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.

 

Are believers disinformation agents?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
As a counterpoint to this thread, I would like to offer suggestion that perhaps the believers and zealots are the disinformation agents, some willing and some unwilling.

With the varying accounts of UFOs in style, shape, origin, color, and behavior, who can you believe, and who is merely 'making it up'? There are over a dozen species of aliens thought to be visiting the Earth, from the fantastic to the rather mundane, some travelling through the stars, some through other dimensions. Believers often collide in their versions of the truth, often times offering suggestions that allow multiple theories to be correct so that everyone can play nicely in the community.

The higher echelon of the UFO elite dictate the general beliefs to the followers, but what if even a dozen of the mostly widely regarded ufologists are the disinformation agents? Not only is this scenario possible, it seems probable considering state funded disinformation agents would have an upper hand and the backing of the 'powers that be'. Even if they were simply unpaid professionals in it to sell books, the damage that their ideas could have on the core of the community could be devestating, factioning the believers into something resembling post-lutheran christianity.

Now if a group of believers came out and was able to get an official governmental agency to allow Disclosure, all of the other beliefs would fall to the wayside, and we would again have a sanitized version of aliens brought forth by a governmental agency that HAS to be real, because it is the long sought after Disclosure.

So.. why are you believing the disinformation of the believers?




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Given the facts of previous military test of experimental aircraft and the probability of continued flights, it is likely a great deal of UFO's are classified military craft.

Given this, it would be highly beneficial to the Military to flood information sources with reports of any type to dilute the attention toward military programs as much as possible.

It is possible that some if not many UFO sites are funded by or populated with disinformation distributors under the oder of posting UFO accounts to muddy the waters, so to speak. The fact that many reports include fuzzy pictures (despite camera advances) supports this idea.

Additionally, the more people into the subject matter that become distracted by the concept of aliens and plots and so on the less times they will spend looking for terrestrial evidence and information.

All in all, I think it probable that a great deal of "UFO Believers" are intentionally or even unintentionally distributing disinformation to cloud the waters. This is why I am demanding about evidence and logic. Without them, it is just another story that may be disinfo.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Great thread idea Hank


I personally think though, the odds are pretty good that there's a fair number of disinfo on both sides of the fence. The disinfo believers would be put out there to discount the credibility of "normal" witnesses; the disinfo skeptics would be put out there to poke holes (even if they have to make them up) in otherwise viable reports.

It would also be highly plausible that certain reports are set up and debunked by a team. Think about it--you and I set up a picture that looks fool proof, but is a complete hoax. I post it here and say "hey look every1, hrs a ufo!!!111!!1!". You come in and point out everything that's wrong with it that most people probably would never notice.

With a picture it isn't that big of a deal, but something like Serpo would've been a great setup-and-knockdown victory. I come in with a group of fellow witness and we all tell and corroborate the same story (with slightly differing details of course, since we each have slightly different perspectives.) Then someone else (also in on the deal) comes along and says "wait, what about this?" Then we let our story fall apart and it becomes another hoax that etches away at the field.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Again though, I like your counter-thread



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Yes, it does seem like there are those 'believer's' within the UFO community who seem to be operating as disinformation agents within the UFO community who are in support of one faction of this community or another (mostly faith based factions (belief only in science where science is their 'belief' system) who focus exclusively only on hard material evidence and rule out anything that's in the paraphysical category as they are in total disagreement with Jacque Vallee's theories) because some of their stories are too convoluted and far out. So many aspects of the Dulce base story is like this and when you have a whole bunch of well-known UFO researchers and journalists jumping in on the bandwagon in support for such stories, it's very unsettling as the neophyte is clueless who's telling the truth and who's out there embellishing such UFO related incidents with outrageous claims whereby perpetuating those widespread sentiments that Ufology is only for kooks!

What's really disconcerting (actually it's sick and pathological) about all of this is that all of these people are in on the joke but it's at the expense of sincere seekers out there who want to get to the bottom of the UFO phenomenon.






[edit on 8-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
This is why I am demanding about evidence and logic. Without them, it is just another story that may be disinfo.


Even with evidence and critical thinking, someone with -real- evidence can pervert it into something completely off base. A bit of evidence and a lot BS can be stretched into all kinds of books and movies these days. Look at how fast the smallest world news items turn intomajor conspiracies here at ATS, that should illustrate my point nicely.


Originally posted by MCory1

It would also be highly plausible that certain reports are set up and debunked by a team.


I think the more damaging forms of disinfo put forth by believers would be the ones that CAN'T be debunked. Solid evidence coupled with testimony that points the evidence one way when it should go the other is more hurtful than bad evidence that is easily debunked.


