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.

 

HOAX Compilation Thread

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Crakeur
reply to post by twitchy
 


twitchy's only topic - censorship on ats.

here's the thing, nobody's saying things can't be discussed. nobody's censoring anything. members have been asking what topics/stories are in the hoax section and what topics get moved there.

last time I checked, the hoax forum posting was open for business which would mean that people could discuss the topics which would mean that they aren't being censored.


Again, if you read the site, instead of just complained about censorship on ats every 6 months, you might know that. hell, you might even learn that we've loosened up a bit in a few other areas.

but you aren't here to talk about that. you just come here to post your bi-annual complaint.



I read the site Crakuer, almost daily. Do you honestly think I don't, or is that just some repetitive generalization you've seem to have gotten hung up on? I've worked my butt off for this site, many times over (you're welcome).
Let me simply ask you this, who decides what information is valid to discuss here, who decides what sources can be used, or what pictures can be posted? Lately the answer to that question seems to be largely, you... despite the meme of user generated content. It's intellectually insulting.
There's no real way to win this arguement with you because hey, it's your site now, but I can tell you that folks are noticing the apalling differences between what ATS was and where you're taking it.




posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

redoubt

But, that said, you will have no doubt noted the change in how people approach things. Between the time I reregistered here in 2007 and now... this site has shifted from the unexplained (UFOs, abductions, Skinwalker Ranch, Ghosts, etc.) to majority political.



There has been an influx of political conversation, that's for sure. If you look at the live section chances are the hottest topics are political, which is the main topic for a lot of people lately. Skinwalker ranch is one of my most favorite topics along with the paranormal just like you.

Forums for those topics are alive and well and need attention! Just because it's on the hot topics list doesn't mean that is all ATS is about anymore. Paranormal, The Grey Area, Skunkworks, Crypto etc. are still interesting and active if you go to the forum itself, the top topics by no means define the depth of ATS



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ValentineWiggin
 




Just because it's [politics] on the hot topics list doesn't mean that is all ATS is about anymore. Paranormal, The Grey Area, Skunkworks, Crypto etc. are still interesting and active if you go to the forum itself, the top topics by no means define the depth of ATS


No, I would not question the depth of ATS... but I do look on with a degree of... well, anxiety, at the increasing shallowness and invasive divisions developing in our society.

Thanks for the reply... I may indeed spend a little more time in chosen forums rather than the 'recent' page, lol.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

redoubt
No, I would not question the depth of ATS... but I do look on with a degree of... well, anxiety, at the increasing shallowness and invasive divisions developing in our society.

Thanks for the reply... I may indeed spend a little more time in chosen forums rather than the 'recent' page, lol.


Oh I'm not saying that you did, by any means. The current hot topics as far as politics go can cause a great deal of anxiety I know personally they do within me. For instance, with the Syria topic, I got so involved it just became nerve-wracking, so I retreated to my favorite forums for a while.

I think when you become a member of ATS you shortly find the forums you are comfortable in, and when the current of the site is going in a direction that makes you feel frustrated you just go back to where your constant interests are being discussed. That works for me anyway



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ValentineWiggin
 




I think when you become a member of ATS you shortly find the forums you are comfortable in, and when the current of the site is going in a direction that makes you feel frustrated you just go back to where your constant interests are being discussed.


Frustration is a dynamic aggressor that can come from most any direction. Here at ATS, I want to trust those behind the curtain but when I see subjects tagged as a [HOAX], the frustration sets in.

We live in a vast universe and we've only sent our kind a mere quarter of a million miles to land on a small satellite. we have one robotic mission that has just supposedly cracked the edge of the solar system but beyond... there are millions more stars with billions more planets and beyond that, untold numbers of other galaxies filled with stars and planets and moons and...

But here, on the little blue dot, we assume we have it all figured out. Some have it pinned on God. Others on a method called science and neither has the ability to comprehend just how insignificant it all is at this point.

We bicker about politics, call people names who disagree with us and then... on subjects that are based on things we really don't have anyone... not a single soul worthy of the title 'expert'', we label something as a hoax.

