Disinformation Tactics

well, ATS has been around for a long time now, long enough to be infiltrated by those who wish to spread disinformation and cover up the truth about things - even here on a conspiracy website. While searching and lurking, reading and commenting on various threads.. one might get lost in the sea of truth and lies that are mixed in together almost incoherent from each other. So, allow me to bring to light for you one of the methods in which i have seen disinformation being painted on ATS so that you may use that knowledge to recognize it if you encounter it.

Tactic 1. Controlling the Thread Conclusion or Creating an Artificial Conclusion.

The most important thing to realize here on ATS is that threads contain 'discussions'. An idea or original post is posted, then the comments begin. Within those comments people reply to one another and sometimes reach compromising conclusions or sometimes just seem to yell at each other for having different opinions.

The good thing about this is that when totally rational and truth seeking minds are commenting on a thread they can actually reach the truth about whatever is being discussed, or at least form a logical hypothesis or idea pertaining to it. This doesn't mean they have to agree about it.

During their conversation in a thread their whole conversation is up for public view. Their comments and responses all saved in the thread and viewable to lurkers and other posters on the website. If someone reads through the thread they can begin to form their own opinion and perhaps be swayed by the logic used in the conversation and the conclusions reached by those involved in the thread posts. It is MOST noteable that it is NOT just the original post that must sway people's minds for the disinformation agent. It is the entire direction of the conversation, the dominant voices and the like which sway people's minds.

This is the part where disinformation tactics come in. Let's say, for an example, that you wish to create the illusion on ATS that the sky is orange in antarctica. In order to be effective you first make the original post creating your thread, in which you outline the idea that in antarctica the sky is orange. Then another disinformation agent who also feels he or she could benifit from this disinformation being spread comes and comments a couple times on the thread, making sure to sound well endowed in information regarding the subject and responding to any contradictory logic made against the original post.

Then, of course, there will always be weak individuals who are not even disinformation agents, but happen to be easily swayed by irrational logic who come to make comments which can only help the original post's disinformation.

The idea of this tactic being that no matter how illogical the idea is, the thread is built up in a way to make it seem totally logical. Of course this has nothing to do with the logic of the argument itself. If you took elementary school math books and replaced 1 + 1 = 2 with 1 + 1 = 3 it would be the same thing.. Everyone knows that one plus one is two. However, when you take minds that are new to the idea, and use what is known to them as a reputable source for such information to illustrate otherwise.. THEY BELEIVE.

I have found this tactic to be used in many places on ATS.


Tactic 2. Introducing CounterProductive Emotional Arguements and Immaturity

Well, this tactic i've seen ALOT here. Pretty self explanatory. If a conversation is discussing something quite relevant and quite true and a disinformation agent would like it to be stopped this is very effective.

Not any discussion can simply be 'stopped'. However, someone can always come in and 'start' a 'fight'. Name calling, aggressive wording, these and other methods are used to emotionally agitate those discussing the truth. It is done in such a way to make sure everyone is so agitated and off topic that no longer the truth can be discussed clearly.

It's also not bad to created a stream of posts that are against ATS rules. This way they get deleted and when someone will try to read through the thread discussion they will see nothing but deleted offensive off topic posts. This will almost make sure to create an impression that this discussion is an overly emotional and immature squabble, which will deteriorate the readers desire to read on or find out more.

This tactic has becomes extremely effective on ATS, probably because posters here usually ALLOW themselves to be agitated ( that is the ONLY way this tactic works ). Other than that, this tactic has MANY MANY MANY ways to make itself effective. Not only can you agitate everyone into arguing amongst themselves and getting no where - but you can agitate someone into saying something offensive to you ( in this case the disinformation agent ) and then you can respond with the famous " way to insult ME, instead of disprove my logic " which tends to make the person look like a crazy angry person even though it was you ( the disinformation agent ) who created all the illogical energy in the first place.

Really, the possibilities with this one are endless.

I find this tactic is mostly used in the political arena of ATS.


Tactic 3. 90% Truth - 10% Lie = 100% Lie.

