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.

 

Did no one really get what Jones was trying to do?

page: 12
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Watcher,

I really like your posts and I totally dig on your Avatar. I am sorry that I disappoint you in this regard, but I don't see it as him lying. If I said I was actually Angelina Jolie or Megan Fox I would be making the lie so hyperbolic that you would know not to believe me. That's what I believe he was doing.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Thank you I rather enjoy my avatar as well, AshleyD does a good job. And don't worry about "letting me down" err whatever, you are entitled your opinion but I think you are blaringly wrong. The excuse he used for not having the disclaim up when he posted the article is a obvious and outragous lie to anyone who knows at least a little bit about web programming langauges.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Here is what I see happened, and I believe this because of how Alex is with his guests.

I think that he forwarded Charlie's emails to his webmaster, thinking he told them the dealio. They put it in like they got it. Then when people piled on he saw what happened and asked them to change it. They probably told him they could but needed the actual wording but he wasn't listening as usual and talking over them and then by the time it was all done they said one thing he heard another and then garbled it on the radio program.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Um he had been hyping it for a while the mistakes you speak of would apply if it was a right this moment type thing.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Lillydale
 


News stories don't have disclaimers. This had a disclaimer because it wasn't a news story.


Seriously? Are we on a carousel? This did NOT originally have a disclaimer did it? The disclaimer did not show up until after people started pointing out that it was fraud.

Unfortunately for you though, either way this falls apart. News stories do often have disclaimers on them. I suggest you watch more news. Have you never heard - "What you are about to see is extremely graphic and you may not want to watch."

Sorry but Alex put it out as "news" and then was caught so he made into something else. You can defend him all you want but what it really boils down to is that you do not know. You are not even on Alex' staff where you might have some authority in this. You are just a fan with an opinion. I, however, am simply basing this all on facts.

Fact: this story was posted on Alex Jones' website with no disclaimer as if it were real.
Fact: a justifying disclaimer was added after this was exposed as a lie.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
For all we know Alex might have done this to "kill" the letter by Sheen. Who knows how much more force it would have had if it came out as an "honest" report from the beginning?

Alex, might in fact be working for the "other side" and thought this would be a good time to minimize the "damage." IF not him, then certainly someone on his staff.

Alex Jones, will have to work very hard to get some credibility in my book.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Lillydale
 


All investigative or alternative reporting has a % of correctness based on the fact that you are presenting a case for something, not reporting crash numbers, or other local news type of stuff. If he is inaccurate about some things it comes with the territory. My point was that he does pretty good for not having CNN's budget.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Come on now. Alex fans will sink to any level to defend him. Sad really. Forgiving outright lies due to budget restraints? So he can report stories that are 100% false with nothing to back any of it up, and he can say it is admitted or documented, and it is ok if it is all wrong because he has less money than CNN?????

That is really your argument?

When 20 people die and you report 15, that is an error. When you report an outright lie and claim it as an admitted truth...well then who admitted it?

He says "admitted" and "documented" all the time. Now either he is a completely dishonest news guy or he has seen first hand an "admission" or the documentation. How can he claim to know something for a fact because it was admitted and when it turns out to be completely wrong, you chalk it up to a mistake due to money?


I would hope that since he is speaking to a more discerning audience than say "Fox" his listeners would take some responsibility to do research on their own and not follow anyone blindly down the rosy path.


This is nothing more than your assumption. You are assuming that you and people who listen to the same show as you are somehow more intellectually mature than others. Do you have any stats on that? It seems to me, from the money he is raking in from survival gear advertisers and promoting his friends gold sales for up to 3 hours a day, his listeners cannot be all that discerning. What kind of geniuses would keep buying survival gear to prepare for the end from a guy who has been selling it for almost 20 years. Do you even understand the implications there?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
you know i was preaching this view to the people here since the video/fake interview came out.

people are dumb, they only react, the way their trained to react.



Are you including yourself in this "people are dumb" statement? I am just curious if you are placing yourself above everyone else or admitting that as a collective, we -including you- are not all that bright.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by eradown
 


I agree with you. However, you have to reach the people and make them see that if the government will lie about something that big, do something that terrible than all these other stories, the ones you are talking about, must be questioned, too.


Why does this not apply to Alex???? He has been proven a liar in the past about many things including mass extermination of people. That is pretty big. If he is willing to lie about something that big....well you know the rest.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
For all we know Alex might have done this to "kill" the letter by Sheen. Who knows how much more force it would have had if it came out as an "honest" report from the beginning?


Huh???? How could this have come out as an "honest" report? If this had been pushed as real any longer and then the truth came out, this would be that much more destroyed. I am curious though, what is your line of thinking here? Charlie did actually interview the president and Alex posted it, and then a disclaimer to discredit it? It never did happen. I am lost.


Alex, might in fact be working for the "other side" and thought this would be a good time to minimize the "damage." IF not him, then certainly someone on his staff.

Alex Jones, will have to work very hard to get some credibility in my book.


At least you have the honest ability to doubt. I just wish I understood your point more.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Alex Jones can never win.

He's either a money grubber just sucking up to his fans or he's an inconsiderate jerk who's always pulling a 'fast one'.

