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.

 

Open Mindedness seems to be a Dying Trait

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I was originally going to post this as a reply to one of the earthquake topics, however, I felt that the subject needed a broader scope of audience to reach.

ATS has clearly become a society that discredits everything even though there is no evidence to the contrary.

Open minds have been closed permanently now and conspiracies are a thing of the past.

For example:

While there are a plethora of posters who spout off the unfounded claims of "EARTHQUAKE MACHINE?! IMPOSSIBLE!" they seem to ignore the history of studies in the field and the possibility that if such technology exists, it would not be the type that would show up at your annual Consumer Electronics Show.

Seriously, if conspiracies were based on readily provable, easy to find fact, then they wouldn't be conspiracies would they? They would be the official stories. There would be no point to this website and any other conspiracy web site on the internet. In my experience, conspiracies start with doubt, questionable motives, or something that seems a little out of place.

Why is it that more often then not, in today's ATS, there are legions of people who will just brand something is "CRAZY" or "IMPOSSIBLE" without regarding any of the information or circumstances?

This has been increasing ten fold since my arrival here and it is disheartening me. There seemed to be a time when words like the two above weren't even in the conspiracy theorists dictionary but now... it seems the conspiracy theorists dictionary is becoming more so like that of everyday people.

When did "conspiracy" become a dirty word? Why are people's minds closing to possibilities?

Please, discuss.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by gwydionblack]




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
LOL! Starred and Flagged. Imagine watching that landslide for 5 years! In many ways, I admire the new posters at ATS for finding us and deciding to share their thoughts. But, I indeed miss the older days when a strange OP came up, people discussed it. Researched it. Came to real conclusions. (Or the closest thing possible) There was much less bickering and a LOT less Trollery and Douchbaggery packed into one-liners and ad-homs.

Time passes, things evolve...even here on ATS.

All that WE can do is post with class and make sure WE make those posts count. Personal Posting Responsibility.

Well posted, sir. (See the link in my signature. I feel the same way.)

Cuhail



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
It's strange you say Open Mindedness is a dying trait because from my perspective, gullibility at ATS is growing at an alarming rate!

IRM


[edit on 21/1/10 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
It has been that way here for a long,long time. Even the most plausible conspiracy "theory" tends to get played down.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Its really hard to call someone gullable or paranoid when we all get our information from the same source. the internet. who knows, maybe behinde most sites its all disinfo, or maybe its all dead on truth. its really personal opinion based, you just choose what sounds more suitable with your view on everything.

My motto is, if it needs verification, don't waste too much time on it. its always fun to look at the interesting theories, and unless to you want to proove them right; which most we discuss we really cant other than whistleblowers, and thats just taking someones word on something; Don't go saying its correct.

So in conclusion, its a pointless argument. Believe what you want, but know you exist.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by gandhi]

[edit on 20-1-2010 by gandhi]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Well, as in any other realm of our existence, we humans enjoy being the center of attention — I know, for instance, that a great many ATS members will disagree with any given position just for the hell of it, particularly when the subject is of an "inviolate" nature. The Holocaust, for example, is such ridiculously holy ground for most people, the attention-grabbers out there will dispute it in order to seize the spotlight for a few fleeting minutes.

I'm not talking about playing the devil's advocate regarding one issue or another, but simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I know, because I do it myself when things are slow on ATS. I may do a turnabout and immediately contradict myself in the very next thread, and for this I'm often labeled a hypocrite — I like to believe, however, that I've had a few moments to reconsider and I'm actually demonstrating my open mindedness... Others don't always see it that way.



Regarding conspiracy theory — such as 911 conspiracy or JFK conspiracy and the like — posters can only take the subjects so far before they enter the realm of inviolate conspiracy; that is, conspiracy theory that must not be challenged, or else you bring upon yourself a hellstorm of retribution. 911 conspiracy theory is like that... I've been watching this area of conspiracy since Day One, and the theorists are SO tight-assed, they apparently cannot accept factual data nor even consider alternate explanations.

Interestingly, I have yet to see a real structural or aeronautical engineer post real data among the thousands of 911 threads. It's all hysterical speculation and outright fabrication based on... well... nothing, actually.

Such sensational, baseless conspiracy theories are just begging for somebody to come storming in and discredit them. Which I do, occasionally, but it's really tiring... It's like beating up Batman's arch-enemies — the clownish, crazed bastards just keep coming back. In those instances, it's not so much about open-mindedness, it's more like being the only sane person in Arkham Asylum.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 1/20/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
It's strange you say Open Mindedness is s dying trait because from my perspective, gullibility at ATS is growing at an alarming rate!

