200,000 Year Old Statue Found On Moon

Originally posted by Cds4344
Wait a minute..... is this is a website for alternative topics? Someone post a mystic story (albeit uncredible source) and debunkers go nuts? If we can't discuss this in an alternative topic website where else should we? I am shocked. Yes there is a limit to where some should go and believe, but some of us just like the idea of the story to chew on. We know it isn't hard core evidence, none of us are stating that. This is just a story and was in the correct category, yet debunkers go haywire in trying to terrorize the thread when all we were doing was getting a good read, not declaring this for history books. You debunkers are like sharks in bloody water devouring all that you see fit. I think the majority of you got riled up good enough though.

If you don't have your own BS filter, somebody else will be happy to loan you one. You can't jump to the conclusion it's true just because it fits your wishlist. There's always need to examine something before accepting it as true. That is missed quite frequently and leads to people getting excited over the most trivial hoax.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Its in the HOAX forum

For a reason

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Its in the HOAX forum

For a reason

Actually, I think this thread inspired the HOAX forum. Even TPTB here had had enough of them.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Cds4344
Wait a minute..... is this is a website for alternative topics? Someone post a mystic story (albeit uncredible source) and debunkers go nuts? If we can't discuss this in an alternative topic website where else should we? I am shocked. Yes there is a limit to where some should go and believe, but some of us just like the idea of the story to chew on. We know it isn't hard core evidence, none of us are stating that. This is just a story and was in the correct category, yet debunkers go haywire in trying to terrorize the thread when all we were doing was getting a good read, not declaring this for history books. You debunkers are like sharks in bloody water devouring all that you see fit. I think the majority of you got riled up good enough though.

If you don't have your own BS filter, somebody else will be happy to loan you one. You can't jump to the conclusion it's true just because it fits your wishlist. There's always need to examine something before accepting it as true. That is missed quite frequently and leads to people getting excited over the most trivial hoax.

Apparently you fail at reading comprehension. My post in no way stated that I believed in this thread. My post clearly states that this is just a story and some of us like to read these. I'll give you this though, there are some here that are taking this with cold hard evidence as true and IMO shouldn't. I haven't stated that we should put this into history books. Just saying if this can't be discussed in a civil manner without the bashing then where? If this started out in the hoax sections as it's been put, do you think the debunkers would still fire away at people merely discussing the "story" in question? I think so

Originally posted by Cds4344Apparently you fail at reading comprehension. My post in no way stated that I believed in this thread. My post clearly states that this is just a story and some of us like to read these. I'll give you this though, there are some here that are taking this with cold hard evidence as true and IMO shouldn't. I haven't stated that we should put this into history books. Just saying if this can't be discussed in a civil manner without the bashing then where? If this started out in the hoax sections as it's been put, do you think the debunkers would still fire away at people merely discussing the "story" in question? I think so

First, it inspired the HOAX section, it didn't start out here. It CREATED this forum.

Second, a BS filter is always handy. Get one, they're not cheap, but they're worth it.

Third, some ideas are so stupid you simply can't believe anybody would believe them. But people do.

Thought I'd post this link to an article from 2007
www.llnl.gov...
Scroll down a bit and look at the pic of the female scientist MINUS the angel
Anyone still think there's truth to this hoax?

But Damn it was fun while it lasted!

Why does every thread that begins as something worthwhile and interesting end up in a character debate over some personal issue?

I was -going- to compare this to the face on Mars, that everyone thought was a serious landmark and then a few decades later was debunked by advanced photography.

Hoaxes aren't something to insult unless the person posting them is doing it to tick people off. I bet we have all posted things before that aren't true, that we've been fed by whatever other source, and we believed it 100%.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Why does every thread that begins as something worthwhile and interesting end up in a character debate over some personal issue?

This thread began with a fraud. Then it went downhill.

I was -going- to compare this to the face on Mars, that everyone thought was a serious landmark and then a few decades later was debunked by advanced photography.

"everyone though was a serious landmark"? Who is everyone and why haven't I met them?

