It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


do you believe what you read

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:39 PM
regarding conspiracies, prophecies, global warming, and of coarse aliens when you read it from ats?

do you come here for fun and to fool around or do you really believe the stuff people post? some headers just make me want to laugh really loud.
you know what i mean.

those certain people with certain threads relating to a certain day that something is supposed to happen trying to brainwash people into getting bombshelters and stockpiles of food, those people.

well do you believe what you read or do you finally know information is edited for political reasons???

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:48 PM
I believe some of what I read. Some of it is a bit farfetched for me. (i.e., The Dulce Papers, Phillip Schneider, and most of the secret society stuff)

Most of the time, I have 8-10 instances of Firefox open with search results because I like to read up on all these things I don't know about that are being mentioned.

I find some weird stuff sometimes.

I actually found a Notepad document with all the words that trigger the Govt. to start the monitoring process, in regards to Echelon. That was very interesting to me. I Googled most of them, but I haven't seen anybody following me...yet.

It's mostly entertainment and a means for me to ask questions. None of my friends, co-workers, or even my fiancee are remotely interested in anything I'm interested in, so this is all I have.

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:59 PM

No I do not believe everything I read. I do not even bother with some threads but I like to read as much as I can from thread titles that
attract my interest.

It is good to share information and then it is interesting to do the research and come up with your own conclusion based on that your either a)given or b) uncover further from leads given. I am often relcutant to share my conclusion/theories for fear of being called a wacko or rebuked (some here at ATS can be quite nasty).

At the end of the day, I prefer to know what may or may not happen...not be hit between the eyes and ignorant if and when it does eventually come.

Yeah, some stuff is way out there and good for laugh and at times I read things that really grab me and spark my need to know more.

It is all food for thought and that is a good thing...well I think it is...just got to separate the wheat from the chaff

[edit on 12-1-2007 by resistancia]

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:12 PM
Well, I don't believe everything I read. You have to remember there is a certain element of the paranoid in regard to conspiracy theories. But, most rumors start for a reason, usually an element of truth. We have the trash tabloids. And what we have seen with them is even though we poke fun of them many times their rumors turn out to be true (although not always).

As for the "survivalists" and "bomb shelterists", well, they've been around since the first atomic bomb was dropped back in the 1940's. Alot of people that have built these things are dead and buried....their apocolypse never came......but hey, who's to say. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

[edit on 12-1-2007 by rocknroll]

[edit on 13-1-2007 by rocknroll]

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:52 AM
The problem about conspiricy theories, whether true, false or a little of both, is they are the snake that eats it's own tale. Any set of unusual events can be speculated and confabulated into a conspiricy, any conspiricy, no matter how compelling, can be dismissed or debunked by the glib addendum 'just another paranoid conspiricy theory'. They exist in a perfect balance whereas most if not all will never progress beyond the skeptic/believer impass. I suspect to many that's part of there appeal to be honest.

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:07 AM
I figure that about 10% of what I read (total) is true.

I used to read a HUGE batch of various wing periodicals. I figured if I read it several places at once, it my be something.

Some of the more interesting I used to read:

The Spotlight - a conspiracy newspaper from the right wing. It broke several of the leading stories of the 1990's. Including several Clinton scandals. It got famous when A PBS journalist admitted using it as a source for his "breaking" stories.

The Revolutionary Worker - The official newspaper of the revolutionary communist party of the USA

Saucer Smear - UFO journal

Submitter Magazine - Islamist quarterly that dissappeared after the second WTC bombing.

. . . and various Dr. Bronner's Castile Soap labels.

But now we have this here intarweb. And it's like the Rio Grande: a mile wide, but an inch deep. And so nobody does research anymore, or sources anything. Isn't it easier this way??

all the best.

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 05:49 AM
the problem even though you may not believe what you read, it is still influening you just because you read it, it has become part of you.

so no one can say whether they believe what they read or not, all we can say is that we think we don't believe it, while we don't know how what we read affects us inside.

personally i take everything here with a pich of salt, once you have read aload of this stuff you know where topics will go etc... hardly anyone has anything original to say these days it seems.

for government sources it would be hard to believe any one today, becuase mind control is so strong that, you would not know whether the person is telling the real facts because he may just be replaying what they want him to say, i.e bob lazarr (may have some truths but his info must be filled with lies, and he probably knows he has been used, and if you hear him speak, he knows about the mind control technologies available to these people).

a good example of how they manipulate the truth is 911, where the only real truth we know is that a plane hit the twin towers, we saw it live on tv. after that we have to take every story with a pinch of salt, because these people are masters at manipulating the truth and the general public. even if you had truths and came out with it, it would just be told to others in a sea of lies, and nobody is going to be able to tell what is truth and false, because everything is blurry these days.

even they tell you nowadays what you learn in science in school are not truths, they just teach you those things, to see if your able to retain that info, and give it back to them in exams. what you actually learn does not have to be real facts.

also take any non-fiction book of any shelve, read it and you will see, all it is is someone trying to project there opinions into others, does not need to contain fatcs, its just people think if they read it in books, it must be true, which cannot be true, for a very simple reason. we have endless supply of books these days, that have looked at every topic in every way imaginable, how can every book be right on each subject.

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:11 AM
I take everything with a grain of salt. Everyone reports events upon their bias wether it is their personal opinion or the company who owns them. If its on the internet i would thuroughly reaserch it before taking it as truth.

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:09 AM
I think that we all have a built in BS meter!! I definitely don't believe everything that I read but every now again I come across something that just 'feels' right. Isn't there some sort of saying about believing a percentage of what you see and then even less of what you read?

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:59 PM
I don't believe most of what I read. I am sure that once people start lying, especially about very big issues, they have to prop up the old lies with new ones. This makes truly knowing anything nearly impossible for me.

Concerning the conspiracy I'm most interested in, that being extraterrestrial visitation and its cover up, I only accept information that lines up with my opinion with what is actually happening. Which makes most of the UFO/ET news useless to me.

Since I am certain that extraterrestrial visitation is real I have to assume all government and media sources are lying to me as well as the contemporary scientific establishment which ignores the subject completely despite ongoing credible sightings throughout the decades since the 1968 Condon Report and 1969 closing of Project Blue Book. They were lying then and they're lying now.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by Frith]

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 01:29 AM
I think the truth is in the middle. Considering the fact of zealots of both sides there have to be happenings at one time or another. I fear many times they aren't as romantic as some may feel they are.

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 03:20 PM
I look at the source. If they've had a reliable track record of not putting out BS, or having been debunked continuously, they'll have a higher credibility factor. If the only source is a conspiracy site, with no corroboration anywhere else, I'll probably not entertain the assertions.
There are agendas everywhere, but I'm not so sure that there's a conspiracy behind every bush.

new topics

top topics


log in