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.
Originally posted by platosallegory
I'm glad the skeptics are finally answering the question.
This shows that most people hijack skepticism and they are really closed minded debunkers.
You didn't even read the question.
I said Can?
You will not even allow for the possibility that extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings can be the most likely explanation for these things.
This proves my points beautifully!
Here is what you miss; when motivation is relevant to the discussion it does not make discussing motivation an ad hominem attack. If motivation were not relevant, then yes it would be an ad hominem attack. And since my concern is how such labels as "bogus skeptic" will be used, it is very relevant to the discussion.
You're on ignore. This is pointless and ridiculous.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
When and where did I take this "pot shot?" Was it when I asked a specific person a specific question that had nothing to do with "anyone professing the ET hypothesis." I asked him to name someone unconvinced of the ETH they would consider a real skeptic. That is a far cry from a pot-shot at everyone who believes in the ETH.
Just astonishing you would consider it such.
[edit on 16-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]
Originally posted by Nohup
Originally posted by platosallegory
Can extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings be the most likely explanation for abduction cases, mass sightings, trace evidence, eyewitness accounts, pictures and video?
No. Because they have not been shown to exist, and therefore are not a very likely explanation for anything. There is no likely explanation for authentic instances of the things you mention. They are unknown.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
If you'd like Savior, I could go back through the last 3 threads this debate has been occurring through, and list several times where you've taken a direct shot at the ETH.
Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by SaviorComplex
As you wish, that is where I had to resurrect you from in order to debate this with you anyway, so I am happy to put you back there too.
[edit on 17-3-2009 by Malcram]
Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by SaviorComplex
Here is what you miss; when motivation is relevant to the discussion it does not make discussing motivation an ad hominem attack. If motivation were not relevant, then yes it would be an ad hominem attack. And since my concern is how such labels as "bogus skeptic" will be used, it is very relevant to the discussion.
At the point you began a rant about our supposed secret motives for even raising the issue of Bogus Skepticism our motives were not in any way relevant to the discussion.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
This is something that SaviorComplex knows very well, having participated in that thread.
It was intellectually dishonest of SC not to include this information...
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
This is something that SaviorComplex knows very well, having participated in that thread.
It was intellectually dishonest of SC not to include this information...
Excuse me, but I do not even remember that thread. How can it be intellectually dishonest of me not to recall a thread from months ago? That is very, very unfair of you, WitnessfromAfar. Very unfair.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
This is something that SaviorComplex knows very well, having participated in that thread.
It was intellectually dishonest of SC not to include this information...
You are a liar, WitnessFromAfar. There are no other words to describe it. I did not take part in the conversation you linked to. You are a total and absolute liar.
[edit on 17-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'll try to get back to you on the places you flat out attacked the ETH. As you know, it takes time to dig back through old threads, but I'll do my best.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Here's one I found a minute ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Threads such as these are pointless. They serve only to make a certain group of believers feel better about themselves. I refuse to participate in them other than to urge you to focus on the evidence not on how much you hate skeptics.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Come now Nohup, you're own best hypothesis in the BOLA case (time-travellers) that fits with the observable evidence has not been proven possible either.
Please be fair. It certainly can be the most likely explanation even if it isn't the correct one.
I apologize. Seriously, I was wrong there.
I just went back and looked at the thread and you weren't in it.
I thought sure that you were, because I was debating this topic and debating with someone who's brain I actually respect (it was Yeti101, but I thought it was you)
It wasn't intellectually dishonest of you at all and I apologize. I don't usually mis-associate posts like that, sorry. You and Yeti (and Nohup and a few others) actually hold a very high place in my heart, and I guess I mixed the two of you up there for a minute.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Wow man, give a person a chance to respond before you edit. I liked it better when you were not calling me a liar. I'm not a liar.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Wow man, give a person a chance to respond before you edit. I liked it better when you were not calling me a liar. I'm not a liar.
No, WitnessFromAfar. You are a liar. Your post about my "flat out" attack on people for believing the ETH proves just that. You are a liar.
Originally posted by rich23
I've also recently been looking at this interview with John Lear and around 4.40 he says some interesting things...