Netvocates: Our debunkers revealed

Originally posted by Majic

Wolf In Wolf's Clothing

Verily verily I say unto thee: there is probably no way of knowing who is paid and who isn't, because they all come from the same pool of people, and they all believe that what they're doing is right.

They will use the same tactics as unpaid activists because that's exactly why they're hired: to blend in.

Thus to suspect someone is being paid simply because they're fanatical about some cause or another, or use troll tactics, is to forget that a hell of a lot more people do it for free.

Which is why my advice is to not worry about it, because we can't stop them from doing it.

As a defense against this sort of manipulation, may I suggest skepticism?

There is a way to tell who is paid and who isn't, or at least get a good clue. Ordinary people do not have time or reason to monitor and counter data posted on BB's. Ordinary people DO NOT WORK TOGETHER. Admitted, the right wing has an agenda and will organize to a degree but when the integrity of the posted data is questioned as to it's support of illegal government, they most often back off. The ones that are not paid do not have a reason to fight the principles they deeply believe in and so will give up and go away.

I started arguing 9-11 in 2002 on courttv.com. There was average resistence from a number of posters. It was easy to tell they were cooperating, but, when I started talking about the US Constitution and its spiritual/sacred meanings, the opposition ususally reacted by stopping the BS opposition, or showing respect for my intentions and identifying them as their own. The hard core right might jump in every now and then to try and diss a point but it was brief and clear that there was minimal cooperation.

Now, anywhere you go (particuarly in the last year) there are at least a half dozen that are incessant with the confusion, distraction and bogus opposition. Bogus meaning; no evidence, selective use of evidence, unwillingness to recognize priorities of lawfulness in government, posting BS images to take up space and push relevant information off the last page. What gives away their cooperation is that they generally start this up at the same time, after their attempts to dismiss the information have failed, or when other genuine posters show agreement.

The worst I've ever seen is,

forums.randi.org...

randi.org is supposed to be a forum that honors intellectual pursuits and academic methods. However it appears as a debunkers toilet where undesireable concepts, (no matter how well evidenced) are quickly flushed (attempted) by a well organized and prepared group. It's easy to tell some are military people also. What is most obvious is that there is not one supporter on the thread. Usually there is at least one.

The thread I've linked to I started some weeks back, whereupon I was suspended for a few days for using hot links, now I'm suspended for reporting unreasonable posts taking up space on the thread. Opposition posting pictures of cats or baking recipes because they cannot produce a reasonable argument and mine are so compelling they must do something. That behavior is typical.

The site handicaps posters by requiring that images be uploaded and images over a certain size or having too long of a url are not accepted. the forum software has also set to not carry the quoted material upon reply. Meaning that a series of exchanges are not easy to keep coherent and show a history of errors, manipulations or deceptions.

LoneGunMan, thank for starting this thread. It is a service to truth, justice and liberty.


[edit on 24-6-2006 by Christophera]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24/6/2006 by Umbrax]

I guess I don't see a problem with this. We should all be wary of ideas and opinions whether come from Fox News, CNN, CBS, or on an internet forum. I really don't care if a company pays people to post certain ideas or whatever. It's up to us to judge those opinions and decide for ourselves whether we agree. The insidious part is when people post things as facts that are either unproven or flat out lies or when someone tries to fein political neutrality in the hopes of having more credibility when they secretly have an agenda.
The reason I respect people such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Combes, Franken is that they admit their political slant. You may not agree with them but at least they are not trying to hide anything.

Although taking "official" stories as gospel out of hand is not the most intellectual of pursuits, It's also equally intellectually bankrupt to believe in unproven conspiracies just because you disagree or have a personal dislike of particular individuals in the government. 9/11 may have been the most historic event in the last 200 years for America. One must be very careful where one lines their beliefs on that event. You have the official story and who knows how many conspiracy theories. I personally have not seen any factual evidence that stands up to full scrutinity to rebuke the official story. That doesn't mean I'm not open to the idea of alternate versions of events. I just need real, factual, evidence.


