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.

 

Debunkers at it Again

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vic Rattlehead
Stanton is a legend , he knows more than any of us about this topic so when he says some ET's are alien and some may not . I agree on his statements.


So when did he become an authority on something no one else has any knowledge of? He doesn't know more about the subject than any of us, I was already a UFO enthusiast in 1957 way before he came out of the woodwork. I've probably forgotten more than he'll ever know! And, besides, what he knows you can know if you dedicate yourself to reading the research of others and doing some yourself. But in the end, you have no special knowledge. He has never met or seen an alien and I doubt very much that any one on planet Earth has seen one either. There is no evidence that aliens exist and all you can associate with aliens is UFOs and no one knows anything about them except what you read and see on TV. Even if you've had a sighting or more, you still don't know what you've experienced. I've had 6 serious sightings (no doubt about what I saw) and videotaped one and I still don't know what I saw or videotaped.

Friedman is simply an opportunist who is having a laugh on you.




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

There is no evidence that aliens exist


An interesting comment, as you imply you've been researching this subject for over 50 years...

NO evidence?

Of course there is a mountain of evidence. Now, whether you think it's good evidence or not, is another matter, but to say there's NO evidence? That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Not to mention, there is quite enough "good" evidence about...enough to fire the military's interest in it numerous times, and investments of millions of dollars.... Seems like a lot of effort for something with no evidence....


[edit on 9-2-2009 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Learhoag
 


1. There is a drawing of the object made by Mr Hill.

2. Betty's dreams were different than what she reported during the hypnosis sessions.

3. Coincidences were enough to convict Scott Peterson and put him on death row for murder.

4. Sorry, it was Lonnie Zamora, not Ronnie. Also, thank you Mr Warren for clearing up the Hoover memo.

5. There are hundreds of cases of physical evidence that a craft has landed. Dr J Allen Hynek classified them as Close Encounters of the Second Kind. He started off as a debunker, and started to think there was something to all the reports he went over. He is the one who gave credibility to researching the phenomena.

6. A good author to read is Major Kevin Randle. He is not one to believe all the stories he hears. He asks the tough questions and is looking for the answers. For those of you who were like me and turned totally debunker for a while, Maj Randle is the one author who will make you start thinking there is something out there.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
My problem with a lot of UFO research is the reliance on second and third hand interpretations of evidence. The Lonnie Zamora Blue Blook report for instance is far less spectacular than people make it out to be, and in his own words:

www.geocities.com...

And the same goes for much source evidence. YMMV.

edit: Changed link to the first page of the report.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
LH,

reply to post by Learhoag
 


Interestingly. you've seemed to embraced all of Stan's basic rules of UFO debunkery:

1. What the public doesn't know, we are not going to tell them

2. Don't bother us with the facts, our minds are made up.

3. If we can't attack the data, we will attack the people; it is much easier.

4. Do one's research by proclamation, rather than investigation. It is much easier and most people won't know the difference.

It seems patently obvious that no matter what is said, "your mind is made up," and bothering you with the facts (and showing you the errors in your ways) would be an excercise in futility . . . so in that vein, I refer you to my first reply (to you); it pretty much says it all.

Respectfully,
Frank Warren

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Frank Warren]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
You cannot take your refutal of my comments to the bank for like everyone else you're making statements that cannot be supported factually. You're saying so doesn't make it so. What source could you quote that there is evidence of aliens that can stand scrutiny? It has nothing to do with my acceptance of what you call "good evidence" since no one, not you, can provide it good or bad. It is easy to refute your comments by asking you to put your money where your mouth is, without any hostily by me, of course.

Military interest has not been fired by evidence, it's been fired by the fact that there are objects scooting around above earth and they are powerless to do anything about it. The military deems the space above earth to be theirs to control and they're not controlling.

Investment in what? Surveillance would be all that you can answer for there is no hardware capable of dealing with UFOs. Of course, it goes without saying that I don't accept any reports of crashed saucers regardless of the reason given for such mythological crashes such as Roswell, Corona, etc.

No, Gazrok, it would behoove you to accept that there is no evidence whatsoever for aliens aside from hearsay. World governments have been left in the dust and they cannot see ahead of the dust to tell who left it. If your life depended on it you are not able to name one source.



Originally posted by Gazrok

There is no evidence that aliens exist


An interesting comment, as you imply you've been researching this subject for over 50 years...

NO evidence?

Of course there is a mountain of evidence. Now, whether you think it's good evidence or not, is another matter, but to say there's NO evidence? That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Not to mention, there is quite enough "good" evidence about...enough to fire the military's interest in it numerous times, and investments of millions of dollars.... Seems like a lot of effort for something with no evidence....


[edit on 9-2-2009 by Gazrok]


[edit on 9-2-2009 by Learhoag]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Your reply is noted for its lack of quotable reliable sources.

