Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Any discussion related to ATS goes here

Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby Access Denied » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:28 am

:NTWRTHY
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]


Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby lost_shaman » Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:00 am

torbjon wrote:
Okay comrade, the 'problem' that I am having with this conversation is that we keep drifting into discussion about the actual Real Life Event itself (something in the skies over the airport) and drifting away from a completely different and UNRELATED event (how a story unfolded on ATS) which is what I wish to discuss here.


torbjon,

Sorry you got that impression from my posts here on this thread, but I wasn't discussing the "Real Life Event" (people seeing something at O'Hare on Nov. 7th). I was talking about the 'Pictures' that surfaced. The picture on ATS certainly did NOT surface on ATS in a vacuum.

torbjon wrote:I'm sorry you've latched onto the 'why' question... If you take a closer peek you may notice that the 'why' question Was Not Mine, it was a quote from Skeptic Overlord. I 'snorted' "why indeed", perhaps a mistake on my part in which case I apologize for the confusion.


I didn't "latch" onto anything. The 'why' question was certainly implied in this discussion and it was simply my turn to post my opinion as to 'why' someone might 'fake/hoax' a picture and post it on ATS! If anything it is my fault for the 'confusion' because I simply took the liberty and opportunity to voice my opinion of 'why' someone might 'fake/hoax' an O'Hare UFO picture and post it at ATS.

torbjon wrote:MY question (still unanswered by anyone) was "WHO benefited the most from that picture?"


Fine I'll bite... ATS did.

Now, let me ask you this... "WHO benefited the most from" the picture that showed up on C2C?

Did George Norry 'fake/hoax' a picture too?

Clearly people were faking O'Hare UFO pictures and offering these up to the "UFO community" for kicks.


torbjon wrote:Okay, looking at your post here, Springer is not the one who claims to have product branded the image in question, Skeptic Overlord has taken responsibility for that one. He stated it in the O'Hare thread on ATS (you're the guy that dug up the post for that one for me, page 33, remember?) He stated it in private FS forum, and he also stated it here. Bill / S.O. has had some Small experience with 'fuzzy pictures' during his tenure on ATS and I do believe he's done some work in the 'private sector' (MUFON) back in the day... (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/1052310.html)

So the person who made the decision to product brand that image did indeed have at least SOME experience with the subject matter.


I didn't claim Spinger was responsible for the 'Branding'. I was simply saying that Springer, who discussed the pictures, is no "expert" at analysing "UFO" pictures that get posted on ATS at that time.




torbjon wrote:But other images are Not branded...

lost_shaman wrote:
You are correct that the 'Branding' only happened once, but another photo apparently showing the same UO two days later didn't get "Branded"! So what does that mean?


THAT, is a Very Good Question comrade, Very Good Question indeed, and one I've been asking since the get go...

Why did that ONE get branded and not others?

Forget the actual content of the image for a moment. There are hundreds if not thousands of 'fuzzy pictures' on ATS... fuzzy picture A, not branded, fuzzy picture B, not branded, fuzzy picture...

...not branded, fuzzy picture Zed Zed 9 Plural Zed Alpha? oh, This One we brand, fuzzy picture Zed Zed 9 Plural Zed Beta, not branded, fuzzy picture Zed Zed 9... not branded, not branded, not branded... etc. etc. etc.

Kinda makes That One stand out like a sore thumb, huh?


If you're saying that the 'branding' of this one picture "stand(s) out", then yeah I'd agree, but if you're saying that is evidence of an "ATS Hoax" then I just am not convinced of that.




torbjon wrote:I'm not sure I'm familiar with the other image that you mention but there was a series of Three images taken in I believe Aurora IL in the summer prior to the O'Hare event that were sent to ATS during the O'Hare story that Jeff Ritzmann analyzed and rather quickly came to the conclusion that they represented a bona fide UAP (ie those images were NOT hoaxed) and he stuck by his guns on that one...

Those images were NOT product branded then (or now, I believe)... Here's a series of images that the resident expert states quite clearly are REAL... you would think that would make them Prime Candidates for product branding, yes?


Sure, but just because they were not 'branded' isn't evidence that the 'O'Hare' photo that did get 'branded' was an ATS hoax.


torbjon wrote:But no... no "massive online attention" for those pics...


Did you really expect something different after the 'Hilkevitch' article had logged over a "million hits"?