That, to me, is entirely counter to denying ignorance. But, that said... not my site and as a guest, I don't want to lose my ability to visit so... from this point forward, I just zip my lip.

Thanks again



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

twitchy
Oh, I get it.... it's so ATS can decide the validity of information for us, rather than go through all the trouble of critical thinking and discussion

Some of the comments in this thread are getting a little ridiculous. A hoax means that something has been proven to be a hoax. That means the "critical thinking and discussion" has already happened, and is already over with.

How many times does a hoax need to be discussed over and over before it's called a hoax? How many websites, forums, and threads does that discussion need to take place in before it's called a hoax?



Billy Meier was brought up earlier. He was added to the list because his "UFO" has been proven to be fake. All of the parts of the "UFO" have been identified and shown in the link. Not to mention, there's an interview of his ex-wife who also admitted to the fakery and how he did it.

It doesn't matter how many Billy Meier "UFO" believers there are. Fake is fake. And a deliberate fake makes a hoax.



I personally don't speak for ATS, but ATS is not declaring anything a hoax. They are just compiling a list of known hoaxes, and known hoaxers. Those people and things that have been proven by evidence, research, and discussion to be deliberate and manufactured fakes.



For the list, I'd like to add anything that deals with "September Clues", tv-fakery at the WTC, "no planes hit the trade towers" hoax, and the various names associated with it like Ace Baker, Simon Shack, Socialservice.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I was under the impression that "no-plane" theories and threads on ATS were automatically considered hoaxes.

Am I incorrect in that assumption?



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

redoubt
I want to trust those behind the curtain but when I see subjects tagged as a [HOAX], the frustration sets in.

Let's use the Billy Meier UFO as an example. Even though it's been proven to be a hoax (and thus him to be a hoaxer), you would get frustrated by a thread tagged as a HOAX that was started to discuss his "UFO"? Even though all the parts of the "UFO" have been identified to be mostly household parts, and that the "UFO" was clearly manufactured and faked, it would still frustrated you for that thread to be tagged as a hoax?

That just baffles my comprehension to no end.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The OPPT

E-Cat - In fact all "free energy" claims

Freemen
edit on 30-10-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Correct. But if we're compiling a list, they should be in the list for all to see.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Damnit _Bonez_, stop copying ahead of what I write!



edit on 10/30/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




How many times does a hoax need to be discussed over and over before it's called a hoax? How many websites, forums, and threads does that discussion need to take place in before it's called a hoax?


It is perception and controlled acceptance. Not everyone is going to believe everything that you or anyone else says. You may call something a hoax. You may be convinced that it is a hoax and there may be a lot of people who agree. But... there will be those who do not believe it to be a hoax nor will they buy the same evidence that you do.

Now then, you may believe you are right but the question becomes... what makes your views so much superior to theirs? You and they are all human beings... imperfect and subject to error.

I've hobbied in web graphics since 1997 and never once, used that program called 'photoshop'. I am by no means an expert but... I have yet to meet anyone who can't be fooled. Mix into that a subject that is already laced with politics, such as 9.11, and all the expertise in the world cannot come across beyond question.

So... taking a video connected to 9.11 and labeling it as a fake is not doing anyone a favor. There will be those who, instead of believing you, will see you as covering up the truth; your effort not only fails, it adds to the problem of division and distrust.

I suggest offering the respect to the membership... that they are fully capable of making up their own minds what is real and not because... in the end, that's what they will do anyway. At least by not labeling something as a hoax, you don't set yourself and this website as their opposites.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

redoubt
I have yet to meet anyone who can't be fooled.


Of course anyone can be fooled, but going beyond just 9/11, how often do people have to be fooled by the likes of Sorcha Faal before we can call it a Hoax? Or TankerEnemy for that matter. If someone like me, who has years of experience in a subject can look at something, and SHOW where they are lying, why can't we safely call it a Hoax?

