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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why Fake News now? Who is Old New's and why is it dying?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
The public needs a healthy dose of conditioning before the Ministry of Truth can be established.

MSM really wants people to believe them, their credibility is shot and spreading fear while promoting the regulation of social media is beneficial to them.




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I think it appears...at least to me on the surface...in the old days we took news as real and at face value. They were talking about it on the 6 o'clock news...so it must be true. Right? So we believed almost every piece of stuff they fed us.

Now-a-days, with the vastness of the different sourcing via news outlets, alternative media and internet...I really think it active dis-information. They confuse us intentionally. Pretty soon we get so confused and mislead that the real meanings and issues and results...are lost to deciept.

We get real news, mixed with suspiciously sourced news, or argued opinions...I think its nefariously intentional...either governmental or secret soc./NWO based.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger
True, there are so many different interpretations by journalists about the same story.

This is what happens when the news is owned by too few people/companies. What we get are lies and half truths.

I would love to go back to the 1970's when we had a person or 3 that were the truth sayers that we all believed. Too late the genie is out of the bottle and we know.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The lying peddlers of disinformation that is the MSM has been so resolutely humiliated this year that their stranglehold on the Anerican (and wider world) public is tenuous at best.

I think those "reliable scientific polls" really did a great deal of damage.

So they've fallen back on the old poison the well tactic. Call it fake news or foreign propaganda so you don't have to comment on it, and call all alternative media sources which hold a dissenting opinion a load of bad names in a slander campaign to try and destroy their credibility in the eyes of the public.

Information war is really annoying when you, which is to mean all of us, are on the receiving end.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I was a little hasty in my treatment of embossed/debossed part of your post because I wasn't taking into account directionality and that was my mistake so I'll take the link in stride and point conceded.

The take away is that for it to be embossed the raised side would read left to right. I think we can agree on that? Whether embossed or debossed the text would read left to right?

In the third image you posted it looks like you might be right — if the light source is located at the top right and pointing down and left:



but in the fourth image, it looks lke the raised side is reading left to right:



You run into the issue of how our brains interpret convex vs concave which is something many will be familiar with from looking at pictures of geologic features, particularly on the Moon and Mars. It all comes down to angle of the light source. In the above image it looks to me like the light might be from the bottom right.

So it's ironic that you would say:


But I am sure you still won't be able to believe your own eyes.


Because seeing isn't always believing specifically when it comes to differentiating concavities from convexities (I'll spare you gifs, youtube videos of the "hollow mask" effect, etc) and this might be the absolute worse context for making that specific point.

What's more, it doesn't really seem to make a whole lot of sense to fake it and if you're going to fake it, why not do it right?

1. If Alvin Onaka was willing to not only stamp it (or hey, let's assume the stamp was a forgery) but publicly certify the document, why wouldn't he have just embossed it with the legitimate embossing tool he CERTAINLY had access to?

2. If it's debossed, who made the debossing tool? Seems like a rather large oversight for a something that would have had to have been professionally made. How many seals are typically debossed vs embossed?


They are not credible. THEY ARE THE SPREADERS OF FAKE NEWS.


I certainly wouldn't rule it out but you didn't provide the details so I can't offer an opinion. There's always *some* possibility that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and just decided it was a good idea to fake a birth certificate in an attempt to put the whole thing to bed. I acknowledge that. It really wouldn't have mattered in terms of his eligibility to be President though given that his mother was an American citizen and he acquired his citizenship at birth, wherever that birth might have been.

Again, I'm certainly not trying to throw water on your efforts. You've clearly done your homework and though I'm not convinced, I can't prove you wrong either.
edit on 2016-11-27 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: loam


I challenge you to demonstrate a preponderance of MSM news reporting that isn't derived from published government sources, published business sources, published press statements, or a rehash of some other MSM source. And given this year's performance by the MSM, any argument they are less biased is beyond ludicrous.


This isn't really anything new. It's exactly what Chomsky was referring to with his third filter. I alluded to it yesterday in a post about the political bias in media and why the purportedly "liberal MSM" was complicit in going to war in Iraq. As they were with the reactionary response to 9/11 that led to the Patriot Act. The original source of information is often a source the administration has influence or complete control over or one with a vested interest (the Pentagon for instance). They all put way too much stock in what businesses say or think tanks report. That's probably not going to change. If you wnat to know about a company's revenue or the how many people have been killed in the last year in a given military engagement, there are very few alternatives for authoritative information.

