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.

 

The Fair Skeptic Registry

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
"The "Roswell Proof: Where is it?" thread MAY be recoverable through Google cache." == eaglewingz

THIS IS PRIME OBJECTIVE 1.
Eaglewingz, I think certain honors have been promised here. If the mods forget, perhaps
they can shift half my points to you. Maybe those links will hold till I can copy it all this time.
If you can locate the rest, heck you can have all my points.
KUDOS and Thanks.




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
The "Roswell Proof: Where is it?" thread MAY be recoverable through Google cache. It's somewhat hit and miss, but here's a few pages:

Page 9
Page 11
Page 10
Page 20


[edit on 12/28/2006 by eaglewingz]


Although probably off-topic, given the interest shown in this subject by Springer (in addition to Nightwing), I hope no one will mind me posting links to a few more of the missing pages (with thanks to Nightwing for responding to my request by U2U yesterday to supply the relevant thread number to help search the cache).

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14 is at the web address below, although I can't seem to get the link working properly within ATS. You'll have to cut and paste the address (unless some kind moderator sorts out my linking problem...):
Page 14

Also, here is a link which gives access to 69 single posts. I have not checked to see if these single posts are all covered by the above pages. It is possible that some of the posts are from some of the missing pages.

Some single posts from the missing thread

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

[edit on 29-12-2006 by IsaacKoi]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I've found a few more pages (possibly incomplete) from the "Roswell Proof: Where is it?" thread within my personal cache.

If other members of ATS have run the Google Desktop tool (which is a very useful tool for searching your hard drive, including the contents of your documents and your web cache) then it is extremely likely that they can supplement the pages that have so far been found in the Google Cache and my personal cache.

I've uploaded the pages from my personal cache to Yousendit.com, so the links below will only be valid for the next 7 days.

To download the relevant webpages, click on the links below and then click on "Download Now":

Page 1

Page 15

Page 23

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Perhaps no one will touch the issue of the destroyed 24 page thread and the banned author (whether destroyed by accident or design) is because questioning the motives for anything that happens on ATS usually leads to some significant backlash.



Always,
Shawnna


Another broad brush statement of pure bollocks by someone who doesn't know anything about the specific details of the situation...


Shawnna, why don't you put your axe up or at least go grind it somewhere else?


Eaglewingz NICE WORK on finding the thread in the Google Cache!


Springer...

[edit on 12-29-2006 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
See what I mean, folks?



Once again Springer, you assume I know nothing about the situation.




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Now was there really a need for that question?
Since you failed to answer it; i guess it was.


Anyways.. My point was: are this actually going to involve leg work?

Cause if you are going to research stuff, just to sit behind a computer claiming true or false isn't really research.. It's just giving a oppinion.

I admit I havent read the thread but I doubt that most of you really have the expertise in the various areas to make this project valid. (See, the skeptics just got skeptic'd ;])

With that said, I think this is much better then the usual reptilian world order threads =)


Btw, Is there any way to change my forum name?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Well I'd like to register myself in this.

I am probably considered a skeptic by many, and I am skeptical
about alot of the claims made, but I don't just say that something
is fake without doing some research into it.

Well, unless it's the whole galactic UN thing.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
See what I mean, folks?




No.

When you try to insinuate that the site owners will punish users for things not against the T&C when they're blatantly have never, and will never... Then they're going to tell you that it's not appreciated.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I don't assume anything, I know you don't know the details, you don't have access to my email or the executive forums of this site where the whole ordeal went down. The member was banned because he threw a fit about us not wanting to host NASA Pictures he copied off the NASA site to save him the bandwidth charges on his site he was starting up. He violated the TAC in several ways and he was on VERY THIN ICE before he went off over that issue.

The proof you don't what you're talking about is the fact you want to connect the thread in question with his banning, which are COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED. Simon went to ban him and accidentally hit the delete all posts button instead.

This is the last time I am going over this, I am BUSY with NEW things that are valuable and don't have the time or the patience for dealing with MYTHOLOGY, BOLLOCKS or yesterday's drama.

DRAMA OVER Shawnna, the topic is a registry not Shawnna's wannabe mysterious snide innuendo mission.


Get back on the topic or leave the thread.

Springer...


[edit on 12-29-2006 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Phoenix Lights Case thread is finally up!

