The Hard Balance Of Trying To Be Balanced: Hoaxes, Frauds, And Truth

Over the past six months, we've had a significant increase in the rise of provocative topics that solicit divisive responses from our members. In many cases with these types of topics, the division of opinion weights heavily in the category of fraud, hoax, lies, or grossly inaccurate.

These topics have no favorite category, as we see the subject matter spanning the spectrum from UFOs to holocaust denial. Lately, the divisive topic is 9/11-related "TV Fakery," three weeks ago it was UFO photos, three weeks from now, it will be something else.

With the rise of these topics we're also receiving an increase in complaints from long-standing members bemoaning "what ATS has become." Most of these complaints tend to understand that we (admin/owners) have no editorial guidance in promoting topics such these. However, there is an increasing expectation that topics such as these be quickly shut-down and/or labeled as a hoax or fraud.


On Being Well-Outside The Box

First, I'd like to remind everyone that it's important to have the ability to support topics outside our normal sensibilities that push the envelope of speculative theories. Engaging in productive and collaborative debate on topics such as these hone our ability to fathom the upper limits of what's possible, while conditioning our all-important critical analysis skills.

While it's human nature to react negatively to ideas we personally feel are silly, it should be "ATS nature" to contemplate and discuss. Consider that if one in ninety-nine "wild ideas" results in either a spectacular extraterrestrial epiphany or earth-shattering paradigm-shift in 9/11 conspiracy theory, then it's well worth our time to filter through the crap to find the diamond.


Outside The Box Does Not Imply Insolence

Unfortunately, all too often, the purveyors of the theories causing the most schismatic discussion also tend to push the boundaries of our Terms & Conditions, often to the breaking point. This phenomenon of combined churlishness and sensational theories seems to occur most often in the 9/11 topics, perhaps because of the high incidence of "angry activists" who have adopted 9/11 conspiracies. The results are predictable, abusive contributors are banned and improperly assume we're censoring their ideas.

If you truly believe you have a new and fantastic idea (especially in an arena as potentially important as 9/11 conspiracies), then you should also be able to find a way to present your ideas without behavior that creates a problem and further aids the divisive response. Those who become confrontational when their eccentric theories are not embraced tend to be more focused on the entertainment value and excitement of confrontation than the promise of promoting their ideas.


So What About The Hoaxes And Frauds?

We have a history of clearly identifying some of our hoaxes and frauds by modifying the thread title with a qualifier (most often, this has been in UFO/aliens topics). We're working out a way to give our members complete control over topic qualifiers such as these. In order to better plan what we do, and how we do it, we're likely to launch a members-only survey to zero-in on a few currently active topics, and give an additional layer of editorial labeling to our members.

Stay tuned.

Good job, maybe a button that reads HOAX UNSURE or REAL can be put on posts? or maybe applied to some posts so that members can vote and a percentage is displayed next to the thread on how people feel about the thread.

I've always been curious as to the purpose of the hoax. More interested in that than the hoax itself.

the 9/11 stuff always seems like it is either to distract us from issues that someone (who?) doesn't discussed or, far more heinous in my eyes, profiteering.

the alien and ufo stuff? simply to see if you can pull one over on ATS? can't be much money in a big time ufo hoax, can there? Are the Serpo folks rolling in dough? more disnfo, deflection, distraction? probably.

the holocaust stuff? this one is the only one that always seems to be about spreading the message of hate. (please don't take this comment as a reason to discuss the semantics of anti-zionism being anti-semitic. there are threads on it already).

the other stuff? the strange "hi" on my inner thigh? the "tv people talk to me"? the sleeper/timedrifter/Lear (some of his stuff)? I tend to file these under attention starved or in need of a couch and a therapist, and possibly meds.

I find the reason behind the hoaxes to be just as important as the hoaxes themselves. We can learn to spot a hoax. The fine members at this site have proven, time and again, that the proverbial wool shall not be pulled over our eyes. Finding out why people do these things would, hopefully, help stop future attempts to try and fool us or mock the field of interest that the hoax falls under.