We aren't taking this lightly, and throwing everything that someone says is a Hoax into the thread. Nor are we just taking someone's word for it. These are things that can be proven to be lies. And proven to repeatedly be lies. No one is saying you can't discuss it, or that it's off limits. We are simply saying that by the standards of ATS, these things belong in the Hoax category. And there is usually a very good reason for that.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

redoubt
But... there will be those who do not believe it to be a hoax nor will they buy the same evidence that you do.

With all due respect, that's just like saying that because there are those that don't believe or buy into the evidence of a convicted murderer, that we should just not convict him and let everyone make up their own minds.

When someone is convicted of something, it's due to evidence. That evidence proves their innocence or guilt. And if the evidence proves someone guilty of a crime, it doesn't matter if there are doubters who don't believe the evidence. It doesn't matter if there are are those who want to "discuss" it forever. That's their problem.

Likewise, if something has been proven with evidence to be hoax, then a hoax is a hoax. It doesn't matter if there are a few people who can't comprehend the evidence, or don't buy into the evidence. That's their problem.

By your logic, we would never have a legal system, nor the field of science because nobody would ever get convicted, and we would never have any scientific facts if there were any doubters of the evidence.

I'm sorry, but that's just not the way the real world works.


Evidence proves innocence or guilt. Evidence proves science fact from science fiction. Evidence proves a fake hoax from something real.

Regardless of the doubters, or those who want to "discuss" the evidence for eternity.




edit on 30-10-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 




We aren't taking this lightly, and throwing everything that someone says is a Hoax into the thread. Nor are we just taking someone's word for it. These are things that can be proven to be lies. And proven to repeatedly be lies. No one is saying you can't discuss it, or that it's off limits. We are simply saying that by the standards of ATS, these things belong in the Hoax category. And there is usually a very good reason for that.


Just curious...
What is the reasoning behind painting this stuff this way? Who does it benefit? The folks who already believe it to be a hoax or those who won't believe it's a hoax no matter what?
Or... is it for those who have not yet made up their minds?
*sigh*
I'm done. I did my best... y'all's site. I appreciate you allowing me to voice my opinion.

Have a nice night



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





By your logic, we would never have a legal system, nor the field of science because nobody would ever get convicted, and we would never have any scientific facts if there were any doubters of the evidence.


How very naive of you, in the best case.

In reality the evidence or arguments used to label some topics a hoax are not as clear and factual like a fingerprint, but are more based on what SO wants to allow.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I'd say Kevin Annett and anything from itccs.org. Annett is a con man, and the ITCCS is a joke organization that makes ridiculous and unfounded accusations against people (like the Pope or the Queen of England,) tries and convicts them in their "International Common Law Court" and suggests that people try to arrest them, which is both dangerous and stupid.

Sample recent thread: ITCCS: Eyewitness to 1987 ritual say's “I SAW JOSEPH RATZINGER MURDER LITTLE GIRL”



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Evidence proves innocence or guilt. Evidence proves science fact from science fiction. Evidence proves a fake hoax from something real.


This is funny, like I posted in the other thread.

When confronted with no plane theories claiming that CGI was used, skeptics like SO always use the excuse that the footage is compressed and low resolution, but when a vid pops up that shows a fake missile hitting the pentagon, the same quality footage is suddenly acceptable to point out that the missile is CGI.

Double standards much?

A bit of a paradox and just goes to show that the process of determining what is a hoax is a very gray area.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheNewSense
 


With the exception of a few topics, these will all be confirmed hoaxers. Such as Sorcha Faal, and TankerEnemy. There is little truth to either of those, or to several other hoaxers that are already on the list to be place in the Hoax forum.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

TheNewSense
In reality the evidence or arguments used to label some topics a hoax are not as clear and factual like a fingerprint

The evidence and arguments for all known hoaxes is very clear and factual. Fingerprints start getting into the forensics side of evidence. And while not every single hoax has forensic evidence, some do.

On that same token, there are quite a many court convictions that don't have any forensic evidence either. Hell, there have been murder convictions where there hasn't even been a body to tell if there was a murder or not. That's because other evidence proved as much. You don't need forensic evidence to convict someone, or prove a hoax.

Again, convictions aren't set aside just because some evidence isn't as clear and factual to some. Neither are hoaxes.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join