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

Originally posted by BenReclused
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

Okay we are debating definitions it would seem-

I am merely expressing the way in which cointelpro works concerning the OPs point regarding ATS being a "set up" by letting people debunk information. Looks lime we are having two separate conversations.

My take is looking at how public opinion was formed from the declassified cointelpro documents and using that as a basis to say that the people "debunking" things (like Actors at Sandy Hook) would not fit the MO for an OP- Rather the people SPREADING these things would fully fit the MO.

-Thats my point.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
If some one was to tell me that Ats is operated as a psy ops site,

You see?

Right there...

first word of that sentence...

I see what you did there. ..........

Peace

reply to post by DarKPenguiN

Okay we are debating definitions it would seem

Perhaps... Can you source a definition of "debunk" that incorporates the tactics mentioned in your previous posts?

See ya,
Milt

Sorry about the double post. I experienced a "finger twitch". LOL

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

Okay we are debating definitions it would seem

Perhaps... Can you source a definition of "debunk" that incorporates the tactics mentioned in your previous posts?

See ya,
Milt

No. if you have not understood my point thus far, you are incapable of doing so- I am sure other readers have (or not) but this not my intention to argue with you. My intention was only to bring to light the reality of how disinformation and cointelpro works based on real documents and not on "I think this is what they do-"

Beyond that there really isnt much to say- You are fixated on one word "debunk" and I cannot really understand why.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN

You are fixated on one word "debunk" and I cannot really understand why.

That's because you, the OP, and a great many "conspiracy theorists" continually and intentionally misconstrue that word in an attempt to discredit those that expose the fallacies involved in many "conspiracy theories". Those that do so are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in kudos from those that blindly agree with them.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

You are fixated on one word "debunk" and I cannot really understand why.

That's because you, the OP, and a great many "conspiracy theorists" continually and intentionally misconstrue that word in an attempt to discredit those that expose the fallacies involved in many "theories".

See ya,
Milt

LOL- Its evident you didnt grasp anything I said.

I see very little "conspiracy" in what most people (theorist) find conspiracy in. Not that it matters.

Re-read my post(s) as I am sure you missed my conclusion and we are probably in agreement.
I clearly stated the "debunkers" are NOT the "shills" nor part of any "conspiracy" and if there IS a Conspiracy it lies with the theorists themselves.

I see the fallacies. That was my point in its entirety.
EDIT Also, I am not saying you were "stupid" or anything for missing my point- To be clear. I may not have made it all that well. This could have been my fault for not being clear.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN

Re-read my post(s) as I am sure you missed my conclusion and we are probably in agreement.
I clearly stated the "debunkers" are NOT the "shills" nor part of any "conspiracy" and if there IS a Conspiracy it lies with the theorists themselves.

You are correct! LOL We are most definitely in agreement with that. I'll put a star on that post.

Perhaps you are referring to this:

My take is looking at how public opinion was formed from the declassified cointelpro documents and using that as a basis to say that the people "debunking" things (like Actors at Sandy Hook) would not fit the MO for an OP- Rather the people SPREADING these things would fully fit the MO.

I'll admit that I found that a bit confusing. It seemed out of place, considering your other posts.

My take on the OP was that it was nothing more than an excuse to bait and berate "debunkers". I still feel that way. Unfortunately, I felt that's what you were doing too. I'm sorry about that.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by AthlonSavage


listen the website is making money..if I owned the site and figured that I could get as many people to sign on to the other site, I would...good idea ATS...good to have both sides represented although I hope the debunkers don't all migrate over there..good to have some balance over on this end..

reply to post by AthlonSavage


I just say no to everything.
No, no, no to your thread. No to you athlon. Just no.

Theory debunked?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
As i explain in my OP i am interested in hearing about the debunking techiques used.

Specifically, the most effective technique is the one that is never disclosed by the person who keeps the upper hand. Think about that for a second.

Generally, the most effective technique is to control the conversation to where it remains a debate. Debase the conversation to an argument and you'll never prove your point.

Originally posted by Bedlam
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.

edit on 10-5-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

Badly needed by who? I know I certainly do not need my "reality filter" adjusted by you or anyone else other than myself. I also don't feel freed from fuzzy thinking by endless ad hominen attacks you're claiming somehow "provoke thought, logic, reason".

A-H.E.M. (Formerly M.E.H.)

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Why does ATS have to "be" anything other than a place where like minded people post their thoughts?

Maybe you're overthinking things.

If you spend your life assuming everything is some kind of psy-op or experiment then all you will end with is paranoia and a psychosis of your own making where you'll never be able to enjoy anything or relax.

And that's a sad state of affairs indeed.

I am open to the possibility of this being true to some degree (the possibility mind you; I don't know any of the owners or admins so technically from my point of view it's a possibility,) provided you are not suggesting that every skeptical or incredulous viewpoint expressed on ATS is somehow a concerted debunking effort.

Peace.

reply to post by Empyreal


The definition of 'ad hominem' doesn't include "that's not how that works".

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by Empyreal

 

The definition of 'ad hominem' doesn't include "that's not how that works".

My mistake, I reviewed your posts in this thread and while in my opinion they are far from being respectful productive discourse, I in fact found no overt ad hominen attacks.

