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.
A few kids get shot, and all of a sudden we're all about 'ethical' discussion.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I will repost, again, what I posted in other threads dealing with Sandy Hook, because I want in know how I -- one of the chief architects of what ATS is today -- thinks of our membership in respect to the subject:
The Tragedy at Sandy Hook
HAS BROUGHT OUT THE WORST
of AboveTopSecret.com
I and our staff have witnessed the most incredible shameless self-absorbed credulous nonsense from our members following one of the worst horrors ever to hit a small community -- much less any community.
And this thread is the absolute worst display of your ludicrous narcissistic conjecture -- outing personal details of a private citizen and mocking him on the pages of our precious ATS for the world to see.
You should be ashamed -- but clearly, you're not capable of that.
This site, and its discussion board, was refashioned between 2003 and 2005 to hold conspiracy speculation to a higher standard and ideal than the typical mayhem and lunacy that was then popular throughout Internet communities dealing with similar subject matter. Our motto of "Deny Ignorance" was a call to action to be skeptical critical thinkers with regard to official stories and the ever worsening mass media. We took a great deal of flak, absorbed consistent criticism, and often saw ourselves smeared simply for holding to our ideals that these subjects deserve better of us. ATS management and staff held strong, never wavered, and grew to one of the most popular discussion boards of any topic.
The wildly foolish self-absorbed conjecture regarding the massacre in Newtown, CT has, in my opinion, thrown the quality of conversation on ATS all the way back to how horrible it was before we started our 6 years of hard work. Posting personal information of private citizens, then casting nasty aspersions on them, is the lowest of lows I've ever seen on this site for which I was once proud.
Those who have the urge to speculate on the minute oddities of the "story line" as is currently known should take fair warning that if the ethical quality of the discussion does not immediately improve, the staff will have no choice but to place a temporary hold on all discussions related to the massacre.
The staff and I will not let you ruin our years of hard work and suffer your ridiculousness.
Originally posted by Hefficide
Originally posted by Laykilla
Speculation IS assumption. And ASSUMPTION is CRUCIAL in investigation. One looks at a scene, assumes what may or may not have happened, and uses those assumptions as jump off spots to gathering more information.
When detectives show up at the scene, they ask witnesses what they saw, and what they THINK happened.
They then use the collection of assumptions to determine what is the most plausible scenario and work it backwards.
That is simply incorrect. Forensics, behavioral or otherwise, do not reply upon specious practices to arrive at conclusions. Even at the fringes, in behavioral modeling or profiling, large data sets are involved - not what people "think happened".
If a detective happens to ask you what you think happened - then the reality is that you are being eliminated from a pool of potential suspects and it is your behavior and demeanor being examined - not any speculation or theories.
Having said that?
Tell all this crap to this guy - who ended up with a ruined life over people irresponsibly speculating.
This is not a freaking video game. The names, addresses, phone numbers, and tag numbers posted in the removed threads were of real human beings. REAL PEOPLE who are much closer to the tragedy than the vast, vast majority of the people posting their opinions and theories.
I am absolutely amazed that so many on ATS currently don't get it. If any of you woke up to find YOUR REAL NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER, along with accusations of gross impropriety or criminal behavior, would any of you shrug it off and say "OK, that's fine, folks must speculate. It's all good?"
BS. Any honest person would admit that they'd lawyer up and sue ASAP.
Amazing.
~Heff
Originally posted by bknapple32
Along with the OP, I think I am probably one of the members who tried to fight this the most. Not to somehow say Im great for that. I got sucked into it instead of just ignoring it.
It's called a "Hunch" by investigators. Every investigation STARTS with a hunch. A hunch develops as information is uncovered. If the hunch leads to evidence, one could say the hunch was correct...
Originally posted by westcoast
.....and YOU'RE talking about ethics?
This kind of statement is exactly the kind of crap we are talking about.
Yes...some of things you listed, I agree with you, there is too much liberation in those discussions. But how can you write about all of that in your post, postulating that none of that is okay, and then say THAT? Completely unvalidates any of your post, IMO.
Originally posted by Laykilla
You're nuts. Without speculation you can't find evidence to forensically test in most incidents that aren't as straight forward as "He left finger prints.
Speculation -> Investigation.
Definition
spec·u·la·tion[ spèkyə láysh'n ]
spec·u·la·tions Plural
NOUN
1. opinion based on incomplete information: a conclusion, theory, or opinion based on incomplete facts or information
2. reasoning based on incomplete information: reasoning based on incomplete facts or information
"mere speculation"
3. risky transaction: a financial transaction that involves risk, but is potentially profitable
"a failed speculation on a dot-com"
4. making of risky transactions: the practice of engaging in financial transactions that are risky, but potentially profitable
~
in·ves·ti·ga·tion[ in vèsti gáysh'n ]
in·ves·ti·ga·tions Plural
NOUN
1. examination: an examination or inquiry into something, especially a detailed one that is undertaken officially, or the act of undertaking an examination.
