A simple method to detect disinfo-agents

Suppose you are involved in the research of cover-ups and conspiracies and you would like to find out who on internet-discussion forums is deliberately posting false information or employed to cover-up or deflect from certain things.

There`s a method to do this. Here are the steps.

1. Dig deep in your research and find out a real cover-up or conspiracy. Once you have, keep it to yourself in the beginning. Whatever it is you found out, it has to be failsafe and irrefutable. Hard proof.

2. Post a "theory" on it on an internet-discussion-board such as this, but withhold the facts, withhold your sources and withhold that you know more about it - just for the beginning. Act like you are only considering it as a "theory" or "possibility".

3. Upon posting this in the Internet, those who wish to cover-up just that will start appearing in your discussion thread with the usual methods of denial, deflection and ridicule. If you were only posting a "possibility/theory" there would be no need for such strong denial. Those who do so are likely to know more about it than they admit.

Then you know who they are. If you want, check out some of their other internet activities to see if you can detect a pattern in their posting behavior.

4. If you feel safe in doing so and if it will not cause harm to innocents, slowly leak more information and facts. If you do not feel safe in doing so continue to withhold that information or anonymously send it to another source that could publish it - without it being connected to you. Sometimes giving up credit for your work allows for more safety.

That said, if a researcher has a real smoking gun, he is unlikely to freely post it on the internet - because any real whistleblowing will be dangerous for that researcher. So slow leaks and anonymous leaks here and there, now and then are more likeley. On the other hand, once you reveal all of it getting rid of you would only create more suspcicion towards the perpetrators.

Personally I dont think disinfo exists to the broad extent many say it does. Its silly to assume that anyone that disagrees with your particular view of the world is a "disinfo agent". But it does ocassionally exist. In order to find out who they are you need some REAL secret and some really hard facts as backup. And then watch who suddenly comes out of the woodwork and who suddenly gets nervous.

Thats fun to do.

reply to post by Skyfloating


The problem is that if conspiracy theorists had hard, irrefutable, failsafe evidence, they wouldn't be theories any more, so getting to number one is the real problem.

I don't really have an opinion on how many disinfo agents there are on sites like this, but if there were any I would expect them to work in more subtle ways than blind debunking.
It would make more sense for them to subtly derail topics or come up with variations of theories to muddle the waters & create straw-man arguments.

reply to post by MrVertigo


I agree with Mr Vertigo on this

Pretty much everytime I enter a thread regardless of my belief I am labelled a disinfo agent, because of what I do for a living and my debunking of chemtrails. My point being, is that conspiracy theorist always use this "label" when they are beaten, or cant come up with a satisfactory rebuttal.

Really if, there was a threat to say, the American Government, they wouldnt be wasting there time by posting, I would rather think they would be raiding the alleged perpetrators house with guns drawn..

In saying that, if we did have something to hide, that we could be in trouble for, then your way of releasing it would be the way to go. The only problem is, seperating the grabage from the rarely seen, real stuiff

Thats just my opinion

There is an even easier way than that proposed by the OP.

Note the participation and by whom in a given conspiracy discussion. Then jump in with some wild speculation.

If you suddenly see a plethoria of posts against yours by specific forum members, especially if they are repetitive, you found your suspect/s.

Also, take note of when a member or members seem to vanish from the boards for awhile, and magically new ones appear in those same discussions or threads for awhile, then just as suddenly as it happend when the other/s left, they return and the new ones seem to disappear at that point, there you found another suspect/s.

That seems to happen here alot on ATS. That to me indicates certian members have multiple accounts and bounce back and forth between them, using either proxy servers to tag their connects with different IP's or some other method to spoof the system of mulitiple accounts from the same source IP, or may in fact have seperate IP addresses to work with and use them to sport their multiple user accounts.

I see these patters very clearly, and very recently, whithin the last week or so, in two particular threads.

I wont name names, but I am on to their little game. They seem to forget sometimes that I used to be one of those disinfo agents for a number of years and I know all the tricks of the trade.

And I am glad I no longer do that deceptive work and came to the other side of the line. One for the good guys!



Cheers!!!!

lol this is very creative and obviously very well thought out...but, I'm not exactly sure there is a way to detect a dis info agent otherwise we would be using the method to cleanse ATS from the infamous, dis-info agents.

reply to post by RFBurns


I wouldve thought that rather than the same members visiting those certain posts, that a true government emplyed disinfo agent would use a variety of aliases....with the accounts they use being created just to post in one thread, with no friends or foes, no details entered into membership accounts and no comments section started. I think Razimus' thread on the John Titor hoax proved that this was the case with the vast numbers of posters dissapearing after one or two posts

That said, if a researcher has a real smoking gun, he is unlikely to freely post it on the internet - because any real whistleblowing will be dangerous for that researcher. So slow leaks and anonymous leaks here and there, now and then are more likeley. On the other hand, once you reveal all of it getting rid of you would only create more suspcicion towards the perpetrators.

