Originally posted by hildar
reply to post by DogHead
I actually was just talking to a friend about that at hub, she said she would like to join here and give out a few of her theories like mine, but as I told her if she did she would be in for one heck of a time. I believe they need to have certain areas for these things and keep the others where they want to be where the proof is.
Truthfully I am starting to get tired of it. And thats why I keep leaving. Sooner or later alot of us will leave from disgust. The mods need to do something. I feel if we have something on our minds we should be able to say it without being jumped on completely.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
An earlier poster, on page one, 'IvanZana', tried to inject 9/11 into THIS thread with a blanket 'statement' that the 'United93' thread he was referring to showed a complete lack of evidence of some peoples's pet theories regarding that flight...that is, he 'asserted' that NO ONE can prove there was a real airplane there...
Did not want to raise that terrible flag again, but it seems to be pertinent when emotions get too high in a debate...sometimes we may be too quick to cry 'Foul!' and assume there is a conspiracy when, in fact, it is just a difference of opinion based on different interpretations of disparate information sources.
Thanks for your consideration.
Originally posted by tep200377
Could you point out two or three threads that contains more than 5 minutes of research in the OP for me?
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" ..
Originally posted by Cythraul
Good on you skyfloating. An extremely vital thread. I actually woke up to the reality of disinfo agents in one of your threads about the possibility of ancient civilisations. I don't think I need to name any names, but needless to say, the disinfo agent in question demonstrated pretty much every trait you've identified in your OP. Imparticular, I was convinced that she/he was absolutely a disinfo agent when they began personally attacking intelligent, rational participants in the thread. After a google search of that persons screenname, I discovered page after page of results linking to discussion forums where this person had done nothing more than debunk and derail. Surely no-one could get their kicks by systematically destroying discussion, unless they have an agenda.
Originally posted by Pericle
To the OP.
A better question would be, who feels that ATS can be a danger? I mean if there where some payed users to disprove stuff, then some national/secret body had to do it which has inside knowledge.
Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I'm just going to ask you some questions. Who pays them? The government, corporations? Why? Do you really think the government is involved? Do you really think ATS is that much of a threat?
Originally posted by undo
I noticed it's either a wave (like someone opens the flood gates and closes them again), or a single hit man. But yeah, I've noticed it.
Zorgon and I have theorized on it. We narrowed it down to three types:
1. just a person who disagrees and can't be bothered to explain his/her position
2. deliberately placed devil's advocates, created for the purpose of injecting life into the debate -- not to destroy it but to give it energy
3. deliberately placed disinfo because internet conspiracy can grow political legs.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Again and again, I've seen post after post on this thread where someone claims they have seen disinformation agents in action in various threads. Just who are these nefarious agents?
It's time to put up or shut up. Start naming names. Provide the proof there are actually disinformation agents active in the forums.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
In 4 years of reading ATS I have become convinced 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. These disinformants are often cloaked as skeptics but do not behave like real skeptics but rather like pseudoskeptics.
Originally posted by mikesingh
And as what someone said in a post above, proof is what is required. But even if a UFO lands in the backyard, they'd say that that ain't no proof!
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt 
Double standards in the application of criticism 
The making of judgments without full inquiry 
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate 
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof 
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof 
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims 
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence 
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it 
Originally posted by Vojvoda
You should be aware, too, that there are some people mentally ill [psychosis]. And I am very serious. I have black list in paper of some nicknames to which I don’t answer any more as they apparently need psychiatric help.
Originally posted by anti72
reply to post by MrdDstrbr
its all just massive strawfire to get you distracted, worried, diverted..
its all about what you think. they want to C O N T R O L you.