[edit on 24-6-2006 by Apoc]

[edit on 24-6-2006 by Apoc]

This is one of the best exposes I've seen on ATS in a long time. The fire guy gets my vote

Thanks

Originally posted by Apoc
I guess I don't see a problem with this. We should all be wary of ideas and opinions whether come from Fox News, CNN, CBS, or on an internet forum. I really don't care if a company pays people to post certain ideas or whatever. It's up to us to judge those opinions and decide for ourselves whether we agree. The insidious part is when people post things as facts that are either unproven or flat out lies or when someone tries to fein political neutrality in the hopes of having more credibility when they secretly have an agenda.
The reason I respect people such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Combes, Franken is that they admit their political slant. You may not agree with them but at least they are not trying to hide anything.

Although taking "official" stories as gospel out of hand is not the most intellectual of pursuits, It's also equally intellectually bankrupt to believe in unproven conspiracies just because you disagree or have a personal dislike of particular individuals in the government. 9/11 may have been the most historic event in the last 200 years for America. One must be very careful where one lines their beliefs on that event. You have the official story and who knows how many conspiracy theories. I personally have not seen any factual evidence that stands up to full scrutinity to rebuke the official story. That doesn't mean I'm not open to the idea of alternate versions of events. I just need real, factual, evidence.


[edit on 24-6-2006 by Apoc]

[edit on 24-6-2006 by Apoc]

You nailed that one nicely Apoc. One of the most consistant traits that conspiracy theorists seem to have is that in reality the facts have no bearing on the conclusions they arrive at and it always boils down to having a ideological/political bias.

If a dissussion is going on about a particular piece of evidence, in very short order the disscussion with morph into some political rant be it PNCA--Operation Northwoods-- elections--NWO etc. Every frickin' time.

Originally posted by Vushta
One of the most consistant traits that conspiracy theorists seem to have is that in reality the facts have no bearing on the conclusions they arrive at and it always boils down to having a ideological/political bias.

If a dissussion is going on about a particular piece of evidence, in very short order the disscussion with morph into some political rant be it PNCA--Operation Northwoods-- elections--NWO etc. Every frickin' time.

Why would you ever think that? I for one was an ardent Bush supporter right after 9/11. Remember when he had his arm around that battallion chief for the FDNY and said I hear you and soon those people that knocked these buidings down will here from you. I LOVED that man at that time! I never even thought about conspiracy theory, I always had my mind on the fire service and saving lives.

Nothing on 9/11 added up though. The lack of fighter coverage, that way those buiding collapsed and believe me I have seen plenty go down. My point is it was never a polital agenda for me. Never. It was what has always driven me, and that is the fact that I have a hard time understanding people that do not do the RIGHT THING. The governement never lead us properly after 9/11, theymade us less safe and I see both sides as corrupt. Not republicans, I was one. Not Democrats, my father is one. The whole system is corrupt, its not left or right, but what is the the RIGHT thing to do and they never did it.

No agenda, just opening up the eyes.

Edit to say:

Thank you SteveR!

[edit on 24-6-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by Apoc
The insidious part is when people post things as facts that are either unproven or flat out lies or when someone tries to fein political neutrality in the hopes of having more credibility when they secretly have an agenda.
The reason I respect people such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Combes, Franken is that they admit their political slant. You may not agree with them but at least they are not trying to hide anything.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no one in mainstream media that can be trusted and rather than let them control your perceptions, ignore them and focus on information having to do with your needs or the needs of others in your surroundings. Why? You needs are like everybody elses and this creates respect for others separate from the information agenda of corporations that were are too dependent on for everything from our news to our food. So what you say below is more true than you present it.

Originally posted by ApocI guess I don't see a problem with this. We should all be wary of ideas and opinions whether come from Fox News, CNN, CBS, or on an internet forum. I really don't care if a company pays people to post certain ideas or whatever. It's up to us to judge those opinions and decide for ourselves whether we agree. .

Yes, we should seek out opinions from with the ranks of citizens who have separated from the corporate news sources for some time, then look for consistency and reasoning amongst them.