1. Even if there is a drawing of a UFO done by Mr Hill, you can't prove that it had anything to do with the alleged encounter since the Hills, at least Mrs Hill, was active in UFOlogy way before their alleged encounter. This is researchable.

2. You weren't there, you don't have a reliable source and it's hearsay anyway. The record stands on what Dr Simon brought out during their treatment.

3. N/A

4. N/A

5. There are NOT hundreds of cases with physical evidence. Name one. Dr Hynek's initial attitude and his conversion have nothing to do with evidence. Like him, I used to be a UFO investigator and all that resulted were mountains of pages with reports which I discarded as they were useless.

6. I wouldn't trust anything Randle says any farther than I could throw him. He is one of the major voices in UFO b.s. 'cause, like Friedman and other popular UFO authors, he doesn't rely on facts. If you trust his word, it's your loss, not mine.

A more believeable author, although with a grain of salt also, is Bruce Maccabee who at least researches what he writes about. Other trusted authors are Karl T. Pflock, and, sometimes, Karl K. Korff. I'm sure there are many other authors who are honest in their approach and reporting of the UFO enigma but Kevin Randle is not one of them.



Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Learhoag
 


1. There is a drawing of the object made by Mr Hill.

2. Betty's dreams were different than what she reported during the hypnosis sessions.

3. Coincidences were enough to convict Scott Peterson and put him on death row for murder.

4. Sorry, it was Lonnie Zamora, not Ronnie. Also, thank you Mr Warren for clearing up the Hoover memo.

5. There are hundreds of cases of physical evidence that a craft has landed. Dr J Allen Hynek classified them as Close Encounters of the Second Kind. He started off as a debunker, and started to think there was something to all the reports he went over. He is the one who gave credibility to researching the phenomena.

6. A good author to read is Major Kevin Randle. He is not one to believe all the stories he hears. He asks the tough questions and is looking for the answers. For those of you who were like me and turned totally debunker for a while, Maj Randle is the one author who will make you start thinking there is something out there.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Since I'm aware of Friedman's record, all I've done is badmouth him on forums such as this that are populated by the easily-fooled gullibles. I've never had an article published on a website attacking Mr Friedman, although I've fantasied doing it. However, I'm not the only critic of Mr Friedman, there are many, and here is a URL to a "published" criticism of Mr Friedman. The URL is from google's cache since the article was published in 2006 and the website no longer exists.

UFODIMENSIONS ARTICLE: Reposted Mar 07.06
THE HIPOCRISY OF STANTON FRIEDMAN Tim Goodness

74.125.47.132...:FzW-bzDytu4J:farshores.org/ufosf.htm+Stanton+Friedman+lies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&lr=lang_en

There is a lot more about Friedman to criticize, I suggest you do appropriate research, as I've done. I didn't like Friedman from day one for he hit the ground running with his patented b.s. The gullible public loves b.s.



Originally posted by Frank Warren
LH,

reply to post by Learhoag
 


Interestingly. you've seemed to embraced all of Stan's basic rules of UFO debunkery:

1. What the public doesn't know, we are not going to tell them

2. Don't bother us with the facts, our minds are made up.

3. If we can't attack the data, we will attack the people; it is much easier.

4. Do one's research by proclamation, rather than investigation. It is much easier and most people won't know the difference.

It seems patently obvious that no matter what is said, "your mind is made up," and bothering you with the facts (and showing you the errors in your ways) would be an excercise in futility . . . so in that vein, I refer you to my first reply (to you); it pretty much says it all.

Respectfully,
Frank Warren

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Frank Warren]


[edit on 9-2-2009 by Learhoag]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Learhoag
 


Sorry I am late to reply (had trouble with connecting to ATS yesterday).

1. I used the Scott Peterson trial to show that coincidences do matter in a court of law, where the burden of proof is much higher than normal.

2. Major Kevin Randle is not the type of author to believe every case. He does his research and also finds documents and other evidence to back up any claim. He also will call out a hoax, and is not afraid to say another researcher is wrong. He respectfully disagrees about Mr Friedman's research into the MJ-12 papers, and does have some enemies in the field. I would assume you have not read any of his books, or you would not have made such a claim.

3. Name one case with physical evidence? Here are a few at the top of my head:

Roswell AAF crash (debris)
Betty and Barney Hill Incident (radar, dress, shoes, car)
Braxton County Incident (aka Flatwoods Monster) (boys and Mrs May sick, trace of landing)
Shag Harbor Incident in Nova Scotia (radar, Navy tracking of underwater object)
Lonnie Zamora Incident (landing trace)
Pascagoula UFO (interference in TV signals, reported by many people)
Iowa 1970s (landing trace and photograph of it, cannot think of the town or the witnesses name)
A case in the 1960s from Canada where the witness was burned and photos were taken of wounds in the hospital.

These are from the top of my head, without me looking at the internet and/or my books for reference. I have named more than one.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join