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.

 

What is a source of undeniable evidence to you?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
This could have been posted in any category, but I chose 9/11 because I believe there is the strongest debate for what is real evidence and what is not.

I feel this is important, and it is really messing me up! I can remember say ten years back that I believed mostly anything I saw on the news without questioning the ´experts´ or the source of the story. Somehow that all changed over the course of time. I think really with the Olklahoma bombing is when I first started to really doubt the news that was presented. Now I feel that the so called experts are just hired to defend the side of the individuals who pay for their appearance. Nice!

My problem is this:

Is there anything or anyone which you would believe 100% at this time if they came up to you and said they have undeniable proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy?

Who would that be? The CIA Director? The Secretary of State? The President? Your parents? Who would you believe or trust? My point being, can anyone convince me there is such a thing as a source for undeniable proof of anything?

If there is not, what is the point of arguing on this board about this or that piece of evidence proving this or that theory? If both sides of the debate refuse to agree on a source of undeniable proof, we might as well stop right now trying to convince each other.

Poll: what source can you trust?


Please tell me there is a source. If we can identify this source, and agree that this source can be trusted, this source can be the judge in our conflicts over evidence.

"you dont need facts when the truth was nationally broadcasted."


That quote pretty much sums it up...




posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The one thing I trust above everything else: myself. I put it in my own hands to come to the best conclusions from the available information, not just with 9/11, but with whatever's at hand. Anyone putting such trust into anyone else but themselves is taking quite a gamble in today's world, because it's rare to come across a person that cares more for your personal interests than you do, especially if those interests involve seeking out truth from the world.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Good one. The problem is that what value is the news or any other source of information if you cannot trust it anymore? What if I would like to know what really happened in a certain situation? I sure could investigate personally, but only to a certain extent.

I´ll probably need a straight jacket pretty soon anyway if this 9/11 bunking and debunking goes on much longer.

All history is written by those who won the war that defined history.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Sorry HTG,

I can't even trust my own eyes and ears with technology so sophisticated as to fake almost anything. I trust no one. Everyone has an agenda or ideology they worship and lies are the mortar that keeps their shaky reality together.

For many it's easier to believe the lies and stay in the comfort zone than deny ignorance. Some are so articulate and convincing but they really don't KNOW they just BELIEVE.

Welcome to the monkey house, it's a brave new world!

Question Authority!!!!!



[edit on 23-4-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
I can't even trust my own eyes and ears with technology so sophisticated as to fake almost anything. I trust no one.


Exactly! What can we do? Help!

Is there no future for the truth?


Edit: I´ll say this much: (again)

I believe in Libertarianism and the Philosophy Of Liberty

That´s pretty much as far as I´m willing to go.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by HardToGet]


SMR

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
DTA in this day in age my friend.
Look carefully and watch your back is what most have come to today.Not everyone is a liar, but you cant be so engulfed into something only believeing it because you want to.
In today's world, lies get you what you want.Truth is weak and nothing exciting.Extravagant lies with false ideas are what make people believe.

The media love to lie and be bias.Whoever can shuffle out the next story faster is what it is all about.Even if facts are lies and content left out, whoever gets it out first wins.What do they win? Your undivided attention and 'trust' knowing they gave you a handfull of crap.How many times have you watched a news report be corrected on air.Why couldnt it have been correct the first time.This then makes ordinairy people follow something that has no truth.....
...and then there is question why people dont trust others anymore.

So you ask, 'What is a source of undeniable evidence to you?'
I say knowledge in the subject you are seeking truth to.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
So you ask, 'What is a source of undeniable evidence to you?'
I say knowledge in the subject you are seeking truth to.


SMR thanks, but where did that subject knowledge come from in the first place?

Argh.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
You rise a good point.
Indeed the only one you could thrust 100% is yourself but only if you stay objective and thats where the most will fail. (*)

My closest friend or tool for the search of a truth is the law of the nature.(physics). This are the one thing you can not break and therefore 100% vaild proof. So whenever something breaks this law!..

Unfortunatly it can be hard to apply nature law right and doing it wrong leads to wrong conclusion or proof.

Any saying of any persone no matter who is never a proof to anyone else (objective seen). But material, photos, docs, videos can be proof in combination with facts..guess it's like in the criminalistic.
(when something is proofen it becomes a fact, facts can be used to proof further things)

Usually it is simpler to proof a theorie wrong than a theorie right. Because for 'wrong' you only need to find one little peace that is wrong in that theorie and the whole building crashes.
On the other side proofing your theorie is right means you have to proof that everything you claim in the theorie is right.

