Disinformation: ATS's Nemesis.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
ATS's slogan is "Deny Ignorance" this is something we should be all striving to do. But ATS has an enemy, it is disinformation.

So what is disinformation exactly?

Dictionary.com defines Disinformation as this:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: “He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service” (Ken Follett).
2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

Disinformation does not begin and end with government though. Corporations push disinfo also. Disinformation is spread to control you. It is there in plane sight, everyday. You open the newspaper, it is there. You click on the TV, it is there. Even when you sit in front of your computer, it is there.

To "Deny Ignorance" is to deny the disinformation that is spoon fed to us. Many people in the world don't question the information we receive. But on ATS just about all information is challenged.


How is disinformation spread?

There are those that 'make' the disinformation, and there are those who buy into it and repeat it.
Those that make the disinformation are very powerful people such as politicians and CEO s. These are the people with the power. They will do anything to keep the power and to gain more power. Disinformation is a tool for the power corrupted to control how you think. Sometimes it is just used to keep you buying a certain product, other times it is used to manipulate the public's actions.
Then there are those who buy into the disinfo. They may be people you talk to on the street or even right here on ATS. These are not bad people, they have only bought into the disinfo that has been given to them.
Sometimes disinformation comes to us from someone who is on the 'payroll'. These are bad people. They know exactly what they are doing and have been trained to do it.
With the size of ATS it would be naive to think that these agents of disinfo are not among us.
However keep in mind that just because someone doesn't agree with you it makes them a disinfo agent. Although I suppose you would never truly know.
They are there though hiding in plain sight.

What are some disinformation tactics?

There are many tactics used. The following list comes from impiousdigest.com....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. [Witness the Lewinsky scandal, the Elian Gonzalez, Natalie Holloway coverage]

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are methods used against us when we are trying to "Deny Ignorance" I recommend getting to know them.


What do I do if a Disinfo tactic is used on me?

You may think it would be hard to 'battle' with a disinfo tactic but it isn't.

For example, lets say you are facing "5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule."

The thing to do is call them on it.
You say "You are avoiding the issues and trying to sidetrack me with name calling and ridicule. Lets please discuss the issue and stay away from making this a personal issue."

It is that easy.


Will disinformation ever stop?

No. Disinformation will always be there just as greed and superiority will always be here. But that doesn't mean we should give up. Those that spread disinfo know that ATS reaches a lot of people and they see it as a big opportunity to dis inform the public.

This is an opportunity for us also. We have the opportunity to stand up stand against disinfo. We don't have that opportunity when disinfo is spread on TV or in the News Paper.

Good luck and remember, your posts count. You make a difference!



[edit on 25-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
wow Umbrax. Cool stuff.

Thanks. ...When we lived in Santa Fe, my daughter's school taught children how to "deconstruct the media." That is, to learn the different ways media manipulate thinking. I also learned that Santa Fe was home to a big organization dedicated to media education. Sorry - just can't remember the name right now - but I got some of their materials, and they were very good. ...Similar to what you've posted above.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
That is awesome that kids are being educated in that soficrow.

Corporate media is so powerful. It reaches into everyones home and for the most part, people do not question it at all. This is why I like the Internet and ATS.
We can take a corporate news release and pick it apart and discover all sorts of things.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Okay - here's something very related - nrky analyzed why I use different sound effects on my podcasts, and how it works physically - right in line with what you're talking about here:


nrky's analysis of soficrow's style

soficrow's response


.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
There's an information war going on right now, and in that war the powers that be are the occupiers, and websites like ATS are La Résistance Souterraine. It's impossible that there would not be elements who are paid to be here in order to spread disinfo or to provide opposition to certain memes.

One of my conspiracy passions is the events of 9-11, and never have I seen a more concerted and pervasive disinformation campaign than the one which surrounds those events. There are a multitude of websites out there setting up "missile pod" , "no 757" and "holographic plane" strawman garbage to discredit the truth movement.

Regarding individual netizens, on another forum (re physics, not conspiracy) I've even come across a regular 9-11 debunker who eventually admitted that he worked for the public relations sector of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and that part of his job was to frequent Internet forums to prop up that organizations findings within the engineering community. The ASCE was undeniably complicit to at least some degree in the cover-up of demolition charges being used in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma. While this doesn't constitute flat-out evidence of pervasive and deliberate government disinformation campaigns, it does show that it exists, and persons such as that gentleman are likely only the tip of the iceberg.

