Is Abovetopsecret a disinfo site?

Very well said Firemoon.

The Travis Walton thread tells you much you need to know about some people who are doyens of the debunkers. Travis by explaining his side has shown quite clearly. Some people have set out to a character assassination on him and have quite knowingly used testimony from people claiming to be his relatives who are total and utter frauds.

I look at these types of people more as a "disinfo" issue than anything on ATS i read. When a group of people deliberately set out to seek and destroy the validity of a persons testimony I question their actual motives and sense of morality.

The Mogul explanation for the R word.... it is still trotted out as fact by debunkers worldwide despite the fact that someone used the Freedom Of Information Act to access the records for 1947 and there in the records in black and white it shows quite categorically that the balloon they claimed was responsible had its' flight cancelled because of bad weather. Furthermore, all other Moguls can be accounted for no matter how secret their mission might have been. In short, there are NO missing mogul balloons in 1947. Any that were mislaid were found. So there it is proof positive that the mogul balloon explanation for the R word is a lie.

I was completely unaware of this as the Roswell incident is quickly swept under the carpet these days and mogul used as a primary "debunking tool".

Chinese lanterns are not difficult questions so they attract a horde of replies from those who choose to dodge the hard ones. Shag Harbour is a difficult question, Operation Mainbrace is a difficult question..... be my guest start a thread on either read someone like Karl 12s threads and count the replies. That will tell you all you need to know about a certain tribal mental attitude on this forum.

Yup, you hit the nail directly on the head. It's easy to sit around poking holes in the average youtube cgi kiddie thread, or poke fun at the shady "cosmic spirituality" groups, yet when presented with great topics that should be debated and exammined to their fullest these same folks are nowhere to be seen, they go out of their way to avoid them. I have bookmarked tons of Karl12's threads and others hoping that more interest and time are spent in those topics by board members, but it seems around here on this forum it's a lost cause.

Originally posted by Shades1035
I have checked a few other UFO forums and it's certainly not the same situation there, in fact it's the opposite.

What makes you think ATS is the disinfo site and not the other websites?

Is it because the other websites are more sympathetic to your beliefs, allowing you self-affirmation and confirmation?

You should read Greg Bishop's Project Beta and Mark Pilkington's Mirage Men. Disinformation campaigns targeting the UFO phenomenon don't work by fostering disbelief and skepticism but by promoting belief. You are more likely to make someone believe you, make them more willing to accept lies, by agreeing with them, not disagreeing.

Perhaps you mean counter intel site. John Lear believes that it is.
Just remember: Haters will hate

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


Because we all know that "unknown" and "unexplained" is actually short-hand for "alien". And as we all know, appeals-to-silence are as good as proof.

But logic and reason and proof are trivial compared to sticking to strawman skeptics, isn't it? Where is Cripmeister when you need him?

Originally posted by Violater1
Perhaps you mean counter intel site. John Lear believes that it is.

Just remember: Haters will hate

edit on 28-10-2010 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)

Little minds don't like having their beliefs challenged.

I like when people call me a "disinfo agent". Honestly, who wouldn't want to be some secret agent.
I wear it like a badge.

ON TOPIC:
Being a skeptic doesn't mean you don't believe in the idea of ET's.. It's all relative to the evidence of
each case.

Sometimes Yes.

Sometimes No.

Sometimes just Silly.

Because we all know that "unknown" and "unexplained" is actually short-hand for "alien". And as we all know, appeals-to-silence are as good as proof.

Depends on the context. Unknown and unexplained rarely mean "alien" to me. For example the UFO chased by policemen back in 1966 could have been anything from a black operations aircraft being tested to a blimp.

Portage County Ohio 1966 UFO Chase

What are you getting at?

But logic and reason and proof are trivial compared to sticking to strawman skeptics, isn't it? Where is Cripmeister when you need him?

If you're looking for a pissing match you're barking up the wrong tree mate. Ones attendance in the better threads on this forum speak for themselves Rex.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Depends on the context. Unknown and unexplained rarely mean "alien" to me. For example the UFO chased by policemen back in 1966 could have been anything from a black operations aircraft being tested to a blimp.

Equivocation. Ain't it precious?

