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.

 

The problem with disclosure

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Even when someone with specific knowledge releases that information, it is unlikely to be believed by most people unless it fits the pre-conceived ideas they already hold.

Exactly how well would most of you accept something if actual information was provided? After all, if the evidence isn't believed anyway, how did disclosure help?




posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 





Exactly how well would most of you accept something if actual information was provided? After all, if the evidence isn't believed anyway, how did disclosure help?
You can't argue with 100% conclusive factual evidence, no matter if people want to accept it or not, the truth will be set in stone...



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I would have to agree with chaos

I want the truth even if it does not go along
with the preconceived notions of what the
sheeple expect.

Disclosure = Truth



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Perhaps I am a bit frustrated right now, but I have posted information on this site that is borderline dangerous for me. If you guys knew the information behind my posts, you would recognize the importance of what I have said. Instead, people are more interested in chemtrails, why we did NOT land on the moon, and whether the secret moon bases are run totally by our teams, or in conjunction with aliens. You people don't want to know real information, you prefer science fiction to science.

Some people have stated that since I seem to be so "science based" that I should just leave and go to a "science site." At this time, I am starting to believe that is true. With the resistance I have received with what I've posted to this point, I see no reason to attempt to reveal any further information. There are other sites, and methods, available.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


I for one am very interested in what you have to say. If you do post elsewhere, I would appreciate a U2U so I can keep up.

It is rare for someone to be so open about their identity on internet and this is one reason I am very inclined to listen to you.

Not only that but I am confident that you know what you are talking about.

I also have noticed that many people are easily distracted by subjects that "go nowhere". But, there are those among the crowd who are listeners, thinkers, observers and will study the evidence and plausibility and recognize valid information.

Hope you will stick around for the few who are interested.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


I lurk here a bit, post every once in a while. I don't remember your posts specifically, but your past posts have piqued my interest as I peruse them...I'd urge you to try to stick it out a while longer - people here, now, can get easily distracted sometimes.

If you do decide to leave I'd like to know where you go too so as to check-in on your work.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
i don't know. this is kinda embarrassing, but the other day i had a preconceived notion of what a podiatrist was, seemingly based on my above average intelligence and about 40 years of life experience. but i was suddenly surprised to learn that my concept of what a podiatrist was was incorrect. the reality was different from what i knew to be the case. when confronted with the truth, though, i was able to accept it because i knew it to be the truth (the precise definition of a podiatrist was delivered to me, one after another, by two medical doctors and a family member who is a nurse). to me, this was indisputable, so i easily adapted to the new information and let go of my incorrect assumptions. it can be done.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Perhaps I am a bit frustrated right now, but I have posted information on this site that is borderline dangerous for me. If you guys knew the information behind my posts, you would recognize the importance of what I have said. Instead, people are more interested in chemtrails, why we did NOT land on the moon, and whether the secret moon bases are run totally by our teams, or in conjunction with aliens. You people don't want to know real information, you prefer science fiction to science.

Some people have stated that since I seem to be so "science based" that I should just leave and go to a "science site." At this time, I am starting to believe that is true. With the resistance I have received with what I've posted to this point, I see no reason to attempt to reveal any further information. There are other sites, and methods, available.



i guess it depends, truth, on what your goals are. if it's disclosure, this site's going to reverberate anything of substance that comes out within its pages. but there's rarely any evidence of anything more than, like you said, made up science fiction, or rather, in most cases, just fantasy.

others, and i'm certainly not incriminating you (i wouldn't know), are more interested in internet celebrity (or the ats version of it) or stars and flags rather than delivering real information. plus, if people don't have the tools to interpret an internet stranger's credibility, there's only so far one can go in listening to and absorbing "secret" information from another. would you expect everyone to believe everything you say because you say it's true? my problem with ats is kinda the opposite. people believe way, way, way too much crap with no reason to. you can say ANYthing on this site and have a legion of followers in no time. post factual content, nobody cares.

but ats is just like the real world: made of of all kinds of people with all kinds of preconceived notions, all kinds of biases, all ranges of intelligence and zealotry and attitude and (misinformed) opinion.

if you require a certain standard of appreciation from ats members for your posts, i wouldn't be surprised if you do get it, but it could be tricky.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I am somewhat inhibited by the release of my friend's book. It is really cool, but after proofreading it and providing input from my experience, I don't want to "take credit" for information that will be in his book, that, quite frankly, I don't recall which one of us originally came up with it.