And then of course you have the exposure of GWB's "manufactured news". In the West we like to think that outright propaganda and distortion of facts in the media only exists in countries like China. When you look at the few, select huge corporations that own all of the media worldwide and then consider their interests and conflicts thereof, this is clearly a comforting illusion. Controlled media is controlled media, whether its by ChiComm tyrants or corporate fat-cats.

The list you laid out is great in that it prepares one for tactics that can be used to undermine even solid arguments, but the use of such tactics by a poster does not necessarily indicate a professional disinfo agent, since many of us will also use such tactics every now and then to get one up on a debating opponent.

Great post, Umbrax, and definitely food for thought.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Nobody can match a government for the sheer brazenness of disinformation put out. Other big establishment organizations such as corporations, media conglomerates, religions, unions, political parties, and other large-scale special interest groups are great users of dis-information as well.

But there is as much if not more disinformation coming from smaller groups these days, including the much-vaunted blogosphere; and especially some of the Internet-based special interest groups such as conspiracy people, many of whom post right here on ATS.

Unfortunately, romantic overtures to the contrary, ATS is not la Résistance Souterraine, but unwitting collaborateurs ennemis.

One of the best (or worst) ways this works is the circular attribution bit. Jones puts forth some far-fetched claim and suggests that anyone doubting it simply look at Sanchez' website which will corroborate it. Sure enough, Sanchez reports the same thing and offers you Smith's book as evidence. Nailing down Smith's book, notice that, although he never saw the whatever before, he cites Yamaguchi, who informs us that he got the story direct from Sanchez.

Wait a minute!

I say you saw it and you say he saw it and he says she saw it and she says I saw it.

And what's the truth? There isn't any!

Someone once spent an inordinate amount of time tracing down a famoux hoax about Russians drilling deep into the earth and discovering Hell -- based on the screams from the damned rising from below. No one quoted in the article actually heard the screams, but said that they got it from another person who really did; and this person, when queried, said, no, he hadn't actually heard the screams, but he'd read in this article about this guy who... and so on and so on. Of course, it finally came out that the entire thing was made up from whole cloth and thus debunked.

But even now, some of the way-behind people will still pass around this bilge in some sort of chain-mail mania, many of them actually believing it.

Another, more recent, piece of disinfo is the "Swiffer-destroying-your-dog's-liver" hoax. This is where someone tells about their sister's cat's grandmother's hairdresser's landlord's second cousin who used a Swiffer on the floor and his dog died. How many people have thrown away their Swiffer-mops over this piece of rubbish, regardles of how many times it's been debunked?

Ignorance is everywhere, and we have to fight it because we're ATS-ers and that's our job.

But the government-disinfo -- or the corporation disinfo or the union disinfo or the political party disinfo or the anti-abortion disinfo or the pro-abortion disinfo -- as abhorrent as it all may be, at least makes sense. These people are lying because they have something to gain by it.

Why would a person lie about poison mops or alligators coming up the drain or "chem-trails"? What do they have to gain from it?

I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with not why people make up these lies, but why people believe them.

For example, if you really really really love President Bush, then you will believe any bilge about him, as long as it's good. We simply can't be losing ground in Iraq or torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib or blowing off a disaster in New Orleans! Contrariwise, if you really really really hate President Bush, then you will believe any bilge about him as long as it's bad. He only has an IQ of 71, he snorts Bolivian Marching Powder every waking minute, he cheated his way through college, he's a member of the Bilder-burgers, he eats Muslim babies with ketchup, and so on.

So many people believe what they want to believe and forget any evidence to the contrary.

Think about it. If you're a hard -core conservative and I came to you saying that I heard stories about fraud, waste, and outright theft among the executive directors of both the ACLU and the NRA, which one would you be inclined to believe?

If you're a Liberal who is convinced that Bush stole the 2000 election and I came toyou with stories that Kerry's father was a KKK member and Jeb Bush was a cross-dressing shemale, which would you tend to believe?

Who's the angel and who's the witch? Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton -- or Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice?

You don't like disinfo? You want to deny ignorance? Then be sceptical of everything!

Especially stories you want to believe.


[edit on 15-10-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The list you laid out is great in that it prepares one for tactics that can be used to undermine even solid arguments, but the use of such tactics by a poster does not necessarily indicate a professional disinfo agent, since many of us will also use such tactics every now and then to get one up on a debating opponent.


You are absolutely right. The list I posted should never be used as a way to identify a disinfo agent. We don't want to start a witch hunt. The list should be used as a valued tool in understanding what a disinfo agent might do.




