The False Flag Paradigm: My Thoughts

reply to post by Hefficide


simple Hef
its an example of CNN doing obvious faking ( haha LYING....trust me darling!)

there have been MANY others on ATS
the pic of that bombing in Syria that turned out to be from a few year old web posting from Iraq
the BBC and prebroadcasting the collapse of Building seven

One of my favorites from Little "missspoke" Hitlary ( benghazi, the balkan airport sniper lie, the cheonan torpeso lie ) Clinton:
The torpedoe that sank that south korean ship the Cheonan turned out to NOT be north korean
( we broke that here at ats )
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the list goes on and on

Say you don't have a crush on Hitlary do you..?
she IS married you know...
well, I guess it depends what your definition of IS IS

reply to post by Danbones


Again, these assertions have no bearing upon the issue at hand at all. CNN doing anything does not equate to the baseless claims made by the proponents of the "false flag" issues we've seen on ATS. The one thing has nothing at all to do with the other.

There is a lynch mob mentality at work and it is disturbing. Especially when it begins to target the victims of crime and their families... all to feed the digital egos of armchair detectives who want to use logic like "I don't trust CNN therefore nobody died at Sandy Hook"...

Angst about government is understandable. Not trusting MSM is as well. But these are separate issues from what we've been seeing. These things simply do not justify jumping to wild conclusions and then blindly adhering to the belief.

One of the great downfalls of the Interwebz is that I can Photoshop a picture, or take an image and use it out of context with little to no effort. But if that image then goes viral very quickly, there will forever be people who simply believe that it was the truth - and no amount of "proof" will dent that belief. We all know this to be true and we see it all of the time on ATS. In fact the very act of trying to prove something is errant is usually seen as "proof" that it must be real - as surely nobody would go out of their way to challenge the picture unless they had an agenda...

This entire concept just gets skewed. Arguments with people who feel their "right to know" is more valid and important than the rights to privacy of the victims of these tragedies and their families. The last time I checked the Constitution did not provide us with a "right to know", much less one that trumped the privacy rights of other citizens. Yet, still, some strange sense of digital entitlement overpowers common sense and leaves people playing "connect the dots" - without even stopping to verify if the dots they are connecting are real, related, or relevant to one another.

And all this under the mandate of "I don't trust the government and CNN lies"?

right to privacy??
after the live TV coverage..mistakes and all?

I'll tell you what it has to do with ATS:
three hoaxes and you are out of here Hef

CNN being untruthfull in the example I used is just today's falsehood

Hitlery's Benghazi lies are just today's Hitlary lie

London 77 drill with crisis actors AND casualties

No wmds

Bailins, Cyprus, and the 2013 Canadian Budget with imminent cyprusization built right in

All publicised on ATS

but you don't like that

why is that HEF?
inquiring minds want to know

say and how about those dancing israelis

check out this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
member Wholearth who posted is the the topic of the thread
she got to defend herself from a detractor in the BEST ATS TRADITION

reply to post by FissionSurplus


I would love to respond to your post, but apparently my response would be off topic even though your post apparently isn´t.

Originally posted by Starwise
reply to post by DaveStinger

 

You twist your words.....
That is all I see right now.
Darn double talk.....

Sorry, not allowed to respond to your post. Off topic posts are only allowed if they are aimed against me. New mod policy.

reply to post by Hefficide

The press was always flawed, has always gone through periods of great sensationalism and propaganda. But it catered to OUR desires and wants, and not those of the people in power ( mostly ). By abandoning it, we hand it to those who would use it against us.

I am not sure what you mean wih this.

Would you be so kind to clarify?

There is a lynch mob mentality at work and it is disturbing. Especially when it begins to target the victims of crime and their families... all to feed the digital egos of armchair detectives who want to use logic like "I don't trust CNN therefore nobody died at Sandy Hook"...

You seem to be leading a lynch mob.

Still refering to the actions of a few during the SH situation? Action was taken against that. The rest of what is going in falls within the T and C and you have no right to try and stifle conspiracy discussion, just because you disagree.

Angst about government is understandable. Not trusting MSM is as well. But these are separate issues from what we've been seeing. These things simply do not justify jumping to wild conclusions and then blindly adhering to the belief.

You are just going to have to deal with stuff, debunk it I would say. That's about as far as your duty goes. Are you suggesting that people need to be shut up, even though they aren't breaking the site's rules?

One of the great downfalls of the Interwebz is that I can Photoshop a picture, or take an image and use it out of context with little to no effort. But if that image then goes viral very quickly, there will forever be people who simply believe that it was the truth

I suppose it is impossible that MSM does the same sort of thing? Such hypocracy.

