About this "White House Insider"...What do we know?

reply to post by schuyler

Yesterday OP announced Ulsterman was a liar about the Insider's prediction of resignations.

You might want to go re-read my reply.

Saying that what you posted doesn't pass as proof doesn't mean I am calling anyone a liar. It simply means that the claims are still without proof.

Originally posted by schuyler
I've just added up all the Insider's predictions and have the following tally. Of 14 specific predictions he has made so far in 8 insider articles:

Confirmed = 6: It happened after the fact just like he said it would.
Unresolved = 6: We don't know because these are still in the future.
Wrong: 1: He said it would happen; it did not. Looks like he was flat out wrong.
Unconfirmed = 1: It may be true, but we have no independent confirmation.

The key here will be to see which unresolved issues move to the confirmed column and which move to the wrong column. Understand that the Insider's information contains far more than just predictions. It's just that predictions is one way we can attempt to measure his authenticity.

If you want more information, RTFAs

Why list these out without providing sources? It's just as bad as the original claim.

We are looking for PROOF here...not opinions.

Provided sources that confirm the "insiders" "predictions" have come true. And I hope it is verifiable information and not just "well this kind of maybe sounds like what he said".


Again...I need PROOF...not just your opinion or interpretation of some "prediction".

reply to post by centurion1211


I don't know why you keep bringing up "Deep Throat".

Just because one anonymous source turns out to be true does not mean all anonymous sources turn out to be true.

If you want to believe things that are not backed up by facts, that have no proof that they are valid. Be my guest. This thread isn't about believing what you want to believe...it is about trying to find out if this source is verifiable and valid.

Do you have anything to add to the topic of discussion? Which is "can we verify this source"?

Because so far all you have done is trolled.

First of all, I thought this thread was about the Insider and Ulsterman. If you'd actually read the articles you would know that the Insider/Ulsterman says NOT ONE WORD about the "Obama is gay" thing. He does not bring up the subject even generally or subtly in a way to add inuendo. He mentions Chicago, but in that context he appears to be talking about the known scandals related to corrupt Chicago politics, Rezko, Jarrett, perhaps a banking issue, the selling of Obama's Senate seat by Blagovich, the New Black Panther voter intimidation issue and the justice Department--that sort of stuff. And he's pretty vague about that.

Secondly, regarding Watergate. Some of us posting here weren't alive then, right? I was and I listened to the hearings. BEFORE there were hearings I remember when the Nixon White House said, "There's nothing to it. Move along." I remember when an FBI spokesman went on national TV and said (I'm paraphrasing) 'We have put thousands of hours into this. We have involved every field office we have. We have looked everywhere. And there's nothing to report.' The Watergate scandal remained in 'rumor' stage for an entire year before hearings actually took place and the whole thing began to unravel.

In another parallel, the reporters who broke the scandal, collectively known as Woodstein, were obscure reporters for the Washington Post. They had no reputation to speak of and Bernstein was on the brink of being fired. He wasn't even assigned to the investigation--Woodward was, but Bernstein pushed his way into the investigation. Now, you can say, well, Woodtein was a professional journalsit; nobody even knows Ulsterman. True enough, but back then we didn't have the Internet and further, we didn't have 'professional journalists' running around obsessed with tingles running up their legs when Obama speaks. Journalists, way back then, actually did investigative reporting.

This thing is already half broken open. You can continue to pretend that this is all smoke and mirrors and that there is nothing to it, but I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very interesting.

reply to post by schuyler

This thing is already half broken open. You can continue to pretend that this is all smoke and mirrors and that there is nothing to it, but I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very interesting.

What "thing" is already half broken open?

Why do you beleive things with no proof of the source?

Comparing to Watergate has got to be the most illogical thing I have seen in this thread. YES...Watergate turned out to be true....what does that imply to you?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I don't know why you keep bringing up "Deep Throat".

To simply try and teach you and other a lesson from history that no one should automatically dismiss these kinds of things out of hand.

Just because one anonymous source turns out to be true does not mean all anonymous sources turn out to be true.