Hoaxes aren't something to insult unless the person posting them is doing it to tick people off. I bet we have all posted things before that aren't true, that we've been fed by whatever other source, and we believed it 100%.

Hoaxes are an insult to the readers and to the site. The hoaxer should get a vacation if not a total ban. And I haven't posted anything like a hoax here.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Hoaxes have been a huge part of this site since I joined in 2006. It's just how it works. Some people take them seriously and believe them, due to perhaps lack of research, or maybe just a will to believe them. In some ways, anyone who cites a network like Fox or MSNBC or basically any source could be a hoaxer. It just depends how much information about the reality of the source is available in other places at the time.

I mean, you can't just go poking everything with the hoax stick because half the website is based on ideas that could be hoaxes, like chemtrails, reptilians, UFOs, whatever. Many people think those things are all hoaxes. Some people think that cryptozoology is full of hoaxes. Some people post 9/11 footage that is altered and used for what could be hoaxes.

I'm just saying, don't treat it like a disease. It's all about how much evidence there is to refute it.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


"It's all about how much evidence there is to refute it. "

It was branded with BatBoy, for goodness sakes. How much evidence do we need before we land on it with both feet? A "Hey, Stupid, it's a troll" logo?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I'm talking about hoaxes in general. Not this specific one.

Since calling "hoax" on here is kind of like calling "witch" in Salem.

People who post these aren't horrible trolls all the time. That's the point I'm trying to make. Sometimes they just don't know. Sometimes you just don't know if what you're posting is accurate, especially if you find it interesting.

But I see my cause is lost.

Just a brief note - yes this is the HOAX forum, but the T&C still apply. We need to remain on-topic and civil.

Just like in any other forum, posts failing to adhere to the expectations expressed in the Terms and Conditions are subject to removal.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Exactly. Now that we have a hoax section of the site I recommend we drop like half of the ATS threads ever created into it. Either that or maybe we should just be a little more tolerant and have a better sense of humor.

We have people on hear talking about all knds of things I think are ridiculous, crazy, whatever you want to call it. That is part of what makes this sight both enlightening and fun. I would miss all the crazier stuff. Plus, I have to admit I have created a few threads myself that in retrospect might be considered absolutely crazy. Probably my craziest ever, who is the AntiChrist and lets vote on who would be the coolest AntiChrist. Granted it promptly got busted down to BTS, where it belonged, much to my sadness.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by warrenb

This is either a hoax or it is real. I would not be surprised if it were real. The image in the article is very clear - totally unequivocal.
But it is common knowledge in many circles that this area has seen many migrations of intelligent societies come and go over an extended period of time. There is so much evidence now for the existence of advanced human cultures from other locations in the universe that one would have to be practically blind, deaf and dumb to still be groping around for terrestrial explanations for every artifact of intelligent life that has been, or will be, discovered. This even, by the way, includes our own bodies, plants, animals... don't want to stretch anyone's credulity too far. But this is what my sources find to be true.

Sorry for my tardy comment folks- but what a bunch of bullpucky!!
Its probably been posted by other ATSers, (if so I stand....tardy); but didnt the OP say that it was 10inches? The inset Angelic picture I presume is the image
What this women holds in her hand, and with the inset image being supposedly on what she holds; can anyone reasonably say thats around 10inches?
Look at the span of her hand! 3 to 4 inches max.
Anyway smells like crap to me- its not even amusing, except for say that monkey face in the RHS bottom corner.

reply to post by l_e_cox


"This is either a hoax or it is real. I would not be surprised if it were real. The image in the article is very clear - totally unequivocal."

It's a photoshopped image, a collage of at least three different photos. How would you deem that unequivocal, please?

reply to post by TheBlackDog


Good catch.

Even though this is the Hoax section, you I am surprised how many people are still claiming that it could be real.

reply to post by AlienCarnage


Maybe it's actually the image in the left hand corner, that is the authors angel?
The stereotype Angelic figure on the right (inset), is only for comparison- its an evolution thing