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.

 

To Alex Collier Believers: What do you say about this?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutlanderHuman24
IF you watched his recent 2009 videos with CAMELOT or whatever its called, he says he was wrong for giving out hard dates. It actually makes sense since the future is not written in stone. Like I can predict something that i would see to be the future now, but something can happen in a mere minute that would change the whole future that I saw.


The thing is, if he was making a prediction and some event before the prediction can alter that prediction then it isnt much of a prediction then is it?. Instead it just becomes a simple opinion on future events.

To turn around and say well I wont give hard dates no more just means that what ever he says could happen today or 100 years from now... its a farse. 'Ill be proven right eventually!'... that isnt a prediction, thats playing darts in the dark.

As for predictions changing the future they predict, how would counter predictions affect these, since theres usually some person with a counter prediction to most predictions made, wouldnt that cancel both out?.. or will people claim only one prediction is true, in which case which one is? and can you be sure you've got the right one... but using some of the peoples logic in here it shouldnt matter since one of them is right and therefore it changes the future which basically means both are right by being wrong by simple deduction.
... I predict in the next 2 years I WONT be married to a super model in the lap of luxury... i look forward to the end result of my reverse prediction which by some peoples logic should now have changed the future so that prediction shouldn't happen (after all NOT having that future is a crime!), which means im now very much in the chance of having the reverse of that prediction come true... opps that sounded like another prediction... bugger, realities back to normal


Ok thats silly... but so are some of the believers arguments in here, heck I dont even know much about Collier but some people in this thread are taking some real loop deloop arguments to make him right.

Let his own track record do that... and from the sounds of it, it isnt that good. Take that as you will.


[edit on 19-1-2010 by BigfootNZ]




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
IMO the OP's argument is flawed on the following basis:

They suggest that Collier saying something would happen and it not happening (or at least not in all details) means he should be totally discredited and ignored.

This would only be logical if Collier claimed to be a prophet and to be capable of predicting a static future.

But he doesn't make that claim. Therefore the OP's argument doesn't stand up. Why has the OP injected the irrelevant notion of credibility somehow being directly related to an ability to accurately predict the future, as if Collier had claimed he could do this?

This would be rather like saying that a scientist who was recorded a couple of decades ago stating that mankind would have developed certain technology by 2010 is totally discredited and all his work should be ignored when the technology does not appear, according to that timetable, because he "predicted" something which turned out not to be accurate.

That would be absurd. Scientists are not prophets and don't claim to be, but they often makes predictions based on what they feel is probable and the data they have at the time and their credibility is certainly not ruined if their predictions don't pan out, because their credibility is not claimed on the basis of an ability to act as a prophet and people are not so unreasonable as to expect them to fill that role.

Likewise, Collier does not claim to be a prophet and, in fact, states that the future is not fixed and that he speaks of probabilities based on the situation at the time and the data he has received.

So the OP has no case and no reason to try to hold Collier to the requirements of the role of a prophet and so claim he is totally discredited.

Yet, if you notice, the subtle red herring created by the OP is pretty much going unquestioned by all those opposed to Collier. Why? I'd suggest it is because the intent is to discredit people like Collier and everything they have to say, by hook or by crook, regardless of the truth, and any old red herring will do.

I've seen this tactic used a lot lately. (Note too that those who question the OP's flawed 'logic' are also labeled 'believers' by the OP, as if disagreeing with the OP somehow means that one must be a disciple of Colliers and a 'true believer'. Sneaky. That's another common ATS - "if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" - type of underhand tactic).

Don't fall for it.


[edit on 20-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I've watched many of Alex's videos. I find it very hard to believe that someone can make all of that information up on the spot and be so furious at the same time.

I believe Alex is genuine.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Sozen94]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

The thing is, if he was making a prediction and some event before the prediction can alter that prediction then it isnt much of a prediction then is it?. Instead it just becomes a simple opinion on future events.


Bingo!

You have unwittingly exposed why the OP is wrong. You are taking this notion of 'predictions' (with a supernatural flavour) which was introduced by the OP as if it was something Collier claims to be able to do accurately. He doesn't.

So you're right, if Collier says something will happen based on the data he has received, but he also says that the future is not fixed and can change and doesn't claim infallibility etc, then he isn't really making a "prediction" in the prophetic sense that the OP tries to suggest, is he?

