It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's like a rapids river. Just jump in and ride it out. No point in trying to absorb the voluminous postings up to this point for the average normie. This thread chronicles everything, so simply start monitoring it and pertinent references and rebuttals will fall into place.
originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: dashen
Thank you for the link. That's a start. I'll keep monitoring this thread as always, but I'd still like to hear what sticks out to anyone out there, good or bad.
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: eisegesis
It was a joke, It wasn't meant as an insult. Surely you must realize your posts can be a little out there for the general populace.
So many Matrix parallels. Art imitating Life.
originally posted by: SplinterSequence
Just for clarification. Q is not expecting you to fight in the streets like real soldiers and take matters into your own hands. You are here to spread the information and research to ease people into of what is to come so they don't freak out and the world decends into chaos. We have to remove the medias control over them to free their minds so people start to think for themselves. I know it will not be easy to learn that you all have been lied to since you were born but wouldn't you prefer to know the truth instead of going back to sleep? Like Q said. The choice has always been yours.
That is none of your concern what Eisegesis posts or not.
I for one and others value the provided input of all members in here.
If you don't like a post just skip it and move on.
originally posted by: CoramDeo
a reply to: Spruce
We traded nothing. Control was taken from us long ago.
On the contrary, we cede control and give away our freedoms, and personal information, thoughts, and beliefs in forums just like this one, and through the every day use of technology within the bounds of the fourth amendment. We also give the government the power to collect and analyze in the name of security. Duely elected, for the most part.
In the case of Wilkes v. Wood (1763), Parliamentarian John Wilkes was suspected of seditious libel against King George III for a series of pamphlets that were published and distributed which criticized the King. The British Secretary of State, Lord Halifax, issued a general warrant which named no suspects, but gave officials blanket authority to ransack the homes of potential suspects and seize any “seditious or treasonous papers” and to arrest the authors. After his arrest, Wilkes brought trespass charges against the officials who had ransacked his home and was subsequently awarded monetary damages against the officers and separately, Lord Halifax. In ruling on the case, Judge Pratt cited that what was at issue was the delegated discretionary power given to offices, under general warrant, to go wherever their suspicions take them and to search using whatever means necessary, thereby subverting the liberty of those who are the target of said search (Ku, 2010, pp. 655-66). The decision laid the groundwork for the wording used, and the intention behind, the limitations placed on government when conducting searches of private residences and personal effects.
The importance of reason, checks and balances, and limitation on government authority can be seen in the specific wording of the Fourth Amendment:
"The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Const. amend. IV)."
The wording “…and no warrants shall issue, but…” are placed specifically in front of the prerequisites specifying the place to be searched and what will be searched for, with oversight by the judicial branch regarding the reasonableness of the search. (Amar, 1994, p.774). Ku also adds that the Fourth Amendment should not be considered in isolation, but as something that compliments other constitutional protections against unlimited, arbitrary governmental power (Ku, 2010, p. 648). Given that the US Constitution enables us to check the powers of government and determine how much privacy will be afforded to individuals, the onus then is on us to strike a balance between what we consider private, and what we consider a necessary intrusion to ensure security. In many ways it appears that this concept is foreign to may people when it comes to personal privacy.
The problem is, we blast information all over the place for any one to hear, including government agents. We have no reaonable expectation of privacy when we are broadcasting outside the walls of our own private residence.
One principle that defines what can reasonably be expected to be considered private in relation to what people do in their homes rests on the doctrine of public exposure. The doctrine, in simple terms, says that what a person does that is observable from outside the home cannot reasonably be intended to be private (Penney, 2007, p.483). Application of this principle is seen in the case of Smith v. Maryland...
The line of demarcation established in Smith v. Maryland is an inside versus outside view of privacy, which brings to life the James Otis’ criticism of the Writs of Assistance, and that one’s home is his castle. The case law supports the idea that a man’s home is his castle, and that he is protected within it as long as he is quiet. The word “quiet” holds true in Smith v. Maryland in that the suspect transmitted incriminating information to a third party, the phone company, which had every right to record that information, if it chose to do so, in the course of conducting normal business with the suspect (Ku, 2010, pp. 877-78). The underlying philosophy is one of inside versus outside, or of transmitting and revealing what goes on inside the house to any outside party versus acting quietly inside one’s home. Courts have argued in that what is broadcast by an individual to the public from inside one’s home cannot be assumed to be private. The introduction of a third party, whether a phone company or a cable Internet provider, assumes the person sending the information knows that it can be seen, heard, or recorded by that third party (Penny, 2007, p.486). This clashes with how people think about the technology used on a daily basis.
Q is correct in saying, "WE LET THIS HAPPEN ".
I have more.
Source: "Ceding Privacy", Me, 2010, unpublished in a public forum.
If someone wants the whole thing, PM me. I'll put it in a public place as a pdf.
originally posted by: TomLawless
a reply to: SplinterSequence
Fair enough, but a big part of this is getting the word out. Nothing will make people disavow quicker than aliens. Except maybe flat earth.
I would just like to see a little more discretion. No offense.
originally posted by: sine.nomine
I'm serious though. I've been trying to follow this from the beginning, and I did good at first, but sh;t man, I gotta work and stuff. It moves so fast. And new threads are deleted like clockwork. I'm not trying to find the identify of Q(s), I just wanna evaluate this information in a rational manner. The longer these threads get, the more impossible it becomes. I'm just grasping now while I might have a chance. Not counting on it.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SplinterSequence
Maybe one day we'll learn how 40,000 feet ties in to E.T.. Not computing for me right now.