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.

 

Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

page: 24
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
I haven't read this whole thread...but...this isn't an airport scanner image. It was taken from here (according to postings at Gizmodo.com)

Link to image set (NSFW)


Yup; hoax.. I still maintain my previous statements though.


Oh yeah; kill the thread just like that!
I still sympathize with OPs beliefs though; and believe it is a reasonable concern, "that's saying less than the least"..

Thank you WeAreAWAKE .

Edit to add: I was joking about killing the thread.



[edit on 8-1-2010 by noconsequence]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by noconsequence]




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwytch
 





Y'know I think the people who complain about these scanners being 'an invasion of privacy' etc need to get a grip and decide whether they what to feel safe when they fly or risk terrorists smuggling weapons on board the plane.

The decision seems like a no brainer to me ... I can't understand the problem at all !


I personally would prefer to retain my rights and avoid giving an ounce of increased jurisdiction to TSA. In fact the federal Government as no business in a private businesses security measures. Give me liberty...



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 





I've seen more skin at the beach, omg don't take the kids swimming or let them have fun at summer camp by the lake.


you miss the point. No one is making anyone wear a bikini in order to go to the beach.




Don't like the scanners, drive instead of flying, it is that simple.


How about instead of forcing me to be "protected" those that are such cowards as to think we all should have to submit to a virtual strip search in order to feel safe drive instead of fly.

Both the State and Federal Governments do not have the jurisdiction to perform a search without probable cause. Living in a society that believes in innocence until proven guilty has it's inherent dangers. However the merits of such a system should not have to be explained.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwytch
 





... from which we hopefully are mature enough to share views/opinions and debate the subject from both perspectives.


LOL. Didn't you imply he might be a terrorist. Or at the very least an "extremist". Not very mature in my opinion.




Maybe if you valued the gift of life a little more you wouldn't be so eager to put it at risk. I don't understand why anyone would directly state that they would;


Isn't there something to be said about quality of life. If someone promised you eternal safety by living in a concrete cage 100 ft under ground, would that be honoring the gift of life? How about daily strip searches? How about exchanging labor for safety. Where is your respect for life when you have no regard for quality.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 




Because the President of a PASSENGER company, doesn't want his CLIENTS to avoid flying.


You don't think planes being bombed out of the sky might deter people from flying?




Like many have already said, you have a choice.


You currently have a choice. Instead of supporting a virtual strip search you can choose not to fly. The Government doesn't need this increased jurisdiction. You said it best:


f you don't like the system, if you feel bad by using it, then don't use it. There are plenty of travel systems that you can use.





Why "terrorist"? Why not mental patient? Why not psycho? sociopath? Why not lunatic?


Aren't all these charter traits capable of causing death through means other then an airplane. Would you support these scanners being installed outside of each individual home. Or if these scanners prove to be inadequate would you support random strip searches? At what point are you willing to control your paranoia?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by harvib]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sotp
 


Have you seriously never heard of Chechnya?! They are all caucasian and Muslim!! First of all that is just stereotyping and they would get in # for it, second they already do. Ive never been searched, I have Indian and other non-white friends who were, go figure... Third, as I said, there are white Muslims.

You can never be truly safe and that is the point, Id rather die free than live in shackles. This is the SAME ARGUMENT AS GUN CONTROL, the good people get #ed over and the bad people will just find another way to get what they want!!!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
They're doing it to you.

Just like we've been warned for years.

Bit by bit, day by day, exactly what all the "alarmists" have been predicting for years is coming to pass. Our privacy, on every level, is going out the window and why? Fear. The most powerful control mechanism there is. Article after article, source after source is saying that these scanners would have done nothing to stop this so-called attack, and yet people don't even seem to be interested. More security! More scans! Less privacy! If you've got nothing to hide, then what's your problem, right? This entire line of thinking and the fear-driven reasoning behind it is absolutely chilling. How people don't see this for what it is, is utterly beyond me.

For me, it's quite simple. The thought of living under this kind of repressive and invasive global police state is far scarier to me than the thought of being blown out of the sky. Because lets face it - one of the two is most likely never going to happen to you. The other almost certainly is. I'll let you decide which is which.


edit:spelling



[edit on 9-1-2010 by Nyteskye]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Each airline should be responsible for their own security and then individuals can choose to pay higher fares to fly with airlines with better security measures or choose to pay lower fairs and fly with airlines with fewer security measures.

