posted on Mar, 11 2018 @ 11:44 AM
a reply to: JanAmosComenius
I'm not sure I draw the same conclusion, although you may be right.
What I can say about the articles written by Sorcha Faal at [unnamed site] are that throughout the articles posted on any given subject, they are
sourced by several other news outlets. Whether it's CNN, Fox, Military.com, whatever, they are sourced.
I asked for a link to the original article supposedly dated back to 2007. I never saw it, but if it follows the standards that current articles do and
have followed, it too would be sourced.
The sourcing withing the SF written article would show definitively the either: a. The "original" source was SF, or b. the article draws false
condclusions from its sources and is thinly supported.
If the former proves to be true, than the claims are not a SF original idea, and Chad's claims are broken. If the latter is true, then it may be true
that the conclusions based on the sources are wrong, but at least we can comment as informed observers.
I wouldn't say that the conclusions and claims made by SA are any more or less reliable than a well sourced opinion posted on ATS. I won't guess at
motivations except to say that there are few who would go to the trouble of mainaining a website with regularly updates stories for no reason at all.
I guess the point is, keep an open mind and source your sources. Then source your sources' sources.
Your conclusion is only as strong as the foundation that it is built upon.
Louder and more persistent is not better or more valid.