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.

 

Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

page: 10
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I really wish I hadn't gotten in so late in this thread.


YES: There ARE a LOT of pseudo-skeptics on this board, and almost all of them have crystal clear agendas.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by NewWorldOver]




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Look at some of the statements by so-called "skeptics" on this thread:

"You are a liar"

"This thread is useless"

"No research into Ufos has been done"



Don't forget

"Show me physical proof... on the internet... somehow. Or you're lying."

"Show me evidence.... because I'm too lazy to do a google search or research this subject on my own... or you're lying."

"Show me the paper trail that _____ is involved with _____ even though you'd have no possible way of acquiring such material.... or you're lying. "


Basically, there are alot of situations where a skeptic demands proof to SPITE the fact that the topic is about conspiracy, the paranormal etc. These things are not in the scientifically accepted realm yet they like to think they are enforcing scientific procedure by demanding the impossible.

To that, all I can say is "Yawn. Anyone here who would actually care to discuss the topic?"



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by musselwhite
this thread is turning into a pissing match. one cannot play if the ball is not thrown back.


Excellent point. In the world of conspiracy 'debate', it goes like this.

Person A presents conspiracy theory, attempts to discuss.

Skeptic B walks in, demands proof, evidence, calls conspiracy theory a dead topic.

Person A offers articles, photos, some sort of evidence to sketpic.

Skeptic B pisses all over the research material, claims the evidence to be a hoax, and once again demands the conspiracy theory is a dead issue.

Person A acknowledges Skeptics opinion and attempts to carry on discussion about conspiracy theory.


Skeptic B stamps feet and throws a tantrum, "Need I remind you that I have already made up my mind on this topic? Stop discussing it."

Person A gently tries to ignore Skeptic

Skeptic B stamps feet, "You're ignoring me because you can't PROVE IT." Claims conspiracy theory to be a dead issue... again...

Person A gently asks Skeptic to allow conversation to continue.

Skeptic B asserts that this is censorship and just proves that the conspiracy theory is invalid. Skeptic holds chin up high and pokes all newcomers in the chest should they attempt to discuss the theory.


Really, is that not the way it goes? Because I think that's exactly how it goes.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by malganis

And if some evidence (e.g. a photo) is given, then expect people to tear it to shreds to try and debunk it. If it is a good piece of evidence then it will stand up to the test.


That's an outright LIE, my friend.

No photo, no matter how genuine it may seem, no matter how many officials get behind it etc. will EVER satisfy a skeptic.

And yes, skeptics do tear apart and piss on any evidence presented to them. It is NEVER good enough to satisfy their doubt, and to say otherwise is just empty mouth-service.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
Did I claim that this was a UFO, alien or something paranormal? I'd say you really hit a few meters from the nail on this one.. I was merely trying to relay an news article about conspiracy. I wasn't trying to prove anything .. nada...
a poor try to prove a point..


It has nothing to do whether is was a UFO, alien or something paranormal.

It is about the way how you start a thread yourself, and accuse others that they do no more than 5 minutes of research.

Start a thread with a link like this,
"Until now, the story is in Norwegian, and I'll try to translate some of it in my next posts."
Is that your way then of doing research.

Look what you say in your first reply of this thread.


Originally posted by tep200377
As many other threads on this forum states, there are not a single shread of evidence on this forum that backs up ie UFO's, Aliens or Planet X. Not even life on mars. No evidence at all.

A blinking dotin the sky is still not any evidence.

And as I asked in the top of this post .. two or three posts with more than 5 minutes of research ... in the paranormal "chapter" ..


Look to your reaction of Skyfloatings answer to your question.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Not a "shred of evidence"? No more than 5 minutes of research?For the UFO topic, start by reviewing the threads of a member named Isaac Koi.



Originally posted by tep200377
Could you please explain to me what Isaac Koi's research has lead to? Do we have any solid answers, or is it still just reports of "seeing something"..
What has he researched. Has he made any red lines between events? Has he cross-checked all the 1800 pages of ufo sitings, or just made a list of it?

What kind of research methods does he use? Does he have a database with variables to do the cross checking on? Or just a simple .doc ?

