Proof of ATS Scooping the Web?

Blackmarketeer
The RT image exif data shows it was created at 09:30 March 7th.

Also, for the record my screen grabs were first posted here @ posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 14:20

SLAYER69

Blackmarketeer
The RT image exif data shows it was created at 09:30 March 7th.

Also, for the record my screen grabs were first posted here @ posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 14:20

And as pointed out, the RT images were posted March 07, 2014 13:04. That's 1:16 before your post. AND as pointed out, their exif data showed they made their images March 01, 2014 at 09:20. Five hours before your post. So clearly, they DID NOT copy anything from you.

Blackmarketeer
And as pointed out, the RT images were posted March 07, 2014 13:04. That's 1:16 before your post. AND as pointed out, their exif data showed they made their images March 01, 2014 at 09:20. Five hours before your post. So clearly, they DID NOT copy anything from you.

It was obvious they didn't but to imply I copied theirs is bad form when one could obviously tell they are not exactly the same. Now, having said that, I never mentioned 'RT'

reply to post by SLAYER69


you need to get your "Investigative Reporter" badge out of the dust bin.

This is awesome Slayer.....you have made it to the big leagues.

reply to post by SLAYER69


No, you implied that the Dailymail stole your images, then smugly hinted it would be a big coincidence if not. When it is OBVIOUS the Dailymail took their images from Russia Today, which are IDENTICAL.

Your images were clearly NOT used by the Dailymail. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the original source for the Dailymail's images (Russia Today) were already on the Web prior to your posting - in fact, Russia Today "scooped the Web" by connecting those images to Blackwater in their post. I even pointed out a blog site had those same screen caps on the Web 4 days prior to you or anyone else, with the exception of the original YT uploader AlexK. So again, you did not "scoop the Web." That blogger also made the allegation that the images were of Blackwater operatives (whether true or not, but that's immaterial to this topic).

The simple fact is, your OP is pure fluff, based on an egotistical notion your posting was the basis for the Dailymail's content. You were neither the source of the original content, nor the first to post it to the Web.

Here's a suggestion, if you did take photographs or a video personally, then don't lay claim to be a source for that imagery when it appears elsewhere on the Web. Even screen caps of someone else's work. Your post on ATS was derivative of another person's work (in this case, YT user AlexK). JUST as the Dailymail's was, but the Dailymail's work was NOT derivative of your work.

reply to post by SLAYER69

It was obvious they didn't but to imply I copied theirs is bad form when one could obviously tell they are not exactly the same. Now, having said that, I never mentioned 'RT'

Get your reading glasses out, I said it was obvious they did not copy their images from you, not 'you copied from them.' Their images were on the Web before you posted, so clearly, they did not copy anything from you. That renders your entire post rather moot.

Blackmarketeer
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

No, you implied that the Dailymail stole your images,

Where?

Your images were clearly NOT used by the Dailymail.

Never said they were...

The simple fact is, your OP is pure fluff, based on an egotistical notion your posting was the basis for the Dailymail's content. You were neither the source of the original content, nor the first to post it to the Web.

Kept you occupied, no?

reply to post by SLAYER69


You know, this is entertaining...

iRoyalty
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Perhaps our posts have more influence than we thought ay?

Yes, they do.
I saw an episode on Ancient Aliens discussing the Black Eyed Children, and they showed a thread from ATS in the show, among other sources, where that topic was discussed.

GO ATS!!!

reply to post by SLAYER69


Occupied? Hardly, but it is entertaining seeing the level of backtracking you have to do in your own thread.

Where I wrote: No, you implied that the Dailymail stole your images,

You asked: Where?

Right here:

I know it could simply be a coincidence that they just happened to take the same exact screens from the youtube video as I did but damn it if isn't eerily so?

Along with your topic heading "Proof of ATS scooping the Web?"

You imply the Dailymail is copying from you, that they "just happened to take the same exact screens from the youtube video as I did," when in fact it was you who took the same screens as they did. You say you "know it could simply be a coincidence," yet it was YOU who was making the coincidence, not them.

You created a post that is so identical in tone and content to the one on RT, yet never posted a credit or link to the original source. Bad form, mate. The Dailymail and RT and "White Poppies for Peace" blog scooped YOU, not the other way around.

Enjoy your hunt for stars and flags, but please don't insult our intelligence with your vainglory claims of scooping the Web with someone else's YT videos, especially when other Web sites had beaten you to the punch.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


U mad bro?

reply to post by doompornjunkie


Oh he's jelous that Slayer constantly bring good topics for us to read and gets a lot of stars and flags.

Now, i enjoy Slayers articles at times and once in a while i participate in the thread however i am not a fanboy. I do find this debate hilarious and i love how serious its been taken.

We'll reporters search just like we so!
Your thread may have been linked elsewhere or talked about, tweeted. Usually does happen with ATS posts.

reply to post by onequestion


Jealous, or pointing out the lack of intellectual honesty on ATS?

I used to post on this site years ago (lost old password) and noticed back then the trend of Reddit-like behaviour the star and flag system creates. Get rid of the stars and flags and half the posters on here will stop whoring for attention.

It's post like these that teach us to take anything said here with a big grain if salt. I see 90% of ATS topics on Reddit days before they appear here, and it seems to me like a dedicated camp of members scan it for post topics chasing flags.

Ban the star and flag system, and the post quality will go up.

