Oathkeepers.org Down due to two controverial articles?

If you were not aware, it seems www.Oathkeepers.org has been down for the last 13 hours or so.
I did not see a forum on this subject but it is being discussed on GLP

Oath Keepers is under heavy load right now. It's a combination of high traffic over the National Guard story and LDS cannery story and also our web guy thinks we may be under a denial of service attack (not the first time by a long shot). Working on it now.

Was a post on page two of GLP's forum www.godlikeproductions.com...

What say you? High volume or a more sinister reason?

reply to post by Vardoger


That is precisely what I was thinking when I tried to look at the "Mormon" article....It seems we are indeed getting close to something! Why else would the government want a list of who may be hoarding food?!!

Activists and conspiray theorists in Facebook are going down as well, I have seen two so far. I am a little bit worried about this and I would like to know what is going on. Is the government getting ready to make a move against the people?

Probably a DOS attack it would not suprise me at all if they paid someone to do it.

reply to post by Elieser


I refer to that as the FB Nazi! I post a lot of conspiracy articles...If my "friends" and I engage in anti-powers that be rants, after a time, our posts get mysteriously deleted! ...And that had been going on for a couple years!

I partially read the article about the FBI wanting the records of the customer of that Mormon cannery in Tennessee, that was five or six hours ago. I quit reading it when they sourced themselves about it. I did a search about it and couldn't find anything about it.

I'm just wondering....when CNN (or other) cites "reliable sources" or "witnesses say" (without providing video/names) do you immediate stop watching? When they refer to their "reporter in the field" do you stop listening?

Yes we need to check the facts, but IMO the MSM get's way more cushion than it deserves.

Tell me this isnt a thread about another thread.....

second

Originally posted by Shadowalker
Tell me this isnt a thread about another thread.....

second

It is a thread about another thread on a different site. The information is the same but so far isn't being disused on this site. For those that do not wish to register/sign in/post on GLP they can do so here. Do you have an issue with information sharing?

If this is in fact a DOS attack on Othakeepers.org it is a very serious situation that needs explaining.

Originally posted by Vardoger
I'm just wondering....when CNN (or other) cites "reliable sources" or "witnesses say" (without providing video/names) do you immediate stop watching? When they refer to their "reporter in the field" do you stop listening?

Yes we need to check the facts, but IMO the MSM get's way more cushion than it deserves.

I don't no because in a lot (if not all) cases, a journalist bringing news from a particularly hostile area of the world is doing so with the constant threat of death or capture.

You get your brave journalists (I only watch Sky News so Sam Kiley, Holly Williams and Alex Crawford spring to mind but there are others on every news network) who do it for the sake of reporting news and don't care about their name, face or whatever getting out there.

On the other hand, a report was shown on Sky News the other day about the Syrian people in Homs being fired at by snipers working for the government there and while the reporter who filmed and reported on it was shown and named and gave a report from Lebanon live after his footage aired, those who helped the injured and those who helped the reporter escape Syria unharmed and sneak across the border to send the report to his bosses were unnamed and unidentified for obvious reasons.

For some reason, a lot of conspiracy theorists seem to be under the impression that a jouornalist citing sources without naming them is evidence of a sinister plot by a fictional group called the Illuminati but it isn't. It's more about the safety of those helping file those reports because obviously, these journalists need to get back into the country at some point to bring further news from the area and if they can't do that, they need their sources alive to give them the info that they themselves can't get from stepping into the country personally.

reply to post by curious7


Good points. I was more referring to when they have "unconfirmed reports" from "reliable sources" and how that is similar to any alternate news source doing the same.How one is blown off and the other taken as gospel if if the reports are still unconfirmed. yes MSM has a better track record for confirming said reports but still....

I have yet to be able to get their site to kick on either. But their Facebook page is still good to go.

Here is the link.