| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disinformation Tactics & Strategy
|
|
Rules for Red Tory to Live By::
The following is provided as is.
It has been reproduced because
its [correlative thinking] or
knowledge is important. It will
help those who [lack resistance]
to the nay sayers.
Built upon Thirteen Techniques
for Truth Suppression by David
Martin, the following may be
useful to the initiate in the
world of dealing with truth,
lies, and suppression of truth
when serious crimes are studied
in public forums.
Where the crime involves a
conspiracy, or a conspiracy to
cover up the crime, there will
invariably be a disinformation
campaign launched against those
seeking to uncover and expose
the conspiracy. There are
specific tactics which disinfo
artists tend to apply, as
revealed here.
Also included
with this material [Mind
Link Control Guide] are seven
common traits of the disinfo
artist which may also prove
useful in identifying players
and motives. The more a
particular party fits the traits
and is guilty of following the
rules, the more likely they are
a professional disinfo artist
with a vested motive.
Understand that when the those
seeking resolution of such
crimes proceed in attempting to
uncover truth, they try their
best to present factual
information constructed as an
argument for a particular chain
of evidence towards a particular
solution to the crime. This can
be a largely experimental
process via trial and error,
with a theory developed over
time to perfection or defeated
by the process. This is their
most vulnerable time, the time
when a good disinfo artist can
do the greatest harm to the
process.
A rational person participating
as one interested in the truth
will evaluate that chain of
evidence and conclude either
that the links are solid and
conclusive, that one or more
links are weak and need further
development before conclusions
can be arrived at, or that one
or more links can be broken,
usually invalidating [but not
necessarily so, if parallel
links already exist or can be
found, or if a particular link
was merely supportive, but not
in itself key] the argument. The
game is played by raising issues
which either strengthen or
weaken [preferably to the point
of breaking] these links.
|
|
It is the job of a disinfo
artist to at least make people
think the links are weak or
broken when, in truth, they are
not.
It would seem true in almost
every instance, that if one
cannot break the chain of
evidence, revelation of truth
has won out. If the chain is
broken, either a new link must
be forged, or a whole new chain
developed, or the basis is lost,
but truth still wins out. There
is no shame in being the creator
or supporter of a failed chain,
if done with honesty in search
of the truth. This is the
rational approach. While it is
understandable that a person can
become emotionally involved with
a particular side of a given
issue, it is really unimportant
who wins, as long as truth wins.
But the disinfo artist will seek
to emotionalize and chastise any
failure [real or false claims
thereof], and will seek to
prevent new links from being
forged by a kind of
intimidation.
It is the disinfo artist and
those who may pull his strings
who stand to suffer should the
crime be solved, and therefore,
who stand to benefit should it
be the opposite outcome. In ANY
such case, they MUST seek to
prevent rational and complete
examination of any chain of
evidence which would hang them.
Since fact and truth seldom fall
on their own, they must be
overcome with lies and deceit.
Those who are professional in
the art of lies and deceit, such
as the intelligence community
and the professional criminal
[often the same people or at
least working together], tend to
apply fairly well defined and
observable tools in this
process. However, the public at
large is not well armed against
such weapons, and is often
easily led astray by these
time-proven tactics.
The overall aim is to avoid
discussing links in the chain of
evidence which cannot be broken
by truth, but at all times, to
use clever deceptions or lies to
make the links seem weaker than
they are, or better still, cause
any who are considering the
chain to be distracted in any
number of ways, including the
method of questioning the
credentials of the presenter.
Please understand that fact is
fact, regardless of the source.
Truth is truth, regardless of
the source. This is why
criminals are allowed to testify
against other criminals. Where a
motive to lie may truly exist,
only actual evidence that the
testimony itself IS a lie
renders it completely invalid.
Were a known "liar's" testimony
to stand on its own without
supporting fact, it might
certainly be of questionable
value, but if the testimony
(argument) is based on
verifiable or otherwise
demonstrable facts, it matters
not who does the presenting or
what their motives are, or if
they have lied in the past or
even if motivated to lie in this
instance -- the facts or links
would and should stand or fall
on their own merit, and their
part in the matter will merely
be supportive.
