Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by undo
you have to actually investigate it yourself

Alright. Let's use the photo you just posted as our "evidence". I see an odd shape. That's all I see. Now, what would you recommend as the next step in the "investigation"? What I want to know is....how do I "investigate" that image? What other sources are there that would help me conclude why that image looks like that?

You're the scientist. What techniques do scientists use when trying to determine what they are seeing in a picture?

First thing they do is actually look at the thing as if any number of possible answers could explain it. . They don't auto-assume that it is or isn't, artificial. They start with a clean slate and work from there. They don't tell themselves every five seconds: Okay, tom said that there's no reason to suspect there was ever civilization in the solar system, anywhere but earth and since tom knows more than me and is a scientist i respect, this has to have a mundane explanation.

right off the bat, he's prejudiced against the data he's looking at and begins trying to find ways to present it as nothing but rocks. he may opt for space junk, such as a crashed satellite or astronomy project gone awry, but he will not, under any circumstances, admit to himself or anyone else, that the thing he is seeing is evidence of civilization on mars, even if every indication is that it is best explained as a building with contrivances emerging from it and around it. if there's no way to present it as crashed space junk (perhaps it is too large to be a satellite), the only option left is rocks, and he posts "it's just rocks".

that was not science. the only calculations that took place were size (to determine if it was space junk or just rocks), and the proven true (well, maybe not proven true but assumed true in this instance) info from his friend tom, the respected scientist, who said "no civs on mars"

by the way, that was taken from cydonia, and is from a larger image on keith laney's site here: keithlaney.net..., from this pic: keithlaney.net...

and posting to get the thing to page over. see my post above for the answers to your questions

Originally posted by undo
but he will not, under any circumstances, admit to himself or anyone else, that the thing he is seeing is evidence of civilization on mars, even if every indication is that it is best explained as a building with contrivances emerging from it and around it.

And right there is where the logical disconnect occurs. I simply see no conceivable way you, or anyone else, can conclude that the "best explanation" is a "building with contrivances". Statements like that make a mockery of the critical thinking process. If you disagree, tell me why it's the "best explanation".....it's your thesis....support it.

I'll wager a good convincing argument won't be forthcoming.

reply to post by Khounur


there are plenty of other places where you can actually post and not have these problems, thats one reason why I am skitish here at ATS, but I do post of things I have seen and have been with others when they saw it at the Book of THoTH, and alien hub. people there are more open minded. And truthfully these 1 liner folks like they have here that say its BS then run until the next day then say hogwash then run. Are actually banned at both sites.

There feelings at sites like that are remain open minded and help people that are seeking the help. Evil wont tolerate the pseudoskeptics at hub. there he gets rid of them real fast.

I have tons of forums that I do and I enjoy ATS alot but I do get tired of the people that try to bring down the good threads. thats why I spread my time around between the few public forums I am in and when I am here I usually am also in a private forum at the same time so I can cool my temper down before I go off on one of the jerks that enjoys bringing threads down to there comical level.

Hilda

Amazing posts and replies here.

I have also received some interesting U2Us from different people about this thread. Some feel to intimidated to post because they think their language skills or education are lacking and they might "look stupid" in front of skeptics.

I would like to add one observation to the current discussion:

This is ATS. Subtitle: Conspiracy Theory, UFOs, alternative history.

This means, going beyond "already established fact" into the realm of speculation and extrapolation.

By only looking at "what is already established fact", nothing new can be gained.

And its not the purpose of this website anyway. If I want to find out about "already established fact" and "scientific method" I will go to other websites.

Why there are so many people here that do not want to speculate, extrapolate and exercise "looking behind the curtain" or "looking into the unknown" but insist on looking at the known is a mystery to me.

I come to ATS not to look at the known and proven. I come here to look into the unknown.

Originally posted by MrPenny


And right there is where the logical disconnect occurs. I simply see no conceivable way you, or anyone else, can conclude that the "best explanation" is a "building with contrivances". Statements like that make a mockery of the critical thinking process. If you disagree, tell me why it's the "best explanation".....it's your thesis....support it.

I'll wager a good convincing argument won't be forthcoming.

First, we make a comparative analysis. This is usually based on mundane experience.

