It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wikileaks may not be what you think it is...

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

You make a very plausible and valid argument. People should know if they have sensitive information they should always approach with caution. If you do want to hand it in to Wiki, make sure you use a different IP address which is not traceable to your PC.

That would make a lot of sense having the CIA run a web-site like that. I can't believe no one thought of that sooner! S&F

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Did the wars end? Please explain what changed.

Again, please go look things up and realize that MUCH has changed because of the information they have released. They are in court all the freaking time making sure the information doesn't get buried by those who would go to great lengths to do so.

And for the record, if WL shows you evidence that your best friend is stealing from you, and decide to stay friends with him/her, how is your inaction their fault or responsibility?

I'll take that as a elongated version of agreement that the Wars did not end.

Sorry, I am just in a funny mood tonight.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by baphomet420

It was my general email, more spam than anything... and it was a test that I was advised to make.

An intentional risk, that was more informative than I expected.

But still I am hoping that this is a result of wikileaks being infiltrated rather than being run by the feds.

Either way it sucks.

Anyone can test this the same way I did, perhaps the results will be different for another person.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:31 PM
There is one thing about the possibility of WL being compromised, these people are very in need of money, so my theory is, if the feds wanted to infiltrate them, all they would need to do was covertly investigate each person they wish to target there, and offer some big bank account to the most likely one they think will cave in.
The military and others have done this many many times to squelch technology from becoming public. Steven Greer claimed some Army guy offered him a billion dollars and a reseacrh facility to not disclose any free energy stuff... he says he declined, but the world still has no free energy

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:35 PM
I don't know if I saw it on ATS or zero hedge, but there was a report that the guy who runs (one or two man operation) had roughly ~$5000 seized from his paypal account (donations). The legal recourse to recoup that cash would far exceed the initial $5000.

In short, I think cryptome is more credible than wikileaks.

In addition, wikileaks recently published the CIA public relations memo re: rallying public support in Europe vis a vis NATO for Afghanistan, which was either fradulent on wikileaks part or a co-intel release by the CIA. Wikileaks made it out to be a huge deal but it was more along the lines of 'meh, this is rather innocuous.'

I've heard the audio of the Iraq video (is it a heli-gunner cam or something else?). The question is how did they come across this video?

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:37 PM

Originally posted by tetrahedron

I've heard the audio of the Iraq video (is it a heli-gunner cam or something else?). The question is how did they come across this video?

We were meant to come across it.

That is the only way we can get it. Is if they want us to.

That is the point of this thread IMHO.

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:46 PM
I had the same gut feeling.. when i actually thought about wikileaks

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:43 AM
Wikileaks is just a site that makes it easier to whine about America being evil

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:57 AM
I considered this too OP.

Perhaps if WikiLeaks was a 'honey pot' of sorts... Its possible. A website which can be 'tapped' and all visitors to be 'tracked' once visited or something. A way to create an up-to-date 'enemy biligerent' list haha.
WikiLeaks maybe wouldn't even know it is going on. Hence maybe this is why the recent video actually got airplay on the news.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

I understand your suspicion and it is not unreasonable in my opinion. I wouldn't easily trust any organization that claims to facilitate anonymous whistleblowing. Personally, if I were to blow the whistle about something serious, I would want my name and face known so that I couldn't just disappear without a trace.

"Courage is contagious"? Seeing that on the upload page linked in the original post made me giggle, in light of this thread. They are true words indeed. Seeing the recently leaked footage inspired you to have the courage to send yours.

It just occurred to me that a friend of mine told me (after he came home from Iraq) a few years ago, he had a lot of photos taken over there confiscated by his superior officers or something, because they were too graphic and such. I suppose this is common? I would also suppose a lot of photos and video footage may have made it back home with some of our veterans.

Well, like I said, I see reasonable cause for suspicion. I can see the motive for an intelligence agency to collect and screen sensitive material from the public with promises of anonymity.

With all due respect though, "anonymous whistleblower" is a contradiction in terms, imo. How can you try to blow a whistle and not expect anyone to look at you?

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Frankly, I'm astonished that you can't wrap your head around this one, Sdog. I'm sure you can't possibly think this is something an intelligence agency would not do.

I don't know if anything on WikiLeaks is "disinfo". I'm not calling their credibility on any singular matter into question, and I don't think the OP did either. The question is whether it is prudent for a whistleblower to send material anonymously to that website, and I would be hesitant for the reasons stated above.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by eMachine]

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by alaskan
"Wiki" just doesn't sound too trustworthy to me, but we'll have to wait and see if people start disappearing...

Exactly... with a name like wiki, it's suspect. It should be called the uber secret non-government authority special information blog.

then I'd believe it.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:22 AM

The only ones 'suspicious' and badmouthing wiki-leaks are
the one's who are in with government control and one world order.


