Old Style ATS, Proof & Sources

I think this is the first time possibly second I've done a rant post, but I'm seriously a tad peeved (we Brits don't like to over-react lol)

I've been on this site since way back (this is my 2nd account) and like many others I've seen various changes. When I first came here, it had many highly intelligent people, knowledgeable people, people who debated without name calling or derision, people who when faced with something they didn't know about actually researched it themselves instead of demanding a "summary" or "proof". We had a bit of snobbery about us fair enough, but I think we were actually a bit superior to the other sites around, and the site owners seemed keen on keeping that reputation. I have seen a huge surge in absolute laziness when it comes to research, a laziness when it comes to verifying facts or stories and a very VERY annoying laziness with people not even bothering to read opening posts or the following on posts resulting in folk repeating the same thing as others in the same thread. Only last week there was a post where someone actually said "I haven't read the op but here's my two cents worth". How the hell can you have an opinion or contribute to a thread if you haven't even read beyond the title? Then there's the "I can't watch videos at the moment but I think....." Again if you can't watch the damn video wait to comment until you can otherwise what's your opinion actually worth? If something takes a little work or a little thought....forget it!

If I read a thread I knew little about and wanted verification, or wanted to know more about it, I'd search multiple times, get as many takes on the topic as possible before commenting. We used to pride ourselves on being theorists....how can you be a theorist if all you do is throw out witty comments, do no research, deride people for their views and offer nothing to a thread other than insults? The point of being a theorist is to discuss and debate intelligently the topic at hand, differing opinions are fine, but dear Lord at least have some manners about you and bother to research the subject yourselves.

My next point is regarding proof and sources. Just what on earth constitutes proof? We only have the good old internet to use for our proof unless we are lucky enough to be a secret agent. Once upon a time it was the library. We dont' have access to secret documents and papers, we aren't privvy to the workings of shadow governments, secret projects etc so just what "proof" can we provide? When someone does provide what they believe to be proof, again they are ridiculed.
Photos aren't proof
Audio isn't proof
Personal experience isn't proof
Witness statements aren't proof
Certain websites aren't proof
Newspaper articles aren't proof

So what is acceptable proof then?

Someone quotes a source and immediately there are cries of "Oh well thats a far right source" "That's Breitbart that doesn't count" "That's SecureTeam thats a hoax" blah blah. So again, I ask what constitutes an acceptable source? It seems many people on here are now more willing to dismiss an item rather than look into it for themselves, its easier and quicker just to dismiss the source rather than intelligently debate the matter.

So far none of these have been acceptable sources (and these are just the ones I've noticed this last couple of weeks)
Daily Mail
Daily Mirror
CNN
ABC
FOX
BBC
Breitbart
The Sun
The Star
New York Times
Washington Post
Anything from Russia or China
Anything Right
Anything Left
Anything Liberal
Anything in between
Steven Greer
Godlike Productions
911 Truth
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth
Alex Jones
David Icke
Jim Marrs
John Lear
Anyone supporting Trump
Anyone supporting Clinton
And the list goes on

So, with damn near everything being labelled as fake news whether or not it actually is, just how does one author a post with a source or proof acceptable to everyone or at least the majority? Its bloody impossible! I've seen so many good posts simply dismissed because of the source when despite the sources, the topic could still be discussed and debated and probably further sources found.

Grrrr!

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Just get up on the table
and dance in that big bowl
of Yorkshire pudding.
Now kick it in every face
at the table.

Now make them lick your toes clean.

Cheers

a reply to: Wildmanimal

hahahaha
I might just do that....then of course it would have to be filmed and uploaded to facebook ......as proof obviously

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

No don't give facebook anything .
I wish I was there to dance and kick with you!

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Someone quotes a source and immediately there are cries of "Oh well thats a far right source" "That's Breitbart that doesn't count" "That's SecureTeam thats a hoax" blah blah. So again, I ask what constitutes an acceptable source? I

Well, it depends on the subject at hand, does it not?

I suggest following the good old journalistic rule of having to two independent sources.

And have in mind that lends more credence to the story if the source is not known to support the view it is taking - ff possible use a liberal rather than conservative leaning source for a liberal critical subject matter, and use Coast2Coast rather than CNN when debunking or discrediting something or someone alternative.

And never use SecureTeam. Come on.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

Would need a bigger table then!

a reply to: DupontDeux

I don't use Secureteam ever simply because of the reactions on here and I don't have enough information about them to know whether they are fake or not.

Great rant!
Also a legitimate rant. Aside from the political threads I'm also sick of "hey watch this video & tell me what you think" threads. It takes just a few minutes to back up a video with a written article on the same subject. Two sources used to be the minimum and most articles cite further sources for more investigation.

Now it's just slap something up and discuss it regardless of anyone including the OP knowing anything about the subject matter. Or bothering to find out more other than a click-bait title.

