It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by eriktheawful
I'm extremely biased, when the whole of astronomy is biased toward a very mysterious phenomenon in that can only be explained in their terms with a collection of ad hoc theories?
With the cometship theory, ONE explanation covers the whole of it albeit ingrained standard thinking can't accept some of the ramifications.
You can't bother to fully read the material with a "What if..." frame of mind
I also like to think that even those folks whom feel strongly enough to belittling the theory in post without substance have had their thinking impinged upon just a little enough that it buries itself as a cerebral sore, chronic and incurable.
reply to post by InhaleExhale
I've failed to see a thinking mind in the above group of protestors. Each wants me to prove what I contend and one repeatedly wants to call me a troll as if I'm doing what he does, spilling out a couple of sentences in a minute's time and saying to himself, "Well, I solved that!"
All of them seems to have forgotten the one thing that is a standard reply when a controversial thread runs here on ATS. That reply from harried producers of such threads is: "Do your own research. --Come back with a substantive argument when you do."
I knew full well what I faced in creating this thread. The responses were as expected, not driven by any actual knowledge or examination of the contents but merely based upon knee-jerk reactions.
It was my intent to, first, get the concept out there in an effort to move the UFO controversy onto fresh avenues of approach. The second goal was to allow an open-minded reader on ATS to breakaway from consensus thinking and simply consider or play with the very simple idea that comets are not what we have been allowed to assume.
Some of you can't allow yourselves that basic step toward gaining self-made wisdom. I must suppose that you don't have that capacity or maybe have an agenda dictated by the secret-keepers.
At any rate, the cometship theory is out there and I take full responsibility for it.
1) Flame bait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in, and finds humour, or entertainment in reactions.
16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
The view of Science always has been that all comets are natural, dead objects.
To be honest, Alfa1s post is spot on. How can we take your post(s) seriously with such a blatant error in thinking in it?
Can you deny any of what he posted?
Alfa1s "is spot on?"
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? His whole post was, as I said, an attempt at character assassination.
Science has aptly applied that rule of avoiding the facts of comets with a vengeance. It takes and rejects various aspects of its own revelations about comets to create a picture that better fits a narrow, cosmology that is solidly anchored from an earthly, solidly anthropocentric-point of view. Or at least, that’s the way Science used to be before the coming of the saucers and before they ran into revelations on Mars and Phobos that gave them pause to reflect and seriously start talking in cautious, stilted terms about life out there somewhere but certainly not on Mars, and with the visiting UFOs but, yet, maybe, just maybe, out there somewhere.