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.

 

ATS Conspiracy

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Hi guys. I have not written in a while but have been lurking. Medical problems for one. Anyway you might not consider what I am about to say a conspiracy but I do. When I came on here a long time ago I came for help and to let people know what was happening with police. I got no help, just lots of "you can not prove anything, you have no pics." There WERE pics but they went away. Video as well. Still have copy's. Since than lots of other people have supplied plenty of pics and video. My problem was the concept that I must prove my story. Why? Why is it not up to YOU to prove or disprove it? Since than I have watched as people have slammed person after person for not supplying the members with proof positive. I thought this was a conspiracy site! What did Mel Gibson say to Julie Andrews in Conspiracy Theory? "A good conspiracy has no proof. If there was than someone screwed up." or something close to that. So I have watched person after person go away, the amount of new threads go down, and what I consider the spirit of ATS go away. Why tell someone about something if basically they will just call you a lier? So lets see if we can get it back. To that end I will give a couple of situations. YOU tell me if they happened or didn't.




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
First I need proof that Julie Andrews was in Conspiracy Theory.
Does Mary Poppins pass by in the background, kind of like a black helicopter?
Or did you mean Julia Roberts?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 

Ok you got me. I never was good with names.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
lawl xD

regarding your question, I had the same problem with youtube comments before I stopped logging into youtube at all, everyone thinks they are scientists because thats how we were taught to think. on the flip side, faith only goes so far, and once conflicting explainations come into the equation you have a huge mess without the smoking gun wildcard evidence.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 

Ok my edit did not work. 1974, July 5, 0100-0300. The good people of West Yellowstone left at least 8 people on the main street probably dead. They had been shot, knifed, and beaten. Two State Police refused to not only refused to stop or arrest the attackers but refused fist aid.
Second. What happened the day BEFORE the Columbia disaster at NASA. What was the cover up broadcast by CNN two day later for 6 hrs before they pulled it?
Would you like to know more? No proof though.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsinaname
 


The problem is that most things occur without people being able to supply so called evidence. For instance video or pics can now be fabricated and it is hard to tell what is the real thing. We have to go back to listening first and deciding later I am afraid.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
maybe the OP's username alone leaves specific doubts about stories being told.

i don't know

whenever you or someone else is posting something here, its like spraying graffiti in ATS's backyard.
And if i were the landlord i would allow this and forbid that, without warning, since its MY backyard.

soo whatever it is, the overall apearance of something on here, the way it is presented, and what it might cause, is always important, and before i put videos or photos i would think twice whoms individual rights you may violate with doing so.
And i bet so does ATS. If it could cause me as the site-owner trouble ...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TMJ1972
 


As I have said I have not posted in a long time. I am referring to what I have seen done to many people. The concept is wrong. Prove or disprove someone. We expose hoaxes on here. If you dismiss someone by the name they chose, or because they have no proof for you, than you are dismissing this site. I come here to hear about what is going on, that I myself have no access to that info. I actually have found this site used to know the news days before the mainstream media. Now fewer and fewer people are willing to post for lack of so called proof. That is a shame.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Perhaps this might peak your interest. josephhall.org... By the way a few years ago WW3 almost happened because a command was sent that should not have been. Just an accident but almost cost the USA more than a billion according to the Pentagon. It almost took out a Russian satallite and resulted in a failed launch with no data as they tried to find the satallite.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I agree wholeheartedly. I hate to see posters bashing each other when we are supposed to be here to DISCUSS these issues. Discussion does not equal argument. If you have differing views that is fine, I don't mind reading them and a lot of times it'll spark something inside of me and make me want to explore more. THAT is what this should be about. Great post!



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
So if I come in here and start a thread claiming that I saw Richard Hoagland wearing a NY Jets jersey and fur coat meeting Alex Jones at a Sonic Drive Thru in Provo, Utah, and one point manilla envelopes were passed back and forth, and before I could snap a cell pic two black-eyed twin boys stepped through a Stargate and tossed the mummified corpse of David Icke onto a table before a series of blue flashing lights interrupted the scene and caused me to wake up at the Peppermill Casino in Reno, that ATS should entertain the scenario with open and mature discussion?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by whatsinaname
 


The problem is that most things occur without people being able to supply so called evidence. For instance video or pics can now be fabricated and it is hard to tell what is the real thing. We have to go back to listening first and deciding later I am afraid.


There is this ancient concept called testimony and witness. This was used before the invention of cameras and before door-to-door religious proselytizing became contemptuous. The poster is claiming witness, his post is his testimony. The words are founded on belief in his purity of recollection of the truth as he saw it. Which, for the Julie Andrews being in a video fiction reference, isn't so sound.

The desire for evidence on a forum, in a world of digital fabrications, I don't think it would be enough; I agree with your comment. For some skeptics, one would need to write a paper in a university for it to be considered for real, and to have that paper peer-reviewed. Even then, there would be nay-sayers, doubters, and cover-uppers.

It is getting so extreme that the witness isn't trusted until he has an EEG strapped to his noggin. Thankfully life is not a giant court of law. Even if it were, reality in the court is up to a vote.

Original poster will have to learn to accept that a lot of critics just don't care. They get more emotional power points denying the information than to adapt their whole world to it. There is no obligation to believe anything you read on the Internet.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


What you are rallying against is called a Philosophic Burden of Proof. Yes, there are various kinds. However, they all break down just about the same: whoever makes the claim is entitled to provide evidence for the stance they have taken. Granted, the proof does not always need to be up to the standards of the opposing party. It does, however, need to be valid and sound. Therefore, if you make an extraordinary claim, then you need to provide some kind of proof for it, not us.

While ATS is certainly about discussing conspiracies, and alternative theories, it is also about denying ignorance. It would be highly ignorant to allow unsubstantiated claims, and soundless arguments, to remain buoyant "just because."

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColAngus
So if I come in here and start a thread claiming that I saw Richard Hoagland wearing a NY Jets jersey and fur coat meeting Alex Jones at a Sonic Drive Thru in Provo, Utah, and one point manilla envelopes were passed back and forth, and before I could snap a cell pic two black-eyed twin boys stepped through a Stargate and tossed the mummified corpse of David Icke onto a table before a series of blue flashing lights interrupted the scene and caused me to wake up at the Peppermill Casino in Reno, that ATS should entertain the scenario with open and mature discussion?


I gave you a star and it's a shame you don't have more for this post cause ATS has always been about bringing things to the table to enlighten and inform others and proof is a must otherwise it's all speculation and hearsay and fairytales.

Insulting other members should be frowned upon but lack of proof should also require the same. We need information presented in an unbiased way before we further entertain possibilities.




top topics



 
3

log in

join