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.


ATS has been infiltrated with agents of ignorance!

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:15 PM
Well, at least this thread is on topic
And it's even in the forum made especially for discussing this type of thing. Actually, since the title of the forum is "Deconstructing Disinformation & Deflection" I think it would actually be good to identify specific examples of how this disinformation is done and devise ways to identify it and eradicate it as quickly as possible. I think we have already had some really good ideas here already

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:33 PM
People sadly are 'attacked' when they haven't stated anything as a FACT rather just wishing to 'discuss' a given subject ! For instance, someone might post something along the lines of ! 'Have u seen that ZPE machine that so and so has invented ?' Then the hijacker jumps on them with the 'PROVE IT PROVE IT@ argument ! This in my opinion is uncalled for ! They haven't stated anything as a fact just merely wishing to garner views from others who might be more informed in that particular field ! There have been some great points by many contributers to this thread lets hope people take heed !

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:29 PM
This is an excellent article and a personal forte of mine. I've been a lurker here for years but just joined and this is my first post. As an obsessive reader of comments, I have come to the very same conclusions.

All that I can add is this:

1. Watch out for "ad hominem" arguments. In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed. They are prevalent and usually indicates someone with advanced knowledge of deception. It is intellectually dishonest and this type of trickery is commonly used by the Machiavellian types.

2. The best way to retort is not with a passionate response but a logical one. Simply identify the tactic (such as the tactics the author of this article explains) and respond directly by calling out the disingenuous comment. Do not demean them personally! Press them to reiterate with pure, honest logic. Think Spock-like!

I hope I added something to the discussion because as time goes on, this type of understanding will become exponentially more important in today's world of intellectual discourse in forums such as this.

I've learned a lot of things I never knew here at ATS and particularly as to how things are accepted or debunked because most contributors are open minded and honestly looking for answers to phenomena that stretches the imagination. Thank you.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by downisreallyup

Simple answer really…
A lot of times, its due to the fact that its something that many of us have already seen, either on ATS or elsewhere, and know has been debunked. There are possibly more bad bits of information out there floating around the web, then true ones, and when they are proven false there is no internet police that take that bad information off the web. So what happens is that we get new members that post things that may be new to them, but we have already seen multiple times before and know for a fact are false.

I can totally understand that. I think the true colors can be seen when after a dismissive statement, the person is pressed for something to back it up, and they fail to find any link or evidence supporting their position. It would really be great to have a policy that nobody can cry "HOAX" or "FAKE" without providing a reference. Even if it was just a hint of a reference so that others can look it up instead of having to take their word for it.


posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by downisreallyup

What you are seeing are passionate members with strong opinions and sometimes it can get messy to the point where people become personal. I dont think there are necessarily agents as such differences are common on such a large forum on the web. Im not saying there is no possibility of disinformation agents but then again there are many members who have personal agendas but are just members nevertheless.

I think also, there is this big thing on here to dismiss anybody who is critical of a conspiracy. I know this is a conspiracy theory website but being a debunker is not synonymous with being a disinformation agent. Disinformation agents (if they existed) can come in many forms and mislead in many ways. A conspiracy with a secret agenda to confuse and mislead can be just as bad as an disinformation agent trying to derail a thread. Nobody and define exactly what a disinformation agent must be.

I guess we can agree that the objectional behavior is not "belonging to the CSS and surfing the web posting disinfo" but to make critical but unfounded posts regardless of the motive. It is the result that causes trouble, not the motive.

I realize that in this site there is a substantial number of members who entertain ideas that are really really out there. And the result can be a polarization where other people feel they need to bring them down to earth.

The key problem occurs when a discussion is ultimately STOPPED as a result of the overly critical behavior. To stop a discussion goes entirely against the purpose of this site.

I have personally seen a very entertaining discussion ENDED because a couple of individuals insisted that it was stopped because they "proved" a UFO did not land in Barstow after one of them found a traffic report online that said it was just "raining" on that day.

Come on, really? a traffic report found online that says it's raining is proof that nothing happened on that day? That thread was closed by the moderators because two people had a problem with it. You can see how I can be suspicious of disinfo agents when I see a guy say "It was raining on that day" and another guy say "well of course my friend you are right, since it was raining it couldn't possibly have happened".

If the discussion seems really ignorant, a member who is critical of the subject can either provide something to talk about that will enlighten the discussion or ignore it.

But there is nothing wrong with challenging anybody making a dismissive statement with nothing to back it up.


posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:48 PM

Originally posted by rickyrrr
It would really be great to have a policy that nobody can cry "HOAX" or "FAKE" without providing a reference. Even if it was just a hint of a reference so that others can look it up instead of having to take their word for it.

Of course exactly the same would apply to those posting CT's, or pictures of ufo's or aliens, or perpetual motion machines or chemtrails etc etc.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by redoubt

I submit to you that IF there are indeed these creatures amongst us, spending your time arguing over who is and is not one of them is preventing you from attacking the aforementioned (and other) issues. Further, IF these agents exist, then the best course of action would be to continue analyzing the important stuff and ignoring them.

I agree redoubt. That would be the logical approach... alas they keep putting their foot into the classic disinfo agent trap. If we get them bitching on these threads, all their 'truth seeking' energy is transferred away from uncovering the truth that the government pays us 'disinfo agents' lots of money (and an awesome pension) to protect.

Anyway... gotta go... Chadwickus, OzWeatherman and myself have been called into the boardroom for an important meeting with a 'representative' from the shadow government.


[edit on 20/12/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

IRM, can you email me the minutes to the meeting, when Laraby starts yapping on about all he whingers of our ASIO campaign I just zone out.

Cheers mate!

See you at the christmas party!
Don't forget the Stan Romanek dart board!

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by GideonHM

I am not defending anyone, just saying that they chose whether or not they want to respond to anything in an intelligent way. I defend no one, except he or she who speaks truth, not THEIR version of truth. All I am sayng is that there must be a balance. . .it is inevitable. As a conspiracy website, ATS must also exist as an ANTI-conspiracy site. We ARE responsible for how we choose to reply to any and all stimuli. In retrospect, however, I suppose I do defend some. . .after all it is a privilege to post here, or anywhere for that matter, not a right. Also, for the record. . .I appreciate your passion for the subject.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Divine Strake]

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in