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.
Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Numbers of probability cannot be based on common sense. That isn't disputable and quite a bit nonsensical.
Thank you, Merlin. I didn't realize my numbers would be taken so seriously. They were simply making a point. Enough pedantry.
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Numbers of probability cannot be based on common sense. That isn't disputable and quite a bit nonsensical.
Thank you, Merlin. I didn't realize my numbers would be taken so seriously. They were simply making a point. Enough pedantry.
It has nothing to do with being pedantic, I was just pointing out how asinine it is to make a 'point' like that.
Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
A few things are needed:
1) A translation of the conversation in the video.
2) Eyewitness report.
3) Date, time, location.
1: I'm shaking like crazy dude...I don't know damn it, how am I gonna know, damn it(videos ends.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
This one was believable up until the last part where the thing flashes and balls of light come falling away from it. I mean come on...
Kind of like the Jerusalem one. The red twinkling lights at the end screamed faux.
Originally posted by goatfish
Just for clarification I didn't actually find the frame myself. Someone else had already debunked it and posted the video on YouTube. I just saw the comment and posted it to ATS.
Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
Numbers of probability cannot be based on common sense. That isn't disputable and quite a bit nonsensical.
Thank you, Merlin. I didn't realize my numbers would be taken so seriously. They were simply making a point. Enough pedantry.
It has nothing to do with being pedantic, I was just pointing out how asinine it is to make a 'point' like that.
You consider the point...
there is much more chance of this being CGI than real, so it makes sense to consider the CGI conclusion first
... to be asinine? Because that is the quidditas of what I was saying, which I'm sure most people understood clearly.edit on 24-2-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)