Moreover, particularly with
respect to public forums such as
newspaper letters to the editor,
and Internet chat and News
Groups, the disinfo type has a
very important role. In these
forums, the principle topics of
discussion are generally
attempts by individuals to cause
other persons to become
interested in their own
particular problem, position, or
idea -- usually ideas,
postulations, or theories, which
are in development at the time.
People often use such mediums as
a sounding board and in hopes of
pollenization to better form
their ideas.
Where such ideas are critical of
government or powerful, vested
groups (especially if their
criminality is the topic), the
disinfo artist has yet another
role -- the role of nipping it
in the bud. They also seek to
stage the concept, the
presenter, and any supporters as
less than credible, should any
possible future confrontation in
more public forums result, due
to successes in seeking a final
truth. You can often spot the disinfo
types at work by
the unique application of
"higher standards" of discussion
than necessarily warranted. They
will demand that those
presenting arguments or concepts
back everything up with the same
level of expertise as a
professor, researcher, or
investigative writer. Anything
less renders any discussion
meaningless and unworthy in
their opinion, and anyone who
disagrees is obviously stupid.
So, as you read in the News
Groups the various discussions
on various matters, decide for
yourself when a rational
argument is being applied and
when disinformation, psyops
[psychological warfare
operations] or trickery is the
tool. Accuse those guilty of the
latter freely. They [both those
deliberately seeking to lead you
astray, and those who are simply
foolish or misguided thinkers]
generally run for cover when
thus illuminated, or -- put in
other terms, they put up or shut
up [a perfectly acceptable
outcome either way, since truth
is the goal].
Here are the twenty-five methods
and six traits, some of which
don't apply directly to NG
application. Each contains a
simple example in the form of
actual paraphrases from NG
comments or commonly known
historical events, and a proper
response.
Accusations should not be
overused -- reserve for repeat
offenders and those who use
multiple tactics. Responses
should avoid falling into
emotional traps or informational
sidetracks, unless it is feared
that some observers will be
easily dissuaded by the
trickery. Consider quoting the
complete rule rather than simply
citing it, as others will not
have reference. Offer to provide
a complete copy of the rule sent
upon request [see permissions
statement at end]:
|
Twenty-Five Rules of
Disinformation ::
Note: The first rule and last
five [or six, depending on
situation] rules are generally
not directly within the ability
of the traditional disinfo
artist to apply. These rules are
generally used more directly by
those at the leadership, key
players, or planning level of
the criminal conspiracy or
conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil,
speak no evil. Regardless of
what you know, don't discuss it
-- especially if you are a
public figure, news anchor, etc.
If it's not reported, it didn't
happen, and you never have to
deal with the issues.
Example: Media was present in
the courtroom when in Hunt vs.
Liberty Lobby when CIA agent Marita Lorenz "confession"
testimony regarding CIA direct
participation in the planning
and assassination of John
Kennedy was revealed. All media
reported is that E. Howard Hunt
lost his libel case against
Liberty Lobby [Spotlight had
reported he was in Dallas that
day and were sued for the
story]. See Mark Lane's
Plausible Denial for the full
confessional transcript.
Proper response: There is no
possible response unless you are
aware of the material and can
make it public yourself. In any
such attempt, be certain to
target any known silent party as
likely complicit in a cover up.
2. Become incredulous and
indignant. Avoid discussing key
issues and instead focus on side
issues which can be used show
the topic as being critical of
some otherwise sacrosanct group
or theme. This is also known as
the "How dare you!" gambit.
Example: "How dare you suggest
that the Branch Davidians were
murdered! The FBI and BATF are
made up of America's finest and
best trained law enforcement,
operate under the strictest of
legal requirements, and are
under the finest leadership the
President could want to
appoint."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the Waco issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
high opinion of FBI is not
founded in fact. All you need do
is examine Ruby Ridge and any
number of other examples, and
you will see a pattern that
demands attention to charges
against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do
you refuse to address the issues
with disinformation tactics
[rule 2 - become incredulous and
indignant]?
