It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


So much for DISCLOSURE! Citizens Hearing on Disclosure demands takedown of youtube videos.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
No, they did not. They simply repeated what others have said for decades.

Just because it wasn't new to you or many others does not make it a non-disclosure. They disclosed what they knew.

Also, there were things there that have not been said before (afaik).

So, you can dance around the definitions, I don't care

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
And sold that as 'disclosure'. There was no new 'evidence' (if any at all) presented.

Again, they didn't use your definition of disclosure and didn't disclose what you wanted. Well, boo-hoo. Get over it.

Or better: make your own goddamn disclosure.

But ask yourself the question: if you had solid proof that somebody would murder somebody else, would you then go to the police and say "I want cash, or else I don't disclose to you what I know?"

As you stated, the information has been all out there before, it's nothing new. Let's agree on that (for 99.99% of content or so).

So what. Somebody writes a book after a murder facts have been revealed, then he is not able to charge money for it?

Also, I see it as very unlikely that this will ever be a real cash cow to any of them, but hopefully they can cover some costs.

The money they asked for several days of streaming was peanuts.

Nobody screams bloody murder, when they don't get what they are delivered at the movie theaters. They just call it a bad flick, not worth the money.

It's ok, anybody can call CHD that. I tend to partially agree, but that's just _my_ take, not a universal truth.

There'll be plenty of newcomers who will hear all of this for the first time.

It _is_ disclosure to them.

I can't recall anybody in here saying it is ILLEGAL what they did. It's unethical. It's business, no disclosure.

As per _your own_ moral standards. I see no universal ethical principles being violated and certainly not my own personal sensibilities.

You are starting to prove my first point in my original post.

See, I simply don't like it much when potential victims of a crime (abduction, mutilation, kidnapping, scaring children) are being used to make money.

Which abduction victims are you know speaking of in specific (non-hypothetical terms). I couldn't find any.

Further, the universe owes nobody anything. In the USA the exploitation of the sorrows of others is huge multi-trillion dollar everyday media industry. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. Go complain about all the news print media, 99% of web news outlets and all major broadcasters.

On that scale, any CHD exploitation that might have happened (didn't catch any myself), certainly pales in comparison: both in monetary gain achieved and number of victims exploited on purpose.

Really, this is a typical storm in a tea cup in a UFO community that is already way too small, narrow-minded and powerless to start breaking up even more to warring factions.

But hey, if that keeps the claimed facts out of the mainstream media exposure (NYP, NYT, WP and many others did cover the event, even if they did make jokes) -- then maybe it's good, who knows

My advice to all complainers: give us your own best shot.

Meanwhile, I salute the CHD people for their efforts, even though I don't agree with all the content, delivery and details.

At least they did something more remarkable than just bitch and voice personal opinions in an obscure forum at the backwoods of Internet

new topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in