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.

 

How much documentation is needed to prove a conspiracy is in fact taking place?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
This site is big on denying ignorance right?

Well, how much evidence, and what types of evidence are needed to prove to you, ATS, that a particular conspiracy is going on?

I ask in all seriousness because if there is not some sort of standard, how can we even begin to try to prove or dubunk some of these issues?

Thanks in advance

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Goethe]




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Goethe
 


In most cases, very little or none.

The Standard which you speak of is in the eye of the Conspiracist, based on their pre-conceived notions / theories.

So basically it depends on the story, who's telling it, and who likes to hear it.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
From what I've seen on ATS, to convince people that a conspiracy is real is purely down to what they want to believe and their pre-existing theories as the last poster said.

People WANT to believe that there are alien bases all over the world filled with thousands of Greys who are working with our governments. They WANT to believe that these Greys have psychic ability amounting to mind control and telepathy.

Obviously theres no evidence to this that any respected person without some kind of inside information would stand up and agree to. It just fits their imagination so they run with it, which is quite sad as it discredits alot of viable theories that do hold evidence to an extent.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
It depends on the forum. If you claim a conspiracy in the Political Realm, you will need DNA samples, photos, video, actual hard copies of documents, blood samples etc. Personal statements made by first hand witnesses are not allowed nor are statements made by a person's spouse. ie. Michelle Obama


In any other forum, it's no holds barred. All you need is a bad dream and a keyboard.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by jibeho]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
What about WaterGate and IranContra?

Is no one accountable anymore and do we not prosecute crimes?

If there is proof of an ongoing operation that fits those standards and one has said proof, how does it help anything then?

Do we not have a burden of proof to meet?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Better said, at what point does it go from theory to fact?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I require old evidence that can be verified, like in a library not on the net.
Current evidence like video or pictures, the net and ATS do well here.
And last but most important, I require a prediction that comes true.


David Grouchy


[edit on 24-5-2010 by davidgrouchy]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Some rules that one can follow.

- Documented by different sources preferably by alegal entity.
- Witnessed by several people that do not have personal gain.
- Can be upheld in a court of law or through logic

With CGI coming in the picture it is generally unwise to draw any conclusions when seeing abnormalities such as UFO's or weather phenomena etc. But again the above applies, when the footage is verifiable through CCTV for example.

In most cases my experience is that people all too much want to believe. And if you present them with a chance to dig deeper in whatever conspiracy they believe they decline. Either due to fear or stupidity. They want to believe in the most outrageous ideas but if somebody from the world they like to ponder about steps into their own realm they s riffle up like catatonic creatures.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by no special characters
Some rules that one can follow.

- Documented by different sources preferably by alegal entity.
- Witnessed by several people that do not have personal gain.
- Can be upheld in a court of law or through logic

With CGI coming in the picture it is generally unwise to draw any conclusions when seeing abnormalities such as UFO's or weather phenomena etc. But again the above applies, when the footage is verifiable through CCTV for example.

In most cases my experience is that people all too much want to believe. And if you present them with a chance to dig deeper in whatever conspiracy they believe they decline. Either due to fear or stupidity. They want to believe in the most outrageous ideas but if somebody from the world they like to ponder about steps into their own realm they s riffle up like catatonic creatures.


This is a smart man!

Alot of people on this forum seem to be of the ideology that they like to say things like "you're too narrowminded to see such and such".

But how can anyone expect someone else to be openminded to their theories and ideas (such as an ET presence cover up) when they themselves can't be openminded enough to consider they could be wrong.

For instance I believe there's alot of ET activity in form of UFO's etc, and I believe most governments know its fact, whether we're in contact with them directly I'm unsure of. But while I don't quite believe it, I'm openminded to the idea that I could be totally wrong and everything can be explained in ways that we might not understand (natural etc), and we may infact be alone as of this second.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join