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid
discussing issues by describing
all charges, regardless of venue
or evidence, as mere rumors and
wild accusations. Other
derogatory terms mutually
exclusive of truth may work as
well.
This method works especially
well with a silent press,
because the only way the public
can learn of the facts are
through such "arguable rumors".
If you can associate the
material with the Internet, use
this fact to certify it a "wild
rumor" which can have no basis
in fact.
Example:
"You can't prove his material
was legitimately from French
Intelligence. Pierre Salinger
had a chance to show his 'proof'
that flight 800 was brought down
by friendly fire, and he didn't.
All he really had was the same
old baseless rumor that's been
floating around the Internet for
months."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. The
Internet charge reported widely
is based on a single FBI
interview statement to media and
a supportive statement by a
Congressman who has not actually
seen Pierre's document. As the
FBI is being accused in
participating in a cover up of
this matter and Pierre claims
his material is not Internet
sourced, it is natural that FBI
would have reason to paint his
material in a negative light.
For you to assume the FBI to
have no bias in the face of
Salinger's credentials and
unchanged stance suggests you
are biased. At the best you can
say the matter is in question.
Further, to imply that material
found on Internet is worthless
is not founded. At best you may
say it must be considered
carefully before accepting it,
which will require addressing
the actual issues. Why do you
refuse to address these issues
with disinformation tactics
[rule 3 - create rumor mongers]?
4. Use a straw man. Find or
create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you
can easily knock down to make
yourself look good and the
opponent to look bad. Either
make up an issue you may safely
imply exists based on your
interpretation of the
opponent/opponent
arguments/situation, or select
the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their
significance and destroy them in
a way which appears to debunk
all the charges, real and
fabricated alike, while actually
avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
Example: When trying to defeat
reports by the Times of London
that spy-sat images reveal an
object racing towards and
striking flight 800, a straw man
is used. "If these exist, the
public has not seen them."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. You
imply deceit and deliberately
establish an impossible and
unwarranted test. It is
perfectly natural that the
public has not seen them, nor
will they for some considerable
time, if ever. To produce them
would violate national security
with respect to intelligence
gathering capabilities and
limitations, and you should know
this. Why do you refuse to
address the issues with such
disinformation tactics (rule 4 -
use a straw man)?
5. Sidetrack opponents with name
calling and ridicule. This is
also known as the primary attack
the messenger ploy, though other
methods qualify as variants of
that approach. Associate
opponents with unpopular titles
such as "kooks", "right-wing",
"liberal", "left-wing",
"terrorists", "conspiracy
buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics",
"sexual deviates", and so forth.
This makes others shrink from
support out of fear of gaining
the same label, and you avoid
dealing with issues.
Example: "You believe what you
read in the Spotlight? The
Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a
well-known right-wing racist. I
guess we know your politics --
does your Bible have a swastika
on it? That certainly explains
why you support this wild-eyed,
right-wing conspiracy theory."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
imply guilt by association and
attack truth on the basis of the
messenger. The Spotlight is a
well known Populist media
source, responsible for
releasing facts and stories well
before mainstream media will
discuss the issues through their
veil of silence. Why do you
refuse to address the issues by
use of such disinformation
tactics [rule 5 - sidetrack
opponents with name calling and
ridicule]?
6. Hit and Run. In any public
forum, make a brief attack on
your opponent or the opponent
position and then scamper off
before an answer can be fielded,
or simply ignore any answer.
This works extremely well in
Internet and
letters-to-the-editor
environments, where a steady
stream of new identities can be
called upon without having to
explain criticism or reasoning
-- simply make an accusation or
other attack, never discussing
issues, and never answering any
subsequent response, for that
would dignify the opponent's
viewpoint.
Example: "This stuff is garbage.
Where do you conspiracy lunatics
come up with this crap? I hope
you all get run over by black
helicopters." Notice it even has
a farewell sound to it, so it
won't seem curious if the author
is never heard from again.