There's actually more I wanted to add, but I didn't realize the DVR recording is limited in duration, even when choosing "till I erase", so my Travel Channel special, which identified witnesses not apparently id'd on the web (at least in my research), was lost to me as a reference, other than my screen captures.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
"Another broad brush statement of pure bollocks by someone who doesn't know
anything about the specific details of the situation... " == Springer

Precisely. But YOUR perceptions are based upon a knowledge that others
lack. From your prior post:

"As was explained when it happened, Simon Gray accidentally deleted all the posts one
Member made while trying to do something else in the admin control panel." == Springer

Explained to whom ? It has taken me considerable research effort to reach the point
where YOUR perceptions and my own can overlap. Been there.....done that.

"Shawnna, why don't you put your axe up or at least go grind it somewhere else?" == Springer

Again, your perception. And Shawnna, as the ONLY one in here with the gumption to question
anomolous indicators, is drawing the fire away from the risk I have already assumed. I cannot
let that happen. What has occurred here is an admission of error. It is a HARD thing for
anyone to admit a mistake. Yet the trait is a positive one, not negative. Let the person
who has NEVER made a mistake cast the first stone.
I have posted a hint about behaviour in the mind control thread. At the point where I start
to observe classic, autonomous behaviour on ATS, YOU GOT MY ATTENTION.
My hypothesis is that it is an accidental control resulting from random, rather than intentional,
actions by ATS. My data collection here is supporting that hypothesis so far. Enuf of that.
Several convoluted issues are also involved that may indicate intent where there was other
mistakes by accident. So the risk is real and well articulated by Shawnna. Apology to
Shawnna, if I had been more direct it would have been unnecessary for anyone to guess
what I had described.

"This is the last time I am going over this, I am BUSY with NEW things that are valuable and
don't have the time or the patience for dealing with MYTHOLOGY, BOLLOCKS or
yesterday's drama." == Springer

It is not my habit to deal with BOLLOCKS or yesterdays drama. If you desire drama,
simply bump this thread every four or five hours. I picked this thread with care because it is
on topic, attracts few members, but most likely those very members who have data to share.
I want Milgram's 37, to borrow an insite from another thread, NOT Milgram's 63.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
You keep talking about some imagined "risk" and you aren't making any sense. THIS thread is about a REGISTRY not some paranoid delusion that you are at some sort of "risk" (risk of what?!) over a thread that was accidentally deleted. I am TIRED of covering the same ground.

If your "risk" actually existed (it DOES NOT), and we were a nefarious lot, you'd be gone by now wouldn't you?

Keep up the drama attempts however and you will be gone. NOT because of some non existent "risk" or accidentally deleted thread but because I am asking you to STAY ON TOPIC and you would do well heed the TAC.

Start your own thread about risks and deleted threads if you must, it won't be assaulted I assure you, BUT GET ON TOPIC NOW in this one! It's just getting silly.

Springer...



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Springer- maybe you'd like to explain what happened to LHC or Access Denied.
After all you piled on the points and then blocked them from posting.
Shawnna is the only one who seems the least bit interested in the truth.
Too bad the only serious UFO investigators here are relegated to little more than defenders of the the truth.

Gazrok- You should post more often. Your an oasis in the turbulent seas.
The voice of reason and all that.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
"not some paranoid delusion " == Springer

I am not the one repeating this perception.

"I am TIRED of covering the same ground" == Springer

Many here have never seen this ground before.

" and we were a nefarious lot, you'd be gone by now wouldn't you? " == Springer

Omit the "nefarious lot" part and you are there. I do not believe ATS has been
that way until recently and I believe it was an accident. I would think you would
be very interested as well, as would this very group forming here. If its not an
accident, then ATS is beginning to dabble in filtering Milgram's 37. Is this
group next ?

"Start your own thread about risks and deleted threads if you must, it won't be assaulted
I assure you, BUT GET ON TOPIC NOW in this one! It's just getting silly. " == Springer

The missing thread which I believe is an excellent lesson-learned demonstration for
thelibra's group is now available in this thread. How did we go from gratitude to
just getting silly ? Oh well, what do you suggest as to topic and location, Springer ?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
How did we go from gratitude to
just getting silly ? Oh well, what do you suggest as to topic and location, Springer ?


Repitition and negative inuendo (inuendo in general just pisses me off - I like insults straight up) combined with my brain being tired from dealing with hundreds of other issues all day.

I don't want to be non grateful, BUT you could have restored the missing thread and not gone off on all these tangents too right?


I don't have a suggestion, I don't care about it, it's meaningless to me because I know the facts, I am one of three owners I know everything that happens here. What you are thinking of is so far from reality it doesn't even register. Sorry if that sounds "mean" it's just the facts.

Pick an appropriate forum, be polite and have at it.


