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.


Ignorance, disinformation and proper evidence

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:02 AM
Ignorance- the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information (thankyou wikipedia for the definition)

Why is it that there are so many threads on ATS that are posted with no credible or biased evidence? Isn't the whole idea of ATS to deny ignorance?

Also, why is it that if you do post credible evidence (usually debunking a topic) you are automatically labelled as a disinormation agent? It is clearly obvious that when a skeptic or debunker does post information that contradicts the thread, it is ignored or written off as a coverup or government disinfo.

In my opinion, the most ignorant users on ATS are not the debunkers and skeptics, but the ones that are posting highly outrageous and unplausible topics. The biggest offenders of these are chemtrails and the planet-x threads. I have not seen one shred of decent evidence that proves these are real.

A blurry photograph of something that appears spherical does not constitute the arrival of a planet that has already failed to appear five times in the past. Zacariah Stitchin is not a credible witness. Unless you are educated to speak Sumerian, do not attempt to translate it. Nasa is not the only source of space photography and astronomy

Photographic evidence of contrails spreading accorss the sky, does not mean that the goverment is spraying chemicals in the atmosphere. Just because it was sunny one day and cloudy the next, does not mean the government is spraying chemicals, and weather patterns change.

Sorry to single out these two, but they are the worst offenders and I hope this thread makes sense

What does everyone think about this

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:43 AM
To be honest, I am here often to be entertained. I don't expect to ever get any evidence to prove or disprove a subject, but I sure as heck like reading about them.

I remember reading a few years back the Graham Hancock book, Fingerprints of the Gods - I was completeley and utterly convinced. Then, I read a book debunking his findings and again I was convinced, both had complelling evidence.

Evidence is relative. The debunker gets debunked and then the debunker's, debunker gets debunked - Bah.

Everything will become clear when our own personal apocalypse happens - or it won't and that will be evidence enough.

Deny Ignorence -I personaly believe that means we deny closed mindedness, not demand proof positive.

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:57 AM
Denying ignorance is not only demanding evidence of something, and certainly when it is posted in Skunk works where the speculation can go through the roof. What CAN be done in Skunk works is explain why some sort of idea is not really believable, in that way tyry to eleviate the ignorance of another member. People are denying ignorance by presenting their ideas to the rest of the ATS group so they can shoot at it, give their own ideas to it etc etc.

But yeah, there is a group that is just certain of their own convictions and will not allow any other ideas besides it's own and that is their own problem and the problem of the people that blindly follow them. The nice thing AND the problem of Skunk works cannot be seperated because it is a different side of the same medallion, speculation and talking out of the rectum can be very similair.

new topics

log in