Making a list of ufo events is not research, nor is linking to stories or books. It's a bit more work than that. Its all fun and unlimited ammount of reading, but not classified as research.

If Im mistaking, well ... show me some result of the research please ..


Then your big wed thumb claims.

reply to post by tep200377
 


Then this reaction.


Originally posted by tep200377
Why don't you just man up and answer my questions and stop behaving like a fool.


So must I go on?
And then when I read this remark of Skyfloating again.

Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

That a troop of paid-disinformants is operating on ATS to stifle research, derail threads, make the good work of ATS members look stupid to the reader who only superficially browses a subject.

And about the hysterical show me evidence right now or its all untrue crowd.

What more can I say.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


We still talk about debunking, not relaying info about a news article or an event. The OP talks about how skeptics debunk, and I explain why most of the threads ends up being just plain silly. How hard is it to understand that?

You are taking my thread which I just posted as a relay for an norwegian article. It wasn't even a claim or a question.. It was just a notice.. It has nothing to do with research.. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Still you use it as an example for a thread that can be debunked by a skeptic?

I don't see the good example in that ..

Btw: how do you debunk an notice of an article? Only reason I can think of is if the artcile url are missing ..



[edit on 22-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver



Excellent point. In the world of conspiracy 'debate', it goes like this.

Person A presents conspiracy theory, attempts to discuss.

Skeptic B walks in, demands proof, evidence, calls conspiracy theory a dead topic.

Person A offers articles, photos, some sort of evidence to sketpic.

Skeptic B pisses all over the research material, claims the evidence to be a hoax, and once again demands the conspiracy theory is a dead issue.

Person A acknowledges Skeptics opinion and attempts to carry on discussion about conspiracy theory.


Skeptic B stamps feet and throws a tantrum, "Need I remind you that I have already made up my mind on this topic? Stop discussing it."

Person A gently tries to ignore Skeptic

Skeptic B stamps feet, "You're ignoring me because you can't PROVE IT." Claims conspiracy theory to be a dead issue... again...

Person A gently asks Skeptic to allow conversation to continue.

Skeptic B asserts that this is censorship and just proves that the conspiracy theory is invalid. Skeptic holds chin up high and pokes all newcomers in the chest should they attempt to discuss the theory.


You missed a few!

Person A tries to console Skeptic B, offering him the opportunity to speak his mind.

Skeptic B says the thread should be closed and leaves in a huff, followed shortly by at least ten other Skeptic Bs who agree that the thread should be closed.

A few posts later, the thread is closed after the moderator has been driven half out of his mind by Skeptic Bs claiming the thread should be closed.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Ok, now my turn ..

1. Tinhat A presents conspiracy theory, attempts to discuss.
2. Skeptic A walks in, asks how he got to this conspiracy conclusion.
3. Tinhat A answer a question that hasn't been asked.
4. Skeptic A tell Tinhat A to answer the question asked in point 2.
5. Tinhat B comes along and takes the whole thing personal.
6. Tinhat C comes along and multiple that personal assult times 10.
7. Skeptic A asks why this suddenly got personal, and asks again for answer to the first question.
8. Tinhat A,B and C post a picture of a UAV and a moon picture with artificial colors. And claim that the blue color ( which are put there for enhancement ) are glow from fision reactor..
9. Skeptic A asks for answer to the first question ..

and so on ...

Sound familiar?

[edit on 22-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I remember the first time I posted here. It was interesting, to say the least. I had been scheduled to be on PID Radio to discuss my free ebooks on the topic of the connection of the biblical prophectical texts to the sumerian texts. As a result, someone (not me) came here and posted a link to my ebooks and some data on the info in the ebooks. I knew nothing about this until one day, while checking how far up the google search engine my ebooks had gotten, I noticed the links at ATS, but they had been thrown in the ATS garbage bin, after being discussed between a few members. The thread was still accessible as an archive, so I opened it up and read the commentary. This was what it said (paraphrasing):

Commenter 1: This person is not legit.

Commenter 2: She had a website about Harry Potter. She's doesn't believe in the bible. I say this is disinfo.