Remember that. If someone is trying to decided about something and 90 percent of it makes sense, but 10 percent of it does not fit correctly - they will be extremely likely to be able to rethink the WHOLE thing before making any conclusions. Let me explain:

Somestimes disinformation agents will post the truth. They will post it in (mostly) all of it's glory as they know it. But they will add ONE bit of obvious incorrectness to throw the whole idea out the window. For example, too many people are talking about the conspiracy of the september eleven terrorist attacks being an inside job. The logical way to attack this truth movement is to spread disinformation: Is it no surprise that there are 'conspiracy theorists' claiming that no planes hit the world trade center towers? This is the fundamental idea behind this tactic: Add lies to what is true and the result will be an idea so contradictory to itself that no one will beleive it.

This also makes sure to make everyone in on the conspiracy ( beleiving the disinfo story, or the 'true' story ) look completely insane, thus hurting the credibility of the movement of the truth itself even more, whatever that truth may be. It also attracts people who just generally are young, stupid or inexperienced in some way to beleive.

This i have seen to no end in the september eleven conspiracies but also many other places.



There are so many tactics, it's hard to post them all, but with those fundamental three posted here i think anyone who gives the time to evaluate what they read on ATS with these tactics in mind will be OK.

whew i've been wanting to post that for a while!

My reasoning method when it comes to conspiracy theories is to start with the official story (since it is most credible and supposed to be extensively investigated by the experts who drew those conclusions) and then contrarians have to rigorously PROVE each claim that they make that deviates from the official story. Obviously there is an extensive literature already made that debunks the many bold claims that have already been made, concerning topics such as the "fake moon landing conspiracy" and "9/11 was an inside job conspiracy" IMO....does that make me a disinfo agent if somebody makes a claim and so I go and check the extensive debunking literature for a refutation of that claim? Most of the time the refutations make good enough sense to me, however I do take notes when it doesn't seem to make good sense though, and at that point venture to cross check multiple refutation sources to see if there are more to it.

reply to post by indigothefish


haha was i the inspiration for this thread...lol

i think that most of the people who are accused of this are just being misunderstood. it is hard to read what people really mean behind their words online because most of our communication is nonverbal. not everyone is going to perceive things the exact same way so something i meant as sarcasm could be taken as a serious statement. i'm sure they do exist but i think a lot of the problem is just misunderstanding and of course ignorance.

Very awesome post!! Have seen much of this, especially lately~
God Bless~
I couldn't resist adding the following which I got in part in an email from a friend of mine a while back...


Signs of a disinfo agent...


Teamwork.
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

Anti-conspiratorial.
They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists'. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a forum focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

Artificial Emotions.
An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their (usually) more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might see outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing the job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual, who truly cares what others think, might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

Inconsistent.
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within...

Boy, this could be an inexhaustible topic of postings...

Just to state the obvious. We know the govt uses disinfo in forums, Sunstein and others have said they do. ATS is a major forum, therefore they are here. They would be able to have as many identities as they wanted. ATS has the ability to flag and star threads, therefore they must star and flag those topics that they want to promote as a means of showing that "the real world" thinks a certain way. Or flag a thread that makes a serious topic, like say, Project Bluebeam, and turn it into an unintelligible mush full of stupidity.

I've grown to appreciate them as now I know what I'm supposed to think! And that is more valuable than people realize.

reply to post by theAymen


you've been a member for ten days... i don't recall ever seeing your name or reading a post by you.

this post is the combined recollection of my reading and posting since 2006, i have posted this information individually and with a little less detail many times in many threads through my time, so far, here on ATS.

i have always wanted to post all of my thoughts on disinformation here at ATS, however there is so much complexity to it that i succumbed to simplifying it into what i beleive are the most successful 3 tactics being used here so that 'truth' seekers here can see them being used.

reply to post by thegoodearth


I agree that teamwork is a key player as well to disinformation agents. Such as group bashing. It doesn't have to be well coordinated really.. Ultimately the idea is to have those bashing the lie seem to outnumber those trying to logically reveal the truth

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by theAymen

 

you've been a member for ten days... i don't recall ever seeing your name or reading a post by you.

this post is the combined recollection of my reading and posting since 2006, i have posted this information individually and with a little less detail many times in many threads through my time, so far, here on ATS.

i have always wanted to post all of my thoughts on disinformation here at ATS, however there is so much complexity to it that i succumbed to simplifying it into what i beieive are the most successful 3 tactics being used here so that 'truth' seekers here can see them being used.

edit on 9/23/2010 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

yea cool..i have been here for ten days written two threads & loads of posts... and i know exactly what you are saying.

i have been batteling with these "packs of hyenas" myself.
i know who a few are now...its fun..back ur theory and destroy their BS

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by thegoodearth

 

I agree that teamwork is a key player as well to disinformation agents. Such as group bashing. It doesn't have to be well coordinated really.. Ultimately the idea is to have those bashing the lie seem to outnumber those trying to logically reveal the truth

edit on 9/23/2010 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/23/2010 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

i think it could be mods..."HAVE YOU SEEN THE STAR RANKING`S ON THESE DISINFORMATION POSTS"
it is not logical the amounts they have!!!???

