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.

 

Give DNA or no job; A.F.P.

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
let's try the original angle:



  • where are the benefits for the individual, not 'greater good of society' but tangible benefits of this expensive profiling system?
  • why don't you adress evidence about potential forgery of DNA profiles f.ex. via bone marrow substitution and its implications on the databses' fidelity?
  • why don't you adress the fact that 'the evil ones' (wonder who that would be...) have full access to masking technologies and countermeasures to avoid detection or even identify as someone else, which basically means that it is directed against the people and paid for by the people?
  • why don't you adress the fact that unlike f.ex fingerprints, genetic data can be used for many other things not at all related to identification ?



Unless you come clear and stop telling everyone that they are merely fearful (of what? change? i guess your kind will be fearful and longing for the old days once these sinister plans come to fruition..), and stop skipping issues surrounding the entire ordeal that is the war on terra, i suggest you oughtta stop here and now in order to avoid putting even more dents into your little zombie version of utopia, k?




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   
If this does not reak of ("Big Brother"), I don't know what does. I bet it will not be long until they come out with a new generation of D.N.A. enhanced credit cards allowing 100% confirmation of the person is the right one using the card. I also see our D.N.A. stored in vast pools and seperated out the good specimens vs. the bad ones for genitic re-pouplation.


[edit on 16-1-2006 by FLYIN HIGH]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Long Lance...







why don't you adress evidence about potential forgery of DNA profiles f.ex. via bone marrow substitution and its implications on the databses' fidelity?



As pointed out in that article, it was not a forgery. Unless we can see clear cut examples and evidence of actual forgeries, then the implications for the databases' fidelity is based upon the assumption of potential's and could be's and opinions. I'm sorry, but that's not evidence. Try harder.



why don't you adress the fact that 'the evil ones' (wonder who that would be...) have full access to masking technologies and countermeasures to avoid detection or even identify as someone else, which basically means that it is directed against the people and paid for by the people?


What evil one's? Again... No evidence, personal opinion.



why don't you adress the fact that unlike f.ex fingerprints, genetic data can be used for many other things not at all related to identification ?


Fingerprints can be used to frame someone of a crime also. Point is, untill there's clear cut evidence that genetic data is being misused to advance the plans of an "evil" NWO, this argument is still based upon opinion and opinion alone. We can't call opinion fact now can we?



where are the benefits for the individual, not 'greater good of society' but tangible benefits of this expensive profiling system?


Ah see... Now your saying I don't want to hear what the media says. I want to hear only what I want to hear. I don't want to believe that it's for the greater good. I want to believe it's for an evil NWO plot. That's abit closed minded don't you think?




i suggest you oughtta stop here and now in order to avoid putting even more dents into your little zombie version of utopia, k?


Huh? Wth are you going on about now? You ok?



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
suppose there was somebody capable of exactly copying old paintings, but signed them with his own name, would that show that he could as well forge these paintings simply by using a different signature?

the answer is of course yes, so to sumarize

the only difference between 'accidential' mixups of genetic blueprint and forgery is intent k?

are you going to tell us now that said (crminal) intent doesn't exist?

if that's the case i'd urge you to change your therapeutic assistant (in your case: programmer
)



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Again, as noted in the article posted, there was no intentional mix up. Are you trying to claim there was? If so where are you conlcuding this is claimed in the article posted?

Can you prove there's an evil intent or can you just voice your opinion that there's an evil intent? Should I take your opinion of said evil intent as fact? Why should I take your opinion as fact? Your opinion hasn't shown me there's an evil intent.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

..
Can you prove there's an evil intent or can you just voice your opinion that there's an evil intent? Should I take your opinion of said evil intent as fact? Why should I take your opinion as fact? Your opinion hasn't shown me there's an evil intent.



can you prove that this doesn't compromise the entire method much in the same way as a backdoor would compromise firewall software?

i mean this is hilarious, the capablity alone is enough to invalidate the method's reliability.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
As noted in the article... That capability was an accidental mistake. that doesn't nessecarily invailidate the method. People learn from mistake's and can ensure less mistake's in the future. Again, unless you have a clear cut case of criminal intent or intentional misuse then your argument is moot. Your opinion's don't matter. The fact's do. Preaching your opinion doesn't make it a fact tho.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Produkt

Your opinion's don't matter. The fact's do. Preaching your opinion doesn't make it a fact tho.




Produkt - You say there is no proof that events might unfold in the ways suggested here, and insist that they cannot, do not, and will not.

Please feel free to prove that your interpretation of the facts is correct. I would like to see historical evidence of your hypotheses, with links, and to hear your analysis in that context.

Please remember: Regurgitation of the dogma does not constitute argument or proof. Substantiating evidence with links is required.

Thank you.


ed to add quote

[edit on 16-1-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Attacking my philosophy isn't going to save your philosophy of openly twisting article's to imply something that the original article never implied.

If I kept something a secret from you and based upon someone's opinion they thought I was hiding a secret and then someone else cite's that person as a source of evidence... Is that proof that I have a secret just because someone thought I did?

I can't prove someone else's secret for that same reason. But I can say that twisting an article to appear to be something it clearly isn't doesn't make it evidence. I can safley and rightly say that there has not been a single shred of proof or evidence posted in this thread. Your opinion isn't proof. My observation of your opinion being not proof doesn't need to be proven. Reread your source's. No where in your source's does it cite and nwo plot. That is your opinion and your opinion alone.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Attacking my philosophy isn't going to save your philosophy of openly twisting article's to imply something that the original article never implied.


Reread the thread - you are the one doing the attacking here.





