It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disinformation Agents Need Not Apply, We Have Believers

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz


Have you ever considered that these people with wild claims ARE the disinformation agents? What better way to discredit legitimate cases than to flood the narrative with nonsense? Same goes for conspiracy theories, these "agents" put forth radical claims that overshadow potentially real conspiracies, because the crazier you make the entire group look, the less people pay attention.




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: LowTechRedneck
a reply to: Jenisiz


Have you ever considered that these people with wild claims ARE the disinformation agents? What better way to discredit legitimate cases than to flood the narrative with nonsense? Same goes for conspiracy theories, these "agents" put forth radical claims that overshadow potentially real conspiracies, because the crazier you make the entire group look, the less people pay attention.




They very well could be, but at the end of the day it's up to me as to what I believe. The best way to do this is to research and be willing to accept your opinions may be wrong. I can't confirm what anyone claims, but I can choose to believe.

Majority that preach about skeptics being disinfo agents here are blind believers. I've not once seen a skeptic call it the other way around. Because a skeptic can't prove it. We're not in the business of making wild claims.
edit on 28-10-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz



disinfo agents


Hi Jenisiz,

If you could choose UFOlogy's most exemplary disninfo agent, whom would it be?




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Jenisiz



disinfo agents


Hi Jenisiz,

If you could choose UFOlogy's most exemplary disninfo agent, whom would it be?





Moore and Doty... Doty makes me sick. Or are we talking locally lol


You?

edit on 28-10-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz

My guy is Fred Crisman.

Did you know that Doty was taking stories that were handed over to him by Moore and others (such as Jaime Shandera) and repackaging them in to stuff like the MJ12 documents and the "Aquarius Breifings"?

Doty was effectively feeding the UFO community its own re-processed dog food. Sort of like social engineering and packet forging.



edit on 28-10-2014 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Jenisiz

My guy is Fred Crisman.

Did you know that Doty was taking stories that were handed over to him by Moore and others and repackaging them in to stuff like the MJ12 documents and the "Aquarius Breifings"?

Doty was effectively feeding the UFO community its own re-processed dog food. Sort of like social engineering and packet forging.





I'd read some about that. That's why I can't tolerate liars and hoaxers. It's somewhat disheartening that they were able to for so long. I guess we're more socially connected now that makes it easier to debunk. But it's a double edged blade. It's easier to spread lies now...weather it be disinfo agents or overly excited amateurs. End of the day we truth seekers have to step up our research game lol.
edit on 28-10-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



The problem with anecdotal evidence, even from a credible source, is that it is ALWAYS unreliable. People's brains play tricks on them and those tricks get worse when they are trying to remember events (ex: a fisherman catches a 1 foot long fish that quickly escalates to 2, 3, 4, or higher feet long with each retelling).


It doesn't work like that sometimes. At times a sighting is seen by a down to earth couple who only wish to know what they have seen, and we can't deny that they witnessed something. Even if the what they saw has a mundane explanation, doubting their accounts might not be helpful. That's why there are dedicated researchers to sift out the gold from the spoil.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Well by no means am I discrediting that they witnessed or saw something. I just think that what they saw might not necessarily be what they think they saw.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I saw a UFO once. As my wife and I were watching the sun set and right as it dipped below the horizon, what appeared to be an intensely bright light became visible and slowly faded away. About 20 other people saw it and we were all talking about it. Several of the hippies older work challenged surfer types were convinced "It's aliens maaaan, and they got cauuggghhht."

We video'ed it and got quite a clear shot.

After investigating I discovered it was Venus, and that this is a normal effect.

I have no doubt that many times when people think they saw something they did indeed see it, I just happen to think that more often than not, there is a perfectly plausible explanation.

The problem we get into is that, again more often than not, most people here seem to not like those perfectly plausible explanations because they WANT to believe, and they want to believe that they may be the first ones to prove it.

Edit, fixed for PC.
edit on 29-10-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


Several of the hippies were convinced "It's aliens maaaan, and they got cauuggghhht."


