Originally posted by DogHead
what you have missed, with respect, is the constant requirement for data to deal with FACTS. Facts as opposed to fiction have independent verification
of some kind.
Actually, data can deal with anything. Your own particular attitude toward this thread or any piece of data presented within it is up to you. If
you'd like to lump everything presented here into a fiction pile in your mind, so be it. That's your call, but to classify something like a
possible ET signal from Saturn as fiction is just plain ignorance. What it is, is DATA. Data can be analyzed, compared, contrasted. Data is not
partisan, and it's the only tool we have to examine the cases and claims presented herein.
Have you ever heard of 'fraud'? Do you know what the legal term implies? I suggest doing some research. You'll find several court cases in US
Case Law at:
www.findlaw.com...
Fraud is proven in court using evidence. To be perfectly clear, DATA IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR, when determining fact from fiction in a court of law.
To criticize the data itself as fiction, one must address each piece individually, you haven't done that. There are threads to do that in
existence. They are all linked for you, it really can't get any simpler.
I'm not sure what you mean by independent verification, since I'm NOT CLAIMING ANY OF THIS TO BE AUTHENTIC. Really, it's quite difficult to have a
conversation with you when you don't actually read what I post. In the last post, I linked SEVERAL posts, already in existence in this thread. In
EACH ONE I stated in clear English that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY OF THIS AS AUTHENTIC. To continue to act as if I'm trying to convince you that any of
this is real is plain and simple stupidity (it's no longer ignorance, because I've directly informed you).
I'm here to compile this data, and to get a look at the reports in bulk form. I'm sorry that concept seems to be beyond your scope of thinking thus
far on these issues.
Originally posted by DogHead
Absent a psychotic break from reality, it is common ground for normative people that there is a distinguishable difference between fact and fiction.
The degree to which fact and fiction blurs is exactly proportional to two factors:
1. the deliberate deceit involved
2. the unintentional or self-deceit involved
Do you understand that this paragraph is accusing me of deliberately posting fiction as fact?
If this is really what you think I'm doing, after my taking the time to explain it to you (after taking the time repeatedly to explain it to others
in the same thread), then by all means, report me to the moderating staff of this forum.
If you can't read what I've posted, perhaps having them re-iterate it for you might clarify things for you.
I don't appreciate personal attacks, and if you continue with them, I assure you I WILL inform the forum moderators.
If you want to challenge any piece of this evidence, DO IT! I've linked the relevant ATS Threads for you in each case! Nobody is stopping you, in
fact, if you've got ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, we're glad to hear it. But unless you are here to do a case report on possible EBE Evidence, why are you
posting in this thread? In the first post I outlined how responses to this thread should be formatted.
Originally posted by DogHead
A muppet show episode is not as persuasive or factual in any sense as originally classified gun camera footage.
This is a true statement, as the muppet show is intended for entertainment purposes and clearly advertised as such. I have not posted an episode of
the muppet show here as evidence of EBE existence, so it's not exactly relevant either. Those cases of fraud involving puppetry found within these
posts has been clearly labeled as such by myself and other posters.
They are here because they are commonly confused, and clarification was deemed necessary.
Originally posted by DogHead
It's sad to have to, but let's recapitulate some data collection 101:
open source information needs confirmation to be relied on.
I'm sorry but WHAT? I'm not new to Open Source Intelligence, in fact, CONFIRMATION OF SUCH INFORMATION IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD!
"Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) is an information processing discipline that involves finding, selecting, and acquiring information from publicly
available sources and analyzing it to produce actionable intelligence. In the Intelligence Community (IC), the term "open" refers to overt, publicly
available sources (as opposed to covert or classified sources); it is not related to open-source software. OSINT includes a wide variety of
information and sources..."
en.wikipedia.org...
Yes, this is what we're trying to do here, analyze the data that's out there! We're attempting to link it together with any evidence that debunks
it, AND we're also including ATS links where you can go to debate the data personally, making the system 'actionable'.
It seems to me like you just don't get it. This is the data, this is me compiling the data, this is ATS analyzing the data. This is what ATS is all
about.
I don't expect you to believe anything that hasn't been thoroughly vetted here at ATS to your own personal standards. PERIOD. In fact, I don't
really care whether you believe any of it or not.
Originally posted by DogHead
classified information originally generated for a known purpose where that purpose is not some form of propaganda or mind control is more reliable
than youtube, obvious hoaxes and wish fulfilment fantasies.
Gee, you think? So how about lending us your credentials on how you can personally determine what IS propaganda and/or mind control in another
thread, this one is about collating data, and reporting it for ATS Analysis.