Dis-info agents

espinolman

Is there paid disinformation agents posting in forums on the internet to derail discussions on certain topics .

And who is employing them , is it the NWO or the governments or who ?

What dis-info do you think is being posted on the internet ?

Ken_Is_Here

People are so unwilling to accept that there is something they dont know for fear of looking stupid so denying every new theory means they still know all the old stuff.

For people to outright deny any and all CT is quite narrow minded as we've all been vicims to CTs at one stage or another.

The biggest perpetrators? The PTB (parents that be)
Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy. The world perpetuates 'harmless' falsities all the time. Who's to say that there are also some less 'harmless' lies that are widely accepted.

studiorat

espinolman wrote: »

Is there paid disinformation agents posting in forums on the internet to derail discussions on certain topics .

And who is employing them , is it the NWO ?

I think there is a mob of disinfo-agents who post in forums .

It seems to me that they know a lot about certain things and they know what threads to derail .

Are you looking for a Job?;-)

espinolman

Ken_Is_Here wrote: »

People are so unwilling to accept that there is something they dont know for fear of looking stupid so denying every new theory means they still know all the old stuff.
.

Yes , but is there professional disinfo-agents posting in forums , who make a living out of putting disinformation out .

imstrongerthanu

espinolman wrote: »

Is there paid disinformation agents posting in forums on the internet to derail discussions on certain topics .

And who is employing them , is it the NWO ?

I think there is a mob of disinfo-agents who post in forums .

It seems to me that they know a lot about certain things and they know what threads to derail .

I would think the forums are set up for the masses,and the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.

RoboClam

(To start of, I am a sceptic by nature. But here's an idea I've been playing around with.)

Well using the same logic I could flip it around and say that there are people who are paid to put info about CTs out there. Conspiracy theories themselves are one big conspiracy theory!

Doesn't make sense? Well how about this. Every CT you believe has been manufactured by the government (NWO or whatever you want, it really doesn't matter) in order to segregate the population into sceptics and conspiracy theorists.

So every "whistle blower" that you've heard of has been a fake. It's all a set up to trick you. I mean, many conspiracy theorists would acknowledge that the government are very powerful. However they constantly appear to make mistake after mistake which blows their cover. I submit, that they are not making mistakes, but carefully orchestrating each "mistake". There is an intricate web of paid conspiracy theorists who feed this information down through the internet.

They could do this in order to "weed out" the people who are prone to disloyalty, while at the same time fortify the beliefs of the sceptics. Then they "remove" the disloyal conspiracy theorists by whatever means (once again, the method doesn't matter). So all of these people just disappear.

I mean, the internet was set up by the government, possibly for this very reason! Why would they "plant" people in forums when they could just as easily eliminate you.

Now, who would find out about this? Not the sceptics, because they don't believe in CTs. And thus, the government is left only with loyal followers.

The only true CT that exists, is the idea of conspiracy theories.

espinolman

imstrongerthanu wrote: »

I would think the forums are set up for the masses,and the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.

I think i heard an example of it recently , i heard that the government was downplaying the swine flu to prevent a panic by using the internet to put out dis-info , but i think that is dis-info that they were .

6th

Threads like this have been deleted before when its looked like accusations are being made against members of this community. Infact theres a section of the charter that was put in specifically for stuff like this:

6th wrote: »

• Respect other posters
Snide remarks and bitching will not be tolerated, nor will accusations thrown at other members of the Boards.ie community. Singling out a poster or posters, including stating things like "some posters on here" could land you in trouble.

I will be watching this thread.

Kernel

There must undoubtedly be intelligence influence on this new medium we call da interweb. If there were not, then the agencies responsible would be sorely negligent in their mission. Disinfo I've noticed over the years centres mainly around JFK, 911, the Iraq war and most blatantly the Iranian protests and Iranian nuclear program. Syrian destabalisation was also present at times.

That young Iranian girl who was shot while protesting was the most blunt propaganda tool I've seen used to destabalise a regime in a long time. You may remember that blogs, forums and even twitter were used to milk it for what it was worth.

mysterious

Of course.