Seriously maybe ATS ought to give a tutorial on keyword searches and basic investigative techniques for the overwhelming amount of new members. It's certainly NOT ATS's job, but it would certainly improve the quality if the forum. I guess the next thing will be someone hopping on to tell me to start a thread on it?

Not that I'm unwilling but this is something that should ideally come from the management here so people take it seriously. Actually now that I'm thinking about it two sources should maybe be a requirement in the T&C's.

When we espouse the ideal of denying ignorance I've always assumed it meant our own as well? Making members be better posters thru education certainly DOES fall into the management's purview. It helps members and improves the website.

a reply to: Caver78

Quite....few seem willing to actively search and research for themselves anymore. Over the years I've learnt so much by reading a topic then researching it further. I wont' comment on a subject if I know nothing about it, that's just daft and if called out on it you just look pretty stupid

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Thanks for the reply an didn't mean to hijack your very thoughtful rant. I do the same especially with subject matter "new to me". Altho with all the ridiculous click-bait being posted I usually google for other sources just because most of the links given are to blogs or opinion pieces and are not a true reflection of the topic. Even the news links I want a second source for since professional journalism has gotten so sloppy. Usually going to the local news source clears things up.

All this "should" be done by the OP instead of the OP's readers but looks like that ship sailed.

a reply to: Caver78

I do try and ensure all my pieces are as informative as possible with sources etc but its getting very wearing when people ignore the content and focus on the sources. You can't please all the people all the time and all that!

Well, I like the idea of using two sources. Thanks!

And what about the question of proof? Just what the hell constitutes proof? for anything

I agree with you OP, what is proof on here these days?

Over the last five years+ I've been lurking and a year+ joining ATS has changed, this fake news scandal has taken over people's minds into (nothing is real) to distract us from real events all over the world and has "somewhat" effected ATS to a degree that proof isn't proof unless they seen what you did or investigated the same idea, the rest is fake or discredited.

Back in ATS younger days every one agreed with each other, because pretty much every one was a conspiracy theorist, it was easier to get the wild speculation discussed and agreed upon being it UFO's, Illuminati, NWO, hollow Earth, Planet X, structures on the Moon and so on.

Today more critical minds have entered the stage of ATS, members who want more evidence than just youtube videos or MSM sources, except for 9/11, no proof is needed there just wild speculation and your thread goes to the top.

All those topics today are kind of dead because no real proof has been found or they were just to ridicules.

Take John Lear and his structures on the moon, he took pictures that was extremely pix elated, and said "look structures", but no structures were there, it was the pix elation that created the structures, i actually came to ATS because of John Lear and Zorgon and their Moon stuff.

We of cause want proof of various topic's, but when wild claims after wild claims is being posted with out any substantial proof, people just get bored of these topics, except for 9/11, any thing goes there still.

There are still some well thought out threads on ATS, but 90% of the topics on ATS today is crap or political, almost all the old members has left ATS because when critical minds came to ATS and either debunked or demanded more proof, these members couldn't live up to their claims....so they left.

ATS has evolved, i don't know if it's for the better or worse...

[

Didnt read the OP but posting here to read later

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
I don't use Secureteam ever simply because of the reactions on here and I don't have enough information about them to know whether they are fake or not.

So they havent posted and outright fabricated enough hoaxes for you to judge them? How many is too many?
Same thing goes for the scheisters like Robert Bauval, Graham Hancock, Stephen Greer, Sitchen, Daniken, Childress, and all the other New Age cult leaders who have been proven bull#ters-for-profit time and time again. I've seen enough UFOs to know they exist, but these people telling you what they are dont know any more than anyone else does.

a reply to: Mianeye

I disagree to a certain extent. I don't believe it was critical minds that saw the exodus from ATS I believe it was dismissive and lazy minds

I really don't mind if a post of mine is proven otherwise, I quite enjoy discovering more information about a topic, but when someone's post is dismissed without being read in its entirety or because of the sources or because ofa particular politcal leaning then I get a little miffed

Proof isn't often available and never likely to be, that's what creates the theories. In properly discussing the theories we can sometimes get just that little bit closer to something resembling truth or at the very least give people reason to research further for themselves. It seems however, that people want everything laying out on a plate for them and if they don't know anything about the topic then they will still post regardless, usually snarky snidey comments

a reply to: Ridhya

Cheeky bugger!
To be fair I haven't looked into Secureteam enough to comment and have zero knowledge of cgi so wouldn't know what to look for. I've just taken it as red from the posters on here that they are out of bounds and its an automatic hoax bin.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Yes, there are a lot of "trolls" on ATS today, i don't think it can be avoided, i see again and again people who are closed minded post one liners or sarcastic/ funny comments, they don't really care about the topic, they just wanna be seen.

a reply to: Mianeye

Aye I think its come with the advent of social media and the 5mins of fame thing