ATS FAILURE? (ATS Members, Your Opinions on Tough Debunking Please), page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 17-9-2004 @ 08:20 PM by SkepticOverlord
We've recently seen two rather popular threads go through various stages of rather intense discussion, both from a stance of "debunking" of what many believe to be a shame, and from a stance of "conspiracy theorists" not accepting seemingly strong evidence. These two recent threads are here: Q&A Session With John Lear A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon Now... I'd rather not discuss the merits of either topic in this thread, instead, I'd like your opinions on several aspects of how the discussion evolved. In the John Lear thread, several senior members and staff members (including myself) began to focus some rather intense questions on Mr. Lear. As a result, our actions caught the ire of some members, and we were even referred to as "the info guard". In the Pentagon thread, evidence was put forth that supports the generally accepted mainstream edition of the 9/11 event, a passenger airline struck the building. As a result, many members seemed to become irritated that such a thread was created on ATS. Throughout the discussion in both threads, generally, the staff of this board (and some senior members) took a stance contrary to popular conspiracy theory. In my case, personally, I have first hand-experience with Bob Lazar, hence my rather skeptical stance toward Mr. Lear. And this leads to a point, the staff and long-time members of this board tend to have extensive experience with these topics. And sometimes that experience extends over decades, not simply years. What would you have us do? It appears as though "membership" became irritated that "official" ATS staff were acting "mainstream" and were debunking popular conspiracy theory. I'm curious as to why this causes the reaction it receives. Are you here to really seek answers, or just share ideas? This concerns me greatly, and I'd really like to hear your honest answers.


reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 09:48 PM by kinglizard
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Are you here to really seek answers, or just share ideas?

I don’t think you can separate the two. When you seek answers to a question or theory you must share ideas and look at hard evidence to fully explore the issue. When discussing a single photograph of a UFO it’s easier to formulate an opinion because you are able to view and scrutinize the image that was provided, the entire discussion revolves around the validity of the image. On the other hand when talking about government cover-ups, alien conspiracies and the framework that supports these conspiracies you won’t have any evidence to scrutinize. It will be based solely on “word of mouth”.

A person employed at say Area 51 will not freely come forward and say “I was there” and “this is what I saw” because of the legal restraints they are under. Although some of these workers may have talked to others “off the record” and divulged some information that a member is attempting to share. So what should you do, run the member off because he is unable to provide evidence to support his claims? I doubt you can find truth using this method.

To find the truth sometimes you need to dig through the mud.

Now with the John Lear thread I find it difficult to believe everything he is claiming but we may find bits of truth in his story. The human mind is designed to find order in chaos. It sounds like John has bits and pieces from many different sources and he has put some order to those pieces in his own mind, something that sounds logical to him. Now I may not put the pieces together in the same way as John, I may see a different connection resulting in a different view but the important thing is to have those pieces. I may have some of my own ideas and pieces that mesh with his pieces.

I’m a firm believer in evidence but when dealing with government cover-up of alien existence we aren’t likely to find any, this is not to say that there hasn’t been a cover-up just that there isn’t any documents and video to share.

So to cut to the chase I am here to seek answers and share ideas. We should require evidence and proof to support claims when possible and allow conversation when it’s not as long as it’s clear that the person is not attempting to perpetrate a hoax.


reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 10:00 PM by Nygdan
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It appears as though "membership" became irritated that "official" ATS staff were acting "mainstream" and were debunking popular conspiracy theory.

I had thought that most moderators were a similar creature to members, merely endowed with more powers no? I've seen some mods make conspiracy theoryish statements and others not. Why shouldn't moderators, or any level of administrator give their input? They shouldn't be hampered from making strong statements and expressing themselves anymore than regular members are.

I'm curious as to why this causes the reaction it receives.
Well, I mean, you are talking about conspiracy theorists, of couse they're going to suspect some sort of, well, conspiracy. Its what they do.

Are you here to really seek answers, or just share ideas?

Ah, now thats a different sort of question, very different indeed. Just look at what was and still is (to a reduced degree) going on in the 'Predictions' forum. Instead of discusing actual predictions that other people had made, posters put up their own predictions. Heck,most of the time they'd say stuff like 'i have a creepy feeling that something if going to go wrong' and the like. They'd even say 'this isn't really a prediction, well, i don't know if it is lol' and the like. Something similar happens in most threads it looks like. I've only been here for a short while, so I don't know how things normally are, but there are, without a doubt, a large number of posters that are only interested in making statement. And they seem to be competing with one another to make the zaniest one.

This concerns me greatly, and I'd really like to hear your honest answers.

aww, what a nice moderator.

Wild and pretty senseless suggestion time:
Why not make a forum where people can be elected into, or one where only people hand picked by moderators can get into. Barring that, how about letting people read whats in 'Really Above Top Secret' (since, in a sense, thats the 'elected' forum) but not post? That way, people can see what sensible talk can be like?

In the end tho, i'd have to say that when you are dealing with people who rad catherders post and still think, merely because they heard some footage from some security camera is missing, that something other than a passenger plane hit the pentagon, well, there's only so much that can be hoped for.

Thanks for the chance to give some input on this subject.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^