ATS FAILURE? (ATS Members, Your Opinions on Tough Debunking Please)

I'm not sure if your stance is personal or represents all of ATS admin. But I would be careful about generalizing the member replies on either thread because you'll find that only a few people do this.

One thing to remember is that some people come here to have fun and share exciting ideas. Not to have them torn apart. As kinglizard astutely pointed out, it's very hard to separate sharing and tearing about ideas.

Ideas, facts, all exist in a roiling boil of human interaction. I wouldn't take any one perturbation to be the whole.

I would have ATS admin do as they're doing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, as for "I'm curious as to why this causes the reaction it receives," I think it's a simple matter of power dynamics. Put simply, moderators and the like are, on average, more highly regarded than normal members. So if a moderator questions your cherished idea, of course you're going to defend it more tenaciously than if a member poked a stick at it. The power dynamic calls for greater and louder responses to maintain social equilibrium, so to speak. For example, SO, I'm sure you'd react more to Philip Corso calling your ideas bunk than some one day old random member you've never heard of. Simple power dynamics. (which is linked to respect, but that's a different story).

I am here to learn, and to teach. Learning answers, but also learning other ideas, because sometimes 'm wrong, or don't know the full story. I take great pleasure in knowledge, every bit I can garner and take from ATS is pure gold. Whether thats a fascinating NWO thread, or givin my two cents on interstellar travel, thats what im here for. and along the way, if i can teach somethign things, and spread some ideas of my own, then ive done doubly good.

moderators are people too. people with nice avatars, but people nonetheless. they moderate the board. They are also members. Most sites have moderaters just do that, but the nice thing about ATS, and in fact one of the first things to strike me, was how interactive the mods were. they talked to you, they commented, joked, and behaved how any other member would, and rightfully so. and that is fantastic.

The problem with the Pentagon thread was that it did not look at any of the facts that can say a plane did not hit it. How a lot of the windows on the upper floors and to the side where not broken, how there were books and tables untouched by the fire that should have consumed them with 8500 pounds of jet fuel among many other solid facts. That thread seemed to me that it was just an official ATS thread to "shut us up" about the conspiracy. It also seems to me thats what a lot of mods and members here are here to do.

As for the John Lear thread I'm sorry but I did not read it.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by d1k]

One thing I have learned is Question Everything. No matter how much 'evidance' is thrown at you, a natural reaction would be to ask questions. I have seen, since my time on here, many come to claim to be someone, then some fruitfull questions by most Admin and Senior members to try to determine whether they are who they say they are. 9 out of 10, they were not who they claimed to be. My view of this site is to be able to openly discuss many points of view that are not readily discussible in the open world. It may be that debunking a popular theory may put all others in jeopardy, but I personally would like to know the "Truth" no matter which way the pieces fall.

The "Question Everything" mentality should be put to the various theories also.

To often, the same people that distrust everything that comes out of a government office, blindly accept the latest "conspiracy theory" without subjecting it to any sort of logical or scientific scrutiny.

either that or their ability to look at a problem logically is flawed, I don't know.

I felt that once the Pentagon thread recieved a layout and frontpage representation,it was end of story put forth by the decision of one person who believed in what it had to say.The opinions and theories of the opposing side did not matter anymore and those that continued were considered blind to what the other side felt as truth.
In short,the topic was closed from that point on.Any questioning was ridiculous and mocked.I feel it offended some and thus,turned into hostility because we (theorists) kept getting kicked down.Just because ones thoughts are not yours or one chooses not to take what findings one has compiled,does not mean grounds for being called out,or called stupid,blind,ridiculous,or any other names.

As for the John Lear thread.
I feel it was unprofessional for any 'moderator' or senior member to call out a guest who did not have to be here in the first place.To me,it looked like an attempt to embarasse John knowing full well any proof to his replies would be limited.
In short.To me John was a guest.He presented us with his thoughts and accounts of what he has been through.
On another note.
I found it to be very 'un'cool that the topic was once front page news and then returned to the forum as if someone thought it was not deserving after a certain point.That point being that John did not give the answers someone wanted or answers at all.

These are just my thoughts and how I feel about what has happened to these two particular threads.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by SMR]

The Mods here are completly fair, and do thier jobs to the best of thier abilities. All they ask of us is to respect one another, and each others opinions. It doesnt get any simpler. If you hav a problem with a mod, all you have to do is u2u them. These guys bend over backwad to make our stay here one of enlightenment without prejiduce.

I'm a fairly new member to the forum. I lurked through the threads for a few months before I decided to join. I joined because I didn't want to sit on the sidelines and not voice my opinion. While in "The Real Conspiracy" thread I really wanted to give one member a hard time for taking a "debunker" stance in a conspiritorial thread. In the end, I decided not to because his opinion is just as important to the thread as anyone's. So, I challenged his "opinions" instead of his general "mainstream" stance.

