Please Post Suspected Disinfo Sites on This Thread

Does anyone notice how most sites that claim to have or represent the truth without room for opinion always ask for money..weather it's fund raising or direct contribution? These sites always raise a red flag for me.

That is a very specific answer. However, I was not talking about you. Interesting that you would assume that, seeing as I posted a reply to the thread but did not post a reply to you. Posting an alternate opinion before me does not mean that I am automatically talking about you.

Although I do find it interesting sometimes that when I see a thread posted about something I have independly verified within my personal reality, and had established within my belief structure before hearing anything to the like, that some posters respond in an alarmingly quick fashion. A bit of a run on sentence, I know. The point is how could I have created a theory in my mind, and one of its far offshoots just happens to be the same as someone elses. Coincidence only goes so far. And I know for a fact that there is a group of people who would prefer the truth of many things not come out.

This was in response to Phage. For some reason the reply didnt post right.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by quetzalcoatl13]

reply to post by quetzalcoatl13


Ok.
I'm reading you but the message seems garbled.

reply to post by alyosha1981


A scam is a scam. Disinfo is different in that it bends the truth about real issues that may effect your health for instance.

My father has maxed out his credit cards(alzheimers) giving money to fortune tellers but that's just a scam.

As I see it someone with a crappy looking website trying to warn you about something is probably legit whereas someone with a slick website assuring you that everything is fine is probably hiding something.

I personally am here to learn the truth about the real agenda of the NWO.
And maybe help people to find truth.

A reminder from the Terms and Conditions

2g.) Board Wars: You will not use these boards to organize "attacks" on other boards, blogs, or discussion groups, and similarly, you will not organize such attacks against this board.

There is critique, and there is condemnation. The former is ok, the latter is not.

Just because some sites do not conform to a person's personal belief most certainly does not necessarily mean they are "disinformation". What it means is simply that some people choose not to believe the information put up on them.




[edit on 25/1108/08 by neformore]

Originally posted by marsha law

As I see it someone with a crappy looking website trying to warn you about something is probably legit whereas someone with a slick website assuring you that everything is fine is probably hiding something.

Noted. Except that the "slick" website is not saying everything is fine, just that evidence and facts don't back up what the crappy website is claiming.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by neformore
A reminder from the Terms and Conditions

2g.) Board Wars: You will not use these boards to organize "attacks" on other boards, blogs, or discussion groups, and similarly, you will not organize such attacks against this board.

There is critique, and there is condemnation. The former is ok, the latter is not.

Just because some sites do not conform to a person's personal belief most certainly does not necessarily mean they are "disinformation". What it means is simply that some people choose not to believe the information put up on them.




[edit on 25/1108/08 by neformore]

Dear Moderator;

While I respect your opinion, I humbly request what the definition of "attack" is. The way that you are quoting implies that believing that a source is purposefully false is and stating so is an "attack". I would argue that if the rules are to be applied equally, that any attack on a news source as willfully dishonest should be treated the same. Examples such as CNN and Fox are foremost in my mind, as well as any number of other much smaller sites.

I am not trying to quote the rules, as I barely know them being new here. I am simply trying to explain my personal issue with said enforcement. Thank you in advance for clearing things up.

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by Demandred

 

I wish people on this site could realize that arguing and debating conspiracies does not make them a Conspiracy Theorist.

OK. I'll bite. What, precisely, makes somebody a conspiracy theorist?
Opinion is fine but just to make it nice and clear how about a definition.

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl13
Dear Moderator;

While I respect your opinion, I humbly request what the definition of "attack" is. The way that you are quoting implies that believing that a source is purposefully false is and stating so is an "attack".

I agree.

It seems the intent of the T&C is to prohibit the organization (conspiracy, if you will) of an actual cyberattack on another website, be it via illicit means or otherwise. The OP has asked for a listing of sites which ATS members consider to be "disinfo" sites. This was not, nor have there been, any attempts to organize an attack upon those alleged sites.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Phage]

As I said in my post, critique is fine, with reasons why the criticism is aimed.

Outright condemnation is another thing. Being openly hostile to other boards/sites/blogs is a no-no.

Why?

Well because the internet is a strange and wild place, full of differing opinions and fragile egos. It only takes one comment to be taken out of context and read by another boards member/writer/owner for drama to ensue. One thing leads to another and before long both sites have their various proponents who just can't resist the temptation of percieved internet "heroics" flinging poo at each other. Its not pretty, its not nice, and people get carried away, warns start flying and ultimately its possible that bans follow.

If you've ever seen a full blown board war, you'll know what I mean.

It is possible to be constructive and critical at the same time.

And - as I also said - disagreeing with something does not mean that its disinformation.

Calling it such is ad-hominem. Think of how you, personally, would feel if everything you typed was instantly dismissed as being disinformation and rubbish, for no good reason other than someone disagreed with your view on it and was not prepared to see the other side, at all, ever - Edit to add, civilised discussion with reasons/facts backing up the debate is not ad hominem

This is ATS, its not the comments section of YouTube.

