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.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by rich23
My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.
Perhaps the wording of the messaging may have been improved upon, but the intent was clear, making the point that the interview was not real... at a time when many still believed it was.
An unfortunate event has occurred today that has the potential to harm the credibility all people and sites seeking to find the truth in a broad range of conspiracy-related topics... the The Alex Jones Interview Hoax.
Some hours after the deception was exposed, several dozen online sources have not yet fully come to terms with the fictional nature of the "interview." Help raise awareness of the reality by DIGGing the ATS thread that contains the link to the original, unaltered version.
the intent was clear, making the point that the interview was not real... at a time when many still believed it was.
If the faux-interview was accidentally posted without the disclaimer, we'd have heard a reasonable explanation by now... and I'd sit down to a plate of crow.
If it was so major and important, should there have been:
1) greater care in the posting of the complete piece written by Mr. Sheen?
2) swift response and apologies for accidentally omitting the disclaimer?
3) a disclaimer at the top, indicating the "open letter" nature of the "interview?"
It's unfortunate that the style of delivery is overshadowing an otherwise interesting development in the 9/11 conspiracy arena. Someone of Mr. Sheen's stature can do much... and teamed with Mr. Jones, may actually result in some outcomes for which we may be pleased.
I've sent several emails today to various contacts to see if I can speak directly with Mr. Jones, by phone or email, in an effort to get his side of the story. Hopefully, we can discover that a series of unfortunate stumbles resulted in an apparent deception... if so, as I've said, I'll gladly dine on crow.
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by rich23
My point is, ultimately, that despite a lack of any evidence to suggest a malicious intent, ATS is labelling Jones a hoaxer. And then mounting a campaign against him.
Perhaps the wording of the messaging may have been improved upon, but the intent was clear, making the point that the interview was not real... at a time when many still believed it was.
This I can agree with you. You actually just made me feel a bit better, acknowledging the wording was directed at the entire document as being a hoax when in fact the document contained many relevant facts to 9/11 truth. Something to note for the future I assume.
EDIT: Actually I take this back now that pro-AJ threads are being removed from ATS and the Hoax threads are still there.
[edit on 8-9-2009 by ExPostFacto]
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
EDIT: Actually I take this back now that pro-AJ threads are being removed from ATS and the Hoax threads are still there.
Originally posted by Ahabstar
knowingly creating a fictional interview presented as factual would have a major libel suit written all over it.
Originally posted by rich23
but the email is clearly making the point that the interview had been altered to include the disclaimer. That is NOT the same thing as alerting people to the fact that it was a "faux" interview: it's taking the one- or two-hour gap (reports vary) and making it the centre of the story.
Originally posted by titorite
Maybe if you had been a loyal fan of AJ from the 90s and maybe if you knew how GCN was started and MAYBE if you knew more about the facts... Maybe then you would know why many of us despise AJ for what he has done...
AJ Went too far this time and has hurt us all BAD!
I have written him off for good!
[edit on 8-9-2009 by titorite]
We have no "evidence" other than what clearly happened (a fake interview originally presented as real), and what has not happened (an apology for an inadvertent deception). The most likely conclusion is that the disclaimer was originally omitted for the purpose of sensationalism... a conclusion that clearly fits within the confines of what we've previously labeled as hoaxes here in the past. I hope it's not. I'd prefer to read about a logical accident.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It is a fake (faux) interview that was originally posted without any indication as to its fictional nature. Nearly two hours after first appearing, and hundreds of replies from the vantage point of it being real, the disclaimer was added without any apology.
Originally posted by Tentickles
Our Site motto is Deny Ignorance not Tolerate Ignorance.