Most Conspiracy sites, are government owned. A lot of the dis info agents are there to keep it in a controlled fashion, by keeping spewing the education systematic dogma, only left brain programming all the time. You kinda get the feeling whether one is a dis info agent or not, when you can sense the agenda when they continue brainwashing and using reprtitive behaviour. It's all about how they can gain power over the curious mind that you have and put a stop to it, by clever use of the langauge they are thought to learn. The very same way George Bush was trained in the CIA to learn persuasive communcation. As if they were honing in on something for others to fall into the same way of thinking. Abovetopsecret.com has been shown up for that over and over, especially war threads and political type threads where a lot of power is involved.. Since people are aware now, its harder for dis info agents to keep on top of things. Conspiracy theorists are the biggest threat to the powers of be, so its' make perfect sense that these sites are constantly monitored. Its why these sites are riddled with viruses. In my experience, I have found many really whacked out Conspiracy theorists were dis info agentsalso because they were trying to ridicule the real conspiracies by making them more outlandish so people would be distracted by the reality of the truth or influence them not to take certain theories more seriously that they should be. Kinda like reverse psychology. So it's like some people who work in NASA secretly and then go as a secret agent then make a hoax claim on coast to coast. Simply to make the real info look in a reverse fashion. Its not real by exposing it through the back door. One of the best ways to con people. So when these back door stunts happen on a radio show wher they talk about a theory of some sort of some kind of disclousure of some sort of story. People will tend not to believe it as many are shown up as hoaxes. So the alternative media iis less credible as mainstream, as this is how they have programmed us all along.


I had the opportunity to be in a place at the right time to spot many dis info agents who came on to try manipulate the Paul McCarthney threads. When you kind observe and watch how they mimick and behave on these threads you will eventually spot them out, when you spot them out, you play them out, until they become so desparate looking, as they will keep trying to persuade people that they are telling the truth. The more they did this, they were cot creating new profiles and photoshopping pictures and distorting evidence to make it look validated. Too many people were seeing it plain view. They dissapeared off the site:D

But as friend on that site told me, they move to the other big Paul McCarthey forums. Now we knew based on their movements and hstory as to who they were, but we didn't feel we have to out them out as dis info agents. Your best bet is to let them play it until they have no bullets left in their guns, then you get armed for the kill.

studiorat

mysterious wrote: »

Of course.


Most Conspiracy sites, are government owned.

Did you just make that up or have you actually got proof.

mysterious wrote: »

. Too many people were seeing it plain view. They dissapeared off the site:D

I reckon most people left because it turned into an crap thread. Boring from the outset.

mysterious wrote: »

But as friend on that site told me, they move to the other big Paul McCarthey forums. Now we knew based on their movements and hstory as to who they were, but we didn't feel we have to out them out as dis info agents. Your best bet is to let them play it until they have no bullets left in their guns, then you get armed for the kill.

For some reason I have a picture of Elmer Fudd in my head. "Quiet, we're hunting dis-info agents!"

Undergod

Kernel wrote: »

That young Iranian girl who was shot while protesting was the most blunt propaganda tool I've seen used to destabalise a regime in a long time. You may remember that blogs, forums and even twitter were used to milk it for what it was worth.

I think that disinfo agents were used, part of their mission would be to do forums and the like, but to be honest just by running CT sites the information will end up on forums anyway, so it's not as important. And it would be very difficult and time-consuming and expensive to get people to spread disinfo on forums. What you described is more just whipping up a media storm than spreading outright disinfo.

mysterious wrote: »

I had the opportunity to be in a place at the right time to spot many dis info agents who came on to try manipulate the Paul McCarthney threads. When you kind observe and watch how they mimick and behave on these threads you will eventually spot them out, when you spot them out, you play them out, until they become so desparate looking, as they will keep trying to persuade people that they are telling the truth. The more they did this, they were cot creating new profiles and photoshopping pictures and distorting evidence to make it look validated. Too many people were seeing it plain view. They dissapeared off the site:D

Eh, this is full of ****.
Who on the Paul McCartney thread had a profile newer than the thread? No-one.
Anyone that actually engaged much in conversation (once it turned from a a fun discussion about the possibilities of a rockstar's death being covered up to aggressive and off-topic rubbish) had profiles older than the thread, usually by quite a lot, and reasonably high post counts. And which of them disappeared off the site?

The disinfo agencies maintain fake profiles on every site? And keep them updated and engaged in other stuff than conspiracies so they can cover up the fact they are disinfo agents?

I reitirate: full of ****.

6th

Eh undergod, Mysterious never said threads on this forum.

Mysterious, provide links to these threads sites to back up your comments.