Or as you put it "that's not much of a prediction". Quite right! But who said he was making such a "prediction"? THE OP! Not Collier.

It's the OP's red herring and you swallowed it.



[edit on 20-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Well I think this does not mean that he is saying 100% craps. After all, future always changes. And, as soon as you say what is going to be, you have a chance to change it...

On the other hand, I would not say this is very sane to believe all that he claims... Usually I can accept some 40-50%. I think he is a kind man and peacebringer. It is always "interesting" to hear what he has to say.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by BigfootNZ

The thing is, if he was making a prediction and some event before the prediction can alter that prediction then it isnt much of a prediction then is it?. Instead it just becomes a simple opinion on future events.


Bingo!

You have unwittingly exposed why the OP is wrong. You are taking this notion of 'predictions' (with a supernatural flavour) which was introduced by the OP as if it was something Collier claims to be able to do accurately. He doesn't.

So you're right, if Collier says something will happen based on the data he has received, but he also says that the future is not fixed and can change and doesn't claim infallibility etc, then he isn't really making a "prediction" in the prophetic sense that the OP tries to suggest, is he?

Or as you put it "that's not much of a prediction". Quite right! But who said he was making such a "prediction"? THE OP! Not Collier.

It's the OP's red herring and you swallowed it.



[edit on 20-1-2010 by Malcram]


Collier "I can tell you this beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute proof positive inside of myself because I've been shown it, in eight years southern California will be eight islands."

That's exactly what he said, it's a prediction. If you can't agree on that well then you're just desperate.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nutglow
I was one of those people who believed in this guy since he sounded genuinely fustrated and angry when talking about how the reptilians are kidnapping children for food.

But now, I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe this guy is a really, really good liar.



Yea me too, and either a good liar or mentally ill.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Collier "I can tell you this beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute proof positive inside of myself because I've been shown it, in eight years southern California will be eight islands."

That's exactly what he said, it's a prediction. If you can't agree on that well then you're just desperate.


Pretty strong statement, I agree.

But you've neatly sidestepped my point. Go back and read what I said about difference between the predictions - even strongly worded ones - of people based on their belief and the data they have available at the time, and those of someone claiming to be a prophet. They are very different. I agree he predicted something but what I said was: "he isn't really making a "prediction" in the prophetic sense that the OP tries to suggest"


Predictions - Quotes

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson (1874-1956), Chairman of IBM, 1943

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

"Inventions reached their limit long ago, and I see no hope for further development." -- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

""The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Space travel is bunk." -- Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik

"All attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to life but doomed to failure from an engineering standpoint." -- editor of 'The Times' of London, 1905

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years . . . Ever since, I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions." -- Wilbur Wright, 1908

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon". -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon- Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873

"You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck...I have no time for such nonsense." -- Napoleon, commenting on Fulton's Steamship

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the Audion tube and a father of radio, 25 February, 1967.

"The aeroplane will never fly." -- Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907

"Within the next few decades, autos will have folding wings that can be spread when on a straight stretch of road so that the machine can take to the air." -- Eddie Rickenbacker, 'Popular Science,' July 1924

"But what ... is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.


Get my point?

Many of the people listed above contributed greatly to society and were experts in their field. They made strongly worded predictions that did not come true. Are they all totally discredited for this and should their life's work and everything else they had to say be ignored as worthless because of their failed predictions? Of course not, because they did not claim to be prophets so their credibility is not intrinsically tied to their predictions. Their failed predictions are undoubtedly embarrassing and no doubt they learned not to make such strongly worded statements in future - but that's about as much as can be said about it.

So Collier made some predictions. He did not do so as a prophet (as the OP insinuates) and never claimed to be a prophet (He claims to be a contactee) and his words MUST be taken in the context of everything else he has said about predictions relating to probabilities and the future not being fixed but changeable.




"I would like to address the predictions or prophetic accuracy. First off the Zenetae Andromedan's are a very scientific race. So they know that the future is not set in stone, but is real since they come from the future. Alex does not refer to information that they have told him to share of future events as anything but probability. Not prophetic and not predictions! By probability they recognize that events can be change before and even as they take place by those are involved. They would explain this in terms of percentages of probability.... The future is not set because of such. Anyone anytime can change their mind" - JON ROBINSON regarding Collier

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


If you do acknowledge this context rather than cherry picking then you'll understand that he is giving his strong belief regarding what will happen based on the data he has at the time. Those listed above did much the same thing.

