Is ATS out to get Alex Jones?

page: 1
73
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+68 more 
posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I don't know.

But I know I'm really not very happy with the way the Charlie Sheen "interview" with Obama has been handled here. I made my thoughts clear in this post and, what the hell, maybe this does deserve its own thread.

The T&Cs at ATS mean we can't form campaigning groups, yet Admin have done a very good job at attempting to mobilise ATS members to (a) promote ATS and (b) label Alex Jones a hoaxer.

There has been no evidence to suggest that it was anything other than a mistake on the part of AJ or whoever works on his website. It's easy to see a scenario where Charlie writes his interview as best he can, immersing himself in the idea, and doesn't put in a disclaimer because he thinks AJ will do it on the website.

My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.

I find it depressing and slightly nauseating that this should be.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by rich23]



+3 more 
posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
S&F. I cant believe how far this is going.

As I stated in another thread, does anyone else find it curious how quickly duplicate threads are deleted on here, yet there have been dozens of threads on this allowed to run all day....to where is dominates the recent posts page.

Curious.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 



My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.

I find it depressing and slightly nauseating that this should be.



Alex......?





posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
If you read down from my post on the other thread, the proliferation of duplicate threads is one reason I didn't initially make a separate thread. The mods do seem to have been erratic on this. Personally, I'd like the whole birth certificate thing to disappear. That gets SO dull.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by happygolucky
reply to post by rich23
 



My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.

I find it depressing and slightly nauseating that this should be.



Alex......?




How dare you sir! I communicate in Standard English, not by bellowing myself hoarse in barely comprehensible sentences.


+38 more 
posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Can I just point out one thing?


It is the duty of the one presenting the information to make it unquestionably clear that what he is saying is FALSE if it indeed is FALSE.

You can't post something so obviously inflammatory as fact for two full hours, passing it off as the gospel truth, and then expect to be able to come along and recant after the damage has been done.

This is called a LIE.

Jones knew full well what he was doing. Can anyone honestly assert with any degree of seriousness that Jones would go to such great lengths to procure his "big big interview" (the biggest thing in 14 years!!) and not have the common sense to be damned sure that the disclaimer was there and clear and ligible and easily found for all unsuspecting readers to see?

Do you really think he would overlook such a critical and vital detail such as this?


This was a promotional stunt that turned ugly and backfired in his face. There is no ATS conspiracy against Alex Jones, the man did it to himself.

Sorry, no conspiracy here, just two morons who thought it would be a great idea to hoax the public, not knowing the s***storm it would cause.

Or maybe they did know and got exactly what they were after? In any case, you cant blame anyone for what has happened except for the ones who perpetrated this mess.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Maybe if you had been a loyal fan of AJ from the 90s and maybe if you knew how GCN was started and MAYBE if you knew more about the facts... Maybe then you would know why many of us despise AJ for what he has done...

Then again Maybe you heard the biggest story in AJs 14 years that was gonna go mainstream and shake the world and I missed it.

I speak as a personal friend RON AVERY Owner of the Silver Eagle Taphouse and a member of several truth seeker meetings.... If your in the Central Texas area you know what I am talking about...If your a REBEL a real one then you know what I am talking about.

AJ Went too far this time and has hurt us all BAD!

I have written him off for good!



[edit on 8-9-2009 by titorite]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
There are a couple of serious points here, you know.

First, is it right that ATS admin should use their power (the power of group emails!) in this way?

Second, does no-one here understand the difference between negligence and intent? A hoax is perpetrated with intent. If you want to "prove" it's a hoax, you have to "prove" intent. And no-one has done that.

No-one seems to have noticed as they're all too busy jumping on the bandwagon. It's pathetic.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


I agree with you 100% I've never in my life listened to Alex Jones. I've visited his site when it has been linked on a forum. To me, this whole thing stinks of agenda driven moderation. I'm disgusted as well. Sick to my stomach actually that a factual letter comes out asking the president for a meeting on the merits of a fictional scenario of what the person would say and what evidence is available to point out the facts of the 9/11 OS. The first thing that is done is try to label the entire letter as a hoax when it was merely a fictional account to illustrate some facts and gain some attention.

We get mad at media propaganda ignoring 9/11, and when propaganda is used in reverse to gain attention we yell foul. Yes, ATS staff went a bit overboard on this and while I may have had to argue with other ATS members about this issue, I now question what motives ATS has in attempting to discredit a person for doing exactly what they just did...use their power to promote their agenda.


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
First, is it right that ATS admin should use their power (the power of group emails!) in this way?


What are you more angry about, the fact that it was brought to the attention of the ATS members by u2u....ior the fact that Alex Jones was caught lying?

Just curious



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Triple post wtf?

[edit on 8/9/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Double post

[edit on 8/9/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Maybe if you had been a loyal fan of AJ from the 90s and maybe if you knew how GCN was started and MAYBE if you knew more about the facts... Maybe then you would know why many of us despise AJ for what he has done...


I'm not a loyal fan of anyone. It's an emotional attachment I find perplexing. For a long time I really enjoyed reading Chomsky... but then the 9/11 thing came along and he flubbed it. Does that mean everything he wrote and continues to write is a lie? Do I feel personally affronted by NC's unwillingness to address the issue? No.

As for these facts you speak of, they were not evident in the thread that was referenced by the ATS email. I read the thread carefully and all I was able to discern for sure is that the piece went in without a disclaimer and sat there for a while before one was put in.

