Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

DAILYMAIL pulls a 'The Professional'

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


Ahh, ok lol. There are some people on here who think I am claiming that they stole my thread when I am just saying that to make a sarcastic comment to highlight their brazenness and desperation.




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Well seeing as how your thread was from March and their photos were from April I dont really see how that could be. BUT Ive seen all walks of life on these boards in my years here. So nothing much suprises me anymore. If you see anything i post please take it with a huge grain of salt. 90% sarcasm 5% humor with a touch of opinion and truth. Nothning more.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I'm sure the NRO has a better track record than that.The formulas for calculating sizes of equipment and components are scrutinized by college boys from MIT and vetted through our intelligence agencies then carefully and completely ignored or misused as the current political system sees fit to do.
What we see is the watered down version they allow "the boys on the hill" to play with DIA and the Pentagon are also not so easily fooled.
The Serbs did a good job with decoys though.Clinton bought it hook line and sinker.It seems the old tricks are still good ones.
But when it comes to nukes they are fanatical.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Yea the inflatable vehicles are good ones and some even come equipped with a heat source to fool spy satellites and drones. With satellites there are certain diffraction limits in which you cannot overcome resolution. With a drone you are much closer to the ground and have less atmosphere to deal with. The Serbs were actually pretty good at making the NATO SEADS work their hardest to little success.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 





When I said this it is not meant is as a claim. It is meant meant as a sarcastic comment not a claim dude


Na sorry am not accepting that, now saying that you were being sarcastic is definitely backtracking.

It’s a shame because otherwise this is a almost interesting thread, but it is very very clear form your opening post that you wrote it with the egoistical view that a reporter saw your thread and thought “hey that’s actually a really good idea to publish some propaganda so am going to use his idea”.

I don’t know why you can’t just admit to this, there is nothing wrong with saying that when you wrote your OP you got a little bit carried away in believing that they had wrote this article on your inspiration and you were wrong to make this assumption.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Na sorry am not accepting that, now saying that you were being sarcastic is definitely backtracking.


It was meant as a sarcastic comment and it is not backtracking. Why would I admit to something I did not do?

Maybe you just don't understand the joke.

I have posted many other sarcastic comments on here and I will link to them if you still do not believe me.




“hey that’s actually a really good idea to publish some propaganda so am going to use his idea”.


Now you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that anywhere. My sentence was a sarcastic comment and I will put other examples of my sarcastic comments on here.




I don’t know why you can’t just admit to this, there is nothing wrong with saying that when you wrote your OP you got a little bit carried away in believing that they had wrote this article on your inspiration and you were wrong to make this assumption.


Because I won't admit to something I did not do. I put up a sarcastic comment and you just did not understand it. Maybe you should see some examples of sarcastic comments before tackling an advanced one such as this.
edit on 123030p://6America/ChicagoFri, 01 Jun 2012 12:55:47 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Smells like 1970's BigFoot stuff.
And 2010's UFO CamShots.

All blur and no substance. Get the HD stuff and post that.
Don't waste our time (and bandwidth) with blur.
If the poster can't make out what they got, then don't post it. ANYWHERE.
edit on 6·1·12 by DrMattMaddix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Thats just hilarious .

They know 99% of the people who read that article don't have a clue what there looking out.
So all they need to do is put some captions on the picture and people will assume that it is true.
Most people just won't question what they read because they have no reason to.
The average person won't know about all the lying, BS and spin that really goes into the news media. So why question it?
Shame there isn't a Anti-News media (ANM is sorta catchy) channel there just to criticize and scrutinize what the big 3 News channels are reporting.


Oh and nice one The Pro



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Look if that’s the line you are going to take then go for it but it makes you look worse in my eyes to continue claiming that you were being sarcastic when it is clear from your OP that you were not being sarcastic.

I don’t think i am the only one who will notice this.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




Look if that’s the line you are going to take then go for it but it makes you look worse in my eyes to continue claiming that you were being sarcastic when it is clear from your OP that you were not being sarcastic.


Its clear to me and many other I am being sarcastic. You are the only one complaining cause you did not get the joke.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I am not complaining, I am just pretty much convinced that you believed that the Daily Mail had in some way used your thread then once it was pointed out to you how absurd that was you attempted to backtrack by claiming sarcasm.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Danbones
 


If you do not know what you're talking about, then don't reply to me please.


