HOAX Compilation Thread

reply to post by Zaphod58


And the point is?

Might aswell make a list of annoying staff members or a list of grovelling and annoying members for instance.

reply to post by TheNewSense


Because some people would prefer NOT posting a hoax. This is simply a handy reference for them to use, to prevent them from falling for known hoaxes in the future, or posting a hoax on the site.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


The posts in this thread that are unnatural and insincere are easy to recognise.

Interesting!

Hoax is something known to be made up, Yet some have no idea of it being a Hoax in the first place. I see the problem some have since if someone new came along looking for info and seen HOAX; It would be somehow SET HOAX and no reason's given.

Simple, just list it as Known To Be A Hoax or somehow let us decide, vote, enter some kinda Known Reason Why so that if somebody did happen to look for info one could be offered the info and then they could decide for themselves. Helps the one's who comes to ATS trying to find out info if it is a a possible Hoax, scam and the like.

Although I would be more concerned about how some disrupt posts for no reason. Somehow it went to complaining, who's right, wrong and never actually discussing the OP's Topic's anyway. Just some odd ball post on a post for no reason what-so-ever!

Info should be allowed to have a bearing if it has some what a claim to it, some I bother not to read if it does not have my interests anyway. I can see how this us upsetting to some, leaves out ideas to be pondered yet closes the door on some that is actually crap and a waste of all our times.

Very Touche indeed!

Zaphod58
reply to post by TheNewSense

 

Because some people would prefer NOT posting a hoax. This is simply a handy reference for them to use, to prevent them from falling for known hoaxes in the future, or posting a hoax on the site.

So, we will never again enjoy the pleasure of watching the unwary squirm their way towards the truth with the assistance of our kind and helpful membership?

I think the 'old-way' serves all parties as more efficient, educational and entertaining. I can't say that I have not enjoyed watching you straighten out the ignorant here or there.



ETA: This is an interesting subject, I have to run out, but I'll be back later this evening. In the meantime, what am I missing here? Is ATS a Forum? Or an information service?

Threads like this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...bug me way more than "hoax-threads", or even hoaxers. I mean, geez, what are we? Dancing bears? Sure, let me just stop what I am doing to explain to you what you should have Googled. Educating the ignorant is one thing; educating trolls is another.

Honestly, if there were a "Hoax-List", are you anticipating that it would stop threads like this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Would Charles Hapgood being at the top of this hypothetical list have stopped that thread? Do you suppose?

I don't think so.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

For the list, I'd like to add anything that deals with "September Clues", tv-fakery at the WTC, "no planes hit the trade towers" hoax, and the various names associated with it like Ace Baker, Simon Shack, Socialservice.

And your argument against it is that the claims are based on "compressed and low resolution footage"?

It seems the thread got to the point here.......

Since when are you mod btw?

reply to post by TheNewSense


Not trying to jump in on your conversation, but I believe the reason no=plane theories are considered hoaxes is not because of the footage, but because there are/were many people on ATS that witnessed the attack first hand.

Some of them were very respected members, who's word means more than a crappy video.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


First off SkepticOverlord always uses the "crappy footaage" excuse, check the linkin my sig for instance, and as far as I have read in a thread that is now removed, the mod that was adament about seeing the plane hit was caught lying about it. This was proven by his own posts.

TheNewSense
And your argument against it is that the claims are based on "compressed and low resolution footage"?

"September Clues" has been, for many years, proven to be a manufactured hoax. The creator deliberately manipulated images to fit his hoax.

As far as the no-plane theories, there are too many witnesses, pictures, videos, and physical evidence all proving planes.

TheNewSense
Since when are you mod btw?

Since here:

Please join us in CONGRATULATING the newest members of "The Best Staff on the Internet"! [UPDATED]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

"September Clues" has been, for many years, proven to be a manufactured hoax. The creator deliberately manipulated images to fit his hoax.

Proof? Links?

What about Ace Baker?

As far as the no-plane theories, there are too many witnesses, pictures, videos, and physical evidence all proving planes.

Logical fallacy.

One piece of evidence does not prove that other piecess of evidence like footage are not faked.

So far your arguments are completely meaningless.

reply to post by TheNewSense


By reading that particular conversation with SO you have in your sig, I can only conclude that he was referring to that specific video and asked a relevant question. A question that must be asked when looking at many of these crappy YT vids.

Sometimes we really want something to be true, for whatever reasons, and it causes some of us to check our common sense at the door. IF we are really interested in the truth, we must accept it when our personal thoughts/theories/line of thinking are shown to be false.

But what is really note worthy is the way you handled yourself in that discussion. There is no need to be rude or condescending.....regardless of what side of the debate we take. Relax and have some fun.....that's what ATS is really about.

ETA: Isn't Ace Baker a fake name? I thought his name actually Collin.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

By reading that particular conversation with SO you have in your sig, I can only conclude that he was referring to that specific video and asked a relevant question. A question that must be asked when looking at many of these crappy YT vids.

But the same or a similar method was used to prove that a missile was fake in a much more crappy vid and it was labeled a hoax because of it.

So when the footage shows a fake plane the excuse is that it is because of the bad quality, but when other footage shows a missile hitting the pentagon, even crappier footage is used to prove that the missile is fake.

This is a blatant double standard and contradictory and the only common denominator is the support of the official story.

TheNewSense
Proof? Links?

Here's a link:

www.google.com...


I'm not going to go hunting for links or proof as this is not a debate thread. Nor is the topic even up for debate anymore. It's been proven to be a hoax years ago, case-closed.

TheNewSense
What about Ace Baker?

He's one of the first ones to start the "no-planes at the WTC" hoax.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

He's one of the first ones to start the "no-planes at the WTC" hoax.

What is your proof against him?

SO uses the "crappy footage" excuse but you just used "crappier footage" to prove CGI.

How is this possible?

sheepslayer247
Isn't Ace Baker a fake name? I thought his name actually Collin.

Alexander "Ace" Baker AKA Alexander Collin.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

I'm not going to go hunting for links or proof as this is not a debate thread. Nor is the topic even up for debate anymore. It's been proven to be a hoax years ago, case-closed.

So basically ATS staff decides and everything posted in this farce of a thread is automatic hoax without having to debate it.

Looking great boys.

TheNewSense
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

There is no need to be rude or condescending.....regardless of what side of the debate we take. Relax and have some fun.....that's what ATS is really about.

Move along smallfry......

Ya know. I came to ATS because of 9/11 and I studied the no-plane theory because I thought it made the most sense to me.

After going through the wringer, like you are now, I looked deeper and deeper....eventually coming to the conclusion that I was wrong all along.

So I can understand what you are going through.

Lastly, I can't believe you called me smallfry. My feelings are hurt and now I must run off to the religion forums to find some counseling.

**ATTENTION**

As was advised previously, this thread is NOT for discussing the validity of any known HOAX or HOAXERS.

Please be advised that further discussing regarding any of the above will be removed as Off Topic and the users subsequently warned. Repeat users may be post banned.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod

reply to post by sheepslayer247



no need for that... your 'feelings' and sentiments aren't far from the mark.... 't least not so much as the 'one' you're replying to ..... some heads just insist on remaining stuck in the sand.

ya can't fix stoopid - like... !?


nor can you typically steer the views of someone who only sees things 'from their point of view' .... casting aside anything which doesn't concur with the same. !?!?!?!?!?!?!!?