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.

 

Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined

page: 15
65
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Are you claiming that if a journalist publishes something that they believe to be fake, with a note saying 'I think this is fake' that they are not engaging in fake news.


Correct. Apparently there is no journalism where you come from


This explains your thinking at least.
Journalists can publish fake news as long as they say it's fake, and that somehow makes it not fake. Wow. lol.
edit on 16/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Well now that was interesting!

But your analysis methodology didn't seem to provide for assessing the document reality itself.

For me it took but minutes from noticing the story, then digging far enough at it to read scan around but a few pages, to call BS.

CNN 'leading for' BuzzFeed. Troubled waters ahead...
Sensational character assassination claims abound. Oh noes...
Shady un-official document from 'anonymous source'. Oh noes...
Anonymous source does claim to be retired spy. WTF...
WTF is a retired spy doing with this info, but not real spies. Oh noes...
CIA involvement in the larger story none-the-less. It's only downhill from here...
Even BuzzFeed reporting actual errors in the report. Oh noes...
Document being called 'something of a "legend" in media & intelligence circles' where for months they've 'all' had it yet nobody has found anything actually conclusive enough to run with it. Oh noes...
No apparent chain of custody on the document to BuzzFeed. Oh noes...
Who physically handed it to BuzzFeed? Why wasn't it emailed to them? Who the hell used a highlighter marker on it before scanning it? Or what other chain of assumptions are to be followed considering we're seeing a document that somebody printed, highlighted it, scanned it, and then eventually BuzzFeed embedded it! OH NOES!!!!!
Now open document... scanning... big bold lettering at top of a page says 'yada "conspiracy" Trump yada Russia'. It's BS!!!



And then the actual circus started...

How is it that anyone outside of se the FBI has it? So then it's presented to both Obama & Trump.... How in the hell is all the news reporting, who told them THAT? And how come the meeting took place what two days before Trump's first press conference, and then CNN/BuzzFeed reporting it ONE day before Trump's first press conference?? To me it's obvious: it's a coordinated character assassination move orchestrated to torpedo Trump's first official press conference.

It's only downhill from here...

Imagine if I were to read and do a full analysis on the entire document!


But I really don't have to. The FACT that right out the gate Trump confirmed that one of his guys that is reported as being in the document "never left the country", it's game over at this point. Discredited. The rest that might 'pan out' I expect could have already been in the news, that anyone who had been all into The Donald's campaign and all that from early on could have written the document, as was my immediate response to it on this website.

Then we get reports that 4chan'ers claim to have documentation that it was a prank by them. I really ought to go see how that debate panned out.
edit on 16-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
Impressively, you hit on the one situation where fake news and true news collide.

The only way to tease the two apart is to explicitly state that the intelligence the news is based upon is accurate, but the reporter fouled up out of a wrongheaded desire to challenge the source, due to hasty reporting, or because their bias got in the way even though they were trying to be accurate.

This is true news because the source material is accurate despite the bad reporting.


False Dichotomy. How much you wanna bet that I couldn't think of more scenario lines for that little document formula?

edit on 16-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

...For me it took but minutes from noticing the story, then digging far enough at it to read scan around but a few pages, to call BS.


You should call FBI, NSA, DNI, CIA as well as the major news media and let them know your 'findings'.




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

No need. They're already reading it.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: spiritualzombie

No need. They're already reading it.


Everyone is reporting that the documents have not been verified and they don't know what's true. You meanwhile seem to have cracked the code -- so give them a call; explain to them the depth of your analysis and findings.




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's funnay they all say "unverified", and yet they were already also reporting there being "errors". Which makes their calling it "unverified" malreporting. And then the next morning Trump debunked another account in the thing. How many "errors" exactly that will make you accept that its fiction?

Oh, BTW, I meant they're already reading my words so need need to report to them directly. American efficiency magnificeese!
edit on 16-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's funnay they all say "unverified", and yet they were already also reporting there being "errors". Which makes their calling it "unverified" malreporting.


Typos and miss-spellings do not make it false.

No offense to your in-depth analysis, but I think we'll all wait for info confirmed by major news media and/or U.S. intelligence.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Intelligence agencies from around the world have been watching Trump. He's done.

The fascist operation has been exposed. The neo nazi Russian dictatorship and it's subservient nationalists will never spread their ideology to the west.

Fck Trump. He's scum. When MI6 contacts the CIA to ensure their Russian contacts will remain safe during the Trump administration, you know the Trump people can't be trusted.

Now who wants to see a video of one of Trumps neo nazi nationalist friends beating a women in the street with whips?????

He's got no morals and no standards. Real men, real Americans are disgusted by these pigs. No wonder Russia is 25 years behind. Their government oppresses anyone with intellect and allows barbarians to beat people in the street with zero consequences. THE VIDEO DOESN'T LIE!!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It's funnay they all say "unverified", and yet they were already also reporting there being "errors". Which makes their calling it "unverified" malreporting.


Typos and miss-spellings do not make it false.

No offense to your in-depth analysis, but I think we'll all wait for info confirmed by major news media and/or U.S. intelligence.


He's a nationalist. He'd beat his mother in the street to protect his fragile existence.

Good thing the UKIP is in debt by millions, Russia has little available capital, and every nationalist movement in the world is decreasing in membership by the thousands each year. The kicking and screaming is pathetic. The ideology is dying.