The 'Hilkevitch' article also alluded to the possibility of a picture having been taken. That sparked a frenzy of people all over the internet 'crying' about not having the picture, so much so that I personally got fed up listening to people lament the fact that they didn't have a picture to look at.



torbjon wrote:I have a theory as to why that One was branded while others are not that 'fits' but leads to the conclusion of 'intentional fabrication on the part of ATS' so I doubt it will be too popular... it goes something like this:

Suppose you, lost_shaman, are walking down the street with your digital camera, your lap top computer, and the little cable that connects the two together. An honest to gods UFO flies by and you, being On It, snap The Picture of all pictures. Sharp, clear, steady, hi res, verifiable landmarks in the background, Everything a nutty crunchy UFO freek could ask for. There's a park nearby. You sit down at a picnic table and set up your laptop and download the image from your camera. You email the image to yourself. Now the reality hits you and you are a little shook up, there's some adrenaline, there's the racing mind, you do something that you would NEVER do if you were 'in your right mind', you get up and walk two steps to a fountain to get a drink of water and wash your face...

And in that split second that your back is turned some punk on roller blades zips by and swipes your laptop!

Devastation of devastations.

BUT, you still have the original in your camera AND the copy you emailed to yourself.

You go home, bum about the loss of the hardware but giddy with knowledge that you still have The Image.

You get home and plug your camera into your desktop computer and download the image into it. You check your email and there's the copy you sent yourself... all is cool... But the family is there and you are giddy so you tell your story to them and now They are giddy too and everyone is chatting and laughing and having a good ol' time... Then it is late, the kids have to go to bed, other family stuff has to be dealt with, they day melts into night and everyone goes to bed.

The next morning you get up, fire up the desktop computer, check some of the news services and other favorite web sites, and there, staring you in the face is YOUR image, product branded with someone else's logo, surrounded by revenue generating google ads...

YOU didn't do that. Obviously the punk who ripped you off (or who ever they sold your laptop to) did it.

Now then, the site that product branded YOUR image with THEIR logo and is currently making money off it could get into a LOT of trouble for marketing Stolen Merchandise like that. YOU have the original in your camera AND the time stamped email that 'proves' in a court of law that YOU are the 'real' owner of that image. You take them to court, sue the pants off them, and win.

They go bye bye and you do whatever it is you want with your image....

Now I know that's kind of a whack story but it's not That whack... slapping your name on stolen merchandise and trying to make a buck off it ain't smart and ATS ain't dumb. They tend not to product brand Anything, even if they should obtain permission from the alleged 'owner', probably for the reasons outlined above: It might come back and bite them.


This type of thing actually happens in real life to Celebrities (Paris Hilton or Miley Cyrus for example) who have their phones hacked and their private pictures released. In those cases the stolen pictures end up being hosted by many business (websites, magazines, and T.V. shows) who apparently have no qualms about using these 'stolen' photos.






torbjon wrote:But not That One. That One they (Bill Irvine / Skeptic Overlord) wasted No Time in branding and distributing... images before and after? No, no branding... but That One? Oh ya, we're running with this one...

Now then, the only reason I can think of to completely disregard both previous and post practices regarding the product branding of content on ATS like this would be if the originator of the image in question was NOT an 'unknown' 'anonymous' or 'uncontrollable' factor.


Again I don't see there being much of a threat, especially given that there was no reason to believe the photo in question was stolen and even it is was other businesses use stolen photos all the time when they surface without consequence.





torbjon wrote:IF the image was generated by a known and controllable factor then all risks of third party intervention have been eliminated. Jeff and David did NOT have to 'be in on it' as it were. All they had to do was assist in prolonging the investigation. Just 'take it slow' was all they had to do, so no 'inside' knowledge, no 'conspiracy' on their part,

That leaves three Amigos.

And not all three of them needed to be involved. In fact, only ONE would be needed, in which case it's now an issue of a 'lone gunman' and there is No Conspiracy whatsoever.

stuff to ponder.


O.k., but IF someone just wanted to 'trick' believers and posted the image on ATS then there is no Conspiracy in that case either.
Last edited by lost_shaman on Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby torbjon » Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:03 am

lost_shaman:

So I just glanced over your last few posts to me and basically what I'm seeing here is that you are more or less just picking things apart here and there and I'm sorry dude, but my four year old can pick me apart like that with one hand while picking boogers with the other, ya know? It's kinda lame, way beneath your abilities, and boring.

And let's face it, you and I both know that the idiots that nod their heads up and down (ah yep ah yep ah yep) to your dribble are no better than the idiots that nod their heads up and down to My dribble...

No, it's those other lemons that get up off of their butts and look into it for themselves and think for themselves and don't let US think for them that count, right? And that group of people has to be at least as bored with this as I am so if you want to keep playing then here's what you are going to do:

Since you seem to be arguing a contrary position, and seem to be of the opinion that nothing fishy was going on, then write your own OP article, the antithesis of mine. Tell the people what you think about that incident on ATS, and why you think it. Lay it all out there comrade. Show us what your made of.

