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.

 

I want to discuss disinfo agents...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
How do you know who a disinfo agent is?

Every time i try to get the truth across to people perhaps on the internet i quickly get shot down as a conspiracy theorist and nut.

Some tactics i think disinfo agents use from my experience:

"What proof and evidence do you have, i see nothing anywhere about this on the internet or news" After you already have all the proof laid out, makes others think the evidence you have is made up.

"Bollocks, do you trully believe that is happening"

"I have proof of what you say is unsubstantiated"

"Stop spreading conspiracy lies"

"Oh here we go all the nuts are coming out of the woodwork"

"Its the end of the world now quick hide"

"You are fear mongering"

"Do not believe everything you see, hear or read on the internet its all just lies"

"What you are posting is bolloney"

"People blaming the elite few are not looking in their own backyard, you gotta stop blaming them for being evil"

"What proof have you got that the elite are evil just because they have money"

"Here is a credible sight that explains your conspiracy thinking even further(they always post with scientific blogs)

They make you feel dumb by saying, "where did you here this stuff on some looney website"

They also make you out to be unintelligent. They make you feel like you believe everything that you read by saying "stop believing everything you read" even though you know you've done alot of research and put pieces of the puzzle together.

My favourite: "your serious, your really being serious, oh lordy"

Then if you show them enough evidence and fact they still make it out like its not true.

anymore?

Basically the more the disinfo agents reply to me the more i pick up on their tactics and use it against them. Its the only way to get the truth out, is to lower yourself to their standards. They are pretty nifty at swaying the audience and make you look like a fool and a nutcase, even though you researched day and night about it.









[edit on 28-10-2008 by meadowfairy]

[edit on 28-10-2008 by meadowfairy]




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
There was a thread just like this a couple of weeks ago. Try the search function.

Dis-info Agent is just basically a name people call each other when they don't agree. You know, like you did on the playground when you were 9 or 10 years old.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Thanks for the tip blaine will check.

Yes i agree that its just people quarelling against eachother but there are true disinfo agents as much as there are true conspiracy theorists and whistle blowers.

Actually just brought up the other thread and its not about what im discussing. Im discussing the tactics used by disinfo-agents not about why we get accussed of being called one.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by meadowfairy]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Actually the majority of dis-info agents are paid workers that try to discredit either a story that is getting to close to the hidden truth, or a person or site by posing as someone who is credible and then is proven to be a hoaxer, or a parnoid crazy person.

This works particularly well on sites such as ATS.

I just posted this response in reply to why there are so many threads about the wonders of hallucinogenic illegal drugs on the RATS (really above top secret) forum.

This hurts the credibilty of everyone on ATS and here is that reply in response to why there are so many threads on drug use and hallucinogenic drugs on rats...


No you are not alone. It should not be allowed simply because it is too easy to proclaim all of those that visit ATS as parnoid druggies, hallucinatiing UFO sightings and imagining wild conspiracy theories while high on illegal drugs.

This seriopusly hurts the sites credibility with the mainstream, and if anything ground breaking ever occured to where it received much press, they could say ATS is nothing but a place for drugged out crazies to meet up and talk about their drug induced conspiracy theories, and the wonders of hallucinating paranormal experiences.

Please think about this Amigos...Don't let the entire credibility of the ATS site suffer from being taken over by a handful of drug loons and possible dis-info agents looking to discredit your site and the rational people who support the site.

This should be addressed and quickly by the 3 Amigos, since with their new book coming out and more ventures in the works it would greatly benefit them to end the discussion of illegal drug use in ANY forum on ATS.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I agree with certain repeated common themes that all ATSer's are called druggies, loons etc reoccuring on this site. It scares others away and you tend to pick up on it pretty quick the more you are on here. You gotta always be on the ball with this being infiltrated over and over again. Especially far out topics that probably dont belong to a certain genre but are there to further the wacko credibility we receive.
I love this site because i feel like i can be heard without being laughed at so quickly for my views, i feel like we are all of like mind.

Im also pretty weary of those "professional like" websites that try hard to discredit other websites. I dont see whistle blowers doing this. Whistle blowers never discredit or put blame on another website so quickly and so gruntingly. The more i see websites trying to discredit other websites so quickly i think aha why the need to discredit so strongly.

When they repeat the same thing over and over again they are bound to be caught out sooner or later.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by meadowfairy]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Asking for evidence to back up a claim makes one a disinfo agent?

So what does that make someone who just blindly believes everything he or she is told?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Now the skeptics can be seperated into several categories:

1. Those who deny even when faced with irrefutable proof because that belief would mean admitting to something that goes against what they want to believe.

2. Those who deny because they have never had an "in your face" belief changing experience.

3. Those who deny because it is more "mainstream" and are trying to hang with the "in" crowd.

4. Those who deny due to a mental safety response that would keep them insulated from stressful possible truth.

5. Those who enjoy taking the opposite side.

6. Those who are turned on or excited by calling others beliefs crazy.

7. Those who find that having nothing to prove is a much easier position to take than proving something.

Did I miss any?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RCarter
Asking for evidence to back up a claim makes one a disinfo agent?

So what does that make someone who just blindly believes everything he or she is told?



R carter yes proof should be given but i meant that statement which i will change as what proof do i have after i already give proof. They ignore proof like i wrote at the end.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
TH3ON3 yes trolls lol

[edit on 28-10-2008 by meadowfairy]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I see people making extraordinary claims with false or just plain stupid evidence to back them up. Most of the time, when errors are pointed out, you just make the person try to discredit you by saying your logic is flawed or despite fake evidence, there must be something really hidden.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by meadowfairy
 





How do you know who a disinfo agent is?


