'Chorlton' spooks and the NSA

Originally posted by cams
Well if I was in the NSA, CIA etc, I would ensure that this site was thoroughly monitored and have COINTELPRO, misinformation, disinformation, bogus leads etc to throw people off the truth.

If I ran the NSA, CIA etc I'd ban my agents from wasting their times reading rubbish like ATS. Bad enough 1 Fox Mulder without a whole department believing every faint blemish in a photo is proof that aliens shot JFK ......

Although on a serious note, perhaps having someone monitor discussions to see if the public can give them leads on issues which their own agents haven't picked up, might not be a bad idea.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by Essan]

reply to post by Copernicus


Now, now. Every single word you posted now has to be 'proved'

Of course I'm just stirring, but that's how things seem to be when any comment is made.
Can anyone prove that ET's don't exist. I mean real solid proof....

Can anyone prove that ET's don't exist. I mean real solid proof....

No. And I don't know anyone who has looked into the subject and doesn't believe that ETs exist somewhere in the universe.

But the improbability of ETs being able to reach earth, and coincidently doing so now rather than during, say, any other 10,000 year period in the past 4,600,000,000 years can be demonstrated mathematically.

There are numerous logical arguments against current alien visitation as well.

reply to post by Essan


So what if some valuable information ever comes to light on here that the government cannot afford to get in the public domain (due to various reasons such as national security, current or future black operations etc). Do you think that they would just let it slide or actually make an effort to debunk, discredit or mislead the readers?

In the 9/11 truth movement there are numerous characters that obviously pedal disinformation (eg POD theories, no planes etc) and in turn damage the credibility of some genuine researchers and the 9/11 movement as a whole.

So there wouldn't be any disinformation spreaders on here then? I can't see any logical reasons why there would not be.

edit: posted a word twice.There are probably some spelling mistakes too. getting late!

[edit on 10-10-2007 by cams]

Originally posted by cams
In the 9/11 truth movement there are numerous characters that obviously pedal disinformation (eg POD theories, no planes etc) and damage in turn damage the credibility of some genuine researchers and the 9/11 movement as a whole.

So there wouldn't be any disinformation spreaders on here then? I can't see any logical reasons why there would not be.

I don't think genuine, paid, disinformationists are needed simply because so many people are ready and willing to peddle such silly ideas.

Actually, thinking about it, I don't doubt that members of the NSA, CIA etc read ATS and may well post on it. After all, why not? I know professional meteorologists read and sometimes post on amateur meteorological forums. But I certainly haven't come across anyone on the 'skeptical side' whom I'd suspect of posting here in a 'professional' capacity as it were.

Although I do sometimes have my doubts about a certain Mr Lear

reply to post by Essan



In my opinion, we don't know enough about time and space to be so arrogant to say that ET's could not possibly make it here.

It's interesting how all the myths, legends, religious stories, etc coming from all parts of the globe (when traveling great distance was very difficult) have held up for thousands of years. Perhaps some of these events really did happen?

reply to post by Essan



Yes but you have to ask yourself who peddles these ideas and for what purpose.

Originally posted by cams
... for what purpose.

As a long time observer of humans, I'm inclined to think the most common reason for disinformation and cover up is to avoid the discovery of incompetence or financial dishonesty.

Theres nothing wrong with skepticism. Skepticism, meaning that you remain completely neutral until you have carefully analyzed all available evidence (if there wasn't enough presented, ask for more -- or try finding it yourself) and then presenting your conclusion in a non condescending and unchildish manner.

That's the only way you'll be contributing to the whole point of this site -- to deny ignorance. But unfortunately from what I've seen lately, very few on this board are capable of such decency. Instead, we have the majority of so called 'skeptics' blindly promoting arrogance, ignorance, immaturity and worst of all -- wasting the precious time we have here as humans in being able to work with each other and find the TRUTH. They do this by drawing the attention away from the core of the subject, and manifesting childish debacles of senseless argument -- about whether he or she is a disinfo agent, or a looney.

It may not be the work of 'disinfo agents', as they're called, but in that case -- why on earth would such be needed? Already a perfect job of it being done by our very selves!

And I'll admit, we have culprits on both sides of the table here. Both fit the exact same description, just have different titles. Who started it doesn't really matter now -- all that matters, is that the guilty party from BOTH sides grow the hell up. THEN, maybe we can even make some progress.

