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: 17
70
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pi service


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)?


Whadd'ya mean to expose agitators with Delphi method? You mean like consult other members about their opinions of certain suspicous member on that particular forum?




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pi service
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)?


I definitely think the answer is YES do that.

Like here for example.

Skeptical people I think are genuinely uncertain, and wanting more information, and the constant entrenching of silly opinions as fact contaminates their thought processes. Then they get aggressive as well out of frustration and so it goes.

Behind that there is indeed a Hegelianist strategy being perpetrated. David Icke, John Lear, anyone who just endlessly spouts consistently way way out stuff is clearly in it for money and fame. No other reason. Same with Alex Jones. At best one could say they are mercenary, but I personally think most of them are CIA agents or assets or similar.

They attack without fear or favour anyone who disagrees with them who they are sure is not an intelligence asset. Anyone they suspect of being on a team like them they leave alone. This is a mistake. To be more convincing, they should attack us too and not just leave it to the hierarchy to do their dirty work for them, although that is definitely their preferred MO.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rawsom
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 do not believe this is what is being said. Skepticism is just considering and looking closer, finding and presenting alternatives if there is a question. That is appropriate and part of the process of awareness and discovery. I expect and desire skepticism here. It is part and partial to exploration. Cynics however, usually in skeptics clothing are boorish and represent unproductive character to discussion I feel.

An expert (called a skeptic here) might have some knowledge to give benefit to the subject and discussion. We don't have credentials on ATS, and anyone can engage the group with ideas. That is how it should be maybe. But I actually refuse to say what it "should" be actually. I want to see what evolves without fences.

We are educating each other with our experience. You see that side of the story, I've seen another, and still someone else sees still another. In a 3 dimensional world each view adds to the reality of the story.

I tend to believe in someone who believes themselves. I also believe I have better than subjective awareness as I recognize deeper fabric of awareness as many (all) also do. Your quanta is my quanta is all quanta. That's science. I can sense when someone believes they saw a UFO. I start there. Discussion unfolds more detail. But I tend first believe them as a compassionate thinker.

There is a quote from the Don Juan series by Castaneda. The old Toltec Brujo said; A warrior believes in everything - and in nothing." By that, he meant that we can gain information and power by placing ourselves within any particular belief system for a while in order to assess it, experience it, and perhaps use it, without actually adopting its belief dogmas for ourselves.

I just think we can have more compassion in our culture here. The angry will exist, the troubled, the sneaky and the agenda driven operatives. Freedom means even they have voice. Also, freedom means we do not have to be hurt by them and can ignore them if we wish.

ZG



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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.


LOL> not everyone that comes in at those times in one day is a skeptic, or disinformer. I get up early before the kids and come in and post. I then come back around noon time or there abouts, then I come back in th evening when kids are in bed or sitting in here watching tv. And if I wake up at 2 am and have nothing better to do I then come in and read and maybe post. So I guess I have nothing better to do. But I dont like my kids seeing some of the stuff I see in here so I make sure they dont get to read it.

But I dont try to debunk everything I sit and read and try to reread alot of it until I understand what people are saying.

Hilda



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


i agree with you skyfloating...but i, as a fairly new member, and i think with more seasoned members of this site, look at the INTENT of the particular response or posting, and determine if it is indeed worthy of further consideration. having an open mind and being able to seperate the "wheat from the shaft" are not mutually exclusive. we all recieve alot of disinformation in our lives right now from advertizers, politicians, friends, etc. and are able to believe what we choose to believe. and to those that cannot, and except someones opinion based on that persons arrogance, i for one, choose to dismiss.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
For the thread here. I thought some reference would be valuable for our discussion.


Wikipedia on "Skeptic"



In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to

1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about

1. an inquiry
2. the limitations of knowledge,
3. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
4. the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
5. a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment,
6. does not mean pessimism; or lack of confidence



Disinformation, or Disinformer



Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. In the context of espionage or military intelligence, it is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.

Disinformation techniques may also be found in commerce and government, used by one group to try to undermine the position of a competitor. It in fact is the act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth. Cooking-the-books might be considered a disinformation strategy that led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.