It's a fairly well-known fact that many of the best researchers in the JFK Assassination field are in deep cover and will not let their names be known for fear of untoward events ensuing.

I know of a couple that don't want their names or activities brought to the fore and they're not even in that deep cover.

They use leaks and other more overt sources to get their info out.

Though this kind of thing was prevalent in the 70s and 80s, I don't know how it is now.

I'm mildly surprised that the author of Blood, Money and Power (Barr McClellan) wasn't compromised in some way.

We do know that the black Secret Service Agent Abraham Bolden was compromised, being framed and jailed to prevent him from revealing what he knew.


[edit on 15/2/2009 by Syandos]

reply to post by RFBurns

I wont name names, but I am on to their little game. They seem to forget sometimes that I used to be one of those disinfo agents for a number of years and I know all the tricks of the trade. And I am glad I no longer do that deceptive work and came to the other side of the line. One for the good guys!

That's making me curious.

What did you do, and for whom?

Great post! I think everybody here at ATS should read H.Michael Sweeney's
25 ways to suppress truth: The rules of disinformation

Disinformation playbook

some of the examples are actually pretty familiar from some of the posts
at this site too...

One really easy way to find them is to look at my foe list, it isn't 100% disinfo agents, but the majority of them that post here are on it. The others are just clueless dolts.

reply to post by RFBurns


Hahahaa I tagged you as disinfo long ago.

Originally posted by downtown436
One really easy way to find them is to look at my foe list, it isn't 100% disinfo agents, but the majority of them that post here are on it. The others are just clueless dolts.

And you havent added me?

What the hell...ask lots of people, I am allegedly a disinfo agent, tsk tsk

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Then you know who they are.

Are you saying that a member who sets up and uses this method with other members will result in people who respond in the manner you have set forth, and that they are probably disinfo agents? I'm checking to make sure I've got this right.

And no doubt I will be seen as "suddenly getting nervous", so I'm sure to be fulfilling the profile of your friendly neighborhood disinfo agent.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you want, check out some of their other internet activities to see if you can detect a pattern in their posting behavior.

Everyone has patterns in their posting behavior. I know I do.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its silly to assume that anyone that disagrees with your particular view of the world is a "disinfo agent".

Unfortunately, this happens so much here, it's ridiculous. I have been called a disinfo agent so many times and I'm a housewife who lives on a farm. It's ridiculous.

In order to find out who they are you need some REAL secret and some really hard facts as backup. And then watch who suddenly comes out of the woodwork and who suddenly gets nervous.

I've also been accused of "coming out of the woodwork" even though I post every day. I think people are going to "see" disinfo even when it's not there.

I don't have a problem with your method, really, and I'm against people just posting to spread disinfo. I'm just saying that your net is going to catch at least half the members on ATS.

Edited first paragraph to more correctly ask my question.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by OzWeatherman


You are not a disinfo agent.

Originally posted by downtown436
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

You are not a disinfo agent.

Lol, oh my....

I never wouldve thought I would hear that. May I ask what eliminates me off your potential list?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't agree with much of what you post, but you are not a disinfo agent.

I could even imagine that some members play the 'faux info agent' game.

Example: Someone posts an outrageous claim that a particular Member might be able to debunk at face value.

Instead of coming out and explaining how this is nonsense, the Member backs up the claim. The aim might be to get the hoaxer to U2U them saying 'dude, you really saw Bigfoot here, I was just goofing'.

Or the Member might be an operative and back up the claim, befriend the Member to draw them out and see how much they really knew.

In technical fields with jargon and insider facts, it's pretty easy for a real insider to expose a wannabe, since the hoaxer or claimant would have only obviously superficial information.

I'm sure there's a wealth of various gamesmanships available to be played here, much of it harmless.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


If I reveal my method it changes the game out of my favor.

reply to post by downtown436


Thank you. I know that. You know that. And I didn't see my name on your foe's list so I felt pretty safe.

Come to think of it, it's only a few people who have made that accusation. They just make it a lot.

Sky, I do think there were quite a few (relatively) on here right before the election. Did you use this method then or did you not know about it yet? I just wondered if you have had any success with it?

If I was a disinfo agent, I'd run at least two personas from separate IPs. I'd take advantage of onion routing to create stooges that would support my opinions. The two main personas would take opposing perspectives. I could be loud and dynamic or subtle and subversive.

On ATS, I'd be quick to add friends and support their views. U2U would be a good way to build trust. I'd encourage factions and use the support of friends to direct or attack other members. My opposing persona would be acting concurrently in the same manner. If evidence was presented by a member that was of merit, I'd both support and attack them from the security of my reputation and friends. The intention would be to encourage reasonable doubt about anything they posted.

My name would be original enough to stand out to search engines. It would have a checkable history. I'd flesh out the identities by posting on other sites such as sports, movies or cookery. Who'd distrust a guy or gal that posts on Yahoo or runs a blog on bread making?

A good disinfo agent is a liar that tells the occasional truth and an honest man that tells the occasional lie. I'm not convinced that there is a way of uncovering a good disinfo agent