I love the open exchange of ideas and I try accept that everyone's standard of proof for "fact" is different. I would think that among the staff and senoir members there would be differences as well. So, to me, no one is speaking for more than themselves. Regardless of stance, the mission is to deny ignorance. This can only be accomplished through the thought provoking dialogue that this forum brings. I applaud all staff and members for taking the time to contribute.
doctorduh - a proud new member

What is truth??? Perhaps that would be a better ATS motto than the awkwardly written "deny ignorance". First, we must remember that nothing can be "proven" true, for it would require an INFINIT number of experiments and nobody has time for that. Perhaps at the end of eternity will find something out...perhaps not.
We must leave the Aristotealean true/false, yes/no and enter into the 21st century world of "maybe", where "truth" must be graded on a spectrum. For example...do I believe that americans landed on the moon in 1969? If (1) means I don't believe and (10) means I do then, I would rate it about a (3). With more information that number might change....
This is how truth must be defined...its the nature of quantum mechanics and its impact on society is becoming extremely relevant, especially with the invention of the internet.
I think the funniest thing is when people want "established" sources here. As if CNN or FOX has to say it for it to be true. What's the criteria we give them? Why do we lend them authority..and don't forget that its US that lends it.
I think the bigger picture here has to be the creation of this particular thread.
You didn't "debunk" anything. You may have cast doubt and offered information but don't get to full of yourselves Sherlock...
I think the heavy handed top down approach taken by the admin and staff this last year is the bigger story. It used to be that discussion flowed, ideas flourished, friendships were made and ideas circulated here. Then ATS became the great conspiracy slayer. ATS has to have the definitive answer on all things..and that answer is increasing mainstream and "anti-conspiracy". We all had to become "scholars" (which I think is laughable) but interesting.
People who are "conspiracy minded" aren't neccesarilly paranoid. They typically have broken out of the "authoritative" head trip they've been programmed with and started to do that MOST IMPORTANT THING. THINK FOR THEMSELVES! Whether they ultimately believe in the moon landings is irrelevant, that they QUESTION authority and seek their own Jerusalem is the quality that should be nurtured here...and used to be.
It seems to me that ATS now is merely trying to supplant other "estatblished" authorities (ATSNN anyone?) and thats pretty sad...also not the reason I first came to the site. But if it increases revenue...whatever...
The post-modern approach to life is really the only one that makes sense anymore, and people who search out answers for themselves make my soul happy.
Perhaps the real question SO, isn't "our opinion on debunking" but why you feel it's necessary to bolster your confindence after the fact.
Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.

And no, I wont "love it or leave it"

-The village grouse might save your soul


There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse

Originally posted by d1k
The problem with the Pentagon thread was that it did not look at any of the facts that can say a plane did not hit it. How a lot of the windows on the upper floors and to the side where not broken, how there were books and tables untouched by the fire that should have consumed them with 8500 pounds of jet fuel among many other solid facts. That thread seemed to me that it was just an official ATS thread to "shut us up" about the conspiracy. It also seems to me thats what a lot of mods and members here are here to do.
[edit on 17-9-2004 by d1k]

Other facts about the Pentagon attack, like the seizing and hidding of all the security tapes that did record the craft(whatever it was), the eye withness reports that they clearly DID NOT see a plane and other things are being total ignored, while the article states that the people that do believe in it not being a plane, are disregarding the facts supporting the planecrash.

Well, the people that do believe it was a hijacker controlled jet, are disregarding all the facts that support the opposite.

Engineers and scientists tend to be rather fact-oriented people, dealing with things we can measure. Engineers also use a lot of deductive logic.

You have to expect engineers and scientists to want to see all sides of a story and then (hopefully) to apply rigid rules of logic and evidence to come up with a hypothesis as to why that particular little piece of the Universe acts the way it does.

Of course, not all engineers/scientists are that way; you will find some of them so enamored of a particular hypothesis that they will not give it up, even with sound evidence to the contrary.

Other engineers and scientists become so fixated on a particular belief that they just ... slip away from reality. That's unfortunate, but hey, they're human, too.

I'm a skeptic. I look at things that my education or training or reading or just plain gut feeling tells me is wrong and I will say so and I will say why. I don't see why that upsets people. If you believe somthing that can't stand up to a bunch of simple questions or facts, then it's up to you -- not me -- to come to grips with it.

Of course, I don't debunk everything, because some of the things I think may not be right are (1) things that I simply don't have any evidence one way or the other for (like UFOs) or (2) things I simply don't care about, like who really shot JFK if it were anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

Meanwhile look at it this way; if your arguments are so weak that they can't stand up against a couple of Internet Debunkers, you might want to look again at your belief system.