Cynic
I may have misused this term myself. I always saw a cynic as someone who has decided to not believe before the fact. I'll adjust and find a better word.

Learning as usual. Thank goodness.

ZG

Oh, found the word.

Pessimism


[edit on 1/24/2008 by ZeroGhost]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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.


Well that would kind of go against my point. I wouldn't post a picture unless I genuinely thought that there was something to it. I hate getting excited by the title of a new thread that says *UFO picture!*, then looking at it and finding that it's just a blurry, impossibly-badly photographed light in the distance.

Believe me, if I had a decent picture that I truly believed was something interesting then I would have posted it already.

And if I did post my own picture then I would expect it to be examined by all of the skeptics. Obviously if the anomaly in the picture was clearly an alien craft (or whatever I was claiming), then it should pass the skeptics' tests. Unless they point something out which I hadn't considered, which proves that the photo is just of something normal, then I would accept it. I wouldn't start calling people 'sheep' or 'disinfo agents' for using valid points to debunk something.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost

I tend to believe in someone who believes themselves.
I can sense when someone believes they saw a UFO. I start there. Discussion unfolds more detail. But I tend first believe them as a compassionate thinker.



That's why i'm sometimes more inclined to believe a good believable story than a dodgy photo.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by malganis

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



as far as the fox news thing goes, there's a disconnect somewhere in groupthink, that assumes several groups of people as being automatically
in the same club together, these include christians, conservatives, skeptics and of course, fox news watchers


i know lots of democratic and/or moderate christianns. i know christians that believe ufos are real and some have even seen them, personally. i know christians that don't watch fox news, or cnn in some cases. i know conservatives that are not christians, in fact, lots of christians are not conservatives. there's just a divide and conquer thing going on right now by somebody at the tippee top. they want everyone to believe christians are automatically conservative skeptics, who watch fox news lol

unfortunately, that means even people such as yourself, who are skeptical, will get swept into the frey of those bad christian conservative fox news watchers, who don't believe in ufos and so forth. it's just the human propensity to think in the simplest terms, which requires a way to pigeon hole anybody that disagrees with them on any one of several topics.

i'm personally not fond of some forms of skepticism, such as the form that doesn't investigate an anomalie because "there's no need to." or the form that wont' admit it's wrong when the evidence is overwhelming or highly suspicious. but i don't begrudge the skepticism that actually admits when its been beat with evidence or when it thinks the evidence is not as forthcoming as it should be to be considered a true anomalie. the difference appears to be if it's glaringly obvious it's a fake or when it's not so glaringly obvious and might even have several possibilities, that are still ignored by the pseudo-skeptic.

we are talking about the cutting edge of science, in many cases. things people don't read about in their science books till fifteen or even fifty years later. it doesn't mean it isn't real, just because the establishment hasn't released it yet. this is where the REAL problem arises.



[edit on 25-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rawsom
 


Yeh.
I have a problem with getting what I am trying to say from my brain to my fingers (even my mouth but that is no nevermind here). But. I said that to say this. Thank you for just dismissing what I was trying to say because I am a lousy communicator (shows a good character methinks).

The thing about logic I think I have noticed though.
It's a straight line. And you can point it in the complete wrong direction and still come out sounding right. But. *shrugs*



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pi service
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.


Yes, go ahead. I look forward to reading your book.



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.


Im glad a PI could drop by here and confirm some of this.



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.


You have just posted the most important piece of research in this entire thread. I hope many get to read it.



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.


