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.

 

Disinfo....pfff...yeah whatever!!

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Why is it that when someone provides substantial, logical, or proffesional information and in some cases well known theory, on ATS, they are almost automatically labelled a disinformation agent, ignorant or close minded? It's happened on numerous occasions to certain users around here, mainly by the same offenders.

I find it strange that this happens considering conspiracy theorists, no matter how nutty or unplausible the theory is are labelled heroes or martyrs etc etc. I am not labelling anyone here at ATS (well mainly), I am more talking about information (that is used as backing evidence in threads) provided by people like harcore CT's Art Bell, Jeff Rense and countless doctors, whom have false credentials or no proffesional experience in any of the subject matter they are talking about. Half the time references that are used are from websites where people are clearly making money a-la-Bill Deagle.

It is also extremely frustrating that people use youtube videos (sigh..... yeah I know, chemtrail BS) as evidence. Youtube is full of pranksters, attention seekers, paranoid nutcases and people that have nothing better to do with their time than concoct ridiculous theories and mindless jokes. Sure, I admit there are some good documentaries (mainly taped off DVD's or TV), but there are very few decent, unbiased ones that I have seen used here on ATS.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't skeptics or other people that dont believe every single conspiracy have a right to be here too without being labelled as a disinformation agent?




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Did someone label you as that?

Time to take a deep breath, stop throwing your hands up and read between the lines... Don't give up, I understand that youtube is a lot like you mentioned, but I'm sure out of all the videos there are some that can be satisfactory and could help stabilize a theory? Maybe youtube is disinfo agents?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Fact is- there are disnfo agents on here and there are several of them and of them we pffff-whatever. There are also mega professionals as well.

Yes, youtube is full of pranksters. Its is also full of evidence. We study and discuss information here and draw conclusions because that is what adults do. History books and religions texts are also full of pranksters and there is also evidence.

I predict the destruction if this thread in T-minus 5 seconds.

Your frustration's and skepticisms have been duly noted and respected. This site is a grab bag of truth, lies, humor, seriousness and everything else in the world. I have learned that my expectations of this site were resentments under construction.

I have since dismissed expectations and participate as best I can with my best foot forward. Some days I do not which foot is my best so in the morning I take a magic marker and I put an "R" on the right foot and an "L" on the left foot so by the end of each day I know which foot needs to be punished or praised. If I have coffee and breakfast before I mark them makes a significant difference in how it all turns out.

It is wise to keep all this in mind when reading any of my posted comments.


Edited for /sp

PS- Yes I do have an equal limp


[edit on 25-3-2008 by dk3000]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
pff yeah whatever is not the most convincing argument I've ever heard


Disinformation is anything that goes against the truth. If you consider something to be the truth and someone argues with you, they are going against your view of reality.

There is no seeing eye to eye when only one eye can see.

If something is obvious to me, I.E. UFO's are real, because I have seen 4 of them, I do not expect a skeptic to believe me. However, the skeptic does expect a person to discount their own personal experience and ignore loads of information through research etc.

The skeptic is often a discredit to efforts of information gathering in the paranormal field, and they will therefore be referred to as disinformants or naysayers etc.

This will ruffle the skeptics feathers, but doesn't the contactee or sightee's feathers get ruffled as well? The skeptic often implies that a sightee is lying or mistaken, whereas the sightee will insist the skeptic is trying to disinform him of what he's witneesed. Again, there is no seeing eye to eye.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

i]Originally posted by ElectricUncleSam
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Did someone label you as that?


Its happened on a few occasions. Sometimes subtly others not so. I am a meteorologist by trade, so its usually been on the chemtrail threads, people saying I am part of a huge global conspiracy. Seriously if I was, I wouldnt be wasting my time here arguing with chemtrail CT's




Time to take a deep breath, stop throwing your hands up and read between the lines... Don't give up, I understand that youtube is a lot like you mentioned, but I'm sure out of all the videos there are some that can be satisfactory and could help stabilize a theory? Maybe youtube is disinfo agents?



I'm calm....I'm calm....deep breaths...


Yeah youtube can help stabilise a theory when it is unbiased, but the majority of it isn't. Its like forcing people to believe in something without introducing them to alternative theories/decisions. Any how I dont think it should be used as accurate evidence of something

[edit on 25/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]

[edit on 25/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
pff yeah whatever is not the most convincing argument I've ever heard


Yeah sorry bout that....didnt know what else to put at the time...lol



Disinformation is anything that goes against the truth. If you consider something to be the truth and someone argues with you, they are going against your view of reality.

There is no seeing eye to eye when only one eye can see.


If something is obvious to me, I.E. UFO's are real, because I have seen 4 of them, I do not expect a skeptic to believe me. However, the skeptic does expect a person to discount their own personal experience and ignore loads of information through research etc.