But it should show you that if it happened once, it could happen again.

If you want to believe things that are not backed up by facts, that have no proof that they are valid. Be my guest. This thread isn't about believing what you want to believe...it is about trying to find out if this source is verifiable and valid.

Another of your fallacies. I just posted what the article said. I never said I believed it. In fact, I posted that we needed to see if any of his predictions came true for verification.

Do you have anything to add to the topic of discussion? Which is "can we verify this source"?

That would help verify the source.

Because so far all you have done is trolled.

No, that was the route YOU took when you tried to make this and related threads about me instead of the OP's.

reply to post by centurion1211

To simply try and teach you and other a lesson from history that no one should automatically dismiss these kinds of things out of hand.

If I wanted to dismiss these articles out of hand....I wouldn't of created the thread.

I saw a lot of people, including you, using this blogger as a source...and now I am simply asking questions on the validity of his sources.

For some reason that bothers you...I don't know why....I would think you would want to verify this information as true/false as much as I would (for obvious different reasons).

I asked the question in your own thread about the source...and you responded with, paraphrasing, "typical liberal, questioning the source".

But it should show you that if it happened once, it could happen again.

Have I said anywhere that this could not be happening? Trying to find out if the source is valid or not is not saying that this is not possible. It is fact checking.

Another of your fallacies. I just posted what the article said. I never said I believed it. In fact, I posted that we needed to see if any of his predictions came true for verification.

So if you don't believe it...and you know it isn't verified...you are just guilty of posting propaganda as I accused of in your other thread.

No, that was the route YOU took when you tried to make this and related threads about me instead of the OP's.

I'm looking for answers. I'm tyring to find out if this information is true or not. I'm trying to find out who this source could be and are they reliable.

You are attempting to put up road blocks and silly analogies that if it happened once it could happen again.

So do you want to continue to troll off topic...or do you have any interest in trying to find out if this information is true or not?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I will continue to post any way I choose. It is up to the mods and not you to determine whether the content is appropriate. Name calling (this time calling me a troll), is only proof that your logical argument is dead.

If you don't like what I post, ignore me and respond to someone else. It's that simple.

The facts are that this subject struck a nerve with you and you've been going crazy trying to attack everything about it since it first came to light - including trying to attack/discredit/insult me. That is a definition of trolling. Posting related examples from history to make a point in the thread is not.

reply to post by centurion1211


Like I said earlier...I can't force you to want to look for facts.

If you are ok with believing things that aren't verified...be my guest.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by schuyler

 

This thing is already half broken open. You can continue to pretend that this is all smoke and mirrors and that there is nothing to it, but I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very interesting.

What "thing" is already half broken open?

Why do you beleive things with no proof of the source?

Comparing to Watergate has got to be the most illogical thing I have seen in this thread. YES...Watergate turned out to be true....what does that imply to you?

Good Lord, Outcast, what exactly is your problem? Watergate came up in conversation. I didn't bring it up. Someone else did. There are parallels. Since I lived through Watergate, I responded to it. Is that okay with you? Apparently not. You surely are free with your accusations of illogic, but I see absolutely nothing you have said or done that refutes the basic issues here. And from your writing I would say you are unfamiliar with the principles of logic. You have no idea what you are talking about and your accusing other people of being illogical is empty rhetoric with no foundation whatsoever. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

The ONLY thing you have done is question the existence of the Insider (something I share, actually). You have indulged yourself in character assassination of Ulsterman in a lame attempt to cast doubt on the revelations provided by Ulsterman/Insider. Just like the Democrrats in this last election, NOT ONE ran on the issues. NOT ONE said, "Vote for me because I voted for Obamacare, Cap & Trade, and the bailouts." They ALL chose to cast aspersions on the person they were running against.

That's what you've done here. That's the point of your entire thread, that Ulsterman/Insider are not credible, THEREFORE none of these allegations are supported. Why is U/I not credible? Because you haven't heard of them before. Your basic complaint is that he is not a professional journalist--at least, as far as you know. What that means is that U/I has not undergone the rigors of a liberal Communications Department propaganda machine in a typical Liberal Arts university. You have almost completely ignored the material itself. Your objection to the closeness of the predictions made by U/I is almost laughable. It's grasping at straws.

