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.

 

Is Dr.Edgar Mitchell a LIAR??

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Reevster Like I said, go collect your pay check, you are doing fine work here it appears, read my sig......


News for you. Everybody here, except you, is a disinformation agent. We're ALL in this conspiracy together. Just though you'd like to know.

As for Mitchell, if we can swim upstream against the derails, what proof has he presented that would stand up in court?


Nope your puting words in my mouth as you do with everyone else here. I didnt say everyone here is a disifo agent, there are only you and one other that i strongly suspect are disifo. Or at the very least like to argue for the sake of arguing.




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster Nope your puting words in my mouth as you do with everyone else here. I didnt say everyone here is a disifo agent, there are only you and one other that i strongly suspect are disifo. Or at the very least like to argue for the sake of arguing.


Reading comprehension fail. I said we're all disinformation agents. I never said you said that.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter who says what, they still have to back it up with hard, verifiable proof. I understand that a lot of people will just take someone at their word and not question it. Pope/Jesus, Meier/Plejarens, Von Daniken/Ancient Astronauts, whatever. That's fine for them, but I'm not that kind of person.

Ed Mitchell can say whatever he wants, but if he wants me to believe him, he better cough up some verifiable documentation, images, artifacts, official confirmation, or SOMETHING/ANYTHING that backs up what he says. Otherwise, it's all hearsay, and I can get that kind of nonsense from half the people on this site.


People might say, "Well, he can't provide that stuff because the powers that be won't let him!" But that's just a convenient excuse for not bothering to make him come up with real evidence. Besides, think about it. If he did present undeniable evidence of (whatever), what would be the point of killing him then? The word would be out. If anything, killing him would only give it more credence.

If he wants to present good evidence, I'm sure we'd all like to see it. But I don't see him doing that. I just see him parroting the same vague, unproven stuff anybody could who reads this website.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Reevster Nope your puting words in my mouth as you do with everyone else here. I didnt say everyone here is a disifo agent, there are only you and one other that i strongly suspect are disifo. Or at the very least like to argue for the sake of arguing.


Reading comprehension fail. I said we're all disinformation agents. I never said you said that.


Doesnt matter , you implyed it , same thing.

I think this is your way of getting your jollies anyway , argue for the sake of agruing, its all good .






posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter who says what, they still have to back it up with hard, verifiable proof. I understand that a lot of people will just take someone at their word and not question it. Pope/Jesus, Meier/Plejarens, Von Daniken/Ancient Astronauts, whatever. That's fine for them, but I'm not that kind of person.

Ed Mitchell can say whatever he wants, but if he wants me to believe him, he better cough up some verifiable documentation, images, artifacts, official confirmation, or SOMETHING/ANYTHING that backs up what he says. Otherwise, it's all hearsay, and I can get that kind of nonsense from half the people on this site.


People might say, "Well, he can't provide that stuff because the powers that be won't let him!" But that's just a convenient excuse for not bothering to make him come up with real evidence. Besides, think about it. If he did present undeniable evidence of (whatever), what would be the point of killing him then? The word would be out. If anything, killing him would only give it more credence.

If he wants to present good evidence, I'm sure we'd all like to see it. But I don't see him doing that. I just see him parroting the same vague, unproven stuff anybody could who reads this website.


So what you are saying is that all of the eye witness reports over the last few hundred years are all hearsay? You do realize how utterly unlikely that is right? Just wondering.....



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster Doesnt matter , you implyed it , same thing.

I think this is your way of getting your jollies anyway , argue for the sake of agruing, its all good .



What ever you believe is true, because that's what you believe. Troll on.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Lots of talk. No proof. Is that the best you've got?


If you want to continue to think like a chimpanzee, then just leave the forum. Your belief system is no different than a sheep that simply believes what it is told to believe.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
As for Mitchell, if we can swim upstream against the derails, what proof has he presented that would stand up in court?


A person can be convicted for murder based on nothing but witness testimony.

Why are you here? You've seen the evidence and dismissed it. Or are you just here to troll people?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RiposteA person can be convicted for murder based on nothing but witness testimony.


Fear for your life if you're ever charged with a capital crime. And, I wonder, if those witnesses would all be telling the same story or if each of them had their own version?


Why are you here? You've seen the evidence and dismissed it. Or are you just here to troll people?


Why am I here? May Jean Paul Satre could answer that one. I've seen what passes for evidence, and I've dismissed it. Spent more time on it than it deserved, actually.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Fear for your life if you're ever charged with a capital crime. And, I wonder, if those witnesses would all be telling the same story or if each of them had their own version?


What?

You asked if Dr. Mitchell could provide evidence that would stand up in court. The answer is yes. Witness testimony is allowed and by itself is more than enough to get a conviction.



Why am I here? May Jean Paul Satre could answer that one. I've seen what passes for evidence, and I've dismissed it. Spent more time on it than it deserved, actually.


Great, then you should leave. Bye!



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


"You asked if Dr. Mitchell could provide evidence that would stand up in court. The answer is yes. Witness testimony is allowed and by itself is more than enough to get a conviction."

Your legal education is lack, I see. Just telling a story doesn't mean it will stand up in court.

I'll leave when I'm ready, no when you want me to leave.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Your legal education is lack, I see. Just telling a story doesn't mean it will stand up in court.

I'll leave when I'm ready, no when you want me to leave.


Witness testimony from reliable witnesses stands up in court.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RiposteWitness testimony from reliable witnesses stands up in court.


The testimony would count for something, not just the person giving it. So a witness that gives unbelievable testimony would not be a reliable witness.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


Mitchell's stories are all hearsay or opinion. He is not an eyewitness.


(c) Hearsay.

"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.



Rule 802. Hearsay Rule

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.

www.law.cornell.edu...

His stories do not meet the any of the criteria for exception. His stories are not admissible.

[edit on 4/24/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The testimony would count for something, not just the person giving it. So a witness that gives unbelievable testimony would not be a reliable witness.


Sucks for you then that seeing an unidentified flying object is perfectly believable and would stand up in court.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Mitchell's stories are all hearsay.


Mitchell's are hearsay, yes. But there were a bunch of other quotes from direct witnesses that I was referencing.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RiposteSucks for you then that seeing an unidentified flying object is perfectly believable and would stand up in court.

Sorry, but they're not believable. I know you want them to be believable, but they're not.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


That is not what you said.



You asked if Dr. Mitchell could provide evidence that would stand up in court. The answer is yes.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Riposte
 


That is not what you said.



You asked if Dr. Mitchell could provide evidence that would stand up in court. The answer is yes.


Forgive me for I have sinned. I was originally referencing the tens of thousands of other eyewitness accounts. Then I had a lapse of judgment with the above quote.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by RiposteSucks for you then that seeing an unidentified flying object is perfectly believable and would stand up in court.

Sorry, but they're not believable. I know you want them to be believable, but they're not.


Huh? Exactly what part of the story do you believe is not believable?

I don't WANT them to be believable. I simply look at the facts and make an informed decision. You do not do this.

You are entirely emotionally invested in your disbelief and refuse to see the truth. It is utter insanity to conclude that there is no UFO phenomenon taking place. You have literally shut off your brain in order to tow the line of traditional mainstream opinion that UFOs do not exist. That, or you haven't looked at the evidence.

Hopefully it's the latter.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join