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.

 

Crying Wolf: On Hoaxes and their perpetrators

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by IPCRESS

Originally posted by Mr Jackdaw
an "Official" hoax may serve to justify a Government's (planned) action.


Or it may obscure ongoing actions.
The "Alien Abduction" phenomenon (and the idea of Aliens/UFOs in general) is a government hoax which is designed to conceal various Mind Control programs.


I see. On what grounds do you base this statement?




posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Jackdaw

I see. On what grounds do you base this statement?


I have written several essays on this subject.
HERE is one.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
And just when I think I'm out of ideas, I strike gold.

On this page, you will find purportedly declassified papers on psychological warfare (Page title: OSS -- Development of Psychological Warfare). It appears to be referenced in the "External Links" section of this Wikipedia article, although Wikipedia wasn't my original source for the link.

To me, the most immediately relevant section is found on the third image on the page, titled "The Criteria Of A Successful Rumor." At the bottom of that image, several specific characteristics are listed. I found these characteristics interesting because they echoed my conclusions in this thread, although I only discovered this link today. I encourage all to read that section -- and the whole document, if time permits. When we are aware of tactics such as these, we might be more discerning in offering our support to future probable hoaxers. As always -- although I have been largely unsuccessful, I would still love to hear any comments or thoughts on this. That is, if it hasn't already been linked elsewhere on this site.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
I think the phenomena is in many cases similar to internet trolling. It's fun for the hoaxers. Whether they like seeing incensed fighting between believers and skeptics, or just watching believers believe their hoax wholeheartedly, it gives 'em their jollies. It's not necessarily for attention, often, it's just for a reaction. These are usually never admitted to, but rather fade into obscurity, or possibly, endure.

That's a very different kind of hoax from the kind that is intentionally formulated by non-believers who want to make a point. Those are usually admitted, because otherwise, there wouldn't be a point. people would just go on believing

The third kind is for money. This is still common, especially in medicine, and in the free energy field. These just fade away, nobody admits to financial fraud - it's illegal.

Now of course this makes it hard to know what's real and what isn't. I, personally, lie on the skeptic side of things, and to my knowledge, have never been taken in by a hoax. It does mean, however, that I probably throw away at least a few valid things, because they appear similar to hoaxes. I, of course, don't know to what extent this is true.

Hoaxes are the root problem of the antipathy between skeptics and believers. There is a segment of very vocal and very gullible people out there. They'll believe some pretty weird things, by any reasonable standard. After seeing stuff like that over and over again, skeptics get disillusioned and eventually just mock believers. Nobody likes having their beliefs mocked.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Jackdaw
 


I think crying "hoax..........." is an easy way of discrediting the poster and his message. Plain and simple!

I am not saying this is always the case but from my experience the staff usually applies it to the wrong people. Its almost like the pseudo-skeptics and staff work together to silence anyone making far fetched claims.

They expect them to produce mountains of evidence when they know that there is a severe limit to what can be safetly disclosed without getting that person into heaps of trouble. Off course they convienently forget that and use it against them. Personally speaking, I don't need a ton of evidence to be convinced and the fact that they are willing to share some hidden info means a lot to me. Call me gullible, stupid, naive....whatever, I really don't give a #!

[edit on 30-4-2008 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Hoaxes extend beyond this forum alone -- which is why I started by discussing hoaxes from the past. Regardless of where or when they occur, most/all hoaxes follow a formula: see this excerpt from an earlier post:


On this page, you will find purportedly declassified papers on psychological warfare (Page title: OSS -- Development of Psychological Warfare). It appears to be referenced in the "External Links" section of this Wikipedia article, although Wikipedia wasn't my original source for the link.


I really encourage readers to take a look at that page.
On ATS, I see similar formulas. I also see people rushing in to 'believe,' or to defend their various beliefs. When the ruckus dies down, yet another hoax has proven successful, because people wanted to believe it.


Personally speaking, I don't need a ton of evidence to be convinced and the fact that they are willing to share some hidden info means a lot to me (my emphasis added).


This doesn't make you stupid or gullible; you have your reasons for believing what you do. But from a third-person perspective, all I see is your decision to believe that [the informants] are actually sharing hidden information, simply because they say they are. In the context of your experiences, I'm sure this seems like a reasonable tangent: however, in my perspective, it is a potentially dangerous one.

You may have heard before that if you manipulate a person's beliefs, you can control their actions. This is true, although it doesn't mean beliefs are bad. We should be careful about believing anything that has been handed to us -- whether from Governments or individuals. Something isn't more likely to be true just because someone says they'll get in trouble for saying it.

What if I said my real name isn't Jack -- which it isn't -- but that I could get in trouble for telling you my real name? What if I refused to explain how or why I would get in trouble, because such information would help to identify me?

Do your instincts tell you to believe me? If so, then perhaps you see what I'm getting at.

I'm still not telling my real name.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join