Originally posted by ApocAlthough taking "official" stories as gospel out of hand is not the most intellectual of pursuits, It's also equally intellectually bankrupt to believe in unproven conspiracies just because you disagree or have a personal dislike of particular individuals in the government. 9/11 may have been the most historic event in the last 200 years for America.

Yes, any opinion based on a media cultivated from a like or dislike of a corporate media figure will be disappointing eventually. Likewise, to avoid reliance on major interpretations of events by media will spare one from investing too deeply in any misinformation. So deeply that there is an emotional attachment to a position that is basically erroneous.

Originally posted by Apoc
One must be very careful where one lines their beliefs on that event. You have the official story and who knows how many conspiracy theories. I personally have not seen any factual evidence that stands up to full scrutinity to rebuke the official story. That doesn't mean I'm not open to the idea of alternate versions of events. I just need real, factual, evidence.

After 40 years of dumbing us down with television and film with its fictional re enactments and dramatizations, the hidden past is now also distorted, resulting in a bizarre separation from the true past we have. Wherein our actual position is not discernable by most of the population no matter how far they distance themselves from reliance on corporate media output. We are now going into the third generation of complete investment in the corporate system, with global warming established and we have no handle whatsoever on our energy consumption, meaningful conservation or regional cooperations. No, we are fighting wars that cannot be justified by any means, but the forces that control television will not be answerable for anything in the "fair" system they maintain.

Originally posted by Vushta
You nailed that one nicely Apoc. One of the most consistant traits that conspiracy theorists seem to have is that in reality the facts have no bearing on the conclusions they arrive at and it always boils down to having a ideological/political bias.

What about the situation where a person with a lifetime of experience with high explosive immediately sees a high speed series of detonations on 9-11 at the WTC and realizes the impossibility of such optimum placement or distribution of explosives without including them during construction.

Originally posted by VushtaIf a dissussion is going on about a particular piece of evidence, in very short order the disscussion with morph into some political rant be it PNCA--Operation Northwoods-- elections--NWO etc. Every frickin' time.

Such a person would probably know nothing of those rants and instead be desperately seeking a coherent group to discuss their observations and conclusions.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You ever wonder why some people on this forum just cannnot
seem to accept that some very suspicious things happened on 9/11?

No.

You ever wonder why some people on this forum just cannot
seem to accept that some radical islamists decided to attack
America on the orders (and with the financial backing) of UBL?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Seriously, at least this explains 2 members i can think off hand

Who would they be dg? Lemme' know. I'll contact them and see
if I can sign up and actually get some $$$ for hanging out here and
chatting.

In reply to Lonegunman.


Then in my opinion you don't fit the mold of a conspiracy theorist and the way you honestly express your views proves this to me. I think most CTs are in fact politically/ideologically motivated, thought like a religious conversion, the more one "believes" the more ones eyes close to reality. Just like people who "prove" the bible is true by pointing to whats written in the bible and if you provide a convincing arguement against it you're either an "agent of the devil" or "blind to the truth". They just cannot grasp how illogical that is. There seems to be a point where a genuine curiosity in people about 911 turns into a "born again" experience under the disinformation assault by the CT organizations and after awhile the facts will have no more of a chance of being accepted than the facts of evolution being pointed out to a creationist.


I have NEVER been a Bush supporter in any way. I never voted republican in my life and think that both parties are little more than shills for business. 911 and Bushes response did nothing to have me change my mind.

The lack of fighter coverage, that way those buiding collapsed and believe me I have seen plenty go down.

Stating that there was a lack of coverage implies that there was for some reason "less" coverage on 911 than normal. What are you basing that on?

The buildings fell in the only way a building that tall could have fallen. You may have seen many building fall but you've never seen a building of the scope fail. No one has and this is probably why it seemed unusual. We intuitively base what looks "right" on a history of information of past similiar experiences. NO ONE had the visual history before 911.

The whole system is corrupt, its not left or right but what is the the RIGHT thing to do and they never did it.