It's quite possible it was a deliberate ruse. But it's also entirely possible that it was an oversight and NO EVIDENCE has been posted to show it was anything else.

I'd also like to note that infighting like this is exactly what the PTB want.

Please note: I'm not here to defend Jones. I'm here to stick up for reason and fairness. It's not logical to assert as FACT that AJ is a HOAXER, nor is it fair to suddenly mobilise the ATS membership in support of a given objective when that membership is firmly denied the space to organise themselves to a given objective.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
A hoax is perpetrated with intent. If you want to "prove" it's a hoax, you have to "prove" intent. And no-one has done that.


...either alex jones is an idiot (incapable of the most basic investigative reporting skills) who didnt mean to fool anyone or the sheen stunt was intentional...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I know you didn't write that to me but I feel compelled to respond. What is the point in digging something? To get attention to an article. The article to dig was that the information given by Alex Jones was a Hoax. The information contained in the fictional letter was 100% Fact. So ATS just asked us to be disinfo agents of those facts, focusing on destroying Alex Jones creditability rather than merely state that the meeting didn't really occur, but the facts contained therein are 100% authentic and verifiable.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by rich23
First, is it right that ATS admin should use their power (the power of group emails!) in this way?


What are you more angry about, the fact that it was brought to the attention of the ATS members by u2u....ior the fact that Alex Jones was caught lying?

Just curious


I think to even a moderately careful reader my attitude is clear. You seem to have got it all wrong though. Try reading the linked post in the OP again, and then read the rest of my replies in this thread. It might help.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Can I just point out one thing?


Why do I get a sinking feeling whenever I come across that phrase? They never mean just one thing, for a start.


It is the duty of the one presenting the information to make it unquestionably clear that what he is saying is FALSE if it indeed is FALSE.


Well, if that's what you meant to point out, then it's really very obvious and also no-one's saying it's not true.


You can't post something so obviously inflammatory as fact for two full hours, passing it off as the gospel truth, and then expect to be able to come along and recant after the damage has been done.

This is called a LIE.


You know what? I wouldn't put it past him. I honestly do think he's that careless and dumb. And NO evidence has been presented that it was anything other than an oversight.


Do you really think he would overlook such a critical and vital detail such as this?


Do you really think he would have said, yeah, I'm going to make out Charlie really interviewed Barack and get away with it?


There is no ATS conspiracy against Alex Jones, the man did it to himself.


ATS admin sent us that mail, not Alex Jones. Sorry to point out something so obvious.


+16 more 
posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.

Perhaps the wording of the messaging may have been improved upon, but the intent was clear, making the point that the interview was not real... at a time when many still believed it was.

If the faux-interview was accidentally posted without the disclaimer, we'd have heard a reasonable explanation by now... and I'd sit down to a plate of crow.

Instead, we had a day of build-up where Alex announced a major event, his most-important in fact, was coming in the battle against tyranny, and everyone should check InfoWars.com in the morning. If it was so major and important, should there have been:
1) greater care in the posting of the complete piece written by Mr. Sheen?
2) swift response and apologies for accidentally omitting the disclaimer?
3) a disclaimer at the top, indicating the "open letter" nature of the "interview?"

Instead, we had something written in a very deceptive style (with situational commentary), with a disclaimer added well-after publication and at the very-bottom. (Faux-interviews are valid op-ed technique, but journalist integrity/ethics have always dictated revealing it as such in the opening paragraph or elsewhere in the body.)


It's unfortunate that the style of delivery is overshadowing an otherwise interesting development in the 9/11 conspiracy arena. Someone of Mr. Sheen's stature can do much... and teamed with Mr. Jones, may actually result in some outcomes for which we may be pleased.


I've sent several emails today to various contacts to see if I can speak directly with Mr. Jones, by phone or email, in an effort to get his side of the story. Hopefully, we can discover that a series of unfortunate stumbles resulted in an apparent deception... if so, as I've said, I'll gladly dine on crow.


(typo edit)

[edit on 9-9-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by rich23
A hoax is perpetrated with intent. If you want to "prove" it's a hoax, you have to "prove" intent. And no-one has done that.


...either alex jones is an idiot (incapable of the most basic investigative reporting skills) who didnt mean to fool anyone or the sheen stunt was intentional...


Jones has messed up before and been called a shill and a huckster many times here on ATS. Like I say, I'm not a fan, although for most of the dullards infesting this board, the idea that I could simultaneously be not a fan but still appalled by what ATS has done is too much to handle.

Ok, try and imagine the flip-side. Assuming he posted the interview as factual on purpose, how did Jones think he was going to avoid an embarrassing climbdown?

It just makes more sense to me that it was a mistake, but I have no concrete evidence. Any more than those who "know" (yeah like you were in the room, pal) that AJ was LYING.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by rich23
My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.

Perhaps the wording of the messaging may have been improved upon, but the intent was clear, making the point that the interview was not real... at a time when many still believed it was.


This I can agree with you. You actually just made me feel a bit better, acknowledging the wording was directed at the entire document as being a hoax when in fact the document contained many relevant facts to 9/11 truth. Something to note for the future I assume.

EDIT: Actually I take this back now that pro-AJ threads are being removed from ATS and the Hoax threads are still there.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by ExPostFacto]





new topics

top topics



 
73
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join