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: 19
70
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


With the likes of Google how do you distinguish the difference between research that disproves your case and a paid dis info agent ?
The burden of proof lays with the claimant(SP?) . There is a difference between an idea being plausible but not provable and claiming something as gospel truth .

In any topic you need a solid foundation to work with if this is lacking then the whole notion is in trouble to begin with. Take recent claims that Bush admin officials made hundreds of false statements before the Iraq war . I followed the topic in the ATS Breaking News forum and discovered that the source article contained a factually incorrect statement .

My experience on the boards indicates that members let there political views and emotions get in the way of logic and rational thinking rather then debilitate(SP?) acts of spreading dis info and/or paid sceptics .

People will take a statement or fact out of context to suit there agenda and the topic will go on for pages. Just because something appears in a blog or You Tube video doesn't make it true. Just look at how any claims about US military wrong doings are taken as gospel and any success story's are always claimed as US propaganda .

All of a sudden the people in question suddenly resemble those so called professional sceptics or debunkers .




posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by starskipper
 


Its true. Many have resorted to not publishing their finds because of the hysterical controversy it produces. So one publishes somewhere else...or not at all. Its often easier to just keep silent than to try to convince the world of something new.

[edit on 16-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


I distinguish by "gut feeling"/intuition...something which is frowned upon by the establishment.

This is something different than being "led by emotions" and prejudice, however.

[edit on 16-2-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Though I can understand your opposition to these pseudo-skeptic's I think it also needs to be noted that there are many posters willing to post outrageous claims without attempting to corroborate them in any way.

Two sides to every coin.



I expected this statement to come as a response to this thread. And of course its true. There´s some really stupid stuff out there.

But while most are aware of the nonsense posted, most don't seem to be aware of the tactics employed to discredit good research.


Nice post, perhaps you should have included some links to examples of people who have done thier research and are presenting a genuinely alternative concept or idea. It would be nice to have a short cut to these topics rather than having to sift through and question all the immanent invasions and abduction( for example) etc stories and then run the risk of being labelled as a pseudo-sceptic. This post and your point is well taken though. cheers


p.s. I think i saw a decent thread on Egyptology that could be used as an example of someone who has done they're homework...



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


The burden of proof lays with the claimant(SP?) . There is a difference between an idea being plausible but not provable and claiming something as gospel truth .



In 1903, Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray excavated the Osirieon at Abydos, Egypt. Margaret believed there was adequate evidence to suggest that the structure was not built by Seti I, and she presented that evidence. But it was 1903 and she was a female in archaeology. So today, it is still listed as being built by Seti I. When the evidences are provided, people
just pull out quotes made by modern archaeologists and historians, that reflect quotes from previous archaeologists and historians, which reflect quotes by even earlier archaeologists and historians all the way back to 1903 at which point, they totally ignore Margaret Murray.

So I do NOT want to hear that presenting evidence will change anything. It didn't work in 1903 or any time since then.


[edit on 16-2-2008 by undo]



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
So I do NOT want to hear that presenting evidence will change anything. It didn't work in 1903 or any time since then.



I understand where your coming from as an Atheist I have seen how people of faith react when the logical fallacy and the lack of evidence to support there notion. However you still have to present evidence or point out the lack of it if you expect rational people to support your ideas.

If you dispense with the need for evidence or at least a logical grounding then you will end up with wild conspiracy that aren't based on logic or have a place in reality. Sure sometimes you have you have to go with the most likely conclusion based on logic and what evidence is available.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by undo
So I do NOT want to hear that presenting evidence will change anything. It didn't work in 1903 or any time since then.



I understand where your coming from as an Atheist I have seen how people of faith react when the logical fallacy and the lack of evidence to support there notion. However you still have to present evidence or point out the lack of it if you expect rational people to support your ideas.

If you dispense with the need for evidence or at least a logical grounding then you will end up with wild conspiracy that aren't based on logic or have a place in reality. Sure sometimes you have you have to go with the most likely conclusion based on logic and what evidence is available.





It's the same no matter what or who. It doesn't matter what side of the border you are on. There's the establishment, and everything else is called pseudo, fringe and not reality, and that has been true for thousands of years.

For example, German Higher Criticism formed from an arm of the papacy when the vatican was temporarily moved to Germany at the end of the dark ages. Their job was to disprove anything that contended with the catholic interpretation of scripture. It was assumed, a priori, that the catholic interpretation was the only correct one. This set them up for the inevitable collapse of that viewpoint.

One such effort required creating a feasible timeline for history, to support the concept that the earth was created around 6000 BC. To do that, they went to the ancient civs and found that there were 2 opposing viewpoints (the egyptians and the babylonians) who were arguing over who's civ was the oldest. Their scholars fudged their timelines to make them look oldest. Then greek scholars picked up the ball and ran with it, and their accounts tied everything together.