[edit on 7-4-2010 by ToneDeaf]

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:34 AM
reply to post by eMachine

Frankly, I'm astonished that you can't wrap your head around this one, Sdog. I'm sure you can't possibly think this is something an intelligence agency would not do.

I'm not sure why you would be astonished as I never suggested any of that.

In fact what I said is:

"the question asked by the OP is valid to be sure and bears investigation."

If there is truth to the notion of a WL-CIA link I would like to know that as well.

All I proposed is that like any other line of inquiry, that facts and evidence should be our guide and not "gut feeling" or implement the 'conspiracy of the gaps' fallacious approach reasoning that because someone may not understand how something was achieved (video decryption) it means what they think it means.

And since WL has to date provided an incredible quantity of quality information, has exposed many lies and conspiracies, has been an ally to truth seekers, and a massive thorn in the side of corrupt institutions, I simply believe accusations that they're spooks should be founded on more than suspicion.

That is really all I have said.

As far as it being safe for a whistleblower, if all this computer stuff is making one wonder, I have been informed that some of the world still uses the postal service.

[edit on 7 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:45 AM
Ok, so say it IS a CIA front.

They want to get all the people leaking stuff and hang them out to dry.

Is that what you are saying their mission is?

If that is true, why would the leaked documents so far mainly be serving to expose the military machines, big banks, and even the CIA themselves?

Are you saying that the pot is calling the kettle black, because the pot thinks it's the only one that can be black?

Anyone would be STUPID to sit at their home computer and upload stuff to wikileaks and think they were anonymous.

That's what libraries are for. You go to another city on your lunch break and you get a guest pass.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:20 AM
I have to agree with schrodingers dog on this one. Why risk damaging the credibility of an organization that have clearly shown they have the potential to make real change in the world (beneficial change), based on little other than your 'gut feeling'?

The only real evidence we have to work with goes completely against what your supposing... and let's be real here, your argument against Wikileak is a little more than just hypothesizing... your practically talking like it's known fact!

True this is a conspiracy website on which we can discuss these sorts of matters... but I thought we had a little more class, you know? ...actually did some sort of real research and then state our case only if credible evidence supports it.

The fact?

Innocent until proven guilty.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:23 AM
I would imagine there are quite a lot of corporations/organizations/agencies that would have an interest in getting involved with WikiLeaks, either overtly or covertly.

I can't seem to find a link to an "About Us" page, but on the bottom of their front page is a list of their "steadfast supporters":

Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP)
The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE)
The Associated Press - world wide news agency, based in New York
Citizen Media Law Project - Harvard university
The E.W Scripps Company - newspapers, TV, cable TV etc.
Gannett Co. Inc - the largest publisher of newspapers in the USA, including USA Today
The Hearst Corporation - media conglomerate which publishes the San Francisco Chronicle
The Los Angeles Times National Newspaper Association (NNA)
Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ)
Public Citizen - founded by Ralph Nader together with the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Jordan McCorkle, the University of Texas

And Wikipedia says:

The Wikileaks team consists of five people who work full-time and about 800 people who work occasionally. None are paid.[25] Wikileaks has no official headquarters. The expenses per year are about €200,000, mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but would reach €600,000 if work currently done by volunteers was paid for.[25] Wikileaks does not pay for lawyers, as hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal support have been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[25] Its only revenue stream is donations, but Wikileaks is planning to add an auction model.[25]

There's a little more info on the Wikipedia page. I got a couple vague answers to some questions I had, so I'm semi-satisfied now. I would follow up on this if I were thinking about sending them something.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Phew! I knew that couldn't be the case, but words like "ally" throw me off, especially when it's a personal term being used for an organization that involves many people.

For instance, believe it or not, I get a lot of truth out of the mainstream media (especially when they're lying and/or broadcasting propaganda), but I wouldn't call them allies.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by eMachine]

[edit on 4/7/2010 by eMachine]

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:42 AM
I don't think it is, but i would say it's possible for it to be the creation of an unhappy faction within the intelligence services,military,politics etc I haven't seen anything that tells me wikileaks is nefarious.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:26 AM
They are using an encrypted upload script, judging by the page source of the form you linked to, OP.

That sends red flag up to me.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:27 AM
the more I read these replies and speculation, the more it seems feasible to me.

it's brilliant, actually. what better way to spy and control the people than pretending to the be the very element they wish to suppress? Run a convincing campaign, release a video that will shock people but nothing more, and make comments that would appeal to conspiracy theorists.

at the same time, if you believe that wikileaks is a CIA front, logic dictates you are inclined to believe that these same people are on ATS (in terms of an official investigation, I'm sure there's people in these organizations who come here to be entertained at the very least), which I don't believe.

I'm going to keep reading and watching...

edit: forgot to say, thank you OP for presenting such an interesting issue, as well as the other member who posted their old thread about the same topic.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by piddles]

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:36 AM
When I first seen the video, I didnt see anything I really hadnt seen before

If you ask me its a front like FACEBOOK.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in