Springer...

[edit on 12-29-2006 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
"I don't want to be non grateful, BUT you could have restored the missing thread
and not gone off on all these tangents too right?" == Springer

As I told you by U2U, I cannot. But I know there are those who have the talents
to do such things. I wanted it back, not just a few bits and pieces. I know there
are those on ATS who have the talent to accomplish this, and those are the very
folks who would be collecting in here. I should not have to remind you that
this is a conspiracy site. The "tangents" I have demonstrated were tailored to
solicit the UNBIASED efforts of those who can restore it. There was a probability
I would not succeed. But I did the best I can at minimizing that probability.

"I like insults straight up" == Springer

And I do NOT like insulting anyone. But given the interchange between you and
Shawnna, it is pretty obvious to me that a direct approach that can be interpreted
that way is the path of failure. I prefer the higher probability of success.
In any event, it is accomplished, but the real work goes to Isaac Koi and
eaglewingz. I trust the "gratitude" will go to them. I have my own reward.

"Pick an appropriate forum, be polite and have at it." == Springer

Thank You. And please dont be a stranger there.

"What you are thinking of is so far from reality it doesn't even register. " == Springer

Excellent definition of "out-of-the-box". May I quote you elsewhere ?



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
THE VIEW FROM THE CHEAP SEATS ...

Nightwing - For someone who didn't want to be involved as a member of the the registry, for whatever reason, you certainly seem to be determined to be a controlling voice, and a beacon of, self-perceived, wisdom and guidance.

I don't see that you proved anything other than an accidentally deleted thread can be made to appear to be the work of willfully evil intent. At some point we are going to have to simply assume that, in this particular instance, the way Springer says it happened is simply ... The way it happened. If that is not so, then why do you stay here supposedly putting your membership on the line for no reason other than just to say you are doing so? Not every error is evil in intent. Some are just plain human error. Further, it is apparent that, had a few of the people involved in the original thread gotten together by u2u or by posting another thread asking for help, then all the recovery and replacement of data could have been done without all the drama, and innuendo.

I perceive there is every possibility that now that I have stood up for Springer, et al., that I will be seen to be some part of the continuous attempt to obfuscate or otherwise, in some way, control what goes on within the confines of ATS. So be it. I am not, and either my word is good enough, or it is not. Your choice... I don't care that much what you think in that regard.

Interestingly, the dissenting voices who have posted in this thread all seem to be intent on showing us why something like this couldn't work. "It's been done like this before, unsuccessfully", seems to be the Henny-Penny cry.

Other's, who couldn't be bothered to be members, are in here telling us how we should do it, and why it won't work if what we do doesn't fall, specifically, into their paradigm or illusion, of how it should be done.

Paranoia only carries anyone so far. After that, it becomes necessary to provide evidence that claims are valid. As it is in the world of UFOs, so it is in life, in general.

Not to, continuously, beat a drum, however, it seems that some of the folks who have made a majority of the posts on this thread are doing so for reasons that have little bearing on the intent of the people who signed on for the group. This thread wasn't started to give a sounding board to folks who want to be all negative and nay-saying or who seem to be intent on bad-mouthing or putting other members in a bad light. It was started to find out if anyone is interested in giving their best shot at being a fair-minded skeptic regarding all the evidence that comes in on UFO phenomena.

At the risk of sounding like a motivational poster hanging on a wall in an office, somewhere, "If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem" ... And that most particularly applies to your publicly stated "non-involvement". So, with that, I suggest that if it wasn't important enough to you to be a founding member and/or a guiding light, that you sit back and see how it goes. We might fall on our faces, but at least we were all interested enough to put our names on the list and attempt to do it without all the preconceived notions of failure and negative intent that you and a few others are so freely being thrown around.

Shawnna with to N Ns - Is it possible that Springer is not really bound and determined to be beating on you? Is it possible that you are simply taking whatever he says in that fashion? This isn't the only thread, as I vaguely recall, where you appear to have gotten into that mindset. And before you bash on me, consider that I have had words with Springer too. He docked me 1000 points for misusing the Tag feature. However, it's not a big deal. Life is meant to be gotten on with. Today doesn't always have to be the same as yesterday. And I certainly don't hate Springer for whatever misunderstanding of the forum I may have had ... At least not after sending him a u2u in which I rather openly accused him of getting his jollies over deducting the 1000 points.


You have to understand that, at any given moment, people are operating with the best tools they have available at that time. That includes Springer, as well as you. Why don't you give him a chance and see how it goes? It might be that he does, in fact, have it in for you. However, it's also possible, and far more likely that one slip, or one error on his part has set the tenor for the relationship from your perspective. And he can't get out from under that particular perception.

