Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Plants" in internet forums

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


The areas I've seen get sidetracked a lot are Eugene Brading/Jim Braden and some other mysterious person (Dal-Tex building), Roscoe White (Tippitt shooting), information that links Oswald to either FBI or CIA in terms of finances, and how anybody knew to look for Oswald in the Texas Theater.

The one that appears to me to have been dangerous to some people was identification of Oswald at the Tippitt shooting and exactly what transpired, not to imply that there weren't others.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
One other, Antonio Veciana and David Atlee Phillips. Fonzi's arranged encounter and what Veciana said in later years meeting with Fonzi was very intriguing.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


That's genuinely interesting to me because the dal-tex building, including Braden's potential involvement, is a fairly large talking point. I've seen Robert Harris spend a fair amount of time talking about that as well, such as on one of his well known youtube videos. This one here:




It's certainly not a part of the case that's often ignored or seen as a no-go. Not in the slightest. Same applies to the rest of what you said. I've seen it being discussed plenty.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
Here is the evidence you're looking for OP


Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'



link


Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."


Conspiracy Theories Cass R. Sunstein * Adrian Vermeule PDF



That really says it all, doesn't it? Not sure why your post was not commented on by anyone else, but thank you for putting it in here.

It is very frustrating to have people say this practice doesn't exist, when those responsible are telling you it does.
edit on 19-2-2013 by Fawgmyre because: Mis-post



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jayman0111
Here you go again Phage. Why do posters pick on you all the time?


Probably because Phage doesn't feed egos. No, he has the temerity to actually ask for proof of any wild claims. Who would have thought he could be so wicked?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
I'm curious what some of these viewpoints are that defy logic, can you please give some examples OP.

I ask this because i'm often called a shill, disinfo agent, mindless drone, etc - on here and by others who are heavy into conspiracy theories. The irony is that with my past (mental illness) there is no chance of me getting a in the government with any form of secrecy, so to think that I am hired for the purpose of being a secret agent to push a government agenda is pretty absurd.

What I have noticed from a hard-line conspiracy theory group, is that ANYONE who hold different views from that group is automatically called any of the above names. It's sad to see happen, because that group is trying to define their own reality, claiming some kind of moral - and intellectual - superiority, where they demand recognition for their views. And the entire time they're doing that, they are dismissing anyone who has opposing view's experiences, opinions and thoughts on life.


Think about the psychology of this. A person who believes conspiracies may exist might seek a place to discuss them. Someone who doesn't have a belief that conspiracies exist would generally just accept the news and go about their business. What type of person would go out of their way to seek out conspiracy sites to argue against conspiracies? Which scenario is more logical behavior?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by guanyu
 

That's not what the OP says.
He's talking about disinfo. Disinfo doesn't work if no one listens.


that is not true at all...if you presented the "truth" annoyingly and trollish enough people would not listen...and walla truth buried.

If Sorcha Faal (spelling?) made a post/article about the sky being blue...there are people on here who dismiss that source so outright they would start questioning whether the sky is really blue or not...in spite of common sense, experience and knowledge...

this effect goes both ways...those deep into conspiracy theory dismiss their common sense if the MSM says something and the hardline main-streamers dismiss their common sense if the conspiracy crowd says something...

neither approach will get you the truth though.

its a lazy intellectual process reinforced by our brain trying to be "efficient" in digesting a lot of conflicting information. We make up "processes" that try to validate/reject information quickly and usually end up becoming more confused due to it. 50% lie + 50% truth = 100% deception

I would say dis-info works BEST when people aren't listening. But there are always at least two ways to look at something.
edit on 19-2-2013 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian

Originally posted by jayman0111
Here you go again Phage. Why do posters pick on you all the time?


Probably because Phage doesn't feed egos. No, he has the temerity to actually ask for proof of any wild claims. Who would have thought he could be so wicked?


It's not his wickedness or truly noteworthy temerity that caused me to "pick on" him, it was the fact he rather rudely climbed up my butthole and refused to leave for a little while.