I agree with the OP that the biggest method is to "plant a seed of doubt". If a dangerous topic comes up I would look for some immediate means of discrediting the theory whether it is a legitimate reason or not.

I think most people look for an easy way to NOT believe something is possible. This is why "swamp gas" and "Venus" work so well when they spread disinfo about UFOs.

I think the biggest method of disinfo here is that they support bunk theories and ignore the legitimate ones. This way the things they want ignored drop off the board more quickly. I also think they rely on giving people something juicier than the real issue. If the government is trying to hide man made antigravity they try to sell us aliens because the aleins aren't real and the antigrav is... but since people are more intrigued by aliens they take that bait and ignore the real issue. It's like saying the New World Order are reptilians rather than just evil people.

reply to post by indigothefish

Let's say, for an example, that you wish to create the illusion on ATS that the sky is orange in antarctica...

Close...

Antarctic ice shelf turns green

Clearly you've only posted 90% truth and the other 10% is lies...so case closed!

I guess that makes me disinfo!

reply to post by theAymen


You really think a lot of yourself don't you? 'The world of ATS revolves around me!'

2nd line.

Can we have a list of usernames who we suspect are disinfo agents? It would be really sick and twisted if the MODs were disinfo agents. I'm officially paranoid.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
Anti-conspiratorial.
They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists'. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a forum focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

To be perfectly honest, and rather blunt, conspiratorial inclinations are not only viewed negatively by mainstream Americans (the "sheeple," to use a cliche portmanteau) but by most academics and intellectuals as well (at least as defined by societal standards).

This is a fringe site, this is a fringe topic. That much is pretty much on the front page. Does that make it wrong? No. Does it make it lead the independent observer to be more skeptical? Yes.

I used to be a huge conspiracy nut, now I think 90% of them are bunk, but I still enjoy debating, discussing, and sharing such viewpoints with my fellow human beings. That doesn't make me a disinfo agent and it seems to be a defense mechanism that many conspiracy theorists engage in when they are accosted for what some see as illogical and nonsensical beliefs. It's a natural reaction, but one that is emotional and not intellectually well-founded in most cases. I think that those who resort to name-calling and personal attacks though are wrong as ad hominem attacks are never the right way to proceed.

The main reason I don't believe in a lot of them is because of Occam's Razor. Present sufficient evidence to refute the most logical answer really. Most evidence that attempts to refute well-established events like 9/11 rely on slight deviations from the main story that have valid explanations anyway according to the mainstream majority of academics, experts, and observers. Human nature, psychology, and history also go a long way towards refuting some of these theories as does critical analysis.

It's not that I'm biased or a member of the sheeple (seriously that term needs to be banned, it does a disservice to conspiracy theorists due to how cliche and overused it is), it's just that critical thinking with the mainstream opinion generally swings that way. It's like me getting a bright idea to make a lot of money that I think no one else has; unfortunately, in reality millions already have that same idea and academics have written theses on it that the mind cannot begin to understand. No one is that special really or has thoughts that are "ah ha!" moments given the number of people already researching such things in far greater depth throughout human history. Most subjects of conspiracies are not discussed by academics, not because they are hiding it, but because in order for conspiracies to work, very particular circumstances are usually needed.

Check out the Wikipedia article on conspiracism and conspiracy theories to understand how academic generally approach that line of thought. There's actually a surprising amount of research into it. Perhaps the ones who perceive others as blinded are blind themselves. Perhaps we all are just stumbling around.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Brilliant thread, and right on from my observations. There are other ways you can tell what's what too.

Lets's take Mr, Chadwickus here:

I guess that makes me disinfo!

Disinfo is as disinfo does.

You see these techniques from the OP a lot with almost every chemtrail thread (on which Mr. C appears quite frequently)

Other disinfo techniques and ways of sussing them out:

Sarcastic one or two liners,

Refusal to engage in a bidirectional conversation (it always ends up "I'm right and you're wrong" often followed again by sarcastic comments.)