You can't understand someone if you don't take their words in the whole context in which they are said. But you can easily condemn someone - anyone - if you ignore the context and cherry pick statements.

So, what do you want to do, understand where he is actually coming from or just condemn him by pretending that a failed prediction means everything he has to say as a professed contactee must be worthless and should be ignored? (this is the bait and switch the OP tries to pull).

You can achieve both easily and which you choose to do will say more about you than Collier.

Collier as supposed discredited Prophet is a strawman because he never claimed to be a Prophet and, as was demonstrated with the quotes above, predictions do not make Prophets.


[edit on 20-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Collier has been shown this by his ET friends, religious prophets are also shown things by God and by angels. The difference is that religious prophets actually have the guts to stand by their word. Charlatans like Collier and Wilcock don't - they are cowards imo. I am not a religious person but these people are the false prophets the bible warns us about.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


There is one huge difference between Collier and the group of individuals you listed, as well as any scientist who may be proven wrong. Want to take a crack at what that difference is?


Originally posted by Malcram
This would only be logical if Collier claimed to be a prophet and to be capable of predicting a static future.


Collier may not say he is a prophet, but when he says things like... "I can tell you this beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute proof positive inside of myself because I've been shown it, in eight years southern California will be eight islands..." he sure is behaving like one.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

[edit on 21-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Malcram
 


There is one huge difference between Collier and the group of individuals you listed, as well as any scientist who may be proven wrong. Want to take a crack at what that difference is?


LOL I was waiting for someone to come up with this particular stock fallacy. But I'm a little surprised that it comes from you. Your fallacies are usually far superior and far more expertly applied.


I can think of many 'differences', but they are simply not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that they all stridently predicted things which did not come true, as did Collier.

Seeing as the mistake is the same so should the consequence be - mild embarrassment. The end. Or do you feel that people who you don't respect should have to play by different, much harsher rules and bear much heavier consequences for any failed predictions than people in professions you happen to admire? It seems so.


Originally posted by Malcram
This would only be logical if Collier claimed to be a prophet and to be capable of predicting a static future.



Collier may not say he is a prophet, but when he says things like... "I can tell you this beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolute proof positive inside of myself because I've been shown it, in eight years southern California will be eight islands..." he sure is behaving like one.


This really isn't up to your usual standard.

I've already answered this. Many, like those listed above, have made predictions every bit as stridently as Collier. You have no trouble discerning that their inflexible and insistent predictions are not the hallmarks of people actually claiming to be prophets, I presume?

Then why the sudden shortsightedness when it comes to Collier?

I could just as easily say that when surgeon Sir John Eric Ericksen said "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon", or when Dr. Lee De Forest said "Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances", or when Lord Haldane said "The aeroplane will never fly" that 'they may not actually say they are prophets, but gosh, they sure are behaving like prophets'.

But that would be a bit silly, right?

And again, you are cherry picking his comment and not taking it in the context of the belief system in which Collier made it - a belief system which actually precludes the interpretation that he was somehow attempting to 'prophesy' events in a static future, as if he believed he could do so.

But I've said all this several times already.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Malcram
 


Collier has been shown this by his ET friends, religious prophets are also shown things by God and by angels.


So you put ETs in that same category as God and Angels?

There is no chance some of them are physical entities with advanced technology and scientific understanding? There is no chance that when they turn up and 'show' a contactee something, that it's rather like us turning up in the jungles of New Guinea, pulling out a laptop and showing a local how to surf the net?

I don't think it's a given that an ET showing a contactee something is somehow equivalent to God and the angels showing a prophet something.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


The phenomena is the same but for contactees it's the ETs that bring the gospel.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Malcram
 


The phenomena is the same but for contactees it's the ETs that bring the gospel.



How is it 'the same'?

You seen intent on insisting that it is the same but haven't given any evidence for it.

So far you have suggested that the act of "giving" something somehow makes the phenomena of ET contacts identical to the interaction of prophets with spiritual beings and gods.

That's pretty thin. It's also a bit cargo-cultish and very sweeping. You can't speak for all contactees and insist that they see their ET contacts as being gods who bring 'the gospel'.

