Is ATS out to get Alex Jones?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 73 times

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 12:54 PM by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by badmedia
I thought it was pretty awful the way it turned into a witch hunt. Which I have no doubt was based in large part on some kind of agendas and/or peoples own pre-existing biases.

And contrary to what Skeptic Overlord said in regards to trying to "inform" users, what I saw went well beyond that. It even went so far as for the ATS staff to link up and show the entire original article without the disclaimer and blasted it to the top of every page on the site.

Perhaps they were caught up in the moment. Seemed alot of people were. If anything, it was a big giant social lesson of how group think and the mob mentality gets going and critical thinking gets thrown out the window.

I'm not even a fan of AJ, and in general can't stand to listen to him. He is way too chicken little for my tastes. But the way he was attacked over it was just uncalled for. Anytime someone/something is being attacked in such a way, I look towards the attackers.

Nobody really gets any credibility with me, but if they did ATS would have lost more credibility with me yesterday than AJ did.

So well said that it needs repeating.

Even us non-Alex Jones fans are

and some are

at the way this was handled

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:14 PM by topazadmirer

I have been an avid AJ listener for a while and I will first say he actually said this was the biggest news ever. I'll also point out that a couple of shows previous to this he actually would stumble during interviews "because the Tues. news was just so huge". It should also be pointed out that he has been announcing huge mystery guests and then they turn out to be nobodys or there would be no guest at all without any reason why. It's obvious his empire is crumbling, he's grasping for anything. The sad thing is that he has done a lot good exposing so much, but as a long time listener I can honestly say he is lowering his standards every week in the last 6 months and I'm of the opinion it's connected dwindling finances.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:18 PM by Freenrgy2

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I think you all need to go back and read what ATS said about this. They thought the letter was well written and I don't recall ANYONE from ATS staff having issues with the facts. Some posters pointed out a couple of minor discrepancies (like OBL not on the FBI's most wanted list).

The focus was on the way the information was presented. Like it or not, disclaimer or not, it was presented as being a factual interview for 90 minutes. This whole business of not getting access to the server to add the disclaimer is bunk.

If I'm Alex Jones and I'm putting my name out there and want to ensure that this information was noted as being ficticious, I would ENSURE that this info was made as plain as day right off the bat. Why bury the disclaimer at the bottom of the page? So, a reader who doesn't know any better will read the article under the pretense that it actually happened. Then they get to the bottom of the page and if they look closely, they will see the disclaimer.

If he put the disclaimer at the top, I guarantee you that this article would get a pass and not nearly as much attention. This, my friends, is slight of hand, deception, trickery. It is meant to fool you into thinking one thing only to cry, "GOTCHA" at the end.

And the whole setup with the video and stating that he would release bits of info before his show. This was a setup and there was intent. He made that clear in his video. What sense would it make to cry that this is the BIGGEST story in the last 14 years that he's been reporting and then post an article with a disclaimer? Who would believe this? He didn't say that this is the BIGGEST FICTICIOUS STORY that he's done in the past 14 years.

Do you comprehend now?

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:26 PM by Armour For Victor

reply to post by rich23

I didnt like the fact that I got a U2U saying alex was a HOAX. I didnt know ATS was the leading role in making such claims.

[edit] after further review of the u2u ATS was not pushing AJ as a HOAX, so I take back what I said, but leave it here for others to see, although a clearer message would have been better[edit]

Peace!

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Armour For Victor]

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:29 PM by Freenrgy2

reply to post by Armour For Victor

Wow.

I got the same U2U and nowhere did it say that Alex was a hoax. Would you like for me to paste it here for you? I'd appreciate you recanting that remark after you reread your U2U.

I think some of you are letting your opinions and feelings get in the way of facts.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Freenrgy2]

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:33 PM by IconoclasticTalamasca

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
The intention of the Alex Jones show has been stated and it seems a reasonable assertion.

SOURCE

Separately, a few other blogs were up in arms about Sheen’s letter being a “hoax” because the disclaimer clarifying that the meeting with Obama was a stylized fictional account and not a real event did not get added to the bottom of the article until a little later due to technical snafus and a bombardment of traffic that shut down servers and locked out Infowars and Prison Planet webmasters. With the Infowars version having been copied across from Prison Planet, both original versions did not contain the disclaimer until the error was brought to our attention and promptly fixed as soon as we could gain access to servers that kept crashing, as many readers noted at the time. We added the disclaimer as soon as possible as well as other information that should have been included at the bottom of the original article regarding Sheen’s appearance on the show. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused and are trying to move our servers in house to prevent this routine occurrence from happening again.

Yes, I read that. Again, that is not what he said yesterday after the broadcast. He is saying that NOW. Yesterday, it was, according to him, a marketing move to garner attention, knowing full well it was not a real interview.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:33 PM by Lemon.Fresh

Please post it, as I deleted mine.

Thanks!

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:33 PM by infinite

reply to post by Armour For Victor

It is.

We've proven numerous internet rumours and conspiracies to be hoaxes. The infamous HAARP doctor comes to mind, which other forums attacked us for finding out the "doctor" was a fraud.

The other was Project SERPO.