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
If you're looking for a pissing match you're barking up the wrong tree mate.

Certainly...after all, we're more concerned about discussing facts, not scapegoating, right?

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Ones attendance in the better threads on this forum speak for themselves Rex.

Just as it's easier to attack straw-man, skeptics, right?

Certainly...after all, we're more concerned about discussing facts, not scapegoating, right?

Absolutely, I look forward to hearing your thoughts in some of the better threads on this forum, some of the events in history that have the best of us stumped. I'm sure your input would be gladly welcomed.

Just as it's easier to attack straw-man, skeptics, right?

There's no need to try and deflect from the fact that you are a no show in the harder more difficult threads Rexy. Put your money where your mouth is, you're obviously more than capable.

For example, I would love to hear your input in this thread Rex.

The Robertson Panel: UFO's and Ridicule

Originally posted by Divine Strake
Sometimes, we hide things in plain sight. The debunkers provide a very valuable service. . .they expand our minds. We've learned to not necessarily take everything at face value. My personal experience is the something I thought could not be possibly debunked ultimately was. What it boils down to is that, while there are those that "attack" a video or picture and try to debunk it, our personal belief is what really matters.

I've seen some great examples of what I thought we clearly UFOs, but when it's shown that it could be something else, we must consider it. The reason for so much defense regarding some of the UFO pics is that way too many people have come here solely to post things they know are "fake', just to get a rise out of believers. There is no doubt that the sole purpose of some here is to discredit or debunk something, even if it's the real deal.

We absolutely have to look at all the facts and eliminate the possibilities what something could be besides what it's purported to be. If it can be easily replicated is another factor. Believers in UFOs have been called loonies by MSM for so long, that we can't just sit back and say "there's proof" when it's a hubcap from a 72 Maverick. We try to debunk it, and sometimes, that leads to discovering it just may be real.

To find truth, you have to know what is a lie.

Ditto to you Divine!!! Most of what I learn is from the debunkers. You really have to know the subject in order to debunk it. I was almost convinced a few days ago that the wing on the 2nd 911 aircraft disappeared. A couple people convinced me otherwise. If it wasn't for them proving the wing didn't just disappear, I'd still be obsessing on that wing. Thanks to all debunkers.......just be gentle with us dummies.. As for ATS being disinfo...lMAO...too much truth here to be disinfo. Anyway, no matter where you go or what you read, eat the meat and spit out the bones. Thanks for the post!

reply to post by Puzzlemaniac


Oh, yeah. I saw that one about the wing too, and in fact, that same anomaly appears in another video, but in that one, the plane arrives in fram appearing to never had its right wing, much less disappear. I've worked in photog and video for over 20 years, and have seen this type of "trick" before, where something somewhat reflective seems to blend into the background at a given point. See, that jet comes from under the shadow of the smoke from the first attack, just before hitting the building. When the sunlight hits it, you got that "disappearing" wing effect.

Next time you watch a jet fly over, realize how white it appears against the blue sky. Yes, there are many many people here who act as disinfo.

To be honest, out here in the real world, if someone brings up UFOs, MJ-12, or whatever, I pretend I've never heard of mj-12, or that I don't believe in UFOs. I honestly don't know why, other than I just odn't trust people enough to actually discuss these topics "out here".

Is ATS a disinfo site? Doubtful. My opinion about this site being used for disinfo varies depending on the subject. But the opinion I am expressing here is only concerning the Aliens/UFO forum.

There is a 100% chance in my mind that there is no organized government disinfo on this site regarding aliens or ufos. Why? They don't need to. Everyone crying about disinfo this or disinfo that are all whining about those darn skeptics or debunkers being part of it. They don't understand the larger picture of how disinfo works.

Let me break it down for those that have not considered the larger picture. Disinfo is meant to throw the average joe off the subject. If this whole thing is real, then those that are in power know there will always be a certain segment of the population that will be extremely close to the truth, and they represent the highest priority to discredit in order to maintain secrecy.

Now, what is more efficient and what makes more sense here? Try to attack individual claims by sending legions of people out there that will push for mundane explanations to various internet claims? Keep in mind, these various internet claims amount to a hill of beans and don't reach any measurable portion of the country (I am writing this from an American standpoint). Or, wouldn't it be better to steer your disinfo resources into ensuring that the subject can't be taken seriously because it is viewed as laughable?

