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.

 

‘SO CHARGE ME’: Alien investigator dares US Government as he releases ‘UFO Wikileaks’

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

Its not your place to decide the direction of the thread. My recent rant posts touches on this. IF you have nothing to contribute to a thread other then side tracking the discussion, or trolling members posts, then you sir are the issue.


** Thank you OP for posting this.

edit on 2-7-2016 by Triton1128 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Triton1128

Not whole heartedly agreeing with the OP is not side tracking the thread.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Atsbhct

Its not your place to decide the direction of the thread. My recent rant posts touches on this. IF you have nothing to contribute to a thread other then side tracking the discussion, or trolling members posts, then you sir are the issue.


** Thank you OP for posting this.

Reading Atsbhct's post, I don't see anything about trying to take this thread in a different direct. He was simply stating that this the guy the OP was writing about seems to be creating much ado about nothing.

Atsbhct is right that this "UFO Wikileak" is not a leak at all, but public information. The information may be good information, and it may (or may not) be meaningful to UFOlogy -- HOWEVER, this being public information and not "leaked" information, there is no reason that this guy would be charged with anything. I mean, he has this information because the government legally gave it to him.

As I said in another post, this guy sounds as if he is showboating, which really turns me off top whatever information he has. I may be wrong, but the gut feeling I get from his attempt to get attention by saying "look at me everyone!!!" makes me think that there is very little substance in this information.

...but like I said, I could be wrong.

As for side tracking the discussion? I didn't see any of that -- just a counter claim that this "leak" is not a leak at all.


edit on 7/2/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Orionx2

Follow the money only works if money is the primary objective, right?




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain


Atsbhct is right that this "UFO Wikileak" is not a leak at all, but public information. The information may be good information, and it may (or may not) be meaningful to UFOlogy -- HOWEVER, this being public information and not "leaked" information, there is no reason that this guy would be charged with anything. I mean, he has this information because the government legally gave it to him.


The point being that a lot of the information that is released is lost in the maelstrom of ridicule. Do you know anybody, any researcher at all who has collated absolutely every release of information?

I certainly don't, there have been efforts of course. But the fact is that certain cases, certain releases of information are literally stamped upon. It isn't hard to see. Go to the ufo forum and have a look, note when certain people get involved and who they get involved with.

Like the grape, some stories wither on the vine. And that is why I interjected in this thread. I am fairly unbiased regarding what ufos are, but when I see the big foot of a certain mark, it bugs me.




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Well I wholeheartedly disagree, so now what?



I suppose we agree to disagree.


That sounds good to me.




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Orionx2

Follow the money only works if money is the primary objective, right?


Is it not.... Seriously... Is it not?



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: rigel4

Why charge him when they can just off him?
See some bullshltters don't even think bullshlt thru.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Or charge him on drugs, child abuse, animal neglect, or anything else that would make him untouchable. Not on UFO stuff.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: randyvs

Or charge him on drugs, child abuse, animal neglect, or anything else that would make him untouchable. Not on UFO stuff.

They won't charge him with anything, because all of the documents he has are public information that was legally obtained. This isn't "leaked" information or secret leaked documents.

In fact, the U.S. government (well, NORAD) are the people who gave this guy the documents.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

No I get that. I just get tired of the big bad government controls all information but me mentality. If the government is so powerful and controls all: 1) The truth you are spreading, the government doesn't care about. Or: 2) The government is allowing the info because that's the info it wants spread.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Atsbhct

Its not your place to decide the direction of the thread. My recent rant posts touches on this. IF you have nothing to contribute to a thread other then side tracking the discussion, or trolling members posts, then you sir are the issue.


** Thank you OP for posting this.


It was my pleasure.. and my intention to promote discussion,
especially for members who might not have come across this kind of thin.

The actual content was new to me.
In future I will take it on board that my initial thoughts should be logged in the thread.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Triton1128




IF you have nothing to contribute to a thread other then side tracking the discussion,


Hmmm interesting you say so.

Oh wait, you thanked OP for posting. was that the edit so you aren't as hypocritical as your post sounds?




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join