An idea for a counter strategy

If I am an investigative journalist or research bringing forth alternative or "hot" information and I am under attack by a covert campaign that is aimed at me specifically or my topic in general...then a little bit of this actually serves me to strengthen my cause by presenting irrefutable evidence and logic. The counter-strategy is then foremost an emotional one of "not caving in" and not giving up. Rather than taking an attack as a cause of sleepless nights, it is taken as evidence of having important and good information. By repeating and disseminating the message a percentage of readers who havent fallen for the disinfo will receive it and it will be helpful to them. Of course, disinfo dampens how many people are reached. But as sites like ATS continue to attract skilled minds who can discern between trash, disinfo, lunatic speculation, skepticism and blowing guns, things are likely to improve.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost


There is a quote from the Don Juan series by Castaneda. The old Toltec Brujo said; A warrior believes in everything - and in nothing." By that, he meant that we can gain information and power by placing ourselves within any particular belief system for a while in order to assess it, experience it, and perhaps use it, without actually adopting its belief dogmas for ourselves.



Yes. Don Juan also said: "People talk and talk and talk and talk. And when they are finally finished talking, the world is just the way they talked it to be".

This shows us that the information-war occuring is also a war over how we want the world to look.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
it doesn't mean it isn't real, just because the establishment hasn't released it yet. this is where the REAL problem arises.



"If its not in nature magazine, its not real". I never did understand this naive belief in authority.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating



"If its not in nature magazine, its not real". I never did understand this naive belief in authority.


I do to an extent but not to the point where it's not supported by what you're seeing with your own eyes. I suppose your eyes could lie to you as well, but then that kinda puts in question alot of science that is based on observation (at least in part, and part is part of the answer).



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ZeroGhost


There is a quote from the Don Juan series by Castaneda. The old Toltec Brujo said; A warrior believes in everything - and in nothing." By that, he meant that we can gain information and power by placing ourselves within any particular belief system for a while in order to assess it, experience it, and perhaps use it, without actually adopting its belief dogmas for ourselves.



Yes. Don Juan also said: "People talk and talk and talk and talk. And when they are finally finished talking, the world is just the way they talked it to be".

This shows us that the information-war occuring is also a war over how we want the world to look.


Wow,
good ref.

Can you tell me where you got that? I don't remember that and I was well read in the series. I'm just curious about context. Usually the question framed the answers and I don't remember the question.

The Castaneda series was an excellent document on understanding the structure of personal reality (albeit somewhat culturally specific), and how collective perception, whether elicited by a misperceived or antiquated description (ideological, scientific, religious or...) can keep us either locked into modes of perception that are less than aware of potentials that can exist in each moment, or open us up to them.

UFO, Alien, Exopolitics, Government conspiracies and such popular issues are a good place in which to observe such artifacts of "collective" awareness and how we can be driven to perception by fear, expectation or visualization.

I watch cultural, political and popular news for the ripples and waves to propagate across the perceptions and responses of the masses. I'm always amazed at how phobic we are becoming. Some darker parts of our corporate-government can effect collective perception by controlling what we see and don't. If we create what we believe, panic or creative awareness can set the stage and start runaway effects we can easily observe.

Your found quote is true. I am curious for source, but only for my personal knowledge. Thanks. Very astute.

ZG



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


The source of the quote is "Wheels of Time", a book of collected Castaneda/Don Juan quotes.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Excluded Middle - Bill Moore interview

Bill Moore's activities and testimony stand as a signal warning to everyone here as to the reality behind all the speculation.

HOW DISINFORMATION EXPERTS SPREAD FEAR ABOUT UFOS



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I'm sure I'm probably putting my self in the line of fire here but I guess I just have something to add. The vast majority of members here are smarter than me. I don't mind admitting that. I honestly believe that when you know that someone is trying to discredit your thoughts and try to bring out someones dark side for their own purpose it should just be ignored and you use that little button over to the side that says, ignore. I have read some very deep discussions on this site that to be honest with some of you I never could engage in.
Instead of indulging whoever it might be, look to the left, click on ignore and go on having a stimulating discussion with your peers. Believe me, I say this from experience, "Life is to short to be bothered with something that you have no control of." Well, maybe you do, with that little ignore button!



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by EntitySeed
 


Buh buh buh. Some people have persecution complexes to feed.
What about their poor little persecution complexes?





posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Skyfloating I love your posts


I see you're a moderator now, a balance in power! Maybe the paranormal threads won't get moved to BTS anymore


Ha, anyways, keep up the good work.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join