Have you actually proven U/I is not credible? Of course not! All you've proven is that he is not particularly well known. That fact was never in dispute, and the fact that he is not well know does not reflect negatively on what he is saying. If we were to use the same logic about yourself, we can dismiss what you say because you are even more obscure and unknown than Ulsterman, therefore what you say is not credible. We're supposed to pay attention to someone who calls himself OutKast Searcher? Yet you object to the anonymous "Insider." Please! At least we know something about him, allegedly, something I addressed above. We know nothing about you at all.

I at least have gone to the source here and analyzed what has been said and shown that U/I has a pretty good track record. I also, and this is important, am not afraid to point out when U/I is flat out wrong. You can't accuse me of avoiding the negatives because I'm the one that has pointed them out.

You say, "How can you believe something with no proof?" My answer: U/I's predictions have proven remarkably accurate. He's only been completely wrong once. I don't "believe" it; I think it is likely. I've never said I "believe" all the material. What I have said is that you can't discount it just because you don't care for Ulsterman's bonafides.

You say, "What "thing" is already half broken open?" Good Lord, what have we been talking about? A White House in disarray. An incompetent out of touch President. "Broken open" means that these issues are being addressed far beyond Ulsterman's blog. Even the Wall Street Journal has discussed these issues, the same issues that Ulsterman "broke open." This is no longer just a couple of obscure bloggers with no readers talking to thin air. Even Chris "tingle" Matthews is discussing these issues. That's what "broken open" means. People are dicussing it openly. It's no longer hidden. It is no longer being successfully suppressed. Even you are talking about it. And Ulsterman is no longer obscure.

I had thought at first that your post was an honest attempt to search for the truth here from an angle that deserved scrutiny, i.e.: an investigation that could go either way. But it's obvious now that you have a vested interest in not even considering the material, not even addressing the possibility that there might be some truth to it. You're going to find a way to discredit it in your own mind until it is dangling in front of you like a dead mouse.

To those of you who enjoy whistling past the graveyard, have fun. I will continue to post NEW material as it becomes available. I see no reason in continuing to hash over points I have already made. You can like it or hate it, star it or ignore it. I stand by my posts and my analysis as superior to anything else I've seen.

the next few months will be interesting!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Like I said earlier...I can't force you to want to look for facts.

If you are ok with believing things that aren't verified...be my guest.

I posted an article. Like thousands of others have done here before and continue to do. It was for discussion. Not everything posted here can be verified. Repeat, it's for discussion. Need an example?

Let's look at this thread that YOU posted. It's about prophesies and predictions (ooooh, sounds familiar, like the Insider thread).

Let me quote your opening post:

It seems like October 2010 is just on fire for predictions and prophecies. We have an alien invasion coming...a crash in the stock market...the dollar is going to crash...gold buyers are going to swim in their wealth...I even heard a rumor that Palin is going to say something intelligent (I know...it's silly).

But out of all these predictions I'm seeing....no one is touching 10/10/10 that I can see....COME ON...that has got to be a conspiracy theorist dream date right???

That is why I think that is the true conspiracy...something is going down on 10/10/10...and all the dis-info agents here (I KNOW WHO YOU ARE) are flooding the boards with predicitions on OTHER October dates to distract us.

So there you have it...we are doomed due to the lack of predictions on a obvious juicy date. So...what do you think is coming on 10/10/10??? Are we really doomed???

Or are conspiracy theorists just losing their touch for flare and drama???

So, for you - and quite hypocritically - conspiracy theories without verified facts seem to be quite OK to post about - even to start threads about - as long as they are not about obama.

My BS detector is going off so loudly now that people are running into my office to see what the (your) problem is.

I'll try turning it off for you by reminding you of the old saying, "If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!".

