Credible Sources - Who do you believe?

I considered starting this thread in Education and Media, but because of the growth of sites like YouTube, I felt this area would be a better place for this topic.

What are "reputable" sources on the internet? Recently, I've noticed lots of postings and inquiries on various topics that seem to be easily dismissed. For instance, the glut of shapeshifting reptilian threads we've had were all easily "debunked" because of YouTube and similar sites having issues with video compression. Also, I've witnessed members criticize sites like rense.com and Worldnet Daily for being everything from inaccurate to being run by lunatics and the Illuminati. Meanwhile, so-called "credible" news sources could easily be criticized for their political slants, conservative or liberal reporting and the fact that they may be run by...the Illuminati.

So, I'd like to know what ATS members feel are credible sources to back up research.

- Are message boards, YouTube-like sites and privately-owned resources credible? Do you trust these types of sites more because anyone can participate? Do your trust them less? Why? Why not?

- Are sites funded by corporate conglomerates credible? Do you trust these sites more because people with deep pockets and access to more resources run them? Do you trust them less? Why? Why not?

Since ATS members have far-flung interests, this question goes out to any and all members who research phenomena they post about. So, whether your thing is new age, secret societies, aliens, religion or general conspiracies, I'd like to hear from you.

This is a very good question. In this day and age, with all of the propaganda, disinformation, controlled media, and nutjobs with free access to make up whatever they want, who can you trust. I can't really say that any one media source would be "trusted".

Question everything.

Credible sources to an individual are those that match his current beliefs and experiences. To make a source credible to challenge a belief set you must first offer logical arguments that can match experience, so the person gives the material credibility not the source. After a pattern of credibility in material, the source gains credibility in peoples mind.

This can be taken advantage of. Credibility is shown through leaks, showing the source is correct, but the source is just having its credibility propted up to then disperse propaganda, so all information should hold its own credibility through critical thinking. Its the words not the speaker.

reply to post by Redge777

I agree with that somewhat, but isn't that the issue? Because we all have various beliefs, we'll rarely come together to believe one source.

So none are correct? Or are they ALL correct -- depending on our beliefs and leanings?

Hard question to answer.

I think a lot has to do with gut instinct. Not too scientific, eh? LOL

I mean, a person's work history, things he has done etc, doesnt mean they are credible....not at all to me.

A person of high religious posture, doesnt mean they are necessarily credible just because of their religious posture - say a priest.

I am the type of person who doesnt just believe someone because they say something is so. I dont care what their history is or who they are. I have to do my own research, investigate things on my own...and come to my own conclusion. It is why I have a strong faith in God, yet I refuse to go to a church and have some man preach his interpretation of God to me. Just because he is standing in a pulpit, doesnt mean he is credible IMO

At the end of the day, I do my own research and listen to my gut. Majority of time, my gut is right. In fact, I cant remember the last time it failed me. But I can recall many times I ignored it and it proved ME wrong


[edit on 16-10-2007 by greeneyedleo]