posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:46 PM
My goodness, we haven't had the government spying on ATS/disinformation meme on here for at least a week. The book itself gets very mixed reviews.
The author is a self-confessed crop circle hoaxster who says ALL crop circles are hoaxes. Many of the reviews call this book a painful and dull read.
Still, the issue remains. You have to wonder what "ATS being infiltrated by government" means on a publicly available forum where anyone can join.
It's not like there are any barriers to joining ATS. Everyone has permission to be here. You don't have to provide a resume, undergo fingerprinting
and a background check, or sneak past a receptionist's desk to "infiltrate" the forums. It's kind of like saying, "Joe infiltrated New York
City" when he went there to visit. In other words, in the absence of any barriers to entry, it makes little sense to claim something has been
We have the "disinformation" angle, which also makes a regular weekly, if not daily, appearance here. The idea here is that if anyone disagrees with
the latest conspiracy, they must be a "disinformation agent" wanting to divert the attention of ATS "sheeple." This is very prevalent in the 9/11
forums, but appears nearly everywhere else as well. In fact, we have certain ATS members who claim a particular ability to "spot" disinformation
agents because of the way they post, perhaps the way they deflect points in some sort of regulation fashion. Every once in awhile you see posters
bragging about their abilities here.
I would put the claim of someone being a "disinformation agent" right up there alongside the claim that someone is "racist." It's used pretty
much the same way. For example, in the recent Trayvon shooting the prevalent attitude on ATS is to follow the MSM story hook, line, and sinker. You
may find this surprising for a conspiracy site that purports to look askance at the MSM, but in this case the dominant theme is to swallow the thing
Now it has come to pass that there is another possibility here. There is some evidence that Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, btw, shot in self-defense. So
we have some contrary evidence. I personally don't know one way or another, but the reaction by ATS is to call anyone who brings up this contrary
evidence "racist." The claim of "disinformation agent" is used the same way. If someone points out the Building Seven's downfall can be explained
without resorting to implanted explosives, that person is called a "disinformation agent."
So I do not put much credence in the idea that somehow "disinformation agents" have "infiltrated" ATS. It seems a rather silly concept and this
author, though he wrote it in a rather obscure book by a rather obscure publisher, isn't any different than the usual claimant on ATS.
The third claim is that ATS is "being watched." The question is, in what context? Skeptic Overlord has reported to us that during times of an
exciting event, traffic from dot.mil and dot.gov domains goes up. There are two ways to look at this. One is that all that traffic consists of agents
spying on ATS. The other is that government and military employees are interested in the issue and are looking it up in the media, including the
alternative media. Now if you want to claim that any government employee who reads a newspaper is "spying" or has "infiltrated" that newspaper,
then I guess you have your case. But I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Your evidence is traffic, but to claim this represents
spying is jumping to unfounded conclusions. ATS has gone to great lengths to be "first" in Google searches. Is it really surprising that people
click on it?
The other way of "being watched" is electronically. And here I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is true. In fact, I think it is likely that this
site is scanned every day for every post by computers looking for specific phrases that may be of interest. This is how it works:
If the automatic analysis captures a phrase of interest, the post is flagged for review. It may go through a secondary automatic scan, or it may go
directly to human review. The human is most certainly a low-level operative. Most get their start by enlisting in the armed services, then working for
the NSA while still in uniform. This E-4 or E-5, 20 to 25 years old, then looks at the messages to determine significance. 99% of the time this kid
will be able to properly determine that the post is of no significance, in which case it gets dropped. If not, there are several levels of review
before something is deemed actionable. This whole scenario can happen very quickly, btw.
So, yeah, ATS is probably on the radar screen, but it is unlikely that it is considered particularly significant. The liklihood of intentional
infiltration is near zero.