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.

 

Firefox launches 'Dispute Finder'

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
For the heck of it I've started the following claim, "Some UFOs represent a "true unknown" phenomenon, with some even suggesting foreign crafts guided by some form of intelligence." I've already added a few pieces of evidence in support, and disputed a few myths that need laying to rest.

I'd love to see other people add to this one.


Cheers!

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Xtraeme]




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


That has to be too vague, you got to put ou definite statements.
Every yokel will agree with that statement.

some form of intelligence: that would be human

UFOs represent: flying crafts

I was going to suggest those that have the dispute engine take in
suggestions but the popups had one installation get kicked out.

I don't have a disputable statement worked out yet but I googled
trying to find Lafferenz without knowing the name with just associated
words. I wanted to go to another search engine, Clusty, but couldn't find
a favorite and must have missed it on wiki.
Buy the time I found Clusty was the engine I found Lafferenz was the
sub name.

Lets see:
It is disinformation that Lafferenz subs made it to the East Coast US
shores with V2 rockets since that mention prohibits the thought other
rockets were used.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


That has to be too vague, you got to put ou definite statements.
Every yokel will agree with that statement.

some form of intelligence: that would be human

UFOs represent: flying crafts


I'd love it if no one contested that statement! That would indicate that the study of UFOs implies studying potential foreign human flying crafts and is therefore clearly a defense concern. Forcing the DOD to retract their rather inane comment that no UFO investigated or reported posed a national security threat.


I was going to suggest those that have the dispute engine take in
suggestions but the popups had one installation get kicked out.


I experienced this too. The only way I could find to create claims was to do it through the disputefinder website. Here try this link.


Buy the time I found Clusty was the engine I found Lafferenz was the
sub name.

Lets see:
It is disinformation that Lafferenz subs made it to the East Coast US
shores with V2 rockets since that mention prohibits the thought other
rockets were used.


That might be too specific, but I like it! I think I'll create a few statements.

  1. Some UFOs represent new atmospheric phenomenon.
  2. Some UFOs represent non-present day human or non-terrestrial intelligence.
  3. Some UFOs represent alien spacecrafts.
  4. Some UFOs represent alien space creatures.
  5. Some UFOs represent inter-dimensional crafts / creatures.


Basically any of the hypotheses will work in this sort of statement.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Interesting wiki page.
I just got out of a thread that wanted papers that Tesla invented the UFO.
So I said you can find all the papers locked up at Los Alamos.
Try and read them for proof.

In a polling of top scientists there have been no Tesla files permitted
for take out for viewing.

I got a good statement:
Alamogordo, New Mexico was base for German saucer pilots
training rookie American pilots.

ED: Yahoo answers give good answers but never asked about
Tesla or UFO.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Thanks for the example Xtrame. I'm still curious as to whether or not it's really giving both sides of the story though. Lets say it highlights "Oswald was just a patsy for the CIA when he assassinated JFK" and tells you that he possibly acted on his own. If you go to another page, will it highlight "Oswald acted on his own in the assassination of JFK" and tell you that he was possibly a patsy for the CIA?

Any idea?


Cheers,
Strype



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strype
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Thanks for the example Xtrame. I'm still curious as to whether or not it's really giving both sides of the story though. Lets say it highlights "Oswald was just a patsy for the CIA when he assassinated JFK" and tells you that he possibly acted on his own. If you go to another page, will it highlight "Oswald acted on his own in the assassination of JFK" and tell you that he was possibly a patsy for the CIA?

Any idea?


There's supposed to be a way to link various claims. So if I had the claim:

"Oswald was just a patsy for the CIA when he assassinated JFK"

I should be able to link it to the alternate statement:

"Oswald acted on his own in the assassination of JFK"

Since I'm curious about this myself I'll shoot an email to the developers to make sure their system accounts for similar concepts by correctly grouping them together to make sure bias reinforcement isn't playing too strongly in to the initial assertion, ignoring its counter-part.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strype
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Thanks for the example Xtrame. I'm still curious as to whether or not it's really giving both sides of the story though. Lets say it highlights "Oswald was just a patsy for the CIA when he assassinated JFK" and tells you that he possibly acted on his own. If you go to another page, will it highlight "Oswald acted on his own in the assassination of JFK" and tell you that he was possibly a patsy for the CIA?

Any idea?


Hey Strype, just got word back from one of the developers:


Yeah. You are correct. On the page for a claim, you can link to an "opposing claim" which is an alternative statement that disagrees.

In the current version the opposing claims don't appear in the popup view, but they probably will in the future.

As you said, it's important to allow these alternative phrasings in order to avoid the choice of language biasing the debate.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Rob



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
There's also a voting system where you can vote up views you agree with. I'm not clear on how this narrows down supporting and opposing views.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
worse will be most of the brain dead morons out there who will likely mark anything on teh other side of the argument as a sham, false, or whatnot so it can get it's rankings reduced.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join