Undergod

Mysterious directly referred to the Paul McCartney thread, I interpreted what he said after as referring to that discussion.

studiorat

mysterious wrote: »

Of course.





I had the opportunity to be in a place at the right time to spot many dis info agents who came on to try manipulate the Paul McCarthney threads. When you kind observe and watch how they mimick and behave on these threads you will eventually spot them out, when you spot them out, you play them out, until they become so desparate looking, as they will keep trying to persuade people that they are telling the truth. The more they did this, they were cot creating new profiles and photoshopping pictures and distorting evidence to make it look validated. Too many people were seeing it plain view. They dissapeared off the site:D

That's the way I read it too. Talking about THE P.McC. threads...

Disappeared because the thread turned sh1te.

Kernel

Undergod wrote: »

I think that disinfo agents were used, part of their mission would be to do forums and the like, but to be honest just by running CT sites the information will end up on forums anyway, so it's not as important. And it would be very difficult and time-consuming and expensive to get people to spread disinfo on forums. What you described is more just whipping up a media storm than spreading outright disinfo.

Yeah, you're right. I ws talking more about propoganda than disinfo. The disinfo I alluded to with 911 would include directed energy weapons, holograms and no planes theories - ie. outlandish claims which muddy the waters. Whether such claims are purposefully put out by disinfo specialists or just the fringe element of the conspiracy theorist element is open for debate. However, when several prominent 911 conspiracy theorists start spouting them, then one begins to wonder. Sure it's possible that they were sucked into the outlandish theories, but it seems odd when previously logical people subscribe to what most people would view as ridiculous.

The UFO field is also awash with outlandish claims, although that may be due to the money aspect. Guys like John Lear were previously believable, then he comes out and says there's water on the moon (turned out to be true) and some kind of soul catcher for the recently departed... at that point I stopped listening to John.

mysterious

6th wrote: »

Eh undergod, Mysterious never said threads on this forum.

Mysterious, provide links to these threads sites to back up your comments.

6th I contributed to one thread, on another conspiracy forum that I won't reveal in respect of my personal privacy. The Paul McCarthney threads are on nearly every conspiracy site on the net. Dis info agents have been pawned on most of them, and if they havent already they will, because people are not falling for it anymore. I was making a general point by using this conspiracy as an example, they are millions more.

I prefer not to reveal myself on another forum. 6th is correct in his statement I never made the claim on the Paul McCarthney thread in this forum.

mysterious

studiorat wrote: »

That's the way I read it too. Talking about THE P.McC. threads...

Disappeared because the thread turned sh1te.

Thats the point, they were all driven to that, because as the point been made, dis info agents are riddled on them. They get really interesting when, they get revealed, and the threads becomes estatic after that.

studiorat

mysterious wrote: »

Thats the point, they were all driven to that, because as the point been made, dis info agents are riddled on them. They get really interesting when, they get revealed, and the threads becomes estatic after that.

I think you're looking too deeply into it. I reckon people just got bored.

Anyway what conspiracy sites are "government owned"?

the_syco

My take on it is that it's a lot easier to call Conspiracy Theorists nutters, hippies, etc. The public will then ignore them, and the more outlandish the claim, the more the public will ignore it.

For example: someone finds out something about the government. If you get a few people to give out dis-information to the general public, and the media, everyone associated with the finding will be seen as a loon. It's an easy way to silence the person, and to ensure no-one talks about the subject, in fear of being discredited, and all of their past work being discredited, been seen as a loon, and unable to get any future grants. If you took out the someone by kidnapping, or assination, many more would come along, as it'll turn into a CT.

Some people will discuss it, but many will point and laugh, and walk away.

studiorat

the_syco wrote: »

For example: someone finds out something about the government. If you get a few people to give out dis-information to the general public, and the media, everyone associated with the finding will be seen as a loon. It's an easy way to silence the person, and to ensure no-one talks about the subject, in fear of being discredited, and all of their past work being discredited, been seen as a loon, and unable to get any future grants. If you took out the someone by kidnapping, or assination, many more would come along, as it'll turn into a CT.

Some people will discuss it, but many will point and laugh, and walk away.

What a load of bollocks. Someone finds something out about the government like what? The Ansbacher Report? Oh wait we found out about that...
Charlie Haughey ripping off the tax payer left right and centre, no, we heard about that too. Bertie, read it in the papers... McCracken, Moriarty, Flood, Telecom, planning, Burke, Bruton. Oops read about those too.

