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: 18
70
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


There is indeed alot of disinformation out there. And it is very sad to see people fall for these tactics...McGaha, on Larry King uses these tactics. And so does the Air Force/SAC/NASA.

But at the same time there are people who promote ideas that are baseless. And if you retrace their steps you find just how much of it they made up. I've done this with authors like Icke, who have built on the good research of others, and added a new twist just to sell a few books, and throw good researchers out of their work to waste their time checking the validity of his claims. This is bad policy because of the 8 years I've spent on my work with Aliens and UFOs(Which is mirrored by many here on ATS), I've had to spend a year trying to see what Icke sees and simply found entirely too little to support his claims.

No government documents involved-

No Archaeological Evidence provided-

Allegorical references to reptiles which
were incorrectly transliterated from their
original languages.

Jumping to conclusions without making the effort
to explain the process he uses to achieve the results he has.
Instead he saves any new information he "gains" for his next book
which he avidly advertises in the face of those asking for more concrete
evidence. (i.e. "Read my book it's all there") These are also earmarks of disinformation which is disguised as something more concrete. Is this sort of thing ok with people? I've found a general acceptance of this idea here..And there's no evidence to support it.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by dizziedame
 


I think it's funny that these people, go out of their way to discredit MILLIONS of people. If that doesn't tell you something...I don't know. Just keep your head up. We'll get our "I told you so" moment.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
I think it's funny that these people, go out of their way to discredit MILLIONS of people. If that doesn't tell you something...I don't know. Just keep your head up. We'll get our "I told you so" moment.


The funny part is I would love to be "I told you so" any day of the week. The fact that I disagree with a person does not also mean I would not want to be proven wrong. Also, disagreeing doesn't mean I have the right answer either.

The majority of disagreements deal with how information is presented. When you look at most disagreements it is more about what is considered undeniable proof and faulty absolute statements than the actual topic.

Take UFOs, I read a post where someone wrote about one that they saw. They had no proof etc, but wanted to talk about it. With that I say great let’s talk for how can anyone argue over a UFO when the actual name implies “Unknown”. It is when the unknown is turned into a known, with nothing else but the original data that showed an unknown, that you start to see the skeptics etc come out of the woodwork.

You could post a 30 minute movie of a large silver ball flying around defying all the laws of gravity and you would still have a UFO with not enough proof yet to say aliens. It could just as easily be alien technology as technology from the NWO, Military, hollow earth race, angels, god, devil so on and so on.

Present information in the correct manner and discuss it within the bounds of the data presented and there is not a person who would be in disagreement.


[edit on 30-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well you and I agree, I was just calming a concern. The information I deal with are the credible, documented reports that are corroborated by more than one independent source. But that doesn't convince me. I also study the data myself to see if I get the same results, thus far things have been going really good. And that is what I've based my reply on.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I had a little time to look over some of these topics and persons. They seem to be heaviest with dis-info tactics on new tech and new medicine as well as a couple of others and not so much on politics which can be spun hour by hour.

(I think i'm about to be put on the sht list but here goes.)

It seems that there should be a specific awareness of the following:

1. Concerted multi-point attack-to provoke.

2. Concerted multi-point dis info-to confuse.

3. Mods with unusually high amounts of bans and topic locks.

4. Use of NLP in an open discussion.

5. Blatant use of the Delphi technique, in open discussion.

6. Blatant mid stream topic changes-including off topic links and photos.

7. The Rug Pull. A buddy up in one post followed by an attack, the next.

8. The Magic Wand. A topic so similar, yet so different, inserted that the change is barely noticed.

How do you defend you may ask? Mmm Mmm Mmm.

Do not fight or argue. If you see this going on. Reply with one word Dis-information and add a link to the topic here.

Do not however violate the right to anyones opinion, so you may only be able to respond when you see, say #4 or 5 above where it can be proven
without a doubt. A database run against #3 can clean that part up.

Any other ideas to put the skids on?


(cleaned up bad spelling on the edit)
(Dmn who wrote this spellcheck?)

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Illahee]

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Illahee]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Explorer-Mind: First I collect data and consider it from many sides, then I ask for evidence/accept or discard theories.

Pseudoskeptics-Mind: First I ask for evidence, then I collect data.

Disinformants-Mind:First I discard a theory.





posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Explorer-Mind: First I collect data and consider it from many sides, then I ask for evidence/accept or discard theories.



I like Explorer-Mind - I call it OOB (Objection OBserver). Same thing. I receive ALL data and then the vetting begins.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Explorer-Mind: First I collect data and consider it from many sides, then I ask for evidence/accept or discard theories.

Pseudoskeptics-Mind: First I ask for evidence, then I collect data.

Disinformants-Mind:First I discard a theory.




You forgot: I'm getting a check Mind: The fool is going down.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
No really. Serious. Check any topic that is overly large, locked or OP ban, and then refer back to the list and about 40% of the time you can pick the one that fits. There is no doubt some are loose or off cannons(wackos), but there seems like an underlying trend going on with those to a limited degree.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Illahee
 


Oh I sure see the patterns.

It his human nature to change one´s interests and opinions once in awhile. If you notice someone who has never ever posted anything other than one opinion and only in one forum, get suspicious



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I am seeing the same thing here today on no 757 hit penegon one poster is all over ATS name he is useing is [Mod Edit: We don't encourage witch hunts here] You all are right, about how they attack its sick!



[Mod Edit: Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 2. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 15/2/08 by JAK]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


..........................

Perhaps you might care to research Editorial Intelligence.

That's the UK terminology.

Doubtless the US has its own, but researching Editorial Intelligence will provide all the details you require to change your stance ... if you're prepared to alter it, that is.

