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.

 

Is Snopes A Disinformation Operation? Evidence?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Hi everyone,

Recently, I had another poster recommend snopes.com to me. This was in the thread "Interesting Tidbits for the History Buff (Origin of Sayings)". Seemed snopes has a different take on these origins. That was to make a long story short but today, I came across this "Is Snopes a Disinformation Operation? Of course, this caught my eye. This guy claims to have and points out evidence. I was wondering your take on snopes is now especially after you read what he has to say . Honestly, I was shocked to hear that they had investigated the etymology ''email hoax ".

www.rense.com...

Again, the guy points out evidence . So what does this say or mean to you?

This thread is related: Does Snopes have an Agenda other than the truth...?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But this guy claims evidence.


For those of you that put your trust in Snopes...

Many of the emails that have been sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court's Kagan. We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! You don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do you?

We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros!

Is this real evidence , enough to convince you?

Thanks in advance, everyone!




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerLou
 


The rense link is a copy of an article that the author has already retracted admitting that his evidence and thus his conclusions from the evidence were wrong. You can see the retraction here


Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.


As for basing evidence for anything on a snopes article, snopes already includes a number of self admitted false articles like this one where if you click on the "further information link at the bottom of the page it leads you to a page telling you that you should not ever base your opinion on any one site or person linky and warning of the dangers of "false authority"

So snopes themselves tell you to go check your own facts and not to base anything on what a single web page say
edit on 4-4-2012 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I knew about snopes years ago when someone attempted to "prove" to me that when broken down, aspartame does not convert to formaldehyde under certain environmental conditions.

Snopes can't re-write chemistry. But it can tow a line.

And it can determine the following quote from Hawking to be true:

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Watched many folks return to glug-glug-glugging their diet soda after that debate.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Stay away from Snopes when it comes to anything Obama related.

They will say anything to cover for him.

Here's an example:

www.snopes.com...

Now click on the link titled "Marcy Moore" that they have. Notice that they don't show these pics side by side. If you've seen other pictures of Marcy Moore or the full (not cropped) photos of Obama's mother, you know without a shadow of a doubt that they are not the same person. There's a reason Snopes chose a picture of Marcy Moore with her face shadowed with darkness.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Snopes is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT DISINFORMATION. Just look at who the owners are, that should tell you all you need to know.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Snopes.com's article in question is correct, these cases had nothing to do with Obama's eligibility. Even the case from "The Real Truth About Obama, Inc" is about FEC regulations, if you look up the case number. Also, this rense.com article provides no evidence that Snopes is funded by George Soros or any liberal organization. The site also has existed long before Obama came into power, and I have never personally seen any evidence of political bias in their articles.

Here is a FactCheck.org article about the site, which (FactCheck.org) is an independent organization which has been endorsed by members of both political parties.



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join