 |
 |
|
|
Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial
use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information
in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Light vs.
Shadow home page:
http://www.teleport.com/~sweenfam/lightshadow.html
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 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 conclusion 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 emotionalise 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 respects 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
pollination 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 here 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 here in the NGs 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 later 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 form 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 side-tracks, 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 set 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 liable 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 rumour mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges,
regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumours and wild accusations. Other
derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which
works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can
learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumours". If you can associate the
material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumour" which
can have no basis in fact.
"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 rumour 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 rumour 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.
Side-track 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 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 - side-track opponents with name calling and
ridicule)?
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of
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 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 dialogue 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.
"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 have
ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of
China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not
authorised to discuss if there have been over flights 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 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
non-existent. 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 them 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 candour
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)?
12. 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, Arlan 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 Arlan 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 two 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 dialogue 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 polarise 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. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to side-track 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. Emotionalise,
Antagonise, 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 hear 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 - emotionalise,
antagonise, 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 neutralise 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 been 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 co-conspirator whose "Solidarist confession" was
meant to side-track 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
neutralise 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 and unavailable to subsequent
investigators. Once a favourable 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 OK 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
favourably. 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 organisations 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 organisation, 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 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 organisation 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 non-acceptance. 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 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. I have noted that often, they will simply cite
contradictory information which neutralises 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.
I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my book, Fatal
Rebirth:
Truth cannot live on
a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a
diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot
live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of
evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such
evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let
us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish
in an evil world. 