Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

reply to post by Skyfloating


Do you have any idea where I can apply to get paid to do what you claim is being done? I am skeptical that anyone is being paid to discredit unsubstantiated claims posted here. Simply because too many people have fun doing it. Why should anyone want to pay them for having fun?

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
Do you have any idea where I can apply to get paid to do what you claim is being done?

You would take money for that?

I am skeptical that anyone is being paid to discredit unsubstantiated claims posted here.

All claims here are unsubtantiated?

I am skeptical that anyone is being paid to discredit unsubstantiated claims posted here.

Are we referring to unsubstantiated claims in this thread? No.

Good luck in your further ATS endeavours.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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

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.

Absolutely ridiculous.

You contradict yourself; while you won't outright say he is a disinformation agent, you imply that he is. And it is on the basis of nothing. Not a single shred of evidence, other than the fact he is a skeptic. Not a single bit. So he doesn't tow your line, and has a desire to cut through BS, use reason and logic to make his point. That does not make him a disinformation agent.

The fact you and no one else is willing to name names is because you have no evidence. You know if you named names, you would have to provide evidence that these people are engaging in something untowards. And then people could see through this paranoid delusion you and others wish to engage in.

While I'm willing to believe some users post on ATS because they are avowed debunkers, I can't believe that anyone is being paid to do it. It's just not necessary. The topics being discussed on this site are considered so far out by mainstream standards that the ideas postulated here don't -- yet -- pose a threat to anyone.

That's not to say that some of the issued dicussed on these boards are not legitimate, or that posters are not making valid points -- as new as I am to this site, I'm already impressed by the quality thoughts of many of you.

In order to be seen as credible -- and to earn the attention of those debunkers, paid or otherwise -- we need to hold our theories to the same standards used by the academic community. Theories are easy to create. Finding the evidence to convert theory to fact, well, that normally requires time, money and a whole helluva lot of research.

Check out my blog: Esoterica in America

Originally posted by kosmicjack
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.

Then provide the evidence. Point to one single thread. You can't; you keep it just vague enough to keep the delusion and accusations going.

And do not lie and say this is about daring a distinction. That is an absolute lie. And Skfloating has proved that; he claims a poster making a very detailed argument about a plane hitting the Pentagon is a disinformation agent, simply because he makes a reasoned argument. This is not about making a distinction, this is about trying to silence skeptics or others you do not agree with you.

What is my agenda? Are you saying I am a paid disinformant because I am daring not to agree with you, or because I'm not buying into this ridiculous notion? You have absolutely no evidence, you are making an accusation without basis, other than the fact I don't agree with you.

The only people who have an agenda here are people like you and Skyfloating. Perhaps you folks are the disinformation agents.

See how I turned that around?

reply to post by Skyfloating

Thank you so much for this breath of fresh air. I too have become the victim of foul play. If you could tell me please how to completely remove my name from ATS membership (I made the mistake of registering) I would appreciate it. Please send me a message through U2U. Thanks.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Your line of reasoning resembles the operation mode of those spoken of in the opening post.

I say: "I dont want to name names"

You say: "Show me some names! Show evidence!!"

So I say: "I dont want to show names, but I will show you one example, as an example":

So you say: "Ridiculous! Thats no evidence!"

and on it goes.

Thank you for giving readers of this thread a good example of the opening post.

Originally posted by maryjenkins
Thank you so much for this breath of fresh air. I too have become the victim of foul play. If you could tell me please how to completely remove my name from ATS membership (I made the mistake of registering) I would appreciate it. Please send me a message through U2U. Thanks.

Please adress your request to the staff, not to me. Thank you.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


We established long ago that this is not about "people who disagree", "respected foes" and "skeptics".



[edit on 20-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Surely you must already know that your demands to name names and provide proof are utterly pointless. Surely you must already know that if people are being paid to abuse ATS and its users, there certainly isn't going to be a nice handy paper trail for it!

But just because we can't prove it, does NOT mean it isn't happening

reply to post by MrdDstrbr

A lot of skeptics demand proof, or at least, some form of evidence. Some will want to see the smoking gun! Skepticism is good. It keeps us honest. Pseudo-skeptics on the other hand resort to some form of forced logic to try to debunk that which they dissagree with. Now, it is my observation that many people are convicted each year through our legal system soley on circumstantial evidence! No smoking gun! It is the accumulated evidence that points to guilt, or proof!
One does not need to produce a smoking gun for the jury before it can decide on the verdict of guilty, they only need a preponderance of evidence! Many theories are like that, such as the Theory of Evolution. The evidence supports it. Pseudo-skeptics seem to say that no amount of evidence is enough because, in effect, your theory is contrary to my basic set of beliefs. They demand the impossible. Pseudo-skeptics are therefore close-minded, irredeemable, and should be ignored.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

So you say: "Ridiculous! Thats no evidence!"

That's because the post you showed wasn't evidence of any sort. It was just someone that just doesn't agree with you, proving you are nothing but a liar. This is not about finding "disinformation agents" but an attempt to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you.

There was nothing to suggest the post you pointed to was an example of disinformation; it was just a well-thought-out and researched posting. Your problem with it is just the fact it didn't agree with you.

