is again generalizing...we have eyes so do reptiles must be reptillians exists coz one or two things we have in common..



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by dalan.
 





I am an eye witness. I have never seen one. Do you dispute my eye witness testimony? Shall we count the eye witnesses on either side?


I'm an eye witness to. I've never seen any cosmic strings, and I think noone ever has. Jeah, that's it, String theory must be wrong.


[edit on 28/5/08 by enigmania]


So you concede the absurdity of 'eye-witness' testimony? Great! We finally have common ground.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sarcastic

Reptiles are non-verbal and practically non-vocal yet they form mating groups therefore they communicate.

I think humans who are very good at non-verbal communication and maybe even telepathic must have some reptile jeans.


Yes they are non-verbal in that they do not use the spoken word. They are except for 3 or 4 species non vocal, if by that you mean making noises that emanate from their mouths. They communicate through non-verbal means, yes, but it isn't telepathy. They communicate using body language: pushups, change of skin color, head bobbing, dewlap extension, posture changes, movement (strutting, for example) or making themselves look tall or flattened out.

I have seen plenty of humans exhibiting the same behavior as you describe above. I have never seen any of those wearing jeans made from a reptile. If you mean genes, I would say you have a good start on a hypothesis. Go run your studies and let us know what you find out.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
[more

I concede the absurdity of your eye witness statement. The fact that you think that if you or others, haven't seen something, it doesn't exist, shows your closed mindedness and your insult to this site's motto, topped of with your spin tactics.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


You are finally beginning to understand the scientific method! Yes, that's correct. You start with a theory that extends from the sum of knowledge that has preceded you. This is the part where you have finally understood that theories do not spontaneously generate, they extend logically from the painstaking work of centuries of research (in some cases). One discovery building on the next until we have a workable model of our environment. You form the theory, predict how it would work, create conditions to prove that it works according to prediction, write up your findings, then take the extra step of peer review to eliminate the possibility of bias in your conclusions. Rinse. Repeat.

Lets look at your next premise. Whoops! we backslid here a bit. I see the trouble. You are equating the word scientific with the word historic. We have done some leg work on the scientific part above, but for the sake of argument lets look at what 'historic' means
in relationship to 'evidence'.

If the definition of History is the study of the past, hopefully we can agree on that, then all that it needed is a qualification of the word 'study'. In regard to history, study encompasses a few different activities. We can skip over the survey, extraction, and excavation steps of collecting artifacts and restrict ourselves to the analysis phase, which is after all, the matter in dispute.


At its most basic, the artifacts found are cleaned, catalogued and compared to published collections, in order to classify them typologically and to identify other sites with similar artifact assemblages. However, a much more comprehensive range of analytical techniques are available through archaeological science, meaning that artifacts can be dated and their compositions examined. The bones, plants and pollen collected from a site can all be analyzed (using the techniques of zooarchaeology, paleoethnobotany, and palynology), while any texts can usually be deciphered.


So far so good right? Nothing subjective about it. We look at data points and date objects through various methods. We relate artifacts to other artifacts in the hope that some conclusion can be drawn. Now we are getting into the weeds...

From here we branch out into sub discipline: Historical and Ethno archaeology vs Experimental and Archaeometry. The latter two focus on driving toward bringing the scientific method and standardized measurements to archaeology, the former are considered to be more interpretive.

Here is the meat of the problem. One word. Interpretive. As in 'context dependent and volatile in its meaning'. this is to say, we don't know what these things mean. A great example is the Constitution. There are many who profess to be Constitutional originalists, but to really be that, one would have to be both a historic linguist and a historian of that era, for without these two pieces, there is no context and therefore no 'original' meaning. Think about that for a second. Language has changed that much in 200+ years that we can no longer safely rely on the words themselves to reliably communicate intention. The process of interpretive constitutionalism would be the practice of replacing the original context with a modern or contemporary context and drawing conclusions therefrom.

While to me there is nothing wrong with interpretation, it goes hand in hand with the implicit idea that 'we are making this up', in other words, it is no longer factual, or not capable of being factual.

Even in the absence of factual degradation due to interpretation, there are other sources, such as outright mistranslation. I cite as an example the concept of the virgin birth in the bible which did not exist until someone mistranslated the word 'young' into the greek word for 'virgin'. Look at the impact of that error.

All this to illustrate that to equate historic evidence with scientific evidence is problematic at best, and outright misleading at worst as it dresses a pauper in kingly robes. That is to say, it tries to apply the credibility inherent in the discipline of the scientific method incorrectly to the subjectively interpreted historic records.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by wytworm
[more

I concede the absurdity of your eye witness statement. The fact that you think that if you or others, haven't seen something, it doesn't exist, shows your closed mindedness and your insult to this site's motto, topped of with your spin tactics.