I don't know why anyone is surprised here, like they don't know Alex's "shake'em up/psy op" style by now?

The whole purpose of this was basically to put a giant bullseye on Sheen by the media and it worked. Some of you people are pissed--oh wel. This is an info WAR and what's the Art of War?

D E C E P T I O N



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthRevolt
Alex Jones can never win.

He's either a money grubber just sucking up to his fans or he's an inconsiderate jerk who's always pulling a 'fast one'.


Just listen to his show any day this week and time it. Subtract commercial breaks and time his actual on air time. Then subtract all the time he is not selling gold. You will find your answer quickly.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Lillydale




Huh???? How could this have come out as an "honest" report? If this had been pushed as real any longer and then the truth came out, this would be that much more destroyed. I am curious though, what is your line of thinking here? Charlie did actually interview the president and Alex posted it, and then a disclaimer to discredit it? It never did happen. I am lost.


It could've come out as an honest report, by putting a disclaimer right at the beginning when it was put online. *HONEST* in the sense that it should not have been misleading people into believing this is a real interview. Remember, people were told 24hrs prior that something really big was coming, so without the disclaimer and that type of announcement, made people all the more eager to see what was coming, and all the more accepting of such a huge story.





At least you have the honest ability to doubt. I just wish I understood your point more.


My point is that Charlie Sheen wrote one of the best letters covering 9/11, his points were really brought out well in that letter and it developed very nicely.

The problem here is that it was put out without a disclaimer. So, it could be that Alex Jones himself was trying to create such a controversy over the letter so as to minimize the actual points of the letter.

Or that his staff, did this. Either way there is a credibility problem.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Lillydale

It could've come out as an honest report, by putting a disclaimer right at the beginning when it was put online. *HONEST* in the sense that it should not have been misleading people into believing this is a real interview. Remember, people were told 24hrs prior that something really big was coming, so without the disclaimer and that type of announcement, made people all the more eager to see what was coming, and all the more accepting of such a huge story.


Right, coulda but didna. It seems that we agree about this. It was purposely misleading and could have been honest but wasn't



My point is that Charlie Sheen wrote one of the best letters covering 9/11, his points were really brought out well in that letter and it developed very nicely.

The problem here is that it was put out without a disclaimer. So, it could be that Alex Jones himself was trying to create such a controversy over the letter so as to minimize the actual points of the letter.


Interesting theory since that seems to be the exact result we got. People eagerly awaiting this big news seem to have forgotten most of it already. The problem is, Alex is good friends with Sheen as well as a loud truther.


Or that his staff, did this. Either way there is a credibility problem.


Maybe. The only way to really know would be to ask them. What is the excuse that they gave?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Lillydale

Alex Jones excuse was that it was uploaded without the disclaimer, someone forget to put it there. Then because of traffic or whatever, they coudn't respond until 90 minutes or so later.

Now Alex claims to not know anything about the technical side, which I believe. I don't think he really knows that end.

The story seems unbelievable. So either he is "in on it" or has someone working for him that tried to sabotage the letter of Sheen. In other words it "was an inside job!"

I know he would never ever allow someone to explain something of that nature if the stunt was pulled on him. You know he would never accept such a lame excuse.

My guess is someone did this to minimize the impact of Sheen's letter.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


How in the heck can you call it a "open letter" considering it includes what is supposed to be the answers of the person it is to?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


I dunno, that really seems like a long shot though. I mean step back before the incident. Alex announced a huge news story was gonna break. He was already promoting big big news and not a parody letter by a drunk gambler.
I am pretty sure he does have people to do all his computer work for him but he knows a little. He at least knows how to use a NewTek Video Toaster to do his cheap videos with. That is neither here not there, whether he knows or not, I am pretty sure he just tells them what he wants and they take care of it.

So we get to the time to post it. Someone is there thinking that if they post it sans disclaimer, it will minimize the impact. I just have a hard time buying that scenario. It could be true, this is just how I think but I could be wrong.

Anyway, if it was someone trying to discredit Sheen or Alex, then what was he announcing as a huge news story? Was there something else we missed? Alex is known for hyperbole and lies. He is also known for having the oddest of "christian" friends in that he seems to spend a lot of time around people who abuse illicit substances such as Sheen and say Joe Rogan. This all makes me a little suspicious of him no matter what. Of course, there is little to be suspicious of because every time I turn him on now all I hear is "Wait wait wait, you still have coins at the 945 price? Wow, save me a couple ok. People you have to get in on this. The gold is up over a 1000 today and you can still get it at ........blah blah"

Sorry, I am ranting now. I guess my question is...what did he mean with that announcement about the big news that was coming?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by talisman
 


How in the heck can you call it a "open letter" considering it includes what is supposed to be the answers of the person it is to?


Its fictitious only in the desire or wish of the letter, but not in the points raised.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Its hard to say either way, but there is a credibility problem to be sure. I personally do believe that the letter went on purpose without a disclaimer and that just doesn't sit well with me.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 

You are not paying attention, you did not answer my question which I now reiterate:

How in the heck can you call it a "open letter" considering it includes what is supposed to be the answers of the person it is to?



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join