Tom Delonge is revealing a little bit more info, on the lead up to the release of his documentary!

a reply to: interupt42

I'm not so sure.

1. About how skeptical some folks are hereon

or

2. About how much his input so far have sunk his cause.

3. He just does not come across as the sort of person the super skeptical people describe. Of that much, I'm reasonably confident of.

Time will tell.

a reply to: gortex

I may have missed it.

Is there a link somewhere that he's going to preview his documentary?

Sigh~ well it's official, whatever chance I was going to give him just flew out the window when he posted a Billy Meier hoax photo, after posting a movie still as evidence.

Later Tom.

originally posted by: NthOther
Dude tricked a bunch of ignorant, easily manipulated kids into buying his s# music, . . .

Uhhhhhhhhh I know of decades of . . . noisy "music" by extremely popular bands . . . that THAT could be said of.

And, there are those who assert that the whole genre from Elvis on was a massive social manipulation project of the oligarchy from the pit of hell . . . more or less literally.

But that's for another thread. LOL.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I see that stuff as merely illustrations.

I doubt Tom was asserting a lot about such illustrations.

Or, if he was . . . what do we REALLY KNOW about the origins of any images the last 60 years?

a reply to: AboveBoard

No.

I don't think that of you at all. Not even nearly so.

YES, I'm brazen enough to "go there."

Toooooooo many hyper-skeptics hereon

HAVE MORE THAN

WELL EARNED such an analysis, description and interpretation.

I'd be doing them and their readers A DISSERVICE to fail to call them out on such.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Time will tell.

Yep it will, that we can agree on.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Likewise.

Very likewise.

HOWEVER, I don't see that failing to agree with my first key points needs to negate the ones that follow, however. Most of them still stand on their own, imho.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I think I'm aware of your perspective on such scores.

You'll never convince me of your perspective.

And, I realize, vice versa is also likely true.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I don't have trouble giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I do , because he is making extraordinary claims with nothing to back it up.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Second link in the OP , the one with the Meier picture.

We are getting very close to showing you all a piece of the documentary.

No timeline just that we're close to seeing a bit , I'm guessing it will be a trailer of assorted bits but who knows.

a reply to: BO XIAN

none of that adds credibility to Tom Delonge.

a reply to: interupt42

In YOUR construction on reality.

I understand that.

I simply disagree . . . on what I find to be reasonable grounds.

I think it is a VERY significant factoid that Springer has vetted Tom in certain respects.

a reply to: gortex

OK. THANKS.

Hadn't gotten to looking at those links, yet.

a reply to: interupt42

I believe that your assessment of

"nothing to back it up"

is overly . . . blackwashing . . . for no good reason.

1. Springer vetted Tom. That's NOT "nothing."

2. Tom's personality factors etc. are congruent within the whole picture of Tom, his values, his persona, his goals, his history, his style.

3. Tom's story is also at least largely congruent within itself.

None of the above 3 = "nothing."

They wouldn't equal "nothing" to a top flight detective.

They don't equal "nothing," to me.

I still have NO reason to be hyper-skeptical toward Tom--regardless of how extraordinary his narrative is.

1. The topic is INHERENTLY extraordinary.

2. The old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" simply doesn't hold water at some point.

2.1 At some point, an addicted, compulsive marriage to that now trite claim merely sets one up for a virtually certain FALSE NEGATIVE ERROR.

3. HOW does one come up with "extraordinary proof" in a set of reality where such "proofs" are BY DESIGN virtually impossible to come up with?

3.1 Is the ONLY alternative in the search for truth to merely shake one's head mystify-ingly and walk away as absolutely ignorant and clueless as one was in the beginning?

3.2 I personally, to NOT think so.

4. Sure--filtering out the signal from the noise is a super challenge in such arenas. So what.

5. a SUPER CHALLENGE does NOT equal impossible.

Sigh.

a reply to: BO XIAN

again I don't see how any of that adds credibility to Tom?

As for Springer as that appears to be real and only reason why Tom has gotten the benefit of the doubt around here.

While I think he has done a great thing here on ATS I do not know the man,motives , his business plans. or superior inability to be wrong or conned. Hence just because he vets someone (which I don't think he has fully done as you suggest ), does not mean that I turn a blind eye to the facts. Sure his apparent backing does make it more intriguing , but again I don't see why that has todo with the facts so far?

So far Tom hasn't delivered anything.

I'm not saying that he won't , but IMO I think its highly unlikely.

Not sure why so many are taking it personal that many are being rightly skeptical of a person making extraordinary claims with nothing to back it up besides his celebrity status?

Does he ever say what he knows? Because so far I've seen no answers, only teasers. Maybe I should buy the book.

a reply to: interupt42

I, imho,

believe that you are setting yourself up

wayyyyy tooo much

to be an unnecessary victim of a false negative error.

I believe that your criteria are far too strict and "high."

Only teases? . . . at this point . . . I'd think that logically, that's likely to be a huge percentage of what is offered--given the outline that he set out at the beginning.

The book had plenty of teases. Not a great deal was very startling for anyone well read on the topic.

a reply to: and14263

The book was interesting.

It was a tolerable initial installment on what he claims to be set out on as a massive and incredible project, journey.

I remain--surprisingly to many, no doubt--somewhat skeptical as to how well he'll be able to follow through.

HOWEVER, my expectation is--given what I view as a lot of congruence--is that he WILL follow through fairly successfully a LOT more and further than most of the skeptics hereon would dare imagine in a 100 years.

a reply to: BO XIAN

believe that you are setting yourself up wayyyyy tooo much to be an unnecessary victim of a false negative error.

Not setting my self up for anything. I don't have any problems changing my mind when their is evidence to suggest that I should.

I believe that your criteria are far too strict and "high."

Expecting evidence and looking at facts is too much to be expected?