AboveTopSecret.com is a Government COINTELPRO Disinformation Operation

What bothers me about this site and sources like Jeff Rense or Art Bell is their mixing up genuine conspiracy facts with the lunatic fringe, which for the superficial observer implies a connection between both. As such, most people (especially intellectuals) take a distance from conspiracy facts and the truth remains ignorant to the majority of the public, even though it's all out in the open. If I were involved in Black Ops, this is exactly the approach I would use.

The site itself is not but there are many many members here who are clearly not interested in anything else but debunking

Originally posted by bignick
The site itself is not but there are many many members here who are clearly not interested in anything else but debunking

Reasons *YOU* might want to reconsider participating in such a site as this:

1. You turn your nose up @ debunkers and act as if we can't form our own opinions when hearing both sides of any given topic.

2. You miss the point of this site I think. Denying ignorance is often done BY the debunkers.

3. You are telling ppl not to post something that could be considered "legit" evidence.

What you believe is up to you and what the rest of us believe is up to us. You sound far more "fishy" to me than most of the debunkers and certainly the owners and mods on this site.

If you want to flood your mind with any and all fantastic claims of ET's, elitist plots, and the supernatural you certainly have every right to do so. But you defeat the point of your arguement that government agents are here trying to disprove everyone when you tell ppl not to post what could be considered "legit" evidence.

By doing so, you are either or , IMHO.

Originally posted by justamomma
1. You turn your nose up @ debunkers and act as if we can't form our own opinions when hearing both sides of any given topic.

Most "debunkers" and most "conspiracy theorists" are just two sides of the same coin : they're both convinced they're right and they're both unwilling to look into the issue from another perspective. There are only very few people on either sides willing to actually look into issues objectively and judge based on the evidence only. Prejudice is one of man's most commonest flaws.

Originally posted by justamomma
2. You miss the point of this site I think. Denying ignorance is often done BY the debunkers.

No more or less than the "conspiracy theorists".

Art Bell, Noam Chomsky, places like Rense.com and ATS, T.O.T.S.E. or even my site must always be taken with a large grain of organic sea salt.

There is no such thing as "unbiased". Period. Of course having said that, I realize that you may not believe it, but on websites that I own or moderate the stories/comments that get posted will be affected by my beliefs. Is there a way around that? God, I hope not. Belief is the only thing that cannot be forcibly taken from any of us (in my opinion, which affects my actions and communications).

I have found things in Alex Jones's material that set off some alarm bells, mostly the things that he ignores. Ever hear him covering Zionists? How often does he get into Israel? Have you ever seen the video of him getting "arrested" and wondered why it went so completely smoothly, and noticed how the police looked like they were sort of bored?

And Noam Chomsky, trying to assert that the mountain of evidence discrediting the official 9/11 story is not worth worrying about? And that is only one example, read some of his work and you can find many more. Think "eMule".

Or ATS, censoring posts like it was in vogue while at the same time attempting to strike the posture of an open discussion forum? Be careful drinking the kool-aide, folks, I think I see a turd floating in it.

Your best bet is to try and read between the lines, to separate the dash of truth from the mountain of lies.

Welcome to the real world, where everyone has an agenda, including you. And me.

Or so I would like you to believe.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by Symbiote]

Originally posted by Symbiote
Or ATS, censoring posts like it was in vogue while at the same time attempting to strike the posture of an open discussion forum? Be careful drinking the kool-aide, folks, I think I see a turd floating in it.

Really?

Could you help by providing some examples of censored posts?

Or, have you partaken of the kool-aide served by those who would cast aspersions?

reply to post by Symbiote


Wow. I, for one, feel that YOUR post is full of ignorance. (Chewy Kool-Aid). I have YET to see censorship take place by any Admin, S.Mod or Forum Mod.
It goes against the whole point of the site.

Sure, you can't say dirty words and reference the usage of drugs and such, but, that's so it doesn't reference ATS in searches for such immaturity.

I say, read more, post less. (I say that a lot!)

Cuhail

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Could you help by providing some examples of censored posts?

After a proper search, I stumbled on this :

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
A "revisionist" Nazis joined recently and began several threads based on grossly incorrect historical references and perspectives. His brand of total and complete ignorance was so insurmountable, there was little choice but to ban him and remove his posts.

source : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some referred to the T&C quoting the following :

1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

2.) You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Nevertheless, this does not apply to the user in question because :
* ) I couldn't find any indication that the user KNOWLINGLY posted false, misleading, or inaccurate. Especially on a site where the most fringe posts on creationism and UFO abduction stories are very common, it is quite peculiar to post someone for eg. questioning the official version of WW2... which is far more reasonable.
* ) I couldn't find any post where the user herassed, threatened or attacked anyone. He seems to have been banned solely for the controversial nature of his views.

Anyway, that case seems an obvious example of censorship.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by OutoftheBoxthinker]

reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker


Could you perhaps discover something more contemporary? A three-year old thread announcing action taken against intense hate-mongering is hardly an example of your implication of habitual censorship.

