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

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Bedlam
 


Well, I meant more in the context of Agents who, for whatever reason, seem to think they have the dominant foothold on human experience and creativity.

I'm all for logic and reason, but I'm also a proponent of creative thinking.

Humanity woudn't be where it is now if no one decided to bang rocks together differently at some point.

I see no harm in "out of the box" creative exercises or unusual perspectives....we all have some element of our lives that doesn't nessecarily add up to the Dominant Paradigm. I just don't understand why so many insist there is only ONE reality to be experienced by all...and that it has to be MANDATORY.

Seriously, I just never understood that.

Sure, cooperation is fine and essential for things to "get done" in the real world....but not everyone has to work on the same project. When people dismantle and ridicule another persons perspective or idea, it's usually because they feel threatened by it, annoyed by it, or just want life to be a nice neat tidy package where everyone thinks alike, looks alike and works alike.

Nothing wrong with that vision, but...sheesh....we're all unique somewhere.

Why do some feel the need to so rigidly enforce social conformity when it isn't a matter of life or death?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 5/10/13 by GENERAL EYES because: corrected formatting




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused

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:


This is a good example of pushing your idea for others to adopt. How do you know your technique has worked well? Do you want others to believe that without any "proof"? Was anything admitted to being a sham? At best Athlon has not concluded his ideas in my opinion but a good example of trying to rally group minds for support of your cause. How can a theory be a sham anyway the word implies an un-proven idea in my take anyway.


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

Implying there is only one motive may apply to you but have not made it clear this applies to you. The wording used again implies you know everyone's motive. A good tactic for rallying support of weak minds who have failed to identify they do not know anything about everyone. "The only valid theories"....What pedestal are you on that makes you the resident specialist in theories anyway. Maybe you should debunk yourself and see how you go. If you ask me there is debunking by pointing out things for the benefit of awareness and there is just pointless group mind debunking to feel special and prove your point is more valid. I call the latter the "epeen effect"



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The ebb and flow of this thread is fascinating.
Reasonable paranoia vs logic.

Logic tells me that any shill worth his salt will not come to this thread at all.

A few may self identify, but they are lying.


... Just something to keep in mind.
For myself, I dunno man, I am sure they are here, but as said, your theories should be able to withstand heavy criticism. If they aren't, they aren't very good. It is science.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


You make some valid points on temperance and guidence. Both very important things for any inhabitant of this planet to consider. But but constant subversive humiliation and chastising someone for not being on the same wavelength at the same time?

I get the "ACHTUNG!" aspect of that manner of discourse, but it gets tedious after a while.

I think we miss out on some things we could benefit from by attempting to intimidate others into compliant rationale too quickly, or to excessively dominate and reinforce shallow herd mentalities on genuine philosopical inquiries.

Different teachers, different methodologies....it's all about civilized conversation in the long run.

I think what AthlonSavage was getting at is how disorienting it can get when a Think Tank gets a sudden influx of casual partiipants who use remedial tactics to dominate the boards.

At least, that's my impression....feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
edit on 5/11/13 by GENERAL EYES because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES

I get the "ACHTUNG!" aspect of that manner of discourse, but it gets tedious after a while.


Oh, General, not a Godwin.



...or to excessively dominate and reinforce shallow herd mentalities ...
....it's all about civilized conversation...


An accusation of 'shallow herd mentalities' and a simultaneous appeal to civilized conversation? Agh..the cognitive dissonance...it burns...it burns...




posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I'm certainly not inferring you are subscribing to the aforementioned tactics....but you have to admit, there are others who most certainly do exhibit such behavior from time to time.

Oh and sorry about the inadvertant invocation of Godwin. That was totally unintentional.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheomExperience
 


This is a good example of pushing your idea for others to adopt.

You are confused! That wasn't an idea! It was an observation!


How do you know your technique has worked well?

Because the OP admitted that he didn't have any "direct evidence" to support his original claim.


Do you want others to believe that without any "proof"?

Not at all! I would prefer that others make their own observations.


Was anything admitted to being a sham?

Because you missed it:

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

That's an admission that the OP's "theory" was not supported by fact, so that means his "theory" IS, indeed, a sham.


How can a theory be a sham anyway the word implies an un-proven idea in my take anyway.

As mentioned above, a theory IS a sham if it is not supported by fact.