No one is going to admit they are a plant, or provide undeniable evidence of plants, but MagicWand67 posted the closest thing to absolute confirmation anyone is going to get.

The logic behind it is simple. It's divide and conquer. People become unable to reach a consensus and work together. Instead people feel isolated as if their ideas are fringe.

Everyone knows that convincing people they're wrong doesn't work. Shills used to try this on 9/11 all the time, but debunkers stuck to one gun and the truthers stuck to theirs. So plants trying to very carefully convince people of a different opinion is pointless, it is just not likely to succeed.

However they can very easily find one person on the thread and harass them. In time what was a 9/11 thread becomes two people arguing minutia while posts related to the OP get buried amongst the flame war. I've seen it time and time again. I'm not just an observer of conspiracy theory, I'm an observer of conspiracy theorists. We are a type of person. For some reason, we find our company constantly filled with people of a quite different type.

It is a bit like sitting down in a sports bar to have a beer and watch basketball when there's one table announcing proudly that basketball sucks and spending their time heckling individuals, throwing their fries at you and such. Why are they at the sports bar? Are they sports fans? If not, what the hell are they doing there?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Outing "disinfo agents" or "shills" appears to be another level of superiority complex around here. A badge of honor that exists only in the poster's mind regardless of accuracy. I have been called a shill no less than three times in the last week alone, and I don't think I post that much around here.

As an example, it usually goes like this:

Accuser: "Hundreds of structural architects around the world believe that building could not have fallen the way it did."

Me (shill): "Hundreds out of how many total structural architects around the world?"

Accuser: "I see what you are trying to do here, and I'm on to your tactics. You are either a paid disinfo agent or just a shill for the OS."

All I did was ask a question, but rather than offer a logical response, I get labeled and the accuser gets to feed his ego, satisfied in knowing his superior intellect was able to weed out another stupid government agent.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Think about the psychology of this. A person who believes conspiracies may exist might seek a place to discuss them. Someone who doesn't have a belief that conspiracies exist would generally just accept the news and go about their business. What type of person would go out of their way to seek out conspiracy sites to argue against conspiracies? Which scenario is more logical behavior?


First, I am indeed an employee of the federal government. I have never hidden this fact. That being said, I found this place on accident. A few people in my office were having a conversation about an animal die off a few years ago and one of them jokingly mentioned HAARP. I didn't know what he was talking about, so I did a search. This site was the first result and here I am.

I'm here for my own entertainment. I don't believe in most of the conspiracies thrown about around here, but I do find the place interesting, so I swing by. Sometimes I add my own two cents to a discussion. I've never been to any other conspiracy website. So, I didn't go out of my way, as I really had never considered that such a site would have much activity. Sometimes I read an OP or a response and I think, "that was a really good read, and made me think." Other times I think, "that person is a nut."

I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs, but apparently my being here is so illogical that I must be getting paid to do so.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Meh... I've been called a shill, member of the illuminati, a 32nd degree freemason and worse over u2u.

I'm starting to think the badge of honor is on the receivers end. It just shows the accuser is simply out of cognitive thoughts.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 





Would powerful establishments bother to install "plants" or moles into forums (such as this one) to try to subvert any ideology that is contradictory to the NWO status quo?


Clearly you don't read much ATS. This is a fact, and has been discussed at great lengths here already.

Fact remains, most of the people you consider to be trolls or "moles" are in fact, people who disagree with you. Disagreement, even illogical, doesn't mean they are a government plant.

Just stop and think about the cost alone, doesn't make sense that everyone you suspect to be a plant is one. And, in fact, disinfo rarely takes place at a non news story breaking forum such as this. ATS would see sockpuppets and other "plants" that derail threads. Seriously, open a thread that is at all friendly to Palestine, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Disinfo takes place at the blogs and "news sources" we discuss articles from here, not the other way around.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by Bilk22

Think about the psychology of this. A person who believes conspiracies may exist might seek a place to discuss them. Someone who doesn't have a belief that conspiracies exist would generally just accept the news and go about their business. What type of person would go out of their way to seek out conspiracy sites to argue against conspiracies? Which scenario is more logical behavior?