(my comment: I had built a harry potter website for my daughter, at her request, almost a year earlier, and it had been on the net for a grand total of 2 months before it was taken down because she was no longer interested in the topic. i have no clue how this person even knew i had built my daughter the website and wondered what that had to do with anything, anyway...).

Commenter 3: Eh, she's a sherry shriner wannabe.

Commenter 4: She reminds me of Nancy Lieder and we all know what happened to that!

Commenter 5: Her data on the subject is incorrect, anyway. Disinfo. close the thread.

It was closed and tossed in the garbage.

Anyway, I was rather shocked to see all that, so I rejoined ATS (had been a member several months earlier but hadn't actually done much more than read). I sent a message to a moderator and explained that the data on the thread was not posted by me but that I felt I should have the opportunity to defend myself on the subject. I asked what was the criteria for posting my links and how I should go about posting a thread on the topic so I could set the record straight. He said i couldn't link my material at all, even though it was free and there were no ads on the site that would generate me income.

So I did the next best thing. I created a thread, told the people straight up that I was not allowed to link them to my ebooks but that I would be more than happy to answer questions. The thread took off like a shot. One of the other posters investigated where my books might be at, found the links on google and posted them in the thread. People were genuinely interested. However, one of the posters felt I was going to use it to make money and complained that I had posted links to my ebooks after the fact, so he reported me to a moderator. (i'm not kidding!) I hadn't posted the links initially, but once they were posted by one of the other members in the thread, it was okay to do so (i checked with another moderator to be sure). People had been U2Uing me for the links and I wasn't even sure I could give them the links that way. In fact, it was quite some time before I actually posted them myself. I would just direct people to the page where the other poster had posted them in the thread.

The moderator who had been contacted by the disgruntled poster, contacted me and verified that I was following the rules . This same poster, found my blog on the internet (which I hadn't linked to either) and posted a nasty comment about my material. He was like cyber stalking me. He really didn't like what I had to say and was trying his darndest to get it removed from ATS.

It's a jungle out there!



[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 



Hrm, so far, you don't fit the criteria for the particular type of Skeptic that my example represents. I'm thinking of the one sentence wonders, who drop in only to add their voice to the other voice that just said "close it" and like an avalanche, it grows legs and wreaks havoc and whoops, the thread is either closed or relocated to the place where they stick stuff that is considered kinda ridiculous.


You, on the other hand, are a more sophisticated Skeptic. You write more than one sentence. Although your points are sometimes a bit thin, you do at least make points



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Well, I'm actually glad to hear that
As many other skeptics here on ATS, I feel that the OP actually takes us all in one take labeling us seudos. I think it is a big grey zone from a regular skeptic to pseudo.

I allso get the feeling that I'm automaticly labeled as a non believer because of the debunking. I believe in UFOs, or aliens. But not the ones that fly around in small glowing orbs, stealing table spoons and put small metallic stones in human bodies. I think its more complex than that.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377


Well, I'm actually glad to hear that
As many other skeptics here on ATS, I feel that the OP actually takes us all in one take labeling us seudos. I think it is a big grey zone from a regular skeptic to pseudo.



I'm reasonable. You may still be conisidered a pseudo-skeptic to someone else, but in my example, the pseudos are the ones that don't actually say anything relevant. Like, how relevant is it to the subject of biblical prophetical connections to ancient sumerian texts, that I reminded someone of Sherry Shriner? Does this mean my data is incorrect or that i'm even covering the same data as her or in the same manner? That's very pseudo skeptic. Or what of the reference to Harry Potter? I mean, how does that impact what I'm writing in a book on the topic of biblical prophecies, nottaclue. I think in debate society it's called an "ad hominem" or something to that effect. Attacking the person, not the data.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Just my opinion, and nothing more:

I have read this post with intense interest but not for the reason(s) you might suspect.

To me, the only ones that engage in the kind of behavior you highlight are, in fact, the proponents of various conspiracies - not "disinformation agents". I raise the specter - in my opinion - of reality in many threads based around 9-11 conspiracies. Usually, I am met with name calling, questioning my judgment, people rephrasing what I said into something not at all what I said, nor intended and a serious level of masked hatred.

