Are the PTB behind ATS?

[Access Denied]

I am stalking.

[yawn]

Not for much longer... Ryan asked you some questions, I suggest you answer them if you want to continue to be able to post here.

[elendal]

However, you are wrong that things can't be "proven". Enough things can be proven (with truly solid evidence) to create overwhelming evidence that supports a hypothesis... Take some time to read through our main website - have a look at the emails, documents, conversations, school records (or proof of lack thereof), criminal court records, etc..etc..etc..

OK, let me just ask you this - ever heard of "faked" documentation?

What is your proof that it's genuine? This doesn't mean it isn't genuine, but I'm asking for your proof. So, where is it? Do I have to take your word for it? Why? Because someone told you it's genuine? So, does that mean I have to take the word of a third party that it's genuine? And, by the way, where and from whom did they find out it's genuine? They were present as the documents were leaving the printer, perhaps? Or maybe they were on the meeting themselves? They saw events leading to the meeting?

You can go back ad infinitum, and you still won't be able to prove anything, unless you experienced it yourself (which would only be a "proof" to you, and no one else; by the way). It seems I do need to repeat myself, and quite honestly, it's becoming boring.

It is certainly possible to prove involvement of any of the PTB if you so wish. Assuming the hypothesis is based on any sense of reality or things that are truly taking place.

QED

An overwhelming number of such tangible evidence which are repeatable and there are other "peers" who agree with your observations - then you've got yourself proof.

No, you are not getting any proof that way.

Your problem is that you generalize too soon. It's actually quite a common problem in formal logic. What you get instead, is a consistent set of axioms and rules. The fact that it's consistent doesn't have anything to do with it's truthfulness... apart from a fact that it will always produce tautologies. That is to say, in simple terms - it will always agree with itself.

As far as proving the things you've learned - it would take less than half an hour. All you need to do is provide convincing and overwhelming proof of only one or two things you've learned - and that would be enough for people to extrapolate that you most certainly went to school for what you said you did.

Man, you're killing me!

Do you even understand what you've just said? It kind of reminds me of a "proof" than an infinite number of angels can stand on the top of a needle. Ever heard of that one?

However, following your analogy, when you can't even begin to provide a smidgeon of proof that you've attended a school, not even a diploma to show for it - you can't really blame people for rolling their eyes and walking away.

Now you are beginning to understand!

So, what should I do to "prove" that I graduated on a certain university? Use Photoshop to come up with a "genuine" document? Go to a local printer service and make an exact copy of a real document (except for the name part)?

And here we go again, ad infinitum...

What you would have to do would be to come here, visit my university, and ask for the records that match the document. But, wait just a minute... Who is to say that I don't know a guy who works in IT department on that university, and since he's my best fried from my childhood, and I'm so rich that I can pay him, let's say $10.000, he put me in the system even if I never put my foot in that building. Do you like my "proof" so far?

But what if your interpretation of that personal experience is skewed or flawed due to biological and psychological issues with your brain? In that case, what you perceive in your live is flawed. Without the perspective of peers, or without something tangible to confirm what you, alone, have perceived in your experiences - you have come to the erroneous belief that your conclusions alone, based on your experiences alone constitute a clear picture of reality. That is what we refer to, with all due respect, as delusion.

That's really a good one. Now you are fighting back with the right weapons, and not just some pseudo-logical mumbo-jumbo. It seems my efforts are finally producing some results.

My only answer to you - turn that weapon around and face it. Maybe "your interpretation of that personal experience is skewed or flawed due to biological and psychological issues with your brain"? A stick has two ends, remember?

My version of reality, based on my personal experiences, are highly biased and prejudiced. However put in the context of repeatable observations by myself and my peers - those observations (not only based on experience - but on tangible observations and experiments) that match and support eachother may be a fairly good representation of reality.

You are getting better with every new idea that you consider.

What you've described is exactly what Castaneda wrote about. Since we are conducting a conversation here, that by itself, is a proof that we, at least partially, share the same description of the world. Otherwise, we couldn't even begin the conversation. A description of the world is a physical representation of what I spoke about - consistent set of axioms. It's really simple - consistent "reality" will always agree with itself.

No - psychiatrists have learned what the results of years and years of research on the human mind, and human psychology has taught us. They can closely observe the behaviors, reactions, and theories about life that a person holds - and discern the characteristics that identify an underlying psychiatric disorder.

You are mixing A Psychiatrist as a title, and a psychiatrist as a person with experience. You can't just mix them into a mesh and say apple is an orange because someone put a label on the apple that says "orange".

Really? Try me. Just please tell me it doesn't involve psychadelic drugs.

