It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Tom Delonge is revealing a little bit more info, on the lead up to the release of his documentary!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:54 AM

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: AboveBoard

How will we KNOW if what he says is "truth?" Will it all require a leap of faith? Who wants to do that??

If he brings something new to the table that would help his cause , if he has got access to high level scientist and military personnel and they want to deliver disclosure through him then they would have something to give that we don't already have or know.

I think we should get more of an idea when he previews the documentary.

I absolutely agree.

The question I have is if he does bring something new, is it also the truth? I hope he knows he needs to make sure that piece fits or it's all a matter of "faith" and "trust" in him personally, which is asking for more than all but his most adoring fans can give.

We shall see!

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:01 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

The question I have is if he does bring something new, is it also the truth?

Good point , how would we know it's true if it was genuinely new , I guess that's where not tarnishing your reputation with silly pictures early in the game is key.

As you say , we will see , but my expectancy level is low.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:03 PM
a reply to: interupt42


The evidence is otherwise.

IF it was merely as you assert,


SCIENTIFICALLY they would display a balance between

1. RISKING a FALSE POSITIVE type of error

[A TYPE I ERROR--rejecting a true null hypothesis. That is, one believes that there IS a relationship between the 2 variables. In other words, one believes that the null hypothesis stating that there is NO relationship--is wrong. TYPE I ERRORS are equivalent to false positives.]


2. RISKING a FALSE NEGATIVE type of error

[A TYPE II ERROR--accepting (not rejecting) a null hypothesis that is false. That is, one believes that there NO relationship between the 2 variables. In other words, one believes that the null hypothesis stating that there is no relationship--is accurate--when actually IT IS FALSE.]

When, in fact, particularly on ATS, such folks CHRONICALLY, DOGGEDLY, PERSISTENTLY, REPEATEDLY


a compulsive addiction to risking a FALSE NEGATIVE error almost exclusively--SO MUCH SO--that they make it virtually certain, SCIENTIFICALLY, that they will experience a FALSE NEGATIVE error.

That's not scientific. That's not well trained. That's not being fittingly analytical and skeptical

= = =

That's just simply uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, &/or stupid. . . . even when ATS's poster boy for skepticism is persistently guilty of it.

= = =

Yes, it IS somewhat of a SUBJECTIVE judgment call--PARTICULARLY outside of solid well structured experimental cases.

And subjective judgment calls are something such folks seem to be horrifically allergic to--so they almost always default to a TYPE II, FALSE NEGATIVE ERROR. But THAT has to do GREATLY MORE with RAD ATTACHMENT DISORDER than it does with the evidence.

edit on 24/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: added

edit on 24/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: sorry, could not get the tags to work right after lots of dinking with it. So, tough tacos.

edit on 24/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: ah well enough with the tags

edit on 24/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:08 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

I deleted my originalpost because after re reading it, I thought I might have missunderstood your point. After this post I still don't think I see your point, lol.

Who are the folks you are talking about that have daddy issues? The ones that believe anything or those that are skeptical?
edit on 10731America/ChicagoSun, 24 Jul 2016 12:10:37 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:15 PM
a reply to: interupt42

It is not

per se

believing anything vs being skeptical




IF (a slightly hyperbolic example)

you'd lost a leg in the war . . . and someone prayed for you . . . and it instantly grew back--YOU'D STILL DISBELIEVE IT.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:24 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

Well there are certainly folks who will believe anything regarding UFOs, and there are folks who will believe nothing regarding UFOS.

And there are those who don't know what to believe but they are still trying to seek the truth. I try very hard to do that because one thing I do know, is that I do not know the answer to the mystery.


posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:36 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard


I believe I'm in the same category.

I realize that I TEND to LEAN MORE

toward being too gullible. I have a life-long habit of taking people too much at face value initially.

I don't know how much that is my own response to my own RAD . . . how much of it is trying to be generous and give the benefit of the doubt--doing unto others as I'd prefer done unto me--or what.

