The "Prototype" experiment that was created for debunking Web Conspiracys

The "Prototype" Conspiracy web site an experiment created for debunking Conspiracys.

No suprises its Ats.

Behind the hidden veil that shrouds what we cant see there are control mechanisms going on to influence, direct and corral the cattle. Yes thats us.

There has always been and always will be where humans who live in organised social constructions, systems of rules which apply social, civil, and statutory forces of controlling the behaviours of groups and indivduals.
Some of the controlling mechanisms the armada has its disposal are those legal disclaimers and fine print which accompany most downloadable software, or allow setting up an account to access a website.

Another forms of rules are imposed by the arm of moderation, with many websites which accomodate forum and blog and discussions, being policed by moderators.

You get the idea of course that there are enforceable rules and conditions we must abide by on the internet. That however is not the crux of what i want to discuss. What i want to discuss is the experiment of Psycological warfare as applied to conspiracies.

The wiki definition of Psycological warfare at

en.wikipedia.org...

,but i will save you the long read, and say it uses various techniques to influence a target audience value systems.

If some one was to tell me that Ats is operated as a psy ops site, then i woud expect them to also say its run as an experiment, to test peoples reaction to conspiracies, and design and test out debunking mechanisms that demonstrate effective arguments for squashing conspiracy ideas.

I postulate the idea that Ats is the prototype original web conspiracy debunking experiment. This idea itself of course is a conspiracy theory, and certainly not unique i have seen several threads bring this idea forward in different manners to try and pry open the shrouded veil.

This thread has its own unique angle to attempt to lift the veil by discussing what debundking techniques are being used to influence Atsers conspiracy views, to control them into ineffectiveness and submission?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage

I postulate the idea that Ats is the prototype original web conspiracy debunking experiment. This idea itself of course is a conspiracy theory, and certainly not unique i have seen several threads bring this idea forward in different manners to try and pry open the shrouded veil.

This thread has its own unique angle to attempt to lift the veil by discussing what debundking techniques are being used to influence Atsers conspiracy views, to control them into ineffectiveness and submission?

Oh, please. Not another "everyone who disagrees with me is a shill" thread.

No, it's not a unique angle. The debunking techniques used by us CIA agent shills involve "logic" and "reason". Sometimes "knowledge" or "understanding of a topic". A good conspiracy is fun, one that involves magic, incredible logistic issues for no gain, or obvious logical gaps is so rare.

reply to post by Bedlam

Oh, please. Not another "everyone who disagrees with me is a shill" thread.

No, it's not a unique angle. The debunking techniques used by us CIA agent shills involve "logic" and "reason". Sometimes "knowledge" or "understanding of a topic". A good conspiracy is fun, one that involves magic, incredible logistic issues for no gain, or obvious logical gaps is so rare.

I notice when you post on Ats you usually have a debunking argument against. You have just provided the first example of a debunk technique, denouncing something as nothing new... using the " oh please' intro. Thanks for your input the first example, as an example from a core Ats thread debunker.

I hope to get more debunker posts, i want to catalogue as many there response debunk techniques as possible.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
I notice when you post on Ats you usually have a debunking argument against. You have just provided the first example of a debunk technique, denouncing something as nothing new... using the " oh please' intro. Thanks for your input the first example, as an example from a core Ats thread debunker.

I hope to get more debunker posts, i want to catalogue as many there response debunk techniques as possible.

It IS nothing new. You are usually on there accusing people of being shills, as well.

Muster up a good argument, you'll have fewer "shills" asking about the holes in your theory.

reply to post by GENERAL EYES


Thanks General Eyes for your reply, and i agree with you that our own internal beliefs influence how we see things presented to us. Its hard to imagine how we can see anything without influenceed by an internal bias of some kind. As your example of kindergarden sing songs highlights, that our minds become conditioned with ideas starting at a very early age.

reply to post by Bedlam

It IS nothing new. You are usually on there accusing people of being shills, as well.

Muster up a good argument, you'll have fewer "shills" asking about the holes in your theory.

So one word unique has gotten you fired up. I fear to think how you must get on with the world at large where people are always dropping words here and there, incorrectly contexted. Have you considered for one moment mabey i deliberately added the word unique as a pysological "Bait" trigger.

As for shill you brought up the word first, so its fair i get to use it in context of a debunker next time you use it in a post.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

I postulate the idea that Ats is the prototype original web conspiracy debunking experiment.

Unless you can back that "idea" up with some evidence, you don't have a "theory" to debunk.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

This thread has its own unique angle to attempt to lift the veil by discussing what debundking techniques are being used to influence Atsers conspiracy views, to control them into ineffectiveness and submission?