Just thoughts and I am waiting for all the superior intellects to sweep me back to the cheap seats.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
THE VIEW FROM THE CHEAP SEATS ...

Shawnna with to N Ns - Is it possible that Springer is not really bound and determined to be beating on you? Is it possible that you are simply taking whatever he says in that fashion? This isn't the only thread, as I vaguely recall, where you appear to have gotten into that mindset. And before you bash on me, consider that I have had words with Springer too. He docked me 1000 points for misusing the Tag feature. However, it's not a big deal. Life is meant to be gotten on with. Today doesn't always have to be the same as yesterday. And I certainly don't hate Springer for whatever misunderstanding of the forum I may have had ... At least not after sending him a u2u in which I rather openly accused him of getting his jollies over deducting the 1000 points.


You have to understand that, at any given moment, people are operating with the best tools they have available at that time. That includes Springer, as well as you. Why don't you give him a chance and see how it goes? It might be that he does, in fact, have it in for you. However, it's also possible, and far more likely that one slip, or one error on his part has set the tenor for the relationship from your perspective. And he can't get out from under that particular perception.

Just thoughts and I am waiting for all the superior intellects to sweep me back to the cheap seats.


Why would I bash you for asking a question? That is not my style.

In answer to your question as to 'whether it is simply my perception that Springer is bound and determined to beat on me' - I suppose that is a possibility. Nightwing seems to grasp what is going on here quite well - the direct approach only works on a one-way path.

And your recollection is accurate - I do not share Springer's opinion of one of his ATS 'stars' and have been quite public, and polite, about that. Lesson learned - it is never smart to challenge at least one of the owner's here - regardless of their ATS = Altruism - Trust - Sincerity PR campaign.



With respect to this particular incident, I do find it quite odd that two of my posts (one posted to replace the original) in this thread that Springer felt were "off topic" were deleted with his 'magic delete button' - and a rather harsh U2U was received. The U2U was a warning not to post anything off topic again in this thread. Seems to me quite a few other ATS members have "off topic" posts in this thread that have not been arbitrarily deleted.

And finally -

It is sad that for the first time in my experience here I find myself saving screen shots of threads, as well as posts, just in case they disappear and I need evidence.



Always,
Shawnna


[edit on 30-12-2006 by Shawnna]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
If you are so distressed here why do you keep coming back? I don't know what your problem is and I really don't care.

Nor am I able to understand what perceived "damage" you have received in this or any other interchange we've had wherein you continually jump in with a snide innuendo or snipe. Is the "damage" or "danger" you seem to think exists that I respond in harsh manner? PLEASE...


I am tired of dealing with you and your attitude. I am human, I get worn out from constantly being pecked at by people who seemingly have NOTHING to offer but their negativity and their paranoid suspicion. When i get aggravated I get pissy. Go figure.

I deleted your two off topic posts in the hope of salvaging this thread, I give up now. Have your drama, I don't care. I have much better things to do with my time.

Why don't you go somewhere you ENJOY instead of constantly trying to discover some non existent plot here?


Springer...

[edit on 12-30-2006 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Seeing as thelibra's topic has been forgotten, here it is:


Originally posted by thelibra
It occurs to me that more and more skeptics are getting a bad name because of hecklers who will always cry "photochop" or "hoax" without even a cursory examination of the evidence. Likewise, there are those who will cry "brilliant" or "genuine" without even doing a contrast check to see the string holding the paper plate in the photo. This schism is really starting to tear apart some of the membership here.

I'd like to extend this thread as a sort of olive branch between the UFOlogists and the Skeptics.

What I propose is that skeptics, like myself, whom are willing to give UFO cases a fair go, examine the evidence, and present an unbiased finding, drop their card in this thread. We can police our own easily enough, and hopefully we can draw a definitive line between the automatic "nay-sayers and yes-men", and those whom would give UFO cases an honest hard look at the facts, and then present a lucid case as to why we arrived at our conclusions.

Then, if a UFOlogist honestly believes they have something genuine, they can U2U the people on this list a link to their thread and ask for their analysis. Or, I suppose, alternately, they could just post a link in this thread.

Anyway, if the "Fair Skeptics" would like to put themselves on the list as good representatives of the skeptic community, maybe we can start bridging the gap that's forming. Feel free to list any special talents you have or qualifications for verifying or debunking cases.


This thread is about calm and cooperation. Let's get back it it please.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join