This entire concept just gets skewed. Arguments with people who feel their "right to know" is more valid and important than the rights to privacy of the victims of these tragedies and their families. The last time I checked the Constitution did not provide us with a "right to know", much less one that trumped the privacy rights of other citizens. Yet, still, some strange sense of digital entitlement overpowers common sense and leaves people playing "connect the dots" - without even stopping to verify if the dots they are connecting are real, related, or relevant to one another.

Stop reffering to this one case in order to justify your dislike of the whole. The constitution also covers free speech.

Also, people either follow the rules of the TandC, or don't. If they don't, take action, if they do, as they do in these cases mostly, you have no reason, no right to whine about their posts, at this point you are just trying to influence the natural flow of discussion on this site.

As said before, get over it.

Originally posted by DaveStinger
reply to post by Hefficide

 

You are exactly the kind of person this OP warns against. Fanatics are dangerous. Fanatics with agendas doubly so.

So the OP is actually a warning against dangerous fanatics, so you feel that "the False Flag crowd" are dangerous fanatics?

Seems like this thread is an attack on a group of ATS members indeed, based on their dissenting views.

You never answered this post.

reply to post by Hefficide


Nm.

reply to post by DaveStinger

Maybe it is really true that events are being faked and more and more people are catching on.

Or people are trying to perpetuate hoaxes, myths, lies in a bid for internet stardom. If you compare how many faked events vs. how many online hoaxes there are, what do you think will be higher, the number of hoaxes or the number of faked events.

This of course suggests that a hoax, is not a faked event. Technically, a faked event is a hoax. But I think we can conclude you are speaking of "false flags" or staged events by government et al.

So the question is, are there more online hoaxes than there are faked events?

Which should you be more weary of?

Basically you wrote a rant against a group of people with a dissenting opinion.

People that use circular logic are not simply, "a group of people with dissenting opinion". There are many people on this forum that at times disagree with one another, or disagree with the "official story" etc. Someone, or a group of people that are using circular logic, are unwilling to look at an event or story objectively, and are merely trying to push their point of view no matter what.

Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking[citation needed] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

This happens a lot on this forum to be honest. It's like saying "I saw an alien so how can I prove it is one."

This leads the OPs completely disregarding any information that contradicts their already determined conclusion, meanwhile using any corroborating information as "evidence" no matter how flimsy it might be, or even if it has been previously shown to be a lie, or if it has not gone under any scrutiny at all.

Recently, I saw pictures being used as "evidence". They were cropped. When looking at the full, unedited picture, it shows that it doesn't support the position of the person using it as "evidence". Therefore, in using this picture to support their position, they chose to be willfully ignorant, or downright deceitful.

So then I wonder, how are you qualified to pass judgement on those who claim "false flag"or "staged event", based on the inconsistencies in the mainstream media, if you admittedly, don't know what is really going on in said media?

I do not know what is going on.

Person B: You do not know what is going on, neither do I (because we have the same information base) but, I know what is going on!

Reasoning: Assumptions.

So I would say Heffcide is fine to pass judgement when or if he and everyone in the public, does not have information, yet someone claims to. Their information being no different, except, they have made a conclusion with the same foundation everyone else has.

Essentially, 10 people are waiting for a test in which to pass, you must get 75% of the answers right. It's a muliple choice test. The teacher asks the class, can any of you give me the answer to the test.

Student 1 raises their hand: "No ma'am, you haven't given us the test yet.

Student 2 whispers to student 3: "Psst, I have the answers to the test."

Student 3 says: "The test has not even been made yet, the teacher is doing it now."

Student 2: Tells everyone in the class the answers to the test.

Student 3: Let's say this student is Heff, he passes judgement on student 2, writes a rant thread about it on the forum.

Student 4-10: They take the answers from student 2.

In the end, the only one's who have a chance of passing the test are student 1 and 3.

The laws governing accidentally picking the answers out will not give the students enough right answers to pass the test. Sure they may get one or two right, but not enough to pass. The behaviour of students 4-10 and of #2 is absolutely enough for someone to pass judgement on. As they all could have waited for the test to arrive, and then concentrated on the answers when it did.

Another metaphor one could add in here, is how hard people studied for the test. Let's say Student 2 beforehand was handing out "cheat sheets"... The others did the hard research and actually spent time in various books, using different references and sources.

#2's cheat sheet was colourful and made wild claims, it played into people's fears and insecurities. People believed the sheets wholeheartedly. Too bad that did not make them any valid than they actually were.

Facts are what determined how people did on the tests. Facts are what helped people increase their intelligence. Facts are what determines what is right or wrong.

reply to post by DaveStinger

The biggest cause for these theories is the plethora of inconsistencies in the stories and footage that are always present nowadays.

Why is this so hard to recognise?

