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.

 

Most Convincing Evidence on ATS

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
First, let me apologize if this is the wrong forum for this.

About every day we get "100% proof!" threads. Someone posts a picture, or video, tells a story, or shares a link that absolutely demonstrates the actuality of a claim.

Within an hour, it's been debunked 3 times.

So, here is my question, with our millions of posts, has anyone really posted anything convincing? I'm sure there are thousands of well researched theories, but does anything even come close to "proving" the existance of the subject?

I don't care if it's a UFO, Bigfoot, Ghosts, 9/11 conspiracy, the driver killed JFK, etc...Has anything EVER surfaced that proves beyond OUR debunking ability the reality of the subject?

If so, what was it, and why is this piece so infallible?

We get tons of submissions every day, but after all these years, all these many threads, has anyone uncovered something that we cannot debunk?

If there are in fact, "good, solid pieces of evidence" post them here for easy reference, or let's talk to the Staff and see if we could have something on the main page that directs the member to "Real Evidence" gathered.

We are always looking to Deny Ignorance. What would be more representative of that motto, than an easily acessible archive of real evidence uncovered by our members?




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
No. It has been proven time and time again that everybody who posts on an internet forum are crackpots.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I like your post.

I agree that solid stuff should be collected and archived. In such an archive there are two types of truth we could collect: hard evidence, facts and experiental evidence, meaning that someone experienced something and his story comes across as honest/authentic.

the problem really is that nearly anything can seem to have been "proven" and nearly everything can seem to have been "debunked". If someone is a good manipulator of words he can prove/debunk almost anything.

Thats why the archive would not be based on single people who are either pro or con biased, but on how the overall members of ATS VOTE for a subject.

All in all, weeding out the honest stuff (honest story, honest research) from the sensationalist stuff and the extremely biased stuff is probably the PURPOSE of ATS in the first place. And I would assume that someone "up there" in the administrative section is doing just that.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JellyBeanGirl
No. It has been proven time and time again that everybody who posts on an internet forum are crackpots.


And contrary to popular conceptions, not everybody (globally) has access to, or knowledge of, forums such as this for presenting their evidence. A large percentage of those who could post their info would be inclined not to because of the perceived ridicule that always follows such revelations.

Faked evidence only has one purpose - to be presented as widely as possible. So the *real* data will be vastly outnumbered by false reports but statistically there will be the occasional rare gem we're all watching for



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I came in to read your thread with caution, but you know I think you may have stumbled onto a great idea! If there were such a place designated it would have to be up to the Administrators to make the final judgement as to weather it fits the criteria of belonging in the hall of fame. Good!



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Faked evidence only has one purpose - to be presented as widely as possible. So the *real* data will be vastly outnumbered by false reports but statistically there will be the occasional rare gem we're all watching for


So you are saying the real evidence is hidden due to any number of reasons. That sounds like a very convenient argument to having zero undeniable proof of anything.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I know that 911 theories persistently claim evidence of a coverup, and there is a coverup IMNSHO. Note the news stories reported that fatefull day.

All remarks made by reporters that do not uphold the official story have been scrubbed.

All eye witness quotes made that day are not left accessible unless you look them up on the internet, from non MSM sources.

The lack of answers that actually address legitimate questions, such as Why was there no true crime scene investigation, and the protocols of such followed at the World Trade Center crime scene?

Why were the recordings of flight responders destroyed immediately, by their supervisor? Wouldn't this be cited as tampering with evidence? Apparently not if you cover a big enough A$$et.

Why was NORAD told to stand down?

Why have the Pentagon recordings been kept away from the public eye? And please that five frame video clip they tried to use as a placebo isn't good enough to convince anyone with the IQ of a gnat that what they saw was actually a The Boeing 747, (commonly nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet", is a long-haul, widebody commercial airliner manufactured by Boeing. Known for its impressive size). NOT.

How did an unskilled pilot who could not even fly a small Cessna Aircraft manage the aerial manuvers that even seasoned airline pilots admit that they would personally find nearly impossible to acheive such aeronautical maneuvers so completely successfully?

My take? These are only a couple of unanswered questions. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Eat up, or no desert for you! What's for desert you may wonder? Well, first your going to have to swallow the second course. The one that is not if, but, when. Don't worry though, it will be a just desert!
One made up of unanswered questions for all the puddin heads out there who like swallowing canal water, and calling it pudding.



[edit on 9/2/2007 by Churchmouse]

[edit on 9/2/2007 by Churchmouse]

[edit on 9/2/2007 by Churchmouse]

[edit on 9/2/2007 by Churchmouse]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So you are saying the real evidence is hidden due to any number of reasons. That sounds like a very convenient argument to having zero undeniable proof of anything.


Absolutely undeniable proof is almost impossible to achieve in the eyes of all especially in the case of sensational claims that challenge a conventional sense of reality shared by the majority. A lot of would-be genuine presenters of such evidence simply don't want to attempt to convince a potentially hostile audience.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JellyBeanGirl
 


Did you not just post on an internet forum?

I think the idea of voting on and/or cataloging evidence is great.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I really do think that there should be an archive for exceptional proof, or at very least, strong supporting evidence for a theory. There could be two categories.

Solid Proof would need to meet the strictest criteria. This is the embodiment of Denying Ignorance. ATS Staff and other senior members would have to vote to determine if something is deserving of the Solid Proof Stamp.

Under Solid Proof there could potentially be two categories.
#1 Digital Media, exceptional pictures, videos, etc.
#2 Physical items ATS may obtain such as an "alien implant", declassified documents, and such.

