It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gullibility and ATS

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid

We can speculate on 9-11 all we want... But there are some actions that are government and military have done that we need not to speculate on.... And apparently everybody here is okay with it. Or, they are believing the outrageous lies of how this all justified.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Doomsday 2029]

What actions do we not need to speculate on? What actions can you say that they have done without a single shred of doubt?

It seems to me like all we CAN do is speculate, because none of us can prove anything beyond a shred of doubt, because none of us are ever there to witness anything and, if we are, we don't have a camera or, if we do, we put it on the internet, where it is suddenly subject to all of the possibilities of being a scam, because anything can be photographically altered these days on a home computer.

You can prove nothing.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by subject x

The gullibility issue is that people read the "crap" all over the internet and believe it 100%. I'm all for questioning, but I'm not for believing based on some speculative tripe found on the net.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that we will ever know for sure all that went down that day. Those who think they do know are the "gullible" ones for basing their beliefs off of someone's theory built from incomplete evidence.

Well I don't know what's worse...

We are suppose to believe what our Government tells us? What our MSM tells us?

That's gullible. And I 'd rather complain about how people are gullible for listening to them as if they are the final authority of what is fact and what is not.... as opposed to a few people on the internet that realize they are being lied to everyday, but believe a conspiracy that probably isn't true. But that's how it should be... believe what you want to believe.

All I know is if Operation Northwoods didn't get you a little angry... then you should be ashamed of your self. Can people debunk that document?

I mean what's the bigger problem in our world today... We've seen how gullible the Germans were to Adolph Hitler... We've seen this happen before...

The Gullibility of the average American is approaching that level...

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:23 PM

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolidI'll be honest. It seems like a lot of people here on these boards, aside from a very respected few, are far too gullible.

I agree. In the past I've often been amazed/alarmed when I see people here believing incredible claims just on faith, faith based on the typed words of a perfect stranger. If that is not gullible then what is?

What is needed is balance because blind belief and blind scepticism are equally unhealthy.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:11 PM
ATS is an interesting place for discussions on a variety of topics that you don't see in many other locations.

We have some very educated people in here, as well as those who were never visited by Darwin. Their thinking is not very evolved. Some form an opinion, and that is the end of it. They don't practice critical thinking. They think research is hitting wikipedia. The ultimate sin, is that they never consider that their opinion might be wrong. One must leave room for error as no one is always perfect. You can always learn more.

It is good to form an educated opinion, but one must be open to the possibility that things are not exactly how you see them. Being open minded and willing to consider a different point of view is what makes for a good discussion.

Sadly, far to many are closed minded when it comes to their opinions and resort to insults when they have nothing of substance to offer.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:26 PM
Hey GFS , i gotta agree with most of what you said , except for the word Gullible. Someone who doesn't agree with some of your examples could say you were gullible. Please let me continue for a bit before responding. I found this site via my UFO searches on the web, and stayed for all the other stuff here . My posting on some threads have , 1 in petictular, gotten me into a very heated exchanges with a member , he makes some very valid points , but i totally disagree with him. He is not gulible as neither am I, we just have passion in what we believe.

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:11 PM
Interesting thread.

One of my favourite little sayings is "criticism tells you more about the critic than the criticised". It's a ruthless equation which never ceases to amaze me. If someone calls you fat it's often because they're worried about their own weight problem. If someone calls you ignorant they're probably about to hit the ignore button on your posts and I've simply lost count of the number of people who'll call me one of the "sheeple" only to go off bleating the unaltered thoughts of David Icke or Alex Jones at me. Usually they follow their chosen heroes' thoughts almost word for word.

"The only true knowledge lies in KNOWING you know nothing" - dig that. A lot of 'truthers' seem to delight in feeling superior to those who are not in the same reality tunnel as them. Furthermore it amazes me how some conspiracy followers get almost orgasmic when they see some of the nastier elements of the NWO plan come to fruition. "Yes! I told you there'd be a financial collapse," they'll crow, "can't wait for the riots and FEMA camps, they should be along in a few months!!".