For example, from a satellite photograph of Iraq, we can identify
the ruins of an old ziggurat. signs of artificiality are present, as are several right angled structure remains and/or other indicators of a structure or series of structures. additional clues of civilization might be repetitive, solid colored geometric shapes, all of the same color, and notably different than the color of the landscape, connected to each other or surrounded by remarkable terrain that appears landscaped or earthen-worked, perhaps with signs of machinery, such as vehicles, signs of a factory or underground facility, and so on. like satellite photographs of the missile systems of egypt, pretty easy to pick out on the desert terrain i might add.

From a satellite photograph of the mountainous terrain and valleys of Death Valley, we can identify large rocks around Mesquite springs.

From a satellite photograph of a crashed satellite on Mars, we can identify the crash site.

We know what all three examples appear like from a satellite and bring a certain amount of visual acuity and software with us to extract the details and make our determination.

the process begins:

we rule out crashed satellite because the area is too big.

next question is, do rocks appear in the patterns and in the manner as depicted in the photograph, naturally? if not, the question is broken down further:

what is there about mars that would make these rocks appear unnatural, if they are indeed natural?

if there's no answer, there's a possiblity this is artificial, not absolutely, but possibly.


if there's an answer, then the problem is further broken down:

if this may appear unnatural while still being natural to mars, are there any indications that it may still be unnatural? if not, is there any indication that it is indeed natural?

if no solution can be reached, it's the territory of personal opinion, which can't be shared as fact unless you happen to be one of those scientists who can make things into fact by simply stating it to be fact.

i suspect some skeptics don't get anywhere near asking themselves all these questions before it's already "just rocks."

If you think that as soon as anyone posts about their paranormal experience they are immediately attacked or evidence is demanded then you are exaggerating.

As long as someone properly presents a story, people will usually start off by asking them questions and discussing it, not just attacking them. And if it's clear that there isn't any evidence (e.g the OP claims to have just seen a UFO while driving home) then yes, people will naturally be a bit skeptical, but they will usually accept it. In fact, i'm more inclined to give a good story a chance than a bad picture.

Originally posted by undo
...

i suspect some skeptics don't get anywhere near asking themselves all these questions before it's already "just rocks."

Yes it's good to ask questions about 'evidence', but even when people ask questions they are just putting themselves up to be called sheep and told to go back to their TV and watch Fox News lol

reply to post by malganis


try a little experiment. try posting an anomalie. make an observation about what you "think" it "looks" like. or what you "think" it "might" mean. offer a theory or hypothesis. and observe the results. try to pick a believable anomalie, not one that's so blurry no one can see it or so unusual, no one has anything to compare it to.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Amazing posts and replies here.

I have also received some interesting U2Us from different people about this thread. Some feel to intimidated to post because they think their language skills or education are lacking and they might "look stupid" in front of skeptics.


And its not the purpose of this website anyway. If I want to find out about "already established fact" and "scientific method" I will go to other websites.

Why there are so many people here that do not want to speculate, extrapolate and exercise "looking behind the curtain" or "looking into the unknown" but insist on looking at the known is a mystery to me.

I come to ATS not to look at the known and proven. I come here to look into the unknown.

I really think, that the common person is as or more relevant to any discussion as any expert. In my Loooong post I mentioned how good people find it hard to be actively discussing here after seeing the rabid attacks on others.

Folks, the more intelligent you are, the more the simple words of others are pure science. I tend to trust the regular person, who, without pretense, method or clever ulterior motive are the best source of information some times.

The slick word-craft of some politicians, CEOs and "official spokespersons" have less expected honesty than the nice old lady next door.

The inaccuracies and misidentification's they might have are laid bare to the truely intelligent. Giving the common person a place to speak without the class-war crap our media has sold us is sacred to me.

To attack a person on literary or technical who truly believes what they saw or how they understand their experience is unconscionable to me. Also quite stupid.

Like arguing for grammatical structure with someone trying to tell you there is a truck about to hit you. We need to listen and not just hear a person.

I studied anthropology as part of my personal education in my interests on aboriginal and present day cultures like Native American and original peoples. This also helped in my understanding of ancient cultures and even historical accounts in general. This was invaluable in my grasp of how to see clearly and have insight into what people can actually communicate in common language. I don't need proof, I can more easily see proof.