Go figure that a movement based on anger and blaming others for their own problems would fail. Weak minded, insecure people.
edit on 16-1-2017 by BrokedownChevy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358


Now that the credibility of the Ex Mi-6 agent has been vouched for by various intelligence communities from NATO



Tell me, what sort of people should, in your opinion, make up cabinet. Little guys who think they can wear the big boys pants or people with proven abilities to close huge international deals? I would go with the later.

P


The transactions outlined in the OP do not require "big boy pants"..They simply require a willingness to commit treason and betray the USA and it's people for a price.

Sidenote: It is strangely disturbing how often Trump supporters speak in child language like "big boy pants"...Almost ike children that believe if they keep telling themselves that it becomes true.
edit on 16-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Oh how Hoorable it is that Russia was able to hack into the voting computers of all fifty states and fix the vote for Donald Trump. Imagine, Hillary was doing such an awesome job of campaigning that it was just assumed she'd win!

Wake up. It was the voters that decided to vote the way they did not the Russians. Case closed.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I say thank Obama for Crimea. if not he , was no the Nazis in Kiev and Crimea was Ukrainian. and who are agents of the Kremlin? m.perm.kp.ru... demotivator
2005 Senator Obama promises in Perm (!my city!) FSB Russia to regain the Crimea into the Russian Federation



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Fromabove

Russia also engaged in a lot of online trolls spreading fake news and there was plenty of anti-Hillary fake news spreading right here on ATS leading up to the election.

I think I'll stick with the assessment and conclusions backed by all the U.S. intelligence agencies.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: mangust69
I say thank Obama for Crimea. if not he , was no the Nazis in Kiev and Crimea was Ukrainian. and who are agents of the Kremlin? m.perm.kp.ru... demotivator
2005 Senator Obama promises in Perm (!my city!) FSB Russia to regain the Crimea into the Russian Federation


Interesting.. Some claims about Obama conspiring with Russia... obviously proof is required.
Sounds like it is worth investigating though - along with the Iran payments.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Well now that was interesting!

But your analysis methodology didn't seem to provide for assessing the document reality itself.


Correct, it was just meant to show the different ways we could break down all the possibilities for determining if something is fake or real news.


How much you wanna bet that I couldn't think of more scenario lines for that little document formula?


Please do, I used 3 factors to get the full set of scenarios where we might call something false or true.


For me it took but minutes from noticing the story, then digging far enough at it to read scan around but a few pages, to call BS.


Same, way too much squirreliness for me to buy the source of the story as being 100% accurate.

I'm not so concerned about the character assassination aspect because it could just as easily be fear that Trump is planning to sell us out. This would be a good reason to rush it to press. Frankly if the intel is accurate, it's big news, so it was worth reporting knowing that the source was MI6. Hopefully people are smart enough to understand the entire thing is questionable to say the least.

Given more time I could probably put together a more comprehensive reason why I don't buy the intel. Off the top my head though it's not the chain of custody that bothers me, but that it's the work of a single person as far as I can tell.

Good intelligence uses numerous sources, so it's nice to see the big agencies are giving it a proper look.


How is it that anyone outside of se the FBI has it?


I seem to remember reading somewhere that Steele leaked the documents himself? I could be wrong on that point, but that was the impression that I got.

edit on 16-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Something tells me that they have stuff on Donald that he doesn't want out and I don't mean money. I think they have video and pics of him doing "thing's".



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth Come on the link and translate half an hour alone with the FSB. when I was a child has been caught stealing me 10 minutes was enough ... me gave a fine



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

All of which is irrelevant. It matters not if I call it fake, you call it false, someone else calls it wrong.


Similarly it really doesn't matter what you have to say in regards to the post as you clearly didn't understand it. The whole post was based on formal logic - a well established field that's rigorous in the field of mathematics.

What's hilarious is you think the post above is about the Russian story. It's not. It's a generic way to determine if the intelligence a story (S) is based upon as combined with the news reporting (N) can be classified as false when we toggle whether the reporting is accurate (A). Formal logic is a field that's really not debatable. It's the foundation of what makes your computer work. It's at the heart of mathematics. Every human field of scientific investigation is dependent on mathematical logic, inductive and deductive alike.

What's also rather comical is the above truth table actually IS a universal; as it shows all the possibilities of how you can combine "news," "accurate reporting," and whether the "intelligence" that's basis for the story is truthful when held up to the high bar of mathematical logic. Yes it even includes your definition. You believe the news reporting is "false" and the intelligence it's based on is "false." That would mean you think we have scenario #8, which surprise surprise, is classifiable as "fake news" (specifically as an intentional hoax).

Much to my amusement, you're disagreeing with something that supports your definition (assuming we accept the initial reporting was bad - which is debatable, looks more confused and hurried to me). At the very least you've demonstrated you're a little too simple, dare I say stupid, to continue the conversation with the rest of the adults at the table. Wish I could soften the blow.

Also I am a conservative. I have very few things in common with democrats, but I realize you have the intellectual capacity of a gnat.

edit on 16-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Journalists can publish fake news as long as they say it's fake, and that somehow makes it not fake.


That is not what I said. Journalists can publish real news, even if the real news is about false or unverified claims. For example, a certain Secretary of State claimed that she had no confidential emails on her server. There was evidence that was untrue. In reporting this story, was the media propagating "fake news" because her claim was false? I realize that because English is not inflected like Russian, it can be difficult for Russian speakers to identify which word an adjective is modifying.




top topics



 
65
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join