So, I appreciate folks who are more skeptical than I helping to keep me somewhat safer about a FALSE POSITIVE ERROR tendency on my part than I'd otherwise be, alone.

And, I try and keep my extremely brilliant Dissertation Chairman's exhortation in mind:

"Life is soooo complex, just about any cock-a-may-me explanation will do."

I just get weary of the chronic, knee-jerk HYPE-skepticism hereon--and the outrageous "omniscient arrogance" that tends to go with it.

Thanks for your reasonable and kind reply.

= = = =

I believe that

In terms of the Tom DeL stuff . . . we do well to consider VERY FAVORABLY Springer's already vetting as much as he has.

Does that mean that Springer can now be certain that all that Tom shares is the absolute "Gospel Truth?"

Of course not.

But it LIKELY AT LEAST MEANS that we are not dealing with a run-of-the-mill idiot or charlatan.

We do not HAVE to be QUITE as hyper-skeptical as those addicted to such would scream for us to be in such chronically shrill terms.

We can reasonably give a bit MORE of the benefit of the doubt and weigh each factoid Tom offers with a bit more balance instead of stacking the deck on one side of the scale--much as a corrupt butcher used to cleverly hide his finger on the scale as he weighed our sliced turkey. Too many hyper-skeptics are seemingly totally unaware of how much they stack the deck against a reasonable chance for truth.

edit on 24/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: added

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:49 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

I'm . . . a little bit skeptical that Tom's incremental revelations will be super startlingly awesome at any incremental point in time.

It seems to me that the oligarchy MUST STILL use the frog in the bucket approach to wholesale changing the cultural and other constructions on reality that the masses of humanity currently operate with.

Tooooo much of a major jolt at one time--at least toooo early--would too much risk their carefully laid and implemented plan to change wholesale from the "old order" to the so-called "new order."

And, they likely don't want to risk tooooo much chaos UNTIL the best moment to take great advantage of said chaos.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:52 PM
a reply to: interupt42

A friend of mine used to work with Greer in the ER, as an RN.

She said that Greer was a top-flight MD, human being, a very sane man of integrity etc. etc. etc.


he got toooo awash in the UFO stuff.

Part of me has wondered if he was somehow "gotten to" and compromised by some black ops folks.

I hope that doesn't happen to Tom.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:54 PM
a reply to: Davg80

I think you have a very perceptive set of points.

And, I think that the FORCED DEPOPULATION agenda of the oligarchy has to be factored into that, too.

Of course, there will likely be all manner of propagandized manipulations and deceptions that will be part and parcel of any major changes, too.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: NthOther

I don't read him that way.

His avatar photo indicates that he may well have an above average amount of smugness and pride but that's not unusual--particularly in the music/medial realm.

He comes across to me pretty much as he holds himself out to be.

He may be in the process of being used and/or fooled by the oligarchy in the disclosure effort . . . but I believe that he believes that what he's shown and told is absolutely true.

And, plausibly, those who are briefing him also believe such things are true--regardless of whether THEY have been deceived, or not.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:59 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

Part of me has wondered if he was somehow "gotten to" and compromised by some black ops folks.

To be honest I think that could be a big possibility of what could have happened. I think in the beginning he broke the truth to myth ratio and was spoken too.

After that he went full retard to keep his family and himself safe. Not saying that as facts , but its was too strange how it all went and changed from his initial presentation.

But Tom looks like he is starting on full retard mode. IMO I think greer has actually earned more credibility than Tom so far and that is not much.
edit on 49731America/ChicagoSun, 24 Jul 2016 13:49:09 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:02 PM
a reply to: interupt42

I don't think your explanation is the most fitting application of Ockham's razor, at all.

1. He's a very creative fellow with an above average capacity to think outside the box.

2. Teams of folks already in the service of the oligarchy with the ET/UFO stuff are likely also very immersed in their own varieties of TUNNEL VISION, GROUP THINK, etc. etc. etc.

