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.

 

Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant By Stanton Friedman

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Frank Warren
 


What I get from this is a person in denial or scared of loosing income. Instead of addressing issues, he attacks the messenger which is classic.

Since I actually witnessed a classic saucer up close and personal in the later part of the 1960's, I wonder how he views my skepticism. I have zero doubt that nearly all reports are mistaken identity or fabrications and even in my own case suspect what I saw was a experimental craft. I suppose he'd call me a De-bunker, whatever that is.

I'm fascinated by the topic, but less than impressed by the UFO Guru's.

That both sides will continue to act badly and engage in mud slinging is a given.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Like I said truth won't come from researchers. They are like anyone else maybe with more academic background (some of them, others clearly not). The truth can be revealed by those who work in it, in NASA in some military complexes having high clearance.

Unless you hear those speaking and they swear in telling the truth because making sure they are telling the truth is very important, until then researchers like Stanton who talk to people 2nd 3rd 5th hand and sometimes go to the library will not lead you to anything.

So there seems to be some aicraft of non-human origin - and that means yes not experimental human drones - the large military presence would explain it is not some little broken device, there would be gas masks if there were radiation around the crash sites.

And so much for it, just aicraft that seems to be doing more advanced maneuvers than even the latest Stealth and Raptor seen flying over A51, as some guy who has access to that info was so nice to post with videos and photos. Indeed nothing suggests these Stealth fighters are anything close in technolog to what UFOs have shown to do.

But until you get info frm the source, which for some RETARDED reason (oh noes - religion!, oh noes human will cream their pants!) never seems to come up,

So until then it will be MILLENIA of pointless threads, EH what did I say internet is barely from 15 years or a little more, ok for another 50 years same BS

And whenever someone ever posts something real no 1 will believe it if it looks too much like the fake ones.

Researchers give you food for thought, they cannot reveal or expose the truth, they are just making theories, they bring nothing new.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull
Asking for evidence is "trolling?" That is how the scientific method works. The burden of proof is on the claimant. It is not for others to debunk the claimants assertions, but for the claimant to prove their assertions are true. To call a want a proof, a rejection of blind-belief without question, trolling shows the absolute, empty abyss of thought from which some believers draw.


I like this a lot. So when some of us go like:
"what is this anomaly (thingy in NASA footage/some pilot with radar readings etc.), it looks awfully like an intelligently controlled craft and we don't have anything which can do those things so is it an E.T. craft?" (mind the question mark at the end)

The others saying "There's no way it is an E.T. craft, it can be anything but an E.T. craft. It is not an E.T. craft and E.T. doesn't exits." are making a claim. They are making a claim against a valid question. Then that claim needs to be proved. For unexplained phenomenon like the STS-80 video, Iranian UFO dogfight from 60s and it's radar recordings etc. skeptics claiming "it can't be E.T. 100%" should prove us why it can be anything but E.T.

But in return what we get is the usual trolling. "Show me one solid piece of evidence that E.T. exists? You can't right? Therefore E.T. doesn't exisst and you are wrong." Well, I'm not the one making the claim, I'm asking a very valid question - Is that E.T? When a skeptics says "No it's not and it can not be." that's a claim and that needs to be proved in my opinion.
edit on 4-4-2012 by bilb_o because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MasonicFantom
 


Or...

Like me, they find the whole phenomena of UFO's endlessly fascinating, yet aren't blinded by the opinion that everything mysterious in the sky is an alien from elsewhere in the Universe.

One can be a skeptic like myself on the whole issue, yet fully understand that the world is a mysterious place where we don't have all the answers.



new topics

top topics
 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join