"earth2" close to the truth about ATS hoaxes?

Any discussion related to ATS goes here

Postby Chorlton » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:12 am

Caleban said:

"Chorlton, none of the reasons you offer have anything to do with his activities HERE. Every reason you list ends with "on ATS", except your "suspicion". You and AD appear to share an impact to logical thinking with regard to Springer ON ATS that could be resolved here or spiral out of control here. If I am to be a villian for pulling out this "drama", so be it. This one does need resolution, one way or the other. "

The Springer that posts and attacks people here is the same Springer that bans, lies and denies people freedom on ATS, why should he be accorded those rights here that he denies others?.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm


Postby ryguy » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:11 pm

Chorlton wrote:The Springer that posts and attacks people here is the same Springer that bans, lies and denies people freedom on ATS, why should he be accorded those rights here that he denies others?.


Because we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard - however difficult that may be at times...

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:16 pm

caleban wrote:Chorlton, none of the reasons you offer have anything to do with his activities HERE. Every reason you list ends with "on ATS", except your "suspicion". You and AD appear to share an impact to logical thinking with regard to Springer ON ATS that could be resolved here or spiral out of control here. If I am to be a villian for pulling out this "drama", so be it. This one does need resolution, one way or the other.

We are in the latrine. Resolve it, then flush it. Get it out of your system once
and for all.


Given enough circumstantial evidence - there may be just cause to move it out of the latrine and place it into a legitimate investigative thread.

There was one point where I was a direct target of some shananigans that took place on an ATS thread (see the Ghostraven hoax). I was pretty angry about that - however Springer provided a few details to assist me, which unfortunately didn't lead anywhere. However given other experiences by Steve, by AD, and others...

Let's put it this way - overwhelming circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to convict in some cases. Now - we may not convict anyone here based on circumstantial alone, but it definitely gives us just cause to take the charges seriously and follow up.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Chorlton » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:52 pm

I suspect the reason I was booted was simply because I stood up to his bullying and made him look very small and stupid on one thread and practically everyone supported me.

His contention was that there were a lot of complaints about my style.
My contention is he was looking for straws to grab and he grabbed them.

However, as mentioned, I had only been on ATS a few days when I questioned a post and was PM'd by two people telling me they suspected it was a planted post by Springer. I have since tried to find the post and it isnt there any more hence I have no proof. But Im not prone to imagining two PM's
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Postby uberarcanist » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:39 pm

Chorlton, I don't think anyone (except for perhaps Mark and Caleb) are accusing you of lying. I believe you 100%; What you say very much squares with what others on ATS say and Mark's suspicious behavior.

I'm not saying Mark is guilty, I'm just saying that some things are suspect here.
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Postby caleban » Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:34 am

Because we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard


The key word is "try". Altruism is a near impossible goal, with not much reward. Thus the above statement seems factually perfect to me.

OK, lets look at the charges from the top.

"In summary, user "earth2" claims that Mark is behind all of the hoaxes. Mark and Mark alone. It might be true, I haven't specifically analyzed Mark's writing style, but I thought I'd put it out here for you all to look at."

Let's put it this way - overwhelming circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to convict in some cases. Now - we may not convict anyone here based on circumstantial alone, but it definitely gives us just cause to take the charges seriously and follow up.


Very well. But a single, eyewitness account to the contrary will destroy circumstantial evidence if the eyewitness is credible. I have such a witness. I call to the stand one rdube02, ATS member, who has direct knowledge of a most serious Serpo ATS email Hoax that, despite all circumstantial evidence to the contrary, does not involve Springer at all. I remind the court that the charge here is "Mark is behind ALL of the hoaxes. Mark and Mark alone." If my witness can prove that he is aware of an ATS related hoax that is NOT perpetrated by Mark, then the charge as read cannot stand and the case is dismissed. Here is the testimony for the court:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread198976/pg1

You Honor, my distinguished opponents for the Plaintiff, AD and Chorlton may feel free to cross examine.
User avatar
caleban
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:33 am
Location: NM

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:18 am

caleban wrote:I remind the court that the charge here is "Mark is behind ALL of the hoaxes. Mark and Mark alone."

Straw man... that specific “charge” has not been made “here”.

Personally, I would never limit myself to such a narrow hypothesis… for starters, it seems to me others could have been involved as well.

I would suggest you think of this as a preliminary investigation… the scope of which has yet to be fully defined.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby caleban » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:41 am

Straw man... that specific “charge” has not been made “here”.


The title of this thread is "earth2 close to the truth about ATS hoaxes". The opening post is more directly quoted thus:

In summary, user "earth2" claims that Mark is behind all of the hoaxes. Mark and Mark alone. It might be true, I haven't specifically analyzed Mark's writing style, but I thought I'd put it out here for you all to look at.


That help any ?

Personally, I would never limit myself to such a narrow hypothesis… for starters, it seems to me others could have been involved as well.


I would argue that a very general charge increases the difficulty of a conviction and opens the defense to an infinity of possibilities. The more narrow the task of the Plaintiff, the easier to proceed. While the plaintiff examines the credibility of the witness, this buys time to study the testimony, and in many cases, that study will yield pointers to other witnesses or facts that contradict or otherwise nulls the testimony. (Hint : I gave you, along with the testimony, eight pages of data. Any more hints would be a conflict of interest to the side I have decided to take.) Furthermore, everyone gets their own day in court. If others are involved, they get their own "face" time, and charges.



I would suggest you think of this as a preliminary investigation… the scope of which has yet to be defined.


Ah ! I understand now. Change the rules as we go. Kangaroo Court. Definitely a "higher standard" in there somewhere.
User avatar
caleban
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:33 am
Location: NM

Postby Chorlton » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:16 am

You really have a tenuous hold on comprehension dont you?.