There's a hundred journalists out there salivating at the thought of catching the government out on anything. And you think it's a bloody consipiracy of silence because someone's afraid to be pilloried.

The conspiracy of the Catholic church to cover up their paedophile ring? Nope read about that in the papers too...

The only conspiracy I can see is a conspiracy of authors trying to sell their latest books and fund their next "lecture" tour.

If you want to see real disinfo agents at work check out Exxon Mobil's campagain to discredit climate change science.

at the end of this post... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63291931&postcount=27

6th

studiorat wrote: »

What a load of bollocks.

Theres no need to be so aggressive. Please behave like a civilized adult.

studiorat

studiorat wrote: »

There's a hundred journalists out there salivating at the thought of catching the government out on anything. And you think it's a bloody consipiracy of silence because someone's afraid to be pilloried.

QFT.

It's the same with scientists they'd love nothing more than to overturn an old theory.
No scientist has ever gotten famous from covering something up.

In fact over turning the status quo is exactly why Einstein is famous.

studiorat

6th wrote: »

Theres no need to be so aggressive. Please behave like a civilized adult.

oh right I forgot. this " :rolleyes: " is the acceptable form no?

Nick_oliveri

King Mob wrote: »

In fact over turning the status quo is exactly why Einstein is famous.

Indeed -though he kept his job, unlike the scientist in the controversial drug sacking of late in Britain. And the others that gave up their positions in the following days. I don't think much came out of that and I'm not sure anything will. The staus quo in that instance is set in stone and old outdated theories remain.

Studiorat wrote:

What a load of bollocks. Someone finds something out about the government like what? The Ansbacher Report? Oh wait we found out about that...
Charlie Haughey ripping off the tax payer left right and centre, no, we heard about that too. Bertie, read it in the papers... McCracken, Moriarty, Flood, Telecom, planning, Burke, Bruton. Oops read about those too.

There's a hundred journalists out there salivating at the thought of catching the government out on anything. And you think it's a bloody consipiracy of silence because someone's afraid to be pilloried.

This dis info is a sound idea really, a good theory and if it was applied properly it could have great potential. Except for its opponents or "victims" (the conspiracy theorists, or "nutters", as Syco pointed out earlier).

The idea that nothing at all is going on unreported behind the scenes, however large or small, is ludicrous. Yes there are Journalists waiting to pounce on any reported or researched piece of evidence relating to a case. But what of those that go unreported and un-searched?

It's like London having a camera pointed at every street, we can see a guy getting killed, but we cannot see the face or even a valid description other than height of the perpetrator, but at least in this instance you would have something to go on. i.e you know what happened and the height and build of the perp. Not every facet of corruption has a "camera" pointed at it.

Theres not a Journalist or an independent delving into every aspect of political and military subjects and potential "goldmines". And theres no FOI in process for every aspect of said subjects either.

But no, its a loony theory and one that should be disregarded because we haven't seen it being exposed by media in any worthwhile case. Any-ways, why have dis-info agents when you can have a dis-info administration. By our powers combined!

IrelandSpirit

Yeah, sure the dis-info agent exists. Their main objective is to simply disrupt, dis-inform, and manipulate the thread within a vacuum of arrogance. There's many ways they do this, but I find you can generally spot them by the way they continuously accuse you of spreading dis-info and fearmongering, or ridicule you as suffering from some kind of mental illness like paranoia (and other defamatory remarks which somehow fly under the Mods' radar) when you're only trying to raise genuine concerns or just discussing theories which might be outside the box.

Coupled with that, they'll continuously ridicule your sources as crackpots and pseudo-scientists, asking over and over for the same proofs you've already given (while not giving satisfactory answers to the points you've raised), till you reach the stage where you just give up in frustration, or say something that'll earn you an infraction, and finally banned. That's bassically rules: (5) Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. (7) Question motives. (18) Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents, and (19) Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.

From: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth - The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

RoboClam

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yeah, sure the dis-info agent exists. Their main objective is to simply disrupt, dis-inform, and manipulate the thread within a vacuum of arrogance. There's many ways they do this, but I find you can generally spot them by the way they continuously accuse you of spreading dis-info and fearmongering, or ridicule you as suffering from some kind of mental illness like paranoia (and other defamatory remarks which somehow fly under the Mods' radar) when you're only trying to raise genuine concerns or just discussing theories which might be outside the box.

