Disinformation Agents & Hoaxers

If this exists somewhere please point me in the right direction, but if it doesn't already exist I would like to start a thread listing people who are known (or at least highly suspected) to be disinformation agents or just complete hoaxers.

The field of UFOlogy is just so murky and I think a list like this could be very helpful to people trying to do research, especially those new to the field.

I don't think that such a list exists... although... I can probably list quite a few disinformation agents for you.

David Icke-- for spreading false theories about aliens and their involvement with the British/USA government
Fox news-- for telling about UFO reports to advance their own station's agenda
Old NASA employees that are coming out now-- I believe the US government has asked them to come back to work for them and spread disinformation to the public and claim that ET's exist so that people will think that only senile people believe in the ET's
Larry King-- I believe that he doesn't really care about ET's. He's just doing it for more money and viewership.
The US government, and European governments
Hollywood

That's all I can think of for now.

This is going to open one hell of a hornet's nest.

Think about it for a minute? As soon as someone sees something they disagree with it is going to be all out war in the time honoured and somewhat polite ATS way...

As such, I'm going to sit on the fence and watch as it all kicks off...

Nice idea OP...

Frankly, I think the making of a list of supposed dis-info(ers) and Hoaxers is pretty useless. You'd have to have unequivical proof that they are, indeed, worthy of such a label and for that, they would have to ADMIT it, which, I don't think would be good for their business.
I for one, stick to reading all and deciding if each case itself is verifiable, not the messenger. Messengers can be lied to as well and bring forth substance that may be false, while all the while believing it themselves.

You make your list, if you need a list to decide what's going on or not. I'm going to keep on reading, comparing notes and eliminating what falsehoods I identify.

Just my $.02
Cuhail

reply to post by Cuhail


A very sensible idea there Cuhail, and that is exactly what I intend to do, but you've got admit that it will be fun if people bite on this one. It will be a huge debate I think.

Peace,

MGGG

The idea is to have a starting point for people who are new to the field. It seems like one reason UFOlogy doesn't seem to get anywhere is because unlike other fields of research, every new person essentially has to start from scratch. Obviously there are going to be people listed who are debatable but there are surely people who are obviously disinfo or hoaxers.

At the very least it would serve to let people know where others stand in their evaluations.

reply to post by Defiant Human


I don't understand what you mean that unlike other areas of research people have to start form scratch.

No-one is born with an understanding of any research area so everyone has to learn everything from scratch.

You can pick up a lot from reading the threads here and doing wider internet research as well.

To me, that is part of the fun of it - deciding who has more credibility than the next guy...

The main reason Ufology doesn't get anywhere is because of the lack of hard evidence and the number of hoaxs that occur every year - we have lost credibility.

The huge amount of data and information here on ATS is a goldmine. Pick a few topics you're interested in, and read away - follow links - form an opinion of your own. TRUST NO-ONE!

Peace,

MGGG

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go
I don't understand what you mean that unlike other areas of research people have to start form scratch.

No-one is born with an understanding of any research area so everyone has to learn everything from scratch.

What I mean about starting from scratch is that there aren't really established facts in UFOlogy from which to build from. For example, in the field of biology there are hundreds of years of established research for future generations to build from. In UFOlogy this is not the case. Nothing has been established to build from. There is a lot of stuff out there, a lot of testimony and even some photographic evidence but any of it may or may not stem from disinformation or hoaxes.

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go
To me, that is part of the fun of it - deciding who has more credibility than the next guy...

I'd rather spend my time getting to the meat of the issue rather than trying to figure out who is lying to me or operating from an agenda.

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go
The huge amount of data and information here on ATS is a goldmine.

I agree and think that a list of somewhat agreed upon or even dabated known hoaxers or disinfo people would be a great addition!

Originally posted by Defiant Human
What I mean about starting from scratch is that there aren't really established facts in UFOlogy from which to build from. For example, in the field of biology there are hundreds of years of established research for future generations to build from. In UFOlogy this is not the case. Nothing has been established to build from. There is a lot of stuff out there, a lot of testimony and even some photographic evidence but any of it may or may not stem from disinformation or hoaxes.

That is one of the big problems with Ufology. No-one really knows enough to build a real definitive knowledge base. What you're aiming to do here is a noble thing and I applaud it, but I think that it would be nigh on impossible due to the strong divisions of opinion and personality cults that exist within Ufology as an area of study.

If we take medical research for example, the whole paradigm shift that occured from galenic medicine towards Bernard type thinking and the ideas in Celluarpathologie really opened up that area. We, as Ufologists need a simiar awakening.

I'm not sure when or who will bring it about, but at the moment there is just too much conflict, too many hoaxes and not enough hard data to really let us develop our area of interest.

Once again, though, I do applaud your effort here and hope that some of those with strong opinions - one way or another will take it up.

Peace,

MGGG

MGGG

I still think we as a community could come up with at least something of a list of hoaxers who have consistently proven themselves dishonest.

It would just be really nice to see this field move forward instead of constantly spinning it's wheels. Your right though, things may not change until we have some hard evidence (in the public domain) and less hoaxers.

There is the ufo hall of shame on ufo watchdog.
Don't know how great it is but check it out


www.ufowatchdog.com...

Im gonna put YOU at the top of the list, new user with an inflammatory topic trying to get a flame war going most likely. Hey you started this so Im nominating you for the list

Originally posted by OneLifeTooLive
Im gonna put YOU at the top of the list, new user with an inflammatory topic trying to get a flame war going most likely. Hey you started this so Im nominating you for the list

Discussions (even disagreements) do not become flame wars if everyone remains civil and mature about it.

The reason I want this list/discussion is because I have a hard time figuring who has been consistently dishonest and thought people more experienced in the field could lend a helping hand by sharing the opinions they've formed...

Here are some people and questions I have:

David Icke: I know he's out there but has he been caught in lies/inconsistencies or is it just the reptilian stuff that throws people off?

John Lear: I see a lot of criticism of John Lear on ATS. Is it just that he has very wild theories?

Nick Pope: Does his past with MOD make him suspect or has he proven otherwise?

Paul Bennewitz (deceased): I know there's a lot of controversy surrounding him and claims that he was fed disinformation. But couldn't those claims be disinformation in themselves and couldn't the fact that he was committed to a mental institution just be an indicator that 'they' wanted him locked up and drugged? Wasn't the guy pretty much a genius before his alleged downward spiral?

I'm sure I'll think of more but that's off the top of my head.