Originally posted by Palasheea

Yes, it does seem like there are those 'believer's' within the UFO community who seem to be operating as disinformation agents within the UFO community who are in support of one faction of this community or another ... because some of their stories are too convoluted and far out.


Not to mention (in some cases) conflicting with other research done in the field by other scientists.


Originally posted by Palasheea

So many aspects of the Dulce base story is like this and when you have a whole bunch of well-known UFO researchers and journalists jumping in on the bandwagon in support for such stories, it's very unsettling as the neophyte is clueless who's telling the truth and who's out there embellishing such UFO related incidents with outrageous claims whereby perpetuating those widespread sentiments that Ufology is only for kooks!


Yes. This is the point I was trying to make in the Dulce thread. So many people have their own reasons for perpetuating the idea of new and exciting stories in the UFO field (mst of which I feel are monitary) that it is hard to tell who is sincere and who isn't.





Anyone else care to weigh in? Or is everyone under the impression that only the 'government' is capable of disinformation?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by Quest
This is why I am demanding about evidence and logic. Without them, it is just another story that may be disinfo.


Even with evidence and critical thinking, someone with -real- evidence can pervert it into something completely off base. A bit of evidence and a lot BS can be stretched into all kinds of books and movies these days. Look at how fast the smallest world news items turn intomajor conspiracies here at ATS, that should illustrate my point nicely.


Evidence can not be perverted unless you mean physically tampered with or destroyed.

What can be distorted is the interpretation of evidence or the distribution of conclusion based off that. Additionally people like to draw illogical conclusion from evidence to make claims that the evidence does not support.

A great example is that a picture of a flying disk being called "evidence" of aliens. There is only evidence of a disk in the air (assuming the photo is trustworthy). To tie it to a source or other theory is illogical.

I demand EVIDENCE for a claim. If the claim is that aliens are visiting earth, I demand evidence of ALIENS visiting earth, not shiny disk in the sky that could be anything, including military, weather, or just something we don't know. This leaps from supported to claims to assumption are why logic is so important, people need to understand when they are not going on what they can prove, but what they can imagine.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
As a counterpoint to this thread, I would like to offer suggestion that perhaps the believers and zealots are the disinformation agents, some willing and some unwilling.


To a certain degree, i absolutley agree.

"believers" are called believers due to the fact they have already made a decision in their belief system, even though proof to back their belief up is still non-existance.

as to why i said "To a certain degree" .... I said this because i believe there is truth in all of it, but ascertaining that truth is more often than not the most difficult challenge. We judge people's intentions for their claims, sometimes even without knowing how and why or what our own intentions are. So what are we holding up for comparison when judging other peoples' intentions? Certainly not our own, if we don't know the reasoning behind our own intentions. Perhaps we measure their intentions by the conformity of the expectations of the societies in which we live? I don't have suitable answers for these inquiries, and even if i did, ultimatley it is up to each individual to decide what they believe. But without knowing our own intentions, is what we believe what others want us to believe? We would have to know their intentions first to know this. And we would have to know our own intentions as well.

Sometimes the fact is overlooked that it would serve American interests to have such a powerful deterant. The deterant our potential enemies may take into consideration. That deterant being that we may have technologies that are literally OUT OF THIS WORLD.

i think these thoughts support this threads content.

Good thread topic Hank!

thanks,
john



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

I demand EVIDENCE for a claim.



From who are you demanding such evidence? Those who would have it, or those who are also demanding it?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Ummm,no...
I will say that there are some people who do misrepresent some of the information in the UFO community. However, most of these people are promptly done away with. However, "debunkers" just continue to provide their deny,deny, and deny again scheme. They cast out these theories that are really even more ridiculous than the idea of an alien spacecraft,ahem, "swamp gas" for example, and propulgate it as being the "truth."



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by Quest

I demand EVIDENCE for a claim.



From who are you demanding such evidence? Those who would have it, or those who are also demanding it?


I suppose I over stated myself. I expect people who make claims to support their claims with verifiable evidence IF they wish other to take their claims as facts.

I know, in this world, that people will experience things they can not prove. I myself have. But if someone wishes other to share in their belief, that is where they should present evidence or prepare to be questioned.

This goes for everyone. A scientist isn't trust worth by his title, he is because he offers repeatable and peer reviewed research. Everyone who makes a claim should be questioned, from politicians to UFOlogist.

I think people get so wrapped up in what might be or what seems to be, they often neglect to look at what they know and can prove to others.

I never doubt a person when they say they have seen something odd, no matter how strange. I only question them when they expect others to believe them.