Or not *shrugs*

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

Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby mojo » Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:25 am

there really is only one question that needs to be addressed imo.
"why would ATS perpetrate a hoax of any kind".
the answer is provided by Bill and Mark in numerous threads/posts and strangely enough not by Simon at all. ;)
revenue.
they are a business. (this has been stated numerous times).
alternative news and conspiracy is big, thanks to...what?

internet x anonymity = consumers.
consumers x volume = profit.
astonishing photo's x anonymous consumers x volume = profit.
copyrighted astonishing photo's x anonymous consumers x volume = mega profit.
User avatar
mojo
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby moomin » Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:07 am

"why would ATS perpetrate a hoax of any kind".
the answer is provided by Bill and Mark in numerous threads/posts and strangely enough not by Simon at all.


I remember when they once had a 'who is Simon Gray' competition - perhaps there should be another one held now called 'where is Simon Gray' lol.
moomin
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby lost_shaman » Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:20 am

torbjon wrote:here's what you are going to do:

Since you seem to be arguing a contrary position, and seem to be of the opinion that nothing fishy was going on, then write your own OP article, the antithesis of mine. Tell the people what you think about that incident on ATS, and why you think it. Lay it all out there comrade. Show us what your made of.

Or not *shrugs*

twj


Hey torbjon,

Let's go with the "Or not" option.

If I haven't already stated that I'm not convinced then I'm stating it now. I don't see ANY direct evidence that this one 'hoax' photo was an ATS perpetrated 'Hoax'. In your OP you speculate that ATS would have 'benefited' by 'Hoaxing' the picture in question, but that is NOT evidence that ATS actually 'Hoaxed' the '0000000' photo!

I could also speculate that the "Chad/Drones" Hoax photos and documents 'benefited' ATS if ATS had 'Hoaxed' the "Chad/Drones" photos and documents. I don't have any direct evidence that this was true but if ATS is 'Hoaxing' the '0000000' photo based on speculation then why not the "Chad/Drones" photos and documents!

Since we are talking about speculation here, I'll risk being called "lame and boring" again just to simply say I'm NOT CONVINCED! :roll:
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby ryguy » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:09 am

I admit I'm a little confused. Are you saying that ATS jumping to place their brand on, and claim ownership/control of the photo is insignificant? In writing work - you can't even use a photo unless you took it/created it yourself, or you purchased/received exclusive rights from the person who took/created the image.

So...ATS placing their brand on the photo doesn't seem, to me, to require much brainpower to trace the dots?
---
"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

Re: Alleged O'Hare UFO Photo Reveals Possible ATS Hoax

Postby torbjon » Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:08 pm

lost_shaman:

"NOT CONVINCED" is not "lame and boring", quite the opposite in fact. I see it as honest and refreshing. It succinctly states what you genuinely feel and seems more productive to me than your previous attempts to get me to be "not convinced" as well.

I am not familiar with the "Chad/Drones" hoax. IF the evidence that went with that hoax was instantly product branded and the product branded versions were distributed by ATS, IF the event coincided with a large private investment and the formation of the LLC, IF the thread discussing the event was kept alive by an inordinate amount of Amigo guidance, then perhaps I would suspect something "fishy" was going on... Does the "Chad/Drones" event fit that criteria?

The argument of "Well, if they did this then why didn't they do that" has never really sat too well with me... "America bombed Japan with atomic weapons... twice. Why don't we bomb some more people with atomic weapons?"

I don't know.

I do feel that since the formation of the LLC Amigo involvement in anything technically illegal is nill or next to nill. Their new relaxed policy regarding the posting of false information by members does the job for them.

For example, I just noticed this the other day:

The whole thread:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread383860/pg1

The OP
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/4844549.html

The 'explanation':
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/4850647.html

The OP is an admitted fabrication. (admitted in his second post on that thread) Despite that it's allowed to run. The guy does not get warned, post banned or perma-banned, zip. The "explanation" is a doozy. The guys legitimate (and quality) work was not getting the recognition he felt it deserved, ergo he perpetuated a Hoax to get attention.

Prior to the formation of the LLC that type of behavior would have been, at the very least, seriously frowned upon. Prior to the formation of the LLP that type of behavior would have induced punitive actions.

You and I have both witnessed that type of behavior being punished in the past...

Since this type of behavior is allowed now, I see no need for an Amigo or Staff Member to become actively involved in a Hoax: The membership is allowed to do it for them.
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

Previous

Google

Return to ATS Watch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron