Debunkers Take It In The Teeth Again

reply to post by dilly1


You mean you have no evidence? You have obviously not even tried to look.
Massive evidence exists. Don't ask us for answers you can easily deny. Go look, read something besides the controlled media and comic books.

It's easy to deny if you don't look.


Cheap argument or no argument at all really.

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Are you sure the cigarette was mistaken for a joint?. Very high altitude and a boatload of THC will help a lot with story telling..... But in all seriousness, having acquaintances or colleagues who have witnessed the unexplained is great. But labeling what one saw as a UFO from "space" with no evidence is a weak theory.


You state you have documents. Why do you think any document could prove an alien was flying around that day or any day for that matter.

Again,I'm not saying there wasn't a flying object . I'm saying why would one automatically choose the ET option when spotting a UFO.

Originally posted by Nikola014
Since this comes from a professional astronomer, who has quite the experience, I totally believe him.

That's your problem. You take seemingly legit people at their word despite their lack of evidence. It doesn't matter if the guy is a former astronaut with a doctorate in astronomy who has 50 years of experience in both fields. The guy still has to provide evidence.

reply to post by ZeroGhost


I Don't look???.. .. I'll put it to you this way. ATS does not have a single item of proof that Aliens are flying these UFO's. That's what I am saying.

I don't need evidence because I don't have a belief . If you believe in something ,with no doubt, then you logically can explain how and why what you saw . You can not connect the two together.

We all are trying to look for the alien phenomena. You think I don't want to believe. I know its very possible the existence of intelligent life. The universe is infinite . But to pin the alien theory with every UFO is weak.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
How about you find some evidence that is proof they aren't real... from a creditable source that is...

The burden of proof lies with the claimant; it is their responsibility to show the validity of their claims, not that of other people to prove them wrong.

Thank you WingedBull. I saw bigfoot in my backyard today. Prove me wrong.

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Let me ask you, since you obviously aren't going to give this plethora of damning UFO evidence, would you at least share with me what you see as the coup de grâce of UFO evidence? Please don't tell me to "look it up," I just want to know what you believe is the single best piece of evidence to prove the existence of extraterrestrial crafts invading our atmosphere.

Who knows, maybe I'll become a believer.

From what i read and learned the ones that help us do, and the ones that want to try to hurt us try. Its who we are here and i know people dont want to think about that, but its true. I like the star wars of understanding, its so simple but most ppl dont understand. Use your energy luke......

reply to post by Dracolich


Thats exactly what i thought

Fortunately we all have anti-gravity abilities.

Many more relevant posts in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do miss MBMBN.

Wang seems to be retired now but as an internationally respected expert in meteor astronomy and solar system debris with excellent contacts in the Chinese scientific commmunity and the Chinese communist party, he could still do a great deal for the scientific study of UAPs.

I suspect Wang has published a scientific study of his UAP data in Chinese, but that the media have focused on his less serious remarks, some of which do seem silly.

Astronomer Eamonn Ansbro, of Kingsland Observatory, Ireland, has undertaken UAP studies very similar to those claimed by Wang. It would be good to have Ansbro's views on Wang's work, perhaps he's seen translations of it. Together with Italian astrophysicist Massimo Teodorani, Ansbro is one of the few people really qualified to comment in this very specialised scientific field - identifying, or not identifying, UAPs in the near-Earth environment.

But Ansbro has been very quiet recently.

reply to post by Lowneck


We can't really begin building antigravity devices (if they are even possible) until we have a good understanding of what gravity is. When physicists finally figure out just what gravity is, it should be easy.

reply to post by dilly1


dillly1,

Sorry, I think there's been a misunderstanding.

All Wang was saying was that, unlike space debris but like birds or people, UFOs can, according to his data, accelerate by their own volition. In translating Wang's statement into English, overenthusiastic UFOlogists introduced their own idea of antigravity, thereby making Wang appear something of a crank.

In my comment I was trying to use irony to highlight this mistranslation.

Cheers.

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by Lowneck

 

We can't really begin building antigravity devices (if they are even possible) until we have a good understanding of what gravity is. When physicists finally figure out just what gravity is, it should be easy.

Please research tesla. Telsa coils. Its all been figured. Did you know that overunity is how earth spins? We're also in electronic universe, the sun has magnetic portals to the earth, and all those squiggly lines you see in earth's magnetic pole pictures, thats Earth's circuitry.

Magnetic poles reach 0 earth stops spinning.

The moon and venus have no magnetic poles. The moon doesnt spin. Neither does venus, except, they tried to cover that. In the 19th century, coinciding with Telsa, they noticed Venus doesnt rotate, BUT, since they were going black operations with the info, they decided to create Venus as a reverse spin, so it looks like its not rotating. yeah right!!!!!

Kind of see where their free energy electro magnetic came from,and telsa scalar waves, a whole new ballgame.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Magnetic poles reach 0 earth stops spinning.

Explain Mars with this crackpot idea then.

reply to post by Unity_99


What?

