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.
Wrong. A closed mind is a mind that insists on believing in XYZ regardless of the evidence for or against it.
Exactly. I do not believe in a fat elf -- or alien spaceships for that matter -- flying around the world, or secret underground bases full of "greys", or persistent aircraft contrails being some sort of Secret Spray Plot for the same reason: there is no evidence for them.
I am willing to believe they do exist if you can provide me with real evidence, because I have an open mind.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Indigo Child, I am not going to engage in a urinary Olympiad with you. If you want to believe that a person who demands evidence before believing in something is "close minded", so be it.
But real science is full of exactly those kind of "close-minded" people who will not buy into ideas, especially silly ones, withoug some sort of backing. Perhaps you also buy into George Bush's tales about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; I don't know.
I went to your "Battle of Los Angeles" and read it carefully (I need to do that, of course, because of my "lack of breadth of view", you know). Here is what I found.
(1) Despite all the talk of "Eyewitness reports", the article never once gave any citations or even links to support what they said.
(2) After downloading the newspaper into Photoshop, applying an Unsharp Mask filter and tweaking the brightness and contrast curves until I was blue in the face, I couldn't read a single one of the words under the headline. For all I (or you, Indigo Child) know, the actual article may have been about a raid in Oregon or the Philippines. Too bad we couldn't actually read the article, right?[
How convenient.
Does it look familiar?
Notice how, when the people who did the "Battle of Los Angeles" Photoshopped their baseline picture (which could've been exactly the one above -- if you apply a 75% lateral widening and re-size it -- or one of a hundred other pictures like it), they showed that not only are they dishonest, but they're also pretty poor at doing basic digital manipulation.
Do you see that fake "tree" in the lower right of the phony "UFO" photo photo?
Do you notice how its "trunk" is in front of the fake "hill" that they Photoshopped in?
And do you notice how the light is at the top of -- or even behind -- the "hill"?
And yet, the fakery shows the beam from the searchlight as being in front of the "tree".
This is your "evidence", Indigo Child.
This is the stuff that you base your belief upon.
Fraudulent articles, fraudulent photos, and fraudulent people.
Indigo child, why didn't you look at this hoax? Really look at it?
Are you going to still -- after seing the fakery -- persist in your assertions that it's all true?
Lack of "breadth of view".
"Close-minded".
Right.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Indigo Child, if you really want to -- and somehow need to -- believe is such nonsense without any rational evidence to back your feelings up, you certainly have the right to do so.
After all, you're safe in here.