ATS FAILURE? (ATS Members, Your Opinions on Tough Debunking Please)

One of the reasons I was attracted to ATS was the interaction and discussion between members of various stripes; Skeptics versus True Believers and all the Undecideds in between just reading and gathering information so that they can make up their own minds. From all I�ve observed so far, the Mods do a good job of maintaining a balance in the forums of order and civility while allowing a challenging and stimulating exchange of ideas. That�s their purpose. They�re more like referees than they are judges. A Mod�s opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else�s, and I�ve never gotten the impression that they are too heavy-handed or are trying to sway peoples� opinions just by virtue of their �position�.

I see the term �belief� being used. Beliefs are fine, but unless they are backed by proof they remain only belief and nothing more. As an example, I don�t think that anyone would argue with the premise that Christians believe in the Bible and Muslims believe in the Quran. I further think that we can all agree upon the obvious conflict between the two belief systems (just watch the evening news). Throw Judaism into the mix and our evening news broadcast is complete. All of these groups truly believe that they are correct. An outsider might ask, �What actual scientific or physical evidence can you provide that (Jesus walked on water/Mohammed was lifted up to Heaven from the Dome of the Rock/JHWH actually spoke to Moses and promised the land of Israel to his people)?� They can�t because that is the nature of belief. It relies upon faith rather than direct and provable evidence. Science and Logic require the opposite; experimental evidence that is reproducible or actual solid physical evidence (an actual specimen of a Yeti that can be examined in a lab if dead, or directly observed if live, for example). Proof, in other words.

Fox Mulder had a poster in his office with a picture of a Flying Saucer and the caption: �I want to believe�. Well, personally, I would be thrilled if an alien spacecraft landed here on Earth. It would be the single greatest event to happen to the human species in its entire history. It may have happened already, but I haven�t seen anything that even remotely resembles proof. Until I do, I will keep an open mind on the subject.

As they said in �Wall Street�, SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Debunking is a good and valid thing.

Let the Mods have their opinions along with everyone else���..

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by defcon5
I really like how this one show the plane parked so neatly on its engines (undamaged), balanced so well between nose and tail.

Jesus Christ man, it�s a frikin graphic!

Yes I realize that this is a graphic, and if you bothered to READ the rest of my post the point I was making was not to restart this debate on another thread, but to show that this graphic was SLANTED in a way to prove one point over the other. It shows an undamaged plane sitting in front of the building to lead the common reader to the conclusion that there would be more second story damage to the building. This goes against the rules of the forum as posted by SMR:

Originally posted by SMR

By using this message board, you agree to the following:

1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

My point is that this is an intentionally misleading graphic. Then I explained what I was stating by showing the next pic to which you stated:

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by defcon5
www.airliners.net...
This is what happens when an aircraft hits the ground even at low speed

This is a pic of a plane that has not crashed full speed into a reinforced concrete building

This was not a slanted pic, was not computer enhanced or generated, and I CLEARLY stated that this was a low speed gear collapse in the post.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by defcon5
Look at this one, looks more like an airbus, or 67 to me. Note the bubble nose. If this is a 57, I�ll personally eat my keyboard�

Is this a joke or something? First off, this thread isn't really supposed to be discussing this evidence, there's already a lively thread about that. I'm only commenting because your comments demonstrate what�s going on. These pictures are -graphics- use to illustrate the events in the crash

I realize that we where not going to discuss evidence here, I was stating facts about these particular graphics do to their misleading and inaccurate nature. These graphics are not illustrating the events of the crash; they are manipulating the scale of things to prove their authors point. I have the right, as do the Mods to question the validity of such made up graphical evidence, who made it, and what was their angle?

Originally posted by Nygdan
The mods involved haven't been slamming this evidence, they've been looking at it a considering it and they tend to agree that, yes, a plane did hit the pentagon. That crazy hypothesis sure does explain the dead bodies, debris, and eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Ok so we are on the same page on this one, why are you arguing with me?

Originally posted by Nygdan But you think that whether or not a slight mound of dirt on the lawn exists is somehow a crucial detail, or because the graphic used to represent a plane doesn't look like you think it should? I think that�s the kind of 'analysis' that prompted SO to start this thread, an uncritical, 'hand waving' 'poo pooing' given in response to a detailed, thought out, and rational study of the evidence at hand.

Well, yes, if there is dirt that they are using to tip the aircraft one way or the other in order to prove their point, I want to know if said dirt exists anywhere but in that computer graphic. The graphic of the plane does not only not look right, it is NOT right. I have spent a lot of time around planes, and there is a great difference in the size, and shape of an aircraft that would have GREAT direct influence in one side of the argument or the other.