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
comments or opinions fail to
offer any meaningful dialog or
information, and are worthless
except to pander to
emotionalism, and in fact,
reveal you to be emotionally
insecure with these matters. Why
do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such
disinformation tactics [rule 6 -
hit and run]?
7. Question motives. Twist or
amplify any fact which could so
taken to imply that the opponent
operates out of a hidden
personal agenda or other bias.
This avoids discussing issues
and forces the accuser on the
defensive.
Example: "With the talk-show
circuit and the book deal, it
looks like you can make a pretty
good living spreading lies."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
imply guilt as a means of
attacking the messenger or his
credentials, but cowardly fail
to offer any concrete evidence
that this is so. Why do you
refuse to address the issues by
use of such disinformation
tactics [rule 6 - question
motives]?
8. Invoke authority. Claim for
yourself or associate yourself
with authority and present your
argument with enough "jargon"
and "minutia" to illustrate you
are "one who knows", and simply
say it isn't so, without
discussing issues or
demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
Example:
"You obviously know nothing
about either the politics or
strategic considerations, much
less the technicals of the
SR-71. Incidentally, for those
who might care, that sleek plane
is started with a pair of souped
up big-block V-8's [originally,
Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450
CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race
Isky cams -- for 850 combined
BHP @ 6,500 RPM] using a
dragster-style clutch with
direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I
can tell you with confidence
that no Blackbird has ever been
flown by Korean nationals , none
have ever been trained to fly
it, and none have flown over the
Republic of China in a SR or
even launched a drone from it
that flew over China. I'm not
authorized to discuss if there
have been overflights by
American pilots."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
imply your own authority and
expertise but fail to provide
credentials, and you also fail
to address issues and cite
sources. Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics
[rule 8 - invoke authority]?
9. Play Dumb. No matter what
evidence or logical argument is
offered, avoid discussing issues
with denial that they have any
credibility, make any sense,
provide any proof, contain or
make a point, have logic, or
support a conclusion. Mix well
for maximum effect.
Example: "Nothing you say makes
any sense. Your logic is
idiotic. Your facts nonexistent.
Better go back to the drawing
board and try again."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
evade the issues with your own
form of nonsense while others,
perhaps more intelligent than
you pretend to be, have no
trouble with the material. Why
do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such
disinformation tactics [rule 9 -
play dumb]?
10. Associate opponent charges
with old news. A derivative of
the straw man -- usually, in any
large-scale matter of high
visibility, someone will make
charges early on which can be or
were already easily dealt with.
Where it can be foreseen, have
your own side raise a straw man
issue and have it dealt with
early on as part of the initial
contingency plans. Subsequent
charges, regardless of validity
or new ground uncovered, can
usually the be associated with
the original charge and
dismissed as simply being a
rehash without need to address
current issues -- so much the
better where the opponent is or
was involved with the original
source.
Example: "Flight 553's crash was
pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new
witnesses who say the CIA
brought it down at a selected
spot and were waiting for it
with 50 agents won't revive that
old dead horse buried by NTSB
more than twenty years ago."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
ignore the issues and imply they
are old charges as if new
information is irrelevant. Why
do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such
disinformation tactics [rule 10
- associate charges with old
news]?
|
11. Establish and rely upon
fall-back positions. Using a
minor matter or element of the
facts, take the "high road" and
"confess" with candor that some
innocent mistake, in hindsight,
was made -- but that opponents
have seized on the opportunity
to blow it all out of proportion
and imply greater criminalities
which, "just isn't so." Others
can reinforce this on your
behalf, later. Done properly,
this can garner sympathy and
respect for "coming clean" and
"owning up" to your mistakes
without addressing more serious
issues.
Example: "Reno admitted in
hindsight she should have taken
more time to question the data
provided by subordinates on the
deadliness of CS-4 and the
likely Davidian response to its
use, but she was so concerned
about the children that she
elected, in what she now
believes was a sad and terrible
mistake, to order the tear gas
be used."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
evade the true issue by focusing
on a side issue in an attempt to
evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did
not know that CIA Public
Relations expert Mark Richards
was called in to help Janet Reno
with the Waco aftermath
response? How warm and fuzzy
feeling it makes us, so much so
that we are to ignore more
important matters? Why do you
refuse to address the issues by
use of such disinformation
tactics [rule 11 - establish and
rely upon fall-back positions]?
11. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall
umbrella of events surrounding
the crime and the multitude of
players and events, paint the
entire affair as too complex to
solve. This causes those
otherwise following the matter
to begin to loose interest more
quickly without having to
address the actual issues.
Example: "I don't see how you
can claim Vince Foster was
murdered since you can't prove a
motive. Before you could do
that, you would have to
completely solve the whole
controversy over everything that
went on in the White House and
Arkansas, and even then, you
would have to know a heck of a
lot more about what went on
within the NSA, the Travel
Office, and on, and on, and on.
It's hopeless. Give it up."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
completely evade issues and
attempt others from daring to
attempt it by making it a much
bigger mountain than necessary.
Why do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such
disinformation tactics [rule 12
- enigmas have no solution]?
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues
by reasoning backwards with an
apparent deductive logic in a
way that forbears any actual
material fact.
Example: "The news media
operates in a fiercely
competitive market where stories
are gold. This means they dig,
dig, dig for the story -- often
doing a better job than law
enforcement. If there was any
evidence that BATF had prior
knowledge of the Oklahoma City
bombing, they would surely have
uncovered it and reported it.
They haven't reported it, so
there can't have been any prior
knowledge. Put up or shut up."
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
backwards logic does not work
here. Has media reported CIA
killed Kennedy when they knew
it? No, despite their presence
at a courtroom testimony
"confession" by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial
between E. Howard Hunt and
Liberty Lobby, they only told us
the trial verdict. Why do you
refuse to address the issues by
use of such disinformation
tactics [rule 13 - Alice in
Wonderland logic]?
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring
opponents to solve the crime at
hand completely, a ploy which
works best items qualifying for
rule 10.
Example: "Since you know so
much, if James Earl Ray is
innocent as you claim, who
really killed Martin Luther
King, how was it planned and
executed, how did they frame Ray
and fool the FBI, and why?"
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. It is
not necessary to completely
resolve any full matter in order
to examine any relative attached
issue. Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics
[rule 14 - demand complete
solutions]?
15. Fit the facts to alternate
conclusions. This requires
creative thinking unless the
crime was planned with
contingency conclusions in
place.
Example: The best definitive
example of avoiding issues by
this technique is, perhaps,
Arlen Specter's Magic Bullet
from the Warren Report.
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your
imaginative twisting of facts
rivals that of Arlen Specter's
Magic Bullet in the Warren
Report. We all know why the
magic bullet was invented. Why
do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such
disinformation tactics [rule 15
- invoke authority]?
16. Vanish evidence and
witnesses. If it does not exist,
it is not fact, and you won't
have to address the issue.
Example: "You can't say Paisley
is still alive... that his death
was faked and the list of CIA
agents found on his boat
deliberately placed there to
support a purge at CIA. You have
no proof. Why can't you accept
the Police reports?"
True, since the dental records
and autopsy report showing his
body was two inches too long and
the teeth weren't his were lost
right after his wife demanded
inquiry, and since his body was
cremated before she could view
it -- all that remains are the
Police Reports. Handy.
Proper response: There is no
suitable response to actual
vanished materials or persons,
unless you can shed light on the
matter, particularly if you can
tie the event to a cover up or
other criminality. However, with
respect to dialog where it is
used against the discussion, you
can respond... You are avoiding
the issue with disinformation
tactics. The best you can say is
that the matter is in contention
based on highly suspicious
matters which themselves tend to
support the primary allegation.
Why do you refuse to address the
remaining issues by use of such
disinformation tactics [rule 16
- vanish evidence and
witnesses]?
17. Change the subject. Usually
in connection with one of the
other ploys listed here, find a
way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial
comments in hopes of turning
attention to a new, more
manageable topic. This works
especially well with companions
who can "argue" with you over
the new topic and polarize the
discussion arena in order to
avoid discussing more key
issues.