Some claim to be after the truth but, they aren't. They are interested in a "truth" that supports their politically founded ideals and anyone that gives them a run for their money is labeled as a 'disinformation agent'.

I want the truth, no matter where is lies. I am not invested in any outcome, other than the one based in reality.

I understand the intention of the post and agree that those that argue for the sake of arguing are not constructive, at all. On the other hand, this is a free exchange of ideas forums which means if you can't stand the heat, don't post.

Actual paid disinformation agents? Unless your going to name names, which will open you to liable and slander (yes, even on the net) that's a red herring.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I agree. We want to arrive at the truth, not via preconceived notion but via research and a willingness to set aside preconceptions. Of course, there are variations of that, as well, such as the agreeing to be open-minded enough to study one area of a topic, while still being firm in your position on another area of the same topic. This doesn't mean your new position is correct or that your old postion is correct either or that they are both false, it just means learning to look at all the data in whatever way is most comfortable for you.

Some people never get passed step 1.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Really, is that not the way it goes? Because I think that's exactly how it goes.


mhmm. Funny how you don't mention all of the photos and videos that are proved to be hoaxes. You talk as if skeptics just throw photos out of the window on no basis at all. If you actually go and read some '*OMGZ I JUST SAW A ALIAN!*' threads you'll see how real debunking is done, and it's usually quite valid.

I take it you'd like us all to believe every story or dodgy picture/video that comes up, with no question right? Well as long as common sense is alive that's not going to happen. I want to believe in UFOs as much as everyone else here, but i'm not so desperate as to believe everything I hear without questioning it.



Originally posted by LoneWeasel
All I'd say in defence of the skeptic is this. I came to these boards because I believed in aliens and ufos, I believed in government conspiracies, and I believed in getting them out in the open. I started off as open minded as you could hope me to be. I was shocked at how quickly I became cynical, though. Actually what has happened is that I believe far less of what I see now, than I did before I got here. You could say I'm more skeptical - I prefer to think my nose for conspiracy has become more refined!


This is exactly what happened to me. Before joining ATS I believed a lot more than I do now, and I came here wanting to believe. But after discussing so much 'evidence', I can now see that most of it is BS.

Anyway what's with all these people signing up recently and calling everyone 'disinfo agents'? Are they just the new wave of 'believers' that haven't learned to use logic yet, or are they the people that are actually trying to disrupt this place? Because that's what they seem to be doing.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
This thread has been visited by some true skeptics (malganis, xtrozero, loneweasal) and some pseudoskeptics (no names. you know who you are).

A true skeptic can question, debunk and refute things without resorting to bizzare generalizations, weird tactics and personal attacks. Its as simple as that.

In fact, most of the "believers" on this thread have been skeptics towards one topic or another at one time.

There is no such thing as "always skeptic" and "always believer"...unless there is a hidden agenda going on.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


Thanks so much for pointing out that the very topic conspiracy/paranormal asserts that evidence is deliberately hidden from the public.

Since "hidden evidence" is part of general conspiracy-theory, there is no logic in debunking a case just because there is no immediate evidence.


When they say "There is no evidence" what they often mean is "I aint seen it on CNN so it cant be true".



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I remember the first time I posted here.
[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]


Thank you for relating the stargates-thread history here. Very interesting as Ive experienced parallels to it on a similar topic on another forum.

Although I havent commented much on it at all, I have not only read your entire thread but also two of your e-books. It is my opinion that some of what you write can be dangerous to certain special interest groups and it therefore wouldnt suprise me if you were under attack. It wouldnt surprise me at all. I will elaborate on this more at a later date on other threads (also on yours). I am still in the process of gathering evidence.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
reply to post by undo
 


Well, I'm actually glad to hear that
As many other skeptics here on ATS, I feel that the OP actually takes us all in one take labeling us seudos. I think it is a big grey zone from a regular skeptic to pseudo.



Well....I liked your tin-hat-listing post. The first post of yours I liked. Starred.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by malganis
If you actually go and read some '*OMGZ I JUST SAW A ALIAN!*'


Some threads are so mind-boggingly stupid that they could very well be posted by disinfo-agents.




new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join