Coupled with that, they'll continuously ridicule your sources as crackpots and pseudo-scientists, asking over and over for the same proofs you've already given (while not giving satisfactory answers to the points you've raised), till you reach the stage where you just give up in frustration, or say something that'll earn you an infraction, and finally banned. That's bassically rules: (5) Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. (7) Question motives. (18) Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents, and (19) Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.

From: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth - The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

Now I guess what I'm going to say is going to prove you totally correct, but I'll do it anyway!

I've never browsed whale.to before, but I think it's fair to say that it is a horrible source, filled with "crackpots".


http://www.whale.to/cancer/breast.html

Another example: a woman catches her husband in bed with her best girlfriend. She will suffer a sexual-frustration conflict. In biological language, the conflict being copulation, it will cause a carcinoma in the uterus of a right-handed woman. Not everyone would necessarily get such a conflict in the same situation. For instance, if the woman didn't love her husband and was contemplating divorcing him, she would not feel this shock as a sexual conflict but rather as a human conflict because of the lack of togetherness in the family. The conflict would then be a partner-conflict that would cause breast cancer in the right breast if the woman was right-handed. What appears to be the same event will have a different psychological significance for every individual. [Interview] Questions and Answers by Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer

Believe me, I did not cherry pick this quote.

I went on the site, clicked cancer at random, and then breast. I then saw this quote. I had a quick look at some other cancer links and found more nonsense.

So, why would you trust this site as a valid source for anything? You say that people are spreading disinformation? Well look, this site is telling people what to use to CURE cancer...

http://www.whale.to/cancer/juicing_h.html

[July 2008] Broccoli juice helps patient beat bladder cancer

If you don't think this is dangerous disinformation then I don't know what is.

_______

I just wanted to edit something in here. I came across another guy on that site that said he could cure pretty much every disease with herbs. Standard stuff really. However when I read his background from the site, I nearly spat my tea all over my keyboard!

http://www.whale.to/c/shulze.html

He holds a Doctorate in Herbology from the School of Natural Healing and a Doctorate in Natural Medicine. Dr. Schulze also holds a degree in Herbal Pharmacy and degrees in Iridology. He is certified in eight different styles of " body therapy" and has three black belts in the martial arts.

I... I'm at a loss for words. I think I may love whale.to.

Nick_oliveri

Is that a piss take site? From the quotes above one would assume so..

studiorat wrote:

The conspiracy of the Catholic church to cover up their paedophile ring? Nope read about that in the papers too...

Well, in all of the abuse cases throughout the years and all we have heard about cover ups and moving them to different parishes etc... It was never really conspiracy, it was policy. A policy that has not changed since the last time you heard about it before recent events...and the time before that..

Kernel

studiorat wrote: »

What a load of bollocks. Someone finds something out about the government like what? The Ansbacher Report? Oh wait we found out about that...
Charlie Haughey ripping off the tax payer left right and centre, no, we heard about that too. Bertie, read it in the papers... McCracken, Moriarty, Flood, Telecom, planning, Burke, Bruton. Oops read about those too.

You're making a huge assumption that there can never be, or has never been a successful conspiracy which the general public hasn't found out about. If everyone will find out about everything then why spend so much time and effort running clandestine/covert operations? I'm with Nick_O on this one; ludicrous argument, and false logic.

I can't retort with something like: "What about the Mossad/CIA operation in 2009 to destabalise the Iraqi regime?" Because if such an operation did take place, and was successful (undiscovered), you would rightly not accept it as concrete proof.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

The idea that nothing at all is going on unreported behind the scenes, however large or small, is ludicrous.

Absolutely. The question is, though, to what degree such goings on are...well...going on.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if there is any sort of active disinformation, then its far less likely to occur, the further down the chain you go.

Supply disinformation via (credible) sources. If that fails, then have this information reported or commented on by (credible) reporters/commentators. If that fails, then maybe have a few key assets to generate noise about it on a few key sites. If that fails...then the effort involved in spreading the disinfo becomes, IMO, unmanageable.

The internet, even before the event of the Web, has always had a poor signal-to-noise ratio. The generation of noise around any signal isn't a problem...it will happen more-or-less automagically. It is only when you want specific noise that you need to put effort in...