Because imo, your post (imo) falls into the category of posters described by the OP as 'disinfo agent'. .... 'sounds like'.

Editorial Intelligence are organisations .. well paid orgs .. who DO employ 'keyboards for hire'.

The keyboards-for-hire are paid .. yes, paid .. to 'write letters to the editor' which put positive spin on whatever the keyboards for hire are instructed to promote ... OR portray negatively.

It's been going on for more years than I can remember.

The keyboards for hire are paid .. yes, paid .. to pose as 'member of public' in forums .. to debunk .. deny ... derail ... divert .. dismiss .. discredit.

They're ALSO paid to promote and put positive spin on whatever subject they're earning their living from.

They spend their lives behind screens, tapping away .. supposedly, hopefully (from their employers' point of view) 'forming and steering' opinion.

A major product or politician has been 'bad news' lately ? Then the keyboards for hire promote them in letters-to-editor in 'Comments' pages and online in forums, blogs, etc.

Someone wants a theory or politician or product or whatever to be portrayed as negatively as possible ? Keyboards for hire then do a hatchet job on whatever or whomever it is in forums, blogs, 'Comments' sections, etc.

This is not myth or open to debate ... organisations earn substantial income from this sort of 'forming and steering' of opinion. And they advertise. They recruit.

It used to be that elderly persons of a certain persuasion, in trailer parks and condos in Florida, many of them ... others were youths in certain attic 'schools' in NY. They're still around. But these days, they've been joined by housewives, the housebound and others. An entire army of them, posing as 'ordinary posters' .. undoubtedly there are a number of them in ATS.

Usually they have multiple IDs. It's all organised.

If they strike serious opposition, they call in their support.

You see it all the time. Someone launches a thread that they've been instructed is a subject matter not to be allowed serious discussion.

Moments after the thread is launched, you'll see three or four almost immediate posts, all discrediting, dismissing the OP. They'll support each other's negative stance re: the topic and OP. Then they'll take the issue off topic. They'll derail. They'll attack the OP personally and anyone who attempts to genuinely discuss the issue.

These keyboards for hire aren't very bright, most of them.

They're also posting like crazy in several forums at once.

They have instruction manuals .. advising them of the swiftest and most effective means of killing/derailing/discrediting etc. a thread.

Their actual knowledge of any particular topic is mininmal in many instances .. superficial.

Outright 'scepticism' is their opening gambit, very often.

Or, they'll post in direct opposition to the OP.

They've been told that many forum members are young and inexperienced .. easily bullied ... easily swayed .. easily persuaded to conform with the keyboards-for-hire's point of view . Young, inexperienced, newbie posters are often 'afraid' to 'look stupid' before the rest of the forum, so they often back down. Mission accomplished.

If you keep your eyes open, you'll see it frequently.

Most keyboards-for-hire appear to have a 'respectable' number of points. If they actually earned them is open to speculation. I won't pursue that angle but naturally have my opinion.

So do a search for Editorial Intelligence if you're genuinely interested in paid disinfo agents and their ilk. You'll never regard forums, 'comments' sections, endorsements from 'Jane of Ohio', blogs, etc. again. Guaranteed.

No time to read back through this. I should have been somewhere else half an hour ago. So disjointed, grammar and spelling mistakes .. apologies.

So their posts



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 


Dork6 Thank you for your post. You have help me understand how they work.
I too have had my share even today the same perp reported me to a mod and said I was on a witch hunt lol.
thats ok. How on earth do you stop these kind of people from running everyone away.
I mean this is insane I have never incounter this befor but now I see it nothing new here.
Cant a Mod do something about people derailing these thread?



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 


This is the very first time I learn about "Editorial Intelligence" and "paid keyboard". Thanks so much for your insights.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


..........................

Perhaps you might care to research Editorial Intelligence.





Refer my list above. The Delphi is very common here because people refuse to google it and learn how. It is very old and still works. The far newer techniques are being used as well.

Star for you.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Disinformation doesn't come from skeptics,or even pseudoskeptics. Challenging the quality of evidence in support of claim will strengthen that claim when the challenge is well and truly met with improved evidence.

The truth is, there is an awful lot of bunk out there, and debunking is just normal house cleaning that needs to be done.

Has no one around here read Project Beta?



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
Disinformation doesn't come from skeptics,or even pseudoskeptics.


That wasnt the premise of the thread.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Some debunking seems more like an attempt to erase the competition so that those who are releasing the data as alternative news, are in control of the dissemination of all the info. This has several potential uses and dangers:

1) The potential to become another arm of the same institutions who are already withholding the original data.

2) The ability to use the data to discount any theories or evidences that might support one world view over another

3) A means by which some individuals, groups or orgs can be shoved out of the driver's seat of their own particular set of theories, and replacing them with someone else who says the same exact things (a form of "stealing" someone else's info and discoveries)




[edit on 15-2-2008 by undo]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Anything particular you are hinting at here?



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I honestly believe it comes down to you know what you know.
Hey, it is great if you get 100 posts saying "thats so true" "blah blah blah"... pet on the back.
But, there are people who have been in here for years that truely look around the corners and try to find facts. They take it seriously and this can come out agressive or confrontational. And yes there are people in here just looking for an argument. But if you let it bother you, then your convictions are out the window. If a person returns pettyness it will cloud their convictions/opinions/facts.
But hey, it is what it is. Personaly if there is a superfical browser, I could care less what they think about a post. And I know if I was sitting on the undeniable "proof" and found a dead end here, I would still try to share what I had other places. (but the combined resources here are a great place start)



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join