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 EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Hemisphere
I'll try to keep this simple. If you've looked over the posts, you will see that I admit that a healthy dose of skepticism is needed in order to weed out false information. I have agreed with many members who are skeptical, therefore, I am not set in my opinions and choose to entertain all ideas.
This post is dedicated to those who purposefully choose to attack the validity of others when they have no pretense to do so, or, no facts to support their arguments.
Thanks for your post.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by Mike_A
My position??? LOL!!! Who declared a position? I want one!!! Tell me, what was that position again?
That doesn’t answer my question. Can you answer it?
That is another tactic employed by this drive-by member. When asked direct questions they outright refuse to answer. Instead, he refuses to acknowledge answers you have provided (for example, if he asks you why you think 2 + 2 answers 5 and you respond that you don't, it's 4, he'll repeat the accusation and say you haven't answered) and continues engaging in ad hominem after ad hominem.
Don't engage him in his behavior. He does nothing to help our understanding of this phenomenon. Everyone just comes out smelling like the BS he peddles.
MODS:
Right below the reply and preview buttons it reads:
(Minimal posts that contribute nothing to the thread are subject to immediate removal.)
EvolvedMinistry has done this repeatedly; minimal posts stating nothing other than he agrees. Why is he allowed to do this?
[edit on 25-7-2009 by DoomsdayRex]
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
....Personally, I think its healthy to keep a skeptical mind when dealing with information that could easily be fabricated. However, when idiots like these troll the boards and put into question the experience, research, and hard work of people who have developed a lifetime of credibility (Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, former Presidents, politicians, countless numbers of pilots, police officers, military personnel) then I have to question the credibility of the FOOLS who believe that they are qualified to debunk the evolutionary pioneers of our society....
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Yes. What you say is true. However, I had made no claims in my original post that supports the idea that they made a definitive response to the UFO question. However, there has been a post on ATS that has Buzz Aldrin commenting on a monolith on the moon of mars and its possible origins. (Don't quote me there because it may be somewhat off.)
So, back to the original point. There were many people attacking the credibility and motives of Buzz Aldrin for his views on the origins of this particular monolith, and it seemed quite preemptive to me. Therefore, I started this thread.
Thank you for your insight.
Originally posted by Mike_A
So you're asking me whether I believe what these people claim? I will say this. I would believe Buzz Aldrin's version of reality versus some guy on the street who claims abduction. Both may be correct, but, Buzz's opinion is probably the far more credible one.
Can you just provide a straight answer, yes or no?
And now you want to know whether I believe aliens are visiting earth? Actually, how is that related to the topic?
Because that is what Edgar Mitchell claims, if you reject that claim then you are guilty of the very thing that you are attacking others for. It has everything to do with the topic. Moreover it will finally put to rest what you do and do not believe so that we may get back to the original line of discussion regarding the value of the evidence that such people represent without you constantly filibustering and throwing up straw man arguments about what you DON’T believe. So please, answer the question.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Ahem, consensus doesn't equate to fact. That is a well known logical fallacy called: Argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam.
Originally posted by Mike_A
Alright, it’s obvious you’re not interested in debate if you’re not going to give a full and straight answer to my questions.
I will leave with this, the personal opinion and testimony of those referred to as credible in the OP are of little value in determining the validity of the claim extraterrestrials are visiting the Earth for the four reasons detailed in my first post. To question or even reject what these people say is therefore not unreasonable and is not deserving of the vitriol found in the OP.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Not to go off-topic, but Aldrin's comments were about a monolithic structure on Mars' moon "Phobos"...
...and -- no -- he was not necessarily saying it is an artificially-made structure. The word "structure" was often used by the Apollo astronauts when they were discussing large natural Moon features, and the word "monolith" means something (anything) that is uniform and massive; monolithic things are not necessarily artificial.
Buzz, being the showman that he is (I mean that in a good way), was trying to be intentionally ambiguous about that "monolith" because he is trying to get people excited about manned space exploration.
Don't get me wrong -- I like Buzz and I like the fact that he is trying to excite the general public about space travel. But in that interview, Buzz didn't imply that he knew any "secret information" about that feature on Phobos that the rest of us don't know.
I admit -- that is an interesting-looking feature on Phobos, and things like that are the types of things that we could be exploring if we had a more robust manned space program, say one that kept going in the 37 years since Apollo...However "interesting feature" does not equal "alien made".
[edit on 7/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]
I don't believe that your post is off topic. However, I did make a reply to you with some links attached. Many of the astronauts DID claim first hand experience and also provided their testimony that they have received information from "People in the know."
Secondly, I have no idea about the details on Phobos. Again, he just referred to it as a monolithic structure that was placed there by the "Universe." Therefore, I cannot speculate on its possibilities.
I never said, nor did any of the astronauts that extra-terrestrials are visiting earth
Originally posted by Mike_A
Trolling at its best.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Ahem, consensus doesn't equate to fact. That is a well known logical fallacy called: Argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam.
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
I don't believe that your post is off topic. However, I did make a reply to you with some links attached. Many of the astronauts DID claim first hand experience and also provided their testimony that they have received information from "People in the know."
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...but Edgar Mitchell, whose contributions as an astronaut I do respect, never said he was told official secret information...
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
I never said, nor did any of the astronauts that extra-terrestrials are visiting earth
I wasn’t going to post again but this is just blatant; you have just posted a video in which Edgar Mitchell says “we have been visited on this planet”. Now I assume you actually watched this video before posting it right? Maybe not but either way you’re being very dishonest.
You are a master at the art of misdirection, straw men and obfuscation I’ll give you that. They’re not really virtues though.
Oh yes...I did that as a blatant attempt to show inconsistency. You've exposed me again!!! However, it was not until I looked up Edgar Mitchell on YOUTUBE TODAY did I come across this information. And this was AFTER someone else suggested the idea that these guys had never been briefed on information. So, its as new to me as it is to you!!!
We learn something daily don't we??? Unless of course, you've already learned everything that you can possibly fit inside of the confines of your cranium.
Trolling at its best.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...but Edgar Mitchell, whose contributions as an astronaut I do respect, never said he was told official secret information...
As you mentioned earlier, this is an appeal to authority fallacy. The peculiar thing about this particular appeal to authority is that I doubt most of those citing Edgar Mitchell could not tell you what his particular accomplishments are outside of the most superficial knowledge. This is the essence of name-dropping.
What is important to remember is that whatever a person's accomplishments may be, be they Edgar Mitchell or anyone else, they are still human. Being human they are vulnerable to the same failings as all of us. And no matter what a person may have accomplished, it does not grant them an automatic omniscience in every field.