Implying there is only one motive may apply to you but have not made it clear this applies to you. The wording used again implies you know everyone's motive. A good tactic for rallying support of weak minds who have failed to identify they do not know anything about everyone. "The only valid theories"....What pedestal are you on that makes you the resident specialist in theories anyway. Maybe you should debunk yourself and see how you go. If you ask me there is debunking by pointing out things for the benefit of awareness and there is just pointless group mind debunking to feel special and prove your point is more valid. I call the latter the "epeen effect"

Either you don't know what the term "debunk" means, or you are intentionally misconstruing that meaning. Guess who I feel is being a bit "weak minded".

See ya,
Milt
edit on 11-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Oh and sorry about the inadvertant invocation of Godwin. That was totally unintentional.



It's a shame you can't put in some sort of audio tags, I wanted to post that in the voice of Delmar O'Donnell saying "Oh, George, not the livestock", but couldn't find a way to get it across.

I think sometimes the lack of vocal inflection and facial expressions make posts seem harsher than intended, I know I sometimes have to go back and re-phrase things after reading them a second time.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Defend defend defend. Consider this an experiment to which you were baited into. Thank you for playing.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Lets say you're right...

On the plus side, if you're keen to what's going on, they're essentially showing you what their plans are.

On the negative side, they're showing you what their plans are in order to have you help them perfect their public presentation and strategy ahead.

So I say... where better to learn of their plans, than from their proto-presentation and strategy site?

Is it's good or bad to unwittingly help them with their presentation and strategy, if it lets you learn what their plans are? Should we only read and never post?



I usually refrain from posting in political threads, but they're very enlightening to read.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   


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?


Sometimes tactics are not needed.
Sometimes little things like facts, logic, reason, and critical thinking are enough.
A theory based on anything less is just a theory, therefore not bound by anything. But start denying undisputable facts...that is bunk. When you deny ignorance by correcting bunk, you don't need labels.
When you believe everything without question because it fits your view of thing but have no evidence to provide, you are operating on faith alone.
I limit my faith to religion.
The only control and submission is what is shown by people accepting conspiracies without question, and not accepting anything outside that group think.
I find calls of "shills" and "disinfo agents" and the like both offensive and hilarious. It's a name thrown at me on more than one occasion, but is totally false. That it is suspected by people, even accepted by people, shows they choose to believe a story over accepting a fact. That is embracing ignorance, not denying it.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
100 percent correct, but the debunkers no matter how good are also human's and by posting good information you stand a chance of deprogramming them from there structured behaviour, while such forces are in the hands of the wrong individual's they are a threat to the very thing they were meant to protect.

For the most part though they are good people, it is merely were the orders originate and whose ulterior motive they unawaredly serve that is of concern, Democracy's seldom fall from without it is the force's within that bring them down and often with the best but ideologically misguided intentions.

As you know ATS was recently hacked and there net connection's traced by anonymous but hey the head of anonymous like Julian assange is now accused of sex crimes during his time occupying st pauls cathedral in London, two female's have made allegation's against him, unlike assange anonymous was a hacking group the performed denial of service and redirect attacks so not good.

The best debunking sites though are those that use preposterous story's to over load the real story's and they do not even need a site for them just upload to you tube or similar.

Those whom abuse the law are not worthy to uphold it,.

S+F
edit on 11-5-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


So are you suggesting that this website was created for the purpose of disinformation, or that some alphabet agency noticed the popularity of this website and surreptitiously seeded some spare operatives in among its members for good measure?



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I do wonder why ATS will delete threads even when it's not a replicate, pornographic, or advocating drugs. For example, the prediction of the sandy hook incident 2 years prior to it occurring. Also, when other sites that are alike to this one are censored or frowned upon. I also believe the posters should be getting paid for what they post. No matter how useless the post is, because we're the ones generating revenue for this site. That's the real question where is our money at?! Also, why would ATS be using trackers such as google +1, gorilla nation, google analytics, or quantcast? Of course, I block these and all ATS ads. Nor do I care for ATS TOS. I'll deny tracking and ads all day long!

Oh and I'm typing to ATS, the corporation.
edit on 11-5-2013 by Abstruse because: clarification



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheomExperience
 


Consider this an experiment to which you were baited into.

I have already considered that! That's the very reason that I called it a sham.