I really didn't want to have to do this to you, but man you just don't know when to quit.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Like I said earlier...I can't force you to want to look for facts.

If you are ok with believing things that aren't verified...be my guest.

I don't really know what you want to do to verify all of this. All the power we can extract from Google will not lead to positive identification of Ulsterman or his inside source(s). If we could muster up $50K for a private investigative firm to look into it - maybe they could figure it out - but that's a gamble at best.

The only way to verify these claims or disprove them is to wait and see.

I know waiting is a maddening concept to the microwave and MTV generation - but not everything has to be resolved within our short attention spans.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Like I said earlier...I can't force you to want to look for facts.

If you are ok with believing things that aren't verified...be my guest.

I posted an article. Like thousands of others have done here before and continue to do. It was for discussion. Not everything posted here can be verified. Repeat, it's for discussion. Need an example?

Let's look at this thread that YOU posted. It's about prophesies and predictions (ooooh, sounds familiar, like the Insider thread).

Let me quote your opening post:

It seems like October 2010 is just on fire for predictions and prophecies. We have an alien invasion coming...a crash in the stock market...the dollar is going to crash...gold buyers are going to swim in their wealth...I even heard a rumor that Palin is going to say something intelligent (I know...it's silly).

But out of all these predictions I'm seeing....no one is touching 10/10/10 that I can see....COME ON...that has got to be a conspiracy theorist dream date right???

That is why I think that is the true conspiracy...something is going down on 10/10/10...and all the dis-info agents here (I KNOW WHO YOU ARE) are flooding the boards with predicitions on OTHER October dates to distract us.

So there you have it...we are doomed due to the lack of predictions on a obvious juicy date. So...what do you think is coming on 10/10/10??? Are we really doomed???

Or are conspiracy theorists just losing their touch for flare and drama???

So, for you - and quite hypocritically - conspiracy theories without verified facts seem to be quite OK to post about - even to start threads about - as long as they are not about obama.

My BS detector is going off so loudly now that people are running into my office to see what the (your) problem is.

I'll try turning it off for you by reminding you of the old saying, "If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!".

I really didn't want to have to do this to you, but man you just don't know when to quit.

LOL..Are you serious???

Did you read that thread that you just posted of mine??? It was a JOKE...laughing at all the prediction threads popping up. Go read the thread...I predicted lucha libra aliens were going to invade Earth and choke slam everyone.

Here is a big clue it is a joke...my first reply to it.

Aliens on wrestling...I love it.

No one would of ever guessed that disclosure would come on PPV...I bet the aliens wear lucha libra masks.

Be prepared folks...be prepared.

Second clue...It is in the OFFTOPIC section.

I really didn't want to have to do this to you, but man you just don't know when to quit.

Don't worry...you really didn't do anything to me...all you did was show yourself foolish. LOL...I don't believe you thought that was a serious thread...LOL.

reply to post by schuyler

Good Lord, Outcast, what exactly is your problem? Watergate came up in conversation. I didn't bring it up. Someone else did. There are parallels.

There are really no parallels...not parallels that would make one think that it suggest Ulsterman/Insider is valid.

Apparently not. You surely are free with your accusations of illogic, but I see absolutely nothing you have said or done that refutes the basic issues here.

And what is the basic issue here that I am supposed to refute?

I'm looking for confirmation of this source....you are just attempting to push it off as true. You said yourself you no longer care if the source is valid, because this stuff is already being talked about and that is all you care about.

And from your writing I would say you are unfamiliar with the principles of logic. You have no idea what you are talking about and your accusing other people of being illogical is empty rhetoric with no foundation whatsoever.

Really...you can tell all that just from my writting?

Trying to create a parallel between this and "Deep Throat" because they both had "unnamed sources" and saying that since "Deep Throat" turned out to be true...than this somehow suggest that it gives credibility to these stories....that is illogical. There is no connection from A to B...it is pure speculation at best...illogical linkage more likely.

The ONLY thing you have done is question the existence of the Insider (something I share, actually). You have indulged yourself in character assassination of Ulsterman in a lame attempt to cast doubt on the revelations provided by Ulsterman/Insider.