IRM


No gullibility is closed minded. And it's a two way street.

If we are being open minded we look at more possibilities and consider alternative routes, this prevents unchecked gullibility by default.

An open mind considers all possibilities presented to it.

A closed mind only considers one possibility.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   


When did "conspiracy" become a dirty word? Why are people's minds closing to possibilities?

"Open Mindedness" is a threat to our national security! we must fight this terror, this weapon of mass destruction with every agent available!
Hail Caesar!



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Yes, those who are presented with information they don't agree with or irrationally disregard tend to blame it on ones "gullibility", however, this is all a result of said lack of open mindedness.

I don't care how bizarre something that someone says is, it gives you no right to discredit it or call them stupid simply because you don't believe it. How about instead you provide information to the discussion and try to clarify said "gullibility" instead of flat out calling people stupid.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I agree with gwyd. I often read threads and find that the common theme now is "where is the proof" and on and on and I wonder if these same people realize that conpiracies are called theories for a reason. They are theories. You aren't going to find 100 percent proof when someone is presenting a theory. As for alternative topics, well they are usually found in skunk works. Another area of the forum where there isn't going to be 100 percent proof either. People there share their stories with others on the forum and you can either take their claims or leave them.

There is also occassions where people have proof via personal experiences. Not every experience that someone has encountered is going to produce physical evidence.

If people are here looking for 100 percent irrefutable proof, then perhaps they are participating on the wrong forum. As stated they are called conspiracies. The keyword there being THEORY.

I'm not suggesting that people blindly believe everything that they hear. However, demanding 100 percent proof in regards to any claim, or theory presented here on ATS is also just as ignorant.

If these people were truly concerned about certain topics that are presented in which they demand irrefutable proof, then they would take it upon themselves to conduct their own research as opposed to relying on others to do it for them.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I think that more open mindedness as well as more critical thinking could be used on here as well as in life by most of us---myself included.

I see no reason those two traits cant co-exist.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix777
...conpiracies are called theories for a reason. They are theories. You aren't going to find 100 percent proof when someone is presenting a theory.

Except for those cases in which the theory is based on hysterical speculation, and there is 100% proof positive evidence to the contrary.

Case in point, I submit for your consideration the 911 conspiracy theories regarding UA93 which crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers overwhelmed its terrorist hijackers. The conspiracy theories suggest that UA93: 1) Was shot down by the USAF, or 2) Was flown by U.S. government operatives to a secret location, or 3) Was hidden away, and wreckage and human body parts were secretly trucked in or out of the crash site, or 4) Pigs flew out of my ass, and so forth.

The deal with UA93 is that we have really solid evidence of what happened. We have ground-based witnesses who saw the damned thing in flight, saw it descending at cruising speed at extremely low altitude, and saw it impact. Witnesses saw the fireball, felt the shockwave of the blast, which broke out local windows. The FAA and NTSB retrieved most of the plane and identified all of the passengers through DNA analysis of recovered tissues.

In short, all the facts are in on the case. There is no conspiracy.

Try to tell that to the UA93 conspiracy theorists — they will beset you like a pack of ravenous razorback pigs. Pigs, I tell you.

Open-mindedness is one thing... Discarding hard facts in pursuit of crazed fantasies is some sort of mental disorder, don't you think?

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 1/20/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Matrix777
...conpiracies are called theories for a reason. They are theories. You aren't going to find 100 percent proof when someone is presenting a theory.

Except for those cases in which the theory is based on hysterical speculation, and there is 100% proof positive evidence to the contrary.

Case in point, I submit for your consideration the 911 conspiracy theories regarding UA93 which crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers overwhelmed its terrorist hijackers. The conspiracy theories suggest that UA93: 1) Was shot down by the USAF, or 2) Was flown by U.S. government operatives to a secret location, or 3) Was hidden away, and wreckage and human body parts were secretly trucked in or out of the crash site, or 4) Pigs flew out of my ass, and so forth.

The deal with UA93 is that we have really solid evidence of what happened. We have ground-based witnesses who saw the damned thing in flight, saw it descending at cruising speed at extremely low altitude, and saw it impact. Witnesses saw the fireball, felt the shockwave of the blast, which broke out local windows. The FAA and NTSB retrieved most of the plane and identified all of the passengers through DNA analysis of recovered tissues.