Whilst the OP did state Springer was responsible for 'All' the hoaxes. AD and myself have simply stated that we believed he was responsible for *some* hoaxes and not, as you claim, 'all'.

That he, as a part owner of ATS could have posted hoaxes on his own site is worthy of investigation on its own.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:27 am

caleban wrote:The title of this thread is "earth2 close to the truth about ATS hoaxes".

I see you left out the question mark at the end… was that intentional?

caleban wrote:Change the rules as we go.

What rules? This is still in the Latrine.

No decision regarding a formal investigation has been made yet… as Ryan pointed out we will be discussing this with Steve.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby uberarcanist » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:41 pm

Don't feed the trolls...don't feed the trolls...
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Postby caleban » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:51 am

You really have a tenuous hold on comprehension dont you?...

What rules? This is still in the Latrine......

Don't feed the trolls...don't feed the trolls...


Big Evil Grin. Now that I can see you are all having fun, that is at least a better mind-set than the focused, anti-Springer mentality that began here.

I see you left out the question mark at the end… was that intentional?


Now that you are out of your knee-jerk mode, your logical thinking is back. Replace the word "intentional" with "significant", and you are displaying legal instinct.

AD and myself have simply stated that we believed he was responsible for *some* hoaxes and not, as you claim, 'all'.


Even better. That disclaimer suggests there is "barrister" in your blood. Enough to even invest in a robe and wig ?

No decision regarding a formal investigation has been made yet…


Nor should it be until the "anti" bias is neutralized. If you can't do that, then hire
a private investigator. Thats why they exist, mostly.
User avatar
caleban
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:33 am
Location: NM

Postby uberarcanist » Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:40 am

Ha, like a fawning Springer supporter such as yourself is a credible judge of bias.
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

just an FYI

Postby torbjon » Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:38 am

caleban asked if I was "out there reading this" ... The answer is yes and no... Mostly no. I just don't have the time for alla the things I'd like to be doing or need to be done. *shrugs*

I gave the URL to the page that Shawnna posted to a small group of people, it has never been "public" (indexed by google) so when I see that that page is being hit I tend to check it out... which is how I got here the other night...

I'm in the process of re-making Torbtown. There's some problems with the directory structure and file naming that I need to clean up... anyway, long story short, pretty much Everything is gonna get renamed or moved around... which will screw me in the short term as Torbtown is Well entrenched world wide and alla those links and bookmarks will become dead...

However, THAT page will remain as is where it is so alla yer links will still work

AND

It will no longer be 'private' as I've incorporated it into my Library, which means google will index it.

Full implementation of the new site is scheduled for the end of April.

okay, I think that's it...

rock on people
twj
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Postby ryguy » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:21 pm

caleban wrote:Very well. But a single, eyewitness account to the contrary will destroy circumstantial evidence if the eyewitness is credible. I have such a witness. I call to the stand one rdube02, ATS member, who has direct knowledge of a most serious Serpo ATS email Hoax that, despite all circumstantial evidence to the contrary, does not involve Springer at all.


I am honored to be such a witness. But for the record of the court, I would ask that while our (Steve and I - although Steve was a "silent" partner at the time) investigation proved beyond all doubt that a long-term and established member had created the Serpo-ATS email hoax, we did not have enough solid evidence, at the time, to prove the hypothesis that the member's actions were driven by ATS management. All we had (and all we still have) after I published our findings - was ATS management's claims that they had nothing to do with it - and that Netchicken had done it to "harm" them.

So - getting ganged up on by all of the ATS supporters, I submitted that what they claim must be the truth then (trusting their testimony alone) and I backed off from that hypothesis. All we had evidence for was that clearly a long-time member was behind it...and there's where the conclusion must stop.

But not the investigation. I'm not sure you see the difference...

My testimony in that case from 2006 is definitely enough to show people that making a premature conclusion based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence is never, ever, ever a very good idea.

However - allowing overwhelming circumstantial evidence to drive the direction of your investigations is critical. To not fully investigate a lead because veridical evidence does not already exist for you to eat on a silver platter, is silly.

If Steve and I had followed the lead that you're suggesting here - we never would have learned about the truth regarding Netchicken, and we never would have been able to educate the public regarding the real story at the time.

If we had done what you're suggesting - people would have had to live in the dark permanently regarding who created the hoax.

And I haven't even started regarding the stupid fake Journal Entry that was published on Godlike Productions and could have been created by one of several folks close to ATS management. No accusation here - just another dead lead that remains in the "not-yet-followed-up-on" pile.

I remind the court that the charge here is "Mark is behind ALL of the hoaxes. Mark and Mark alone." If my witness can prove that he is aware of an ATS related hoax that is NOT perpetrated by Mark, then the charge as read cannot stand and the case is dismissed. Here is the testimony for the court:


If the charge made was that Mark is behind all of the hoaxes - then as your witness I will be glad to stand up and say that that statement is absolutely untrue and charges should be dropped.

If the charge made is that Mark is behind one or more of the hoaxes - then I have to warn you that I won't be a very good witness. Because I suggest that there's enough overwhelming circumstantial evidence (as there was in the fake email investigation) to warrant pursuing a full and detailed investigation.

By the way - your little "private investigator" jab was cute. I would suggest that a number of our own research crew (both past and present) have easily outperformed many private investigators.

You Honor, my distinguished opponents for the Plaintiff, AD and Chorlton may feel free to cross examine.


Feel free - but I have to warn you that I might be a hostile witness toward both the Plaintiff and the Defense. :)

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to ATS Watch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron