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.

 

The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 23
82
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
- Cave paintings and lines prove that ancient peoples had an interesting culture.
- Betty Hill's map could as well be a map of planets in the solar system or other stars.
- Discovery transmission is a hoax according to the person that recorded the audio clip. Posted by Isaac Koi here:
www.alien-ufos.com...

No proof as usual. Not even good evidence.


Your link doesn't say anything about a hoax, it says "so and so thinks is a hoax".

I'm calling disinfo agent, and I would like the mods to investigate and see if their location is really in "France" via their IP address and move to ban.

There shouldn't be so many "skeptics" in the "Aliens and UFOs" forum trying so hard to disprove things without reason, that they make up things. That's ridiculous and I don't "buy" it.




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


I appreciate your response and hope you liked this thread.I agree that ATS should be more active in seeking out disinfo agents(if any are one here) as I think I have encountered a few.However I do not think Nablater is one,I have known him for a while and have him listed as a friend.I do agree he(and some other skeptics) are kind of 'hard headed' and unwilling to budge despite of evidence,but that does not make them government agents.


Now that that is out of they way,what is your thoughts on the three clinchers and other evidence?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


"There shouldn't be so many "skeptics" in the "Aliens and UFOs" forum trying so hard to disprove things without reason, that they make up things. That's ridiculous and I don't "buy" it."

Curious. Do you object to people asking for proof of assertions? If so, why? The scientific method is to question everything. I would think this forum would embrace that system wholeheartedly.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


"There shouldn't be so many "skeptics" in the "Aliens and UFOs" forum trying so hard to disprove things without reason, that they make up things. That's ridiculous and I don't "buy" it."

Curious. Do you object to people asking for proof of assertions? If so, why? The scientific method is to question everything. I would think this forum would embrace that system wholeheartedly.



I agree with you Gawdzilla to many paranoid people on here ,if anyone doesn't agree with the strange idea's and theories they come up with you are a disinfo agent
that is a real BS term if you ask me. If they are so confident about the so called evidence they post they should be happy to let us try to shot it down in flames.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


"There shouldn't be so many "skeptics" in the "Aliens and UFOs" forum trying so hard to disprove things without reason, that they make up things. That's ridiculous and I don't "buy" it."

Curious. Do you object to people asking for proof of assertions? If so, why? The scientific method is to question everything. I would think this forum would embrace that system wholeheartedly.


I agree with you Gawdzilla to many paranoid people on here ,if anyone doesn't agree with the strange idea's and theories they come up with you are a disinfo agent
that is a real BS term if you ask me. If they are so confident about the so called evidence they post they should be happy to let us try to shot it down in flames.




Bingo. The fact that the theories aren't well thought out is perfectly illustrated by the fact that people are unwilling to accept scrutiny. "If you don't buy my story without question, you are my enemy." Scary thought.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


So I ask you Gawdzilla.......Give me three 'skeptic' explanations for my three clinchers w/ evidence to compliment them.I will be waiting.WMD,feel free to join in,infact you both could start a co-op thread with the counter evidence,it will all go down on ATS for the people to see.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


So I ask you Gawdzilla.......Give me three 'skeptic' explanations for my three clinchers w/ evidence to compliment them.I will be waiting.WMD,feel free to join in,infact you both could start a co-op thread with the counter evidence,it will all go down on ATS for the people to see.


"Clincher #1" is based on the assumption that what you conceive an image to be is what it actually is, and, additionally, that much, much more can be extrapolated from that image. As you don't provide support for your conclusions where can we go after that?

"Clincher #2" is the assumption that a person or person is presenting information that is revelatory without supporting evidence.

And Clincher #3 wasn't included in your OP, that I noticed. Repeat it, please?

(BTW, I and/or other posters have already made these points.)



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


The third is on the third post, this post, because of the character limit.‍‍‍

Also, dkman222 posted before the second post from jkrog08.

But it's there.


[edit on 12/4/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



And Clincher #3 wasn't included in your OP, that I noticed. Repeat it, please?


Yes,it was...It was just interrupted by a poster,it is the third or fourth post of the page.That's why I put "continued" on the bottom my OP,as they are usually long.

As far as the others you didn't give anything better than I did,actually it was more unbelievable.

For your arguments on one.......You simply said I interpreted the pictures how I want.......that is not true I interpreted them as they are and stated that there was no reason for the Nazca to make them unless they knew they would be seen in the sky.Also the astronaut line puts to rest any belief that they were for gods.We have no other president for a primitive civ. making such pictographs only to be seen from space,or the sky.