The government does not have to be involved. They never did.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Well I have to admit the US are funny...

Well you guys sell guns like they're yer buy popcorns before a movie - oh theres a gun store, let me check if they have the new Desert Eagle .50 ... yea american macho bs HOOAH HOAAAH everyone owns a freakin god, you guys shoot yerselves every freakin day, gang wars and crap, the country is boiling with violence, almost every freakin american owns a gun HOOAH... and you freaking cry like babies "OMG OBAMA IS TAKING OUR DEAR GUNS AWAY... oooohhh loooord... what is I gonna do without ma loved gun"...

but... then comes a naked chick... OMG BOOBS... CRAP COVER THAT, RATE IT M! WE CANT SHOW BOOBS DUDE, ITS GROSS!!!! ALL MIGHTY JESUS ITS A NAKED BODY OF A WOMAN... MAN I CANT TAKE THIS ABUSE! WE CANT TAKE IT... ITS OFFENSIVE!

Later that day...

YEa we just bought the new M4A1 with a grenade launcher and laser sight in the freakin buttf**k town in the local arms shop for SELF DEFENSE... cheers with bud(piss)weiser and HOOAHH... Love to be an american! HOOAHHH

Each day it passes I just have to love europe... we get no guns, but hell we get boobs on prime time and nobody cares, our adds have boobs and naked chicks, since the 80s... nobody cares seriously.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
it offensive because people have built up images that represent their beauty and some people have ways they view a naked body beautiful which are different than the images some have grown comfortable in accepting as their own beauty.its a matter of self confidence and awareness that other people see the person naked that portrays themself and is probably viewed as beautiful/successful.many aspects of a persons body are/is not exact replicas of the images presented to people for consumption of what is ideally beautiful, and many bodies prosper off of emulation of these images.if a person is in the position of prospering off of being the image presented to men/women what beauty is and the opposite sex sees them naked they loose all invested interest by the person who finds the naked body unattractive.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I don't have such a problem with the nude image it is the invasive technology there is not enough time spent on how this specific technology affects the human body ie:cat scans after all these years are being linked to cancer ,cell phones etc.We just do not have enough data to support our bodies being subjected to another unproven technology.I live in Vancouver B.C and I for one will choose a full body pat down and I do not know about anywhere else but under 18 constitutes a pass.That is the only good thing that I can see about this latest turn of events in Big brother decimating our rights and privacy.

peace



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I posted a question earlier about medical appliances and have been searching for info since... and it does seem that things like

Urinary catheters
Incontinence pads.
Colostomy and ileostomy bags.
PEG feeding tubes.
Mastectomy prostheses.
Certain medication pumps and implanted ports, such as insulin pumps.
TENS machines.
Back supports/Corsets

Will show up on the machine and depending on the material used to make the medical appliance may also mask the area underneath the appliance from the scanner.

So can these medical appliances be used to hide explosives?

If so do all people who travel with medical aids/disabilities needs to be strip searched??

Since we are all going through nude anyway, will the security services need check the contents of someones incontinence pad! (I'm cringing as I say that) just to be sure their is nothing explosive in there!

(drug mules have been known to use incontinence pads to hide their drugs in)

Can you get a wheel chair user into one of these bodyscanners?

so will we need to strip search those in wheel chairs??

Then you have transexuals/intersex etc how do the securities services at airports deal with those persons who's bodies do not match their travel documents?

If you have an ordinary body then you only have to deal with being seen nude, if you are one of those people who has a disability or who sits outside the realm of ordinary bodies then you have a whole host of issues to deal with.

Will our security services be trained to deal in disability awareness and gender tolerance, or will our sensitivities to deal with those with disabilities create a window of opportunity for terrorists.


[edit on 9/1/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by alaskan
 


OK, your images have been identified as a hoax. Are you the perpetrator or did you get hoodwinked?

Anyway, the imager has been on trial at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport for years. Heard any horror stories about it? No? Thought not.

Furthermore, if it cuts the time for me to get through security in a US airport from 20 minutes to 2 minutes or less, I'm all for it.

I have an artificial hip. In Australia, I just get an extra 45 second electronic wand by hand after I set off the walk through metal detector. No big deal, I know its coming, the agents are professional but not cold and dismissive.

