Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:50 AM

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.


"Let the flower blossom before picking it".

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:53 AM

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.

Yes, but with your whole tone of voice and attitude it is obvious to me that you are not a disinfo-agent but simply interested in the truth of a matter.

Again, we are not talking about your usual skeptic here but about another phenomenon.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:57 AM
Want to start naming names?

I've got my scales and my rope ready for a witch hunt...

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:59 AM

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" ..

Not a "shred of evidence"? No more than 5 minutes of research?For the UFO topic, start by reviewing the threads of a member named Isaac Koi. Return here and tell me again there is not a shred of research done.
After reviewing those threads come back here and I will give you 1000+ more.

How dare some people keep claiming that we are not doing any research.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:01 AM
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.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:02 AM

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.

This particular person you are talking about was a true disinfo agent, yes.

I too became aware of that after googling the name and realising that the person had been engaging in the same behaviour all day all over the internet, not only on ATS.

While I will not be naming names here, I know exactly who you are talking about and would say you are right.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:05 AM

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.

This ATS thing is becoming very popular, internet-opinion is becoming more relevant...which is why governments and special-interest groups might feel that information has to be "contained" and "controlled" to some extent. This is open procedure in china, and here in the U.S. its the same procedure but they dont do it openly.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by SaviorComplex

I'm not going to name any names because this is not 1950 something and we are not trying to blacklist anyone. However, as stated previously, you can go into any thread about 9/11, freemasons or UFOs and see the handiwork.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to draw a distinction between a real skeptic and someone who has an agenda. You seem to have an agenda.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:09 AM

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?

ATS is a powerful tool to influence public opinion.

If millions read "UFOs seen" a disinfo-agent would have to see to it that millions also read the reply post "UFOs not seen!".

I dont think its MUCH of a threat (yet) but I do think it exists.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:13 AM

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.

I wonder how many websites deliberately place devils advocates into threads in order to help them along

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:26 AM

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.

I dont want to start a witchhunt and I wont be naming names, except this one who no longer seems to be at ATS. Another ATS member once drew my attention to someone who was spending a disproportionate amount of time posting pro-government and pro-official-reality-version information on ATS:

Notice the opening post and then click on the guys profile and notice the rest of his posts. Also notice the tell-tale screenname:

Possible Example

I am not saying this guy is a disinfo agent, only want to give a possible example of what we mean by our suspicions in this thread.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:35 AM
Alan Watt, Reality Check. The cure for the common ATS thread (including this one)

Oh, and if you're curious about how Santa comes from the Amanita Muscaria, download James Arthur's "Mushrooms and Mankind"

If you think aliens and reptiles are coming in 2012,

The internet is mostly controlled... all sites of any influence. WWW = 666 in ASCII numerology. Why do you think Rockefeller has those huge spider statues crawling over us in NY and Hague? Why do "weaving spiders" come not to Bohemian Grove? Or as the band Corporate Avenger says "It's all just a web of lies, attorneys are spiders and we are flies."

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

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.

Hi Skyfloating,
I am not even one full year at ATS, and already are convinced that what you are saying is highly possible if so not a reality.
But knowing that almost everything what can be monitored is monitored, and also knowing that you and I in reality can nothing doing about it, the only important thing that I can do about it is to keep that fact in the back of my mind.

I have had so far two times suspicions of the true purpose of a poster.
But in order of an earlier answer you make on a remark of my in another thread, I go no further then just gentle speculation and inquisitive chit chat.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by spacevisitor

You were the poster that put my attention to "Cat Herder", right? I had forgotten your name, but I remember now.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

The key element of this post is that if a critic of a post uses anykind of exclamation akin to "This is total bunk!", then they are to be ignored more than the original poster, regardless of how outlandish the original claim might be.

There are lots of people who want things to be true, like the supposed face on mars, which I have seen no evidence to prove it anything other than a natural geological formation. And even though, I am convinced that the mind works on isomorphic pattern recognition and remind myself of this often, there are lots of people who are duped by this in themselves.

Even still, This has to be my skeptical take. To say the following:

1. Other than "Wow that could look like a face", there is no evidence to support the fact a face actually was built.
2. Responding to number 1 with "But of course, thats because of the suppression of info by nasa and the gov", doesn't help anyone's claim that these are faces, it merely supports an isolationist perspective that causes others to forget the scientific method.
3.Ask for more evidence besides "Dude.. can't you see that it's really there?"

Other than than, ranting about the claim made doesn't really support my skeptical nature, it only creates a "pissing contest" between myself and the person who made the claim.

Really what's required here is for moderators to enforce this. Always remove any reply which reeks of personal opinion and has no actual scientific merit. Now notice I said, "reply" Original Posters should have he ability to make whatever claims they feel they have a good hypothesis about. However, any reply that simply says "You are an idiot" or the like should be removed, period. If you post a reply that actually has good data in it, but also lashes out at the OP, then it will simply be removed. So make sure that your good data isn't peppered with emotional responses.

Thank you OP for this thread.

It's sooooo needed.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:43 PM

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!

No, I don't think so. UFOs never just land in people's backyards, but if one did then i'm sure a lot of people would believe it. 'Proof' is a touchy word here on ATS because we have so many people turning up with their apparent 'proof' which just turns out to be some fake picture or just a photo of a blurry light. Thus the definition of 'proof' has got a lot stricter, and people get off and flamey a lot quicker when a new thread doesn't immediately look up to standard.

Anyway I guess it still fits in with disinfo, but what annoys me even more is the amount of stupid threads we get here from new members just like; "i am a time traveller from another planet, I know much more than you", etc. Any serious visitor to this site is going to see these sort of threads and think that we're all lunatics, and dismiss the whole site and anything on it as crazy. I think that does even more harm than 'disinfo agents', because it ridicules us in the public eye.

I was watching a conspiracies TV program the other day that did exactly the same thing. They discussed valid conspiracies like JFK, UFOs, 9/11, etc, and then mixed them in with a load of outrageously crazy theories that i'd never even heard of, clearly so that a neutral viewer would just throw all of the conspiracies in the same bag and dismiss them all as crazy. This is more dangerous IMO, because it makes the public think that anyone who discusses 9/11, JFK or any type of government-corruption must be a nutter.

[Mod Edit: Please see ABOUT ATS: Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 20/1/08 by JAK]

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]

Awesome... Talk about knocking one out of the park. I've never thought of this thinking / debating technique in these specific terms. Excellent analysis.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:19 PM

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.

I've been on this board for only a week, and I've already concluded this, too.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by MrdDstrbr

yes, basically they dont have any real,good, practical input on threats.
(even a pseudosceptic is different i guess):

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.

do you really think that in these important years the biggest ´conspiracy´site
would NOT be infiltrated?

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:29 PM

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.

or maybe they just want you to see their side of the argument?

there are a lot of people on here with valid points, but if it doesn't fit into someone's conspiracy they are just labeled 'sheep' and told to go back to their TV set.

Come on, there has to be a bit of a balance between for/against arguments otherwise everyone on this site would just believe in reptilians and moon base theories without rationally questioning them. Surely that's just as bad as believing everything the TV says?

P.S. don't just label me a 'disinfo agent' now because I don't outright agree with your theories without even questioning them. that would just prove my point.

[edit on 20/1/2008 by malganis]

top topics
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in