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.

 

A question to sceptics.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


How very stream of consciousness of you. It's almost like....Kerouac....60 years ago.....

I'm sorry, did you have something to say there?




posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Sir/mam,

I'm sorry but honestly I have NOT visited any such things about "what skeptics can answer." This is seriously just a topic I conceived last night while reading through the headlines after, way back admittedly, having a few too many. I PROMISE you I am not trying to hoax supporters. Hoaxing is something I find a CRIMINAL OFFENSE. I am more than willing to explore these concepts and I am about to move on towards actually presenting a case with my newly found knowledge that APPARENTLY eyewitness testimony is absolutely inadmissable, apparently even in conjuction with supporting documentary testimony (although I find that odd?).

I would even be willing to bet that a mod could attest to my lack of involvement on this thread as since I haven't turned my computer off since I joined.
I know there are ways around that sort of thing but I STRONGLY disapprove of even the IMPLICATION of dishonesty, which equates to slander/libel on your part, sir/mam!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
only if i were being charged with harming or murdering an alien.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

I know there are ways around that sort of thing but I STRONGLY disapprove of even the IMPLICATION of dishonesty, which equates to slander/libel on your part, sir/mam!



Oh come on. Libel?

Thrashee said he's "partly suspicious" there is nothing libelous about stating a mild suspicion about you basing this thread on the same arguments as another thread.

Where do you come up with him alleging dishonesty on your part? You're putting words in his mouth.

You've made it abundantly clear that you really don't know much about the law. From some of your comments (Nightline, etc.) it's apparent you watch TV. That's not a good place to get a legal education.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Alright, back... I can recall two more events, Exhibits B and C that would tend to qualify as circumstantial evidence in CONJUCTION WITH significant eyewitness testimony (after this I will post an event that happened very close to home, if need be)... The 1942 Battle of LA. This was an instance that has been captured on film (allegedly, as it was 66 years ago and obviously any film would be scarce and MORE THAN shaky to the average nay-sayer) and in numerous photographs which can be found all over the net with a simple "battle of LA UFO" search... net will result some rage against the machines concert footage as they played a concert with same title.. anyhow, eyewitness testimony still available in large quantities.. The reason I relate this to a possible extraterrestrial entity is the fact that this thing was ALSO recorded on radar to move at approx. 10 mph northwardly along the California coast while being BOMBARDED by the U.S' Army units stationed there. It remained unharmed for the more than 2 hours that it moved until it decided to leave. To me, as an uneducated military man (U.S. Army of 6 years) This is absolutely UNPRECIDENTED UNTO THIS VERY DAY! As our Army has NEVER met a challenge it couldn't neutralize! and in a time when our PROP PLANES were still in their 2nd generation! Finally it decided to leave and it did quickly without harm!

The second is Kecksburg, VA. Radar reports of unidentified object, visual conformation establishing object moves southeasternly across Canada into the US, into VA while finally slowing, turning direction and crashing into the wilderness. HUNDREDS of people witness this, come to investigate, only to be turned away by the US Army under GUNPOINT for an object they weren't allowed to be seen. This wasn't a foreign object, IMO, due to the fact that it was seen moving on radar more than 2,000 mph until its slowing and eventual REVERSE of course by eyewitnesses! We STILL TO THIS DAY CANNOT account for that speed and maneuverability and as by witnessed by COUNTLESS reports, they aren't that damned secrative about meteors!

Exhibits A and B... circumstantial BECAUSE OF eyewitness testimony BACKING UP other evidence.... Need More?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually, I do not watch T.V. at all. I am familiar with some of the programs due to the fact that I watched them 5 YEARS ago. But yeah, labelling me a plaigarist is technically libel. If you wanted to get to the bottom of that, I told you how. Ask a mod. I haven't even turned this damned thing off in a week (hackers welcome! haha!) They could find out.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


If you haven't checked existing forums yet, I invite you to do so now. You'll see the resultant quagmire that has resulted from such debates.

I'm merely cautioning you now on your stance: if you begin from a premise that evokes the judicial system, you are inherently flawed from the start, and thus you can expect the aforementioned responses.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
To elaborate on that bull$hitt post I could say that if you are finding NEWBIES TO THE WEBSITE hitting you with logic you have to REFER TO to counter, maybe they might just have you!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Furthermore, don't caution me of anything. I said earlier, I am not a rookie to debate. Engage me rather than pass the buck. This is an appeal to authority. YOU sir/mam are ducking me and giving me preorganized responses.

You don't understand that the scientific method is merely a philisophical construct and is inherently subject to the fallible mind you are accusing ME of having.. hell, you are accusing me of being a plaigarist! What does that speak of your argument?!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Um....ok.

Go ahead with your thread, bad logic and all.