It's my oppinion, that if this simple request is too hard for each side to come to terms with -- that more strict rules need to be imposed by those in charge of this amazing community. I feel that the users of this website should have more freedom in making their own decisions. That means no repeatedly pushing your cynical comments onto others without anything meaningful to contribute to the subject from which the discussion was derived.

Providing balance is all well and good, as long as it's more than just letting everyone know what you think in 1-2 lines. Of course, this being said in the context of the sort of discussions/research that is held in places such as John Lear's section of the forum. Obviously it may be different on the 'Breaking News' section, for example.

One member on this forum that I consider a decent skeptic (of course theres many others, but I'll mention this one as he is a regular in the moon thread) is ArMaP. Often times he will let us know if he disagrees on a particular matter, and address why -- while providing data to back his reasoning (he does his research!). Best of all, he does this in a completely civil and non condescending manner. EVEN better, is he will acknowledge if he was wrong and move on, as we will to him. Many, if not all of us 'believers' will agree with me.

And that proves right here and now we are not against skeptics. We welcome each and every one of you, if only you can try a little harder to outline a 'good' skeptic -- just as I hope 'WE' will try harder to outline the 'good' believer! .

Originally posted by masqua

I think this is where the username comes from;

Ahhh...So Chorlton's that toy clown in this vid? I should've known!!
Nuff said!



Cheers!

P.S. All in good humor!



[edit on 10-10-2007 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


I tried and tried to find the Church Lady doing the 'Superior Dance' in reponse to your post, but just maybe Dana Carvey singing Chopping Broccoli carries the same pertinent message even though it's subtle.

reply to post by masqua


Now, that looks more like Chorlton!! Maybe he is!!

Cheers!



[edit on 10-10-2007 by mikesingh]

I have a feeling that these people so venomously lashing out at proof-seekers are they type that developed suicidal depression when they came to know the truth about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Until there is proof for any of the claims made in this forum, there will be doubters. Imagination is great; rabid cult-like denial of reality is destructive.

Originally posted by PartChimp
I have a feeling that these people so venomously lashing out at proof-seekers are they type that developed suicidal depression when they came to know the truth about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Until there is proof for any of the claims made in this forum, there will be doubters. Imagination is great; rabid cult-like denial of reality is destructive.

Nice post.
I have to agree with you. It isnt so much the photos they post, its the quantum leaps they make about them and the science-babble also known as gobbledegook they then spout about their so-called discoveries.
I dont even think they believe half of the crap they post and say, they say it in the hope someone is going to respond and back up their wierdness.

The REAL problem is that some of the stuff posted, has merit, and does show anomalies, but some of thes posters ally themself with people like Lear and his suggestions of Soul Catchers and waterfalls and trees and the far side of the moon that they lose all credibility.

Five pages, and it is still a mud pit. Neither side giving an inch, or a millimeter, as it were. I do love this place. And even from the most idiotic of threads, I gain knowledge of my fellow man.

(And if there are any aliens out there, monitoring this thread alone would provide a wealth of information about the hairless apes that run this planet.)

We need less need on both sides of this issue,IMO. The sceptics have a need to be right, as do the believers, it seems. What fear drives these engines of intolerance? Why is it so important to one that his/her acceptence of aliens be shared? and to the other that there be no such critter at all? Only fear, disguised on many levels, would seem to have the ongoing stamina and power of some of these fueds.

There are a few who remain sceptical believers, a term that should fit a great many, were more of us seeking truth, and not trying to sell our own worth as valuable coin.

The die hard sceptics see the world from an aerie of self acclaimed wisdom, and this affords them the distance of humor (humour) that is dripped disdainfully on the masses who fail to bow to their loftyness. By the same token, the believers, wallowing in the muddy swamp of self delusion, hurl spite and malice towards every creature that is not of their own form and shape, while scrounging for some shining lump of coal.

The pursuit of knowledge is to rise above the muck, to a hight that allows one to see beyond your own grubbing toes, and yet not so high that everything except the air you breath is a blur. What is so hard about that? It only requires the meeting in the middle, in common consort.

Now I've pissed off both sides.

Having just discovered this "thread", it's closed.

Springer...