Or maybe not. It's no skin of my nose, one way or the ohter.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted 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...

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.

I have not read the Lear thread and just quickly reviewed the Pentagon thread, so I will comment on your post as it pertains to that specific thread.

First of all, I am left with the impression that you are dismayed that the initial post did not silence the issue. I do not see how it could have because the way I view it is that the thread was created not to debunk the conspiracy theory as a whole, but the part relative to what hit the pentagon. To that end, the thread starter did a wonderful job, but at the same time, as much as CatHerder made a case, he and you, should expect rebuttals whether plausible or not because the nature of some is to always tow party policy, or to not be able to consume and fully assess the information placed before them, while some are undecided and look for answers that would allow then to embrace a position and others just cannot break down the total into parts.

You should not be expecting to sway everyone, ever! That is the impossible dream. What you should expect however, is that you have caused some to think.

Originally posted by SMR
I feel it was unprofessional for any 'moderator' or senior member to call out a guest who did not have to be here in the first place.To me,it looked like an attempt to embarasse John knowing full well any proof to his replies would be limited.

Well we didn't really have much of a choice, John was not presenting his story as 'opinions' he was presenting it as facts that he has learnt through his experiences. Some of these facts immediately jarred with me as I read through them, being blatantly and demonstrably false. Quite frankly I think that anyone who noticed this would be remiss not to point out and challenge these aspects of the story to help others understand the situation better.

There are a group of people in this world that hate/fear authority. These are the ones that speak up against anything someone of power has to say. If the authoritative figure is on the same side as them, they complain they are being led on a leash. If the authoritative figure is on the opposite side, they complain they are being repressed.

Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about this.

I enjoy reading SOs posts. SO is knowledgeable and he looks for the necessary background information required to backup what he has to say. If the mods stop posting, I believe this site fails. ATS is where it is at because the people that run it care, contribute, and provoke thought. Not to mention the mods are responsible for not letting things get out of hand, and to make sure opinions are not passed as fact.

The comments I have been reading are correct though. Some people just want there to be a conspiracy. No matter the evidence (ufo's, chemtrails, 9/11, etc...).

I am still leaning towards the greatest conspiracy of all time. There are no conspiracies.

[edit on 9/18/04 by crayon]

Originally posted by Kano

Originally posted by SMR
I feel it was unprofessional for any 'moderator' or senior member to call out a guest who did not have to be here in the first place.To me,it looked like an attempt to embarasse John knowing full well any proof to his replies would be limited.

Well we didn't really have much of a choice, John was not presenting his story as 'opinions' he was presenting it as facts that he has learnt through his experiences. Some of these facts immediately jarred with me as I read through them, being blatantly and demonstrably false. Quite frankly I think that anyone who noticed this would be remiss not to point out and challenge these aspects of the story to help others understand the situation better.

I fully understand where you are coming from.I really do.But at the same time,I think we all knew that providing any proof would be limited.
I mean think about it.
What if the Pope were to come here and tell us this and that about GOD.About what he has experienced and seen with his own eyes.How are we to ask of such proof?I do not visit the religious threads only because to me,religion is a real tough subject to debate for me.You believe what you believe and for the most part are not questioned about it.So if we can except ones experience about GOD without question,why should we do the opposite in this subject?Is it because it has to do with aliens?That in my mind is not fair.

As a last note.I think all moderators do a great job seeing as this place is so big.

SMR, true, but the problem was it wasn't even a matter of proof, it was the fact that there were openly false aspects to the story, at least that is what I was challenging.

d-bunk, so what, we all come here to post or read posts [ideas],
i read stuff all the time , on a bunch of sites,but here we get everyone,
what i like is the fact that the people talk about the threads.
some get mad , but if ATS was not here for all of us to have a voice,
where would we go? mabye we should all think about why , what /
made us come here.

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?

A theory is just that-- theory. Theoretical discussions are improved by verifiable evidence, as well as by the contributions of proponents AND opponents of the theory.

Unfortunately this is the internet, therefore I believe everything I read, and not a word of it. The decision to accept or reject a particular theory (or a particular piece of evidence) is ultimately made in the mind of the individual. When emotion becomes involved, then we cross into an entirely different realm- logic is compromised and our irrational natures appear to dominate.

I stopped coming to ATS for several months, and recently returned. I've personally noticed a higher number of emotional reactions when evidence is presented either way. Often the evidence, rebuttal, or reply itself is ignored entirely, which has made me question "Why did I bother to waste the time posting all of this?" After all, for most adults, time is money.

I've always sought a balanced experience at ATS. Given the personal attacks and irritable defensiveness that I've observed lately, I wonder about how others are perceiving the overall ignorance level of the board? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of intelligent, rational ATS members who personify the credo of the site; yet there are also those that proclaim "deny ignorance!" as if it were some type of fad or popular movement, without ever actually demonstrating the slogan in the quality of their replies.