The moon rotates dude. Granted its a very low spin, it takes about 24 days for a complete rotation, but it does spin.

Venus also, not only has magnetic poles, but does in fact have a retrograde rotation and makes a complete rotation every 240 or so days. Any child with a telescope and free time already knows this.

Also, the poles have nothing to do with the rotation of the planets, and everything to do with the rotation of particles in the accretion disk during the proto-star stage of the Sun. Some materials get caught in a retrograde rotation (usually an asteroid which gets caught in orbit and collects a lot of particles.) Aside from this rarity, most planets follow the path of the accretion disk. Don't believe me? Again, take a telescope and watch the asteroid belt.

Originally posted by Nikola014

Originally posted by Doron
Meh, just more verbal diarrhea without any evidence. Stop talking and give us some good footage of these supposed UFO's.

'Debunkers take in the teeth again' my A$$.

If you do not believe that UFOs are a real phenomenon, then what are you doing on this thread?

Looking for a good picture? Search the Internet and you will find lots of good and quality pictures ...

And this is a great news.

Since this comes from a professional astronomer, who has quite the experience, I totally believe him.

Oh boy, if the Surgeon General told you to drink battery acid because it will make you live for another hundred years would you do it? You should assess a claim based on the evidence regarding it and the potential positive and negative implications, not based on the persons saying it. Experience is a good, but certainly not sufficient variable to consider when investigating somebody's claims.

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


I know of the silly tin-foil attacks on Alexander's credibility and don't hold them in high regard. I believe Pope, Vallee, Mitchell and the bunch much more for their opinions on Alexander. And I've also actually talked to the man himself and his arguments are lucid and sane, something which cannot be said of the attacks against him.

Study some more and not just youtube videos of pre-canned opinions. There's no lower limit for insane. Don't get caught in the web.

Originally posted by Doron
Meh, just more verbal diarrhea without any evidence. Stop talking and give us some good footage of these supposed UFO's.

'Debunkers take in the teeth again' my A$$.

Just stop talking period.

Regardless of your personal body parts and afflictions so prevalent - you can't leave them behind even in conversation - I am afraid the subtleties of what this man is saying is completely lost on you. Maybe you're short and so it sailed like a weather balloon over your head or you didn't hear it or you didn't understand it when you did.

... they are able to do this for more than 25 minutes, meaning they have anti-gravity capabilities. If they did not have anti-gravity capabilities, they could not stay in their positions at that speed, and would be dragged earthward by gravity.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42

Originally posted by Nikola014

Originally posted by Doron
Meh, just more verbal diarrhea without any evidence. Stop talking and give us some good footage of these supposed UFO's.

'Debunkers take in the teeth again' my A$$.

If you do not believe that UFOs are a real phenomenon, then what are you doing on this thread?

Looking for a good picture? Search the Internet and you will find lots of good and quality pictures ...

And this is a great news.

Since this comes from a professional astronomer, who has quite the experience, I totally believe him.

Oh boy, if the Surgeon General told you to drink battery acid because it will make you live for another hundred years would you do it? You should assess a claim based on the evidence regarding it and the potential positive and negative implications, not based on the persons saying it. Experience is a good, but certainly not sufficient variable to consider when investigating somebody's claims.

With all due respect...yada, yada, yada and....

there's so much credible, convincing evidence
right here on ATS -
if you can't find it, you're not looking
and if it doesn't convince you,
you just don't want to know.

reply to post by Doron


You need to go back to your philosophy of science class.

When you have no proof one way or the other the only scientific attitude is to suspend judgment and say we don't know and require more empirical evidence.

Then the actual validity of proof is determined by each person looking at the evidence. The overall judgement is usually settled by (socioculturally defined scientific) consensus.

We are now withing this process.

If you bothered to actually look at the evidence, you might be inclined to also adjust your position.

personally I view this as a probability continuum from 0 to 1 and with multiple individual claims (UFOs, UFOs of non-human origin, actual alien life-forms, etc). Proof for one claim doesn't automatically validate all the others.

You gotta consider what this looks like to "skeptics" who just "took it in the teeth".

Imagine I post in a thread about the existence of Santa Claus that "Haters Take One In the Butt" and then link some article like santaisreal dot com slash the date slash haters-take-one-in-the-butt dot aitch tee em ell. Minus one point for veiled insult, minus one point for arrogance (telling people "You Just Got Served" doesn't make them very receptive), minus one point for parroting. Then I quote from the article some anecdote (-1, anecdotal) from some guy who may not even exist (-1, who?) supposedly taken from a newspaper in North Korea (-15, conveniently unverifiable) claiming the North Korean Air Force has signed a commercial treaty allowing Santa free access to their airspace as long as a certain percentage of toys he gives out are of North Korean origin.

Seriously, that's how absurd this article looks. But maybe I'm still dazed from being kicked in the teeth.

PS: All scientists are skeptics by nature. Calling a scientist a skeptic in a pseudoscientific publication is disingenuous at best.