You have missed the point. It was a device to illustrate the untenability of your example. Apparently unsuccessful.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 





You have missed the point. It was a device to illustrate the untenability of your example. Apparently unsuccessful.


There goes the spin again. You used this line:



I am an eye witness. I have never seen one. Do you dispute my eye witness testimony? Shall we count the eye witnesses on either side?


as a response to this post by Dalan:

"Any idea that we have of aliens, whether they be reptilians or greys, we only have because of EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY."

I have not missed the point, that line wasn't even directed at me, so I fail to see how it "illustrates the untenability of my example", when it was a reply to Dalan.

You're such a spin doctor, a very obvious one.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Perhaps you can elaborate on the spin part. Don't see it. I think you are diverting. Or don't elaborate and concede. Is it that you don't want to argue the premise? You used to be so forthright about it. I am surprised by your retreat and a bit disappointed.

My apologies, I am sure you are right. You reptilians all look alike to me. Still doesn't change the point. Eye witness testimony is crap.



[edit on 28-5-2008 by wytworm]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 





All this to illustrate that to equate historic evidence with scientific evidence is problematic at best, and outright misleading at worst as it dresses a pauper in kingly robes. That is to say, it tries to apply the credibility inherent in the discipline of the scientific method incorrectly to the subjectively interpreted historic records.


I'm not equating scientific or historic evidence, I'm equating theories based on scientific and historic evidence.

It doesn't matter that the scientific evidence is more reliable in your book or has more foundation, a theory is a theory, as long as it's not proven.

There are historic and eye witness reports of Reptillians, but I never heard a historic report of someone mentioning String theory, or someone who saw cosmic strings.

So there are actual direct reports mentioning Reptillians, whereas String theory is made up to fit and connect previously gathered information.

As long as there is evidence, no matter how little, both theories should be looked at with an open mind. That doesn't mean you can't like one better.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 



I'm not equating scientific or historic evidence, I'm equating theories based on scientific and historic evidence.


You are. Your reply is indicative of fundamental lak of understanding of history, science, or evidence.

-or-

of intellectual dishonesty



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 





Perhaps you can elaborate on the spin part. Don't see it.


The spin part is that you used this line:



I am an eye witness. I have never seen one. Do you dispute my eye witness testimony? Shall we count the eye witnesses on either side?


to dispute the validity of eye witness reports, in a reply against Dalan.

When I point out how that statement is ignorant, you suddenly say it's a device to "illustrate the untenability" of MY example, while it actually was a reaction to Dalan's claims of eye witness reports.

So your reaction was used to attack the eye witness reports of Reptillians. You said you, and others, haven't seen them, so the eye witness reports must be invalid.

A very ignorant thing to say, and now you're trying to get away from that statement, saying it was just a device to prove your point.

That's the spin right there.



[edit on 28/5/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 28/5/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 28/5/08 by enigmania]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by enigmania
 



I'm not equating scientific or historic evidence, I'm equating theories based on scientific and historic evidence.


You are. Your reply is indicative of fundamental lak of understanding of history, science, or evidence.

-or-

of intellectual dishonesty


Just like your replies are indicative of being full of hot air?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
enigmania is not capable of arguing like this wytworm.
He's speaks of science in a blasphemous way and also contradicted himself through self-bias.

He's acting like an egotist or an elitest.
Anyone who understands reality will tell you that the mind is the controller of humanity (and hence, reality as we know it) and the scientific method that ignores that, as if some certain individuals can deny this "objective" weakness, is a scientific method that does not apply to reality.
These objective hopeful's, are inconsiderate of applying any form of understanding that accounts for compansion or logic from strong testimony. Actually, human testimony is often used against the idea that we should consider these sorts of evidence at all (which is a hilariously ridiculous idea). So imagine the concept of bringing in ancient writings and facts...to a man like this, this comes from a 'lower' time...yes, despite the insane mathematical abilities of these societies.

You're arguing that we should look at everything to understand a truth, with science as a subset.
He is arguing that the scientific method is the only way.
*Who's the one that is taking an idea, and proving it backwards is clear to the discerning readers don't worry

His reasoning is beyond clode-minded, but he admitted that (whether he knows or not)...the real question at the root level is the belief that a human can function without the mind...then you guys can argue about something. Less deep is the arguement of what 'Objective' really means when applied to humans.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join