So I am not hand waving, or pooh-poohing anything. As far as I can tell the graphics originated at this French web site: 0911.site.voila.fr... , and therefore, knowing the history of the relations between many of the French and the US during this incident and the war, only adds to my skepticism of the validity of this type of evidence.




[edit on 9/18/2004 by defcon5]

The main issue is that a lot of things just don't come with 100% proof.

For example a plane probably have hit the pentagon. There are pictures of plane wreckage and a 757 could have caused the viewed damage. But you can't present evidence that someone can't claim is faked.

The problem is people do not think logically. Conspiracy theorist, for the most part, are just like everyone else.

Without logic people get tied up in random facts and form opinions and once an opinion is formed people fight to defend it. Thus, conflict and harsh words.

The failing here is that people can't say "The most logical explination is a 757 passanger jet hit the pentagon. However, there are infinite other possibilities that are less logical."

The truth is the ONLY fact anyone can state is "I exist". Everything else is just blind faith or most logical situations. Personally, i prefer logic. About the only thing I take on blind faith is that the reality i view is indeed real, because this allows me to function.

As long as people do not understand or use logic, they will form blind faith (this includes illogical conclusion based on real evidence) beliefs and stick to them.

So, can we all agree on my original premise, which is : THE MODS ARE NOT OUT TO SUPRESS IDEAS?

Debunking is NOT supressing, it's just asking for proof...........can we consider this moot and get back to the important stuff?

I think at this point,all this thread is going to get are repeat talk.
Page 20 is going to look like page 4 soon enough.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by SMR]

If one follows your logic that people in the minority should leave, perhaps Black people should leave the US because they are a minority? Maybe Jews? Well certainly Muslims, you know after all they are associated with Islam and radical Islam is credited with the 911 attacks. Certainly here at ATS we wouldn't want to hear views that were out of the norm, would we? If i just wanted to hear one more iteration of what one sees on Broadcast TV why would I come here?

People in the minority should speak loudly and clearly so the majority doesn't get too complacent. Goodness knows in America people spend too much time on their backsides, intellectualy and physically.

I will speak and think as i will. Even if it is only me and the Universe alone. Its called having an independent mind.

The day I am afraid to be a little crazy or looney is the day I will probably be ready to die. The future is always unknown. If one can find the challenge and sometimes joy of that one is ready to play the game of life.

Unlike many people being the part of some social clique where we all share identical views [read clones] is not of particular interest to me.
.

Rustiswordz says:

"PS: I'll be sad to think that ATS is nothing but a debunking forum designed to keep peoples heads jammed in the sand."

Rustiswordz, you certainly give us skeptics a lot of credit!

I have said it before and I will say it again: if your assertions cannot stand up to other peoples' questions and comments, then it's pretty obvious that they're wrong.

If you have good evidence and data and common sense to back up your assertions, then you job is a simple one: Every time Off-the-Street says,

"I disagree with Rustiswordz's ideas because blah blah...",

all you have to do is to say,

"well, Off-the-Street, your comments might not be valid because you didn't take into consideration blah blah blah..."

And that is how grownup discourse and debate goes.

On the other hand, if anyone (not you, necessarily, but anyone) responds to someone's questions or criticisms with

"Hey, no fair debunking!"

then you've turned the discussion away from your ideas and onto a personal level.

And who wants -- or needs -- that?

Slank,

I feel compelled to reply to your post to LadyV.

I reread her posts several times and I think you may have misunderstood what she was trying to say.

It seemed to me she was asking why you stay here if you feel you are being belittled, treated so badly.

Maybe you take the responses from people too personally. Try to remember that, for the most part, no one is attacking anyone personally.

I know I am a sensitive soul, so I would probably feel that way sometimes too.

People are just very passionate about their beliefs here.

I hope this helps.

No worries

Rokgodes

Personal attacks are a different topic.
It is not that members are being personally attacked,it is what they are submitting or saying that is personally attacked.
Whatever side your on,the minority are looked down upon in any given topic.

Originally posted by slank
Is it the job of ATS to 'debunk' various theories? I would think one should let the chips fall where they may and let people make up their own minds. When the ATS staff and Admins 'certify' a particular version of the truth It is like trying to close off an avenue of discussion. That happens naturally when people feel they have seen sufficient proof of a version of the truth and believe it. No one needs to do it ARTIFICIALLY.

why should I accept the ATS admins and staff be the Final arbiters of truth?

