I know many of you don't like him much....but I just thought I would post this little nugget for you...Jesse Ventura is doing a question and answer session since yesterday over on ATS, each member is getting to ask him a question.....
Question from a forum member..
Jesse Ventura's answer just a little while ago....



Just to let you know, I've asked him in typical British humour fashion if he'll miss Pierce Morgan much....I'll let you know if he responds....

Bloody hell he answered!!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1005486/pg20

Yay...I made him laugh....and I don't care what yous lot think

angelchemuel wrote:
Nice one

angelchemuel wrote:

Being honest I don't really like ATS. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground there. Its either complete closed minds or complete whackos. Both of whom operate on belief instead of evidence.

A good example of a closed minded sweeping statement there SR.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Wrong. That has been my experience of the place, Mr Trolly Trollston.

SilvaRizla wrote:
The experience of your closed mind says that, they're either this or that, both are wrong. Thank heavens you're here to keep us all right about that SR.
Of course you won't like my comment as you're you, I'm me, I can say that I've read one or two logical posts over there that quite agree with your own posts relating to Dr Wood, and in general agreement with Dr Woods findings, thus they are using the same evidence as you, btw I'm not bothered about your petty insults, though you've now made your self appear somewhat hypocritical.

I guess you'll just continue calling me a troll as self defence and distraction kicks in.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Twisting words again I see. I call you a troll because that's what you are, plain as day for all to see.

The experience of my closed mind says this or that? That's not what I said. My experienced open mind has NOTICED that there isn't much middle ground, and as such it is rather difficult to have a proper discussion over there (much as it is with you actually).

Carry on....

SilvaRizla wrote:
Edit

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread549489/pg4&mem=

It's all the stuff you talk about re Dr Wood, they seem to be having a reasonable debate.

So I don't see how you conclude that it's so difficult, there not calling each other trolls, etc. on that thread..that's the behaviour that makes conversation difficult.

I guess the 'problem' could be you and not them Re Middle Ground.

Perhaps you're not as reasonable as you think.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Didn't click the link.

You see, to make a balanced assessment of something, you have to look at is as a whole, not at one thread like you have done. Of course there are exceptions, there always will be in generalities. You are actually a good example, in the Dr Wood thread, its only towards the end when you start to become an insufferable twat, and don't seem in the slightest bit grateful to anyone's contribution. If you took that thread on its own, someone could be forgiven for thinking you were just having an off day and were generally a nice guy, but if you view you entirely, the picture is pretty clear.

I'm very reasonable (opinionated, but reasonable). The only problem here I'm afraid, is you.

SilvaRizla wrote:
I hate to repeat myself ( I know it's annoying for some) but I don't think I'm getting through..
SR wrote
So they're either this closed minded or that whacko.

So the this and that I refer to is your statement of either closed minded or whacko.

So nothing else?

Then I provide a link that shows your statement to be false, as they are referencing Dr Wood etc (as you do)

And you won't even look at the link as it proves you wrong in your conclusion of ATS.

Surely that makes you closed minded. You won't even view the evidence.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
I won't click your link because it isn't evidence, it is straw man. With regard to my initial statement, the key word is seem. I am inferring that there isn't much in the way of middle ground and the bulk of the forum in my eyes is made up of polar opposites each as close minded as their counter part.

Your tiny little mind has said that I have said you are black or you are white, or thereabouts.
Cousin Tackler wrote:
Define Seem:

To give the impression of being a particular way. ATS as a whole, gives that impression

Thats the impression I got, and that's why I don't like ATS. Not that I have to justify myself to you of course.

Troll away, Mr Trollston.

SR wrote

Ok then can we agree that you 'seem' to have been wrong about ATS, and they're not either 'whacko' or 'closed minded' some are 'reasonable and use factual 'evidence' to credit their beliefs?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
The overall impression is still there, and whilst that's the case I will forever dislike it. That's my opinion. Why should I bother to peel off layers to find gems that have been posted on other forums that have better first impressions?