Well, for one, these "theories" are not actual theories. Perhaps in layman terms or in colloquial use of the word. in fact, they are just a hypothesis:

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[1

en.wikipedia.org...

But lets forget science for a second. Let's go back to what you just said:

The biggest cause for these theories is the plethora of inconsistencies in the stories and footage that are always present nowadays.

Why is this so hard to recognise?

Probably easy for most of us to "recognize" such a phenomena. Although, recognizing and/or agreeing with it, seeing it as a positive symptom, or realizing that it has nothing to do with "nowadays" as human behaviour can be mapped back to the times of Rome, showing the same types of behaviour patterns in many different societies.

At times, they burned "witches". In my mind, a witch could be the equivalent of a common day hussie, slut, or whatever colourful term you'd like to use. Given that proof of a witch at one point, (in some locations/societies) was bedding another man's wife under "spell". You know the whole, "That man bewitched my husband!"

transitive verb
1
a : to influence or affect especially injuriously by witchcraft
b : to cast a spell over
2
: to attract as if by the power of witchcraft : enchant, fascinate
intransitive verb
: to bewitch someone or something
— be·witch·ery noun
— be·witch·ing·ly adverb
See bewitch defined for English-language learners »
See bewitch defined for kids »
Examples of BEWITCH

People believed the girls had been bewitched.

Heck, I was just reading an article about how a Muslim woman in Tunisia to protest against misogynist treatment of woman in Islam was sentenced to a bunch of lashes in absentia. Many called for the death penalty by stoning. Now, the funny part here, was the whole (and I quote):

Her act could bring about an epidemic. It could be contagious and give ideas to other women. It is therefore necessary to isolate [the incident]. I wish her to be healed.”
Read more at www.wnd.com...

www.wnd.com...

Some old societies would simply say that's a bunch of witchcraft.

Imagine how many could have their social enemies thrown in the river simply by pointing out their indiscretions with a married man. Jealous woman? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? In the days of make belief and fairy tale, hell, I walk home and see my husband on top of another girl and I will be shouting to the world:

"This woman bewitched my husband! My poor dear, faithful husband who would never step outside of our marriage! My dedicated husband lord help him! Throw that witch in the river and see if she floats!"

Of course the woman knew the husband was a dirtbag, but it didn't matter. They were satisfied enough seeing the home-wrecker float by while they did their daily laundry.




SO then you ask, why u run off tangent Boncho?

Supposedly, according to this comment, it is just "nowadays" that this phenomena happened. Although, that's not the case at all. No, instead, the disconnect of the internet is the culprit. (or one of). Yup, because you can say whatever you want, you can well, say whatever you want.

You can accuse anyone of anything, and frankly, if you had to face up to your accusations, many wouldn't. If you had to show actual proof and simply not scream "witch" you would be hard-pressed to run around accusing.

There are many decent researchers out there however, that do challenge the official, the popular, the common held beliefs and they do so with sourcing, backing their arguments with research and logical assertions. And yes, they make a difference.

And many are a wheel or a cog of the machine. Some are university professors...some professionals, some just hobbyists that enjoy searching for the truth.

reply to post by DaveStinger


Maybe the real conspiracy is that not everything is a conspiracy.

Most of the time you act like you don't believe in any government conspiracy and now you seem to be saying that the media is not largely controlled and manipulated, but that if we don't pay attention to what they say anymore they actually are going to be used against us, meanwhile you also proudly claim that you never watch tv, seemingly infering that mainstream media is not to be trusted, and you have a history of writing alarmist threads, acting like some sort of patriot, warning about the government.

There is so much opposing views and contradiction in your posts, it's like they are written by multiple persons.

Like this thread you wrote only six months ago, for instance,
,

For someone who just joined the site you have a good amount of intel on Heffcide. Dear god man, do you spend every waking hour reading ATS threads? So odd that you just joined and you have this really heavy handed belief in a very narrow viewpoint on..... oh wait....

Oh well I will refrain from shouting witch because I try not to be that person.

The point is that you are whining about people having certain conspiracy theories, on a conspiracy site. You have no right writing a thread witgh the intent to bring down this group of people.

What's wrong with people who investigate, or write about conspiracies? I don't think Heff has a problem with them. I think he noticed the normal influx of new accounts pushing their very targeted viewpoints after every major news worthy incident, where they refuse to argue/discuss/investigate their chosen stories with the same decency as the normal ATS membership does.

This site has had a good number of contributors over the years. Some that have written some really great work. Some who have done some really daunting amounts of research, taking time and/or vetting their work a good deal before posting to the forums. They even take opposing views in their threads with stride, and if there is conflicting evidence presented they might discuss it civilly with the person who presented it or hell, the might even change their view point on the matter.