Let's cut the BS - there is an attempt here to insinuate that ET contact is exactly the same as professed supernatural contact between prophets and their gods. The hope is that by linking them - and in this case Collier - with such supernatural claims and religious attitudes that they and everything they say can be more easily dismissed.

I'm seeing this underhand tactic being used pretty relentlessly here recently.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
LOL I was waiting for someone to come up with this particular stock fallacy. But I'm a little surprised that it comes from you. Your fallacies are usually far superior and far more expertly applied.


And what fallacy would that be?


Originally posted by Malcram
I can think of many 'differences', but they are simply not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that they all stridently predicted things which did not come true, as did Collier.


Actually, the difference is relevant. I'll give you another crack at it. What is the difference between the Collier and those scientists, researchers and whatnot who have seen their predictions fail?


Originally posted by Malcram
Or do you feel that people who you don't respect should have to play by different, much harsher rules and bear much heavier consequences for any failed predictions than people in professions you happen to admire? It seems so.


You are right, there are different rules and standards being applied here. So, what is the difference between Collier and the others?


Originally posted by Malcram
You have no trouble discerning that their inflexible and insistent predictions are not the hallmarks of people actually claiming to be prophets, I presume?


Yes, but they are not claiming to get their information from a supernatural source. Our friend Cripmeister is right; at brass-tacks, there is little difference between Collier and any number of self-styled religious prophets. But even then, that is not the difference between Collier and the people you quoted.

Then why the sudden shortsightedness when it comes to Collier?

No shortsightedness at all. If anyone is exercising any short-sightedness, it is you, because you cannot recognize there is a difference between Collier and the scientists you have quoted. There is a huge fundamental difference.


Originally posted by Malcram
I could just as easily say that when surgeon Sir John Eric Ericksen said "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon"...

But that would be a bit silly, right?


Yes it would, because you still fail to recognize the difference between such people and Collier.


Originally posted by Malcram
And again, you are cherry picking his comment and not taking it in the context of the belief system in which Collier made it - a belief system which actually precludes the interpretation that he was somehow attempting to 'prophesy' events in a static future, as if he believed he could do so.


No one is cherry-picking anything. Collier's predictions have failed and failed again. And yes, they are predictions, no matter what sort of semantic arguments you want to play.

Take another crack at it. What is the difference between Collier and the scientists you have quoted?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
You cant stop him... hes going to lie to a billion more people and use the money to wipe his #$%.

There are to many delusional people whos desires are making them see things that arent there. They want a God, a heaven, and magical powers. They will fight tooth and nail to halucinate and fabricate its proof of existance so that they can sleep well at night.

And when the day comes that these things are erased and known as the fairytales they are those who wanted nothing more than to live in a magical world with the things mentioned above... will choose to fade to black.

["Imagine""The Happening"]

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Wertdagf]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
How is it 'the same'?

Let's cut the BS - there is an attempt here to insinuate that ET contact is exactly the same as professed supernatural contact between prophets and their gods.


What Cripmeister is saying is not an indictment of the UFO phenomenon as a whole or an attempt to dismiss it as mere supernaturalism or superstition. However, what he and I are saying is that there is little difference between Collier, other prophesying contactees/channelers and any number of religious oracles and prophets. The differences are window-dressing, all amounting to who they say is whispering in their ears.

You are failing, purposefully and out-right refusing to recognize this, because it involves one of your sacred cows. If Collier was saying god or angels were giving him prophecies, would you be so quick to defend him or do it so vehemently?

[edit on 21-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

You are failing, purposefully and out-right refusing to recognize this, because it involves one of your sacred cows.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]


You're doing exactly what I said you and others were doing. You're trying to conflate religious experiences and supernatural claims of contact with God and angels with the ET and contactee phenomenon so that the latter can be dismissed as easily as the former. They are not the same. (Oh, and nice insertion of the religiously flavoured phrase "sacred cow". Well done! It's a little more sophisticated than simply calling me a "believer", but then I did suggest that your use of the 'black arts' in debating was more skillful than most
But I still think you're having a bad day).


If Collier was saying god or angels were giving him prophecies, would you be so quick to defend him or do it so vehemently?