The whole process was pretty amazing, because we would take things we knew, do research, learn more details from other sources, and then a new whole realization would show up about that particular event or operation.

If I presented some of the information from the book, before its release, it could also draw undue interest from sources we are each concerned about how they will receive the information this book contains.

The book will definitely NOT be for the "light reading" of non-history or non-conspiracy buffs. My friend is rather intelligent, and decided, against a lot of advice, not to "dumb-down" the book, for the general public. It is going to be a book you need to study, as much as read.

I am sorry if that makes it seems I am not performing better disclosure at this time, but the publisher is speeding up the process to get the book out earlier, and I do not know the release date. I doubt my friend does either, because we've been pretty close on this thing.

Also, we've been talking over topics for the second book in the series, so I am trying not to tell any of the stuff the second book will cover.

One thing of concern is that as a former military officer, it will be "interesting" to see how any official response will be to some of the material in the book series. It isn't like I want to go to prison, or suddenly show up dead of a "suicide." There are some reports in the past of such things.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I can drop the B.S. about my "friend's" book and its implications now.

The strange thing is that so much of what is "hidden" is really done so in clear sight. As an example, look at Area 51. It was created when no one had access to visual access to the area. Now, with things as simple as Google Earth, items that would have been hidden in the 1950s and early 1960s are now very difficult to hide. There are "observers" all around the place because of all of its publicity. However, it still serves a purpose as a classified site, but also draws so much attention that other facitilities can be MUCH more covert. How much of the information AND misinformation is actually supplied BY the military to keep as many eyes as possible focused on that area of Nevada, to keep so many other sites hidden. Yet the general populace STILL buys into the "ssecrets" of Area 51.

It's kind of funny.really.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Even when someone with specific knowledge releases that information, it is unlikely to be believed by most people unless it fits the pre-conceived ideas they already hold.

Exactly how well would most of you accept something if actual information was provided? After all, if the evidence isn't believed anyway, how did disclosure help?


I agree with this. I mean, just try explaining to 90% of Christians out there that if Jesus existed, he would have been a dark skinned, black haired and dark eyed middle eastern guy and not the white skinned, blonde haired, blue eyed guy in sparkling white robes they think he was.

They won't have any of it. It's a common sense problem. The book takes place entirely in Egypt and the Middle East. The book even says he had dark bronze skin. But they still have this preconceived notion that they don't want to shake.

This was just an example. I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
That is a viable analogy.

Although not strictly along that same line, there is another side to what "Truth" truly is. if you try to look at what appears to be a clear "truth" for the ages, the "Virgin birth" was an absolute impossibility to explain for 2,000 years. Now, in just the past 50 years, we humans have developed this very capability through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc. As mere humans, we can even allow a woman to give birth to a child with NO genetic link to its mother. "Truth" in belief became an impossibility due to science. Then, by the development of better science, the "impossible" became possible, and science, seen as an enemy of belief, was the very mechanism for belief to again have "viability."

If someone even 100 years ago tried to describe us typing on a keyboard in our houses, yet being able to immediately be read by people anywhere on Earth, that would have been impossible. With the delivery of higher levels of science, what seemed uterly impossible is accepted practice that our 4 year olds utilize with no concept of what a "miracle" this truly is!

While this is not exactly what I meant originally, it does make "truth" more difficult to define.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join