That's the problem. I can't "try you". You have to try yourself (which you seem to be doing quite fine right now). You need just a couple of more steps, and you'll get it right. Whether you'll take those steps or not is completely up to you. I will certainly not try to persuade you.

...

OK, people. I see that we are slowly, but certainly, starting to move in logical circles here. That's usually the best indication that a conversation should be ended. I said I didn't expect to stay here for very long, and it's time for me to keep that promise.

I bid you all farewell. And best wishes both to those who did, as well as to those who didn't get my message. If you got anything useful from this little thread... good for you. If you didn't... good for you, as well.

[elendal]

Not for much longer... Ryan asked you some questions, I suggest you answer them if you want to continue to be able to post here.

Hey, do you realize that I was writing my reply to ryguy at the same time you wrote yours!? And I even foresaw what was coming! Maybe we do have a "proof" here after all! not-lol!

[Access Denied]

What do you do for an encore?

[MrPenny]

If you got anything useful from this little thread... good for you. If you didn't... good for you, as well.

I got......nothing. Probably because I saw little else than a beautiful example of slippery rhetoric, evasive tactics, and most importantly....a total lack of "hard facts"....the inclusion of which was hinted at in your title.

However, the small glimpses of paranoia and persecution complex were quite entertaining.

[ryguy]

And here's another bit of information you are also probably not aware of. Do you know that it took theoretical physicists somewhere from 5 to 10 years (there's a great disagreement in the sources) to come up with a physical model of transistor effect? In other words, they knew about the effect years before the "discovery" was announced, but they had absolutely no idea why it worked. Since you are probably not an engineer, and you have never had classes in electronics and physics, that may not sound that strange to you. But it certainly does to me.

That's not at all surprising - it's the way such discovery has always worked. However when the effect is noticed, scientists look for the source and find the physical cause. Transistor is a good example - but a better, more recent one, is the memristor discovery that recently hit the news (at least the news us electronic-fanatics follow)...where the effect at a nano scale of resistors with "memory" was not understood until just this year. Memristors promise to change the nanotechnology industry.

Nevertheless - there's nothing surprising about how long it takes for physicists to develop a physical model for an effect...in it's simplest form, every physics theory follows the same path. Take gravity or magnetics as similar examples. The point is that there is always a quantifiable cause for those effects.

-Ry

[ryguy]

I bid you all farewell. And best wishes both to those who did, as well as to those who didn't get my message. If you got anything useful from this little thread... good for you. If you didn't... good for you, as well.

Where are you running off to? We were just getting started! lol

Oh well... Next?

-Ry

[Shawnna]

I am disappointed that this thread moved in the direction it did.

[Access Denied]

[sorry folks just couldn't resist the opportunity for a little levity]

And thanks to the moderator who split this thread.

Err… you’re welcome?

I suggest you do some research as well. Do you even know the difference between a semiconductor and a vacuum tube?

[raises hand]

One’s smaller than the other? What did I win?

Let me help you - semiconductor is a passive element. Vacuum tube is an active element. The difference? Semiconductor cannot amplify signals.

Really? Transistors are made out of semiconductors…

And here's another bit of information you are also probably not aware of.

That’s funny… all that’s covered in the material at the links I provided. Plagiarize much?

Since you are probably not an engineer, and you have never had classes in electronics and physics, that may not sound that strange to you.

You’re probably right… I’m a preschool dropout. (well OK technically I was kicked out)

[Access Denied]

I am disappointed that this thread moved in the direction it did.

Me too believe it or not… for a while there I thought maybe elendal was trying to make the point that the PTB (not necessarily our own I might add) could be behind ATS without the principals even knowing it. (i.e. unwittingly complicit) Alas it appears perhaps Ryan and MrPenny’s assessment is more apt…

[sigh]

FWIW if you recall I explored that idea from a slightly different angle in this thread I started on ATS in my brief incarnation as “Saviour of the Real”…

Is ATS and UFOlogy a playground for Government mind control researchers?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread235196/pg1

You, Springer, Kit Green and the rest of the gang all joined in on the fun… ah those were the days weren’t they?

[TheSkepticOverlord]

I am disappointed that this thread moved in the direction it did.

Me too believe it or not…

Ohhh shucks... another failed attempt to make rumor and innuendo turn into something. And the title of this thread was such a promising addition to your watch forum, no?

I explored that idea from a slightly different angle in this thread I started on ATS...

Eighteen months ago? Trying for that long and still nothing?

Perhaps there's a reason nothing comes of this nonsense.

[Access Denied]

Clearly you didn’t understand the nature of my “disappointment” Bill. What part of wanting to explore the concept/possibility that you (and other CT believers like you) are being unwittingly complicit in furthering the subversive agenda of others did you not understand???