6th

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yeah, sure the dis-info agent exists. Their main objective is to simply disrupt, dis-inform, and manipulate the thread within a vacuum of arrogance. There's many ways they do this, but I find you can generally spot them by the way they continuously accuse you of spreading dis-info and fearmongering, or ridicule you as suffering from some kind of mental illness like paranoia (and other defamatory remarks which somehow fly under the Mods' radar) when you're only trying to raise genuine concerns or just discussing theories which might be outside the box.

Coupled with that, they'll continuously ridicule your sources as crackpots and pseudo-scientists, asking over and over for the same proofs you've already given (while not giving satisfactory answers to the points you've raised), till you reach the stage where you just give up in frustration, or say something that'll earn you an infraction, and finally banned. That's bassically rules: (5) Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. (7) Question motives. (18) Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents, and (19) Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.

From: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth - The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

See my comment here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63241296&postcount=8

6th

Mysterious, I'll give you a chance to remove your thanks. Failure to do so before your next post will result in an infraction.

from the charter wrote:

• Thanking Posts
Thanking posts which break the charter will be seen as echoing the offending post. As such posters may receive an infraction/ban bases on the thanking of such posts.

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

I also love the absolutely fabulous section linked to on their front page

http://www.whale.to/b/holocaust_revisionism.html

An entire section dedicated to the "THE AUSCHWITZ HOAX"

I like the section suggesting the Anne Frank diary was a fraud.

Or that Eisenhower orchestrated the murder of 1.5 million German prisoners of war.

I love this site.

6th

Lads please keep this thread on topic.

studiorat

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

The idea that nothing at all is going on unreported behind the scenes, however large or small, is ludicrous. Yes there are Journalists waiting to pounce on any reported or researched piece of evidence relating to a case. But what of those that go unreported and un-searched?

I'd agree with most of that, but in the frame of the conspiracies discussed here, i.e. lizards, government owned conspiracy sites, Nasa Lunar cheese farms etc. It's highly unlikely that any of it would go un reported by the mainstream media.

Certainly there are a number of reasons why information should go unreported and rightly so in many cases, personal privacy, security etc.

However you've brought up an interesting point Nick, the difference between a conspiracy and a policy. Particularly in relation to the Catholic Church, was it a policy because the dogs in the street knew it was going on all the time? Or did that make it a conspiracy? A tacit agreement between the church and it's parishoners, move them on and we'll pretend it didn't happen.

Was the IRA colluding with the Nazi's a conspiracy or was it policy? Again a tacit agreement?

Anyway, in a nutshell, and as the "Whale" site points out I'd have to say that 99% of the time the conspiracy theory IS the disinformation...

Conspiracy theories exist for the main to sell books, a simple look at the Whale contributors will tell you this. People love the sh1t, they just eat it up in droves. A great what if scenario, trouble is since conspiracy theroies made it onto the web some poor feckers are starting to actually believe them wholesale.

It's also a pretty sad fact that there hasn't been a reference to a book in an OP here since when?

IrelandSpirit

RoboClam wrote: »

I've never browsed whale.to before, but I think it's fair to say that it is a horrible source, filled with "crackpots".

So, why would you trust this site as a valid source for anything?

Granted, but the actual contents of the article on dis-info is quite valid imo - and if you do a search for it you'll see it's posted on numerous sites which aren't "filled with crackpots."

We need apply an almost Spock-esque emotional detachment when considering information, and yet paradoxically try to feel what is right - is it coming from a positive perspective, does the information itself appear to be serving the highest good, etc.

Point is that it's all too easy when trying to research any CT on the web to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

IrelandSpirit

6th wrote: »

See my comment here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63241296&postcount=8

In all fairness, if you genuinely believe my post was naughty I'll take it on the chin, but I don't think I deserved an infraction. Seriously. I can see how I'd deserve it if it was an accusation of spreading disinformation aimed directly at anybody here, like you say: 'singling out a poster or posters, including stating things like "some posters on here"' which I did not do and when we both know that I can supply you with dozens of accusations of spreading disinformation aimed directly at me (and others), and where the perps have gotten away scot-free time and time again.

With all due respect, by all means do set a precedent and serve an infraction on people who are directly accusing others of disinformation, (which would spare many of us the considerable waste of time and energy in defence of said accusations), that would be fair for all concerned.

bonkey

For some reason, I can't infract at the moment.

Anyway...

IrelandSpirit. Please read the charter. Pay particular attention to this section, noting especially the bit I've highlighted at the end.

