The word 'source' is rarely used as a singular noun because its meaning is so expansive. Basically a source is a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.

So it these terms it certainly is a source. You get 'news' about UFO's and Michelle Obama secretly being a man, and this is the source from which you get it.

You say that disclose.tv is not a source, but go on to say that news media is a source. But by their own definition, disclose.tv is itself a source of news. It defines itself as a

'news hub dedicated to unusual and unexplained phenomena as well as alternative topics that may be ignored, denied or inandequatly covered within the mainstream media'

They have their own writers and they publish their own stories along with other crazies who are encouraged to post their own texts and videos, on subjects usually about UFO's.

Basically disclosetv sees itself as giving us the news that mainstream media dare not.

And no, that wasn't me who misspelt inadequately, they actually spelled it inandequatly on their website, which basically tells you a lot about them.

Heller you can try to persuade me about your notions of what a source is all you want but you will not get anywhere because your logic is faulty. I recommend you read some basic knowledge about Arguement and Fallacy so you know what source means and how it is used in the context I am talking about. I am not interested in your context as it is absurd. According to your ridiculous logic, anyone can be a source on any topic. You are 100% wrong.

Heller, you obviously know more about disclosetv than I do. Please show me one video made by discosetv as I really want to understand what you are talking about.

I now admit I may be wrong because I have never seen or quoted or used any videos as a source that was made by discosetv.

What you're doing now, is delving into semantics because you've been exposed as a man who sees a website as a... let's call it a 'place' rather than a source, in order to avoid getting further bogged down in pedantry... a place where we can be set free by truth, when in actual fact it's a place full choc full of tin-hat wearing nut-jobs who believe that Obama is a secret Jihadist, and that the recent plane shot down in Ukraine was actually already full of corpses. (both these stories are currently on the website).

Turning to the triviality and semantics of words used in an argument is a classic technique of the man who hasn't anything else left to say, but won't walk away.

Whether you believe the word source to mean what i think it means is irrelevant here. You still see that incredibly silly website as a place that we can visit to find truth and you constantly post the address here and recommend we read it. I did. And it's absolutely ridiculous. That was my original point.

@heller
"could obama be supporting the rise of isis"

US politics are shamefully dirty. As the US government is similarly incredibly NOT forthright on a plethora of issues (JFK's assassination, Pearl Harbor, NSA spying, etc ad infinitum) - these are the kinds of behaviors that give root to conspiracy theories.

The USA has done a fantastic job of PR'ing the world to look like the victim of Iran's "aggressions" - however a simple review of the Iran's history graced by US foreign policy should enlighten any reader as to why the people of Iran generally hate the USA more than their own somewhat oppressive government.

President Reagan epitomized political lying by simply giving it another name - "disinformation" - and that made everything OK. THe USA has made a habit of giving evil, unethical, irresponsible, un-American activities new names and in some cases even legalizing - kidnapping = rendition, simulated drowning torture - aggressive interrogation, assassination of US citizens abroad without due process of law = in the interest of national security.

As for wikipedia - it's a reasonably good source of general information for general things. Many of wikipedia's information on sovereign countries used to be derived from the CIA world factbook - a free publication (somewhat dated) that the CIA used to update annually.

THe US government can be an incredible source of free, timely, and reasonably accurate (if not biased) information on population demographics, economics, politics, etc. Good researchers typically seek multiple sources for confirmation - as appropriate.

Did you know the US SR-71 spyplane was kept secret from the general US public for over a decade (possibly prompting a plethora of UFO sightings during those operational years)?

THe US government is NOT our friend (as US citizens). These days, we have an increasingly adversarial relationship with our government and elected officials. Corruption is rampant - want to bribe a US government official - buy a ludicrously priced dinner plate (seriously - can dinner REALLy cost USD 1-100k+ per plate) at a fund-raiser. Or more easily - a Political Action Committee (PAC or super-PAC). These are legal organizations with allegedly NO direct ties to the government official, who campaign on his/her behalf. PACs are blatant black holes for unlimited campaign contributions by special interest groups (aka corporations) - a loophole in the US political election laws. Big business bought out our government decades ago. The signs are evident and growing.

What you're doing now, is delving into semantics because you've been exposed. . .

Heller, you and I will never see eye to eye or agree so if you are truly interested ask others on this forum if youtube or disclosetv is considered a SOURCE.

Who cares about what I think, see what others think on this particular issue.

Sigh. Here are some questions for you:

Do you frequent a website where the content is overwhelmingly concerned with UFO's, aliens, wild conspiracy, sickening lies about recent tragedies, dangerous falsehoods, and an almost perverse obsession with Obama?

Yes. Yes, you do.

Do you openly promote that website, and suggest that with use of it 'the truth can set you free' (your words)

Yes. Yes, you do

Do you expect anyone with even a scintilla of intellect to ever regard that backward website as worthy of reading?

Yes, you clearly do.

And finally, do you believe in UFO's?

I'm going to guess yes on this one, i think you probably do.

The world according to (Moron) Heller. I guess I dont ever have to comment here again since GOD almighty Heller is here to do that for me.

Here are some questions for you:

Do you frequent pedophile websites?
Do you openly promote beastiality?
Do you expect others to respect you when all you show interest in is the world Cup?
Finally, do you believe that you were taken by aliens and they probed your anus so much that your brains have settled in your butt? I'm going to guess yes on this one, i think you probably do.

hahaha, beastiality. this is getting ugly.

Damn. It's reached 13 year-old levels. I think we've reached our nadir. I'll happily say no more on the subject.

You just said more. Just go away and say no more. Make your last post be your last post. It became a 13 year old level when you opened your big fat mouth and replied and spoke on my behalf. Alien did not ask Helen Keller a question, he asked me, Hugo = HFCAMPO.

It is obvious that you are not interested in asking questions. You know so much you can even answer questions for others even when you were not even asked.