Thats a great idear, I for one get angry with them. I not been on this site long but have learned a great deal of interesting stuff. I really belive a extra layer of protection from hoax's will be very rewarding to other members.

Nice to know that are voice is being heard, Many thanks id123

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
While it's human nature to react negatively to ideas we personally feel are silly, it should be "ATS nature" to contemplate and discuss. Consider that if one in ninety-nine "wild ideas" results in either a spectacular extraterrestrial epiphany or earth-shattering paradigm-shift in 9/11 conspiracy theory, then it's well worth our time to filter through the crap to find the diamond.

For me, that is it right there. When everyone else laughs at you, mocks you, and points the finger at you, Above Top Secret is there to discuss the matter intellectually and actually get to the bottom of it. Notions or theories that go against the status quo are given the light of day, and examined until we can conclusively say whether it is legit or not. We've had a few hoaxes in our day, but I'm quite certain that a day will come when a major story will break, and it will happen here on Above Top Secret first.

Our members are just that good.

Sure it can be frustrating when we see members talking of what appear to be absurdities, but it wouldn't be the Above Top Secret way if we silenced them because someone thought outside of the box. It is important that we think before we speak, and we look before we think.

The problem I see especially regarding 9/11 and tv fakery is that some of the items are definite 'frauds' involving obvious perspective and other camera illusions due to movement etc.

I also understand we should let everyone who has an idea no matter how far out here have say. But 9/11 is a tragedy beyond comprehension and for people to use the tv fakery thing and open that up, then where does that lead?

Someone tomorrow might conclude that 9/11 never happened. Today NO-Planes, tomorrow No-911, since we all rely on the media and eyewitness testimony to some extent.

I see a lot of effort to 'debunk' UFOs by calling in experts, but I don't see this done with the tv fakery items. Because camera experts could surely explain the said phenomena most of the time.

I see your dilema though. You don't want to marginalize anyone as everyone should fee free from ridicule when presenting personal things or things that they are thinking about.

I dunno, maybe there should be a 'truth squad'? Tough call for sure.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Talisman:

The problem I see especially regarding 9/11 and tv fakery is that some of the items are definite 'frauds' involving obvious perspective and other camera illusions due to movement etc.

I also understand we should let everyone who has an idea no matter how far out here have say. But 9/11 is a tragedy beyond comprehension and for people to use the tv fakery thing and open that up, then where does that lead?

I agree with you Talisman.

I actually have noticed myself, that there is an over-rated abndance of 9-11 related material, and a lot of it is tampered with or manipulated digitally. I can understand the importance of 9-11 in the conspiracy genre, but once there is so much fakery involved, the majority of us just quit believing anything we see. I am glad our leaders here at ATS are onto this. As usual you guys are all about making ATS a better place.

Thanks for all you do! (Three Amigos)

Maybe we could give these possible hoaxes a rating along the lines of the "Mythbuster's" TV show. We could have a Confirmed, Plausible and Busted ranking.

Yes I know its rank commercialism but I too have been offended by some of the 9/11 crap being propagated. And from discussion(read: heated argument's!) with friends, more than a little worried by their "promote ignorance", not to mention fear and stupidity effect.

LEE.

Having a good laugh at some of the more obvious UFO hoaxes - and the subsiquent 'serious' and often heated discussion that followed was what initally brought me to the ATS wonderland!

But yeah, Hoaxes on a lot of the other topics can be bang out. Keep it up SO

OUTSIDE THE BOX

John Lear thinks "Outside The Box". Many of us respect John and appreciate his efforts. It bothers me (as it does others) when certain members say to John things like...