Final quote "no one likes a smart arse". If you really do care about waking people up try and tune into their frequency first, ease them out of their sleep.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
We are suppose to believe what our Government tells us? What our MSM tells us?

I wouldn't recommend it. Not without confirming it elsewhere.

All I know is if Operation Northwoods didn't get you a little angry... then you should be ashamed of your self. Can people debunk that document?

I mean what's the bigger problem in our world today... We've seen how gullible the Germans were to Adolph Hitler... We've seen this happen before...

The Gullibility of the average American is approaching that level...

Well, Northwoods actually did make me pretty angry, so I'm good on that count, I guess.

As for the rest, I think you're expanding the idea further than the context of the thread. Certainly, the vast majority of the public is gullible in believing everything they see on TV, or hear from the latest in a long line of politicians who can't seem to speak truth to save their lives. No argument there. But the topic here is "Gullibility and ATS". That pretty much discounts most of the average Americans, and all of 1930's Germany, rendering them moot for the purpose of this discussion.

Not that you're wrong, but you're making points for a different discussion.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolid
Under the radar, of course.

Ah, well. Perhaps it will clear up, though I doubt it.

Nah, not under the radar, just too close to the bone. You are destroying the game for people. That is why terms like "debunker" and "dis-info" agent are shot at some or any that offer some other rationale or opposing arguements. IMHO, the use of debunker etc is more akin to phrases like "dude your ruining my conspiracy buzz" or "man, why are you bummin' me out with your logic, we don't need it here". What is worse is that people will also accuse others as lacking an open mind, simply because they do not accept a posters theory or idea, or belief. Kind of oxymoronic.

Your complaint is valid, but tag it on to that long list of posts that express a similar, if not identical sentiment, bro don't let it bring you down.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:20 PM
The only theory I really follow on here is that of the New World Order and this is because if you actually take the time to do your own research you will find that much of it is very true. Thats the scary part.

Been awake for a year now

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Mr.x211]

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Mr.x211]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:19 PM
Deny Ignorance is a great motto that ATS should be run by but lately within the past few months there is some serious loads of B.S and some very stupid theories with no support or facts. Good thread and hopefully something can be done about this ignorance plague. Yes you can consider the "ignorance plague" coined by me

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolid

The point is this:

None of you can ever know for sure what is going on around you.

So, you know something that we don't?

[edit on 13-2-2009 by greshnik]

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid

Pretty much, yeah. There's a lot of "let's give him/her the benefit of the doubt." Way too much of it. If someone comes up with some story that's right out of a movie, x-files, etc... People should just call BS on it, and move on. Then there's the mixture of odd items. New age mythology, ufo's, nwo, etc... Quite a lot of it is a laughable mish-mash of bs that you don't know where to start pointing out the stink.

I've seen UFO's first hand, but you won't see my mixing it with nwo, and new age vibrational crapola.
I've experienced a LOT of prematory experiences, but same/same about the new age stuff.
I remember the moments before I was sent to my current life, what I was thinking then, who sent me, and why I made the choice that I did in which life I chose, the anger I bore to 'god' (or whatever) that did it when I became concious here (No, I don't talk specifics about it), and the perpetual sadness of the realization that my choice was made out of arrogance.

Scientifically, I can't explain any of the three, and for the third item, if I didn't have a vivid memory of it all my life I'd think I was a raving lunatic. I won't argue any of them, because I know for myself, and no amount of persuasion will sway anybody that hasn't experienced it for themselves.

IMHO, there are three kinds of people.
Those that have experienced, know, and really couldn't care less about what the detractors say.
Those that haven't experienced, and want to so badly that they readily believe, and hold onto any chance to have the experience.
Those that haven't experienced, may have experienced but refuse to believe their own experience, and those that haven't experienced and are in it for some sort of joke.