In short, all the facts are in on the case. There is no conspiracy.

Try to tell that to the UA93 conspiracy theorists — they will beset you like a pack of ravenous razorback pigs. Pigs, I tell you.

Open-mindedness is one thing... Discarding hard facts in pursuit of crazed fantasies is some sort of mental disorder, don't you think?

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 1/20/2010 by Doc Velocity]


I agree with you which is why I stated it wouldn't be healthy to believe everything that is presented here.

Doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions would ultimately be the safest bet.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix777
...it wouldn't be healthy to believe everything that is presented here. Doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions would ultimately be the safest bet.

Quite so. That's exactly what I did for a number of years on UA93. I researched witness accounts, I researched FBI and FAA and NTSB and Homeland Security public records, I examined photographs, and I did comparisons of the UA93 crash to other similar crashes (in which the planes seemingly disappeared on impact).

The research was conclusive. UA93 took a vertical nosedive at cruising speed (350 to 500 mph) into soft, deep soil and essentially blasted itself into confetti. Still, the majority of the plane was recovered. Such is the thoroughness of the FBI and FAA and NTSB recovery teams. They're very good at picking up the pieces when things fall down and go boom.

Now, if I immersed myself in UA93 conspiracy theory without researching the hard data, I too might be inclined to think that flying pigs somehow figured into the catastrophe. That, however, is not open-mindedness — it's deliberate self-delusion.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
I was originally going to post this as a reply to one of the earthquake topics, however, I felt that the subject needed a broader scope of audience to reach.

ATS has clearly become a society that discredits everything even though there is no evidence to the contrary.

Open minds have been closed permanently now and conspiracies are a thing of the past.

For example:

While there are a plethora of posters who spout off the unfounded claims of "EARTHQUAKE MACHINE?! IMPOSSIBLE!" they seem to ignore the history of studies in the field and the possibility that if such technology exists, it would not be the type that would show up at your annual Consumer Electronics Show.

Seriously, if conspiracies were based on readily provable, easy to find fact, then they wouldn't be conspiracies would they? They would be the official stories. There would be no point to this website and any other conspiracy web site on the internet. In my experience, conspiracies start with doubt, questionable motives, or something that seems a little out of place.

Why is it that more often then not, in today's ATS, there are legions of people who will just brand something is "CRAZY" or "IMPOSSIBLE" without regarding any of the information or circumstances?

This has been increasing ten fold since my arrival here and it is disheartening me. There seemed to be a time when words like the two above weren't even in the conspiracy theorists dictionary but now... it seems the conspiracy theorists dictionary is becoming more so like that of everyday people.

When did "conspiracy" become a dirty word? Why are people's minds closing to possibilities?

Please, discuss.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by gwydionblack]



Overall, your point is well taken.

But, I think 9/11 changed everything... especially with certain well known internet personalities proffering demonstrably false information, when some of us would actually like to achieve true justice. This effort is severely injured by loose handling of facts.

I defer to William Peppers, the man who brought the MLK assassination back into court in the 1990's - twice, successfully. Civil trials. I won't get too into it here, but in a lecture he gave to an audience of 9/11 activists, he urged them to be precise in their work. He warned them that if they are not, they will be ridiculed, and their cause defeated, by opening themselves up to attack.

(the peppers talk


www.youtube.com...

To me, the game changed when 3000 died on that fated day.... it moved from interesting conversations, to an investigation with life and death consequences....

This doesn't explain away all the habitual debunkers... I mean, if I personally don't find merit in a topic, I leave it alone so those who are into it can enjoy it.

Dunno. Just my quick 2 cents.

But thanks for the post. It's a point well worth being reminded of.

peace.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Take a look at some old footage of news commentaries from the 50s or 60s, like Edward R. Murrow's show, for example. The show would be a half and hour or more, and a single issue would be discussed with a single guest. No laugh tracks, no jump cuts...just two men in ties, somberly discussing the events of the day with nuance and thoughtfulness. There would be pauses in the conversation, ponderings and musings, and interjections like "Perhaps you have a point there...I've never thought of it that way." People MULLED THINGS OVER, attempted to arrive at the truth together with open minds, rather than approaching a conversation as if it were a verbal manifestation of armed conflict.

Fast forward four or five decades...Now every TV "news" show is full of screaming clowns howling out their little 2.6-second soundbites, talking (fi not shouting) over each other, using extreme language. The whole experience is augmentd by graphic-heavy flashes, "swooshing" sounds, information scrolling horizontally and vertically like a mishmash of stock-market tickers, audo booms and roars as if each show was a superbowl match.