That is an excellent point. It sort of leads me to believe that the term disinformation shouldn't be used to ATS'ers. For the high level government, yeah why not....but not us general users.



The skeptic is often a discredit to efforts of information gathering in the paranormal field, and they will therefore be referred to as disinformants or naysayers etc.


Yes agreed. But on the opposite end, I dont think a psychic (derek accorah, the worst offender) is an accurate measure to prove paranormal activity. I prefer to follow TAPS type investigations. They go in looking for evidence that cant be explained by conventional measures. I think that all things should be taken into account when discussing paranormal and UFO topics



This will ruffle the skeptics feathers, but doesn't the contactee or sightee's feathers get ruffled as well? The skeptic often implies that a sightee is lying or mistaken, whereas the sightee will insist the skeptic is trying to disinform him of what he's witneesed. Again, there is no seeing eye to eye.


Wow, I am going to have to star this post. I too have seen a UFO. I believed that I saw something that could be explained but after a bit of research I couldnt find anything that made any sense to me. I think that people should remain open minded while researching a sighting, holding both a skeptical and postive point of view. If something can be explained then thats great...if it cant be, be prepared to back up your argument

I hope this makes sense



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Yeah we definitely shouldn't get in the habit of calling skeptics disinformants.

But obviously, there are some occassions where it's clear that a person is sabotaging conversation. These are the people who are pushing an agenda and we have no choice but to call them disinformants.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Yeah we definitely shouldn't get in the habit of calling skeptics disinformants.

But obviously, there are some occassions where it's clear that a person is sabotaging conversation. These are the people who are pushing an agenda and we have no choice but to call them disinformants.



Yes totally agree with you. I think it goes both ways to. You know like people post a picture that is obviously (i mean like real obviously)fake then label anyone who debunks it as an ignorant idiot


But yeah, being skeptical isn't necessarily a bad thing, its just not jumping to a conclusion without first exploring all possibilities. Maybe denying ignorance isn't just for the CT's out there



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 25/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
triple post

[edit on 25/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Oz,
I agree with you, in that when an authority on a subject tries to show reason, they seem to get attacked as a naysayer, ignorant or closed minded. I find it arrogant that the hardcore extreme CTers (Chemtrailers, PXers etc who I have seen cop an absolute flogging as well) feel they are exempt from these lables eventhough they are often more closed minded being set in their ways and not willing to accept other rationals for their ideas.
Spare a tought for the many in the middle trying to find the truth being tossed and turned every which way.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Why is it that when someone provides substantial, logical, or proffesional information and in some cases well known theory, on ATS, they are almost automatically labelled a disinformation agent, ignorant or close minded? It's happened on numerous occasions to certain users around here, mainly by the same offenders.


Well brother, from what I have seen in my few years on this site, it is caused by two things.

1. Lack of supporting sources.

2. The argue-er is dead set intheior mind frame, and leaves no space available for an open minded approuch to subject.

Those are the two most common occurences of "offenders" as you mention. Personally, I feel individuals have made up their mind before going into a thread responce, and will argue no matter what undisputed proof is presented.

This activity I call "willing ignorance", and as the age old sayin goes:
"One cannot help another, whom won't help themselves".



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
I find it arrogant that the hardcore extreme CTers (Chemtrailers, PXers etc who I have seen cop an absolute flogging as well) feel they are exempt from these lables eventhough they are often more closed minded being set in their ways and not willing to accept other rationals for their ideas.




I know what you mean. They seem to hide behind ATS's slogan deny ignorance while they are in fact promoting it. That why I started this thread. To show that ignorance and close mindedness can go both ways but its only the skeptics that seem to be called those names. If everyone just did proper research it wouldnt happen



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Personally, I feel individuals have made up their mind before going into a thread responce, and will argue no matter what undisputed proof is presented.


Yeah, hardcore skeptics and hardcore CT's. It seems to me thought that its only the conspiracy theorists that call the skeptics ignorant. Does anyone else find this or am I just imagining things.

I think in some cases people actually want conpsiracies to be true and thats what drives them to being close minded



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Why is it that when someone provides substantial, logical, or proffesional information and in some cases well known theory, on ATS, they are almost automatically labelled a disinformation agent, ignorant or close minded? It's happened on numerous occasions to certain users around here, mainly by the same offenders.


What you're seeing is teh product of a lot of quacks, mentally deficient and generally ignorant people that infest boards like this. They're zealots and such. you can't change their mind and they can't change the subject. Its like dealing with the old church, where if you didn't agree with the pope's definition of something you were a blasphemer and should be burned. You see these people all throughout life, and most of the rest of us stand back and laugh, and mostly ignore them. Think your general ufo tinfoil hat wearer.