"I said most (if not all) of the worthless crap you spew (IMO) is based on claims made by others."

and

“the utterly worthless unadulterated nonsense that emanates from you”

Other threads that John has taken the time to contribute to are also filled with incredibly rude individuals who seem to be regularly evading the T&C. Why are these individuals being allowed to carry on like this? I know the staff is busy and can't be expected to catch these members out every time but maybe other members can be a little bit more vigilant; i.e. being aware of just what is acceptable in accordance to the T&C and reporting any attacks on any given individual...

It sounds like I'm being a little bit Lear-Biased here but, it shouldn't be happening. The immaturity of some members is nothing short of mind-boggling.

In my opinion, I believe a lot of this might stem from the point system that we have here on ATS. A lot of people might be spewing garbage onto ATS in the hopes of starting a popular thread in order to get points.

JackCash

That isn't really an efficient way to make ATS points.
Thread-authors only earn 2 points for each reply. So if you have a controversial thread and get 100 replies that only works out to 200 points. If someone wants a lot of points they would be better off making quality posts and earning applauses. PODcasting earns 2500 points.

Great post SO! I think there also needs to be emphasis on backing up claims where claims are made, and not just relying on "I think".

As a few people have done, they make it clear that their idea is only that - an idea, that they wish to discuss further, but some threads are started as if it is outright fact, without anything concrete to back it up with. They're the kinds of threads I'd like to see more action on.

Just as a refresher I read the TAC for like the 6th or seventh time in the past year. I like the TAC and rarely comment on such things-neccessary.

Not that it is an issue for me, but is "Thread View" data still being collected "Sub Rosa'? No big deal, but if not then perhaps the TAC as set out in part 4, subsection a) may need appending to reflect that.

Two bucks US per view strikes me as a reasonable deterrent against those who may choose to manipulate the denial of ignorance with subterfuge and organized deception in marketing their "idea" products.

I recall the "Flying Hammer's" metered "swing-certain" and true not many times... when it does - "I love the graphics" and "THIS STOPS NOW" - promise-kept, 100%. This inspires confidence.

The negative "aspects" brought by others to ATS venues are well-managed in respect to the TAC.

ATS is, afterall "the place", perhaps that is why I have a high-confidence in my ATS membership and experience. Membership has it's privileges. Membership has it's responsibility. It is a privilege to be responsible enough to participate as a member in good standing.

Cheers, a great day to all,

Vic

[edit on 7-6-2007 by V Kaminski]

It is funny to me that we didn't really have this problem until we welcomed the anonymous postings here. I have a feeling that some of the "anonymous" posters have probably joined the site and they may be posting things that are not necessarily legit. It's not a criticism, it's an observation.

Excellent post SO.

I'll admit I was beginning to moan a little about "What ATS has become" myself. I realize this has nothing to do with the amigos. (You guys do so much more for us here than you have to already)

I'm sure there is some way we as a community can cut down on a lot of these silly threads and outlandish claims. Or at least cut down on the T&C violations that follow them around.

I look forward to seeing what we can come up with!

Credibility ranking?


Hi,

Every post as a Star from 1 to 5 so every ATS Member could vote, my suggestion is to put aside a “Credibility” icon, but in a pair (2, 4, 6) number of scale or choices (in odd numbers say 1 to 5 [0 to 5 will be pair, 6 choices] we could choose the middle and that is not clarifying because is in the middle and equivalent of “maybe”, in a pair chose simply we do not have the middle to chose, so the result will be more on the “no” or “yes” side).

A concrete example:
In the thread Pentagon plane crash by Loutty we are discussing the Pentagon part of 9/11, the ATS Members had posted different opinions and sources, documents, sites, videos, books, etc…, imho a Boeing 757 (big plane) simply couldn’t disappear from all frames from all available videos, so imho no plane crashed at the Pentagon, and I started by this post where I say that imho that vapour/smoke trail (in the frame) that is near (or almost in) the ground could be from a fast car or missile, I could add something small but not (!) a Boeing 757, last post. So if I had to rate in Credibility (say an hypothetical 1 to 6 range) a post or thread that tries to prove that a Boeing 757 crashed at the Pentagon I will give a certainly “no” (1, 2, or 3, because 4, 5 and 6 belong to “yes”, no middle so no “maybe”), now I need to choose the “no” grade, I will give 1 if the member only posted arguments without any evidence or document to support that, I will give 2 if he gives some references but I consider that of dubious value and I will give 3 if he gives good (imo) resources but I don’t agree with that. I will have a similar but reverse attitude for something that I agree.