See what happens. I'll be the first to tell you, "I told you so."

If you'd like to start it on such tenuous grounds as comparing the evidence of alien life to court room shenanigans, go right ahead. When the skeptics smear your logic up one side and down the other, don't complain to me. You were duly warned.

Unless, of course, you wish to maintain the type of ignorance that is typical of your kind, which would only lead me to believe that you have, in fact, familiarized yourself with the aforementioned threads.

But good luck!

[edit on 25-8-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Let me ask you a question... Aside from an alien landing in front of your door, knocking on it and then promptly shaking your hand would even have you CONSIDER that this evidence may be founded and not be the product of plaigarsm?!!

How about SEVENTY#INGTWO children from South Africa who ALL reported the same thing and even DREW DESCRIPTIONS of the same thing when asked upon?!!! Jesus On a Damned Crutch! ALL we are asking you to do is consider ALL of the evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I will still pursue the courtroom inquiry, but only for a bit longer, for now, as I will be out of town for 3 nights when I sleep tonight, but I will be back Friday night US time.

These children were around age 10 and SEVENTYTWO of them are in agreement in BOTH testimony AND sketch description!

For anyone interested this was as recent as either this year or year before last.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Wow, your response was certainly "original" and has "never" been questioned within the threads of ATS before!!

Please. The pathetic fact is, this is all still anecdotal evidence, and it doesn't pass for scientific inquiry, though it may pass for a court of law. It is precisely because of this that I believe--quite correctly--that you wish to attempt to sabotage a thread in the name of "court evidence". Unfortunately--and let's just blame this on your newness here--this has been tried before, and sourly put to rest like a lame 3-legged horse.

But do continue, please.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
It is laughable at best to claim that MILITARY REPORTS are antecdotal. The military is THE MOTHER OF INVENTION. Your logic is faulty!. ALL TECHNOLOGY has BEEN SHOWN to be a product of necessity. War. Military! Enough said.

Edit to add emphasis of credability!!!! When our very innovators say they don't understand what the hell is going on, people should listen!


[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 




I can get a bunch of kindergartners to say they say a flying whale have a fight with an 80 ft Tyrannosaurus rex.

You honestly believe kids?

And most military men are honorable and truthful. Alot more would have said something by now.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I know this is going to sound condescending, but it is not meant to.
Let's use your court idea for proving something similar to UFO's.
Let's say in a court room young children are alowed to testify, which in some cases is allowed. Now let's say that the question on trial is not the existance of aliens but the existance of Chris Kringle. If the children are asked for eyewitness testemony, most will say they sat on his lap and told him whatg gifts they wanted. Most of the children would even ba able to describe him the same. As far as physical evidence you have the presents he left them at their houses.

Now this court would have found that this fat man in a red suit existed, even though he is but a fictional character based on an actual person from long ago.

The UFO - alien case is not much different, UFO's are real but there is no proof they are of alien design hence them still being labeled as UFO's in the scientific comunity. So to try to use a court room setting to prove anything like the UFO phenomina whould be futile.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by AlienCarnage]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Except you have NOTHING to prove that the military has anything to do with a supposed cover-up of ETs, do you?

Again, you are relying upon conjecture. The very same authority to which you appeal for proof of your belief cannot be relied upon for....duh....proof of your belief.

Please try, though. You're already off to one heck of a good start!!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


Dude, I don't mean to sound condescending, but I'm going to! "I" tell my kids Santa exists, I would imagine that you do also, if you have them.

The idea that kids can prove the existence of something that EVERYONE tells them exist is easily understood (I make up code words if I MUST speak about extraterrestrials)



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Um, ok. Great story regarding Santa Claus.

What on earth does that have to do with the existence of aliens?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Actually I do not tell my kids he exists, because I refuse to tell my children such falshoods.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Alright, we're done. I hoped to have a real discussion. I gave three PERFECT examples of military cooperation with unknown tech, most likely alien.

If you refuse to read those examples and furthermore, do as the OP asked and research them yourself and even MORE inflammatory, try to CENSOR MY TOPIC and point me to OTHERS' arguments and CALL ME a plaigarist, we are done, sir/mam!

Nice try though, maybe you need to study the topics you say 'I' copy!

Thanks for the points though, a$$hole. I can see that my next thread will be pretty good. As I said all along, this was an experiment and it went over pretty well, all things considering.

Edit to add that what I find EXTREMELY funny was that there were only three people willing to even answer the question on behalf of the skeptics with any REAL substance (and I use that loosely as one of the three only pointed out that I was calling the skeptic crowd a container of feces). One tried to have a discussion but realised I was trying to move on more than move forward and dropped it and the other was a total tool who, imo was shown to be one.


[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join