Maybe that makes sense.

Experiencers, believers, and debunkers.

Perhaps there is the fourth group that claim to have experienced something, but really haven't, and could belong to either the 2nd or 3rd group.

The unrestrained believers, and the fakers feed off each other. Sometimes it's amusing, sometimes not.

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:29 AM
I knew demolitions were used on 9/11 the first day I saw it. I was more amazed that they denied it later than anything, and at first I figured well I guess I was just wrong. I was pretty shocked when I started seeing others speaking up about it a year or so later. I generally avoid the 9/11 forums because as far as that goes, I think everyone basically knows something is "wrong" about it, and there are those who admit it, and those who refuse to.

Can I prove it in a court of law? Probably not, nor do I care to either. It will always come down to a matter of plausible deniability. I think if it was the average citizen, no problem proving such things in court. But this isn't the average citizen we are looking at here. The average citizen isn't allowed to the secrecy and such of those we are talking about, so to even put it in the same type is absurd to me. Refusal to answer legit questions is all I need to see for "proof". IMO, it's their own fault as a result of the secrecy that such things happen, if they want it to end they can come off the secrecy. For example, all the pentagon tapes. There is no reason why those needed and have been suppressed. It's their own fault, and it's pathetic when people let such things slide.

Sure, you can point out the absurd theories. Sure, you can point out people who just accept every little point as fact without research and so on. But in reality you are only using an age old media trick of highlighting a few as a way of painting all.

Some people are gullible, no doubt about it. I won't visit the UFO forum either because it's full of people who just want to use UFO's to promote some political agenda. As if because the agenda came from "ET", then it must obviously be superior, even though they are actually just talking about forms of government that have been present on the earth for centuries.

I was actually mortified and thought about not visiting anymore after a thread about the UFO in Wichita, which was an obvious bird. It was one thing when people didn't recognize the bird. But it was completely another when even after people pointed out the bird, how it matched the image of a bird 100% and so on people STILL demanded that it was a bird.

To bad there is no keeping track of people who continuously support bad information and hoaxes. Like everyone who supported that Oct 14 GFL thing and other hoaxes should get a little ribbon by their name. Instead of just a friend and foe list, I'd like to have another category I can add people in who I find supporting obvious hoaxes and disinfo.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by badmedia]

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:04 AM
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid

When I was young, my father used to laugh at my revelations and the ideas/things that brought them, because they were borne from innocence and idealism.

He told me "believe nothing of what you hear [read] and only half of what you see [with your own eyes]." It took many years to see the wisdom of that advice.

I have beliefs about things based on research and experiences, yet I can't honestly say any of it is "the truth" for anyone but myself. And, I don't want to limit my own beliefs either, because someone could say something or ask a question that can open a line of questioning I've never considered.

As to the gullibility factor, I think there are many young members who are excited for new information and perspectives but can only take a limited amount of information at a time. There are many exciting and/or emotional aspects to waking up. Once we're awake, we must also be patient with those following the same path. (I know - 'you haven't started a thread and haven't been flamed yet.' True, but chances are good it will eventually happen, and we'll see if I remain patient and objective.)

S&F for you, OP.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:31 AM
yes many here "want to believe"

beliefs form your reality you should have good reasons for them

I concur entirely

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:01 AM
What pissed me off most recently was the sad crash of Coglan 3407 near Buffalo and a bunch of people jumped all over it trying to create a conspiracy from their own conjecture and when I used my own flying experience to try and add some realism to the debate got dumped on.

Honestly this place seems more and more like a repository for the mentally ill all the time.

What they actually achieve is to undermine and discredit the value of serious conspiracy debates.

Another point is that people latch on to their pet theory never pausing for a moment to question if their own view has been shaped by some other party with a vested interest as a form of disinformation ?

