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.

 

New media buzz word related to Syria gas attack -- "Open Source" - outlets or sources... WTH?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
The first night of the attack I started hearing this term over and over when they were referring to their incontrovertible "proof" that Assad was behind the chemical attack. This new bulletproof term was called "open source" sources! Coming from the tech world, this term is not new and it is the first place I heard of this, about 20+ years ago and it has no relation to how it is being used. It does however carry some kind of "authority" in it's use when it comes to classifying a type of software and even hardware. When used as proof of an event, I can't imagine how this term would apply in any way shape or form, other than drawing on the recognition in the tech world and relying on people having possibly heard the term and maybe have some confidence in it. Since one of the most successful server operating systems is an open source model, it has garnered some name recognition and to those who don't know better, may translate this to this new "open source" source for the chemical attacks as being some kind of irrefutable authority.

When I saw the PM of Great Britain, or the UK (for get which May is..), use this term many times, I knew there was something wrong with the story. They rolled out this term for this event and I think it is because they specifically did not have reliable proof of the action. Using a new term like this in so many outlets had to have been some kind of coordinated scheme to help solidify support for their actions and to stifle and potential dissent as to the veracity of the claims.
open source reports,
They have used the terms: Open source reporting, open source investigation, open source sources, open source reports, open source survey's, Open Source information, open source outlets,

For those who don't know what open source means, it is used to describe the coding that makes software, apps and operating systems work. The code is open to be viewed so that it can be examined and reviewed and Linux is an example of this. The opposite is proprietary code, which is basically "encrypted" (well, difficult to decipher and usually no notes/citations) and can't be viewed and seen unless reverse-compiled, examples of this are Microsoft operating systems. It is really difficult to see how or why this term would translate to news sources other than maybe saying that the sources are "public". The use of this term is most definitely deliberate and a way to mooch off it's trust and notoriety in the tech world and should not be used as proof for the use of weapons of war.
edit on 4 16 2018 by DigginFoTroof because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Do you have any "sources" for this menagerie ?

😑



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Open source in this context just means not classified. It means they got it from an intel shop like Stratfor, or they read it in Aviation Leak, or on a blog or social media, etc. It just means stuff you can find in the public domain.

Open source sounds a lot better than "I read that somewhere".



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Funny. Q recently mentioned "open source".




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

www.cnbc.com...





May said intelligence and open source accounts indicated that the Syrian government was behind the attack in Douma last Saturday.


Multiple uses of the term by Theresa May

www.youtube.com...


I also heard UN reps of the US and UK using the term, but since Google has changed the search results and youtube videos seem to be lacking, I'm still looking for the videos of the UN reps using the term.


"syria open source sources" - search results on Google - shows the proliferation of the use of the term.

www.google.com...


It does seem that it is used in reporting and especially in regards to Syria, but what I noticed is the sudden use in the news with regards to this event. My ears are sensitive to this term and it is almost exclusively limited to use in the tech world or tech related, and when it is used in other contexts, my ears perk up and I take notice.. I can't link or even remember all the places I heard it, but it was on liberal and conservative media and I've heard it many times a day since the event and this was a new trend that began with this event from my experience.
edit on 4 16 2018 by DigginFoTroof because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   
good of you to notice. words matter



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I never heard that term used in news before. That is definitely an odd use of the term and really makes no sense.
Maybe it does make sense if you use a website such as ATS as a news source I guess. Really just seems to makes someone out to be stupid if they really wanted to go that route.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   
"May said intelligence and open source accounts indicated that the Syrian government was behind the attack in Douma last Saturday. "

So May says classified or formal intelligence efforts and "open source accounts" both point to the same thing.

That doesn't mean it's true, but it's saying publicly available accounts match the intelligence behind the scenes. Maybe they have increased chatter or specific chatter over the air before the strike, radar data showing planes overhead at the time, a spy saying he overheard the order, etc. That's not open source. It's not publicly available.
Then you have open source intel: the website of a Syrian chem factory that shows specific scientists/engineers employed there, maybe a picture that includes a guy that has a CBW-background appears on the website or newspaper article when it opened or he took a selfie at the factory, media reports of eyewitness accounts, social media accounts in Syria, media reports of alleged facts, presumably vetted generally accurate information in the public domain prior to the event.

That doesn't mean that both classified intel and OSINT aren't coming up with BS. It just means they seem to be indicating the same thing. Allegedly, according to May.

So that's the difference and what open source intelligence means.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert



That May quote was simply a quote where it was used, not the primary quote that was played over and over. That is in the video. Watch that and see what you think.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Again "open source" just means stuff in the public domain. So "open source accounts of barrel bombs delivering chemical weapons" (not a direct quote, but close) just means she's seen various reports of a helicopter and barrel bombs being used. Either in the media or eyewitness reporting, etc.

In this case, she just uses the term to prop up the evidence and make it seem more compelling. Like i said earlier, "open source intelligence indicates..." sounds a lot better than " people are saying" or "I read that somewhere".



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
non existent source, or made up source? not a real source, fake news source.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

weird.

Here I found a random fox affiliate that used it.



The West’s assessments of what happened April 7 in Douma rely mainly on open source information. That includes witness testimony, as well as video and photos shot by aid workers, victims of the attacks and unspecified additional intelligence about barrel bombs and chlorine canisters found in the aftermath.

fox6now.com...
edit on 16-4-2018 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   
The plot ...thins...

You'd have to be really thick or purposely playing ignorant to pretend you can't figure out what could be going on here...



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz



That they are using this "open source" as a way to justify it their actions if they turn out to be wrong, and if this is the case, then they can crack down on "open source" "outlets" / free speech / free independent news and internet sources in general. Could be used to clamp down on internet in general. Is that what you mean?



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Just heard the "open source" by some guy on Hannity's radio show. It was on NPR from 3-6pm today about 5-8 times over that period and at least 2x on hannity from 6-9pm. It is so strange when they mention it, it's like this has been in their vocabulary for centuries and as if it is normal. I can guarantee that this is a new phenomenon within the last week. It may have been used sporadically every few weeks to months talking about specific reports or incidences, but this seems ubiquitous across all media outlets, nations, and political parties. What I find most troubling is the last part, where both parties are using this terminology b/c that means they have an agenda that is against the American (and possibly world) people, at least that is the only reason I can think of them to both be on the same page with using a new term that has questionable veracity as per this application.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
It's not a new term. Just new to you.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Open source means they read the terrorists’ propaganda statement and decided that was sufficient proof.

We all know how trustworthy, reliable and generally upstanding these al-qaeda types are, after all.
edit on -050008pm4kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)







 
6

log in

join