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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

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


Sorry thrashee was a reply to my analogy.




posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
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.


The problem with your examples, of course, is that they don't really prove anything, do they? That is exactly what I was trying to say, but thank you for reiterating that point so eloquently for me.



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.


Please, sir. Go on thinking for some reason that you are the first person to have brought up these bad examples of logic; even better, go on thinking you will be the first to survive having such faulty logic eaten, digested, and shat out as nothing more than manure by the resident skeptics here.

But hey. I tried to warn you. Sucker.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
This is something I posted in a similar thread, I hope this helps explain my stance on everything.

Everyone has their own personal beliefs. Many believers go with these beliefs when looking at the evidence provided and many will add the evidence to their person beliefs expanding what they consider their sphere of knowledge, but the evidence has to relate to the individual believers beliefs on what aliens look like, what alien ships look like, although some will even expand their beliefs to include this new evidence.

The skeptic on the other hand separates from their own beliefs when looking at the evidence in order not to cloud their judgment and jump to conclusions that the evidence does not point to. Whether the skeptic adds this to there sphere of knowledge depends upon the skeptic, it has to meet that skeptics idea of what is considered proof.

There are several interesting topics on ATS that do not state that there is absolute proof of alien visitation, but instead display the evidence and let the person reading the post draw their own conclusions, and some stories are so well written and have much supporting information that it almost compels you to do more research on your own no matter whether you be a believer or a skeptic.

I have provided a link to one such story below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even as a skeptic this story intrigued I and I have continued researching the story. Does it mean there is sufficient evidence to say it is alien in origin? No, but it is worth my time to look at it, even if it is an old story.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


What damned logic do you speak of?!!!! You don't elude to it in a SINGLE POST! Your last post was a PERFECT example. You speak to the fact that I was done with you and that you were shown to be a tool but not YET A SINGLE response to the actual evidence I posted. Not ONE. You merely disagree that the judicial inquiry is somehow different than the scientific based on what? Inquiry? You have offered nothing of substance other than to tell me I am wrong. You appear to be a complete bafoon and it appears you are trying to hijack MY thread AGAIN by trying to gainsay the last word. Just as you did before by telling me 'I' was off topic. Hell, It Is My Topic!

What a douche.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


That is another way to sum up my entire point. Good post. From the beginning of the thread was not my opinion, but the inquiry of what others think. For me, the answer is already there, due to research! But that will always depend on the research of the individual and their preconceived notions going into it. IMO if you have a bias going in, it is going to take you A LOT to even take it seriously!

But would YOUR standard hold up in court with 12 people judging same evidence!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


It depends upon what the lawyers would throw out as circumstantial evidence, and I have seen many court cases were the eyewitness testemony was considered just that, circumstantial, and i have seen many cases were it went the other way as well, it depends on how good the lawyers are and how they can bend the law to their own ends.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
[What damned logic do you speak of?!!!! You don't elude to it in a SINGLE POST! Your last post was a PERFECT example. You speak to the fact that I was done with you and that you were shown to be a tool but not YET A SINGLE response to the actual evidence I posted. Not ONE. You merely disagree that the judicial inquiry is somehow different than the scientific based on what? Inquiry?


No sir. Pure fact. The judicial system is quite different than the scientific community; the fact that you still seem to espouse the idea that they are comparable only speaks to your ignorance, not mine. If you'd like to continue maintaining that illusion, go right a.--you will only bring scorn upon your own side.

I don't have to speak to your "evidence", precisely because you presume that such type of evidence has not been spoken to before within ATS. Guess what: it has. You're not covering any new ground here. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but it's just a fact, jack. Get over it.



You have offered nothing of substance other than to tell me I am wrong. You appear to be a complete bafoon and it appears you are trying to hijack MY thread AGAIN by trying to gainsay the last word. Just as you did before by telling me 'I' was off topic. Hell, It Is My Topic!


And so we have the beginning of so many many threads already encountered in ATS. Did I not tell you so? Wow, you don't like my logical dispute, and so you push forward. How original. Wow, so you mention that I have not addressed any of your points of "evidence" when you're trying to liken them to the judicial system. How original.

I fear the point you're missing, my friend, is that you have absolutely NOTHING of value or originality to offer ATS. And that is PRECISELY why I have chosen to attack you. As much fun as it is to run a train on your believer logic when it comes to evidence, this has been done time and time again.

Again, I was merely trying to warn you. If you'd like to open a thread claiming that evidence of alien existence is compatible with evidence as presented to a court of law, go right a.. Even though you'll be covering quite old (and faulty) logic, if it makes you feel like a trail blazer, again, go right a..

