Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Whistleblower Speaks on Area 51

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I listened to the entire program from the video. The conclusion I have made is thus: I believe that real disclosure will not be made by anyone who is looking to profit by selling videos/books about the entire subject. If your information is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then it will be freely available without having to purchase videos/books containing the "vital" information that should imho be made available for free.

The man they are speaking to in the video Ron Garner, seems to be a sort of "marketer" if you will for (if he's not he should be) Dan Burisch. They have all sorts of stuff to sell you...the video seemed like one long commercial telling you that "if you want to know the whole story, then you will have to purchase our vids/books".

A+ for effort, but in the grand scheme of things a thumbs down if you are looking for some actual intellectual information/real proof of disclosure to ponder upon.

edit on 21-5-2013 by AutOmatIc because: two thumbs down




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Since when does saying some sounds credible mean it is convincing?


How could I guess that instead of talking about why the person is credible, you avoided it by focusing on my wording.
But okay, here goes:

You said that the person sounded credible:
Credible - capable of being believed; believable

And since you posted a story by a credible [sounding] person, the story is inherently convincing, otherwise you wouldn't have found the person credible.

But please go ahead, tell me why he sounds credible while the story isn't convincing to you, but you still posted the story?

edit on 21-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)

Ahh, but you missed another statement. I said "He sounds credible, but I'm not completely sure, so I'm looking to hear some of your opinions." I didn't say I believed him, but he appeared to be believable. Does that mean I believe him? No.

He sounds credible because of the length of the video, which would mean he is giving a very long story of perhaps, his past experience, that I'm sure would be hard to create just for a case. I believe he sounds quite sophisticated and intelligent, and I haven't heard him make any crazy stories (so far).



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
There are no E.T.s anywhere on earth let alone area five one. Roswell was a cover up, the cover up WAS the E.T. story, the real story is it was not an E.T. space ship but a government experiment that they didn't want anyone to know about, what better way to cover it up than with a story of a bogus Flying Saucer? The government has been using the UFO lie countless times to cover up their aeronautic experiments. The guy in the interview is as legit as Lazar, zero verifiable evidence? seems legit.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 





Would you perhaps want me to watch the entire video, then come back to you and tell you every single thing he said?


No but you should at least watch the video before you post it so you know that its worth posting and not complete BS .
You should also summarize the contents of the video for those who for whatever reason cannot watch the video .

I haven't got time to watch the video right now but the combination of thirdphaseofmoon and Jaime Maussan doesn't give me much hope for the validity of the story .

edit on 21-5-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
edit on 21-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)

Ahh, but you missed another statement.

No I didn't.



I said "He sounds credible, but I'm not completely sure, so I'm looking to hear some of your opinions."

Yes, exactly.



I didn't say I believed him

And I didn't claim you to believe him.



, but he appeared to be believable. Does that mean I believe him? No.

Exactly. You find him to appear to be believable, based his story. And that story, content, format, whatever is convincing you to believe so. Does that mean you are convinced? No.



He sounds credible because of the length of the video, which would mean he is giving a very long story of perhaps, his past experience, that I'm sure would be hard to create just for a case. I believe he sounds quite sophisticated and intelligent, and I haven't heard him make any crazy stories (so far).

You explained the very reason (or blueprint of) why it is so easy make conspiracy theories take off.
* A very long story
* "hard to create for a case" ("sounds advanced!")
* Sounds quite sophisticated and intelligent

The general ignorance of the public does not require to see & think more than the above points before watching and then, during the video, going: "Oh.. this sounds exciting, I bet it's bullcrap though. Hmm.. oh, yes, I've heard of that.. hmm, yes, that makes...sense.. Oh, technical terms.. geez, this guy really knows what he's talking abou....WHAAAT? OH MY GOD! He possibly cannot have made this up!"

In your case, however, the person didn't even have to tell you the story before you found it convincing, which supports my point even more than I could have expected.


edit on 21-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 

If you say I am convinced that what he says is true, then that means I believe him. So you implied that I believe he is speaking the truth.

If you cannot understand that, then this discussion should end.
edit on 21-5-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
If you say I am convinced that what he says is true, then that means I believe him.

Correct. if I say that. But I do not say that.



So you implied that I believe he is speaking the truth.

No, see above.



If you cannot understand that, then this discussion should end.
edit on 21-5-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)

I fully understand what you are saying as pointed out above.
Question is, is it you or me that you do not understand?



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 

You never said that, right?



by telling that it was rather convincing.

edit on 21-5-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
He sounds credible because of the length of the video


Quality over quantity. If every video over an hour long was submitted to ATS without review first then ATS would become YouTube, which it is not. While you may be the messenger, messengers often are associated with the message's origin. Therefore,

a) What are your thoughts on Area 51?
b) Why do you find the subject noteworthy versus say... Loch Ness Monster, and
c) Have you read Annie Jacobsen's book on Area 51?



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Nevertheless
 

You never said that, right?



by telling that it was rather convincing.

edit on 21-5-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)


I did, and I already explained what that means. Do you read the posts, or is it the same thing as with the video you didn't watch?

"it was rather convincing, but I have an issue with..."
"It was rather convincing, but I'm not convinced yet."
"It was rather convincing. I need to check if..."

But again, instead of explaining why you said and did what you said and did, you're still stuck on pointing out that you do not understand what I say.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


You didn't explain anything. You only gave the definition of the word "credible", not "convincing".

Stop making things up just to maintain your stance.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


You didn't explain anything. You only gave the definition of the word "credible", not "convincing".

Stop making things up just to maintain your stance.

I wasn't aware that you did not know English, or that my explanations weren't enough.
....
convincing (comparative more convincing, superlative most convincing)
In your world, "more convincing" and "most convincing" do not exist, then?

-ing is not definite. If you are building a house, it doesn't mean you have or will have a house.

Our convincing evidence was sufficient in the end to convince the judge.
Oh. But extraterrerstrialentity is already convinced while someone is convincing him.
edit on 21-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Once again, you gave no definition, just examples of using "convincing" in a sentence.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Once again, you gave no definition, just examples of using "convincing" in a sentence.

I was merely trying to make it easy for you, but here goes:
Effective as proof or evidence.

But that would probably only lead me to try explaining to you the definition of effective.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Once again, you gave no definition, just examples of using "convincing" in a sentence.

I was merely trying to make it easy for you, but here goes:
Effective as proof or evidence.

But that would probably only lead me to try explaining to you the definition of effective.

Not quite the same definition as this one:


satisfying or assuring by argument or proof
www.merriam-webster.com...

And I specifically stated that I wasn't sure, thus, it was to me, not fully effective.
edit on 21-5-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Hey, at least he posted it without the usual breathless declaration that "disclosure is near!" and combativeness against the evil skeptics and naysayers. Points for having an open mind. Thanks for sharing the link, OP.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Not quite the same definition as this one:

satisfying or assuring by argument or proof
www.merriam-webster.com...

No, but the assuring part is close enough.



And I specifically stated that I wasn't sure, thus, it was to me, not fully effective.
edit on 21-5-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)

And again, I have never said that you were sure.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


And again, by saying that I was convinced, you imply that I was sure he is credible, and was speaking the truth.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Thirdphaseofmoon is known for posting hoaxes. Any video that person puts up is suspect and should be taken with a large bag of salt.
edit on 21-5-2013 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


And again, by saying that I was convinced, you imply that I was sure he is credible, and was speaking the truth.

I have not said that you are convinced.






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join