Your opinion isn't proof. My observation of your opinion being not proof doesn't need to be proven. Reread your source's. No where in your source's does it cite and nwo plot. That is your opinion and your opinion alone.


Posters on this thread are analyzing the evidence and interpreting the facts - including you.

Except you are not providing any evidence whatsover to substantiate your arguments and interpretation. Please provide evidence and links to support your hypotheses.


Thank you.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
As noted in the article... That capability was an accidental mistake. that doesn't nessecarily invailidate the method...

.


Umm, just like a lost key doesn't compromise your home's safety, right?



Originally posted by Produkt
Attacking my philosophy ....
..


no need there, you're doing a good job already. i have a list for you:



Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Become incredulous and indignant
Create rumor mongers
Use a straw man
Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
Hit and Run
Question motives
Invoke authority
Play Dumb
Associate opponent charges with old news
Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
Enigmas have no solution
Alice in Wonderland Logic
Demand complete solutions
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
Vanish evidence and witnesses
Change the subject
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
False evidence
Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
Manufacture a new truth
Create bigger distractions
Silence critics
Vanish


from home.datawest.net...

[edit on 16-1-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Interpreting the facts? Is this how we define twisting the facts now?

Where in the "facts" do you get NWO from AFP wanting to use DNA identification? Doesn't appear to me to suggest anything of the sort. Where in the "fasts" do you get NWO from a mistaken case of bone marrow transfer that was eventually corrected. Doesn't appear to me to suggest anything of the sort.

Your continually twisting the so called "facts" to make it appear to be part of the NWO. If you want to call that "interpreting" so be it, but don't deny it for what it is.

I don't NEED to provide any evidence. It's all in your link's you yourselve's provided. I'm not twisting the article in any way whatsoever. Your doing just fine on your own. No need for me to jump in and help you.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Long Lance,

Then don't use key's for your home's. I hear RFID is going to be much more secure. And you can't lose it.


Nice list by the way. Is this your smoking gun that I'm one of them?



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Long Lance,

Then don't use key's for your home's. I hear RFID is going to be much more secure. And you can't lose it.

..



Why can't you, just once, adress the issue? i don't lose my keys and it'd completely irrelevant to the subject if i lost my keys. this metaphor was just designed to show that the mere ability to do something which invalidates your testing results invalidates testing itself.

or to re-use it: if losing your keys is hazardous, so is having them stolen, do you have to wait 'till they get stolen? no, you know that already because 'having stolen' is a subset of 'losing'...



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Ok wait... let me see if I'm getting your logic right..

Because of one example, despite the mistake eventually being caught, this invaildate's the technique from ever being used again? All because of one minor screw up that was fixed?

Yet by the same logic, losing your key's and having them stolen then getting robbed doesn't invalidate using key's in the first place despite the fact that you lost your key's which lead to you being robbed or *could* lose them leading to you being robbed.

Basicly, selective trust. You trust your key's to keep your personal belonging's safe despite the numerous account's of robberies worldwide. But you appearently refuse to trust say, bone marrow transfer due to one mistake that was caught. Or refuse to trust DNA tagging because in someone's opinion you read, it could be misused. Or refuse to trust CCTV camera's because in your opinion it's not being used to actually catch criminal's.

So now we've got selective trust, twisting the fact's to fit your opinion's, and plain refusal to believe the fact's as they are given in the cited source's.

Yes... And I'm the 4th dimensional reptilian overlord disinfo agent. Please...



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
twisting the fact's to fit your opinion's, and plain refusal to believe the fact's as they are given in the cited source's.

Yes... And I'm the 4th dimensional reptilian overlord disinfo agent.


Produkt -

You insist that every other poster here must drop what they're doing, stop what they're thinking, dance to your tune and provide evidence to prove their "claims" - as you rephrase and misrepresent them.

You, on the other hand, categorically refuse to substantiate any of your own claims and interpretations. You say it's not necessary.

Why not? Because you are right! And presumably, God is on your side.






posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Eh? God? When did he get brought into this?





You, on the other hand, categorically refuse to substantiate any of your own claims and interpretations.


The only claim I've laid down was that your claim was in fact just an opinion. Reread your source's and quote where you reading NWO plot. It's not there. This is why I keep telling you it's your opinion. So why keep calling your opinion a fact? I'm not insisting that you drop everything your doing. I'm just insisting that your fact is opinion. Yet you refuse to believe this because you see what you want despite it not being there. I'm sorry if the fact that opinion's aren't fact's, proof's or evidences, but I can't change the definition of opinion anymore then you can.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Long Lance - from your source above, IMO one of the most important pieces of information about the disinformation process:




A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate... It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the (evaluation) process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation



.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
How is defining disinfo agent going to validate your opinion into the realm of fact? Just curious.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
...
Basicly, selective trust. You trust your key's to keep your personal belonging's safe despite the numerous account's of robberies worldwide. But you appearently refuse to trust say, bone marrow transfer due to one mistake that was caught. Or refuse to trust DNA tagging because in someone's opinion you read, it could be misused. Or refuse to trust CCTV camera's because in your opinion it's not being used to actually catch criminal's.
..


huh? you'd find a straight line's tangent to run off on, right? that's utterly lame, if you can't talk shop you use metaphors, once you do that, the metaphor will be abused and bent to hell and back...

ok, while i'm at it, what about the lock&key analogy? lost key? replace lock (or just change the PIN in the more modern version), lost DNA profile... what are you gonna do? btw, it's a whole lot easier to retrieve a DNA sample than it is to steal one's key, mind you.


so, with that out of the way, i'd still like to see my points (see list on top of page) adressed.

thx.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join