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.

 

FOX News - UFO Biased reporting

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Judging from the previous discussion of this and now, I doubt you ever watched the video in the first place.

I have, and this was quite a while ago, I recall the way you began with the insults as usual, funny you linked me to page 2, try page 1 also.. here;


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I find this a bit humorous...

My rebuttal soon ensued.


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
the term "dog fight" invokes certain images, one that reminds people of WWII footage or something like Top Gun.

And here you are nit-picking over the term "dog fight"..


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
As I said before, the term "dog-fight" invokes certain images, like that of WWII air combat. So yes, the use of the term is sensationalistic.

Again, you nit-pick over the same word.



Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I'll gladly hand your ass to you again


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
So bring it, child. Let's discuss a video you never watched in the first place.

Should I alert the mods over such violation of decorum?

Now, as I said earlier, I do not want to repeat a debate. Stick to the topic, not me.

[edit on 15/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There are some things we, as researchers of, cant control

Media is a huge one, we got to let it go, I mean if you are a true searcher of


the truth, it DOESN'T matter what anyone else says.

A ufo researcher , only wants the question asked ,and answered to his

(or her) own satisfation, To hell with the mass media,



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
For those with a story about UFO's to tell, DON'T go to Fox, go to some other channel that doesn't take the pee out of you.
So if you have a story and Fox approach you tell them to go away as you'll only deal with reputable channels.
That way if the really big 'change mankind for all time' story comes along, Fox will be kicking themselves for ridiculing those if us that have seen and will NOT be counting the Dollars for rights to the stories.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DataWraith
So if you have a story and Fox approach you tell them to go away as you'll only deal with reputable channels.


Fox is no more egregious than the other cable networks. Anyone can selectively-edit video to make any network look too skeptical or too accepting of any subject.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Please stop the name calling and attacks on other members.


Peace



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Hmm.

Do we have a thread on this site where we have evidence for these people to really be hoaxers?

I've seen many men and women being labeled hoaxers world wide by skeptics just because their sighting happens to fit into a logical solution.

Just because it looks like a balloon with flares on it and just because that seems to be the easiest explanation ( Occam's Razor ) it doesn PROVE that what it was was just that.

Neither Believers or skeptics will most likely EVER be able to prove their point fully where everyone can say, Ok...this IS what it is.

There are thousands of articles on the net where people get labeled as hoaxers but I've yet to see WHY they are. To show another picture with a balloon with a flare tied onto it doesn't really justify it as proof.
Ofc some of these are REAL hoaxers, but among them we also have others.

Proof would be if a camera could secretly ( without the hoaxer knowing ) follow the "orb" being released by the "hoaxer", and then follow it till it "lands" and then film the Balloon and the outburned flare. That would be more of a evidence. But that would still only prove THAT particular event to be a fraud and it would still be questioned as a staged event.

I just can't understand the human beings need of constantly prove the man next to them wrong as soon as their point of view doesn't go along with their own.

Let people believe, where's the harm in that?

So what if Aliens doesn't exist?
Now we have millions of people believing in Aliens and them coming to visit, why not just let them? Why this need of rediculing others? And I also mean these self appointed experts on MSM.

Their efforts to prove believers wrong are some times so absurdly over achieved on tv that the message tends to turn around and bite them in their own butt.

We have alot of these here on ATS as well.
As soon as a new video comes up or a new story comes up where believers and non believers should be able to speculate what it is, one of these "Overachievers" comes along, very often on the first page already, telling people they are morons for believing.

personally, I wonder why those OA's even put down time on this site.

And as a few last words:

Believing a bit more than usual will not kill you.


PS, not calling anyone specific an overachiever. Just saying there are some... =)

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Akezzon]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
Do we have a thread on this site where we have evidence for these people to really be hoaxers?


Which people are you referring to? If it's Peckman or Romanek, it's not just a simple matter of some evil skeptic just declaring them to be charlatans. Consensus among everyone, skeptic and believer, is that these men are attempting to perpetrate a hoax. Thelow-quality still purporting to show an alien, to the fact Peckman is an internet-age snake-oil salesman, to the shenanigans regarding the video itself sets off everyones' alarm bells. The good people at the Paracast took Romanek apart last year.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Well I ment that in 2 different ways. First: If we have a thread where we have good evidence of Stan Romanek being an hoax then I will back away and agree with you, if there isn't any evidence of any kinda, and I mean hard solid evidence and not just "That is a puppet, anyone can see that", than we are not really entitled to call him anything, even though his video and himself are quite questionable. Well, we could call him stuff ofc, but to use his hoaxer label as an argument...nah.

Second: I ment it in a way where I believe we all tend to generalize and label people a little to easy and to fast sometimes. And then I don't only mean those in that video.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join