Though it wasn't needed: Thank you for your confirmation.

See ya,
Milt



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Have not read all of this... But here is my take.
The best way to debunk "conspiracy theories" (whether true or not-) is to take the original event and make ridiculous theories about it which overshadow the actual event.

Case in point: Sandy hook/ Aurora/ Boston- Not saying these were "inside jobs" or not (I do not know- I am just trying to make my point here) - Lets say these were in fact "false flag events or inside jobs" for whatever reason- The real "magic trick" would be making the conspiracy so unbelievable that sensible people will never look past the surface (i.e. They were all actors, no planes, reptilian aliens did it, etc...)

Concerning ATS as a whole- its plausible. Having read the cointelpro documents (not the made up Alex Jones cointelpro explanation) it would certainly be the goal to be the "gatekeeper" (i.e. talk radio hosts, Websites, etc..) and have enough truth and expose enough knowledge to be "credible" to some extent.

-The whole point is, we will never know. And what we think we know probably isnt true anyhow...There are layers upon layers.

I am to the point of not trusting the Government/media at all. Anything they say- And with good reason- But that doesnt mean they are ALWAYS lying either. That doesnt mean EVERYTHING is a conspiracy- But what is and is not will forever remain elusive to most of us.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


The best way to debunk "conspiracy theories" (whether true or not-) is to take the original event and make ridiculous theories about it which overshadow the actual event.

Nonsense! Lying is the direct opposite of debunking!

See ya,
Milt



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


The best way to debunk "conspiracy theories" (whether true or not-) is to take the original event and make ridiculous theories about it which overshadow the actual event.

Nonsense! Lying is the direct opposite of debunking!

See ya,
Milt

-But this is the tactic. The lie keeps the majority from ever examining the evidence. The "lie" as it were, is the debunking.

Have you read any of the Cointelpro documents? About John Sinclaire, Ann Arbor Michigan, The White panther Party?

Call it what you will but the "lie" either becomes the "truth" (based on acceptance of the majority) OR the lie serves to keep the truth from ever being accepted by the majority because the lie is so ridiculous.

-Again. If I want to make a "theory" disappear (whether its true or not) the best thing to do isnt to "debunk" but rather "join" the theorist and add so much misdirection and disinformation (and lies) that the original theory morphs into something which will never be accepted.

Take anything- Heres one: Militias are dangerous and crazy. Since they are essentially NOT really that dangerous (crazy being debatable) the public would have issues with turning against the Militia. Militia activity in the 1990s was very strong with tons of support- Enter the OK city bombing. Enter the new leadership splitting the Michigan Militia and publicly proclaiming that they have direct contact with "God" (who talks to them)
-Support dies on the vine.

Not even saying that was a cointelpro Op (again, IDK..) but that would be how they would operate.

Cointelpro JOINED movements and tried to get very high places within those movements so they controlled them rather than "debunked" them.
EDIT: This is honestly one of my biggest red flags against Alex Jones- he has managed to explain Cointelpro (and I see people parrot what he says) in a way it never was operated. He never mentions the things about "leaders" in the movement nor "radio DJ's" being involved- he seems to think cointelpro is people who call his show and disagree with him or point out flaws/lies in his World view.

He obviously knows thew term but his explanation has NOTHING to do with the documents which were declassified. By the documents I would have to suspect Jones rather than people who call in to argue with him.

edit on 11-5-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


The lie keeps the majority from ever examining the evidence. The "lie" as it were, is the debunking.

No! The lie would be the BUNK! Exposing that lie would be the DEBUNKING.


Have you read any of the Cointelpro documents? About John Sinclaire, Ann Arbor Michigan, The White panther Party?

To both questions: No.

Have you read the definition of "debunk" in a good dictionary? It doesn't seem like it.


Call it what you will but the "lie" either becomes the "truth" (based on acceptance of the majority) OR the lie serves to keep the truth from ever being accepted by the majority because the lie is so ridiculous.

The truth is not dependent on popularity! Only lies are!


If I want to make a "theory" disappear (whether its true or not) the best thing to do isnt to "debunk" but rather "join" the theorist and add so much misdirection and disinformation (and lies) that the original theory morphs into something which will never be accepted.

That is called obfuscation, and it has nothing to do with debunking.

See ya,
Milt





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join