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?

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.

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

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.

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

double post

[edit on 25/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]

triple post

[edit on 25/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]

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.

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".

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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]

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