On the current radar plotting, we've butchered the Blossom Child and Galatic Federation. Another classic example of ATS working together to debunk

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:35 PM by Faiol

YES

I made a post about this ... and they deleted my posts!!! read this

this is the proof that they didnt want to make a hoax ... it was a mistake, but it seems that ATS is a desinfo place ... because no one is supporting this, instead they are deleting this ... what THE HECK!!@#$

------

yes, some guy in the website made a mistake ... but really

THERE WAS 2 NEWS OR MORE ABOUT CHARLIE SHEEN

1 - 20 minutes with the president
2 - Charlie Sheen requests meeting with obama

Thats why, my brain, that I think its capable enough, thinks that the guy in the website, who manages it and posted the news, forgot to put the disclaimer ....

WHY would alex make some hoax news if the other news below was an request to meet the president

it Just doesnt make ANY sense ... really, I think I debunked your theory ...

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:35 PM by talisman

Originally posted by Armour For Victor
reply to post by rich23

I didnt like the fact that I got a U2U saying alex was a HOAX. I didnt know ATS was the leading role in making such claims.

Peace!

What Else was it? Was Charlie Sheens fantasy meeting a really huge development?

The fact that NO disclaimer was put in any obvious place, and was NOT EVEN THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I mean, come on this was and is a HOAX.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:36 PM by fleabit

Of course it was a hoax. Pity that blind admiration for this guy makes them think otherwise. He would have never made the grandiose claims of having the biggest story of his entire radio career if he hadn't planned on hoaxing this. Pre-presentation, and then the way the document was written, was obviously a clear attempt to try and blow a fake interview out of proportion. They probably were hoping it would get more legs with the mass media. Good thing it didn't imo.

I always thought the guy was a bit of a blowhard, and jumps to all sorts of conclusions, but this hilarious debacle puts him even further down my list of people whom's theories I'd ever have respect for. Stop covering for this guy. It's clear he is in it for ratings and $$$,

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:37 PM by infinite

reply to post by Faiol

Oh dear, ATS disinfo again.

Troll, troll...troll?

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:40 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca

Are you sure the hype to get you to watch wasn't what he was referring to? The mistaken disclaimer might have been an accident. The hype he created to get you to listen I will concede was a ruse and it just might be working. I'm seeing article after article in newspapers covering this. All those against any 9/11 truth are showing their hand.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:42 PM by Freenrgy2

reply to post by Armour For Victor

Here is the U2U:

An unfortunate event has occurred today that has the potential to harm the credibility all people and sites seeking to find the truth in a broad range of conspiracy-related topics... the The Alex Jones Interview Hoax.

Some hours after the deception was exposed, several dozen online sources have not yet fully come to terms with the fictional nature of the "interview." Help raise awareness of the reality by DIGGing the ATS thread that contains the link to the original, unaltered version.

Thanks.

Let's look at a few things here.

1. Has the potential to harm credibility, not that it will harm credibility.
2. Alex is not labeled as a hoax but "The Alex Jones Interview Hoax", which describes the topic and not the individual.
3. ATS was only calling on its members to alert other online sites that the interview did not really happen as they were still presenting this as being fact.
4. ATS used it's screen capture of the original, no disclaimer page as proof that the article was indeed posted as being genuine initially.

Facts are your friend.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:45 PM by atzmaz

I know Alex and if anyone is out to get him its himself. He's a good guy at heart but mislead by so many of the people around him and of course by the usual suspects of greed, ignorance and pride.

At the end of the day I was really surprized to see so many threads about him on ATS, but know that this like everything else will pass and no one is out to get him, just like no one is out to get anyone else on these boards.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:47 PM by Faiol

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Faiol

Oh dear, ATS disinfo again.

Troll, troll...troll?

read all my posts in my profile ... I never said this about ats ... but, in this case, for me it is clear that something is going on

there are at least 20 threads active about alex lying yesterday and ALL the threads debunking the hoax are deleted ...

well, if you use your brain and read my posts, you could at least try to answer instead of saying troll ... really, I am not a troll, I am a person that doesnt like bullcrap and really didnt like what you guys did on this board since yesterday

oh, you will answer troll ... yes, I know that it is very dificult to read and research, it is more easy to just bash a person ... well, this is a desinfo tatic .. no ?

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Faiol]

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 01:48 PM by Stillalive

dude, he used a lie to gather fame time,and ratings. in the times of disinfo where all people think conspirac believers are crazy,he just lied to us,and he succesfully took our mind off of more imporant stuff

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 02:01 PM by Yukitup

"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."

Soooo....AJ's defense is "I did not INTEND to lie to you all, I was merely negligent in my application of truth." I dunno, but I am fairly certain that deceipt implies intent - kinda like you can't accidentally commit murder - it is an intentional act (as opposed to negligent homicide). While specific intent crimes (staying with your "proving intent" theme) generally require the prosecution to prove that when you committed the crime you had the requisite intent or purpose (mens rea), general intent crimes only require that you intend to perform the act. That is, you don't need any additional intention or purpose. For example, assault is usually a general intent crime. You only need to intend your actions, not any particular result. General intent crimes are easier to prove because it is not necessary to show that you had some particular purpose.

What was AJ's purpose? What did AJ intend to accomplish? Regardless of whether there exist additional and unintended results, he would still appear to be culpable.

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 02:01 PM by ExPostFacto

You know what I find funny.

I haven't seen a single 9/11 debunker post on this issue. Or is the real conspiracy is that the debunkers are attacking the facts as Sheen lays them out, through AJ obvious mishandling of hype?

reply posted on 9-9-2009 @ 02:02 PM by Nifron

I said it before and i'll say it again. but first i'm here not always to present truth or logic, but sometimes ideas and visions of what i may see myself.

What ATS did yesterday was BS, but from what i've been reading in the last 24 hours seems like we members are split nearly 50/50 on this.