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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 .
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Lots of talk. No proof. Is that the best you've got?
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?
Originally posted by RiposteA 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?
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by RiposteWitness testimony from reliable witnesses stands up in court.
(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.
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.
Originally posted by Phage
Mitchell's stories are all hearsay.
Originally posted by RiposteSucks for you then that seeing an unidentified flying object is perfectly believable and would stand up in court.
You asked if Dr. Mitchell could provide evidence that would stand up in court. The answer is yes.
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.
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.