First, I am indeed an employee of the federal government. I have never hidden this fact. That being said, I found this place on accident. A few people in my office were having a conversation about an animal die off a few years ago and one of them jokingly mentioned HAARP. I didn't know what he was talking about, so I did a search. This site was the first result and here I am.

I'm here for my own entertainment. I don't believe in most of the conspiracies thrown about around here, but I do find the place interesting, so I swing by. Sometimes I add my own two cents to a discussion. I've never been to any other conspiracy website. So, I didn't go out of my way, as I really had never considered that such a site would have much activity. Sometimes I read an OP or a response and I think, "that was a really good read, and made me think." Other times I think, "that person is a nut."

I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs, but apparently my being here is so illogical that I must be getting paid to do so.


High five...

Same situation.. Federal employee who MUST be paid to do this although I use my personal computer and my own internet connection and even participate in debates and scholar research forums (which was the main reason I joined, the debating)

But any experiences we have ever had , get tossed aside as "well that's coming from the powers that be" well no it's not, we have our own minds and brains as well.... And we can see the problems inherent in the government, and we can see the situations that are cropping up, and we can even agree with the frustration, heck i'm frustrated (health insurance company issue currently with a very bad injury) doesn't mean we're paid to sit here and derail a conversation, there are some things I feel very strongly about, and happen to disagree with people about.. Take it for what it is.. a disagreement



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I think I already read about a project the government is using to do that - but I think the quality of the posts on ATS has to improve before we worry about them being a problem, in fact, they might make the best quality posts themselves so at the moment it would seem to be beneficial.

That would depend if they were trying to use quality information to make decent arguments, or if they were attempting to use derailing tactics.

At any rate, let the government have their say, it's not like they won't get treated with the same amount of skepticism as always and if they break the T&C their post will be deleted and they could be banned.
edit on 19-2-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jayman0111

Originally posted by lynxpilot


Can you spot the moles? I've outed a few so far.


You've been a member for a week and you've outed 'moles'? Forgive me, but mister ego is talking I think.


It only took me a few days to figure it out.

I guess I have a HUGE ego



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I thought I might find a cucumber plant here but I guess I was misled.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 




Nine times out of Ten, anyone getting labeled as a "plant", shill, dis-info agent, and any other variation of, is only labeled that way for disagreeing with another poster.


My inside sources tell me it's 50/50.

I'm really good at math by the way.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Hmm, notice all the bull# in this thread?

The subtext has so far been; you're arrogant if you believe in agents because you just can't admit you're wrong, you're stupid if you believe in agents because they're expensive and our government is a notorious spendthrift; you're wasting your time even thinking about agents, because it's just not likely; even if there were agents, who cares? And so on and so on.

Better to just operate under the assumption they exist, doggedly pursue the topic at hand, and ignore attempts to divert attention from the issue or respond to posts about your posts.

Oh and don't expect to collect lots of stars or flags for this one,
edit on 19-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Look into the vatican and the jesuits r.e. JFK - seems he says it himself, in many speeches.

Strange, because back then, people were afraid that electing a catholic would mean the vatican/jesuits would be in control.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by guanyu
Hmm, notice all the bull# in this thread?

The subtext has so far been; you're arrogant if you believe in agents because you just can't admit you're wrong, you're stupid if you believe in agents because they're expensive and our government is a notorious spendthrift; you're wasting your time even thinking about agents, because it's just not likely; even if there were agents, who cares? And so on and so on.

Better to just operate under the assumption they exist, doggedly pursue the topic at hand, and ignore attempts to divert attention from the issue or respond to posts about your posts.

Oh and don't expect to collect lots of stars or flags for this one,
edit on 19-2-2013 by guanyu because: (no reason given)

I starred you just to be different






top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join