In the USA I get the full body hand pat down treatment every time. The agents are rude (with one exception I came across at LAX, of all places, but I was the only one in the security area at the time) because they are bored and (most of them, anyway) aren't particularly turned on by feeling up passengers all day long. The spiel they have to recite to protect themselves from harassment suits is boring, superfluous, and stupid. The fact that they are mostly understaffed and being hurried up by passengers trying to catch a plane has got to be extremely taxing on their mental alertness. I don't envy them their job in any way.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
To make this Short!
Do you wish to be a courpse in a air crash investigation?
Or have passengers do a 5 second intrusive scan?
I know what I'd prefer, getting to my destination in 1 piece.... not 100 pieces scattered accross a crash site.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by DreamerOracle]


Are you aware that more airplanes wreck from maintenance errors than from terrorists?

Sorry but the reality is, the odds are you will die in a plane from a accident rather than a terrorist.

Think of the irony, you get on a airplane after being scanned, only to die because the engine caught fire mid air...



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Each airline should be responsible for their own security and then individuals can choose to pay higher fares to fly with airlines with better security measures or choose to pay lower fairs and fly with airlines with fewer security measures.

The government does not have to be involved. They never did.


Thanks for making this point.

I think you have underlined the most critical part of the issue here.

The government always screws everything up, so it's no wonder airport security is a complete joke.

But however, I do believe that private corporations such as the airlines themselves could provide far more effective security with far less screw ups.

The private sector usually does better because they have to compete against each other, which pushes them to excellence in their fields.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Well at least it's not some fat, ugly, bastich.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Each airline should be responsible for their own security and then individuals can choose to pay higher fares to fly with airlines with better security measures or choose to pay lower fairs and fly with airlines with fewer security measures.

The government does not have to be involved. They never did.


Thanks for making this point.

I think you have underlined the most critical part of the issue here.

The government always screws everything up, so it's no wonder airport security is a complete joke.

But however, I do believe that private corporations such as the airlines themselves could provide far more effective security with far less screw ups.

The private sector usually does better because they have to compete against each other, which pushes them to excellence in their fields.


I actually think people would pay more to fly on airlines with less hassles. without regard to security.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



Both the State and Federal Governments do not have the jurisdiction to perform a search without probable cause. Living in a society that believes in innocence until proven guilty has it's inherent dangers. However the merits of such a system should not have to be explained.


You do realize that the federal government has jurisdiction over all air travel over the USA.

The same system that allows you to feel perfectly safe
flying with a pilot that you have never met or flown with before. Do you feel Protected then. Every step that you take from airport to airport you are are protected
by some governments security systems.

I was at an airport in Costa Rica in early November.
I was astounded by the level of security.
while I was waiting for my plane back to Houston, I witnessed their security in action. There was a 20 something Honduran man that was denied boarding an airplane for some unknown reason. I think he was trying to go to Guatemala, but I am not sure. Anyway, there was this very pretty young lady sitting to my left. She was pretending to be asleep. For a couple of hours she napped. When the security agents had finally
escorted the man away, the head of security came over to the young lady. They had a few kind words and then kindly shook hands.

The young lady then took her leave of the airport out the front doors toward the parking lot. It became clear to me at that point what I had witnessed. That pretty young lady was an agent that was in place to thwart a suspected problem from boarding an airplane.

There are many layers of security in place in every airport in the world. Some are better than others.

I have not yet had the opportunity to fly into Israel,
But history has proven that they stand NO messing around at their airport! Yes, your liberties are relinquished to a great degree the moment you set foot out of your car.

The pilot has to abide by the FAA rules to insure your safety. So must you. They also must undergo screening along with anyone on the flightline.So must you. If you want to fly. It really is that simple.

Your transportation at 415 miles an hour is NOT one of your un-alienable rights, it is a privilege of the jet age. Abide by the current terms of safe travel. Or hitchhike....ooops...ummmmm....

Why was hitchhiking determined to be illegal in the USA?
Because it's NOT SAFE! It used to be back in the 60's.
But not anymore.

Rant over....yeah ...just hitchhike..thats it. Do THAT.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" - Benjamin Franklin

That's my only comment on this subject



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by PunksNotDead
 


Go back and read the whole thread..that has been quoted about 10 times here already....He also said.."Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"

Same guy that flew kites in a thunderstorm with a wet cotten string and a metal key!

Brillant man old Ben was! no doubt, I really wonder what he wouda made of this mess tho. We will never know.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join