Example: "There were no CIA
drugs and was no drug money
laundering through Mena,
Arkansas, and certainly, there
was no Bill Clinton knowledge of
it because it simply didn't
happen. This is merely an
attempt by his opponents to put
Clinton off balance and at a
disadvantage in the election
because Dole is such a weak
candidate with nothing to offer
that they are desperate to come
up with something to swing the
polls. Dole simply has no real
platform."
Response: "You idiot! Dole has
the clearest vision of what's
wrong with Government since
McGovern. Clinton is only
interested in raping the
economy, the environment, and
every woman he can get his hands
on..." One naturally feels
compelled, regardless of party
of choice, to jump in
defensively on that one.
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. You
evade discussion of the issues
by attempting to sidetrack us
with an emotional response -- a
trap which we will not fall into
willingly. If you truly believe
such political rhetoric, please
drop out of this discussion, as
it is not germane unless you can
provide concrete facts to
support your contentions of
relevance. Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics
(rule 17- change the subject)?
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize,
and Goad Opponents. If you can't
do anything else, chide and
taunt your opponents and draw
them into emotional responses
which will tend to make them
look foolish and overly
motivated, and generally render
their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you
avoid discussing the issues in
the first instance, but even if
their emotional response
addresses the issue, you can
further avoid the issues by then
focusing on how "sensitive they
are to criticism".
Example: "You are such an idiot
to think that possible -- or are
you such a paranoid conspiracy
buff that you think the 'gubment'
is cooking your pea-brained
skull with microwaves, which is
the only justification you might
have for dreaming up this
drivel." After a drawing an
emotional response: "Ohhh... I
do seemed to have touched a
sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk.
What's the matter? The truth too
hot for you to handle? Perhaps
you should stop relying on the
Psychic Friends Network and see
a psychiatrist for some real
professional help..."
Proper response: "You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. You
attempt to draw me into
emotional response without
discussion of the issues. If you
have something useful to
contribute which defeats my
argument, let's here it --
preferably without snide and
unwarranted personal attacks, if
you can manage to avoid sinking
so low.
Your useless rhetoric serves no
purpose here if that is all you
can manage. Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics
(rule 18 - emotionalize,
antagonize, and goad opponents)?
19. Ignore proof presented,
demand impossible proofs. This
is perhaps a variant of the
"play dumb" rule. Regardless of
what material may be presented
by an opponent in public forums,
claim the material irrelevant
and demand proof that is
impossible for the opponent to
come by [it may exist, but not
be at his disposal, or it may be
something which is known to be
safely destroyed or withheld,
such as a murder weapon]. In
order to completely avoid
discussing issues may require
you to categorically deny and be
critical of media or books as
valid sources, deny that
witnesses are acceptable, or
even deny that statements made
by government or other
authorities have any meaning or
relevance.
Example: "All he's done is to
quote the liberal media and a
bunch of witnesses who aren't
qualified. Where's his proof?
Show me wreckage from flight 800
that shows a missile hit it!"
Proper response: You are
avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. You
presume for us not to accept Don
Phillips, reporter for the
Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig
Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters
for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or
Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta
Jr., reporters for the New York
Times, or Pat Milton, wire
reporter for the Associated
Press -- as being able to tell
us anything useful about the
facts in this matter. Neither
would you allow us to accept
Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman
of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa
Jr., Special Agent In Charge of
the New York Office of the F.B.I.,
Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk
County Medical Examiner, the
Pathologist examining the
bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers,
crash investigators, or other
cited officials, including
Boeing Aircraft representatives
a part of the crash
investigative team -- as a
qualified party in this matter,
and thus, dismisses this
material out of hand. Good
logic, -- about as good as
saying 150 eye witnesses aren't
qualified. Only YOU are
qualified to tell us what to
believe? Witnesses be damned?
Radar tracks be damned?
Satellite tracks be damned?
Reporters be damned? Photographs
be damned? Government statements
be damned? Is there a pattern
here? Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics
[rule 19 - ignore proof
presented, demand impossible
proofs]?
