Well, this is an ongoing sticky soup and one that seems to lack parameters of measurement. How to know? Who do you trust? Those questions seem
to me to be ones that might well plant seeds of mistrust, however, that's no sin. I believe the OP is asking valid questions; if they were asking
these questions for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of sowing discontent, then that would be disinformation. I don't believe that is the case.
I think it might be useful to think about how a true, paid or directed disinfo "agent" might act. Would they go to, say the 9/11 forum and argue
incessantly with those that call themselves "truthers"? I really don't think so. I think they would be more inclined to pretend to align
themselves WITH the "truthers", and then dissemble the continuity of the thread from within -- by misrepresenting and discrediting.
Likewise with the UFO/alien forums. I don't think "they" would be the ones that seemed skeptical or even debunkers. I think they'd be most
effective by making the UFO/alien forum a laughingstock -- by introducing fraudulent or rediculous information under the guise of a "believer".
So how does this witchhunt conclude? ARE there classic identifiers? I don't know. Are there paid disinfo agents here? Don't know that either.
Most often when I've read on ATS where someone is accused of being a disinfo agent, generally that resonates to me as an attempted brand laid down
by someone who doesn't like being disagreed with.
What would be the purpose of having government disinfo people here at ATS? Are we really SO close to closely guarded secrets? I'll tell you
something, I don't come to ATS for discovery of deep, national secrets. I come here to exchange ideas with people, to learn, to broaden my views,
challenge my paradigms all neatly wrapped up in a website that actually tolerates and welcomes whackamole freaks like me.
I respect ATS/BTS....... could it, would it be held up nationally or globally as containing information that could get somebody killed, or would it
be more likely to just be discredited for what it is -- a conspiracy site?
Self-appointed disinfoists? Yep. I'm pretty sure there are those who are SO intolerant of certain types of information that they see it as their
duty to dash-and-bash. I've been guilty myself of that -- the (IMO) wild and unsupported Nibiru claims, for example. No more. I can read and
see when someone wants to introduce something "new" about Nibiru, and I'll read it with as much of an open mind as I can muster.
AH!!! There's the secret! Why didn't I realize this sooner? Those of you who disagree with me are therefore, sadly, disinfo agents.
Really kind of silly, no?