My apologies.

Care to take a crack at any of the other points I raised?

A-H.E.M. (Formerly M.E.H.)

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

Why does ATS have to "be" anything other than a place where like minded people post their thoughts?

Maybe you're overthinking things.

If you spend your life assuming everything is some kind of psy-op or experiment then all you will end with is paranoia and a psychosis of your own making where you'll never be able to enjoy anything or relax.

And that's a sad state of affairs indeed.

ATS doesn't "have" to "be" anything other than a place where like minded people post their thoughts. However, it seems to me that it definitely IS more than "just" such a place, perhaps because the people aren't very like minded and rarely post their though, instead opting to post their conclusions. Of course, like all humans, we "have another side to us". That's why I keep coming.

I think few here spend their life "assuming everything IS a psy-op". Many however do QUESTION IF some/many events COULD BE psy-ops. Such thought experiments can be a rational response to some events.

Questioning everything may induce paranoia and psychosis, but I tell you, it's done wonders for my depression and neurosis!

A-H.E.M. (formerly M.E.H.)

reply to post by AthlonSavage


ATS has a collective IQ of 10 so this experiment didn't even get off the ground.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Since you asked for viewpoints from different debunkers, I seem to spend most of my time on here debunking, though that is certainly not why I came here many years ago.

When I joined ATS it was with an almost exclusive interest in the aviation forum, revealing secret projects from the past which I had researched and found interesting. Now I have done that I rarely go there, but still find ATS a fascinating place to be.

with the rare venture onto other forums. I have read some fascinating and amazing theories on here which I would certainly not try to debunk. The primary reason for that is that I do not know enough about the subjects to say with confidence whether something is true or not. I simply take the views on board and consider them and will remember them when I am reading other information of the subject. I have my views on some of them, but I cannot, with confidence, support my opinion with facts so it remains just that, my opinion.

Where this is different, and where my interest now mainly lays, is the chemtrail forum. I debunk on there whenever I get the opportunity. In fact I did a bit just before coming here. Not in any major earth shattering way (unfortunately) but just presenting the facts as I know them to be and mainly calling out false claims whenever I see them.

Why do I do this?

Firstly because I find the whole chemtrail theory laughable, but also, because I know people who aren't as anal as me about planes cannot see through the crap that *some* people on there are deliberately spoon feeding them and it is a real worry to some people and, as a human being, if there's one thing I cannot abide its people making other people frightened for kicks.

In the course of my debunking I post the facts as I know them to be, I call out falsehoods and misrepresentaions and link to real factual information wherever its needed. Because I like a discussion I will often simply post what I have to say, being perfectly willing to discuss matters at length logically with anyone who cares to reply.

All too often though my posts are either ignored completely (which I see as them being cowards who know they are on dodgy ground as they are only too eager to post replies to members who are swallowing their lies), or resulting in ad hom attacks and accusations of being a paid government agent.

Now, as I sit at my PC and see accusations like that I genuinely wonder what I am supposed to make of such nonsense? After all, I know that its bull, I know that if they actually had a reply to counter my points they would post it and I know that I will make a mental note to never take that member seriously ever again. After all, if they are so wrong about me, what does that say for all their other theories? So what is the point of this self-defeating stance?

I can only conclude that its a combination of petulance coupled with a desire to try to deflect anyone else from believing what I write.

But I dont ask *anyone* to believe what I write, unlike the chemmies, I simply put the info forward. Members can take it on board, research it for themselves or dismiss it entirely as they please. In posting the correct facts I have played my part already.

So what is the point in anyone jumping up and down screaming 'shill, shill!" Metaphorically speaking. Those types are the most ridiculous of all conspiracy theorists because they claim to come here looking for truth, then when somone gives it to them they resent it and become obnoxious and offensive. Thankfully those types dont seem to hang around as they have their fun and toddle on.

Now is it possible there could actually be disinfo shills on ATS? I dont see why not, it would be easy to do, but it only ever gets thrown about by people who are already losing the debate so that kind of diminishes the claim in the first place.

As regards debunking itself, I dont get why its a dirty word almost on here. Surely removing bunk allows the truth to be seen, if that truth is not the one the theorist was working on thats just too bad, surely?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Excellent postulation! (is that an actual word? LOL) just replying to the OP before reading through, as I like to do so as to avoid my initial thoughts being tainted, before reading through the thread's replies. Anyhow, I would say, whether intended by anyone who possibly was or is involved with ATS, a function of what we do here can easily be used by those who wish to study these things to use for their own ends (whether benevolent or nefarious, typically, of course, research science focused on exerting control over beliefs being nefarious.)

Could such people or groups (whether corporations, market research, governments, terrorist groups, powerful individuals or groups) conduct such research with willing participants? Not likely. Using natural-state individuals choosing to have discussions on topics as their sour e of research information would provide the absolute best possible data for such sciences.

So, like you said, Athlon, its a conspiracy theory in and of itself, but the only aspect which us conspiracy theory is whether or not a) someone(s) has set the whole thing up to those ends, or b) the setup and operation is innocent (outside of possible infiltration/steering), but there are those who use the information gleaned for nefarious research in control mechanisms.