On two......... you gave no explanation for the accuracy of the star map that was drawn by a normal,non educated(on astronomy)citizen who said she was shown it by aliens.Yes you can say it was odds connecting dots in the sky.But I ask you this:What are the odds of Mrs.Hill drawing the 'dots' not only without prior knowledge of the existence of this system(wouldn't be discovered by 'science' for another many years)but the near perfect accuracy of the star system.Yes you can argue the fact that in the infinite expanse of space she could have made a match(as our dear,ignorant friend Dr.Carl Sagan did)........but a match that is a match for the alignment of like 15 stars?Those stars also now being known as being the most likely to support life......after all she did say they were "trade routes".And what about the odds of Mrs.Hill randomly lyingand randomly drawing a map?Even if you say you can use probability to draw the map you have NOT refuted her abduction claim.And Sir,when you have to refute to MAJOR parts of a story to dismiss it without probable cause then it is 99.999999% likely TRUE.All I ask is this of you guys,please!As far as clincher three........look further down the post(page one) please.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Okay, you say "there's no reason for the Nazca to make them unless they knew they would be seen in the sky". How do you support that? It's an assumption on your part and not proven. You can assume anything you wish, of course, but it's not a "clincher" unless you have proof. (And I know "proof" is a dirty word around here, TFB.)

As far as the Hill map, how do you know she didn't go to a celestial atlas and practice drawing a "map"? Again, you can assume anything.

And, I was right, then, your third "clincher" wasn't in your OP.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Your third "clincher" is pure speculation as to the identity of the object reported. Assuming it's a space craft from some distant planet isn't proof.

So, all three "clinchers" are simply assumptions on your part and not supported by proof.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Your third "clincher" is pure speculation as to the identity of the object reported. Assuming it's a space craft from some distant planet isn't proof.

So, all three "clinchers" are simply assumptions on your part and not supported by proof.


WHAT?Your being PERPOSTEROUS.........WHAT ELSE WOULD "WE STILL HAVE THE ALIEN SPACECRAFT UNDER OBSERVANCE"MEAN?!!!A bunch of Mexicans hijacking their way to another planet?!And as expected you still have no answer to the other two so I will assume you have no logical conclusion on them.But now I am interested in your opinion on the NASA transmission.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


You ever look at the entire set of evidence on that event, or just the parts that please you? I know how to bet.

I see you've conceded the first two already. Fair enough.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Come on Man!!!!.......You are now resorting to primitive aggression and competition to argue your facts.You went from a level 10(being good) to a level -2 just then.


On Nazca-There are radioactive readings on the line as well as evidence of a energy creating them.Even without that it makes NO SENSE that they would make them in the shapes they did unless they were for someone from the sky.Give me ONE credible(credible now) source that explains otherwise............

On Starmap...........I am quite versed in physics,astronomy,cosmology as my major is cosmology/theoretical physics and by simply using LOGIC and SIMPLE PROBABILITY one ca NOT come to the conclusion of luck for the map.You have a better chance of being hit by 5 comets right now at your house and dying of a heart attack simultaneously than the map being coincidence or a lie.Can you POSSIBLY argue with that.

On NASA.........I mean WHAT?!When an astronaut says "we have the ALIEN SPACECRAFT UNDER OBSERVATION"what kind of BS conclusions to disregard that can you or anyone come with?!HOAX............I think not,NASA simply(as expected)denies the transmission EVEN EXISTS!!THIS IS THE REAL CLINCHER......



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


You said you had "clinchers". You have assumptions. How do those relate to "clinchers". "It must be so, because I want it to be so"? That's not a clincher. It's a stinker.

Massive fail thread.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Curious. Do you object to people asking for proof of assertions? If so, why? The scientific method is to question everything. I would think this forum would embrace that system wholeheartedly.


I agree, it is evident that this is a debunkers forum.

You can hide behind the term 'Scientific Method' all you want, and continue to be allowed playing these sock-puppet games by the mods here SC. But you and I both know, that this is just your excuse for grilling people, and enforcing your perspective.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Massive thread fail?????Let me tell you something(I notice your aggression on believers on other post)this thread had never failed.....last check it has 55 flags,24 stars PLUS 22 MORE,along with my many other who are in the plus 40 flag category with plus stars!How many do you have that garner that kind of respect(mods let me say this please)?????It is obvious you have reached a low in debate where you resort to name calling and bashing of members,that tells me I have defeated you!Not the others,just you....I have been on ATS MUCH LONGER THAN YOU and garner respect from multiple members and mods.WHY?Because I contribute rationally and care about this site and its members.I have had hard times in the past but am now past that.SO PLEASEEEEE DONT TRY AND COME WITH TELLING ME MY THREAD "HAS MASSIVELY FAILED!".I don't disrespect you like that.BTW how many thread do you have with my kind of stats?I care for this site,its members,its staff and that gets me respect,respect from even other skeptics.I am trying to further the advance of Ufology and education of all who are interested in 'real' topics(look at my other threads).You are WAY OUT OF LINE SIR!You have failed to meet any of my conditions for a CIVILIZED DEBATE ON THE CLINCHERS AND EVIDENCE,so with that said I now will no longer discuss with you,as I chalk you up as a 'terminal non changeable member,or at the very least a 'win' in my side.~JKrog



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


From what I have seen here on ATS, the number of flags a thread gets has very little to do with quality.

I would also appreciate it if you would stop screaming.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


"You have failed to meet any of my conditions"

That's because you don't set the rules. Just thought I let you know.

Your "clinchers" aren't clinchers, they're rumors.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sebarud
 


Ill stop screaming for you cause you have nothing to do with mine and zillas' argument.Flags and stars play a PIVITIOL part in showing other members respect to the OP for their contribution and dedication to ATS and the thread.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join