I'll say again for the 1000th time in these threads. Political bias is not anything new either. The media has ALWAYS had political bias to some degree. As bad as you think it is now, it's been much worse in the past.

Yes, there's been a decline in newspaper staffs. There's also been a decline in newspapers. The fact that the concentration of journalists is higher on the coasts has everything to do with population density. I've already stated a number of problems with the mainstream media in the MANY threads that keep popping up just like this one. There's too much aggregation and not enough different original sources. Another thing that I find ridiculous is publishing things based on "online reports" from social media. I went into detail about this before and I'm not really feeling like doing it again in another thread that is going nowhere.

My advice to anyone is to always go to the original source of reporting, find multiple original sources if possible and think about what you're reading. There are plenty of reporters out there. My further advice would be to become familiar with specific journalists and if you find them to be inaccurate, don't put stock in them.

When it comes to the Alex Joneses of the world, there's real no excuse. Everyone is well aware of how many times Alex Jones has lied/cried wolf. I've busted PJW fabricating stories on PrisonPlanet and Joe Biggs staging videos for the Infowars YouTube channel myself, this year.


I think it's pretty clear, there is little meaningful difference between the two worlds at this point.


The media has serious issues but it's still far better on the whole than what people are currently looking to as the alternative. The answer is to be smarter and to demand better from the media not to ignore the very real differences and accept whatever crap is posted on the Internet because "oh well, the media is just as bad."

For all their faults, trying to compare any of the country's major newspapers to a site like True Pundit is preposterous.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes. You were hasty.

THIS is the back of the seal:


There is no illusion because you can see the light source in this photo. Therefore, even when you turn the photo upside-down, you can still see that the back of the seal is raised -- ON THE FRONT OF THE DOCUMENT:


NOT ONLY THAT, but THIS is also the photo that Factcheck.org published and captioned as "raised" when they claimed Obama's birth certificate had a "raised" seal. They reported that they handled the document, photographed it, examined it...and then they vouched for it. There is no dispute. The raised side is on the FRONT of the document. No. Dispute. That's what Factcheck reported:


Link

You can plainly see that this is a photo of the front of the document, not the back of the document. Here is another photo of the BACK of the seal, on the FRONT of the document:


Again, you can clearly see that this is the front of the document.
Link

This is not a photo of the front of the seal. It's a photo of the BACK OF THE SEAL.

The seal was applied to the BACK OF THE DOCUMENT.

Both of the photos you posted are of the BACK OF THE DOCUMENT...and the FRONT OF THE SEAL:




^That is the front of the seal. This side reads correctly.

Below is a visual aid of how this seal 'reads' on the front and back of the document:



edit on 27-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

What's more, it doesn't really seem to make a whole lot of sense to fake it and if you're going to fake it, why not do it right?

1. If Alvin Onaka was willing to not only stamp it (or hey, let's assume the stamp was a forgery) but publicly certify the document, why wouldn't he have just embossed it with the legitimate embossing tool he CERTAINLY had access to?

2. If it's debossed, who made the debossing tool? Seems like a rather large oversight for a something that would have had to have been professionally made. How many seals are typically debossed vs embossed?


They are not credible. THEY ARE THE SPREADERS OF FAKE NEWS.


I certainly wouldn't rule it out but you didn't provide the details so I can't offer an opinion. There's always *some* possibility that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and just decided it was a good idea to fake a birth certificate in an attempt to put the whole thing to bed. I acknowledge that. It really wouldn't have mattered in terms of his eligibility to be President though given that his mother was an American citizen and he acquired his citizenship at birth, wherever that birth might have been.

Again, I'm certainly not trying to throw water on your efforts. You've clearly done your homework and though I'm not convinced, I can't prove you wrong either.


Also:
• Reproducing the HDOH's official embossed seal would be a felony. What we see here is as legal as printing monopoly money.

• It's no big thing to order a machine debosser, although it is not the norm as far as certifying records. Usually a raised seal is used for official documents.

• Also, sorry, I just read that last line and i am so cool with that.

edit on 27-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join