Disscusions make sense to proof someone elses theorie wrong.


*) just a note: as a spiritual beeing you can get personel prove of something through a personel event or experience. But this personel proof is impossible to share with others. For them it can never be a proof except the made the same experience.


so whom or what source can you trust? Obectivly no one. But this will not help you. Somewhen you have to thrust someone by simple assuming he or she knows it and tells you the true. But you can forget to have a proof then. That's the life.
The real life works that way: when the majority says so or the one close to you (the one you thrust) it will be most probabily good enough for you. But indeed you don't know it and you are subject to accept the biggest lie as true..except you personel experienced or proofed it!
But we are all in this boat. And for sure we all already accepted 100 of lies as 'true' in our life simple because you cant experience and proof everthing by yourself.




[edit on 23-4-2006 by g210]


SMR

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I would probably have to say from a time when we did not have what we have now.Common people years ago trusted one another.There have always been trust issues since the dawn of man.But before the internet, before there was TV and radio, people relied on other people.A most common phrase you would hear was, "I give you my word" and people lived by those words.The word of a man could be taken to the grave.
Today that word means nothing.Another phrase you may know, "Im'a get mines" which really just means, which ever way possible.
Today even facts can be stretched.Thowing in little 'fib' wont hurt as long as it makes that truth excting and worthy.Words are almost visual today.Add some color to your words even if they are not true, and it gets attention.This is what people want regardless.People want a perfect world and if it means being lied to, then so be it.

So again, you ask "where did that subject knowledge come from in the first place? "
It came from when people could talk to eachother and people could learn without any regret.Back when literature didnt confuse someone making them give up and take everything for face value as they do today.
Most of what people research today has already been researched.But going over and fine tuning makes it seem like they reinvented the wheel when all they really needed was a good turn.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
g210, SMR, great posts, you are both spot on.

However, what about the present, is there anything we can do?

To tell you the truth (no pun there) I feel bitterly frustrated that I cannot believe in anything these days anymore. I wish that I still had my innocence like back when html was just invented, but... so be it.

I must go and think about this. Probably a long time...



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Personally I wouldn't believe any media source 100%. However, I would give a lot more credence to something i saw on the BBC than i would on an obscure news paper or their website. I think that it is important when trying to find the truth to view various credible sources of information before you come to your conclusion on the matter.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet
This could have been posted in any category, but I chose 9/11 because I believe there is the strongest debate for what is real evidence and what is not.

I feel this is important, and it is really messing me up! I can remember say ten years back that I believed mostly anything I saw on the news without questioning the ´experts´ or the source of the story. Somehow that all changed over the course of time. I think really with the Olklahoma bombing is when I first started to really doubt the news that was presented. Now I feel that the so called experts are just hired to defend the side of the individuals who pay for their appearance. Nice!

My problem is this:

Is there anything or anyone which you would believe 100% at this time if they came up to you and said they have undeniable proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy?

Who would that be? The CIA Director? The Secretary of State? The President? Your parents? Who would you believe or trust? My point being, can anyone convince me there is such a thing as a source for undeniable proof of anything?

If there is not, what is the point of arguing on this board about this or that piece of evidence proving this or that theory? If both sides of the debate refuse to agree on a source of undeniable proof, we might as well stop right now trying to convince each other.

Poll: what source can you trust?


Please tell me there is a source. If we can identify this source, and agree that this source can be trusted, this source can be the judge in our conflicts over evidence.

"you dont need facts when the truth was nationally broadcasted."


That quote pretty much sums it up...


I've been in this state of mind since I was young. I never talked I to anyone and I was called crazy, but I was always thinking. And the one you can trust is yourself man. The only man you can trust is your own self....



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I think the only reason we debate is because the Government wont answer our questions.
If they presented information to counter all the claims i would rest easy.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
not entirely true HTG. I believed the local fox station when they said Oklahoma police found unexploded ordance in the building. Too bad they removed that news flash though so now we're just back to lone Timothy McVeigh in the front with a Ryder truck

Alternative media is really taking off. take Coast to Coast with George Noory for instance. They don't give you any spin or propaganda just the straight facts and from good reliable sources. Funny how there is so much the media won't talk about that alternative media does then it gets branded as conspiractorial.

big media is conspiratorial simply for picking and choosing what they show. What we don't know could fill volumes


[edit on 2-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
big media is conspiratorial simply for picking and choosing what they show. What we don't know could fill volumes


And that.... drives me nuts with frustration. I´m gonna get a lobotomy and sit in a chair drooling, with the only excitement in my life being the five ´o clock pudding.

Maybe not just yet.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join