posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:15 AM
This write-up was intended as a reply to someone else's thread, but as I was writing, I thought that this is information everyone should see. I
suspect that I will ruffle a few feathers of some ATS members who are set in their belief system, but I firmly believe that by approaching a subject
rationally and logically, the real truth will reveal itself. There is no need to flame, and please do NOT derail this thread with personal attacks or
the like, as it is unnecessary and detracts from the legitimate discussion...All I want is a mature deductive discussion, and I really hope someone
can enlighten me.
I am constantly seeing the word disinformation strewn about the forum, in thread titles and posts, and honestly, it has gotten to me a bit. I was torn
whether or not to create this thread, since there are already a ton on the subject, but I truly and honestly feel that this could be to the benefit of
quite a few members of this site. So hopefully at least one or two people will learn from my thread, and will discontinue their efforts to label
everyone who disagrees with them a "disinfo agent."
[This is in response to a list of behaviors, traits, and actions seen and used by disinformation agents. For the sake of this thread, it does not
really matter what these traits, actions, etc. really are...]
It makes sense that these behaviors and actions would be utilized by someone intentionally attempting to sway the opinion of the masses, or to derail
a thread as to diminish its perceived legitimacy. Although it does make sense, here is the problem I have struggled with since joining this site not
too long ago.
Would the government really pay people to post disinformation on an internet forum? Let's think about this logically. For someone to post
disinformation, they would more likely than not have to be "in the loop" so to speak, otherwise how would they know if what they're posting is
truly disinformation? I suppose it is possible that they are given a list of what to promote and what to criticize, but this would still give them a
good idea as to what the truth is...mainly the opposite of what they are supposed to be posting. Make sense so far?
Now, someone who has clearance high enough to be privy to the truth about the certain topics they are to be posting about, in my opinion would be a
great asset that was being wasted trying to sway the opinions and beliefs of a small percentage of the world population, on an online forum. I just
cannot visualize a government asset, with a high security clearance, being paid to post in the forums when there are probably 50 more productive jobs
they could be doing.
If I wished to argue with myself, which I am sometimes prone to do, I could say the following: Disinfo agents aren't given "specific" instructions,
they are simply told to use certain tactics on any thread that seems to be reaching a conclusion that is not what the majority of the population
believes...Or something similar to that, basically eliminating the need for them to be "in the loop" regarding sensitive information. I will admit
that something like this is a possibility. Probably the only logical possibility, if there really are hundreds of disinfo agents running amuck on the
Another thing that bothers me is this...Why would the government care what we discuss on ATS? Say they do succeed in changing the beliefs of some
members, because they will not get them all, what have they really accomplished? Even when valid opinions are formed by our members regarding a
certain conspiracy, and this conclusion differs from the mainstream opinion, effectively meaning we have uncovered the truth, what happens next? It is
not as if anyone can do anything with the truth they have uncovered. Even when something shocking is brought up in the mainstream media there will
most likely be nothing done about it, as we have seen many times in the past. So it just does not seem "profitable" for the government to sway a
group's opinion, unless that group is the majority of the country.
Also, if the government wanted to infiltrate an online community dealing with conspiracies, etc...then they would have to infiltrate as many as
possible, because it would be difficult to differentiate between the thousands of forums online that discuss the same topics, and it would not make
any sense to just troll one forum, because there aren't enough people in any one place, considering they may only sway the opinion of a small
percentage. They also wouldn't derail a thread for someone who was determined to continue with the discussion. The manpower required to achieve this
would be staggering, not to mention if I was correct in assuming every poster would have to have a security clearance that would be higher than
"entry level," or secret (I think that is the first level, not sure...) I could be wrong in this assumption, but it makes sense to me.
I do know for a fact that the FBI has infiltrated online forums in the past, and every case I have heard of is regarding criminals and criminal
enterprises. Most notably they have infiltrated online communities dealing in stolen property, such as credit cards and banking information. That is a
big difference when compared to a community that simply discusses possible conspiracies and other non-mainstream topics.
Something else: would the government really need to pay people to post disinformation, when the community is usually split to begin with? It seems
like one half of the community will do the government's job for them.
Something that really bothers me is when a member of this site accuses someone of being a "paid gov. disinfo agent," just because they disagreed
with their opinion(s). If this is you, you are not helping the site and community one little bit, so please stop doing that.
So guys and gals, tell me truthfully, what do you believe, and why? Am I totally and completely missing something here? Is there really more to it
than my feeble little mind can comprehend? Or am I right in assuming it just isn't logistically possible for any government agency to monitor and
post on online forums in an attempt to promote disinformation?
NOTE: I will be the FIRST to admit that I am wrong if someone can prove it to me with facts. Logically speaking, for me, my argument makes the most
sense, but again, I could be completely wrong in my assumption.