What exactly have I done to "character assassinate" Ulsterman? To point out that he is an unknown blogger? That isn't character assassination...that is pointing out facts.

Why are you so upset that I point out that he is an unknown blogger?

That's the point of your entire thread, that Ulsterman/Insider are not credible, THEREFORE none of these allegations are supported.

Go ahead and quote where I said that...because now you are just making things up.

Is Ulsterman/Insider credible sources?

And None of these allegations are supported...do you dispute that?

Why are you so upset about me asking questions about this blogger and his articles?

Your objection to the closeness of the predictions made by U/I is almost laughable. It's grasping at straws.

Honestly, I am saying the same thing about your attempt at trying to tie his "predictions" to these news articles. Nothing of what he has specifically has said has come true. You have attmepted to create some ties...but they are weak and are not "evidence" that what he is saying is true.

Have you actually proven U/I is not credible? Of course not!

Have I ever claimed I have?

If we were to use the same logic about yourself, we can dismiss what you say because you are even more obscure and unknown than Ulsterman, therefore what you say is not credible. We're supposed to pay attention to someone who calls himself OutKast Searcher? Yet you object to the anonymous "Insider." Please! At least we know something about him, allegedly, something I addressed above. We know nothing about you at all.

Sure...If I start making claims about knowing inside information...I fully expect you to not believe a word I say unless I give evidence.

But I am not doing that...I am asking questions...questions that have gotten you very upset obviously.

I at least have gone to the source here and analyzed what has been said and shown that U/I has a pretty good track record.

No you haven't...I asked you to source all your "positive predictions" of his...and you haven't. You just said "Confirmed = 6: It happened after the fact just like he said it would.". You didn't give the examples of what he said and what you are taking as "proof" that it has happened.

Go back and source these 6 "confirmed" predictions. If you have already done the research...it shouldn't be too hard.

I have analyzed what I can...the people on Obama's transition team...none of them fit the description of what the "insider" describes themselves as. There could be more people on the transition team that we don't know about...but I worked with the information I had.

You say, "How can you believe something with no proof?" My answer: U/I's predictions have proven remarkably accurate. He's only been completely wrong once. I don't "believe" it; I think it is likely. I've never said I "believe" all the material. What I have said is that you can't discount it just because you don't care for Ulsterman's bonafides.

Again...provide PROOF of these remarkably accurate predictions...I have yet to see any.

You say, "What "thing" is already half broken open?" Good Lord, what have we been talking about? A White House in disarray. An incompetent out of touch President. "Broken open" means that these issues are being addressed far beyond Ulsterman's blog. Even the Wall Street Journal has discussed these issues, the same issues that Ulsterman "broke open." This is no longer just a couple of obscure bloggers with no readers talking to thin air. Even Chris "tingle" Matthews is discussing these issues. That's what "broken open" means. People are dicussing it openly. It's no longer hidden. It is no longer being successfully suppressed. Even you are talking about it. And Ulsterman is no longer obscure.

Lots of people have been talking about this...for months now...before Ulstermans "insider" gave him this "inside" information.

And Ulsterman is still obscure...700 friends on facebook....obscure.

I had thought at first that your post was an honest attempt to search for the truth here from an angle that deserved scrutiny, i.e.: an investigation that could go either way. But it's obvious now that you have a vested interest in not even considering the material, not even addressing the possibility that there might be some truth to it. You're going to find a way to discredit it in your own mind until it is dangling in front of you like a dead mouse.

It is an honest attempt...it was going well until you and centurian popped in here to derail it.

You didn't come here as an honest attempt to look at the validity...you came here to try to show that Ulsterman IS valid.

So far you have failed.

To those of you who enjoy whistling past the graveyard, have fun. I will continue to post NEW material as it becomes available. I see no reason in continuing to hash over points I have already made. You can like it or hate it, star it or ignore it. I stand by my posts and my analysis as superior to anything else I've seen.

Your choice...I'd sill like to see your sources that prove 6 of his "predictions" as coming true.