I guess after the US destroyed their democratic government and replaced it with the shaw, then BP replaced the shaw with the mullahs, yeah.... there are suffering Iranians


That's not exactly how it went but thanks for trying to explain my own countries history to me.


funny, you blame the victim


This is ridiculous. I blame the Islamic regime for oppressing the Iranian people. You want to claim otherwise? Where are YOUR facts then? Are you Iranian? Do you know anyone Iranian? Do you live in Iran? Do you know people that live in Iran? The Islamic regime is not a victim...regular people are. And of those regular people the poorest of the poor are the victims.


the rest of your nonfactual hate filled post isn't even worth the time


Non-factual?
I bet you could create a program analyzing texts, put all of the OPs posts through it and you could find that I'm correct in what I state. One such thing you call non-factual, is the fact that the Islamic regime oppresses Iranians. It's a fact! It happens daily! But not to you, oh great and wise dan-the-knowitall.

Ignorant much?

edit:


I guess after the US destroyed their democratic government and replaced it with the shaw, then BP replaced the shaw with the mullahs


Tell me again about those "facts"...
edit on 1-6-2012 by InfoKartel because: (no reason given)


I'm glad see you really refuted my post with a factual rebutal re the shaw and the mullahs
all you just did was make my point for me
thanks
Now, have a nice day


back to the OP
Once you have been lied to several thousand times by the OS and the people who pervay it, you do get some what jaded...
but at least they are predictible, if not really creative.

That's why Zbignew Bryzynski said recently something to the effect that for the first time the sheeple are waking up, and are more aware of the BS then ever before, and him, and his bunch, are scared because of it...
scared...
and hateful
edit on 1-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Can i ask, how this really matters?
They might not of or they might have... ATS is one of the worlds most popular forum. Its not so out there to think so.

But again does it matter. Why ignore the important issue he tried pointing out.
How you can post a picture of a chicken call it a duck and people will eat it up.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




I am not complaining


Youve been doing it for two pages now



I am just pretty much convinced that you believed that the Daily Mail had in some way used your thread then once it was pointed out to you how absurd that was you attempted to backtrack by claiming sarcasm.


You did not understand the joke and hence you did not understand. The only thing I am guilty of would probably be a bad joke or then having to explain it to someone... It is not backtracking when someone doesn't understand a joke.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


It matters in regards to the first post i wrote, after that it does not really matter as such.

Its just slightly cringe worthy to have the OP continually claim he was being sarcastic when clearly he was not.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




Its just slightly cringe worthy to have the OP continually claim he was being sarcastic when clearly he was not.


There are more people who understand the joke than not. Statistically you are the minority who did not get the joke and then I had to explain it to you.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Look dude, i don’t care either way all I was pointing out is that based on your OP it does appear to be that you have claimed they used our thread in some way.

If you are going to continue to argue otherwise then I won’t stop you.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
PRO's post sarcastically illustrated how TPTB love to manipulate pro-war propaganda. Show a photo of a truck and label it a mobile biological agent lab and sell the pitch to the UN - that lie (among thousands of others) is what got us into Iraq, and now they're back selling us more lies to get us into war with Iran.





After countless images like these presented, in such detail and absolute certainty, of 'chemical weapons' and other 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, when we got boots on the ground we found NOTHING.

It was all a big lie.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
i don't understand?

all i see in the pictures is a bunch of random buildings with arrows pointing towards them saying "bad stuff"


what the lalala??



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Wow just WOW....

So because you put up a thread with captioned pictures in it and so did this newspaper they are copying you?:
Your narcissism never ceases to amaze me.

Honestly comparing your creatively mislabeled picture of a construction site to satellite imagery vetted by half a dozen or more government agencies and most likely cross referenced with other intelligence that is not photographic in nature is like comparing apples to race cars.

I really don't think you have nearly enough data or understanding of what it takes to run a clandestine nuclear program to be able to authoritatively compare your obviously misleadingly labeled photograph to the photographs in question here. Could they be lying? Maybe so but do you have enough information to know that for sure? NOT EVEN CLOSE!

The monumental arrogance it took to say an international news group "pulled a the professional" insinuating that they somehow took your idea and ran with it is just amazing to me. For one the pictures and the captions they are using are sourced from the US government not the news agency... So are you really trying to say the US government copied your idea and just mislabeled a satellite image to fool us normies? If so that makes this joke of a thread even funnier.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join