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.

 

Basis of Fact Conspiracy - What is going on?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I'd like to point out a conspiracy that is, not only found at ATS, but threatening to become a cultural defect in the modern world today? That is the Basis of Fact Conspiracy! I am noticing a growing phenomenon in what's considered acceptable criteria for discrediting an alternate theory! A general standard of minimal information required to disprove any theory residing outside those traditionally held normal. What this irrational standard affords in protection to established untruths, it in turn denies fair analysis to yet unaccepted theory, regardless of the truths possible in its contents.


www.typology.net...

Truth does not do as much good in the world as the semblance of truth does evil.
Duc de La Rochefoucauld

Truth provokes those whom it does not convert.
Bishop Thomas Wilson

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Tolstoy

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright and critic (1856-1950)

"We are anxious when there is a dissonance between our "knowledge" and the perceivable facts. Since our "knowledge" is not to be doubted or questioned, it is the facts that have to be altered." Nathaniel Branden

"All living souls welcome whatever they are ready to cope with; all else they ignore, or pronounce to be monstrous and wrong, or deny to be possible." George Santayana

"Nothing as mundane as mere evidence can be allowed to threaten a vision so deeply satisfying." Thomas Sowell

"Whenever masses of people, especially educated people, know something - and when what they know is something they greatly fear because they believe it affects virtually everything they do or want to do - then most likely we stand in the presence of a vast falsehood." Thomas Szasz

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice." Schopenhauer

"Great thinkers have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" Albert Einstein

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common." John Locke

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong

"If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated." Wilfred Trotter

"Genius in truth means little more than the faculty of perceiving in an unhabitual way" William James



Examples of this can be seen on ATS in abundance. Someone starts a new thread on a topic of current cultural controversy. They provide numerous evidences, facts and information supporting their position. They describe their reasoning and methods of conclusion, as well as links to researched information already documented by others sharing their view. The trouble begins when those in opposition will join the debate to disprove the entire theory stated in the OP. They will then scan over all the various info given until they find one or two individual points they feel explainable, or disprovable, to focus on exclusively. Then they'll proceed to explain this fraction of material only, completely disregarding the rest? Victory will be declared on their grossly incomplete assessment, marking the soon end of it! The author will attempt to draw out the incompleteness of the rebuttal given by the opposed, but sadly, very few subscribers to the post find an interest in this crucial fact? This should be seen as a severe injustice to debate in general, regardless of ones viewpoint on the subject? This feeble attempt at debunking should cause alarm immediately and pronounced obviously insufficient for the fraud it is! Unfortunately, that's usually not the case.

I don't see how anybody can ignore the possibility of alternate species, aliens, crop circles, 911, Roswell, Moon landing hoax, etc..., or theories of any kind without considering this? I find it ridiculous that acceptance of this phenomenon is so utterly prevalent! I'm tired of debating how unreasonable those people are that feel satisfied by discrediting only fractions of these mysteries! Until you have disproved everything involved in a particular subject, you have disproved nothing at all!

This especially goes for 911, but please do not make this a 911 debate! Debate on 911 is utterly littered with controversy and confusion, yet this one simple thing should adequately support a new investigation? Everyone enjoying reasonable sanity should conclude that, due the incompleteness of original investigation alone, further examination is more than adequately justifiable! The sheer magnitude and importance of this event and all it has led to create, requires there be no stone left unturned! This is unquestionably one of the biggest tragedies, as well as crimes, ever perpetrated against this country. Investigating this tragedy should be encouraged as long as there are questions to answer, while never should any amount be deemed adequate. 1, 2, 20, whatever? Further debate would only create redundancy to this? This rationality should be unanimous, however, this is currently opined as "crazy talk"? People possessing this basic common sense are called "conspiracy theorists", "wackos", "nut jobs", and my favorite "TRUTHERS"? How can wanting the truth be a condemnable offense? And why would people support prohibiting it? When did public opinion decide this was acceptable?

The bottom line is, to debunk something you must explain every aspect of it completely. Naturally, these controversies will attract things that are fictitious. Every story will inevitably compile untrue aspects to it. The more it's told the more BS becomes attached to it, it's unavoidable. It's certainly not logical to discredit something due to the rumors surrounding it. Anything else is what should be considered crazy talk?

Peace.




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I appreciate your romanticism, Z. Please don't take this the wrong way.

I think it's optimistic, if not slightly delusional to think that everyone around here cares as much about a full understanding of the 'truth' as you do. I know it probably won't endear you any more towards me, but I'm going to let you in on a secret about me, that I don't think is too uncommon. I'm lazy and much too smart to be wrong.

I see all the words on the screen, and I just read what I want to out of it. I'll argue until I'm blue in the face so I don't have to admit that I'm wrong, or that there is something that I might not understand. You, see, a lot of times, I'm not really interested in what you have to say, if it doesn't agree with, or support my limited understanding. I have an obligation to myself to be the smartest person I know. I get bonus points from myself if I can be the smartest person YOU know too.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that has the potential to destroy my perception of my superiority, I have no choice but to grab a hold of any little piece I can to discredit you and preserve my self esteem. You see, my opinion of myself is intertwined with how 'smart' I think I am. If I can find something wrong with your logic, any little thing, it gives me a foothold and helps me pretend like maybe everything will be ok in my life and everyone else won't know how much of an idiot I am.