Give a dog a bone... let the loonies take an absurd idea and form it into a cult belief like 9/11

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:10 AM
Hi GreyFoxSolid,

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolid
I have been having a serious problem the last few weeks with a lot of the discussions here on the boards, and I am going to raise my complaint, here in the General Conspiracy board, as I see it fit to be here, not to mention quite important. I put it here because it generally has to do with the attitude of conspiracy theorists, and how that attitude can be used against you.

I appreciate the thought and care you put into raising this subject. I think it is an important one, as evidenced by the frequent complaint threads either pro- or anti-skeptic.

There are a lot of sayings thrown around, mostly 'deny ignorance', by a lot of people trying to solidify a lot of ideas and back themselves up. To me this motto is excellent regardless of how often it is misused. And it is misused, or generally ignored, quite a bit.

I'm actually starting to have reservations about the motto, although I used to think it was perfect. But that's a topic for another thread. Point is, many of those reservations have to do with how it's used here – it sometimes ends up meaning something along the lines of "deny that you're ignorant" or "deny ignorants". Either as an ad hominem attack on someone who accepts a theory that the poster believes to be in error, or just as a refusal to second guess oneself and question one's own assumptions.

A few terms were used, but most notably the word 'debunker' was used. This has become somewhat of a powerful term here on ATS and various other conspiracy related websites. I will tell you all now- I have a serious problem with the way this word is used most of the time.

I agree. And I can't stand "sheeple", and sometimes I can't stand the sense of "we're on ATS therefore we're enlightened and noone else has a clue."

But I have to admit I'm not too fond of "gullible" either

I'll be honest. It seems like a lot of people here on these boards, aside from a very respected few, are far too gullible. People here get so attached to an idea and spread it as though it is the truth after only vaguely considering that they may be wrong, if at all. Then they go so far as to use these terms, like 'debunker', when someone is only trying to be reasonable.

I have certainly seen this happen; but just as often I have seen someone post a hypothesis only to have it buried in demands for evidence or accusations of gullibility or even complaints that "this is what gives this site a bad name."

Please understand that I'm not addressing anyone in particular – neither you nor InfraRedMan stands out in my memory for having done the things I'm complaining about. I'm just trying to show the other side of the coin.

Just as some people seem a little too eager to jump on every little possible hint of conspiracy, others seem a little too eager to stomp on every little suggestion of the extraordinary. Sometimes a post doesn't need to be debunked, because it's just an idea that is beginning to form. Or it's a request for stories of similar experiences – each of which individually is easy to argue away, but all of which put together form a body of evidence that argues that there is something important going on, whether or not it's what the original poster thinks it is.

That's part of why it's so important to "stay agnostic" on all topics, as SkepticOverlord recently put it. And that doesn't mean that you have to believe everything you read, or even every thread you contribute to.

Some people seem to feel that they have a responsibility to protect the rest of ATS from fraudulent or questionable claims. But they don't.

Yes, I believe that 9/11 was a set up. Can I prove it? No. I will never be able to. I was not there and the evidence I have to show that it was a set up, while convincing, is obviously unprovable. So when someone tells me that they don't believe it was a set up, or an inside job, I understand why they would say that. Of course I will show them another side to the argument, but I don't instantly get defensive and start throwing around buzzwords at them.

Maybe you don't, but many do. On both sides of every issue.

This is the same thing we battle against, this closed-mindedness. How can we expect to get these alternate ideas out on the table (on the big table, I mean) when we are rushing headlong in, not caring of the hurdles in front of us?

By "on the big table" do you mean that we should be proselytizing for conspiracy theory? That we have a responsibility to tell the public what's what? Wouldn't it be better to invite the "big table" along on the chase for truth?

Seriously. It's time to stop being so gullible if we ever want to look like adults, because honestly we look like a bunch of bickering ten year olds.

I'd have to say that thanks to the T&C we look less like bickering ten year olds than most of the Internet

And honestly, I think all the concern about our image is unnecessary. We all got here, right? Both membership and readership numbers suggest that we look just fine from the outside – at least to anyone who's openminded enough not to tune out at the word "conspiracy."