[edit on 25/1108/08 by neformore]

Hi all!
This is my 1st post on here but have been watching the site for sometime now, anyway, I've been involved with a debate on the way the BBC reported the events of 9/11 here:

www.bbc.co.uk...

On this blog there is a disinfo agent working his socks off by the name of Johny Pixels

The blogs comments are over 1000 so plenty to read but very very rewarding!

MOD EDIT - Snipped remainder of post

Please read

Why doesn't ATS allow "Activist Recruiting?"

And, from the Terms and Conditions of Use

1 e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:

i) You will not use your membership at The Above Network, LLC site(s) for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not post, use the chat feature or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.

[edit on 25/1108/08 by neformore]

Originally posted by badgerprints
OK. I'll bite. What, precisely, makes somebody a conspiracy theorist?
Opinion is fine but just to make it nice and clear how about a definition.

I am not going to define a CTer, as many people hold their own definitions, and I am not exactly here to preach my point of view.

Instead I will say, that most CTers will not sit and debate about a conspiracy... nor will they mock people who do the work on their own, and develop a new theory, (unless there is direct evidence to the contrary).

Debate and Critizism is most decidedly not key attributes of a CTer. I would probably venture that most people on this site are not Conspiracy Theorists... This site is more about entertainment and web traffic than actually discovering anything new.

one would think, that to a CTer, debate is a waste of time. Either the person you are talking to is going to be receptive, or isn't going to be. If they are not, why argue? Isn't this a waste of time?

You can have your own definitions... That is fine.

However, if you think you're here on ATS to be anything more than a "free content generator", you might want to do some research.

There are plenty of sites out there that sponsor actual research into various Conspiracy Theories. ATS is typically the laughing stock of these other sites.

If you doubt me... a quick google search will show you exactly what I mean.

Originally posted by LiquidMirage
reply to post by marsha law

 

Here's one for ya...

Disinfo Site

There's more to this than one might suspect...

do some research... its not that hard...

Probably best to know who you're "working for"

Good morning.
Perhaps the moderator has a good point in that simply claiming a site is disinfo would lead to senseless banter.

I started this thread because I think some sites exist only to provide fuel for debunkers of theories.

contrailscience.com... For instance has no affiliations and exists only to debunk chemtrails

morgellonswatch.com... is attempting to deny a very real and debilitating disease.

Originally posted by marsha law
Good morning.
Perhaps the moderator has a good point in that simply claiming a site is disinfo would lead to senseless banter.

I started this thread because I think some sites exist only to provide fuel for debunkers of theories.

contrailscience.com... For instance has no affiliations and exists only to debunk chemtrails

morgellonswatch.com... is attempting to deny a very real and debilitating disease.

And many of the "true" sites are selling something while the "disinfo" sites are not.

BTW, you're redundant. You posted those sites in the OP and provided the same descriptions.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Phage]

Don't beat yourself up Marsha

This is an excellent idea for a thread.

How's this for a disinfo site: www.cnn.com...






[edit on 25-11-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by marsha law


How about [urllanimalid.aphis.usda.gov...[/url]

Sec of Ag Ed Schafer has been caught in so many out right lies it is pathetic.

“Some livestock producers in Oklahoma and elsewhere have declined to participate in the voluntary tracking system, which the government promised to create after the nation's first case of mad cow disease in December 2003 in Washington state. "It's an important public policy," Schafer said. But many farmers resist it because they feel it is government intrusion..”

Dan Amstutz, drafted the original text of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in 1995 under the direction of Sec of Ag Ann Veneman NOT in 2003

“Aims to ensure that governments do not use quarantine and food safety requirements as Unjustified trade barriers to protect domestic industries from import competition. It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability as an SPS measure” [traceability IS a tracking system

The site xstatic99645.tripod.com... is very careful to have well documented truthful information. I have gotten "prove that" enough times from the site owner to know.

Note that the NC Governor’s representative is saying that NAIS is voluntary, like having a drivers license for driving a car. It is nice to know you will soon have to have a license to grow your own food but China and Mexico can ship us crap food and drugs without a peep from the USDA and FDA.

Originally posted by marsha law
I think it would be great to have a spot to expose professional disinfo websites.
Just a suspicion should be enough.
It really is an infowar you know.

hope some other people have sites in mind.

www.abovetopsecret.com

loads of disinformation on that site.

I apologise for adding a link to a petition asking for the BBC to report the TRUTH!
No offence intended, this is an "infowar" and I wrongly presumed I could post it!

So! has anyone been to the link I provided to check an agent out who's hard at work trying to dis inform?...maybe because I'm in the UK this site is irrelevant to ATS members?...maybe wrong thread?

Anyway, I'm off to do battle in the war of information!