When is this going to be considered "not PC"? Seriously, hippies come here you know.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I can't help it





posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: schuyler

What makes you such an expert? Who are these "crazies"? Where is YOUR proof they are, in fact, "crazy"?

...or is it just...

YOUR OPINION?! Edit:Oh, wow...You have UFO books? You must truly be an expert on what is and is not. /sarcasm


You can easily dispense with the sarcasm tag as your post is too silly to deserve the appellation. You have engaged in a ad hominem attack against me, the person, rather than addressed the issues at hand. That is illogical (technically). You may want to look it up to save you some embarrassment next time.

The reasoning behind alluding to my own background seems to have eluded you, so let me explain in simple terms. The whole idea behind attacking skeptics in the UFO field involves their a priori assumptions about the phenomenon. Skeptics are seen as ignorant of the subject and against it without having studied the issue, against it because they do not believe UFOs exist at all, except perhaps in the technical sense of being unidentified. I wouldn't usually add that last except so many people seem prone to pedantry and point it out as if they were being erudite.

I suppose there are some skeptics who fit that category of being ignorant of the field. I know for certain a large set of believers do as they seem unaware of even basic cases. They've never studied the field. My first post was to express frustration at being someone who has been involved in the field likely since way before you were born, yet being labeled a skeptic AND disinformation agent by people whom I consider ignorant and lacking in the ability to engage in logical discourse, preferring to launch emotion-laden personal attacks such as you have done.

I suppose all knowledge can be labeled opinion at some point. Einstein's equations are his opinion. The writings of Bertrand Russell and Descartes are their opinions. But since prior to Roman times and through the Enlightenment our culture has grown to value some opinions over others, particularly those which are backed by solid research and a depth of knowledge in a field. The tragedy of the Internet Era is that people such as yourself believe equality is self-appointed rather than achieved. So far, at least, you have shown no knowledge of the UFO field at all, yet you see fit to weigh in with your ignorance. I may be wrong, but your posts show no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever. Put another way, if there were a course on UFOs, I would teach it and you would flunk it.

Your aversion to books is noted.

For those who may be interested in a little self-assessment, some years ago I put together an Official UFO Quiz which is not really official and is somewhat dated. But it does contain 101 things one ought to know about the field, at least in my opinion.
edit on 10/29/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I agree with you jenisiz but I found at least on this site their is enough educated people simply posting their "point of view" that you can formulate your own theories and truths...... to some things at least its not much but its a start



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: fltcui
took the words from my mouth well said mate



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I don't see where you were attacked personally?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: schuyler

I don't see where you were attacked personally?


of course you don't, you're too busy making fun of hippies. I guess you're an expert on hippies? Oh right, you learned about all your hippy facts from South park.

just kidding. I hate hippies to



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Hey Schuyler, I think the test is a really good idea, though I don't think too many people would want print it out a write out essay type answers. Did you ever consider making it an online test? Where results could be tallied and logged?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: schuyler

Hey Schuyler, I think the test is a really good idea, though I don't think too many people would want print it out a write out essay type answers. Did you ever consider making it an online test? Where results could be tallied and logged?


I'd like to take one like that



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz

Oh, you don't have ADD? I thought everyone had that by now.


I'm talking online, multiple choice, true false, 15 to 20 minutes. State if you are a believer or skeptic or other. Tally, chart, graphs...
edit on 29-10-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


then maybe we can have the advanced testing version
edit on 29-10-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Jenisiz

Oh, you don't have ADD? I thought everyone had that by now.


I'm talking online, multiple choice, true false, 15 to 20 minutes. State if you are a believer or skeptic or other. Tally, chart, graphs...

then maybe we can have the advanced testing version


Hahahahaha...don't get me started on ADD.

Had a kid I was in home counseling for ADD and just generally bad behavior. In one hour session he had 2 cups of coffee, a full coke and two cookies at 6 years old. As I was leaving after making recommendations for diet changes prior to throwing him on Ritalin as they kept requesting, he proceeded to pee on his sister from the top bunk.

I was referring to the online method. "Ain't nobody got time for that" other essay one lol
great idea though
edit on 29-10-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join