Off_The_Street, that is excellent advice "..be sceptical of everything! Especially stories you want to believe."

Many of us have fallen into that trap, myself included.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Umbrax

First of all, great thread.

I think it reasonable to assume commercial and government proxies exist for such purposes. However, I'm not sure that means they exist here at ATS. It might be true...it might not... I don't think it really matters. Moreover, there are probably far more people who do not have a commercial or political agenda and still engage in those tactics.

It's my view that as long as there is an expectation on this board that 'substantive' discussion will be protected by the administration of ATS and its membership, I don't think its a problem. All of the items you listed above tend to be easy to identify. Well reasoned discussion that stays on the point of a thread will always be more compelling than any of those. I think most folks get that.

To "Deny Ignorance" is the same as saying "reasonably question everything"- including what you find here on this board.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

It's my view that as long as there is an expectation on this board that 'substantive' discussion will be protected by the administration of ATS and its membership, I don't think its a problem.




I agree.






All of the items you listed above tend to be easy to identify. Well reasoned discussion that stays on the point of a thread will always be more compelling than any of those. I think most folks get that.



True, but some of us need reminding once in a while.



...Seriously though - people today are very sophisticated in how they argue - and sometimes, many adopt "tactics" just kind of intuitively. Or spew arguments and parrot main points without ever considering the implications.

So it's always good to "get conscious" - not just about the info - but also, about the process.


Also - There are several threads here at ATS with links and info about logic, and logical fallacies.



.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

I think it reasonable to assume commercial and government proxies exist for such purposes. However, I'm not sure that means they exist here at ATS. It might be true...it might not... I don't think it really matters. Moreover, there are probably far more people who do not have a commercial or political agenda and still engage in those tactics.


Most defiantly we out number them. But it only takes one person to start the snow ball that is disinfo. People on ATS are not that different from the rest of the population.
Many of us come here to find the truth on a subject but get sidetracked by disinfo. It only takes one person to start the disinformation train. People who buy into it will take it further.

Disinfo is not only used to hide the truth but to also discredit the truth.
For example take the Roswell UFO incident. Take a look at Gazrok's The Case for Roswell. He has posted on ATS all the evidence of the cover up of a crashed UFO. But even though Gazrok was very thorough in his work. Any one person can come and discredit the whole thing and make us look like "crazy" people. In fact many ATSers frown on the UFO & Aliens board thinking it discredits ATS. The board does not discredit ATS. It is disinfo that discredits the 'UFO community'.

In this case disinfo comes from either of these two sources.

1. A paid agent who crates completely absurd nonsense to discredit the whole community.

2. An individual that seeks to profit via books or other media production.

Take Billy Meier as an example here. Because of his and others hoaxes UFO researchers credibility has dropped to a laughable level.

I only use the UFO & Aliens board as an example, but this happens all over ATS subjects. Just to name a few:
War On Terrorism
Peak Oil
Political Conspiracies
9/11 & 7/7 Conspiracies


Look at what David Icke and what he has done to the NWO conspiracy theories. The world will never take the NWO seriously while this guy is talking about Reptilians and the matrix.

MY point is a little bit goes a long way in disinformation.

I've always liked this quote from Mark Twain,
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

With the Internet and global media this is more true today than it was when Twain said it around 100 years ago.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Disinformation comes from all directions, Umbrax. Any time some one becomes so obsessed with their own personal theory that they can no longer absorb facts - please note I said facts, not opinions - they can transition into disinformation agents unwittingly. They don't necessarily have to be paid, though I'm sure there are those as well. Anytime some one refuses to consider the other side of an argument, they become disinformation agents. There is always something to consider on the other side. Even when it seems, at first blush, to completely fly in the face of beliefs you have held long-term. There's always something there you should open your mind to and consider instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

Yes, I believe there are disinformation people here, as there are everywhere you can go and try to discuss issues with an intent to get to the foundational facts. No telling what their individual goals are - it may only be to hold to their own personal beliefs/theories, but that doesn't diminish the wrong they can commit to others who are trying to find the facts and weigh all evidence.

[edit on 10-16-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
This is an awesome self-awareness piece, Umbrax.
Well put together and written, and one I hope has the desired and intended effect that you may be hoping for.


I concur with much of what you have mentioned, as I do with the others that have placed commentary within this awesome topic. I strongly concur with Off_The_Street [hey--you cannot dismiss the wise and respected words of an old fart]. I hope he knows I am joking when I called him an fart, for I was.