Just don't whine when your new thread gets shut down almost immediately because it fundamentally springs from BAD, crappy logic.

I told you so.


[edit on 25-8-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

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


No. Just Exhibit A will be fine.

"The Battle of Los Angeles". Intriguing example.

1) An unidentified radar target 120 miles offshore was reported.
2) Antiaircraft batteries were placed on alert (it was wartime).
3) Pursuit aircraft remained on the ground awaiting more information about the possible attack.
4) Radar tracked the contact to within a few miles of the coast before contact was lost.
5) After a blackout was instituted there were numerous reports of "enemy" planes. (Any chance of wartime panic? Especially in light of what we knew had happened in London?)
6) A coast artillary colonel spotted “about 25 planes at 12,000 feet” over Los Angeles.
7) At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon “the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano.”

Source

These are the verifiable facts. In the words of my source "From this point on reports were hopelessly at variance." There were reports of planes being shot down, "swarms" of planes or balloons, flying at widely varying speeds and widely varying altitudes. There was a spectacular show of antiaircraft fire watched throughout the LA Basin.

One woman is alleged to have reported, "It was huge! It was just enormous! And it was practically right over my house. I had never seen anything like it in my life! It was just hovering there in the sky and hardly moving at all. It was a lovely pale orange and about the most beautiful thing you've ever seen. I could see it perfectly because it was very close. It was big!" There don't seem to be any similar reports to this, only the one.

The same woman also said, "They sent fighter planes up and I watched them in groups approach it and then turn away. There were shooting at it but it didn't seem to matter." No aircraft had been launched during the whole attack. She saw airplanes that weren't there shooting at something that wasn't there.

You can't bombard something that isn't there. Well, you can but you're not going to do much damage. Night time, blackout, sirens, searchlights, one battery opens fire, then the next, then the next. Sounds a bit like Bagdad 1990. I'm casting no aspersions but I'm sure more than one marine has fired his weapon into the bushes when he thought he saw or heard a threat that wasn't there.

You may take these panicked reports as reliable evidence. I'm not sure they would hold up very well in a courtroom. At the time, the citizens thought they were under attack and thought they were seeing all kinds of things in the night sky. Hardly a situation where eyewitness accounts could be considered reliable. It would be a pathetic judge and/or jury that would "convict" based on this evidence.

If you look at virtually all of the report with a truly open (and analytical) mind you are going to run up against the same thing time, and time again. Conflicting and confused eyewitness reports and no circumstantial evidence.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What I find intriguing is that you reference eyewitness reports of the LA battle and neglect the military reports and the photographs. Sure eyewitness reports may be unreliable by themselves but in conjuction with PHOTOGRAPHS, other evidence (radar reports of object moving at 10 mph)... eh, nevermind, I submit entirely..

The entire point of this thread was not to persuade anyone to believe my conclusions. Merely to ask a question. If some want to bait me into telling them WHY I happen to accept the ET presence, I cannot lay it out for them. I have been, and still am, a skeptic of OVER seven years.

I was simply asking that if a skeptic was on trial for murder with circumstantial evidence equaling that of the amount of evidence gathered by the UFO community to a tune that which I cannot even account for, would they be worried?

This question was answered by Three or Four skeptics. To the latecomer who mentioned that he could make a kindergardner say anything he wanted, I hope that five or six kindergardners never falsely implicate you for child molestation. You'll be in jail, bub!

I don't know how to make this any more clear without breaking out every ounce of material I have.
At first I thought I was having a good time here, but libel of plaigarism should be out of bounds unless a person has proof, ie quoting me word for word and proving that I was not here at the time, under this particular ip, regardless of the particular address, at the time!

That # isn't cool.

Moving on to my next hopeful idea! Fwck off and have a good night.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
At first I thought I was having a good time here, but libel of plaigarism should be out of bounds unless a person has proof, ie quoting me word for word and proving that I was not here at the time, under this particular ip, regardless of the particular address, at the time!


And just what in the hell is "libel of plagiarism", exactly??

Look. Your premise stinks, simply because it's founded on faulty logic. If you'd like to whine about it, here's a Kleenex. If you want to further whine about it, here's a tampon. However, nothing we can give you will assuage the fact that your premise STINKS.

Try harder next time.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Dude, you didn't come into the conversation until like page three (i know you will say you weren't here or something, but you still showed a complete lack of knowledge of the entire premise of the thread) and you NEVER addressed the question of the thread OR my comments other than to say that my "logic" was tried before and you even went so far as to say I had read the "questions skeptics can't answer" to get my idea.