20. False evidence. Whenever
possible, introduce new facts or
clues designed and manufactured
to conflict with opponent
presentations as useful tools to
neutralize sensitive issues or
impede resolution. This works
best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the
purpose, and the facts cannot be
easily separated from the
fabrications.
Example: Jack Ruby warned the
Warren Commission that the white
Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in
the assassination. This was a
handy "confession", since Jack
and Earl were both on the same
team in terms of the cover up,
and since it is now known that
Jack worked directly with CIA in
the assassination.
Proper response: This one can be
difficult to respond to unless
you see it clearly, such as in
the following example, where
more is known today than earlier
in time... You are avoiding the
issue with disinformation
tactics. Your information is
known to have designed to side
track this issue. As revealed by
CIA operative Marita Lorenz
under oath offered in court in
E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty
Lobby, CIA operatives met with
Jack Ruby in Dallas the night
before the assassination of JFK
to distribute guns and money.
Clearly, Ruby was a
coconspirator whose "Solidarist
confession" was meant to
sidetrack any serious
investigation of the murder. Why
do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such
disinformation tactics [rule 20
- false evidence]?
|
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special
Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body. Subvert the
process to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all
sensitive issues without open
discussion. Once convened, the
evidence and testimony are
required to be secret when
properly handled. For instance,
if you own the prosecuting
attorney, it can insure a Grand
Jury hears no useful evidence
and that the evidence is sealed
an unavailable to subsequent
investigators. Once a favorable
verdict [usually, this technique
is applied to find the guilty
innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when
seeking to frame a victim] is
achieved, the matter can be
considered officially closed.
Example: According to one
Oklahoma bombing Grand Juror who
violated the law to speak the
truth, jurors were, contrary to
law, denied the power of
subpoena of witness of their
choosing, denied the power of
asking witnesses questions of
their choosing, and relegated to
hearing only evidence
prosecution wished them to hear,
evidence which clearly seemed
fraudulent and intended to paint
conclusions other than facts
actually suggested.
Proper response: There is
usually no adequate response to
this tactic except to complain
loudly at any sign of its
application, particularly with
respect to any possible cover
up.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s),
group(s), author(s), leader(s)
or influence existing ones
willing to forge new ground via
scientific, investigative, or
social research or testimony
which concludes favorably. In
this way, if you must actually
address issues, you can do so
authoritatively.
Example: The False Memory
Syndrome Foundation and American
Family Foundation and American
and Canadian Psychiatric
Associations fall into this
category, as their founding
members and/or leadership
include key persons associated
with CIA Mind Control research.
Not so curious, then, that [in a
perhaps oversimplified
explanation here] these
organizations focus on, by means
of their own "research
findings", that there is no such
thing as Mind Control.
Proper response: Unless you are
in a position to be well versed
in the topic and know of the
background and relationships
involved in the opponent
organization, you are well
equipped to fight this tactic.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be
working to distract from
sensitive issues, or to prevent
unwanted media coverage of
unstoppable events such as
trials, create bigger news
stories (or treat them as such)
to distract the multitudes.
Example: To distract the public
over the progress of a WTC
bombing trial that seems to be
uncovering nasty ties to the
intelligence community, have an
endless discussion of skaters
whacking other skaters on the
knee. To distract the public
over the progress of the Waco
trials that have the potential
to reveal government sponsored
murder, have an O.J. summer. To
distract the public over an ever
disintegrating McVeigh trial
situation and the danger of
exposing government
involvements, come up with
something else (any day now) to
talk about -- keeping in the
sports theme, how about sports
fans shooting referees and
players during a game and the
whole gun control thing?
Proper response: The best you
can do is attempt to keep public
debate and interest in the true
issues alive and point out that
the "news flap" or other evasive
tactic serves the interests of
your opponents.
24. Silence critics. If the
above methods do not prevail,
consider removing opponents from
circulation by some definitive
solution so that the need to
address issues is removed
entirely. This can be by their
death, arrest and detention,
blackmail or destruction of
their character by release of
blackmail information, or merely
by proper intimidation with
blackmail or other threats.
