A simple method to detect disinfo-agents

Sorry guys.

Disinfo agents are merely a figment of your imagination. They don't exist. There's no evidence that they exist, except of course, they disagree with your point of view. And then comes the question, what would they gain by browsing internet forums? Remember what they say? "THE INTERNET, IT IS SERIOUS BUSINESS". It doesn't make any sence for disinfo agents to browse ATS.

As for people following people around discrediting you? Probably just retarded morons with a personal issue.

People 24/7 in the 9/11 conspiracy forum debunking things? Probably nerds who need to get out more who you've obviously struck a nerve with.

To suggest there are there are debunkers is like... admitting defeat. Admitting that you cannot counter them so that's your fallback arguement. Weak.

Worst I've seen though, is a forum dedicated to proving that ATS is a CIA front, a person who browses this site that had used multiple accounts to make athiests look stupid, and so on.... no disinfo agents, just idiots with too much spare time.


Oh, and could someone look through my profile and tell me if I'm a disinfo agent? I'd so looove to know.

As for RFburns beging an ex-disinfo agent; lol, sorry, I don't believe it; I do similar stuff in my free time, only I guess I try to tell the truth to the best of my ability, and I never get personal or call names, just try and state the facts as I know them the best I can.

[edit on 16/2/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz


As for people following people around discrediting you? Probably just retarded morons with a personal issue.


As for RFburns beging an ex-disinfo agent; lol, sorry, I don't believe it; I do similar stuff in my free time, only I guess I try to tell the truth to the best of my ability, and I never get personal or call names, just try and state the facts as I know them the best I can.

[edit on 16/2/2009 by C0bzz]

Never say Never...

Originally posted by C0bzz
Sorry guys.

Disinfo agents are merely a figment of your imagination. They don't exist.

How definitive. Being in Australia, you would know this how?

Oh, and could someone look through my profile and tell me if I'm a disinfo agent? I'd so looove to know.

I'd say there's a decent chance, just by the fact that you claim they don't exist.

[edit] Also by an overly detailed and authoritative-sounding post attempting to debunk notions that Continental 3407 could've been anything but an icing accident. At this point, even the accident investigators don't know for sure.

Whenever I see long, officious assertions that claim to have all the answers (such as flatly stating there's no such thing as disinfo agents), I tend to believe the exact opposite.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull#" -- indeed.


[edit on 16-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Disinfo agents and debunkers are a dime a dozen. They like to pretend they are "skeptics" and always demand proof. I guess its ok to ask for a reasonable amount of evidence to support a given theory but these people fail to realize we are not discussing provable facts.

We are on a conspiracy forumn discussing and advancing *possible* conspiracies. This means we need to relax our demands and take everything with a pinch of salt.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by C0bzz
Sorry guys.

Disinfo agents are merely a figment of your imagination. They don't exist.

How definitive. And you would know this how?

Oh, and could someone look through my profile and tell me if I'm a disinfo agent? I'd so looove to know.

I'd say there's a decent chance, just by the fact that you claim they don't exist.

guilty through association?

Agree or get branded an enemy.

What is this the nazi party?

Lucky none of you guys are in power...

I've been on the site a few years but rarely visit certain threads/forums that probably have a higher rate or possibility of attracting said disinfo agents.

I did contribute to a thread a few days ago in which someone caught my attention as being a possible disinfo agent. They steadfastly refused to comment on the information/links provided and instead opined on the content of the (obviously uninvestigated) links.

I don't mind that people don't agree with me. We all have our opinions. It's one of the things that makes ATS so colorful. What did raise my ire on that thread was basically being called a fool and a idiot by someone with a smug attitude and nothing to contribute to the information being discussed other than to ridicule it.

I confess I got a little snippy for which I apologize. When people condemn the premise of your argument without examining your evidence it smacks of either disinfo agent or educated idiot.

We have to remember that this is an alternative theory site. If there were hardcore, 100% irrefutable evidence available it wouldn't be alternative or theoretical.

By the by, Oz, while I don't always agree with you either, I also don't think you're a disinfo agent. For what that's worth.

Apparently there are government shills getting around on ATS as well!

In fact I'm supposed to be one!
A mega shill in fact!

It's funny that, because for me to be a shill I would need to be under the employ of the US government, pretty hard for a guy from Western Australia me thinks!
I also would have to go out of my way to promote said government.
Doesn't seem to make much sense really, particularly if one actually looks at what I post....

So, calling someone a dis-info agent (which I've been called a few times too) or a shill just because they don't agree with you is quite ridiculous!

How definitive. Being in Australia, you would know this how?

Perhaps my original post was not clear enough. No, it wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about disinformation agents on ATS, the internet website. This website. Whether I am in Australia, Uganda, or "Amerika" is irrelevant.