This forum for instance, the overall impression is much better. In the finer details we find people like yourself but hey, nothing's perfect.

There are plenty of closed minded people on ATS and they appear to outnumber others. No doubt some are reasonable, this shouldn't need discussing, but the overall impression does not do them a service. As such, I don't like the place.

Do you understand now?

Yes I do understand now that you're original statement has been qualified by your explanation.

It's a bit like that 'other' place that we all know so well, and there are some who are not close minded or whacko there either....

If you were referring to the heavy handed admin (I hear of) and the 'way out' unproven conclusions about things, based on superstition then yes that would have been reasonable.

I don't think you'd need to dive to far below the surface to find reasonable & objective debate, I happen to know that some of the things that you and I have typed on SZ, would be seen as a bit cranky by some, Hutchinson etc... ( In their opinion)

I already happen to have made a point here on a thread about crop circles where the evidence is somewhat dodgy (imo), but then other threads, the evidence is better.(imo)

So I don't see much difference, only that by ATS being bigger it will likely have more people with less experience, I don't think those people should be used as a measure of ATS in general.

Your post seemed quite snobby.





It's one of them things SR, you can look at ATS and see shite, or you can go to the threads where reasonable debate occurs.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
I don't think you do quite understand, its not what is being spoken about that has given me that impression and I think this might have been why you got all uppity. I was not being snobby, I was just stating my opinion on my impression of ATS.

For me, what I have noticed that I didn't like wasn't the subject matter, I literally am open to absolutely everything provided that the evidence supports it, my issue was that I had noticed people there seem to either discount any real evidence straight off (not straw man or conjecture), or blindly believe without any evidence whatsoever. No doubt there will be exceptions, but to me, my initial experience was the same time after time.

Not like yourself, where you actually looked at any evidence presented re the Dr Wood thread and based opinions off that, my experience was that any potential evidence wasn't given the time of day if it challenged pre-conceived beliefs.

That isn't truth seeking, and hence it isn't for me.

I feel I have given you a hard time in this thread that isn't fully warranted, I'm a bit grumpy today, I apologise.

I guess it's sometimes about the value of evidence, I mean some people would not believe (for example) Dr Wood, as the evidence they want is the 'DEW equipment' to be photographed as it was used.

So others might be satisfied with, it has to be DEW as any other energy has been 'debunked' (it's debatable whether that would count as evidence or not).

It just seems the most likely outcome...

So it's not a matter of 'no evidence' it's a matter of different posters will require different amounts of evidence to use to base their conclusions on, some will need 100% proof others anything over 50% and so on....

Or it's all a cover up and a manipulation anyway.

Some say Dr Wood is being handled by Reynolds.

So the evidence is there to pick from, it's just what level of evidence is needed for each individual for them to believe in it, the truth is hidden.

People don't often want to see evidence that collapses their efforts.

So do we find the facts and create a theory, or do we create a theory and put it through the ringer? ( I don't mean you to answer that question)
I'd say we need to have a factual basis for a start or have real evidence of similar false flags, as a starting point, that's why we get Sandy Hook being brought up in relation to Boston Bombers, as ' here tptb go again, right let's find some evidence'.

And thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant., the only problems I get, with the whole truthseeker thingy, is when 'they' ( be it ATS or wherever) debunk evidence because it does not fit with what they think and.....

One of the reasons I do not log into ATS is I would be tempted to let rip at certain people.
There is a full time crew of instant debunkers who jump on within seconds to shout down and ridicule any non-mainstream thinking. Close minded blockheads. Some of these names exude arrogance like an arrow frog's poison.....
I'm usually fairly laid back but ATS can wind me up so I tend to visit rarely and mainly for the Ancient Mysteries - some good thread starters there....
So ATS is an acquired taste unless frequent spitting tempers the bad taste of some on there. Meh!