Consider also the point of ego here. Many people can't let go and even consider they might be wrong. Look around you and people will hold onto the most inane, deluded, narrow and incorrect notions, just to hold onto a veneer of being right, even if in their own mind. Peak oil and global warming charlatains come to mind here.

Then you have some of the last group that desparately cling to a made up reality because they can't accept the world around them. A lot of people here fall into that category, and easy one is most of the 9-11 crackpots and lizard people chasers.

there are some who just get into things, and thers many here that are just decent people, educated, and open minded. many of the rest are fans, cheerleaders, sheeple mark II, and whackos looking for something new. welcome aboard.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
What you're seeing is teh product of a lot of quacks, mentally deficient and generally ignorant people that infest boards like this. They're zealots and such.


Yeah ,'zealots'
I will refrain from drawing similarities here.

There are more than just 'tin-hats' and 'quacks' running around these boards, CoffinFeeder... there are alot of surly and indignant anti-conspiracy posters as well. They are the people kicking down sand-castles and throwing mud into threads... calling people ignorant and mentally deficient for casually discussing topics *ahem*.

Leaving it at that...



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
ATS.com should be notorious for fallous information.

Considering this website/forum is a centerfold for a lot of conspiracy-type minded people, it would only make sense for the CIA or whatever else organization to utilize this as a center for information. Thus they can skew subjects and spread disinfo as they please, usually accompanied by unreliable sources.

It's somewhat easy to spot if you have an open mind but take things with a grain of salt. Not everything you read and hear is truthful no matter how much your conspiracy driven mind would like.

It's just a sad consequence of which that people are labelled as disinfo. Maybe the person calling you a disinformation agent is actually a disinformation agent themselves. Or maybe you both are disinfo and making up this to cause even more disinformation.

That's just how things work with the government and conspiracies.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
ATS.com should be notorious for fallous information.


Amen to that



Considering this website/forum is a centerfold for a lot of conspiracy-type minded people, it would only make sense for the CIA or whatever else organization to utilize this as a center for information. Thus they can skew subjects and spread disinfo as they please, usually accompanied by unreliable sources


The CIA (and other organisations) have been around a lot longer than ATS or the internet for that matter. I find it absolutely ridiculous that they would come here for information, especially given the amount of BS that is posted here. I doubt that if they were by some chance looking to spread lies, they wouldnt be doing it from here or gathering info from here. I think the media would be a much more likely avenue to spread misleading info, although I doubt they would need the CIA to achieve this....they do a pretty good job on their own




It's somewhat easy to spot if you have an open mind but take things with a grain of salt. Not everything you read and hear is truthful no matter how much your conspiracy driven mind would like.


How true that is. Just one of the many reasons lizardmen was moved to skunk works. Planet X and chemtrails should also be moved their and anyone claiming to be a starchild or one of those other weird spacemen thingies



It's just a sad consequence of which that people are labelled as disinfo. Maybe the person calling you a disinformation agent is actually a disinformation agent themselves. Or maybe you both are disinfo and making up this to cause even more disinformation.


Why would I be disinfo? Seriously.....I dont know why I was labelled that. Maybe because I disagreed with someones wacked out theory, so automatically I cant be just a normal everyday user of ATS. The label disinfo should be defined a little clearer so people arent called it for providing decent information or disgreeing for another users point of views



[edit on 26/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I'm not sure if you're bothered by all the people on ATS who are quick to label you as a disinformation agent or a just ticked of at some of the stuff out there on youtube. For the most part, I think the folks that chime in with their opinions on this site are more credible than what people put out there on youtube. I also happen to think youtube is run by the govt and it is a tool they use to get feedback from people all over the world as it relates to just how much the world hates Americans (you know, they hate us for our freedom). I am amazed by the amount of people who write in some serious anti-U.S. comments. At the same time, youtube is quick to censor any negative comments you try to post related to the folks running for president on the campaign folks' official sites (which is why I like to send my comments via the presidential hopefulls official websites). I like pushing my luck with my comments on youtube, they let you use four letter words.

Look at it this way, everything you see, read & hear is a sales pitch. Believe everything or nothing, freedom of choice is a nice thing as long as you are not a sheep. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this comment/rambling of mine. There's a point to made here somewhere, I can't seem to find it. I guess I just suck at life, oh well.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman


The CIA (and other organisations) have been around a lot longer than ATS or the internet for that matter. I find it absolutely ridiculous that they would come here for information, especially given the amount of BS that is posted here. I doubt that if they were by some chance looking to spread lies, they wouldnt be doing it from here or gathering info from here. I think the media would be a much more likely avenue to spread misleading info, although I doubt they would need the CIA to achieve this....they do a pretty good job on their own



What I was getting at, is this is a centerfold for a lot of conspiracy minded folk, proven by the amount of traffic, registered and guest users. Information that can be truth or false. Disinformation agencies can use this as a means to spread disinfo since a lot of people come here in search of information




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join