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.

 

This is for all the `ufo skeptics` must read

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
That being said, the government did engage in a campaign to disinformation campaign in regards to UFOs. But it was not to cover-up extraterrestrial visitation, but because it was felt constant UFO sightings may reduce our readiness or be a cover for a Soviet invasion.


There you go again, you dismiss one bunch of "crackpot" theories with a "crackpot" theory of your own


How would you know what the governmen did or didnt do, you are GUESSING. This isnt some proven fact you are talking here. But for the skeptic any position they take is always somehow conclusive, its bitterly ironic.

If any organisation was involved in that sort of thing they would most likely have deliberately placed false information, ecnouraged people to form rediculous ideas, and would keep provooking them to talk about it. Why? Because its the greatest shield anyone would ever have.

As i said, its happened before, they did it with communism, with propeganda and words alone they turned a whole nation into people terrified of closet commies, they inspired a whole decade of film and litreature based on the social fear of "enemies within"


How do know this? Because I studied it




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
Sagans "law" should be renamed Sagans bull#, for a man who believes in string theory he of all people shouldnt be talking about extraordinary evidence, and he also believes in gravitons and despite building a matter crasher they STILL havent been able to find any of the mythical particles that the theories are based on. They are as real as aliens.

maybe Sagan should talk less and think a little more


Considering Sagan has been dead for over a decade, he is not doing much of either.

And considering Sagan's contributions to science, learning, and the fact he believed there should be serious scientific study of the UFO phenomenon, you might want to reconsider your attacks on him. Especially since he was far smarter and contributed more to the human race than most of can even dream of.

And not to put words into the great Dr. Sagan's mouth, whatever he believed about string-theory, he would be the first to admit it was a belief, and required more evidence to be considered a reality.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
There you go again, you dismiss one bunch of "crackpot" theories with a "crackpot" theory of your own.

How would you know what the governmen did or didnt do, you are GUESSING.

How do know this? Because I studied it


If you had studied this, as you claim, then you would know that I am neither guessing nor am I introducing some crackpot theory. That was the conclusion of the 1952 Robertson Panel study on UFOs.


Furthermore, the Panel suggested the Air Force should begin a "debunking" effort to reduce "public gullibility" and demystify UFO reports, partly via a public relations campaign, using psychiatrists, astronomers and assorted celebrities to significantly reduce public interest in UFOs... The primary reasoning for this recommendation lay in the belief that the Soviets might try to "mask" an actual invasion of the USA by causing a wave of false "UFO" reports to swamp the Pentagon and other military agencies, thus temporarily blinding the US government to the impending Communist invasion. SOURCE


[edit on 19-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
And considering Sagan's contributions to science, learning, and the fact he believed there should be serious scientific study of the UFO phenomenon, you might want to reconsider your attacks on him. Especially since he was far smarter and contributed more to the human race than most of can even dream of.


Needless rapture. Actually Sagan god rest him didnt achieve much for mankind at all so I suggest you calm those kind of statements. He was a good scientist but he wasnt a ground breaker by any means and didnt actually leave us with anything except SETI and a signal beamed into space


This doesnt mean "Sagans Law" can be applied by the acidic skeptics as some form of rule of life, Sagan himself broke the law in asking for SETI to be established, so why quote him in that sense?




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EliteLegends
sorry to be an ass but some people are just slow

theres overwhelming evidence but unless youve touched it , then it isnt evidence ..... if thats your beliefs then so be it but dont expect to have a serious discussion when theres obviously no logic included


There is no evidence...there is only heresay, stories and pics/vids of unknown craft(none that can be said they are alien as FACT). There is only theory and specualtion..that's all. If logic is to be used..then for the lack of solid evidence such DNA, body of alien, piece of spacecraft that through scientific investigation states that it is not from this world and has been intelligently made or landing of craft where aliens get out and wave then the only logical conclusion is that aliens are not visiting us. To blindly believe is not using logic and reasoning. To make your argument stand as fact you must provide one piece of evidence that shows that without a doubt there are aliens visiting us. You cannot just state things as fact and then offer no proof.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
He was a good scientist but he wasnt a ground breaker by any means and didnt actually leave us with anything except SETI and a signal beamed into space


If that is what you believe, then you are speaking from a place of profound ignorance, and perhaps bitterness.


Originally posted by silver6ix
This doesnt mean "Sagans Law" can be applied by the acidic skeptics as some form of rule of life, Sagan himself broke the law in asking for SETI to be established, so why quote him in that sense?


Instead of thinking that being condescending is somehow a substitute for being witty, you could tell us how exactly SETI breaks Sagan's Law?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex


If you had studied this, as you claim, then you would know that I am neither guessing nor am I introducing some crackpot theory. That was the conclusion of the 1952 Robertson Panel study on UFOs.



First of all you can chew on your snide comments. Show me which University carries the Robertson Report on its cultural studies curriculum


I think you will find more important things were being studied than CIA reports, like American Culture and development through the ages.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The Mexican one was proved to be oil platforms in the gulf. Proved by a non sleptic that has seen them.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
The Mexican one was proved to be oil platforms in the gulf. Proved by a non sleptic that has seen them.