^ ^ ^
The above pretty much expressed my feelings on the subject so im not gonna bore you guys with a long reply.

I figure that moderators have opinions just like everyone else. Not only that, but when a preponderance of the evidence is against the current conspiracy theory, the burden of proof is upon the one challenging the evidence. Looking upon a moderator as an enemy is plain silly, IMHO, especially if they're presenting facts. But then, some people view facts as "the enemy" too...

I certainly understand both sides of the argument. On one side some members are angry that an important and infamous person in the UFO community has been run off from the site. The other side some moderators and SkepticOverlord had reason to believe this person was not John Lear and attempting to hoax the site.

The solution in my mind is simple. Before this type of guest is allowed to address the community their identity should be verified, once verified allow them to tell their story regardless of how improbable it may seem. Have the person send the administrators a photo of themselves with the ATS web-site on their computers monitor or by some other means prove who they are. Then allow the discussion to take place.

The �Q&A Session with John Lear� thread should have been closed on page one, his identity verified then reopened.


[edit on 19-9-2004 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by kinglizard The �Q&A Session with John Lear� thread should have been closed on page one, his identity verified then reopened.

I agree. It should have, and could have gone better.

find the parallels -the delphi technique(link)

think for yourselves.
believe nothing.
trust noone.

As I stated in the Q&A,John has already prooven to a 'doubter' that it was him.He sent an email to John and John provided 100% proof.Not sure how,but the person who was in doubt was fully convinced.
How did this go overlooked?

While many of the points I am about to make may have already been made in this post and elsewhere, I�d like to comment on SO�s general question:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Are you here to really seek answers, or just share ideas?

I am not entirely clear how these are mutually exclusive concepts- particularly for a message board that labels itself the �the Internet�s most popular conspiracy discussion forum�.

Prior to this thread, I had not read either of the examples SO provides as the source for his concerns. In an effort to better understand the nature of the question, I read the lengthy thread relating to Q&A Session With John Lear. Admittedly, I did not read the other example, and will therefore limit my discussion to the former.

Let me begin by saying that I have no dog in the fight with regard to the subject matter of the Lear thread. I am rather skeptical of such things, but nonetheless remain open to strange possibilities. I, like most, weigh the evidence and opinions of others and proceed accordingly.

As I read the thread looking for examples of the concerns mentioned by SO, I was prepared to see evidence of members flaming some moderator, or other members, for their well reasoned skepticism. Imagine my surprise, when I found posts that clearly indicate (in my view) that it was the moderators who crossed the line.

In ATS� preamble of sorts, it states in relevant part:

Regarding opinion, in most discussion forums one sees both extremes and little in between when a topic arises. However, due to the unique cross-section of knowledgeable participants found at ATS, and their voracious appetite for truth and fact coupled with an unmatched ability to collaborate, track down, locate, expose, and share information, one finds a virtual bell curve of opinion here. With this �bell�, one can easily ignore the extremes and average the remainder, thus generating the aforementioned vivid picture. This explains the inverted nature of ATS�s member to traffic ratio. Perhaps you can trust everybody�collectively! It is the denial of ignorance that draws the crowds.

What transpired in the Lear thread, departed greatly from the notions mentioned above.

The first problem began with Valhall�s admonition to partykid:

Originally posted by Valhall
partykid,
There have been four instances of you attempting to moderate this discussion. Posts 797617, 798770, 798862, 799919. Please refrain from this from now on. If you feel you have a problem with another member, let a moderator know. But this discussion will take place as a well-rounded discussion that allows challenges to Mr. Lear as well, and you will refrain from trying to divert those challenges.
Attempting to squelch an opposing opinion won't work at ATS. Ok?

After reviewing these posts, it hardly appears that partykid did anything to �squelch an opposing opinion�- no more so than later becomes the case by the moderators themselves. (A point I will explain more fully below.)

In post 797617, partykid responded to the inappropriate attack by Leonidas, which in and of itself was a violation of the Terms and Conditions of Use, section 2, which states �You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.� Leonidas� post clearly attacks John Lear, effectively an ATS member, in a manner that goes far beyond merely questioning his identity or his veracity.

Originally posted by Leonidas
John Lear is tired old news. He is a complete and total fraud. John is a typical sad story of the "son of a great man". Contrary to popular opinion, the apple CAN fall far away from the tree.

Desperate for ANY sort of noteriety to match his fathers popularity and accomplishments, he fabricated his story.