You slandered my BRAND DAMNED NEW identity in here without responding to my posts in order to feel better about yourself.
That was the only character that resembles, in any way, the bird.

I actually felt like I was asking a good question in order to spark good debate only in order to be accused of something that Joe F-ing! Biden is guilty of!

Please, I have never plaigarised a f-ing thing and I wouldn't dare do so. My thoughts are my own and if you can't answer them then I would appreciate your non-participation in what was supposed to be my first thread (that wasn't lost in a site overhaul wash).

Furthermore, the premise doesn't stink. I have still yet to see you debate it other than to say NAY... funny how I put that in the opening remarks!

I think you are incapable. And I've been saying that.

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

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



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Actually the source I reference does include military reports. While the Department of War and the Department of the Navy conflict, neither makes any mention of a single large unidentified object. The only thing that seems to be unclear in the report is whether or not there were any unidentified (as to origin) airplanes present.

I have seen the single photograph available. I see converging searchlight beams surrounded by lens flares. I see smoke being illuminated by the beams. I see no object.

See ya. Keep smiling.


[edit on 25-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Dude, you didn't come into the conversation until like page three (i know you will say you weren't here or something, but you still showed a complete lack of knowledge of the entire premise of the thread) and you NEVER addressed the question of the thread OR my comments other than to say that my "logic" was tried before and you even went so far as to say I had read the "questions skeptics can't answer" to get my idea.


That's because your logic is as good as vomit in my mouth. You are inherently appealing to the comparison of a judicial system when it comes to evidence for alien existence, which is just WRONG.

How many times do I have to spell this out for you? Your premise sucks. Your logic sucks. Period. Get over it.



You slandered my BRAND DAMNED NEW identity in here without responding to my posts in order to feel better about yourself.
That was the only character that resembles, in any way, the bird.


You slandered yourself by popping up in ATS with such drivel. It's been done before--badly. It didn't work then, what makes you think it will work now?

Again--your logic sucks to begin with; therefore, whatever drivel will henceforth spew from such logic is inherently flawed to begin with.

If you'd like to have a hand hold your hair back while we all puke your collective spew, then ask for a best friend or maybe a woman to help you out. You won't find such a hand here. I keep trying to tell you why: this has been done before a 1,000 times, and yet like the new-comer you are, you're going to ignore this fact and act as though somehow you're miraculously special. Like your witty (faulty) logic is somehow going to triumph and overcome where others just like it have failed.

It won't.

I tried warning you. Again, and again, and again.

Since you're too stupid or arrogant to listen, then you best buck up and accept what's coming.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually, I wasn't remarking to you about military
I was remarking to the asshole that doesn't want to speak on substance and would rather tell me that I'm a #ing hack! THAT person claimed anectodal evidence, yet if he/she knew what the hell he/she was talking about the military is AUTOMATICALLY, BY DEFINITION excluded from that definition. I'm sorry phage, I was enjoying the convo, but I was entirely derailed.

I'll move on and learn. This is a learning experience for sure.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I was remarking to the asshole that doesn't want to speak on substance and would rather tell me that I'm a #ing hack! THAT person claimed anectodal evidence, yet if he/she knew what the hell he/she was talking about the military is AUTOMATICALLY, BY DEFINITION excluded from that definition. I'm sorry phage, I was enjoying the convo, but I was entirely derailed.

I'll move on and learn. This is a learning experience for sure.


But you won't. You're going to continue to post such unsubstantiated crap that can't be proven one way or the other, and does nothing but speak to your BELIEF in said things.

That's all you have to offer. But to be sure, you're going to try to pass it off as "credible to a court of law", as though that helps your "proof" in the slightest.

It doesn't.

Again, this has been done before a thousand times. But go on thinking that you have something miraculous to show here.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


I've actually been lurking here for several years, but thanks for proclaiming me a newcomer here.

I have meant to stay away but recently I was compelled to join.

Furthermore, FOIA documents should be more than credible in a court of law, dolt.



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



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Uh. Huh.

Sure, we all believe you now. This suddenly helps your ship-shod logic.

EDIT--Too bad a court of law isn't where the determination of alien existence will take place--dolt--no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually, I wasn't remarking to you about military


Actually, you were remarking to me:

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Phage
 


What I find intriguing is that you reference eyewitness reports of the LA battle and neglect the military reports and the photographs.


Not only did you reply reply specifically to my post. "That other guy" never mentioned The Battle Of Los Angeles.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Amazing that you won't even acknowledge you lack a complete understanding of your buzzword anectodal evidence. I ate my lack of knowledge on the term circumstantial.

I guess I can't expect the same.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm sorry, I was getting upset so I stopped responding without deleting what I had said.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join