If I wanted to keep this subject controllable from a government secrecy standpoint, I would have started years ago with claims, pictures and stories that were ridiculous. After a while I would have a large amount of people that ignorantly believed my disninfo to the point they made up more on their own. Heck, in a little bit after that I would be able to lock up my disinfo office for good, because I have legions of "useful idiots" that do it for me, for free. And best of all, they believe 110% of what they say, they are better than any paid agent I could ever put out there using my plan.

So, are the skeptical minds here government disinfo agents, or are the dough eyed believers the remnants of a very successful disinfo campaign that was started decades ago?

I mean, the whole point of disinfo is to limit the amount of damage any leaked info can do. What better way than to make the signal to noise ratio so high that the major media can't really investigate it properly (other than an occasional lights in the sky mention) because when they try to, they instantly run into such an igorant mess of craziness they just throw their hands up and walk away.

Skeptics and those that want a little more than a youtube video showing blurry lights in the sky are not the reason the subject you love does not get the serious attention is deserves.

Think about what it.

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


Now, what is more efficient and what makes more sense here? Try to attack individual claims by sending legions of people out there that will push for mundane explanations to various internet claims? Keep in mind, these various internet claims amount to a hill of beans and don't reach any measurable portion of the country (I am writing this from an American standpoint). Or, wouldn't it be better to steer your disinfo resources into ensuring that the subject can't be taken seriously because it is viewed as laughable

Would that be as happened in the wake of 9-11 when a hell of a lot less of the world was on line, with the Swiss site that had a video that claimed to show the attack on the Pentagon. How it was blocked from anyone in the USA being able to view it inside 90 minutes of it being posted? I know it was blocked for a fact, as I had several American friends unsuccessfully attempt to access it.

On a lighter note, the forum i visit for the football team i support has managed on 2 occasions to start wholly untrue rumours about players, that have made the national press inside 24 hours as *facts*.

On a buisness note, the latest mixing desk by Allen and Heath was designed, pretty much, in co-operation with a professional recording site's forum, even down to the projected price people felt it should cost.

The net is, these days, pretty much all powerful, be that for good or for worse.

reply to post by Shades1035


Hmmmmm, well that a pretty broad stroke statement. Is it possible that some use this site to dis-inform? Yup. Does that mean that ATS is a disinfo site? No. As with anything else of this nature my recommendation follows the old axiom,"Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see." It is on us the users of this site to figure out whether something is bunk, or not. Don't blame the medium.

reply to post by Shades1035

Well, for me personally i know i've seen two UFO's......one in broad daylight with the Mrs, and one on my own at night taking the wheelie bin out (approximately 2 years apart). Just who was flying these things i don't know. They were both completely different.

But what i do know is this is the place to get lots of input from die hard supporters and skeptics alike, and i would rather hear 100 people of varying backgrounds and opinions as opposed to 100 fanatics telling me "Yeah mate, that's the mother ship from Sirius you saw, no doubt about it!", when all i probably saw was a zeppelin (or a garbage bag, duck, glow worm..etc.)

This is why i spend more time reading than posting, and this in turn helps me differentiate between the weird and the mundane. It's healthy, and i learn a lot.

I do not think that it is a disinfo site. I do see a lot of character assassination. Also some concepts are completly destroyed without justification (such as rods and skyfish). It is a folly to maintain that ALL rods are digital camera effects and consign such posts to the Hoax forum. I have seen completly shocked witnesses having to reluctanly give in to the 'experts' even though their rods measured over 2 or 3 meters and went behind chimneys and trees as shown on film.

I put it all down to fear. A fear that a held belief may be jeopardised.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


You mean the little minds that resort to berating people who join the site to post about things they've seen in the sky?

Not all of them are disinfo agents. Some are folks who are genuinely interested in what they saw. I'm sure they aren't interested in being berated by wanna-be debunkers and so-called skeptics.

reply to post by Shades1035


Surely one can find lots of disinformation within ATS board. But I don't know whether the purpose of the site is that, or just to provide conversational space for tinfoilhats and keep em entertained, so that they too can feel amused in the voidness of life

-v