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.
We hear about the Mars rovers a year after they land
The OP obviously put some effort in to this post and all you can do is jump on google to disprove it. It says something about you more than it says about the OP i'm afraid.
I have read them. Not all, but some. I'm a little busy and don't have time to jump on google to dispute claims that, really, didn't need disputing as such.
tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MrConspiracy
I have read them. Not all, but some. I'm a little busy and don't have time to jump on google to dispute claims that, really, didn't need disputing as such.
So are saying that if you had time you would use Google to dispute claims?
Interesting...
Just, in the future, think how you dispute the posts and recognise effort has been taken, and treat it with a little more respect... yeah?
Varhaard
Interesting discussion, lots of different viewpoints represented here. Now, let's introduce another ISON element - this is from Whitley Strieber's site:
ISON AND CROP CIRCLES
www.unknowncountry.com...
Looks like some crop circle makers thought ISON was significant. The speculations about what all the different crop circle interpretations add up to are listed at the end: the comet may break into pieces while going around the sun; it may slow down due to interactions with the sun and its orbit may become elliptical instead of hyperbolic; ISON's appearance may simply be a signal for some other major event like gravity waves coming from the galactic center; or ISON may be something other than a comet.
Now, is any of this possible? I don't know, really...has *any* crop circle actually predicted anything accurately?? Still, I found it interesting and worth discussion here.
Elliot
ISON - The comment on the MSM is conspicuous in its absence. The silence is deafening.......but why?
Pinkorchid
reply to post by wmd_2008
Scientific knowledge is always hampered by its retrogressive attributes. By that I mean science can only hold a piece of knowledge that is quantifiable through its own systems , which is themselves do not command the totality of all there is to know.
Science looks backwards it relies on what has already been established and frowns on any new additions to that knowledge until it has raked the new information through the system, that proceeded the new knowledge, which is limited by what it knows to be true at a specific point in time.
This limits scientific knowledge with the burden of valid information always having to fall in those limited parameters.
Science rolls on like an old steam roller adding new information at a slow and tedious rate, working with the structure that it can see within itself is out dated on the road to new discoveries. Its components claim supremacy only to find out at a latter date the what it screamed to the world as the truth and only the truth was in fact wrong , incorrect and out of date.
What forces Science to change ? It changes because some one persisted in thinking outside the Scientific closed circuit and found new revelations and these revelations begin to make current Scientific theory look stupid. So they have to reluctantly amend their position. Not because they value the truth but rather on a more egotistical premise and that is appearing to be irrelevant to progressive thought.
Don't get me wrong Science is wonderful , for what it is . Ideally it would form the base or launching pad from which the cosmos may be understood. But it continues to clutch too tightly to worn out idea's.edit on 11-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)
DJW001
reply to post by Tallone
So... your argument is that because the Main Stream Media have sometimes presented corporate or government lies as facts, then everything they publish must be false. Furthermore, any amount of coverage of a story must be inadequate, and therefore part of a cover up. Ultimately, this cover up proves that there must be something unusual about the subject in hand -- in this case, Comet C2012 S1 (ISON) -- or else why would they not be presenting the whole story? A masterpiece of circular reasoning!
I have been reading thru the thread and found that you, on the most part, answer the questions from those who have the same views as you do on the subject, and of course, you ignore those who oppose you in the debate.
Tallone
reply to post by InhaleExhale
InhaleExhale
reply to post by Tallone
No, no. You go for it. Address the points one by one. A healthy debate. That is what I am all about. One by one, go ahead.
And yet you never reply to the posts showing multiple MSM articles on the Comet.
How come?
You quote the last part of Wildspaces post where at the beginning of that post there is a link to all the articles Google found in the past week,
what type of cover up media black out are you imagining, there have been at least 2 posts showing there isn't.
If I were to reply to each and every post I would want to get money for my time. I reply to posts that appear genuine. Posts that appear to be formed as statements masked as questions often enough are not by posters interested in a discussion much less than a debate. That is my experience on forums anyway.
For example, when you ask me to reply to a question like the one you have there, I first have to accept it seems that I am "imagining". But clearly that is not the perspective I present in the OP. No star for you.
DJW001
Just for the record, ISON is now visible in the East in the early morning with binoculars. Nothing can be hidden in space.