And I find it utterly amazing that someone like the OP could take a few seconds to post a "amazing new" 90 minute video then demand everyone watch
it on the strength that she says, "it's really important." Then, when you DO take a look at it what do you find? A rehash of Steven Greer's 2001
National Press Club Conference, now 13 years old, but somehow still qualifying as "amazing new."
Now that is simply false advertising. If the 90 minutes has anything useful, then bill it correctly instead of trying to B.S. people into watching it.
Further, we discover that this "amazing new video" is done by none other than Stephen Bassett, whose main claim to fame is that he doesn't care at
all about the credibility of his witnesses. Is this a value judgment? Nope. He hangs himself with his own words where he threw a hissy fit on the air.
“The problem is not about our opinions about who is a laughingstock. It’s all about the government. Don’t worry about the individual aspects
of people in the field. I don’t care about your background. Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process. I just don’t care. It’s not
my concern and I’m not in a position to sort it out. I don’t give a damn."
-The Paracast, March, 2009
So we're supposed to listen, again, to people, some of which have no credibility at all and have been caught at it. And when you actually STUDY what
those witnesses said (which I find no evidence the OP has), you find that most of them saw lights in the sky, daylight disks, or were told a story by
other people. Indeed, I presented a table summarizing every single witness at that event showing exactly what they claimed they saw and guess what? It
took more than 90 minutes to compile. But obviously, since the OP never acknowledged it, I was "wasting my time.") In short, the one who has no
credibility is Bassett, and even of he has a few honest, forthright witnesses who actually saw something remotely relevant, he has poisoned the
witness pool with people like Stone and Rosin, who have been well vetted here before--and found wanting.
And this is kind of the crux of the matter. Here comes the OP who apparently thinks people on ATS have never heard of Bassett and his crowd, have
never dealt with the witnesses shown on his video, and have no idea what they are about or what they have done. It would be kind of like Michael Horn
breathlessly posting a Billy Meier video proclaiming to the population of ATS that this "stunning new video" from 1980 proves aliens from space,
apparently unaware that Meier has been the subject of dozens of threads and thousands of posts over the years.
Now on the surface that really isn't so bad. Haven't we all found something in which we were initially excited, but after study and consideration
and discussion have come to the conclusion that our initial enthusiasm was not warranted? I'll readily plead guilty on that. But the unforgiveable
issue here is that OP's reaction is one of disdain. If we won't watch her precious "New amazing video!" then We are wasting OUR time.
EXCUSE ME??!! No, You've got it backwards. YOU are wasting OUR time. Why should OP expect all of us to spend 90 minutes watching a film she put up in
five minutes? Does she have that kind of claim on our time? Op has done an extremely poor job of presenting her "amazing new video" from 2001. Now,
if there is more to it, she could have said so. It would have taken a couple of minutes to say,
"The beginning of this video includes some footage from the Greer National Press Club Conference from 2001, and I know many of you have seen that,
but just get beyond the first 15 minutes or so and you'll see some amazing new stuff." Of course, that may not be true at all, but she didn't even
make the attempt. She reminds me of a car salesman who blames you when you don't buy his favorite car. Whose fault is that, exactly? Am I obligated
to buy a car if I walk into a dealership?
But OP didn't bother with any of that. She just zapped up that video in a couple of minutes flat, then sat back to await the adulation and amazement
of the audience. When that didn't happen and people began to say, "We've seen it all before." what was her reaction? It is all the audience's
fault. You know, when Hollywood makes a movie and no one bothers to watch it, they lose money and the film bombs. They don't blame the audience for
not watching it.
OP says she's "fed up" with ATS and presumably about to take her film (Well, it's not exactly hers, is it?) and go elsewhere. That would be fine,
really. I get frustrated with ATS, too, but I can't deny that ATS at least tried to "deny ignorance." This is one of those cases. I'm sure she can
find a credulous audience elsewhere, full of people who will believe anything they are told. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.