Partykid�s response to Leonidas was hardly inappropriate under the context, and certainly did not rise to the level of Valhall�s accusation that he was �squelching an opposing view� or �attempting to moderate.�

Originally posted by partykid
Any more insulting to John. Actions will be taken. If you post, post something credible, if you can't, don't post at all.

The fact that he called for an end to the insults (a demand not inconsistent with the requirements in the Terms and Conditions for Use cited above) and indicated that failing that �Actions will be taken� (which quite logically, when made by a non-moderator, would include the possibility that he would warn the moderators of Leonidas� insulting behavior), hardly justifies Valhall�s use of post 797617 to admonish partykid, while ignoring Leonidas� unsupported insults where one attacks the messenger and not the message.

Moreover, on the issue of Lear�s veracity, partykid later demands that those who remain unconvinced post the reasons why.

Originally posted by partykid
I think that John's opinion is the most credible here on ATS concerning UFO/ET matter. Maybe im wrong, maybe im not.

FOR THOSE WHO SAY JOHN LEAR IS A HOAX ALL ALONG, PRESENT WHY.

In posts 798770 and 798862, partykid admittedly seems frustrated at continued challenges to johnlear�s identity as John Lear. But I find nothing in those posts that would violate the Terms and Conditions for Use. Moreover, lacan, who principally challenged johnlears� identity, later appears satisfied in post 799919.

Notwithstanding the above, I still find the aggregate of posts 797617, 798770, 798862 and 799919 as hardly rising to the degree of offense identified by Valhall or meriting his response.

In my view, the real problem arises when SO posted the following to johnlear:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
You are presenting them as truth. You are engaging in what appears to be an organized deception of the members of this website community. We do not take kindly to that.

ALSO... please read

As you have been treated as a guest speaker, we have been lax in enforcing our general rules related to quoting entire threads and one line responses with you. This will no longer be the case.
Please review these:
www.abovetopsecret.com... ONE LINER
www.abovetopsecret.com... EXCESSIVE QUOTING

SO�s original posting included several nested quotes, which I have not replicated above. However, included in one of the nested quotes was johnlear actually announcing that his �statements are opinion�. Moreover, johnlear in a previous post more fully stated the following:

Originally posted by johnlear
For anybody who thought my postings on ATS concerning UFO's, the moon, Souls etc. where fact and that I could back them up with evidence I hereby state that with very few exceptions there is not a shred, not a shred of evidence. Everything I talk about is sheer speculation. When I talk about Bob Lazar and what he saw at S-4 this is what Bob told me. I didn't read it at S-4. When I talk about souls being zapped back and forth from the moon. I did not see one being zapped back and forth, nor can I prove that this is happening. My speculation is that it is happening but thats only my speculation. If you have been inconvenienced by believing that all I have said is fact, please accept my apologies. Any further posts I make are to be considered sheer speculation unless I note otherwise. Thanks. *********

And later:

Originally posted by johnlear

And finally, remember that my statements are opinion of what I believe to be true. They are not knowingly false or intended to mislead the membership of ATS. My information comes from Bob Lazar who worked on these propulsion units at S-4 in an attempt to back engineer them to use materials available on earth.

SO�s assertion that johnlear was �engaging in what appears to be an organized deception of the members of this website community� could hardly have been true, as evidenced by the statements made by johnlear in advance of SO�s post attacking him on those grounds. The fact that johnlear did not provide such a disclaimer in physical proximity to every proclamation within his posts, within the thread, could hardly be viewed as an attempt to deceive the membership. Moreover, many ATS members in the thread correctly challenged the substance of johnlear�s posts. To suggest, as some have, that one must provide a clear disclaimer physically before or after EVERY statement of opinion is simply absurd and insults the intelligence of the ATS community.

I return your attention to ATS� preamble of sorts:

�due to the unique cross-section of knowledgeable participants found at ATS, and their voracious appetite for truth and fact coupled with an unmatched ability to collaborate, track down, locate, expose, and share information, one finds a virtual bell curve of opinion here.