The GHC picked up on this and decided the greek example couldn't possibly be right and that furthermore, there was no indication that they could even write in the timeframe that the info was being recorded, so they were removed from consideration for creating the timeline. Shortly following all the other ancient texts were also removed, including the bible, until there was nothing left by which to calculate history, except ancient egypt. The hieroglyphics hadn't been translated yet, so this gave them free reign to completely rewrite history as they were also the ones who interpreted them.

Turns out the ancient greeks could write but they refused to correct the error because too many noteworthy people of the Enlightenment, had contributed to the idea that all ancient texts, starting with the greeks and working backwards in time, were myth (except ancient egypt, who's timeline they decided to keep).

the earth is probably much older than 6000BC. but in an effort to protect the idea that it was not older than 6000BC they ended up completely unravelling history and stitching it back together again from only one account that had already been modified.

so now we live with the mess created by a bunch of catholic guys that went atheist, after they realized the RCC was wrong about the age of the earth and it went downhill from there.

they didn't just throw out the baby with the bathwater, they threw out most of ancient history.

Scary, ain't it?


[edit on 16-2-2008 by undo]



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Nice post, perhaps you should have included some links to examples of people who have done thier research and are presenting a genuinely alternative concept or idea. It would be nice to have a short cut to these topics rather than having to sift through and question all the immanent invasions and abduction( for example) etc stories and then run the risk of being labelled as a pseudo-sceptic. This post and your point is well taken though. cheers




Use your "gut feeling". Then you dont have to sift through all the junk.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I think today's atheists would be shocked and horrified to find out they are carrying on the mindset of the catholic scholars who were so accustomed to thinking they couldn't be wrong about anything. When they found they were wrong about the age of the earth, to their shock and dismay, it resulted in a huge backlash that destroyed most of ancient history.

It was like a snowball effect, that kept building upon itself. And all their theses and documents, written since that time, they use to their best advantage. This archaeological dig could not be showing what it appears to be showing because some guy in the 1700's said so. I imagine Margaret Murray was fit to be tied when she realized they not only were going to ignore all her findings, but would continue to do so for the rest of her life. She'd be even more discouraged to know that they are STILL ignoring it.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   


I distinguish by "gut feeling"/intuition...something which is frowned upon by the establishment.


(in agreement) Intuition is a tool that humans have that is without blemish of prejudice and bias. It is an innate ability. If one uses logic and intuition in harmony one can present an acceptable 'argument' for a theory.

Welcome those that are 'paid' to throw disinfo into a discussion. If the discussion is truly on to something, for an agency to utilize resources, it is a compliment to the discussion. Use your intuition and logic to negate disinfo. If it is truly DISinfo, it can be DISproven.

As for internet 'haters', I do not consider them disinfo. The powers that be would not hire people to 'hate' on threads. These 'haters' are so because they are biased and bring preconceived notions into the thread.

here is a quote of mine from a close "ATS is CoIntelPro" thread... it explains my thoughts on this subject.





How can ATS be CoIntelPro? ATS is largely user generated. Unless the majority of people who post at ATS are CIA, the content should still be somewhat valid. I am not saying that it is factual, because many issues discussed on ATS are..... uh.... conspiracy theories, but since the content is user generated, and topics (within reason) aren't censored. These theories always attract like minded people and people that object to the theory, people who challenge the theory. The discussion is generated by users, whether they be disinfo agents or students or professional people.

Who cares if the CIA runs ATS? The CIA does not censor the content I write, and the CIA cannot force me to believe what I read. In fact, the best ATS-ers are very skeptical. If the CIA were to post anything directly, it would likely get torn apart by people like me.... or someone else who likes a stimulating discussion.

Lets assume, for a moment, that the CIA or the Air Force Cyber-warfare Dept, runs and monitors ATS..... this means we must be on the right track. In fact, that would imply that they are afraid of user generated content, and seek to destroy/influence it.

Rules to live by on ATS
1. Don't believe everything you read
2. (politely) Challenge everything you hear and believe. Open Minded-ness and skepticism are not mutually exclusive.
3. Don't be rude to the people that make this site work. Obviously you enjoy being on ATS, don't ruin it
4. Anyone named DINSTAAR is a half-alien half-human transgenic clone of JFK who is employed by the CIA to spy on YOU!
5. Respect eachother
6. Don't swear
7. People that live in glass houses sink ships in the kitchen.
8. Pants.... optional(unless you have a webcam.... this is a family site.)
9. SkepticOverlord is also a half-alien half-human transgenic clone of JFK who is employed by the CIA to spy on YOU!



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


yes...you were noticed on that thread.

We are watching you



On another speculative note:

I think a lot of people would want to be noticed by secret intelligence agencies to have their self-importance inflated.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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.