My thoughts run along the lines of not who is disseminating the disinformation, because most of them are well-known, but concerns those who actually attempt to discern, detect, decipher, and/or then label such information or entity(s) of as disinformation. How can those that do such be trusted as asserting what is dissinformation and what is not? How can they be correct in doing so? Blatant disinformation is easy to spot and/or be found; it is the seemingly hidden type that tends to be missed, and thus disseminated with little refuting or questioning or can pass simple logic or logical fallicies scrutiny.

I am not trying to wholly refute you or anyone else here when they assert "Yeah, I know it when I see it" or "I know there are those that disseminate such" type mentions [then again, maybe I am], but what I am concerned with is just who is the trustworthy identifier(s) of disinformation. Who correctly rings that alert bell of 'disinformation' with knowledged and unrefutable authority?

To me, the discernment of disinformation is like trying to label or argue the analogy of who is a terrorist and who is not, where it is said that One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I hope you understand what I am getting at here.

Good job on this though, Umbrax.

An exceptional, thought provoking topic.




seekerof

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am concerned with is just who is the trustworthy identifier(s) of disinformation. Who correctly rings that alert bell of 'disinformation' with knowledged and unrefutable authority?


A very good point.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive"
- Sir Walter Scott

The depth of disinformation is unknown, even to those with an open mind. How far does it go?
If a paid agent can come here to spread disinfo, then they could very well be a disinfo agent pointing at the truth and calling it disinformation.

Those who spin the deceptions are very good at it. They have had practice.

Take a look at disinformation via advertisements. There was a time where cigarette companies claimed in their adds that Cigarettes can eliminate PMS in women, Can help you lose weight, and Bring health to your mouth and throat.
Watch this clip from www.hollywoodjesus.com.

Listen to what the presenter says, "these (adds) are all from the 40's and 30's, we look at some of the adds in retrospect and laugh. But I ask you a question, what is the generation after this one going to say about the advertising in our time?"

The clip ends talking about Coke and Pepsi being the biggest thirst quencher.
Well that is what Coca-cola is advertising.


They even say it on the Internet.


Can soft drinks be part of a healthy diet?
Soft drinks contribute to the diet in two ways. Because they are predominantly water, they can help quench thirst and meet the body's fluid requirement...

www.coca-colabottling.co

Uh...? A bottle of sugar water and caffeine is thirst quenching? Well actually it makes you dehydrated and more thirsty than before you drank the stuff.


Every time we turn on the TV, open the News Paper, even log onto the Net we are faced with disinformation.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax

Many of us come here to find the truth on a subject but get sidetracked by disinfo.

I think that's because intent to find truth does not mean you have the understanding of how to actually do it. Many people go to Church because it's their way to "find truth", since they think their religion is all based on truth. They may have started out by wondering what the truth is, and then were sucked into a dogmatic belief system, and this is no different than anyone on ATS that starts out with the intention of finding truth, and then is sucked into some assumption or belief and sticks to it regardless of evidence. I think what is most vital is what has already been said, to question absolutely EVERYTHING and make no assumptions, and constantly WATCH YOURSELF because we often assume automatically, without even realising it. As soon as you make an assumption, you turn away from truth, at least in that area, which may in fact turn out to be a huge area and intricately interconnected with other areas and as a result provide a major clue to understanding the bigger picture. But if you block one part by making an assumption and believing it to be true, you don't know just how much you're truly preventing yourself from seeing and understanding as a result. It's a non-linear world, after all.



For example take the Roswell UFO incident. Take a look at Gazrok's The Case for Roswell. He has posted on ATS all the evidence of the cover up of a crashed UFO. But even though Gazrok was very thorough in his work. Any one person can come and discredit the whole thing and make us look like "crazy" people.

I agree but I think that the truth cannot be discredited in and of itself (it's still the truth), but a souce can be discredited so that his messages are perceived as lies or delusions, and people can be made to throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, anyone who does this is already NOT seeking truth, they allow themselves to believe something and as a result they let themselves be controlled and blinded. The truth can be hidden by discrediting everything else around it and "muddying" the picture so much you don't know which way is up and which way is down sometimes. If the truth is a needle, build a haystack around it and although the truth IS there somewhere, it is so frustrating and difficult to find, most people don't even bother, and many who try give up after the 1000th lie they come across. Some even conclude that the truth does not exist at all.



Look at what David Icke and what he has done to the NWO conspiracy theories. The world will never take the NWO seriously while this guy is talking about Reptilians and the matrix.