• Moderator Decisions
Moderator decissions are final on this forum but if you feel the need to question anything please do so by PMing one of the mods or starting a thread over on Help Desk where it will be reviewed by Admins. Do not argue with mods in thread.

Mysterious....do the same. You've just been cautioned for thanking a post which ignores the charter...and here you are doing it again.

Last chance, lads. We've made it clear that we're taking a hard(er) line on the rules from here on out....and you're ignoring the rules.

6th

Well I have no problem infracting at the moment but I'm gonna go with a 24hr ban for both IrelandSpirit and Mysterious.

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Granted, but the actual contents of the article on dis-info is quite valid imo - and if you do a search for it you'll see it's posted on numerous sites which aren't "filled with crackpots."

What some people aren't taking on as a consideration, is that there are no disinfo agents on conspiracy sites, or even if there are, they are far less numerous that possibly imagined by some here.

I was heavily involved in the protests leading up to the Iraq war in 2003. It was taken as an article of faith among certain activists in the IAWM that state infiltrators were trying to disrupt, or infiltrate the movement.

Now I'm not saying that certain governments at certain times, haven't attempted to infiltrate/disrupt/discredit a anti establishment organisation, the VVAW, The Black Panthers, the Miners Strike etc, are all examples of groups that were either actively subverted/spied upon by the state in an attempt to corrupt/subvert their activists.

But the thing was that taken as an article of faith among the IAWM that of course they were also under the attack from invisible state officials, that was obvious. There was no need for proof! They were popular! They threatened the Status Quo!

On a similar vein conspiracy theorists feel that their own alternative theory as to what happened to JFK/on 9/11 or 7/7 is utterly valid, and the other theories being spread are black propaganda designed to smear anyone who challenges the "official" version.

This is basically a form of invisible validation, "I am onto something, therefore the government sends cunning disinfo agents to discredit my line of thought QED, I'm right!". The idea that the government is spending black ops times and material extensively spreading lies and contradicting me, means that the conspiracy theorist feels that they're right.

It's a weird self congratulatory paradox.

In addition it allows conspiracy theorists to ignore valid criticism of the flaws in their vast conspiracy theory, by dismissing anyone who does so as a "paid state disinfo agent".

Essentially if one were to take Ireland's Spirit's rehashed argument, we take take this analogy, suppose this; You a conspiracy theorist who believes nano thermite was used to destroy the WTC, you can dismiss those conspiracy theorists who believe star wars space beam weapons destroyed the towers as disinfo agents, designed to create "outlandish" conspiracy theories about 9/11 to discredit your "credible" theory. And you can dismiss those people who point out the physical flaws in your nano thermite theory as another side of paid state disinfo agents.

Not only does this allow you to dismiss what you consider to be absurd theories, but it also allows you to dismiss valid criticism of your claims, as "disinfo". But as well, at the same time, make you feel more confident, because "if the state is going to these lengths to discredit me, AHA
I must be on to something".

Allowing a conspiracy theorist to shield themselves in a cocoon, of self righteous paranoia.

humanji

Diogenes infracted for doing the exact same thing IrelandSpirit was doing: Ignoring a Mod warning! It's simple for you all to say everything you want to without having to add the odd little dig at each other.

mcmoustache

espinolman wrote: »

Yes , but is there professional disinfo-agents posting in forums , who make a living out of putting disinformation out .

Astroturfing

Nick_oliveri

espinolman wrote: »

Is there paid disinformation agents posting in forums on the internet to derail discussions on certain topics .

The funny thing about most hardcore CT sites where people get so paranoid as to accuse people of being "paid to post" without a shred of evidence. It is extreme paranoia or an attempt at trolling. Of course, it would be acceptable in my view if there was any sort of evidence other than the other party disagreeing.

It is not healthy to come to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you is a Paid poster for the CIA. Anyways there could be volunteer organizations that do this, thus not paid and not a single agent. Because having a single agent wouldn't see a dramatic rise in misinformation, having it organized and off the same grid would be a lot more effective.

But I will reiterate, thinking that a person on a forum is an agent or paid poster without a shred of evidence is extremely paranoid and unhealthy.

Sometimes things pop up like when wikipedia released the list of organizations by IP address that edited any subject, mostly controversial or relating to a product or company.