However, here is an example of one of the items posted by the member referenced in that thread... which has since been removed. There are several places online to discuss the promotion of fiction-based distortions of historical events that promote various brands of ethnic/racial/religious hatred. We generally prefer that ATS not be one of them.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However, here is an example of one of the items posted by the member referenced in that thread... which has since been removed.

The content of that post is far more plausible and rational than 95% of the posts on ATS and I can't find a single hateful remark in it either. I see no reason whatsoever to remove a post like that on ATS.

The content also perfectly fits the goals of ATS, which is to question and debate the status quo.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There are several places online to discuss the promotion of fiction-based distortions of historical events that promote various brands of ethnic/racial/religious hatred. We generally prefer that ATS not be one of them.

Rassinier was a convinced anti-nazi and former inmate of a concentration camp. He became Holocaust revisionist ONLY because he was shocked by the lies and distortions spread about them by the allies. Others, like JG Burg or David Cole, are Jews.

Holocaust revisionism is nothing but a sceptical approach towards history... and none of the above have anything to gain from that.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by OutoftheBoxthinker]

reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker


Is one incident of a disruptive member from three years ago your only example of a policy of "censorship?"

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Is one incident of a disruptive member from three years ago your only example of a policy of "censorship?"

I haven't bothered to look any further.

Has your policy changed in the three years that followed or can a person still be banned for the same reasons?

I mind because I recognise at least some of my own views in those of the individual in question and I strongly object to this sort of censorship. I don't like to spend a lot of time on this forum to one day find out I'm being banned because the administration objects to politically incorrect views... especially when that same moderation claims to adhere to free speech and deny ignorance.

Originally posted by OutoftheBoxthinker
Has your policy changed in the three years that followed or can a person still be banned for the same reasons?

Are you sure you know what the reasons might be, especially given the age of the incident you've cited? He was spamming several threads with off-topic race-inspired hate, and was not backing down after three of our staff members engaged him in private conversations to do so.

Yes... we deplore hate-based fictionalizations of events... but there are hundreds of examples of civil discussions of such topics on ATS. As I mentioned, we prefer that they not happen here, but it happens.

Yes... people who spam off-topic comments, with an agenda, within discussion threads are subject to being banned, regardless of their topic being hate or love. If you constantly spam unrelated threads with the love and happiness message of the "Care Bears," you'll be banned just as quickly.

Many people often mistake necessary action against a purposefully disruptive member as "censorship."

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
He was spamming several threads with off-topic race-inspired hate, and was not backing down after three of our staff members engaged him in private conversations to do so.

Maybe he was just expressing his freedom of speech. How do you define hate and what sort of hateful remarks did he make?

It is common for people with politically incorrect views to be called a hatemonger without any proper cause whatsoever as a consequence of liberal propaganda.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Yes... we deplore hate-based fictionalizations of events...

How do you know whether a viewpoint is hate-based? What makes you so certain that one's viewpoints are fictionalised when there is no proper debate?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If you constantly spam unrelated threads with the love and happiness message of the "Care Bears," you'll be banned just as quickly.

I'll remind that

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Many people often mistake necessary action against a purposefully disruptive member as "censorship."

Many people mistake expression of an honest opinion with hate or purposeful disruptiveness.

I've also been informed that threads dealing with hemp/cannabis or the legislation/decriminalisation thereof are systematically censored. Could you comment on that?

Clearly, your opinion has been set and no amount of repeatedly expressed logic will sway you.

Enjoy your time on ATS.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Clearly, your opinion has been set and no amount of repeatedly expressed logic will sway you.

Apparently you don't even try to justify or deny censoring topics on marihuana and the legislation thereof. That's already two topics I discovered being censored and I've barely been looking.

What logic are you referring to? I fail to see any logic in your defense of the censorship you apply.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Enjoy your time on ATS.

Only if you don't censor me

UPDATE: The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
UPDATE: The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites

Where I live, it is perfectly legal to smoke a joint in private and to own a maximum of 5 gram. In the US, it is perfectly legal to discuss marihuana and the application of a similar law. Hence, I fail to see how debating the decriminalisation of marihuana has anything to do with "illegal activity".

It's just a poor excuse to censor certain topics, just like your accusations of "hate" speech.

I do understand the forum needs Mods, but why was this topic locked?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Couldn't they have just checked the negative post?

It makes me wonder,

If it had been the other way around and the topic was about 40 marines beating two guys from the hood would it have been locked?

I'm, just saying it makes me wonder,

This being a conspiracy site and all, please don't ban me yet.

I have been disappointed by so many topics getting locked,

Will this one?

Please don't ban me, but sometimes it seems a little heavy handed, how about a little less moderation?

YOu know people need to lighten up, everybody is so dang serious.

it is a little intimidating

I'M just say'in.

I love mods, actually,

[edit on 123131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]