I'd say there's a decent chance, just by the fact that you claim they don't exist.

In forums I don't think they exist simply because the accused always turn out to be someone with too much spare time. Visit ATS chat sometimes, and maybe get the details and befriend a so called 'disinfo agent', and you'll find they aren't disinfo agents at all - they happen to be people with too much spare time.

Furthermore, you're prominent in the 9/11 conspiracy forum, and I can see that; all the detractors don't sway any of you guys, neither are the Chemtrailers swayed. Therefore, I see it as they must not be professional agents; they are doing a rather terrible job at being one. Try visiting a aerospace defense forum; nobody on ATS has any traits of a professional in the intelligence industry; not even close.

Also by an overly detailed and authoritative-sounding post attempting to debunk all notions that Continental 3407 could've been anything but an accident caused by icing.

All my comments were directed at those who had misconceptions about aviation in general; they were directed at those who thought there is a conspiracy despite there being a completely reasonable explanation for the crash; icing. Yes, it is possible it was shot down, yes, it is possible that it was a mechanical fault, yes, it may be possible it was EMP, however, where is the evidence so? All evidence points to icing, which is possible, as it has happened in the past.

Statements on the cause of the crash are usually made once it has been thoroughly investigated, so yes, I could be wrong. However, if I am, I promise to leave this website and never come back. And I mean it.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull#" indeed.

It's a quote from another member on another forum, regarding Carlo Kopp, is a prominent person in Australian Aerospace and Defense writing. My signature is supposed to be his mission statement; because, like other people, he uses facts very selectively.

[edit on 16/2/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by RFBurns


Hi RF, just to back up what you suspected earlier i know exactly who you Think is a disinfo agent & the thread he is working & i came to that same conclusion myself.

Originally posted by C0bzz
And then comes the question, what would they gain by browsing internet forums?

Uhhh, this?

The Pentagon’s War on the Internet
Posted November 18th, 2008 by VX1

The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information. The plan appears in a recently declassified document, “The Information Operations Roadmap”, which was provided under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and revealed in an article by the BBC.

The Pentagon sees the internet in terms of a military adversary that poses a vital threat to its stated mission of global domination. This explains the confrontational language in the document which speaks of “fighting the net”; implying that the internet is the equivalent of “an enemy weapons system."

The Defense Dept. places a high-value on controlling information. The new program illustrates their determination to establish the parameters of free speech.

The Pentagon sees information as essential in manipulating public perceptions and, thus, a crucial tool in eliciting support for unpopular policies. The recent revelations of the military placing propaganda in the foreign press demonstrate the importance that is given to co-opting public opinion.

Information-warfare is used to create an impenetrable cloud around the activities of government so that decisions can be made without dissent. The smokescreen of deception that encompasses the Bush administration has less to do with prevaricating politicians than it does with a clearly articulated policy of obfuscation. “The Information Operations Roadmap” is solely intended to undermine the principle of an informed citizenry.

The Pentagon’s focus on the internet tells us a great deal about the mainstream media and its connection to the political establishment.

Why, for example, would the Pentagon see the internet as a greater threat than the mainstream media, where an estimated 75% of Americans get their news?

The reason is clear; because the MSM is already a fully-integrated part of the corporate-system providing a 24 hour per day streaming of business-friendly news.

Today’s MSM operates as a de-facto franchise of the Pentagon, a reliable and sophisticated propagandist for Washington’s wars of aggression and political subterfuge.

The internet, on the other hand, is the last bastion of American democracy; a virtual world where reliable information moves instantly from person to person without passing through the corporate filter. Online visitors can get a clear picture of their governments’ depredations with a click of the mouse. This is the liberalization of the news, an open source of mind-expanding information that elevates citizen awareness of complex issues and threatens the status quo.

...The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet.

www.dailypaul.com...

Originally posted by Ahabstar

Do you doubt that? Think of the number of police officers that pose as teenage girls in chat groups to catch pedophiles. Surely then, not everyone that agrees with you is indeed with you then. Part of any good counter intelligence program would be to gather information. To identify potential threats. Believing that 9/11 was an inside job is one thing. Actively forming a vigilantly group to take out those deemed responsible is another.

You make an important point. Many dont seem to realize that the agents of false info sometimes may be the ones we agree with the most, not the ones we disagree with.

Originally posted by Syrus Magistus
Some of these conspiracy theories are fabricated for the sole purpose of sowing discord.