I suppose this really should be directed at those that call people "sheep" and act like they know everything. I understand they think they grasp all there is to know, but in that I would then demand evidence and logic to believe them. A lot of people claim a lot of things. Very few prove it sufficiently to convince others. These are the people I demand it from.

So... just about everyone.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Ummm,no...
I will say that there are some people who do misrepresent some of the information in the UFO community. However, most of these people are promptly done away with. However, "debunkers" just continue to provide their deny,deny, and deny again scheme. They cast out these theories that are really even more ridiculous than the idea of an alien spacecraft,ahem, "swamp gas" for example, and propulgate it as being the "truth."


I've sorta changed my mind that those ufologists whom I thought were honest but who in fact misrepresent information and I don't think the one's like that are promptly done away with because after just doing research on the Dulce Base case where I'm seeing all of these well known ufologists and ufology journalists in support for this story, it's just mind boggling that they all believe in something where anyone with any common sense would have to conclude that whole chunks of that story are nothing but fabrications! That Costello who jumped into the picture and then just as mysteriously disappeared where he made all of these outrageous claims about what's going on in an underground base under Dulce is just too much for my little brain to wrap around.... yet, we have so many of these well-known ufologists saying that it's all true!
I'm finding this very,very disturbing.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Dulce is just too much for my little brain to wrap around.... yet, we have so many of these well-known ufologists saying that it's all true!
I'm finding this very,very disturbing.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Palasheea]


"The truth is far stranger than what is dreamt of in your philosophies,Horatio."



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

I suppose I over stated myself. I expect people who make claims to support their claims with verifiable evidence IF they wish other to take their claims as facts.



I agree with the reasoning behind your post. Sorry i think i read it the wrong way.

I agree. If someone is introducing their speculation and attempting to pass it off as evidence, it does take away from the quality of ATS, and even more importantly it reduces the integrity of the whole realm of ufo/alien studies.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by Palasheea
Dulce is just too much for my little brain to wrap around.... yet, we have so many of these well-known ufologists saying that it's all true!
I'm finding this very,very disturbing.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Palasheea]


"The truth is far stranger than what is dreamt of in your philosophies,Horatio."


Sure... you are right. Truth can be and is many times stranger than fiction but in this case with Dulce, there are just too many things about it that just don't add up. I guess my biggest contention is with that Costello guy who presented a lot of information and then just disappeared without a trace where no one can find out what happened to him because amazingly enough, he has no relatives who are currently alive ... many of whom died accidently in one way or another and blah,blah, blah.... Of course, it's obvious that this person was not using his real name and who knows? -- maybe he actually was gov't disinformation agent and if that's the case then his story was most certainly a fabrication.
At any rate, I'm still very perplexed why there are those well-known ufologists who believe this Dulce Base story is true. I'm in a complete state of befuddlement, to say the least on why that is.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Ummm,no...
I will say that there are some people who do misrepresent some of the information in the UFO community. However, most of these people are promptly done away with.


But how do we know this is the case? Let's play 'what if' for a moment..

What if Dr. Greer and the Disclosure Project was in reality a government project to steer a large portion of the community in a certain direction and away from where they should REALLY be looking?

What if John Lear was given the moon pictures and is using them as some sort of disinformation campaign by keeping us busy looking for images in craters instead of following thegoings on elsewhere?

Disinformation Agents are more insidious than people want to believe. Everything we think we know about UFO's and Aliens could very well be the product of the imaginations of various Disinformation Agents throughout the years.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Not if you've seen one. I've seen a big ole grey triangle and it did things that no known aircraft that we know of can do. If we actually do have the technology to manufacture what it was that I and 3 others who were with me saw last year... then I'd say we are all living IN an illusion where the real world is a few thousand years ahead of us!


[edit on 9-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Not if you've seen one.


Okay, so you have seen a UFO.

Now, without referencing anything from popular Ufology, based on your sighting, what doy ou know about that UFO and it's origins? From that single sighting can you tell me where/when that UFO came from? Can you tell me anything about the physical makeup of the drivers?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
This is where it all goes haywire for me.
It's true, a person can be going along through
life with the hum-drum ideas of how the world
works, when he 's sees something he doesn't
understand in the sky or sitting flashing on a
desert floor.

The person reports what they see and then starts
to 'add' his perception to the sighting. A couple of
postings on this site later and next he's told of how
it's merely a delegation from the Galactic Council!

I can genuinely understand the confusion of thoughts
one goes through when a person sees such things or
even when they feel they've been abducted, but
personally, I would tend to look for more 'worldly'
explanations.
This is my opinion and I certainly don't mean to
imply anybody is lying or to insult anyone's views.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join