3. The whole field is likely DESPERATELY IN NEED OF outside, out of the box thinking and solutions.

4. Blokes alone in their garages have come up with startling innovations to problems for decades. It seems likely to me, that Tom is probably just such a person in this field.

5. Springer is NOT an idiot. He would not vet Tom as much as he has IF he did not have good reason to do so. I have no trouble giving Springer's vetting and Tom's info a FAIR-MINDED hearing.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:02 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

I don't think anyone here is being HYPER-SKEPTICAL or saying that he can't be legit. Its just that none of what he says or done adds any credibility to his cause. It actually has done the opposite and the ship is sinking fast for him.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:05 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thank you for saying that. I met and knew Dr. Greer while he was still a practicing medical doctor, and I have mutual friends with him and his family.

He is what he is now, and I'm not even sure what that means, but he was once at least a wonderful, genuine, caring and very intelligent man, with a loving family (yes I know all the rumors about him). He is simply more of a person to me, so I cringe at all the over-the-top memes and slams on him, even while admitting he brings some of it on himself by his own seeming arrogance and by being so caught up in the narrative he is telling that he sometimes, literally, sees things that aren't there -- that is my diagnosis, anyway.

Have you ever told stories around a campfire and scared the beJesus out of yourself, sure that every sound is a monster or serial killer? I think that is the kind of thing that can happen with ANY narrative, and that you start to SEE what you BELIEVE is "out there" rather than being able to assess things objectively. Throw in some actual "high strangeness" on top and you have quite a heady brew to drink down. (There are some high strangeness things that happen around him and to participants of his UFO-calling seminars.)

He went into all of this with the absolute best of intentions - that I am clear on. What happened to him along the way? That's anyone's guess. I still take things he says on a case-by-case basis without the reflexive "trashing" because of my historical perspective of the man. Bottom line? UFO stuff can make you a bit crazy.

He and Delonge are on different pages with the whole UFO phenomenon thing, too, which is interesting.

edit on 24-7-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:05 PM
a reply to: interupt42

Yeah. I think you may well be right about Greer.

And certainly his family reportedly tried early on to bring Greer back to a point of balance--evidently failing to do so.

I don't see Tom as awash in "full retard mode" like you do.

He's still far too . . . much . . . himself, imho.

Now if he dramatically alters his personality and approach to reality . . . I might have to re-evaluate. But at the moment, he seems largely congruent, imho.

I think he IS deluded in terms of trusting his sources far too much. But his sources likely do not realize how much THEY have been deluded by the critters, either.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:07 PM
a reply to: Davg80

he has fan base and a platform or angle to disclose information.....

So does the gov;t. not sure what makes him special in regards to that.

the broadcaster basically verified that he had, had said meetings with top officials. Disclosure or mind manipulation is on its way.

Heck with greer he gave you the actual officials versus the he says she says and look how that panned out.

He needs to step up to the plate to get any once of credibility besides being a celebrity and so far he hasn’t provided that. Maybe that will change but certainly as of now , it looks like nothing more than a marketing ploy.

edit on 22731America/ChicagoSun, 24 Jul 2016 13:22:27 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:10 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

I agree with your analysis wholesale.

I believe he started out extremely honorable and full of integrity--and has likely tried to remain so.

I think he has had his mind and constructions on reality mangled by real events, black ops folks and the critters/demonic forces soooooooo much that it must be hard for him to know what is real vs unreal.

I also still take what he says on a case by case basis.

I just think he's likely very much controlled by forces, people, groups etc. that he has little real understanding of.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:12 PM
a reply to: interupt42

I don't have trouble giving him the benefit of the doubt.

What he discloses MUST fit, to some large degree, even with exotic explanations

into what we already more or less know about the topic.

IF he gets tooooooooo off the wall flaky, it should be quickly and readily obvious.

Particularly if we are well read, thoughtful, perceptive, prayerful etc.

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:13 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

I don't know HOW MUCH

it will turn out that Tom and Greer are on VERY different pages.

Somehow, THE VAST BULK OF *ALL* THE INFO HAS to be factored into the equation.

Time will tell.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in