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.

 

Skeptics who are skeptical just to maintain skepticism

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

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.



Thanks for reading it. Sorry I didn't have time to read everyone's posts. I will try to catch up when possible.

Have a good weekend!




posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

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]


You really like the expression ad hominem. I notice that you use it in every post flaunting it like you're waiting for someone to ask you the meaning. Then you provided the meaning in one of your last posts as if it was something that you just recently learned and are proud that you've finally been able to use it in its proper context.

Its funny that you're telling others not to respond to me, and yet, here you are. You might want to lead by example if you want to make this trend of yours stick.


Now, as far as the topic. I think I've been pretty clear and have answered multiple questions concerning this topic. If you want to know whether I'm a believer, then, there are several references within the context of this thread that states my beliefs pretty accurately.

So, thank you again for your response.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

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....

Buzz Aldrin and Edgar Mitchell have never said they have "inside information" regarding Aliens, and the "light" that Jimmy Carter saw has been thoroughly investigated and the consensus conclusion is that he saw Venus.

Former astronauts, presidents, pilots, and police are allowed to be of the personal opinion that ET is visiting us. Plus, these people can also see things in the skies that are not easily identifiable. However, seeing something that a person can't identify isn't evidence that were are being visited by aliens; that's only evidence that people can see things that they personally cannot identify.

Edgar Mitchell has said time and time again that his belief in ET visitation is only his personal belief, and that he does not have any particular "inside secret information" nor does it come from any specific event that happened during his time as an astronaut -- it's simply his personal belief.

I believe him. Don't you?

Therefore, Edgar Mitchell's belief in ET visitation is equal to anyone else's belief in ET visitation.

[edit on 7/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
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.





posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

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.


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]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

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.


Well yes, I can answer your second question. Yes, I believe what Buzz Aldrin said on his particular video. However, he did not say much as to whether it was extra-terrestrials, God, angels, humans, or ants who left the structure. I'm pretty sure he just said that the UNIVERSE was the culprit involved. Therefore, the answer that you want is still pretty shrouded in obscurity. But, that doesn't mean that I believe that extra-terrestrials are visiting earth, that crop circles are telling the future, or that there is a grand alien agenda, a 2012 connection, or that I believe in man-eating reptiles from Zeta Reticula. Its pretty much all speculation to which there is no definitive proof.

Darn I wish I had that "Aliens for Dummies" manuscript.

So, if this helps your quest, then so be it.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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.


Excellent point. Many people rely on consensus to shape their perceptions of events and realities while pioneers/individuals often look outside of the box to propose and impose new dynamics to the realities in which we exist. To me, going by consensus merely means following the pack.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Actually, Edgar Mitchell has claimed that much of the inside information that he received from military and Nasa officials have helped to shape his current view on the existence of extra-terrestrials.

www.youtube.com...

Here's where Buzz Aldrin claims his sighting

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Here's one where Edgar Mitchell specifically states that people in the know have informed him of possible Disclosure projects to expose the realities of a possible extra-terrestrial intelligence. Specifically at 2 minutes into the video he says, "Some of us have been privileged enough to have been briefed on it.

www.youtube.com...

So, in essence, much of your post is counteracted by direct words from the astronauts themselves. When you say it is merely their belief and that they don't have access to information greater than the American public, then that is actually putting words into the mouths of the astronauts that holds no weight. In my personal opinion, a former astronaut is going to have far greater resources than that of the masses, and their statements support this idea.

Also, lets not forget Gordon Cooper and other pilots who were with him.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

So, those should keep you busy for a little while. Feel free to come back and comment.





posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

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.


Hmmm...I never said, nor did any of the astronauts that extra-terrestrials are visiting earth. To my knowledge, they merely said that they existed. My personal opinion on the issue is irrelevant to the topic at hand and feel it necessary to stay on the topic as it exists. You wanted an answer to your question, and I believe that I fulfilled that role. Do I agree with Edgar Mitchell and Buzz Aldrin??? Yes. The reason that I believe them is because they've been to a couple of places that you and I have not. They have extensive military and pilot training. They can identify any conventional and military craft because its their job to do so. They are highly educated and have experienced things that we can only imagine. They work with technology that you and I have never touched. And they are better trained to spot anomalies and make assessments based on their superior training as pilots and astronauts.

I think that about sums it up.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
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.

Trolling at its best.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Trolling at its best.


I'm sure you misspoke, Mike_A. This would be at its worst. Trolling like this is the most insidious form.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

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.


That's right -- they don't. That's why I specifically used the word "concensus", and did not say that "everyone" explained it away as Venus. However, being "unexplained" does not mean "otherworldy"; it simply means it wasn't identified.

Nobody knows what Governor Carter (at the time) saw that night -- not even Jimmy Carter himself, but there are many facts in the story that point to it being Venus that he saw.

Carter himself has gone on record as saying he does not think it was an alien craft or Venus -- he said he thinks it was possibly a military plane from an air force base which was near by.


[edit on 7/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

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."


I don't know which other astronauts you mean (could you please name them), but Edgar Mitchell, whose contributions as an astronaut I do respect, never said he was told official secret information by our government or other governments. All of the information given to him by officials of foreign governments have been "off the record" second-hand information.

This information is not something that other researchers, such as Stanton Friedman, could not find through interviews with these same officials.

I mean, even people on ATS have posted information about aliens that came from officials of other countries. These foreign sources of information that Mitchell has may be no different than the sources of information I read about on ATS.

It doesn't make it any "more true" just because it came from Edgar Mitchell.

Like I said, I respect Dr. Mitchell and respect his right to have personal beliefs about alien visitation -- but that does not mean that I necessarily agree with those beliefs.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 

I think to be in the mindset that we are alone is almost ignorant considering the vast size of the known universe. It is hard for most people to even fathom, and I guess the easy way out is to just ignore what is around you and live in a bubble. Personally, I have not witnessed UFOs, and I don't know what to think of "abduction" stories, but I am 100% there is life elsewhere and that we do get visits. The videos and photos and commentary from the likes of people like Aldrin and that pilot from the other post, tell me there is something else flying around in our skies. It would be nice to think humans are special, but I highly highly doubt "life" is a one-time thing. I think the universe only makes sense if the rest of that space is also occupied - if we are alone, what a complete waste of space.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

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.



Fantastic save...and it almost washes. Until of course, YOU yourself decide to go out and join the military. Then you have to complete basic. Then you have to serve a bit before becoming a pilot. And, if becoming a pilot is so easy, and anyone who is prone to a fallible nature can perform under the same circumstances, then why is the test to becoming a military pilot so astringent?

Sorry, but when they call on pilots and astronauts, they call on professionals. This includes people who have been put through psychological testing, physical exams, and several other strict factors that put them within the elite. I doubt that if you were to put in your resume to NASA that they would choose you over someone who has been through the program. But, according to you, anyone should be able to walk on board because...they're all human.

So, why call a carpet professional, when I could call Doomsdayrex??? Why call a mechanic when I could call Doomsday's mom? After all, she's a human too? Why call in the military when I could call a paintball team???

Good stuff...great logic...FAIL.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join