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 Bill Ryan
For your continued interest, I've posted several more consistencies on [url=http://www.serpo.org/consistencies.html]
Some people have mistakenly concluded that I'm an unthinking apologist for the accuracy of the story. Rather, I seek to maintain a finely balanced perspective. As I hear more cries of "hoax" – which in my present opinion stem solely from an insufficiency of careful thought – I will endeavor to post more reasons to suspend disbelief.
My own advice to all is that we still need more information, specifically a better understanding of the context in which Anonymous is operating... Let's see what the New Year may bring.
Best wishes, Bill
So it is not unreasonable to currently posit this as a hoax because the unsubstantiated Serpo claims are being put forth as true.
There is only one logical default position here. Just because one doesn't take the Serpo story as trurth, or part of a truth, due to insufficient evidence, doesn't mean that they won't in the future if such evidence comes to light. However, as I've stated almost too many times for my liking, there is not any empirical evidence in regards to Serpo.
From Serpo.org: Other training which is still considered extremely highly classified even after 40 years [1965 - 2005].
Originally posted by Graham
Just on the Serpo website there it states on the front page
"I printed all the information... and provided [the retired USAF Colonel] a copy... I watched his eyes and facial expressions. After he was finished, he stated, "Oh my God, who on this Earth would release such classified material?" I then asked him if all this information was real. His simple answer was, 'Yes, all real'."
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, currently assigned to the Pentagon – name supplied
Is that from Bill Ryan at all? Can anyone clarify>
cheers
Graham
[edit on 26-12-2005 by Graham]
Originally posted by Obscure
Originally posted by Bill Ryan
For your continued interest, I've posted several more consistencies on [url=http://www.serpo.org/consistencies.html]
Some people have mistakenly concluded that I'm an unthinking apologist for the accuracy of the story. Rather, I seek to maintain a finely balanced perspective. As I hear more cries of "hoax" – which in my present opinion stem solely from an insufficiency of careful thought – I will endeavor to post more reasons to suspend disbelief.
My own advice to all is that we still need more information, specifically a better understanding of the context in which Anonymous is operating... Let's see what the New Year may bring.
Best wishes, Bill
You've contradicted yourself twice there, Bill. First you're not an apologist, then people who doubt the veracity of the claims on the stie lack careful thought, and finally, we're supposed to wait for more information about Anonymous' situation in order to know if this is true?
It may be assumed – although this of course cannot be proven – that his superiors have "leant" on him to be silent and not to respond to any further e-mails. As a serving career officer, it would have been understandable for him to comply. We are left to consider for ourselves why such an action may have been taken by the authorities.
Originally posted by englishman100
Hi Bill. Thanks for the hard work you are putting in to this. I have a question. Do you have any plans to introduce and alert the mainstream media to the Serpo disclosures and if so when? If there are ever credible photos released then some newspapers and TV may be interested in reporting it. I think there is a danger that the media may try and do a hatchet job and present it in an immature and jokey "Elvis is alive and living on the moon" kind of a way. On the other hand if it is never reported in the mainstream press then the whole disclosure will have very little impact because only people that either read this site or have found the serpo website will know about it.
Also In my opinion it is not a good idea to have a link to abovetopsecret on the Serpo website. People in the mainstream media will have ammunition to attack and discredit annonymous's claims because they will look on this site and find the most extreme and silly post they can and then link it with the serpo disclosures. This is very cynical, corrupt and misleading journalism but they often do it this way to try and undermine the credibility of certain issues and causes that do not suit their agenda. I am not saying good research and corroboration (like the guy did working out the team members probable roles) should not be included on the serpo site. Just better not to say it came from this site.
I am not saying good research and corroboration (like the guy did working out the team members probable roles) should not be included on the serpo site. Just better not to say it came from this site.
People should know the source of information and be able to weigh it against the credibility of the source.
Originally posted by Bill Ryan
No, an apologist is somebody who argues to defend or justify a particular doctrine or ideology. I'm not doing that. I don't have a fixed idea about exactly what is happening, though as I've said earlier on this Forum I do have a hypothesis which I'm keeping to myself for the moment, and which I believe to be testable.
But I am arguing against anyone who casually or lazily dismisses it all as a simple hoax. I stand for intelligent thought and will listen to anyone who presents cogent, well-considered arguments. (Why? Because I might realize something I've not thought of.) So I'm just presenting evidence on both sides of the debate – if you read the Comments page you'll see there's plenty there which argues against the veracity of the stated orbital data, for example.
The reason for the Consistencies page is that I know that some have jumped to a conclusion based on poor logic – not considering all the facts. This does not mean their conclusion is wrong; it just means that their logic is poor. To even things out and encourage careful thought, I want to present additional factors which are not immediately obvious and/or which may not be generally known. They're not proof, but constitute a kind of circumstantial evidence. My post above, for instance – and in particular the fact that my faithful correspondent has gone silent or been silenced – for me is highly significant and must be explained by anyone promoting the hypothesis that this is a hoax.
I hope I explained myself a little better that time – does this now make better sense?
Best wishes, Bill