On youtube you will find a clear analysis which proves that statement untrue.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
First of all you can chew on your snide comments. Show me which University carries the Robertson Report on its cultural studies curriculum


What is that even supposed to mean? Proven wrong, you now turn to being dismissive and condescending, doing everything the fanatical UFO believers accuse the skeptics of doing.

Do you know what the Robertson Report was?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by silver6ix
First of all you can chew on your snide comments. Show me which University carries the Robertson Report on its cultural studies curriculum


What is that even supposed to mean? Proven wrong, you now turn to being dismissive and condescending, doing everything the fanatical UFO believers accuse the skeptics of doing.

Do you know what the Robertson Report was?


I think ill just not bother wasting further time because to be quite frank, you are just getting on my tits.

Proven wrong? You cite a CIA report as your proven source (or maybe ou didnt know the Robertson Report was commisioned by the CIA, one of the single most deceitful organisations on the planet) as a proven fact?


I think you will find the truth of US propeganda on the cold war in its effects occupy rows of shelves in any eductational library and are on most every curriculum of cultural studies involving the US, its a valid and well criqued era of history. As I said, I studied it.

A CIA report is just that, a CIA report.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


You are offering nothing new to this argument, just the same old "you sukk cuz its fact and and your an idiot for believing otherwise" argument. Prove anything as fact to us..then you can win this argument. By the way what is it with youtube and believers...


[edit on 19-10-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 19-10-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 19-10-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
Proven wrong? You cite a CIA report as your proven source (or maybe ou didnt know the Robertson Report was commisioned by the CIA, one of the single most deceitful organisations on the planet) as a proven fact?



Yes, proven wrong.

When I stated that the government engaged in a disinformation campaign about UFOs, not because they believed it was extraterrestrials, but because they believed could reduce our readiness or be a cover for a Soviet invasion, you called it a crackpot theory. I proved that was not the case, and cited the Robertson Panel, which recommended this very course of action due to the same concerns I cited. You claimed it was a crackpot theory, that I was making up. I proved this was not the case.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by silver6ix
 


You are offering nothing new to this argument, just the same old "you sukk cuz its fact and and your an idiot for believing otherwise" argument. Prove anything as fact to us..then you can win this argument. By the way what is it with youtube and believers...


[edit on 19-10-2008 by riggs2099]


Sure and you have offered what by contrast?


What is it with youtube? Id have though you could figure that out, its an easy place to host videos and has the largest video collection on the net. Does being on youtube make something false now?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

When I stated that the government engaged in a disinformation campaign about UFOs, not because they believed it was extraterrestrials, but because they believed could reduce our readiness or be a cover for a Soviet invasion, you called it a crackpot theory. I proved that was not the case, and cited the Robertson Panel, which recommended this very course of action due to the same concerns I cited. You claimed it was a crackpot theory, that I was making up. I proved this was not the case.


Quoting a CIA report that is riddled with inconsitancies as proof is no better than telling me aliens are dancing in your back yard im afraid. Its the equivalent of asking a compulsive liar if they lie and then refrencing the answer as truth. So no, you proved nothing except you read a CIA report. The whole thing is half myth half truth and god only knows whats real and whast not concerning that report.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


Well the fact that youtube videos can be made by anyone. If qualified experts used youtube to make arguments for thier points then maybe I would consider youtube to be a useful resource. The fact that people put videos up that are either biased or used other videos they have manipulated in order for thier POV to be taken seriously does nothing for believers arguments.

* side note...I don;t find the oil bunkers or whatever they are are the answers for the ufo's filmed over mexican skies.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix


Quoting a CIA report that is riddled with inconsitancies as proof is no better than telling me aliens are dancing in your back yard im afraid. Its the equivalent of asking a compulsive liar if they lie and then refrencing the answer as truth. So no, you proved nothing except you read a CIA report. The whole thing is half myth half truth and god only knows whats real and whast not concerning that report.



I imagine its a bit more believable than a youtube video analysis

Don't you think?


[edit on 19-10-2008 by Chadwickus]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
Quoting a CIA report that is riddled with inconsitancies as proof is no better than telling me aliens are dancing in your back yard im afraid. Its the equivalent of asking a compulsive liar if they lie and then refrencing the answer as truth. So no, you proved nothing except you read a CIA report. The whole thing is half myth half truth and god only knows whats real and whast not concerning that report.


First, you said I made up a crackpot theory. I demonstrated that was not the case, and indeed was a course of action refered to in a government report. Regardless of who authored the report or who commission the study, and regardless of any inconsistencies in the report, that course of action is what the Robertson Panel recommended. Are you denying this was the case? Did the report, or did it not, recommend this course of action? Yes or no?

Once again, you seem to think posting condescending emoticons are somehow a substitute for being witty.


[edit on 19-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Ahh so all the nature documentaries, political speeches, films ect on youtube are ALL false? All CGI?


I think you will find your arguments are just a little childish, almost every video on the net will find its way into youtube.

On the CIA, yes, id rather turst a person I can see in the video doing an analysis and showing the results, explaining them with information which you can refrence and check as more valid than the CIA telling me its so.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Yes of course, whatever.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join