I know it seems crazy and all, backing up your hypothesis with evidence that can be found by other members so they can come to the same insightful conclusion you did... but, it does take effort, so I see why it's lost on some.

Is the mod calling the member a disinfo agent or shill? I thought there were specific rules against that.

Just trying to establish how credible you actually are.

No, Heff just said how good you'd be at it because of the behaviour you display on the forums. If you want to be treated like a princess, you can act with civility. If you want to be treated like a whore, well, you see how that works?

Pointing out your behaviours is simply giving a heads up. Kind of like: Hey man, don't want to be a dick here, but, this is you. *Look into this mirror here*

See yourself? Cool.

No, you wrote a thread suggesting that a false flag might happen. That was 6 months ago. Today you are here blasting people that think that the latest terror attacks were false flags.

What gives you the right to attack these people? Why say this,

Well, that's rather ambiguous isn't it? Did Heff say exactly what kind of false flag it might be? Does he display the behaviour of the people arguing the latest false flag hypothesis??

I think the last sentence is the most important. This isn't about whether or not people are agreeing with the official story. It's how they are going about it.

So the OP is actually a warning against dangerous fanatics, so you feel that "the False Flag crowd" are dangerous fanatics?

Seems like this thread is an attack on a group of ATS members indeed, based on their dissenting views.

Seems like being facetious is something you are trying to perfect.

Did you see any of them write a thread about the "fanatic disbelievers", analyzing why they just won't believe in the false flag?

There are plenty of threads that have come and gone by people pushing the current false flag. And actually, lumping those all in together is unfair. Because there are some people that are curious or want to consider/research that possibility.

But lets be honest, this is another group. These are specific people pushing "THIS IS A FALSE FLAG" who will not stray from that opinion, or even stray from any sub-conclusions they have come to, even if presented with undeniable proof to the contrary. This is a very specific kind of poster on the forum. And it's sad to see they have duped a few long standing members who are not so ignorant/arrogant.

Re privacy
here is an interesting thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
an non conspiracy theorist posting vids and pics of victims

did ATS members take any of these Boston pictures?
NO
are we the original posters?
NO

really
Next please

remember the pic of Hitlary with her hand over her mouth while watching bin Laden get whacked?
that may have been an invasion of privacy
except as we figured out here on ATS
IT NEVER HAPPENED
THE PICTURE and most likely the EVENT were FRAUDS

I don't like being conned
seriously Hef
do you?

reply to post by boncho


I´m sure that three posters are thankfull you responded for them.

Great essay too.

But lets be honest, this is another group. These are specific people pushing "THIS IS A FALSE FLAG" who will not stray from that opinion, or even stray from any sub-conclusions they have come to, even if presented with undeniable proof to the contrary. This is a very specific kind of poster on the forum. And it's sad to see they have duped a few long standing members who are not so ignorant/arrogant.

What you mean duped?

If the whole concept is beyond ridiculous, aren't you already vindicated?

All this is about is controlfreaks wanting to control other peoples' opinion, because they don't like what they're hearing. That's all it is.

All I see here is whining and and psychological drivel to justify the whining.

Again get over it.

Just debate the claims that are being made and stick to that.

No need to make your opponent the subject of the debate, like this OP clearly did. I thought this was perceived as a nono here?

Originally posted by Danbones


check out this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
member Wholearth who posted is the the topic of the thread
she got to defend herself from a detractor in the BEST ATS TRADITION

edit on 8-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

How are they the topic of the thread?

Hey Hef, I'm going to focus on just this one thing, though you said more in the post. I am firing on 7 cylinders right now, due to busting my butt for the last week.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Danbones

 

There is a lynch mob mentality at work and it is disturbing.

I think I see what you're talking about, but I'm not disturbed by it. The pandering pus-bags who "serve" us in the Government richly deserve to be lynched. That is, every one of them who is not risking his career to stop the insanity going on in this country. You know, that's why they are forced to wear neckties; so that when we've had enough we can conveniently dispose of them. We obviously haven't had enough yet.

Especially when it begins to target the victims of crime and their families... all to feed the digital egos of armchair detectives who want to use logic like "I don't trust CNN therefore nobody died at Sandy Hook"...

I agree with you on that. But I can also sympathize with those who are a little overly intense in their hatred of the agents of the status quo. It's a personal evolution that's happening with these people, and you are off-base trying to label it egotism or anything else inappropriate. The appropriate response to discovering that you have been fed lies your whole life is nothing less than outrage. It takes some time to get past that (admittedly destructive) outrage and into the constructive phase of becoming the change you want to see in the world.

reply to post by Hefficide

ha ha
" government website debunks conspiracy theories...hillarious"
www.abovetopsecret.com...