Especially those fervently posting pro or con one side of a war or international conflict often dont seem to understand Machiavellian practice of intentionally sowing conflict.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

I am not quite sure why people think that disinfo agents high up enough to know the lie and spin BS would bother coming onto a chat board for everyone to accuse... not very efficient regardless of the circumstances I believe

I fully agree that there are not as many "disinfo-agents" on internet message boards as believed. The disinfo starts at the very top. And only a little bit - say, a false message leaked to a news agency - is enough to start a domino effect.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Just a Tad problem with that idea. IF you release a "theory" without the evidence. Who's going to believe you anyway? Wouldn't you be wasting time looking for disinfo agents who are really just people who disagree without the facts? :/

Baseless paranoia and speculation is not useful in finding out "who they are".

But hard facts that some groups urgently want to keep secret...if you have something like that, you can find out who is trying to keep you from publishing that.

The Internet-Age is a disaster to those who wish to control the flow of information. Hence, disinfo-artists are needed.

Originally posted by thrashee
What a retarded OP.

So in other words, you prove your conclusion by way of your premise. In most logical circles, this is the fallacy of begging the question.

Because reason and logic are in dire shortages here on ATS, I'll go ahead and explain this along 4th grade levels (not that it will matter):

Your conclusion is that those who engage in such activities like simply not agreeing with you or coming in to repute your claims are actually disinfo agents. Yet your premise is that those who do the very same thing are disinfo agents. In other words, this is circular reasoning. Imagine a circle. Maybe drawn with a big red crayon. The circle is like a loopy kind of line that connects with itself.

See, you're not really saying anything here other than "anyone who disagrees with me must be a disinfo agent. Why? Because they disagree with me."

Epic fail. But then, I'm a disinfo agent, so what does it matter?

You are misrepresenting the OP. If thats what the OP were about, it would indeed be retarted.

Maybe you missed the part of the OP where I say that labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a disinfo-agent is nonsensical.

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

Suspects? Maybe they are just posters who see the error of your 'wild speculation' and have decided to post facts to set you straight.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Ya' know?

Originally posted by downtown436
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.

You've got 60 'foes' listed. You do know that they are RESPECTED foes, right? That means that you respect them and that you get something out of friendly sparing with them. It isn't a 'I hate these people' list.

As for your accusation that a majority are 'disinfo agents' ... I'm thinking your statement is against the T&C. You know - under the rule that you shouldn't post false information. You have no way of knowing that those 60 people are disinfo agents. It is probably also against the T&C to call the rest of them 'clueless dolts'.

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros

The thread seems a bit redundant also, I'm surprised a moderator started it. There is no way of proving if someone is an agent or not, so why fill ATS up with even more arguments that go nowhere.

Not really. You`re equipped with a failsafe method to find out who they are. As opposed to the hundreds of suspicion-based methods that do not work.

When they start harassing you in real life, you know the method worked.

Originally posted by spacial
Further...

Disinfo agents are actually the ones that started most of the conspiracies in the first place...

Aliens :keep people afraid - The American government learnt this in 1930's with Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds"

Im not quoting your entire post but would recommend everyone here to go back and read it.

Planting Fear and Confusion and Powerlessness is the biggest conspiracy of all. Unfortunately much of CT caters to that.

Originally posted by C0bzz
Sorry guys.

Disinfo agents are merely a figment of your imagination. They don't exist. There's no evidence that they exist.

You`ve never been lied to here?

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by C0bzz

How definitive. Being in Australia, you would know this how?

Perhaps my original post was not clear enough. No, it wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about disinformation agents on ATS, the internet website. This website. Whether I am in Australia, Uganda, or "Amerika" is irrelevant.

How would you possibly know U.S. government policy as it relates to psyops, disinfo campaigns or attempts to control information on the internet?

All my comments were directed at those who had misconceptions about aviation in general; they were directed at those who thought there is a conspiracy despite there being a completely reasonable explanation for the crash; icing. Yes, it is possible it was shot down, yes, it is possible that it was a mechanical fault, yes, it may be possible it was EMP, however, where is the evidence so? All evidence points to icing, which is possible, as it has happened in the past.

Is it similar to how all the evidence from TWA 800 pointed to a center fuel tank explosion? (well, except for traces of explosives residue on a dozen row of seats and a few hundred people who saw a missile rise up from the eastern seaboard, but I digress.)

Furthermore, you're prominent in the 9/11 conspiracy forum, and I can see that; all the detractors don't sway any of you guys, neither are the Chemtrailers swayed. Therefore, I see it as they must not be professional agents; they are doing a rather terrible job at being one. Try visiting a aerospace defense forum; nobody on ATS has any traits of a professional in the intelligence industry; not even close.

While it's true that anyone who's done any independent investigation of 9/11 won't be swayed by the professional debunkers, there's still quite a few people who are on the fence.

Just out of curiosity, why would an Australian care if 9/11 was an inside job or not?

And why would that Australian spell "defense" the American way?