Example: As experienced by
certain proponents of friendly
fire theories with respect to
flight 800 -- send in FBI agents
to intimidate and threaten that
if they persisted further they
would be subject to charges of
aiding and abetting Iranian
terrorists, of failing to
register as a foreign agents, or
any other trumped up charges. If
this doesn't work, you can
always plant drugs and bust
them.
Proper response: You have three
defensive alternatives if you
think yourself potential victim
of this ploy. One is to stand
and fight regardless. Another is
to create for yourself an
insurance policy which will
point to your opponents in the
event of any unpleasantness, a
matter which requires superior
intelligence information on your
opponents and great care in
execution to avoid dangerous
pitfalls [see The Professional
Paranoid by this author for
suggestions on how this might be
done]. The last alternative is
to cave in or run (same thing).
25. Vanish. If you are a key
holder of secrets or otherwise
overly illuminated and you think
the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the
kitchen.
Example: Do a Robert Vesco and
retire to the Caribbean. If you
don't, somebody in your
organization may choose to
vanish you the way of Vince
Foster or Ron Brown.
Proper response: You will likely
not have a means to attack this
method, except to focus on the
vanishing in hopes of uncovering
it was by foul play as part of a
deliberate cover up.
Note: There are other ways to
attack truth, but these listed
are the most common, and others
are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot
the professional disinfo players
by one or more of seven distinct
traits:
1) They never actually discuss
issues head on or provide
constructive input, generally
avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they
merely imply this, that, and the
other. Virtually everything
about their presentation implies
their authority and expert
knowledge in the matter without
any further justification for
credibility.
2) They tend to pick and choose
their opponents carefully,
either applying the hit-and-run
approach against mere
commentators supportive of
opponents, or focusing heavier
attacks on key opponents who are
known to directly address
issues. Should a commentator
become argumentative with any
success, the focus will shift to
include the commentator as well.
3) They tend to surface suddenly
and somewhat coincidentally with
a controversial topic with no
clear prior record of
participation in general
discussion in the particular
public arena. They likewise tend
to vanish once the topic is no
longer of general concern. They
were likely directed or elected
to be there for a reason, and
vanish with the reason.
4) 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.
5) Their disdain for "conspiracy
theorists" and, usually, for
those who in any way believe JFK
was not killed by LHO. Ask
yourself why, if they hold such
disdain for conspiracy
theorists, do they focus on
defending a single topic
discussed in a NG 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.
6) 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 presentation.
But disinfo types usually have
trouble maintaining the "image"
and are hot and cold with
respect to emotions they pretend
to have and the more calm or
normal communications which are
not emotional. It's just a job,
and they often seem unable to
"act their role in type" as well
in a communications medium as
they might be able in a real
face-to-face conversation /
confrontation. You might have
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 their 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.
7) There is also a tendancy 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. I have noted
that often, they will simply
cite contradictory information
which neutralizes itself and the
author. For instance, one such
player claimed to be a Navy
pilot, but blamed his poor
communicating skills (spelling,
grammar, incoherent style) on
having only a grade-school
education. I'm not aware of too
many Navy pilots who don't have
a college degree. Another
claimed no knowledge of a
particular topic/situation but
later claimed first-hand
knowledge of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Home |
Site Map |
Donations |
Comments | Back To Top
| |
FAIR USE NOTICE: This website may contain
information that has not always been
authorized by the copyright owner. It is made available
legally and for advancement and understanding in science,
astronomy, chemistry, quantum physics, mathematics,
geometry, including social, environmental, and
philosophical
issues. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
website for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair
use', please obtain permission from the copyright owner.
All the information on this website is presented to the
reader as a way to "increase awareness from knowledge" and
each individual must determine their level of awareness
inside their own mind. (This is the only area left you
really own unless you lost it or sold it.)
Copyright © 2006-2008 Celestial Passages, R. Mark Sink, All
rights reserved. "Celestial Passages", "Greener Lights",
"Lost
Doctrine"
are trademarks of R. Mark Sink. |
|
|
|