If someone claimed to be a prophet, according to a belief system which involved prophets and prophesying and involved the concept of a fixed future revealed to them by an all knowing deity, then no, I would not complain when people referred to them as a prophet or held them to the requirements of the role of a prophet (such as infallible predictions) - because he would actually be a self proclaimed prophet and so a defense would not be justified!

But the same basic accusation I just described is being leveled at someone who never claimed to be a prophet and whose belief system does not allow for such prophesying or a belief in a fixed future or an all knowing deity which he claims contact with - so the accusation is not applicable and is not justified.

And I have already said there is no relevant difference in the context of this discussion between Collier and the people who made the outrageous predictions listed above. You created a whole post in which you repeatedly avoided my points by continually invoking the idea of this supposedly key difference which means that Collier must be treated differently than they with regard to failed predictions - but you never actually managed to spit out what it was.

So let's hear this 'huge fundamental difference' which justifies this bias.

A failed prediction is a failed prediction, whether it is based on an inflated ego and overconfidence or a misreading of the available data or the bad advice of 'experts' (as in the case of those listed above) or data received from an ET contact (as Collier alleges).

What does a failed prediction prove or necessitate in Colliers case that it does not in the case of these others, and why? They don't claim to be infallible prophets in contact with all-knowing deities, yet they made outrageous predictions with extreme confidence, and neither does Collier, yet he made such a prediction too. So?

Yet the O.P. argues that Collier's failed prediction based on the data he claims to have received somehow shows that everything else he has to say must be rubbish. That doesn't make any sense. We would not dismiss everything the people listed above said based on their failed predictions, nor would be insinuate they were failed prophets. Likewise there is no logical reason to do the that with Collier. Granted, failed predictions do not exactly inspire confidence (no matter who makes them) but neither are they basis for disbelieving someone or dismissing everything else they may say.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
You cant stop him... hes going to lie to a billion more people and use the money to wipe his #$%.

There are to many delusional people whos desires are making them see things that arent there. They want a God, a heaven, and magical powers. They will fight tooth and nail to halucinate and fabricate its proof of existance so that they can sleep well at night.

And when the day comes that these things are erased and known as the fairytales they are those who wanted nothing more than to live in a magical world with the things mentioned above... will choose to fade to black.

["Imagine""The Happening"]

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Wertdagf]


Sigh.

I sometimes wonder why I bother actually making arguments and giving thought to my posts. Who can compete against a tide of ... well, sentiment like this.

I could ask "what money"? I could ask... but what's the point. LOL

Behold, Father Rex, your flock gathers for worship at the altar or unrestrained cynicism and unthinking (so-called) 'skepticism', eager to flame-grill another professed contactee, because their perspective is so heretically unorthodox and, well, mostly because it's just so much darned fun!


Ciao.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You're doing exactly what I said you and others were doing. You're trying to conflate religious experiences and supernatural claims of contact with God and angels with the ET and contactee phenomenon so that the latter can be dismissed as easily as the former. They are not the same.


Speaking of cherry picking, you purposefully ignored where I stated it is not an indictment of the UFO phenomenon as a whole.

And yes, they are the same. They receive a message from on-high, either telling them to live by a certain ethic or giving them visions of the future. You refuse to accept this because you happen to be sympathetic to the window-dressing. You would be very hard pressed to tell us the difference between prophesying contactees and those experiencing similar religious phenomenon.


Originally posted by Malcram
So let's hear this 'huge fundamental difference' which justifies this bias.


You don't even realize that you yourself are treating Collier differently, applying a double-standard wherein Collier is excused.

The difference is that everyone in the examples you cited are wrong and Collier is never wrong. Those scientists and experts are unequivocally wrong. They would have to acknowledge this, as would any supporters. No excuses are being made. However, Collier and his supporters never acknowledge he is wrong. We have witnessed six pages, post after post of excuses. Collier's supporters have performed amazing feats of logical contortions, trying convince us Collier is right by virtue of being wrong.


Originally posted by Malcram
They don't claim to be infallible prophets in contact with all-knowing deities, yet they made outrageous predictions with extreme confidence, and neither does Collier, yet he made such a prediction too. So?


Collier may not say it in such explicit terms, but he behaves that way. His followers and supporters, including you, treat him as such. Whenever his predictions do not come to pass, it is not because he or his alien friends are wrong but for whatever variety of excuses. Collier and his alien friends are never wrong in the eyes of his followers and supporters.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join