The thread Credibility could be an automatic calculation based on the individual post Credibility, but that is not a perfect system because if someone states “X” and everybody thing “Y” they will give a Credibility of “no” (1, 2 or 3) to the “X” thread or post (idea, argument, demonstration or theory), and if some days, weeks, months or years after if we have a new and definitive evidence that “X” is the right thing, the Moderators need to change the wrong Credibility and put that right, and the poor member (a real genius in that case) was all the time right and everybody else was wrong, for that reason this is not a perfect system, but is something to start (an elaboration of a good system) and could be improved. Ok, not voting will be the middle or “maybe”.

For an evident Fraud or Hoax, the Moderators could classify as “Fraud” or “Hoax” in the title and close the thread, but we have some thread already in that status, so is working.

Another thing I like to say is that the open mind and free speech policy of ATS is very good and honest, imho, because allows one person to express is opinion independently of others opinions, and in an adult and civilized behaviour a group could discuss (from dialog) anything and different opinions could exist in that discussion (thread) with respect from each other different opinions. Very good to ATS (a 6 star)!

More references:
. en.wikipedia.org...
. credibility.stanford.edu...
. www.altruists.org...
. changingminds.org...

brotherthebig.

Originally posted by thebox
OUTSIDE THE BOX

John Lear thinks "Outside The Box".

Yes lets not forget that holographic projector which was responsible for 9/11

As long as he keeps writing things like that, well then expect people to have a go at him.

Unfortunately, all too often, the purveyors of the theories causing the most schismatic discussion also tend to push the boundaries of our Terms & Conditions, often to the breaking point.

While user imput as to a thread's credit and value in the realm of Fake, Unsure and Real (to us a simple scale) I feel that it has potential of deliberate abuse. In the recent TV Fakery threads I have noticed definate groups forming both pro and con that support each other.

If an opposing faction starts a thread and is discovered and marked Fake out of spite or legitamately then the thread may not recieve the attention it deserves by people just skimming thread topics. Now that said, the member may enter and decide for themselves the merit of the topic or they may not. Legitimate work and thought would be lost.

I like that heavy flagged threads on top and hot topics are listed to the left as a promotion, but many threads that deserve attention are often missed and buried from lack of promotion. I know that this promotion is completely member driven by replies and flags. To add positive and negative promotion power to the members is not a good idea in my opinion as the reader is subjected to preconception before entering the thread to draw their own conclusions.

I hate to use names, but we are all adults here. I saw today's thread from bsregistration when it was freshly posted and guessed accurately that it would become multiple pages of "yes it is" and "no it isn't" replies. I like debate of subject matter. I like good debate even more. Sometimes I enter the debate and other times I just read the opinion. I fear that prelabeled threads will hamper that debate.

Despite the work and sometimes gut feeling of finding and labeling threads as Hoax or Fraud or other labels. This power should remain in the hands of the staff of ATS and not be a power of the members, even if it is a general majority vote.

Originally posted by chissler
Above Top Secret is there to discuss the matter intellectually

To chime in, I think this is what is lacking. I see more and more discussions are merely angry rantings by one side or another. As Stanton Friedman describes it, "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is already made up." "Debates" on ATS are quickly becoming who can flood the thread more with their supporters, and who can be the loudest. There is no willingness by many to challenge their own views. There are many rooms I just don't go into anymore because I don't feel as though I can have a constructive conversation, and I don't want to feel as though there are two places I can go on this site.