As i explain in my OP i am interested in hearing about the debunking techiques used. Some people enjoy debunking ideas, and motives may range from professional debunker to a person who simply and genuinely doesnt believe in a conspiracy theory idea. As for the "Protyope" theory itself, i dont have any direct evidence, and not even saying i am in complete agreement with the theory. Im more using it as a debating vehicle for looking at common debunking techniques used on websites like this one.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Have you considered for one moment mabey i deliberately added the word unique as a pysological "Bait" trigger.

It's an intellectually bankrupt argument most ATS shill-claimers use to defend their claim when it's not defensible by reason.

I would like to see evidence of "professional debunkers".

I need some additional income.

I think that though the techniques have been discussed, that people are becoming more aware of those that truly choose to disrupt, and those that are merely curious.

Some of the ways that have become helpful to me, is by being vigilant of certain things, it only takes a few minutes to go to someones posts and see if this is ongoing, such as all or most of the posts are short, but derailing, and they truly have no contribution.

The other is by simply asking "them" to add their point with the same amount of information that was in the OP or the member they are speaking to or debating. This usually makes them weary, and many will actually continue on with the same one liners, or bringing nothing of actual importance, which a mod usually catches and will remove the posts as off-topic.

And I cannot forget the one (or very few) out there that genuinely are shocked that they didnt know this, and dont see that they have become part of the hive mind and they usually mean no harm, and are upset that this has changed, or made them think about their own ideals. Which for some can be very upsetting.
S&F as this is always good to discuss and be aware of.

Peace, NRE.

]reply to post by Bedlam

Oh, please. Not another "everyone who disagrees with me is a shill" thread.

Muster up a good argument, you'll have fewer "shills" asking about the holes in your theory

It's an intellectually bankrupt argument most ATS shill-claimers use to defend their claim when it's not defensible by reason.

Im glad Bedlam you decided to post in my thread, as you provide great examples of the techniques Im looking for to highlight in this thread. The quotes above are from your posts so far:


The techiques i see are

- Attack the OP by inferring a thread history of having a onsided view:
- Creates the idea that i will consider posters a Shill if they disagree with me
- Then uses reverse pyscological logic that saying if i moderate my thread with arguments he finds acceptable, the less shilling will come my way
- When finding his shilling is not working, starts throwing in the intellectually bankrupt argument

There are shills on Ats for sure.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

As i explain in my OP i am interested in hearing about the debunking techiques used.

My technique seems to have worked pretty well. All I did was mention your lack of evidence, and you admitted that your "theory" was a sham:

As for the "Protyope" theory itself, i dont have any direct evidence, and not even saying i am in complete agreement with the theory.

Some people enjoy debunking ideas, and motives may range from professional debunker to a person who simply and genuinely doesnt believe in a conspiracy theory idea.

There is only one motive involved in "debunking" theories. That motive is to remove the "bunk" that a theory may rely on. The only valid theories are those that have been thoroughly "debunked".

See ya,
Milt

"well, uhh... i'm retarded, so you must be wrong!"

i see that one around here alot!

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Im glad Bedlam you decided to post in my thread, as you provide great examples of the techniques Im looking for to highlight in this thread. The quotes above are from your posts so far:


The techiques i see are


- Creates the idea that i will consider posters a Shill if they disagree with me

You're doing it now.

- Then uses reverse pyscological logic that saying if i moderate my thread with arguments he finds acceptable, the less shilling will come my way

It would be true

- When finding his shilling is not working, starts throwing in the intellectually bankrupt argument

SHILLL!! SHIIIIILLLL!

reply to post by BenReclused


You may borrow my "flame retardant" imaginary cloak.

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES

I won't see them as shills so much as "agent provocateurs"...they provoke and poke and ridicule and do their best to play alpha dog in order to win "The Game"...the game they made up just to "win" against an imaginary "foe".

I see them as a reality filter, one that's badly needed here.

They provoke thought, logic, reason. As opposed to fantasy, fuzzy thinking, leaps of illogic.

ETA: I find calling people "paid disinfo agents" to be down there with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" sort of response you'd expect from a grade schooler. If your theory is so soft and mushy that you can't abide having your sources questioned or your logic examined, then a bit more research might be the right thing instead of shill shouting.

ETAA: Wouldn't an agent provocateur in this context be someone who intentionally introduces false conspiracy theories in order to mislead? That would seem to be the opposite of a debunker, IMHO.