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.

 

Proper Investigations

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
...you know there is a different between seeing the plane, and "should have seen"


You know the difference between seeing something and being told what you saw?




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
You know the difference between seeing something and being told what you saw?



Bottom line is this: He said he didn't see the plane. His statement confirms he did not see the plane. End of story.

You can try and dance all around you like, Roger, it does not change the fact that his statement says he did not see the plane.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Bottom line is this: He said he didn't see the plane. His statement confirms he did not see the plane. End of story..


Bottom line is that his witness statement would be torn apart in court.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Bottom line is that his witness statement would be torn apart in court.



You are wrong, Roger. Everyone here can see that too. His statement clearly proves you wrong too.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron His statement clearly proves you wrong too.


His statment cleary proves he was told what plane he should have seen.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

His statment cleary proves he was told what plane he should have seen.



His statement clearly says he did not see a plane.

period.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
His statement clearly says he did not see a plane.


Correct he needed to be told what plane he was supposed to have seen.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Correct he needed to be told what plane he was supposed to have seen.


...which he did not see. So, that is a fact: He did not see the plane.

In court, he says he did not see the plane. The judge says "that is excellent information". The defense lawyer objects, saying his statement about seeing the plane was something he was told. The judge then says "he didn't say he saw the plane. Your objection is overruled."

Case closed.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper,

No need in responding to this.


Roger (aka Ultima1) brought up this same tired topic himself on 7/11/07

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That account was banned....so he trolls on this one now.

Lets just ignore the troll...



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Please stay on-topic. Off-topic posts of mere personal commentary will be removed.

Thank you,
ATS Staff



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I am still waiting for anyone to post evidence that a proper investigation was done.

Strange how i can post evidence with sources others should be able to also.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join