Originally posted by Laykilla
It's called a "Hunch" by investigators. Every investigation STARTS with a hunch. A hunch develops as information is uncovered. If the hunch leads to evidence, one could say the hunch was correct.
I didn't say speculation or bust, I did say -- speculation is STEP ONE.
L2R next time please, less you like being the jester.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I will repost, again, what I posted in other threads dealing with Sandy Hook, because I want in know how I -- one of the chief architects of what ATS is today -- thinks of our membership in respect to the subject:
The Tragedy at Sandy Hook
HAS BROUGHT OUT THE WORST
of AboveTopSecret.com
I and our staff have witnessed the most incredible shameless self-absorbed credulous nonsense from our members following one of the worst horrors ever to hit a small community -- much less any community.
And this thread is the absolute worst display of your ludicrous narcissistic conjecture -- outing personal details of a private citizen and mocking him on the pages of our precious ATS for the world to see.
You should be ashamed -- but clearly, you're not capable of that.
This site, and its discussion board, was refashioned between 2003 and 2005 to hold conspiracy speculation to a higher standard and ideal than the typical mayhem and lunacy that was then popular throughout Internet communities dealing with similar subject matter. Our motto of "Deny Ignorance" was a call to action to be skeptical critical thinkers with regard to official stories and the ever worsening mass media. We took a great deal of flak, absorbed consistent criticism, and often saw ourselves smeared simply for holding to our ideals that these subjects deserve better of us. ATS management and staff held strong, never wavered, and grew to one of the most popular discussion boards of any topic.
The wildly foolish self-absorbed conjecture regarding the massacre in Newtown, CT has, in my opinion, thrown the quality of conversation on ATS all the way back to how horrible it was before we started our 6 years of hard work. Posting personal information of private citizens, then casting nasty aspersions on them, is the lowest of lows I've ever seen on this site for which I was once proud.
Those who have the urge to speculate on the minute oddities of the "story line" as is currently known should take fair warning that if the ethical quality of the discussion does not immediately improve, the staff will have no choice but to place a temporary hold on all discussions related to the massacre.
The staff and I will not let you ruin our years of hard work and suffer your ridiculousness.
Originally posted by fleabit
It's called a "Hunch" by investigators. Every investigation STARTS with a hunch. A hunch develops as information is uncovered. If the hunch leads to evidence, one could say the hunch was correct...
Huh?
This isn't Dragnet or CSI or whatever it is people watch these days. They look for factual information first. Guesswork (and ergo hunches or whatever you want to call them) comes into play when they hit dead ends and they have no choice. They don't walk up to people the day or the day after such a shooting and say "So.. what do you THINK happened?" They will make best guesses once they have a punchlist of factual information regarding a suspect or motive. But to suggest they build a case on hunches is ridiculous.
They want facts first and foremost. They don't build an entire investigation on guesswork of witnesses. They ask "What happened." Not "what might have happened." If someone is building a case to take to court, they want witnesses who KNOW.. who actually SAW it happen. You'll never see someone hit the stand who is just taking their best guess on what happened - unless they are trying to lose the case.
Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Druid42
Driud: I stated it once before and I will again for the sake of everyone who may have missed it.. In every single major crime that has happened in this state, the Connecticut State Police do not release any substantial information until their investigation is done, they did this with Cheshire and they are doing it again with Sandy Hook.
This is the same logic people used when they tried to claim things about cars and registration expiration's because we don't tie our vehicle registrations to our birthdays here.
the CSP will not, as is practice with them, release a report, or otherwise until their investigation is 100% complete and (in the case of a live suspect) be able to be sent to a States Atty for further process.
I think in the end this is the more responsible way to do it, that way if information changes they don't have to keep backpeddaling.
Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by RedBird
When you have people positing Emilie Parker was a satanist in the electronically printed word, that is serious deformation of character.
Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
Thank god someone said something. After arguing that we know next to nothing about any of it, I've actively avoided the threads.
There's no arguing with people who wantt to jump at shadows.
The sad fact of the matter is, people are more worried about digging up the dirt in any manner possible than actually finding and validating facts.
This one topic (as well as the 2012 threads) are the main thing keeping me away right now.
Originally posted by fleabit
A few kids get shot, and all of a sudden we're all about 'ethical' discussion.
I doubt it was "all of a sudden." Probably more along the lines of saying something after a long period of degradation in the quality of posts on this site, where people refuse to use common sense or a do a modicum of research before boldly posting their crazy theory of the week.
Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by Laykilla
And nothing ATS armchair 'investigators' cooked up has come anywhere close to being enough to spark an investigation of the kind you define. Avatars and handles and the anonymity they provide have allowed some folk to run amuck with wild delusional theories, satisfying their own vain agendas and nothing more.
The shooter said "X" the shooter said "Y" the shooter was wearing purple, no he was wearing blue, no he was wearing white and red!
Witnesses give erroneous information all the time, even those NOT involved with the crime. Why? Because memory is often faulty.
Originally posted by LaykillaYou're nuts. Without speculation you can't find evidence to forensically test in most incidents that aren't as straight forward as "He left finger prints."