I hope these people who have experienced the inexplicable in their lives can feel safe here to say what is on their mind and in their heart.

I think they are the most important people here, and I honor and respect them. I will also defend their right to tell their stories without a PhD if I have to burn every point I have at ATS.

Please folks, come and say what is on your mind. Disregard the few angry sociopaths here and step over them as you would a stone in your path.

We need your voices too!

We need some spotters and defenders of the innocent here. Mods have other things to do and can't get involved. We need to protect our friends from the fears they cannot be heard because of screaming negatives. Who can take up the call??

People are essentially good. That's all we need to know.

ZG

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by malganis

 

try a little experiment. try posting an anomalie. make an observation about what you "think" it "looks" like. or what you "think" it "might" mean. offer a theory or hypothesis. and observe the results. try to pick a believable anomalie, not one that's so blurry no one can see it or so unusual, no one has anything to compare it to.

Actually we need only go into the archives for this. It has broken my heart to see some of the damage done to a persons honest feeling they see something special.

I will try to educate someone if they are misreading or do not understand a mistake they might be seen as saying.

My mom used to say, if you can't say something nice about another person......

You know the rest.

ZG

Originally posted by malganis
If you think that as soon as anyone posts about their paranormal experience they are immediately attacked or evidence is demanded then you are exaggerating.

As long as someone properly presents a story, people will usually start off by asking them questions and discussing it, not just attacking them. And if it's clear that there isn't any evidence (e.g the OP claims to have just seen a UFO while driving home) then yes, people will naturally be a bit skeptical, but they will usually accept it. In fact, i'm more inclined to give a good story a chance than a bad picture.

I can agree with you to a point, but it only takes one cruel post to hurt a persons feelings and discourage them. Especially if new to ATS and social networks in general.

I've seen 50 posts that where positive responses and yet 3 negative angry posters is all it takes to kill the thread.

ZG

I just thought of a good example.

Before the white men came to the American west, the Native Americans had no understanding of our words and technologies. Their innocence was their undoing against the horrible and ignorant self important white culture.

When the white races had contact with the original peoples many observations the natives communicated between the counsel of tribes and network of communities could only be described within their knowledge and culture.

One account of the new white people being seen is that they had "talking leaves".

What they where trying to describe was writing on paper. How beautiful such innocence. How pure an association to communicate in their world.

But the great white man with his arrogant self important and greedy wasteful and self worship called these people "animals"!!!

All because they did not have the intelligence to see how much the original people here had to give. Their simple native words and understandings where seen as ignorant.

The opposite was true.


So I listen to the people here who cannot find the words and struggle to explain what even the most brilliant minds cannot find words for. And they will have voice, despite the ignorant negs.

(By the way, I am as white as you can get. But I am an Earthling by choice. All life is sacred.)

ZG

reply to post by ZeroGhost


nice posts. you are an inspirational writer.

To what you and undo have written I have nothing to add.

"May the meek (not the know-it-alls, but the fascinated) inherit the world".

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I consider myself a mystic.

But, I do not, and cannot believe in "sky brothers" that will come to "bring peace and galactic fellowship" to all mankind.Such a happy happy good good world is just something I am not seeing,

Well, I said nothing of "happy happy good good sky brothers" etc.

I do think there are benevolent ETs that visit us, who can be thought of as diplomats and ambassadors. I think they are here for political reasons just as much as any "happy happy good good peace and love" reasons

Basically, it's the "Exo-Politics" model.

But anyway, if you are a mystic as you say, your mind should be open to the possibility of telepathy. And if you also believe in extraterrestrials.... then you should at least be open to the possibility that telepathy might be used to contact extraterrestrials

After all, many experiencers report that the ETs use telepathy to communicate with us. So why should we not use telepathy to communicate with THEM?

Is there any harm in at least trying?

Hmm, why do I always get misinterpreted here? Propably because this is not my native language, I keep forgetting to add some certain words into my sentences, or use wrong ones every now and then, although rarely enough to keep conversations meaningful. Nevermind...

Anyway, I'm not saying that I am a skeptic of everything that is not or cannot be proven true. I have a religion, yes, a religion, although I remain skeptical in most matters talked here on ATS. I'm doing it selectively, and I do believe in some (very few) far off theories even though I have no ecidence. But that is not a reason to give an acceptance as truth to everything presented here, it makes no sense to me.