Contrasting this, we can see how much the attention-span of the average viewer has been swiss-cheesed, and how litttle thoughtfulness, nuance, and willingness to ponder and learn from each other the "particpants" (who resemble verbal gladiators more than anyone exhibiting rational thought) exhibit.

Its utterly shameful and disgusting and frankly makes me want to vomit.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Open-mindedness is distinct from foolishness.

If you tell me, to use the example, that earthquakes are being caused by an earthquake machine, i'm going to want you to back the claim up with something. This is me being open-minded, in that I am allowing you to try to convince me. I'm willing to believe, so long as the evidence is believable. If I dismissed it out of hand, that would be me being lcose-minded. That could be due to numerous encounters with hte same or similar claims that never pan out, for example

If you expect me to take the claim at face value without any questions, without any grain of skepticism, that's just you expecting me to be a fool.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Open-mindedness is distinct from foolishness.

If you tell me, to use the example, that earthquakes are being caused by an earthquake machine, i'm going to want you to back the claim up with something. This is me being open-minded, in that I am allowing you to try to convince me. I'm willing to believe, so long as the evidence is believable. If I dismissed it out of hand, that would be me being lcose-minded. That could be due to numerous encounters with hte same or similar claims that never pan out, for example

If you expect me to take the claim at face value without any questions, without any grain of skepticism, that's just you expecting me to be a fool.


I agree with you that claiming earthquakes were man made would require some form of evidence. However, how much evidence would you require? And more importantly, how would someone go about obtaining irrefutable proof that large scale earthquakes were caused by some nefarious group of individuals? I think that same question could apply to many claims here and the subsequent "show me the proof" responses.

Claim: I was abducted by aliens.
Response: show me the proof.

Claim: Aliens speak to me telepathically.
Response: show me the proof.

Claim: 2012 will usher in a better world for all.
Response: show me the proof.

Claim: the governemnt had something to do with 9/11.
Response: show me the proof.

Claim: synchronicity has been occuring in my lately so much so that it cannot be considered to be nothing more than coincidence.
Response: show me the proof.

Some of these require proof. Some of these, the original poster has presented proof and yet what they have presented is never good enough for some people. And some of these claims cannot be backed up with any physical evidence. Where is someone who claims they have been spoken to telepathically going to produce evidence from? How is someone going to proove that synchronicity has affected their lives? Some topics, asking for evidence is a neccessity. Other topics, it seems completely illogical to ask one for evidence when the topic at hand may preclude one from doing so.

Perhaps that is what the original poster was alluding to?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


the difference between conversation and instant message expression



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix777
 


In this case, I would like to see proof that there is a machine capable of producing a 7.0 earthquake, while leaving no further evidence of itself.

The Russians created Tsar Bomba, the 100-megaton hydrogen bomb. On detonation it knocked up a 7.1 on the richter scale for a couple nanoseconds. it also produced an 8 km fireball that burned for about four minutes.

The Haiti Quake was a 7.0, so we can call it more or less identical. However, it lasted several seconds, and there were numerous aftershocks. The amount of energy this would require from a manmade device is simply astounding.

Next, there's the matter of depth. The Haiti quake's epicenter was thirteen km underground, nearly a full kilometer than humans have ever drilled (that being the Kola superdeep, again in Russia). That was a simple coring operation, and it was really really damn obvious - the rigging, the constant travel, the noise, the slag from all that drilling... it also took 22 years to dig that deep.

Want to tell me how a mysterious "someone" managed to drill a wider hole even deeper... underneath Port au Prince?

Now, let's presume you DO have evidence of a machine that can sustain a 100 megaton explosion for several seconds without, you know, creating an all-consuming fireball from heat decay or whatever, AND ALSO that you have evidence of how this device managed to do what it does at thirteen kilometers deep beneath a nation's capital without anyone noticing.

Now you have to explain why. Seriously, is there any logic to crushing Port au Prince? If you have this technology and put all this investment into it, you've certainly tested it prior so, why would this be the "live fire" exercise?

And then comes the hard part.

Even if you have all this - the what, the how, the why... you're going to need to present it in a manner that's more convincing to my Occamometer. That is, how is all of this MORE LIKELY than the idea that Haiti happens to be in a geologically active area that, while not especially prone to earthquakes, has really big ones when they happen.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join