I think debunking is critical to the ATS philosophy, and it doesn't matter to me whether it comes from 'membership' or 'staff'. If a theory actually represents REALITY, then any debunking strategy can be easily countered. Emotionally reactive posting seems to be a convenient shortcut to critical thinking, and pointing fingers wildly at the staff just makes someone appear as if they have "issues" with authority figures in general.

MK

Conspiracy itself is defined by lack of "mainstream" evidence, lack of official establishment's confirmation of those events.
Stories ARE covered up, goverments are not saints, mainstream media is dumb and biased. There is enough evidence for that, but it cannot be found on CNN, FOX, because they are part of it.

CREDIBILITY is deffined as presenting evidence backed up by officials, facts, witnesses who belong to this "establishment".

If you want to turn ATS into "credible" source of info, you have to back it up with official sources, you have to present the official info.

See the problem?

That is why people react with anger to topics like the one about pentagon and 9/11. It is the official version, the version that backed up by officials of the "goverment", and as some have pointed out, it ignores the major conspiracy facts related to it (the lack of visual confirmation, no videos of the plane etc, etc).

Credibility is defined by debunking the so-called "tinfoil hat" theories, everything that is not officialy confirmed is a crazy conspiracy theory and is not to be taken seriously.
Google ANY, and I mean ANY theory about anything you want, and you will find at least a 100 pages, both pro and contra, backed up by dozens of links, photos, various "Dr."s, Prof's, Ing's backing it up with their "papers". etc, etc. It is very difficult to filter those things and find real information. Now, you filter it out based on what you already know and think about the subject. Some evidence is easier to filter, like pictures, often you can clearly see if the picture is real or not. Other things are more difficult.
By looking at SOME posts on ATS, specialy related to goverment conspiracies and aliens, one might think that it is in the interest of the site to filter out any info that is not officialy confirmed by members of goverment, mainstream media, etc, etc, sort of give the site a certain level of "credibility". That is walking on a thin line. People who come to this site, don't want to hear the official cover-up stories, and you CANNOT provethe alternative version of those stories with official sources of information, they are the ones covering it all up! You cannot ask from somebody to show you FOX News footage of aliens in area 51 or an interview with a general of USA Army saying "yeah, we are hiding aliens"! That is absurd.

Note that I refer only to SOME topics and threads, not all. You can find all kinds of theories in "NWO" section. It seems that only certain topics are slightly influenced to move in certain direction. I think that is what causes the suspicion amongst members.

I doubt that this influence is because mods are goverment agents trying to cover up things. It is more based on giving the site a certain level of credibility, trying to raise above the other conspiracy sites who "believe everything".
As I said, that is a risky thing, you can unwillingly become the part of the whole cover-up establishment and help them in their control of information and media.

Well, I guess I will throw this though into the pot.
I think that a lot of this comes down to perception and preconceived ideas. I work with sleep disorder patients, and every night I hear the same things from them. I always wake up at 0300, if you look around the web, even this site, how many weird experiences are there reported at 0300 in the morning. The fact is though that normal people go into REM around 0000, 0300, and 0500, and most of these things happen around those times. Yet there is no way you can convince the person that what really happened is different from what they believe happened. You can show them the video, the EEG, and while they might eventually say they understand, they still really don�t believe a word you said.

Now how does this relate to this discussion? I worked around planes for years. While I would not state that I am by any means an expert, there are things that the average person is not going to know. The normal Joe on the street is going to make decisions based on what they do know about crashes, explosions, and so on.

I think that the only way there is ever going to be an end to this debate is to forget the video footage, which is misleading to say the least, and work from the ground up. By comparing known crashes, and crash site, the wreckage that was left behind and from that construct what type of damage you would expect from each of these types of vehicals/devices. At the same time, leaving out the highly questionable graphics from some of these sites where someone is selling a video, book, or otherwise. Their information is going to be slanted right from the word go. By example:



I really like how this one show the plane parked so neatly on its engines (undamaged), balanced so well between nose and tail.

www.airliners.net...

This is what happens when a aircraft hits the ground even at low speed, notice the crushed area�s. That is what the engines, and so forth on the pic above should look like, besides having scooped into the dirt from the nose being in the ground.




Look at this one, looks more like a airbus, or 67 to me. Note the bubble nose. If this is a 57, I�ll personally eat my keyboard�



Here is my personal favorite. Why is there a slight hill on this, does this really exist outside the Pentagon? Are there topographical maps that show this? Where is there any evidence of scale of the building compared to the plane? Why does the aircraft right wing hit one story above the aircraft left wing, or is that the purpose of the little hill?

Point is that the Mods do well to question evidence that is based on such slanted information.