That's too bad that some feel they shouldn't post. My experience has been just the opposite. Long standing members have u2u me saying I should explain further my opinions, people have jumped to answer my questions in the threads even when it is obvious that I am far behind the "know", and most that don't agree with something I have said have presented questions with polite interest.
Then again I have read posts where a member has taken it upon themselves to contact an op out of curiosity, have looked for my space or face books to put a face to a poster and have been blatantly aggressive to prove some wrong.
My opinion is post if you want, (within ats guidelines) you don't have to answer to those nasty posts, and you can't really "look stupid" seems you probably will never be going to have a cup of coffee with another member



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
you want to see some Derailment Skyfloating, visit the "Americans need to go on strike!" thread by stellawayten. There is a member on there that goes by SaviorComplex, the fight starts on pg 2, a mod steps in at pg 8, fight ends on pg 9. SaviorComplex got outnumbered, didn't even leave another post after that. Hope you check it out.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
you want to see some Derailment Skyfloating, visit the "Americans need to go on strike!" thread by stellawayten. There is a member on there that goes by SaviorComplex, the fight starts on pg 2, a mod steps in at pg 8, fight ends on pg 9. SaviorComplex got outnumbered, didn't even leave another post after that. Hope you check it out.


OK...thanks for pointing me to good entertainment value.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Yes now that i look back on it, it is pretty funny. At the time i was just pissed off, Due to the fact that i was in the midst of the battle, and some of the stuff he said was just Ridiculous. But in the end he folded.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   


I think a lot of people would want to be noticed by secret intelligence agencies to have their self-importance inflated.


Having delusions of grandeur is a symptom of schizophrenia. As is paranoia and disorganized thinking. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but I think many people are taking themselves down the wrong road on these forums.


DINSTAAR's How to Defend Your Mind Against DisInfo



1. Don't be paranoid.
Paranoia helps THEM find you better.

2. Keep an open-mind on all fronts. Don't believe anything until proper evidence is presented, and don't dismiss anything until proper evidence and discussion is presented.
3. If you strongly agree or disagree with a statement, courteously state your opinion and present evidence or logical reason behind your opinion. Do not be afraid of 'backlash' or people trying to refute your claim. If people are disrespectful to you, politely state your concern and do not retaliate.
4. Don't be afraid to ask questions.
5. If you have insight on a topic, share.
6. If someone says something ridiculous and is obviously incorrect, keep your cool. Be polite and state your case.
7. Humble yourself to "Agree to Disagree".
8. Do not attack peoples character. Let's be honest, no one really knows anyone online. There is much about me that my friends on ATS do not even know.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I personally think that governments would be fools if they weren't at least monitoring the boards here at ats. Even if nothing on this site even touched on the truth ( which i very much doubt!) it would be a good way to monitor the lunatics? There is a thread active at the moment called " planning a trip to area 51"- i am sure the government knows all about it.
It definitley seems like the more "juicey" information on here somehow gets buried and more hits on the crappy/loony stuff? Of course this could be due to new demographics visiting the site or it could be due to a team of full time disinformants? There is a similar thread called " is ats being hached/subverted from within?" (that is the correct(!)spelling- sorry am not techie enough to provide links!) which deals with many of the issues we are talking about here.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by the way
I personally think that governments would be fools if they weren't at least monitoring the boards here at ats. Even if nothing on this site even touched on the truth ( which i very much doubt!) it would be a good way to monitor the lunatics? There is a thread active at the moment called " planning a trip to area 51"- i am sure the government knows all about it.
It definitley seems like the more "juicey" information on here somehow gets buried and more hits on the crappy/loony stuff? Of course this could be due to new demographics visiting the site or it could be due to a team of full time disinformants? There is a similar thread called " is ats being hached/subverted from within?" (that is the correct(!)spelling- sorry am not techie enough to provide links!) which deals with many of the issues we are talking about here.


right. the question is, to what dimensions this happens.
the main questions there is ,how exactly are the official/unofficial/hidden structures between government, administration, secret services, concerns.

another thing is there is no free,democratic public platform known for anyone.
use direct democracy.(links below)



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by malganis
 


I'm not the op, but i do know that this is on the way for 2012-
January 31 — 433 Eros, the second-largest Near Earth Object on record (size 13x13x33 km) is expected to pass Earth at 0.1790 astronomical units (~26.8 million kilometers; ~16.6 million miles). NASA studied Eros with the NEAR Shoemaker probe launched on 1996-02-17.[3]
Also this at some unknown date in 2012-
NASA predicts that the Sun will reverse its own magnetic poles during 2012 as result of reaching the end of the current 11-year sunspot cycle.[13]
These are all quoted from the 2012 page on wikipedia (sorry am not techie enough to provide links). I am not a scientist so i will leave it to others to suggest what, if anything this will mean for our planet?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
This thread was sorely needed, thank you OP.

The people asking for names are doing this thread a disfavor. They already Know that the mods will edit any post that does this and leave behind an edit tag saying something along the lines of "we can't have you starting a witch hunt"

Every time someone has named a poster, they have had that post edited - the name removed.

This is suspicious behavior. Sadly, I won't be giving names... because I CAN'T.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join