Then, if there is a lesser category, it may be called "Supporting Evidence."
The criteria is less strict here, but there are still some serious guidelines that need to be met.

Each item in in Supporting Evidence is not strong enough to act as a stand-alone piece, but with enough other semi-solid articles, a strong case could be made.

These could be placed in categories such as:
Pro Alien
Con Alien
Pro 9/11
Con 9/11
Pro Crypto
Con Crypto

etc etc.

Under each category, one could view various pieces that support a specific type of claim. The evidence in each category, while good, is not strong enough to function as a stand-alone piece which would be reserved for the Solid Proof section of our evidence archive.

We are here to Deny Ignorance, but let's face it, without the evidence to support our claims, one way or another, we're just another debate forum. We're here to find the TRUTH. That is what the archive is meant to do.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreySwordsman
 


Love the idea. The more action the better . Discussion and debate will only take an issue so far and then there is really no use talking about it anymore. Without evidence no one will alter their origianal positition and its all just conjecture.

How can this really be implemented? A person should be able to log onto a thread and see/read for themselves all the supporting evidence to support an idea or theory related to the topic.

Timeframe?

Who would be responsible for compiling and editing? I don't think it should be limited to Mods(no offence). It should be a panel of ATS members knowledgeable to the specific category (pro or con).



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


The panel that decides what meets the criteria need not be all mods. However, it shouldn't be upon to just anyone. We all know there are a lot of people here that chime in about things that they don't have sufficient knowledge about, well intentioned though they may be.

As far as implementing it, it would be harder to set it up and maintain it.

For example, there's a good UFO picture in the UFO/alien forum. A member of the panel presents it to the rest for consideration. If it meets the criteria for Solid Proof, a link or download would be made for it, and it would be placed in it's appropriate category with some information about it.

If the photo does not quite make the cut for Solid Proof it could be filed under Supporting Evidence, under the "Pro UFO" Category.

Then, if the picture just wansn't of a high enough quality, it could be ignored.

Only high quality material should be considered for placement. What is high quality? The criteria could be determined by a member of the panel who is looking for at least a certain degree of quality, whether in sound, picture clarity, etc. If it meets that person's cut, it can be presented to the panel.

This would need to be an ongoing project, as new documents/vmedia are made available to us. Also, as technology changes, we may then be able to further review current pieces of evidence to see if they still make the cut.

Here at ATS, we're all about Denying Ignorance. Uncovering the truth, one way or another. If there's a claim, we gather the best evidence available to us to support the claim, and place it in the archive for easy access. Then the viewer could raed the write up, look at the evidence, and make their on decision.

By actually gathering evidence, that puts us yet another step above the rest. We're not just debating topics, we're trying to find the truth. We won't just accept what we're told. Deny Ignorance.

Evidence that we archive should really be top-knotch. Since it can be viewed by others, our reputation for research is really on the line. The panel needs to be pretty confident in whatever ruling they come up with. It may not be as good as a UFO landing on the White House lawn. However, the evidence should be strong enough to go to court with(not that I'm suggesting legal action)

Here at ATS, it's all about quality control. That's why new features keep appearing. The staff is trying to offer the highest quality experience possible. Archiving top-knotch evidence to further our mantra "Deny Ignorance" would further raise the bar.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
You know the poster is lying every time theres a "smoking gun!!!" or "100% proof" thread.

This is usually backed up by the lack of any flags. TBH I think they should start banning the attention seekers because while they are not hoaxing, they are just achieving the same thing of cluttering up forums by their lack of intelligence.

This forum is infiltrated with liars, hoaxers and just plain old wackos. It used to be a place where normal people could discuss strange or off the track subject.

Oh and FWIW, I keep on hoping evidence will turn up but just end up debunking 90%, just take a look of the thread where a guy takes a pic of a dark group of bushes at night an he thinks they are aliens

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Flyer]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer


Oh and FWIW, I keep on hoping evidence will turn up but just end up debunking 90%, just take a look of the thread where a guy takes a pic of a dark group of bushes at night an he thinks they are aliens

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Flyer]


It's that last 10% I'm concerned with. Of the thousands of pictures and documents we get every year, at least 10% must be pretty good, and at least 5% of the pretty good must be worthy or "Solid Proof."

Those sensationalist headlines, we all know what those are about. Those people wanna be the ones with the next big thread that gets plastered to the top of the forum, or keeps resurfacing forever like out "Big" threads. They figure controversial stuff like taht will get them points. That's about it.

But that's not what THIS thread is about. This is about finding the highest quality material that we get, and archiving it for easy access.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I meant 90% is not even worth thinking about. The 10% can be debated as worthy or not but its getting harder and harder to sift through the crap to get to the worthy stuff.

Can anyone list anything truly amazing that has been true, especially, if it had "smoking gun" or "100% proof" in the title?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I could imagine that the admistrators have already come up with this idea and will someday be publishing the most interesting and conclusive stuff in book format. maybe thats an aboveaboveaboveabovetopsecret project.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Why not invite the membership to vote in polls on specific pieces of evidence, those getting a majority in the "real" category being added to.....a Hall of Fame type deal?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
ATS Hall of Fame. Thats a good idea. Lets suggest this to the administration.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
ATS Hall of Fame. Thats a good idea. Lets suggest this to the administration.



Apparently people can't stop arguing with each other long enough to even look at this thread. lol Come on ATS! Whatcha think?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zenagain
 


Hall of Fame - Love it!

Hall of Shame - 50% of anything on the boards right now.

We have to get past the hype in our threads. We need more serious discussion and debate. I think the OP's idea is the way to do it. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading a grocery store tabloid.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join