Alleged NASA -Affiliated Astronomer Deciphers 'Intelligence' Signal From Nearby Stars

reply to post by Springer


Thank you Sir!

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND



I did not come here to defend Judy Faltskog or what she does or any of that. Neither do I have any information to prove anything. We have only been following this thread out of genuine interest in the subject and because I personally think she is really rather good looking.

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
I would rather not even reply to your post as I stand a chance of giving someone ammunition to have me banned off this site.
In fact I am not going to say anything at all for fear of repraisel.
Here it seems the Truth will NEVER be victorious.
Here it seems freedom of speech is not allowed.
Here it seems freedom of deciding for yourself what is truth and what is not, is not allowed.
I have now seen for myself that which I hoped was not true, I rate all the information here as biased, one sided and premature.
I am refering to the comments on this thread and not to ATS and its members.

That being the case, it would behoove you to present what you to believe is unbiased information for consideration.

Restricting yourself to complaints about the site itself is NOT presenting what you feel to be valid information regarding the topic at hand.

For example, WHY would you believe the original story, in the face of all evidence to the contrary?

reply to post by DoubtfullDina


the opportunity is all there and wide open for you to change everyone's minds and make us look very silly, i would run through the streets painted as a little green man wearing nothing but speedos if you can prove the claims true, i also give you my word right now that if its proven true, i will personally spend the next 4 months of equal time i have spent on this doing nothing but posting praise and apologies to wayne herschel and judy faltskog on whatever websites will allow it!.

i am wide open to accept being wrong, and i am a humble enough person to offer sincere apologies and admissions should the need arise.

but what i have done is provide supporting and verifiable evidence for all my claims, i at least expect the same courtesy from anyone that wants to dispute them. now is your chance.........

thanks

rich

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND

 

I did not come here to defend Judy Faltskog or what she does or any of that. Neither do I have any information to prove anything. We have only been following this thread out of genuine interest in the subject and because I personally think she is really rather good looking.

are you serious ?. you came here and chose to dispute something and argue with everyone just because you think someone is good looking? why are you wasting your time and ours?. who is we?.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
I would rather not even reply to your post as I stand a chance of giving someone ammunition to have me banned off this site.
In fact I am not going to say anything at all for fear of repraisel.
Here it seems the Truth will NEVER be victorious.
Here it seems freedom of speech is not allowed.
Here it seems freedom of deciding for yourself what is truth and what is not, is not allowed.
I have now seen for myself that which I hoped was not true, I rate all the information here as biased, one sided and premature.
I am refering to the comments on this thread and not to ATS and its members.

That's what makes a forum a good forum. everyone has an opinion and can express their thoughts for debate. Except on those sites where only one sided comments are allowed as to further agendas or personal gratification.
You are as free as I am to make statements within the T&C here, as is the case with "most" sites.

If others do not believe you, well, either you didn't do a good job at convincing or they have reasons not to believe what is presented.

I have seen the documents and statements from this hoax and believe those over mere written words. If you do not, that is your prerogative.

I am thoroughly convinced of the hoax

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


We are two High Court Judges and 8 Law students.

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND

 

We are two High Court Judges and 8 Law students.

Ah. That explains your aversion to dealing with evidence, then...

So shall we all agree to deal in just opinion now?

Why are "High Court" judges following this thread rather than deciding cases? Why are they so willing to toss out validated evidence on strength of opinion?

I have to wonder what court these Judges sit in. Hope I never wind up before them, as they seem to be all too willing to ignore evidence and decide on a whim.

We have decided to follow this thread from the point of view of the law and to show the students various types of cases which can be presented in a court of law. Nothing more. So simple. (the diference between civil and criminal cases)

Please dont mind us, we are having a good time here!

reply to post by nenothtu


Sir, Your evidence presented here in this entire thread will never even make it to a court. Amongst us we term it this kind of evidence you are so proud of NBR Non Botting Rott. Sorry

Ms Faltskog on the other hand can if she wanted to clean the whole lot of you out. Sorry, but that is a fact!