Google "dailymail, abovetopsecret " you'll see this site covered & quoted numerous times in that publication. It's no secret they take material from here, sometimes they're gracious enough to quote members. cheers.

Edit: A cleaner search can be done from the Daily Mail site, some links listed are bad but others clearly quote ATS and its members as the source: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Here's one story that cites ATS: www.dailymail.co.uk... age.html

Another edit: The Daily Mail is known in to steal stories, quite blatantly, check out what Poynter.org had to say about this - it's eye opening: www.poynter.org...

TXRabbit
simple - start embedding a watermark and/or "easter egg" in any pics/grabs you post. You'll then know for sure if it's been nabbed

Shhh... You're giving away the best tricks! (That's actually sometihng I've done with my stuff since the early days of my graphics courses).

Just a little something....even by a dozen pixels and in a totally worthless and meaningless background spot. All the better, eh? It's an anomaly only one person should know exists and where to look. The actual creator.


@ Thread

Not that it matters that much of course and the impression I've gotten is that Slayer has pointed out the 'quinky dink' aspect of how these things come to happen more than any serious complaining or claims. Generally speaking, I know ATS has scooped MSM a couple times. There are threads here in archives for the times and a couple happened since I was a member. Routine stuff..nothing really memorable aside from having seen it to recall the the fact it's happened..

On this, if both sources happened to manually screen shot the same second/frame on the video counter, it is a quirky thing, huh? Almost worth a thread with a take for coincidences and how rare real ones actually are (IMO anyway).

(pssst.... If this were a site like that "ATS" place I hear people talk about...such an observation of the weirdness of events would fit right in! )

I'd like to add that I personally believe the strictly enforced T&C of ATS is why the most popular publication feels good about using (stealing, should be sourcing) stories from here. The regulations on ATS ensure somewhat intelligent debate, and the forums are designed to give different types of postings more gravity than others - say "Alternative Breaking News" as one. It's not the wild west on ATS, but it's close and that's good enough for MSM.

Nice work, Slayer.

reply to post by Jason88


I followed your link and only 4 of their stories made a reference to ATS. To their credit, they put full credits to ATS. Read the articles, they are not talking about the topics from ATS or using ATS images, but instead are talking about the commentary from the public, like a sampling of opinion on a topic, say the opinion of the conspiracy minded public. They also took the same samplings in those articles from CNS forum, Bussinesweek forum, and others, and as I saw, duly credited.

Here's what one of the stories they wrote had to say about ATS...:

[EX]One such underground website that Robbie has become a member of is the little-known AboveTopSecret.com, which dresses up gossip and anti-state paranoia as fact for its gullible subscribers. [/EX]

That's how they summarise ATS, "here's what those kooks at a conspiracy site say..."

Now, does that make the OP in this post look better, when you learn the site didnt use his images but quite the opposite, his images appear based on theirs? It's a two way street you know... It's fair to say ATS plunders their site just as often for content. In fact, Reddit makes up half this sites content, by those members seeking to inflate their stars and flags by rehashing off-site content.

PS to add: Here in the UK the Mailonline.com is regarded as nothing more than a link farm, it like many of it's ilk is a 'news aggregator', producing nothing original. So it is hardly worthy of considering them a "news media" site, they have produced a slew of tripe and filch their content from across the WWW, like your Enquirer or World News.

But I have to agree with the poster above, BM, in this case the OP was wrong to allude the Dailymail took anything image wise from ATS. While the Dailyfail may be contemptible for their sleazy articles, they do comply with the legal requirements of crediting imagery, as that keeps the copyright lawyers at bay. It's ATS that has more to be concerned with as far as filching content goes, but then that is why they imposed the 3 paragraph limit on offsite content I suppose...

It's nearly morn here so enough time-wasting on this topic...

Blackmarketeer
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

No, you implied that the Dailymail stole your images, then smugly hinted it would be a big coincidence if not. When it is OBVIOUS the Dailymail took their images from Russia Today, which are IDENTICAL.

Your images were clearly NOT used by the Dailymail. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the original source for the Dailymail's images (Russia Today) were already on the Web prior to your posting - in fact, Russia Today "scooped the Web" by connecting those images to Blackwater in their post. I even pointed out a blog site had those same screen caps on the Web 4 days prior to you or anyone else, with the exception of the original YT uploader AlexK. So again, you did not "scoop the Web." That blogger also made the allegation that the images were of Blackwater operatives (whether true or not, but that's immaterial to this topic).

The simple fact is, your OP is pure fluff, based on an egotistical notion your posting was the basis for the Dailymail's content. You were neither the source of the original content, nor the first to post it to the Web.

Here's a suggestion, if you did take photographs or a video personally, then don't lay claim to be a source for that imagery when it appears elsewhere on the Web. Even screen caps of someone else's work. Your post on ATS was derivative of another person's work (in this case, YT user AlexK). JUST as the Dailymail's was, but the Dailymail's work was NOT derivative of your work.

Don't waste the time.

Nothing gets in the way of this guy's ego. Let him have his little Internet fantasy. He's obviously got a void in life to fill.

I've read numerous topics on ATS that I have then read again as a 'news story' on the Daily Mail website. My conclusion was that there's someone at the Daily Mail who likes ATS and is a regular visitor, probably en member....the stories I have read on the Daily Mail are often written in almost a copy/paste fashion of various user replies in whatever topic was discussed.