What it proves is that you have an agenda. This is a witch-hunt by proxy, to label anyone and everyone who may not agree with you as a disinformation agent, simply on the basis they do not agree with you. So what if someone doesn't believe in UFOs, or that the government was behind 9/11, or that the moon isn't made a green-cheese? That basis alone isn't enough to label someone as a disinformant, which is exactly what you are trying to do.

The point of the matter is that faced with skepticism or someone who doesn't agree with you, you do not possess the evidence or the mental acumen to counter their arguments. Thus, you would rather engage in what amounts to an ad hominem attack, and seek to cast suspension on anyone who is a skeptic.

Perhaps what you need to do is prove that you yourself are not a disinformation agent, or that you do not have an agenda.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I don't think the point of all this is to point fingers at people and label them as "disinformants" or whatever. And maybe it was wrong of Skyfloating to point at a specific user and thread without "proof".

The point of this is simply to discuss the possibility of ATS being infiltrated and infested with these types of people and to raise awareness of it. There isn't going to be any hard "proof" of course, just like there isn't any hard proof for most of the subjects we discuss on here

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I'm almost 100% with you but... I think there are some (a tiny number of) disinfo agents here, and the reason I won't name them outright is because I think if I do I will be banned. So absent mods or super mods or what have you saying "no it's cool to name people" -- which would be, to put it mildly odd of them to say -- this is just one of those kinjitte topics in an online community. Yes we could indulge in the paranoia but NO it isn't healthy and like so many other topics, few if any people would move their positions.

Also disinfo agent, neurotic or evil twin-- the true colours come out in short order on internet forums in my experience and the more pathological a person the quicker it happens.

While accusations of disinformation agenst are dangerous due to the fact it's very difficult to prove and since it can hurt the credibility of the claiment I do believe the point has to be raised.

While there are vile debunkers wishing nothing but to shred a legitimate theory apart since they don't want to believe this world is so backwards and self-destructive, others may be motivated by monitary gain, who would do such a preposterous act is beyond me but none are good in my book.

As for outrageous theories, there may be more truth to it than you think, just because it sounds rediculous doesn't mean it IS rediculous, do you have absolute proof that some political figures AREN'T shape shifting reptillians? I am not for or against this theory due to the lack of proof but the theory in it self can not be dismissed just by mindset alone.

Even true believers and true skeptics aren't always open-minded to everything, this is a flaw ladies and gentleman.

[edit on 1/21/2008 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Skyfloating,

Not the site necessarily, just interersted parties from whereever.
I know it's not very kosher but i'm guessing it happens alot.

I am a glad to see such a thrad exist, I have noticed that there was some mebers on ATS that only tried to take down theories with no interest into the topic . IT reminds me of FOX news tactics.

reply to post by MrdDstrbr


from quote from 4-8-2007

You'll notice I've even greatly reduced my posts re: Greer, in fact I didn't even really want to post in this thread as I knew the exact same four vultures would be all over me and all clapping each other on the back giving each other stars the second I did....

Yep, the spooks/paid debunkers/disinfo agents, or "Vultures" as I like to call them, are definitely on here.

Well, according to Mrd, i can choose between being a spook, paid debunker or disinfo agent
Now, how did i become one....as anyone is free to check in my profile, by not believing in the UFO prophets like Greer and Gilliland and exposing their ridiculuos "evidence" and guitar wielding rogue soldiers as lies, hoaxes and fraud. Specifically helpful in gaining my status as paid disinfo agent has been saying, that THIS


is no alien "Loved one" but a simple moth and by calling Gillilands "orbs"

photographic artifacts.
Yes, it's that simple to become a spook/paid debunker/disinfo agent, apply rational, critical thinking and point out obvious lies.

So far, the payment for that stinks, i have to admit.

Let me point out one more example - in one of the cult of greer threads you'll be able to find a request for providing JUST ONE person that is not completely satisfied with the cults "ambassador of the universe" trainings ( yep, for those not aware of it, you can also be an ambassador of the universe for just 1000$ ), said and done and not one, but three persons completely unsatisfied have been shown. Now, did the person that requested just one testimony from an unsatisfied participant acknowledge these accounts ? No, now it was "show me five", "they all had an agenda", "these persons are spooks/paid debunkers/disinfo agents" ( not literally quoted, but you get the idea ). Talk about ignorance, eh ?

Funny thing is, personally i see it the other way around - throw two or three bad apples in the can and you spoil the whole bunch. It has already been mentioned in this thread, but as i see it, the "faaaaar out" threads discredit the topic to the general public and could very well be called disinfo or paranoid delusions.




[edit on 21-1-2008 by Phil J. Fry]

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Phil J. Fry]

Wow, this www.eceti.org... is really interesting!

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
That's because the post you showed wasn't evidence of any sort. It was just someone that just doesn't agree with you, proving you are nothing but a liar. This is not about finding "disinformation agents" but an attempt to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I just realize that you list "CatHerder" as one of your ATS-friends. Sorry if I offended you in any way. It was wrong of me to name examples. I have no evidence whatsoever that the name mentioned is a disinfo-agent.

I dont wish to silence those who disagree with me either. Ocassionally I am swayed by good argumentation and reasoning.