Thanks for letting us look around on this thread. Time to go home and have a Pint as you would say.

hi all, i have something new, thanks to our very helpful friend the anonymous lady.

i am not allowed to post it on the thread for various reasons but i have now acquired the birth certificate of the other child of janice falcus(fugea) and judy/james van greunen, it has been redacted to protect the identy of the child but take note that its a south african birth certificate, and once again it is verifiable should the need arise.

its now on my gallery for anyone to view, i can also email it to any of my trusted friends if needed.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
Ms Faltskog on the other hand can if she wanted to clean the whole lot of you out. Sorry, but that is a fact!

Thanks for letting us look around on this thread. Time to go home and have a Pint as you would say.

Please ask her to start with me. And tell her to search her name and when she wants to start cleaning, have her's contact mine.(ask for details)

Just another hoax but one I've been waiting on. Please, please, start the ball rolling on this threat.



Thanks for the update Rich.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by dcmb1490]

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Sir, Your evidence presented here in this entire thread will never even make it to a court. Amongst us we term it this kind of evidence you are so proud of NBR Non Botting Rott. Sorry

erm... sorry but you are totally wrong, most of my documents have already made it to court not once but twice, AND WON.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Sir, Your evidence presented here in this entire thread will never even make it to a court. Amongst us we term it this kind of evidence you are so proud of NBR Non Botting Rott. Sorry

I beg to differ. A good bit of it has already been through court, and was upheld and found as fact. That is why Rich seems to have no compunctions against taking it through court again if necessary.

Further, most courts are quite amenable to reliance on the testimony of expert witnesses when facts may be out of the immediate knowledge of the court. In those cases, credentials must be presented and verified. So far, Dr. Judy has been supremely unable (or, given the benefit of the doubt, unwilling) to provide the credentials to support her claims of expertise. In that case, her testimony in the matter is invalid, and so, the original story relating that a UV (which is a form of light energy) signal was received in a RADIO telescope (which receives radio energy, NOT light) has been debunked.

Following that, an attempt to support unsupportable claims was CONTINUED by her and her accomplices, and when THAT failed, they attempted to discredit the debunkers (several of whom DO have actual credentials) in a campaign of malignment.

All in all, I'd say that Judy's case presentment is an excellent object lesson to your students in how NOT to bring a case before the court, unless you intend to intentionally lose that case.

On our side of the argument, we have documentary evidence entered in as exhibits, none of which has as yet been credibly discounted.

Who would win that case in courts where you're from?

Originally posted by DoubtfullDina
Ms Faltskog on the other hand can if she wanted to clean the whole lot of you out. Sorry, but that is a fact!

Thanks for letting us look around on this thread. Time to go home and have a Pint as you would say.

That would be great, if she'd just go ahead and attempt that. It seems that if that were the case, she would have been able to present a credible case right here, and nip it in the bud.

Since she didn't, I'm confident that she can't. A number of veiled threats have been made that she "could", and that it's "in the works", but so far she's not slunk out of the shadows.

I'm not going to hold my breath...

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


Wow, you guys sure got some stars going on there RICH....and to think I thought it was just us reading this thread

After reading all of those post it makes me realize that I may need some tutoring from Kluwer Opleidingen. Maybe I'll contact them for advise and inquire of their services and code of conduct, they must be reputable for my business inquires. They are business coaches by the way and I need some coaching.

I don't know but it seems like every time we talk of that Judy Falkstog person and this hoax, someone pops in with details of looks or anatomy. If I didn't know better, one might think it was a derail ploy or a self conciseness effort to raise ones self appreciation. Just my opinion.

Anyway, interesting developments into the dark world of hoaxes and how they are preconceived. Interesting indeed.

reply to post by DoubtfullDina


This was the last straw for "DD" here on ATS...

(S)he violated rule number one, "thou shalt not knowingly post false information upon the Big ATS".

BANNED.

Springer...