I think that is correct, but it creates an environment of opportunity to sway and brainwash the people to one side or the other using misinformation, half truth and out and out lies. This is where the CTs, whos true motivation is a political/ideological bias, are hoping people will be "born again" into the"light" of their truth...for political and ideological reasons.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Nothing on 9/11 added up though. The lack of fighter coverage, that way those buiding collapsed and believe me I have seen plenty go down.

Those factors are true and I recognize, verify they are of great importance. However, in circles of "Cyber Storm" activity on message boards, they mean nothing, and mods rarely are capable of making judgements and taking actions that protect them, or retain the truth. They continously fail to enforce a rule of reason, and so allow non reason to trash reason to be "fair" to the poster and expect those supporting the truth to return day after day to oppose the same arguments which have NO evidence, and almost no reasoning and to do so ad infinatum. This is how we loose the future.

The issue of veracity, importance and priority are ignored by mods. This happens in the environment you describe where supporters of the truth having facts that dominate the issue which are totally ignored by moderators or other forum administration as if they were blind and lame to everything except fairness, leaving the lone truth seeker using reasoning and evidence to fight their battle alone. The erroneous assumption that "if its true then others will see and join in and prevail by strenght of number" seems to be behind this inaction by board administration even when a dozen or so detractors with no evidence whatsoever post baking recipes and pictures of cats to drive quality evidence and analysis off the last page and bury it in obscurity.

As if the business of running an internet forum totally fair to the individual was more important than the integrity of the US government or peace on earth. Or as if organized groups were not consolidating on forums to make information disappear in a fluury of nonsense posts and as if those assemblies of posters are good Americans trying to utilize their right to communicate freely.


[edit on 25-6-2006 by Christophera]

a fluury of nonsense posts

You mean like trying to convinse people that the rebar was buttered with C4 at the time of construction or that some massive--tho invisible to all--explosion turned everything to dust?

Originally posted by Vushta

a fluury of nonsense posts

You mean like trying to convinse people that the rebar was buttered with C4 at the time of construction or that some massive--tho invisible to all--explosion turned everything to dust?

Hey,

That is not a flurry of posts. You've only posted one with nonsense.

Originally posted by Vushta
invisible to all--explosion turned everything to dust?

Is that a joke? invisible... it's not the word that comes to my mind when thinking of the wtc collapse, dunno why some people around here have to resort to complete denial of the obvious and outright bizzare statements which simply cannot be attributed to and recognizable trains of thought. invisible, huh?

reminds me a bit of

war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

ever wondered why people continue talking to people who can't seem to adress any given point that contradicts their obvious agenda? these collapses and impact sites were crime scenes... k, let's ship it all far away and have hundreds of agents trample all over the place. and while we're at it, destroy all video tapes

nothing to see here, UBL; UBL; UBL
don't wanna listen, see ?

right handed, overweight UBL !

UBL

get's tedious, doesn't it? even if bin laden did his part, it doesn't take an ounce of evidence off the huge pile of stuff indicting the gov't, media, corpocracy, what have you.


[edit on 25-6-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Vushta
invisible to all--explosion turned everything to dust?

I was referring to the "explosions" comment not the actual collapse itself. There were no causual explosions.





[edit on 25-6-2006 by Long Lance]

ever wondered why people continue talking to people who can't seem to adress any given point that contradicts their obvious agenda?

Yes. I have and have been repeatedly stating so.

these collapses and impact sites were crime scenes... k

This is correct. They were crime scenes and it took almost 5 years to examine and test the evidence. This is a know fact. Not complete enough for you??

let's ship it all far away and have hundreds of agents trample all over the place. and while we're at it, destroy all video tapes :

This is a known fallacy.

nothing to see here,

Thats the cant and tome of the CTs when evidence is presented to them.

get's tedious, doesn't it? even if bin laden did his part, it doesn't take an ounce of evidence off the huge pile of stuff indicting the gov't, media, corpocracy, what have you.

You just changed the subject. Why are you implying that my position has anything to do with Bin Laden? Predictable. But since you brought him up--what do you think OBL "part" was?--is he in on it with the gubment too--or just a patsy?

