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.
If this is the best you can come up with it is not much. Last I looked there are no contemporary witness reports on mermaids by police officers, military pilots, scientists, astronauts, etc. Neither do mermaids show up on radar and neither is there photographic evidence of same.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg
theres lots of witness testimony for mermaids. Do you believe in those too?
Originally posted by jclmavg
So let me get this straight. You take fantasy/folklore concepts (unicorns, mermaids, etc.) as being indicative of the scientific plausibility of ET life and visitation? You might as well have tossed some leprechauns in there!
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Witness2008
anythings possible. Mermaids are possible, pink unicorns are possible. But you wouild have to show me the evidence before i concluded they were true. So far i see no evidence of ET visitation.
Please do clarify. Does ET visition to you stand on the same footing as leprechauns, mermaids, etc? Please explain why. Explain why you are equivocating.
You've jut redefined the definition of evidence and moved the goal posts accordingly.
About people who have incredible stories. Telling incredible stories is as old as mankind itself. I wouldnt believe anyone who has an incredible story with no evidence.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Witness2008
anythings possible. Mermaids are possible, pink unicorns are possible. But you wouild have to show me the evidence before i concluded they were true. So far i see no evidence of ET visitation.
About people who have incredible stories. Telling incredible stories is as old as mankind itself. I wouldnt believe anyone who has an incredible story with no evidence.
[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]
Notice how the pseudo-skeptic, after seeing his mermaid argument debunked, quickly switches tactics. The pseudo-skeptic now in fact resembles the wide-eyed believer who, when confronted with a debunked UFO sighting yells "but what about this one?"
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg
Well radar anomolies are specific to the sky but what about the loch ness monster. We have witness testimony and several anomolous sonar returns from scans of the loch. resumably you believe in the lochness monster too?[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]
Originally posted by Witness2008
Let us start with all of these photo's the first dating all the way back to 1870. Critique these and then maybe we can move onto videos.
www.ufocasebook.com...
1870-Mt. Washington, New Hampshire. This photo is dubbed, "the oldest UFO photograph ever taken." This item was the subject of bidding at Ebay in 2002, when finally the photo was purchased for $385.00 by Samuel M. Sherman, who was the president of Independent-International Pictures Corp. This was originally a "stereo" photograph. Certainly it was difficult to manipulate photos at that time, and remember, there were no flying objects then; at least, not from this world.
And with this statement I conclude you never even laid eyes on Arnold's actual report and sketch. In fact, Arnold did report disk-like objects. Another blow to the pseudo-skeptic who believes reports of disc-shaped craft had no external physical cause and were merely the result of media influence of the time.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Witness2008
LoL if only that reporter who who made a mistake of calling kenneth arnolds sighting a "saucer" shaped craft didnt exist those photos might have some credibility
[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg
im saying its possible but theres no evidence they are travelling here if they exist.
[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]
This was originally a "stereo" photograph. Certainly it was difficult to manipulate photos at that time, and remember, there were no flying objects then; at least, not from this world.
Originally posted by yeti101
ive looked into practically every major ufo case. Every single case i find informatiion the ufologists dont tell you. That evidence usually points to a prosaic explanation.
And Yeti101 fails again, by refusing to look at a the scanned page of Arnold's actual report to the Air Force showing Arnold's own sketch! In fact, Arnold said that _one_ of the objects had a crescent shaped rear, not the other eight objects who are remarkably disc-like in appearance.
Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg
no he said they were crescent shaped and described their movement as "like saucers skipping across water". The reporter made the mistake of calling them flying saucers. As a result people who saw something in the sky would say they were saucers, why? why not crescent shaped? Becuase saucers is what theyre supposed to see afterall thats what was in the papers.