How do we know if you are a dis-info agent trying to get a handle on how the other side thinks...?




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TH3ON3
 


I was under the impression RATS threads were not archived by search engines, making that the only place drug use should be discussed in my opinion.

To the topic at hand. It is really hard to tell who is dis-info. By the time you do, it is already too late.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
LOL chapter29 cute.

Because things i understand and tend to believe in are usually touted as conspiracies. I dont believe in things people make up by paranoia or hard to believe things such as bogfoot without evidence. Im an evidence person myself which means at tiems im a skeptic. I tend to believe those that have enough evidence to prove it and whistleblowers who have alot fo that evidence to convince me otherwise. I do look at both sides before i come to a conclusion. Also any experiences i have ever had to convince me of sometthing is proof for me. Im not good at mind attacks which i assume they do.

Also forgot to add reverse psychology above.

Also chapter how do i know you are not a disinfo saying im a disinfo to make people not reply to my thread because they think i want to know their ideas about it? which will benefit me how?



[edit on 29-10-2008 by meadowfairy]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by meadowfairy
 





cute







Also chapter how do i know you are not a disinfo saying im a disinfo to make people not reply to my thread because they think i want to know their ideas about it?


I think you took my post a little too serious...

And I think you give me far too much credit by assuming that my post will put people off from replying...that was not the intention.

Me, a dis-info agent...?



Dude...I'm a believer - and I see more than rocks in most images...so, if I'm a dis-info agent the term needs to be re-defined...



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by meadowfairy
 


Just get some actual objective evidence. That's it. If you have that, no-one can call you a nut. The problem is most conspiracy theorists don't have any other than vague feelings and paranoid delusions.

You'll notice that one common factor of all conspiracy theories that have turned out to be conspiracy facts is they have actual evidence.

If you don't have evidence, it's irrational to claim it exists.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3
Now the skeptics can be seperated into several categories:

1. Those who deny even when faced with irrefutable proof because that belief would mean admitting to something that goes against what they want to believe.

2. Those who deny because they have never had an "in your face" belief changing experience.

3. Those who deny because it is more "mainstream" and are trying to hang with the "in" crowd.

4. Those who deny due to a mental safety response that would keep them insulated from stressful possible truth.

5. Those who enjoy taking the opposite side.

6. Those who are turned on or excited by calling others beliefs crazy.

7. Those who find that having nothing to prove is a much easier position to take than proving something.

Did I miss any?


Whats good for the goose? Believers can be put into several different categories as well;
1/ Those who will believe in anything as long as it's hip and trendy...

2/ Those who are everso slightly paranoid and feel that they, and they alone, have the inside track on anything from who killled JFK to what really crashed in Roswell.

3/ The misguided few who see normality as a pain and see conspiracy theories as a morphine with which to kill the pain!

4/ Attention seekers.

5/ Some are without doubt deluded and see conspiracy everywhere they look.

6/ Those with a personal grudge. I see these a lot on the hallowed threads of ATS.

7/ Those who use conspiracy theories to push their own agenda, usually racist agenda. "Its all the jews fault!" you know what I mean. .

"Lets see, did I miss any?"



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Just get some actual objective evidence. That's it. If you have that, no-one can call you a nut. The problem is most conspiracy theorists don't have any other than vague feelings and paranoid delusions.

You'll notice that one common factor of all conspiracy theories that have turned out to be conspiracy facts is they have actual evidence.

If you don't have evidence, it's irrational to claim it exists.


Not everything that might be true requires evidence. Meaning the truth is the truth no matter what the evidence. So you are bound to dismiss a truth if you always require physical evidence. Some things can be understood without hard proof. Especially when it comes to things that are experienced.

I mean I experienced things in the military I could never in a million years prove. Nothing huge that is like earth shattering or anything, but just how things work. As they call in the army, working the system instead of being worked by the system.

Now if you didn't believe me without proof, thats another story. It's fine if someone didn't believe without proof. I myself am not one to just believe in anything I hear.

But there is a big difference in not believing, and then believing something is false. It's not just a black or white thing ya know. There is believing something is true, there is believing something is false, and there is believing you don't know 1 way or another. And often times, many people sit in the disbelief category and actively defend it on the only basis is proof hasn't been given that shows them otherwise. All the while forgetting they themselves can't prove their disbelief either.

Take the UFO topic. I'm a believer their is other life out there, I have no doubt about it. But I am very skeptical of peoples individual claims. Before I believe them, I'd have to see more proof. But lack of proof doesn't mean it's false, it just means it isn't provable. So the logical/honest mind would put such claims in the "I don't know" category. It's possible it's true, it's possible it's fake. From that point, you can look at what they say to see if it actually makes sense, and look for points of falsehoods within.

Seems like most people who hinge on the lack of proof deal are just building a safehouse on a safebet. The safe bet is it's false without proof. But it's still a gamble and a bet, and certainly isn't really based on truth. And it shows with some of the more hardcore "debunkers".



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Chapter29 I think your taking me seriously. Sorry i actually was smiling with a cheeky laugh when i posed my question to you. You know as in kiddie school what if you bla bla bla.


As to the others i guess it depends on what is evidence to people. If you show them videos(its not proof), if you show them documents sourced from reliable venues(its not proof) aswell as pictures etc..............

So i beg the question what is reliable evidence, especially over the internet if none of the above seem to work or sway people to care or take action?



[edit on 30-10-2008 by meadowfairy]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join