I would like to think that I'm capable of bending, like the proverbial reed, but the 'truth' for me is often not quite what I would either believe myself, or have someone else believe about me. as hard as I try to pretend like it's easy for me to change my mind, to skip merrily into the knowledge that what I think I know is incorrect, it just isn't that easy for me to admit defeat. Arrogant, opinionated, self-righteous, unyielding. Ah, the life of an unenlightened human being. It's not too pretty to live in the skin and far worse to have it smash in to someone ELSE'S orbit trying as hard as I can to get YOUR moons out of whack.

You see, Z, you may know the 'truth,' someone ELSE may know the 'truth,' but until I'm willing to accept it, until I have walked the path I need to walk, in the time I need to walk it, no amount of logic, evidence, thoughtful insight, gentle guidance or righteous butt kicking is going to do any good. I am a stubborn, mostly self-absorbed human being; the center of my universe and second only to my God in importance and power.

I'm sure you will get many, many thoughtful and insightful responses to your query and that in the process perhaps a few more of us can understand a little bit more about the things that are keeping us from becoming what we need to be. With many of us, I think this is one of our first opportunities to be exposed to critical thinking and the realization that we may not know everything we think we do. Shaking up reality is a daunting proposition and can be scary as hell. When we humans get scared, we're known for doing irrational things.

I would suggest that perhaps what you have witnessed and alluded to is not more than an overwhelming fear. A fear on the part of those, myself included that are just not quite ready to be relieved of the bondage of self; not quite ready to admit that there is something we don't know.

Perhaps the answer to your question is a lot simpler than I have made it out to be. I learned a long time ago that I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I'm just too smart to be wrong.

But damn it, I'm wrong more now that I'm old than I EVER was when I was young.


Thanks for the thread, Z. Peace back at you.


[edit on 4-8-2009 by KSPigpen]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Great post. It's the status quo at work. I got sick to my stomach today reading an ATS members posts. He will remain nameless; however, I've never seen him agree with anyone, except those that agree with him. He enters a thread posts an opposition to the OP and attempts to back those opinions up with facts. He uses the theory that the simplest explanation is normally the truth. Each and every time I see this person post he will stop a thread from really delving into the possibilities of an issue, instead refocusing the discussion around his stated facts. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions. But in search of the truth you have to think about all possibilities and not stop short with the simplest explanation is normally the truth. We all know the simplest explanation we want to go further into the possibilities of it.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


Thanks for the reply, KS.

I agree 100% with your explanation. People are very resistant to change their opinion. You see it all the time where the truth is no longer the issue, only winning becomes the motivation. There is also a lack of respect for righteousness? There may be fear of admitting error, but what happened to fear of doing the wrong thing? I suppose the question is why? Why be so quick to make a decision? Why do we argue simply for the sake of arguing? Why is it socially unacceptable to correct our mistakes? What's gratifying about disagreeing with everyone, especially ideals benefiting your cause as well? Has man reverted to self-righteous narcissism, because that's exactly what that is?

Maybe a better approach to reforming integrity is to encourage its admiration? What if the general consensus was that righteousness was cool again? Chicks dig guys who critically analyze! Humility is hot! I mean, when did snap judgment and oversimplification become quality character traits? What happened to virtues and being the better man? If these things are truly frowned upon these days, how could that be? How can that be changed?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Thanks, ExPostFacto.

You're right, as well as right to be sick about it. This growing trend away from integrity and towards inner conflict is way out of hand. Self-righteousness is not wisely traded for true righteousness. It's as obvious as it is ridiculous and needs confronted. Hell, people argue with each other here over things that harm them both alike? Why anybody would want to fight their compatriots and defend their enemies is beyond me? Modern world is literally backwards! Right is wrong, true is false, good is bad? See it everywhere.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   


This rationality should be unanimous, however, this is currently opined as "crazy talk"? People possessing this basic common sense are called "conspiracy theorists", "wackos", "nut jobs", and my favorite "TRUTHERS"? How can wanting the truth be a condemnable offense? And why would people support prohibiting it? When did public opinion decide this was acceptable?


They didn`t.

Truth in an internet driven world is lost, forever.

In aiding the Truth finders we`ve actually prevented the Truth being believed.

The Truth is around us, its even been posted and discussed on ATS.

How, because Truth can only be proved by persons nowing that Truth and they don`t provide the evidence beyond disscussion.

The easiest example`s are 9/11 and Area 51, two of the most secret of secrets disscussed to death within the public domain.

The easiest way for a Secret/Truth to remain Secret is to release it into the public domain.



The bottom line is, to debunk something you must explain every aspect of it completely. Naturally, these controversies will attract things that are fictitious. Every story will inevitably compile untrue aspects to it. The more it's told the more BS becomes attached to it, it's unavoidable. It's certainly not logical to discredit something due to the rumors surrounding it. Anything else is what should be considered crazy talk?

Peace.


It doesn`t matter if ATS is govt run or not, but unwittingly disscussing the Truths were actually aiding the govt.

Even if I was high up in the food chain of secret groups, if I was to post a photo on here of an Alien, nobody is gonna prove beyond doubt its real.

The everyday members would disscuss the in`s and out`s of all aspects of the discovery, but it would never be proved.

I have to admit though calling the site "AboveTopSecret" is either genius.


Or a huge mistake.

If its not the work of someone in/been in the govt, i`d be shocked as it proves they have no idea of the subject`s on ATS.



new topics

top topics
 
7

log in

join