I have one very big main question for you who do not like skeptics, here we go:

Do you honestly want this board to go in such a direction in which pretty much everything is believed and applied into common knowledge about aliens, ufo's etc? Do you want to create exopolitics, conspiracy theories and astrobiologytheories without any hard criticism on subjects? Do you want to go blindfold into anything that is presented here? Do we not serve a purpose here to expand some people's minds into thinking critically?

I'm not thinking that I am a parent, god, moderator or a source of truth here, but I do firmly believe that there are very good reasons to remain skeptical in most areas of interest.

What do you think a zoo will become if its not controlled by conversations with people? And no, I have no mission, I am not paid to do anything, it is merely a logical final result that things get filtered out when poeple converse. THere's no conspiracy there.

Allright then. I think we need some fresh points of view in this thread, if we want to continue this in a meaningful way.

If there really are people there, who are perhaps afraid to say something because they do not think they are intelligent enough, I think this thread is actually the place to post such opinions. As far as I have seen, skeptics are very much more open to admit things in this particular thread, so go ahead and do, write. I have seen no bashing with a sledgehammer here :-)

Point is, that good opinions never nead a long introduction unless the subject matter is totally new to audience. Here, it isn't. So you can post shorter posts, but please try not to post one-liners..

How to detect a professional disinformer


Once upon a time there was this thread. And there was this disinformer.
And I started checking on this disinformer. And the more I checked, the bigger my eyes got. This person was posting...

in the morning
in the afternoon
in the evening
at night

everyday, 24 hours a day.

This person always had a debunk-response + sources handy to every alternative theory presented. Anytime something was presented in favour of a theory, this person had loads of ready-made material to counter it within minutes as if this person were doing it professionally.

And how could this person always be online and ready? Maybe because it was not one person but a group of people.

Paid professionals exist.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Good observation and conclusion based on facts.

Skyfloating, I commend you and all the others on this thread who have positively participated in this discussion. This has been an ongoing problem for various online forums for the last six years at least. I have found numerous examples of suspicious, redundant behavior from posters both here and in other forums, such as oroborus and glp, and infowars.

Your profile of an agitator is very accurate, and I have saved it. With your permission, I would like to include some of your observations in an upcoming online book I am finishing up now which will deal specifically with infiltrators and agitators in the 21st century online environmnet.

The pi in my screen name is for private investigator, not pi (3.14 blah blah blah) and I do security consultations for real-world political activist groups and whatnot, and have an established agitator exposure program designed for real-world applications (such as conducting detailed background investigations on those who are suspected of serving an agenda which is harmful to the overall goals of the group or organization), which I am trying to adapt into an online applicable environment.

It is possible to identify posters on different boards and sites by their writing style. Often times, their will be discernable similarities in the screen name (but not always).

For some of the pseudo-skeptics who are already following this thread, it doesn't really matter what name you go by, your writing style and usage of grammar, mechanics, punctuation and choices of emotive words will always betray a single identity.

Earlier last year, I came across something about a US NORTHCOM program specifically geared towards “balancing the viewpoints” of online discussion forum participants. I'm still searching for it now. I think it was somewhere on here. I'll either repost here with a link, or edit this post in due course.

But, to reiterate what some of the others here have already said...

Just because you disagree with me does not mean I, or anyone else, thinks you are an informant and neither the OP or anyone else here has suggested as much, so there have been words placed in the OP's and others mouths. A good dialog requires debate which requires two or more people to disagree with each other. But since none of us here are running for public office, we can save the mud-slinging for the youtube debates. Slinging mud and being skeptical are two totally different things.

But I now pose a question...

What do people do about it when they have good cause to believe that someone is acting on or under an agenda? Expose them complete with links and examples. Use techniques similar to those used to diffuse the Delphi Technique (which seems to have been adapted for the internet in the last few year)? Any ideas? In conventional warfare, there are attacks and counter-attacks. However, in the infowar, we are getting pummelled by those statistically few professional disinformation agents and doing nothing in return. We need to formulate our own counter-attack strategy, otherwise this is all sounds fine and good, but will accomplish nothing.