Bin Laden has nothing to do with the physical evidence at the collapse site or its evaluation neither does the "media" the gov. or the "corpocracy".

What "huge pile" of evidence? For the umpteenth time--The CTs have provided zero evidence to support their yet to be stated alternate hypothysis--and yes it does get tedious.

Originally posted by Vushta

let's ship it all far away and have hundreds of agents trample all over the place. and while we're at it, destroy all video tapes :

This is a known fallacy.

So, you're going to tell me that video cameras of the sheridan hotel, a gas station, highway and pentagon surveillance all 'malfunctioned' except ONE ? which showed 5 frames dated sept 12th.

Pile of evidence = this entire forum, should i repeat it all now? don't think so. if you got eyes to see you can see through obfuscation.

Originally posted by Christophera

Originally posted by Vushta

a fluury of nonsense posts

You mean like trying to convinse people that the rebar was buttered with C4 at the time of construction or that some massive--tho invisible to all--explosion turned everything to dust?

Hey,

That is not a flurry of posts. You've only posted one with nonsense.

Hey,

Thats not answering the question.---as usual.

So, you're going to tell me that video cameras of the sheridan hotel, a gas station, highway and pentagon surveillance all 'malfunctioned' except ONE ? which showed 5 frames dated sept 12th

There was none at the Sheridan.

You're the only one whos mentioning "malfunction".
The other videos will most likely be released. Why you think a gas station camera whos focus is aimed at the areas of a vehicles plate number will show what was going on at the pentagon is hard to grasp.

I think you're misrepresenting the video that WAS released by stating---5 frames-- like others were cut out.
No--- 5 frames is ALL the video that showed anything. At 2-5 frames a sec. any other video would simply show the pentagon sitting there--or a continuation of the explosion. The controversy was any footage that would show the object coming into the video frame and striking the pentagon.---5 frames is all there was.

I've seen captures of the video and sorry, if you can't make out a plane more than a missile you better get your eyes checked.

Pile of evidence = this entire forum, should i repeat it all now?

Thats not necessary--but it is a clever way of avoiding the point--how about just repeating ONE BIT of evidence for starters?

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Vushta
invisible to all--explosion turned everything to dust?

I was referring to the "explosions" comment not the actual collapse itself. There were no causual explosions.

Tell me this is caused by falling steel.

Working Together

Originally posted by Christophera
Ordinary people do not have time or reason to monitor and counter data posted on BB's. Ordinary people DO NOT WORK TOGETHER.

My observations don't support this. If this was true, most boards would be deserted.

You don't have to pay people to push an agenda online. I've seen people do this aggressively and fanatically since I first started hitting dial-up BBSs in the late 1980s. I've seen the phenomenon in every online medium since then.

It's human nature: people want other people to agree with them. It helps to mollify their own uncertainties.

As for working together, see: Troll organization. Trolls have been around longer than the Internet, and are (with perhaps some exceptions I don't know about) not about money.

Short of actually seeing money change hands, I have seen nothing proposed here or anywhere else that could reliably identify who is pushing agendas for money, and who is pushing them for free.

You don't have to pay people to do what they would do anyway.

Buying Free Milk

It's not clear to me that Netvocates even pays the activists they claim to recruit.

Why should they when they can get them for free?

The only job openings they have listed are for management positions, not activists.

I'm sure the managers get paid, but if they can roust up the usual suspects to do their online dirty work for free, they would be fools to pay them -- or even mention that money or a client is involved.

As the old saying goes: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

The Free Agenda

My advice remains the same. Be skeptical. Question everything. Admit you can be wrong.

Assuming that others must be paid shills because they persistently disagree is itself a form of self-deception.

In my opinion, a much better line of inquiry would be to examine why the idea that people can legitimately disagree on any issue is so difficult for some to accept.

The answer to that question can be found within each of us.

Topic: Netvocates: Our debunkers revealed

There is an entire forum available for discussion of other 9/11-related issues.

Let's please stay on topic.