Torakx

omg more mod posts and infractions than actual user posts haha
funny stuff.everyone relax it is a web forum for typing words.we are all peacefull enough herwe i would hope and the dicussion seems to be fairly well on topic.
i like this thread topic. i have been thinking about this on and off.
i dont use many forums for conspiracy because i rather just research the stuff by myself using google video or using the library.
but i get a strong feeling that some well known new movement spokesmen are plants and dis-info agents.
maybe dis-info is not the word but more that i think they take the attention of the people trying to be independant minded and gather them up into another group so they are not a bother or in the way of the real bussiness at hand.i mean while alex jones is standing outside bilderberg shouting out a megaphone they are inside making progress on there plans whatever they may be.
so i wonder what is alex at?is he trying to get peoples attention to this issue which i think he already has. or is he just looking busy and keeping the rest busy looking.
that for me would be the perfect dis-info agent.
as for forums you cant really pin that on any individual no matter how absurd there protests to even mild conspiracies.
alot of people have ego problems both on the conspiracy side and the other.
and most of forums posts are done with this in mind albeit right at the back where they do not notice it. i even do it myself!
who here hasnt posted something because of there ego and later not felt so strong on that stance.if you say no your either a dis-info agent or a narcisist hehe

end of the day there will be people posting wrong info be they purposefully or not.it is more the responsibilty of others to research before acting on these advices.
if i say the sky is green you can believe me and i may be a dis-info agent but would i be to blame if you went the rest of your life thinking the sky was green?
ps. i mean no insult to anyone here.i am a good hearted guy with no ill intentions with any of these comments.the post afaik is on topic. if not it is not my intention to veer off topic purposefully. but to continue the disscussion at hand.if there is an issue with my post please say so and i will kindly try and make it even more friendly and on topic for all here.

thanks

indough

this is not aimed in any way at the op but in general people who go on about these posters being paid to debunk their theories are just having a bit of an ego w@nk, like their theories are so accurate the gubberment have to pay people to silence them for fear that a few internet rumours might topple their evil regime or something

its also a convenient way of derailing discussion of relevant points a user may bring up without actually addressing them properly, a diversionary tactic

espinolman

Kernel wrote: »

The UFO field is also awash with outlandish claims, although that may be due to the money aspect. Guys like John Lear were previously believable, then he comes out and says there's water on the moon (turned out to be true) and some kind of soul catcher for the recently departed... at that point I stopped listening to John.

A soul catcher for the recently departed is not an outlandish claim , i don't believe John Lear is a dis-info agent .

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

A soul catcher for the recently departed is not an outlandish claim

Um yes it is, unless you can explain how it works.

, i don't believe John Lear is a dis-info agent .

I don't believe Lear is dis-info, I think he's out and out nuts. There was a fake british documentary in the 70s or 80s about NASA proof about aliens on Mars, Lear thinks it's real.

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Um yes it is, unless you can explain how it works.



I don't believe Lear is dis-info, I think he's out and out nuts. There was a fake british documentary in the 70s or 80s about NASA proof about aliens on Mars, Lear thinks it's real.

And just because he believes aliens are on Mars doesn't mean hes nuts. A lot lof his claims he made over the years are coming out.


I think Venus has civilzations on it. Mars had civilizations on it, all you need to do research and see for yourself the evidence of what "was" on Mars. Mars can support Life(even now). Mars can have underground cities too. Nasa have been lieing about the true colour of Mars and many other things they lie about the nature of our solar system. NASA just don't want to say these things. So if NASA wont say whats real, of course there is no life out there and nothing out there" moves" and everyone else is "nuts". I don't see how this fits with your claim that John is nuts.

(shakes head)

espinolman

Diogenes wrote: »

Um yes it is, unless you can explain how it works.

Well basically when people die , they go up into the sky and go to places like mars or venus and get some psychiatric 'treatment' and then go to the moon and get shot down into a baby on earth just after it is born from the tower in the centre of the moon .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Well basically when people die , they go up into the sky and go to places like mars or venus and get some psychiatric 'treatment' and then go to the moon and get shot down into a baby on earth just after it is born from the tower in the centre of the moon .

And how do you know this exactly?
Sounds like dis-info to me.

Specifically sounds like Scientology's dis-info.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you know this exactly?
Sounds like dis-info to me.

Specifically sounds like Scientology's dis-info.

Just maybe Venus and Mars are perfect for life right now.

Maybe NASA dont want to tell us that, like many "other" things!.

People will keep assuming everyone else is making thigns up, but oooooh no NASA is god and NASA is always right?

You are aware NASA has a nickname

Never give a straight answers?