It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Any chance of a list of known hoaxers?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Recently a few threads with older members pointing out that new members should avoid X, Y and Z because of past hoaxes or dodgy information got me thinking...

Any chance of a list of sources to avoid and people to take with a pinch of salt?

What say ye?




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
that list would be nice but it wouldn't last long. Most hoaxer’s probably have multiple accounts or just creat new one's when they are exposed.

This would have to an up-to-date hoaxer’s thread.

And are you just looking for hoaxer’s or hoax website's?
As was stated by a mod today anything from all-news-web won't be accepted here, in fact you can't even type that website in as a link.

GummB

[edit on 24-8-2010 by GummB]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Sorry to clarify:

I didn't mean members on ATS, i meant dodgy websites and the like.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I think we might be able to dig some of those up but it might be better to ask, are they any credible website to visit? Your list will probably be shorter.

I seen this thread the other day about a "new" hoaxer on youtube, her name is "sheilaaliens".
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit

here's a website of known hoax website but they are all kind of retarded anyhow. Far from believable stories
www.museumofhoaxes.com...


[edit on 24-8-2010 by GummB]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well, first off, let's add anything from Steven Greer and CSETI. Everything associated with them is hoaxed for scamming people. Case in point, the 800 dollar (light being) MOTH image, and the prancing alien photo. Stay far from Greer and CSETI.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Pretty sure it goes against terms and conditions to "attack" another website, I think labelling them a hoax would count as an attack.

I vote Hoax members though



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
While we're at it, we should throw the well-known fraud's in there as well; such as Hoaxland, Greer, etc.


JAK

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Please feel free to comment on the issue here:

Originally posted by mr-lizard
...i meant dodgy websites and the like.


Pros and cons etc. This is not a 'list those you find disagreeable' thread.

Thank you,

Jak

[edit on 24/8/10 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Too many to list LOL. Nearly everything on youtube.com that has to do with aliens or ghosts. And many more people.

A REALLY good hoaxer is The Faking Hoaxer. You should check his channel out pretty amazing CGI

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JAK
 


Did you really just link back to this thread...
Now that is funny!



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
As long as the evidence of the hoax was air-tight, I think it would be a good idea.

BUT

Would need a distinction made between knowingly hoaxing and unintentionally supporting hoax (due to information not privy to)

Question is, is bringing ATS' attn to a hoax, when a member doesn't know it is a hoax, the same thing as hoaxing?

How could a member caught in this scenario prove his innocence/ intention?

Then, those members who whole-heartedly believe a hoax. Is it their fault they got sucked in? Even when they do not intentionally deceive, but think they are spreading truth, are they branded with the scarlet H anyway?

This is a very sticky can of worms.

maybe needs more thought.

Maybe only stick to known crackpots, ie: Mausson, Kruse, and the usual suspects. Membership on ATS too difficult to classify.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


LOL I think JAK took a cue from you, Mobius1974, and looped us back to where we all began. --A mobius thread.


Not sure I understand why though....



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


He wants hoaxers, not your Christmas card list


JAK

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Let's try again:

Please feel free to comment on the issue here:

Originally posted by mr-lizard
...i meant dodgy websites and the like.


I do realise where my link led :p It was an attempt to gently reinforce the point.



Pros and cons of the idea broached in the opening post. This is not a 'list those you find disagreeable' thread.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


LiveForever8.....

It appears I have missed something here.

I have written away for counselling!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

PS: I get it now!


[edit on 24-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 
Flag from me Lizard.


I agree with the sentiment, but can't imagine how it would work. I wish it could.

It's kinda like the old cliché about terrorists and freedom fighters. One person's lying BS merchant is another's truth-teller.

I'm almost surprised to find myself writing this, but here goes anyway...

People come across the hoaxers, liars and snake-oil traders for the first time and believe, or get tempted, by their schtick. They post a thread or reply in support of the BS-merchant.

A discussion/argument kicks off that sheds more light on the BS and *hopefully* has more influence on people reading than those posting. Those threads are adversarial...for and against. The members have usually made their minds up.

Ideally, the discussion of ideas will put most people from trusting the hoaxers.

If we 'throw 'em in the hole,' the lack of reasons for them being in there could lead to more people being suckered in. In that sense, debating the hoaxer is more positive (long-term) than ignoring them.

ETA one word

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Kandinsky]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Kandinsky.....


If we 'throw 'em in the hole,' the lack of reasons for them being in there could lead to more people being suckered in. In that sense, debating the hoaxer is more positive (long-term) than ignoring them.


I "wax & wane" regarding that.....

On the one hand.....

If we keep giving them attention, it just gives them "oxygen" & wastes time that might otherwise be spent on more substantial material.

On the other hand.....

If we don't give them attention, people will not understand what they are dealing with regarding these guys.

As I think about it.....

I guess the occasional "Greer Battle Thread" does liven things up a bit at times!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

I guess the occasional "Greer Battle Thread" does liven things up a bit at times!



Dude, so not funny. And all the Greer stuff in your profile and sig, come on man! Ben S must be a tad displeased I'm sure



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jokei
Pretty sure it goes against terms and conditions to "attack" another website, I think labelling them a hoax would count as an attack.

I vote Hoax members though


As long as you can prove the website is unreliable I would in no way considering it an attack, just a warning for others to look into these website's sources.( if they have any ) Accusing a perfectly reliable website of hoaxing with no proof would of course an attack.

Personally this isn't a court of law, on the internet you should assume everyone is wrong until they(or you) can prove they are correct. The less skeptical you are the more gullible you probably are.

And yes hoax members would be nice to but I'm willing to bet the term's and conditions state we can not attack other members either. Calling someone a hoaxer on here is up there for most offensive thing to say, unless it's true of course.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join