And those who do, we're not going to change that. A user-generated-content site is never going to be 100% satisfactory to anyone, but ATS obviously does a good enough job to attract one of the most diverse groups of free thinkers I've ever seen.

Gullible? No. Open-minded? Yes.

Each of us in our own way and more so in some topics than others. It all balances out.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:23 AM
But where would we be without it?

Good old gullibility. If it wasn't so widespread, ATS would have to invent it.

I love this site. I've been a daily visitor and contributor for several years now, and I mean to keep visiting and contributing until the staff ban me, or the Great Moderator in the Sky takes away my posting privileges. But my affection for ATS doesn't blind me to the fact that the overwhelming majority of conspiracies and alternative views discussed on the forum are hogwash.

It comes with the territory. If ATS confined itself to conspiracies and views that had some factual support, it would lose most of its membership and audience. It would lose me, for starters. I'm not interested in conspiracies and conspiracy theories. I am interested in ideas and in people. I'm particularly interested in cranks, haters (it's so easy, and so much fun, to wind them up!), space cadets and out-and-out nutzos. If ATS imposed a moratorium on gullibility, it would lose them all - together with the regiments and divisions of media-damaged juveniles who provide cannon fodder for the Armies of the Insane, and who are currently all that prevents the site from plunging into bankruptcy and obscurity.

So long live gullibility, and ATS! And by the way, I have some amazing stock to sell... guaranteed annual 25% return on investment in perpetuity... only no-one is, in the words of a South Sea Bubble-era pamphlet, to know what it is. Anyone interested? I can cut you a really good deal if you invest now, before the IPO...

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:27 AM
I'll tell you what's worse than the "gullibility" here on ATS. The shear HUBRIS.

The OP demonstrates this perfectly. Why, no one has sat down and rationally thought something out! They are just "gullible", and believe it!

Here's a hint: You can use logic and rationality to figure something out, and STILL BE WRONG.

A great many of the "scientific skeptics" on here remind me of the scientists that were around when the Wright Brothers first flew. Don't know the story? Look it up. It may make you just a little more humble before asserting what is "scientifically impossible".

Here's another hint: About two weeks before the Wright Brothers flew, there was a PEER REVIEWED scientific paper that demonstrated conclusively how heavier-than-air travel was impossible. To add insult to injury, for several YEARS after the Wright Brothers flew, scientists called them frauds and hoaxers, and refused to even go out and SEE FOR THEMSELVES if the plane could fly. Remind you of some people on this board? It does me.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid

Hey GFS!

I'm touched you brought me up as a case in point! It doesn't really bother me to be called a debunker. As I've mentioned in other threads, it's the classic straw man argument that people resort to when they have no quantifiable data to back up their pet theories. Hey, I've been called worse! lol!

Many people will slap the debunker tag on you without having any personal insight into what you know or believe in yourself. It's a baseless insult made in haste. Nothing more... and it should always be seen as such.

I certainly have beliefs/theories of my own but I do not make a habit of engraving them in stone. They are always subject to change should someone provide better, more reliable data - or even a more logical (albeit unproven) theory. Belief should be a fluid thing. If history hasn't taught us that, then nothing will. 'Facts' change as our knowledge grows.

There is an element of gullibility in the forums. People should research more deeply into topics before signing their names on the dotted line. Humans are experts at deceiving themselves just because something 'feels right' or 'resonates' with their belief system and IMHO, this is where many people do themselves an injustice.

We should be open to the fact that there is often a disparity between:

(1) The world we believe we live in,
(2) The world we wish we lived in - and ...
(3) The world we actually live in.

The trick is to not be resolved in the first two options before we've confirmed it in the third.

There are far too many people trying to lead us astray in this world without compounding the problem by doing it to ourselves.

Just my 2 cents worth!


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in