Using emotionally charged words like "hoax" even though the "hoaxer" may be genuine in their inquiry

A useful way to begin to see people for who they really are:

Go to the member profile page and look through the record of all of their posts and the topics they comment on. This is useful on a few different levels. First, by looking at the topics that they post on and the nature of those posts it draws a pretty clear picture. Secondly, you can do a simple frequency analysis. Again in the case of chemtrails, If 78% of a members 800 posts are on chemtrails (actual example) and many of those posts include the OP's or other disinformation techniques, that's a pretty good indication of where the person stands (unless they are just really, really passionate about a certain topic and naturally inclined to use techniques identified as disinfo tools.)

And of course, when confronted they usually own it with things like "I'm surprised it's not a higher percentage", twist things around, or simply respond sarcastically like they are prone to do.

reply to post by coyotepoet

Brilliant thread, and right on from my observations. There are other ways you can tell what's what too.

Lets's take Mr, Chadwickus here:

Disinfo is as disinfo does.

You see these techniques from the OP a lot with almost every chemtrail thread (on which Mr. C appears quite frequently)

Oh look I have a fan!

You've dragged a thread from last year up, just to have a bitch about me!

Other disinfo techniques and ways of sussing them out: Sarcastic one or two liners,

Yeah I spent 12 years in intensive training to master this, the life of a disinfo agent is a difficult one I must say!

Dunno how I manage to run my landscaping business as well as posting all this disinfo...

Refusal to engage in a bidirectional conversation (it always ends up "I'm right and you're wrong" often followed again by sarcastic comments.)

Well, you're wrong and I'm right.

Bazinga!

Using emotionally charged words like "hoax" even though the "hoaxer" may be genuine in their inquiry

I only use the word hoax when it fits.

A useful way to begin to see people for who they really are:

Go to the member profile page and look through the record of all of their posts and the topics they comment on. This is useful on a few different levels. First, by looking at the topics that they post on and the nature of those posts it draws a pretty clear picture. Secondly, you can do a simple frequency analysis. Again in the case of chemtrails, If 78% of a members 800 posts are on chemtrails (actual example) and many of those posts include the OP's or other disinformation techniques, that's a pretty good indication of where the person stands (unless they are just really, really passionate about a certain topic and naturally inclined to use techniques identified as disinfo tools.)

78%?

That's a very specific number, seems very wrong too, especially when opening up my posts page and searching for the term 'chemtrail' we get 84 hits.

84 hits from 800 posts!



Now a quick calculation tells me that 84 posts out of 800 isn't 78%

Now, here's the funny part, you have the gall to call me disinfo when I've just shown that you are posting lies and disinformation about me.

And of course, when confronted they usually own it with things like "I'm surprised it's not a higher percentage", twist things around, or simply respond sarcastically like they are prone to do.

Hmm you know I started this reply not thinking much of it, because I get called disinfo every other day by paranoid idiots who actually think they're that important to have people being paid to discredit them.

But when you start making crap up, well no more happy fun times.

I want you to tell me and everyone else where I have posted disinfo, where I've knowingly posted lies.

Come on mate, put your money where your mouth is.

Prove I'm disinfo.

I DARE YOU.

reply to post by Chadwickus


First of all, its obvious I'm no fan. Second, I was searching disonfo and this thread came up and I thought your appearance here, contributing nothing to the discussion but a sarcastic few lines was interesting. I wasn't stalking you, you just happened to be there. Third, obviously I can't prove you are a paid disinfo agent but that really doesn't matter, because as I said disinfo is as disinfo does whether you are a professional or not. Fourth, I thought after I shut my computer down and went to bed that I should have specified that the actual example of percentages was not you it was Firepilot with 629 out of 800 posts being about chemtrails (629 divided by 800=78%, the actual current numbers may be higher as it was several weeks ago when I did that analysis), so no lies spread, you can check out his percentages yourself (and I believe that the "I'm surprised it wasn't higher" was his comment as well.) Fifth, you have to admit you make a lot of sarcastic one line comments, this post included.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Sixth, I was just using you as an example, especially in regards to the sarcasm that doesn't really add anything, because you were there. It wasn't my intent to target or pick on you. Sorry if I pi**ed you off.