For the umpteenth time now I do not believe ATS is a “sanctioned” COINTELPRO! For one thing you and your partners are far too clumsy for that lol.

Now back to my vacation…

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I am disappointed that this thread moved in the direction it did.

Me too...althought maybe not for the same reason you did? (Or maybe so!). I was discussing things with elendal that really were probably more appropriate to the spirituality forum, rather than the focus on ATS.

I also do believe, and respectfully suggest, that Ryan and AD may not have looked deeply enough at the things elendal was saying. It IS true what he said, Ryan, that you cannot positively "prove" anything, and it is well covered by the Godel Incompleteness Theorem (GIT). Indeed, all of your push-backs to him actually do nothing more than increase the probability of something being true. I think you would have to agree with this, scientifically speaking. And I was trying to mediate, in that I pointed out that elendal was taking it to an extreme without pointing out the valuable aspects of the GIT. The points he was making were very subtle, but they were, in fact, founded on solid science. Taken to an extreme these aspects of science could lead one to say that nihilism is the only belief system that makes sense. But I pointed that out, and noted that nihilism is the ONE of TWO valid ways to look at this trouble with proveability. The other is to integrate views of many people (many personal experiences) in a cooperative manner, such that the PROBABILITY of truth is at least higher than the probability of falseness.

There are certainly links between the tellings of Don Juan Matus (the shaman that Carlos Castaneda says was his mentor) and many spiritual traditions. I was looking to "probe" elendal a bit more and uncover some more information that could be discussed about the links between information and intention. There is a very scientific link there, and Castaneda's work in describing Don Juan Matus' belief system is a key to this link about how one creates unbending intention.

IMHO if this thread were to continue on that premise (ignoring that it started as an ATS Watch thread), and moved to the spirituality section, it may well yet be salvagable... and perhaps elendal may come back and elect to continue?

Just my suggestion...if anyone is interested in those aspects we were discussing.
Ray

[ryguy]

Indeed, all of your push-backs to him actually do nothing more than increase the probability of something being true. I think you would have to agree with this, scientifically speaking.

Absolutely agree. The problem elendal was having was that he was taking a premise, such as "the PTB are behind ATS" and attempting to claim that there's no point in us asking him to present proof for that claim because "nothing can be absolutely proven".

What you've stated above is almost an exact rewording of the point I was trying to make to him. You can obtain enough proof so that the evidence is overwhelming. However elendal offered not even a single ounce of proof for his claim that the PTB are behind ATS.

I appreciate the philosophical ideals that you're putting forth Ray - and I agree with them completely. However within the context of this discussion - elendal was not being forthright. Additionally, I think it was pretty clear to the majority that there were some scary signs he suffers from both delusions of grandeur and paranoid schitzophrenic fantasies related to persecution (of him) and related to the PTB.

And I was trying to mediate, in that I pointed out that elendal was taking it to an extreme without pointing out the valuable aspects of the GIT.

Yes - you did do that. However I do have to say here that while the side discussion regarding information systems was interesting, he was simply continuing to avoid the question of providing at least *some* evidence...not even overwhelming evidence, mind you. But I'd be cool with the discussion you and he were having taking place elsewhere if he'll stop making absolute claims without providing proof. As you can see - we placed that issue in our T&C for the very purpose of keeping out folks who make outrageous claims without providing equivalent evidence.

The points he was making were very subtle, but they were, in fact, founded on solid science. Taken to an extreme these aspects of science could lead one to say that nihilism is the only belief system that makes sense. But I pointed that out, and noted that nihilism is the ONE of TWO valid ways to look at this trouble with proveability. The other is to integrate views of many people (many personal experiences) in a cooperative manner, such that the PROBABILITY of truth is at least higher than the probability of falseness.

For reasons that I won't mention here, but I'd be willing to discuss with you privately, I suspect he was another sockpuppet anyway.

-Ry

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Understood, Ryan, and I agree with your judgment on this issue with regard to the ATS allegation. I would also agree that he presented not even enough evidence to validate the probability of his claim being over 50-50.

I would point out his biggest point which did, in fact, hold water. He insulted people quite liberally at ATS, in-threads, and had not been banned. Clearly, to me, this is evidence of inconsistent application of ATS T&Cs...one which SkepticOverlord has chosen to ignore and not address. The fact that elendal blatantly insulted people at ATS (and he did telegraph his punches beforehand), not the least of which were MODs and the 3 amigos, and still was not banned is inconsistent with the ATS T&Cs. Elendal's applications of Don Juan Matus' "stalking" with respect to ATS was flawless, IMO. He did it "by the book."

I found that interesting...Why did Bill not ban him? Last I read, I did not see any such action.
Ray