I'll make another reply to bump your post and ask for the sources again.

Originally posted by schuyler
I've just added up all the Insider's predictions and have the following tally. Of 14 specific predictions he has made so far in 8 insider articles:

Confirmed = 6: It happened after the fact just like he said it would.
Unresolved = 6: We don't know because these are still in the future.
Wrong: 1: He said it would happen; it did not. Looks like he was flat out wrong.
Unconfirmed = 1: It may be true, but we have no independent confirmation.

Schuyler

Please provide sources that prove the 6 confirmed "predictions". We can't just take your word for it...let us in on the research done.

I've really been looking into this and have a few thoughts:

The tone and words in the interviews with this "insider" indicates to me that it is a real person having a real conversation. There is little chance it is fake. This is definitely a seperate person he is talking to. The stories he is passing along are the sorts of things you'd expect to hear about life inside the White House---some trivial, others more interesting. I can't prove the insider is really an insider, but I do hear two different voices in the exchanges.

I am very interested in the account in which the insider is claiming that Obama is getting "paradoid" about the banking industry. I have heard stories about the fact (David Wilcock, for example, claims this) that Obama is trying to take the NWO head on. Could this account for his paranoia?

Also, could his disinterest in being President be credited to the NWO? Maybe he got into office, realized he isn't really in control and is just sort of stammering. I've read a few things that make me suspicious of this.

Not that I am supporting Obama here. I didn't vote for him and don't wish to make excuses for him, either, but something is strange about this....

Also, as someone who worked in the media as a reporter (amoung other things) for many years:

I believe the "insider" chose Newsflavor because of it's anonymity. If this was being leaked to say, a blog site like The Daily Beast, it would be too easy to track down the reporter. Newsflavor gives the reporter and the insider the level of anonymity that would be hard to find anywhere else on the web.

I think it was a smart move.

And it also makes the point that no matter where information is released, it still gets out there. We no longer live in the days where something has to be on the cover on the New York Times for it to become widely known information..... This reporter obviously knows this. He doesn't neccessarily have to "worry" about where he posts the information-----he'll still get the desired result.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
It was a JOKE...laughing at all the prediction threads popping up. Go read the thread...I predicted lucha libra aliens were going to invade Earth and choke slam everyone.

So, you like to waste your time and anyone else's that makes the mistake of reading them by posting jokes on ATS.

Most of us take ATS rather more seriously than that and don't have time or inclination to be posting jokes and replying to them.

If you have that kind of time, my suggestion would be to get a life.

What do we need to know about the "insider"?

We know we need to wait and see if any of his predictions about obama come true.

Really, it's as simple as that.

No joke!

reply to post by centurion1211

So, you like to waste your time and anyone else's that makes the mistake of reading them by posting jokes on ATS.

Humor is good at times...don't you agree?

Most of us take ATS rather more seriously than that and don't have time or inclination to be posting jokes and replying to them.

Well...I don't take ATS too seriously...because...I don't know...maybe because people post articles from unverified anonymous sources on a daily basis?

ATS is a fun site...there are few threads that should or could be classified as "serious".

If you have that kind of time, my suggestion would be to get a life.

LOL...ok...so you are reduced to personal attacks then huh?

What do we need to know about the "insider"?

We know we need to wait and see if any of his predictions about obama come true.

If that is good enough for you...to believe unverified anonymous sources until they prove themself wrong...than go right ahead.

I keep telling you...I can't force you to look for facts...that is your decision.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

If you have that kind of time, my suggestion would be to get a life.

LOL...ok...so you are reduced to personal attacks then huh?

If you call that a "personal attack" - especially compared to what other obama sycophants have been saying to and about me - then along with a life, I suggest a thicker skin.

When you're not posting what you call "jokes", of course.



One more thing, Also consider adding learning to read for content to your skills.

I've repeatedly said "wait and see if any prediction comes true", while you keep claiming I said I believed the "insider".

So, what's your thread supposed to be about again? Seems like you keep trying to make it about me.