On the matter of whether johnlear�s identity was in itself a hoax, I strongly feel that could have been addressed more discretely and without the public display of aggression evidenced by SO�s post. An obvious choice would have been to discuss the matter with him through U2U discussion. Such an attempt might have produced the solution johnlear, himself, later publicly provided:

I will be happy to prove my identity but Iwill not posting anything to do with UFO's or aliens on ATS. I will be posting on other ATS threads as usual. Please email the picture of your choice to [email protected], I will email you back a picture displaying your picture on my monitor with me in the background in my den. Visible on the wall behind me will be FAI and NAA Certificates for 17 world speed records I held in the Lear Jet. Also visible will be the letter Gen. James H. Doolittle sent to me wishing me speedy recovery from a serious plane crash near Geneva, Switzerland in 1961; between the two paged letter is a picture of Doolittle taking of from the carrier Hornet on his way to bomb Tokyo. Also in the background is a shadow box with wings from the 25 or 30 airlines I have flown for during my career. Next to that is a glass display case with a 1/2 scale model of the anti-matter reactor/propulsion system of the alien flying saucer that Bob Lazar worked on up at S-4. Further to the right, if its in frame, is the commendation from the Department of the Air Force to the company I worked for delivering Cessna O-2's to Viet Nam for 4 years. You'll also need to know from an independant source what I look like.

Finally, SO�s use of the general rules regarding one line posts and excessive quoting seems rather disingenuous when looking at the totality of johnlear�s posts. It is hard to not interpret this as SO�s harassment of johnlear, particularly when such rules are so liberally enforced and often violated by the moderators themselves. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that SO�s interest was to enforce the strict compliance of those rules, but rather to go on the offensive against someone he believed to be perpetrating a hoax of identity.

Wasn�t that the real issue, SO?

It would have been better to address the matter privately to your satisfaction, or better yet, to have allowed the ATS membership and the concept of the �bell curve of opinion� to have ferreted out the truth.

In the end, SO�s post was in poor form, unnecessary, and surprising, given the general nature of this forum and its plethora of topics that have yet to produce any credible evidence concerning many of their assertions.

On the broader question of whether we are here to really seek answers, or just share ideas? I would argue both. And it is because this site is so well moderated, that it has become one of the few, if not only, to encourage the pursuit of both. IMHO, SO�s post in the Lear thread, and the subsequent voices of support by other moderators for his actions, diminished what works about this forum.

I enjoy greatly the participation of the moderators and do not expect them to behave as a monolithic entity. They are entitled to share their opinions as much as any other member on ATS. However, I do expect a difference on the matter of TONE when dealing with other ATS members. SO�s post missed that point entirely.

IMHO, an apology for that, at least, is in order. It would go a long way to restoring the confidence ATS members have come to enjoy in the moderation system and their moderators.


[edit on 19-9-2004 by loam]

BRAVO SO & ATS

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, done! I just realized you did that after my lengthy post.

Well, done, again.

This is an awesome site.

I hope this website remains true to promoting truth and denying ignorance.

As someone who lived right next to the Pentagon for years and had friends witness the plane crash into it, there was no way in hell I was believing the theory it was not actually a plane. I thought the thread that was made on provided excellent proof that a plane hit the 'Gon.

John Lear, as far as I can tell, is a fiction writer. If someone cannot back something up with fact, they should not state it as fact.

People had their conspiracy hopes dashed with the truth. Well, sometimes the truth hurts I guess, but it's better than being ignorant.

Great job, Staff.

We can't always prove what we say, but we know that it is truth in our minds. People come to ATS for many reasons. There are a lot of people that come here because they have experienced something. They make a post and state it as a fact, because it is a fact to them. They can't prove it, they can only tell you what happened. Do we attack these people and demand proof? Do we silence them because they can't prove it? I know the ATS motto is to deny ignorance but lets not push it too far. Sometimes the proof that is accepted by the majority is actually disinfo. If I say aliens are demons, it is stated as a fact that I truely believe. Will ATS eventually stop me from stating it as a fact? If so, I suggest you do the same with people who call Aliens, extraterrestrials, because it is not proven yet

Originally posted by Ycon
I know the ATS motto is to deny ignorance but lets not push it too far.

Yeah. Let's not deny ignorance, just some ignorance, while hyping other ignorance.

Sometimes the proof that is accepted by the majority is actually disinfo. If I say aliens are demons, it is stated as a fact that I truely believe.

That's kind of a bad example. No one has proof that demons or aliens exist whatsoever to begin with.

I like this website because there are some people who have objective, factual information to share. The stuff with John Lear is not a good thing for the website. He's a fiction writer, and I'm not even impressed with the fiction whatsoever. It's far, far, far out fringe with absolutely no basis in reality, yet people start eating it up.

You can say whatever you like and if it entertains people, good for you. But supporting fringe sci-fi authors on a website with the motto 'Deny Ignorance' has dropped my admiration of the website considerably.