Of course, he may very well be correct and that reptillians do exist, do control this world, and the world may be just a Matrix-like control system pulled over our eyes. The problem is not that this is some "obviously false" idea that is used to make people ignore the entire NWO concept. It very well COULD be this, because such tactics are often used (sometimes unwittingly). However, it could also be TRUE, but the possibility of it being true simply sounds absurd to most people, because it is so different from the reality they were conditioned to believe. A human NWO conspiracy is much easier to swallow than a hyperdimentional one. Some people, in their search for truth, go only as far as understanding the human part, and create a "sacred cow" for themselves to avoid any possibility beyond that, because they BELIEVE it is "absurd". So they only see a small part of truth and prevent themselves from being able to see anything else.

Icke may be correct, in part. Perhaps some of Icke's ideas ARE false, which tends to discredit the rest, which may indeed be true. For example, there may be Reptilians and a Matrix control system, but perhaps the idea that our government are shape-shifting reptilians in disguise is the fallacy. But let us not make the very mistake we're discussing here and throw out the baby with the bathwater until we know what is the baby, if there is one, and what is the bathwater.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by lilblam]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Just another tidbit to throw into the pot.

Someone recently told me they wanted to "protect" the young and innocent from disinformation - by censoring the information they were exposed to.

My response - You can't. All you can do is give them the tools - to research, think, analyze - and then trust them to do their best. ...It's called freedom.

So IMO - a very big part of what we do here is share tools - intellectual tools - and help others learn how to use them. And this post is a good example.


Thanks again Umbrax.


.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Awesome post. I was looking for a list like this JUST the other day in fact, to reply to a thread here where nearly EVER reply fit one of these catagories.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
That's right soficrow we can't just use censorship. Censorship only promotes more censorship.

People need the tools that we can come up with. I suppose the first tool is awareness. I'm sure the average Joe on the street wont even know what were are talking about in this thread.
Maybe the average Joe doesn't even care?
That makes our work on ATS that much harder.

Average Joe reads an article like this, Passive smoking will not kill you, and Joe will completely buy into it. Joe will tell his friend what he read and the disinformation spreads. Unfortunately Joe didn't take a deeper look into the article.
The article goes against what the World Health Organization (WHO) has been saying for years. Right away that should of set off Joe's alarms. But Joe believes that if it is print then it must be true.
If Joe decided to research the report he would of found that the study was done by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, who was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research. An organization that was put together by several tobacco companies.
In fact the study was slammed by a former U.S. surgeon general and the American Cancer Society.

Examples of disinformation from the tobacco industry are easy to see. Unfortunately there are other groups that are much better at it and don't have groupes like the WHO showing us the reality of things.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
Unfortunately there are other groups that are much better at it and don't have groupes like the WHO showing us the reality of things.


Is this the same WHO that advocates for population control, the same WHO that was dealing out polio vaccinations throughtout Africa in the late 70's and early 80's, and wherever they went with their little injections, the AIDS virus mysteriously popped up?

Truth, deception, information and disinformation; it's all like a Swiss pastry, layer upon layer upon layer...

Everyone has an agenda. Everyone has secrets.

Like Off_The_Street says, be skeptical of everything...and trust NO-ONE!


[edit on 2005-10-17 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Is this the same WHO that advocates for population control, the same WHO that was dealing out polio vaccinations throughtout Africa in the late 70's and early 80's, and wherever they went with their little injections, the AIDS virus mysteriously popped up?


Without wanting to be guilty of number 17 - so very briefly:

It's interesting you say that when you look at this story in ATSNN today:

Bush Demands Release Of Bulgarian Nurses Guilty Of Injecting Children With AIDS

[edit on 17-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
That is very interesting wecomeinpeace. I can't really debate what you have said but I did find this information on the web.

Regarding the polio vaccination theory that created AIDS, I believe that has been shown to be false.

This was all started by Edward Hooper's book "The River." In the book he suggested that HIV could be traced to the testing of a polio vaccine called Chat. His belief is that Chat was grown in kidney cells taken from local chimps infected with SIV (Simian immunodeficiency virus). Then the vaccine spread to human creating HIV. This was one in the 50's
Apparently the vaccine was analyzed and showed that no trace had been found of HIV or chimpanzee SIV. A second analysis confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat.

As far as I know the WHO doesn't deal out or distribute vaccines, and I can't find anything in their Policy statements regarding the advocation of population control.



At any rate I don't know much about the subject and this probably deserves it's own thread.

The point I was trying to make is that other sources of disinfo do not have powerful opponents like the tobacco industry does.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join