AlienScientist Homepage
  AS YouTube Channel technology technology chemistry
  AS YouTube Channel technology technology chemistry

Disinformation & Misinformation

Disinformation is spread deliberately by infiltration groups for a variety of reasons, many of which are described in the article below. Disinformation is spread with the deliberate motive to misinform, mislead, distract, discredit, neutralize, intercept, encapsulate, or any of a variety of tactics meant to prevent the real truth from ever surfacing.

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation by motive in that misinformation is simply erroneous, while disinformation, in contrast, is intended to mislead.

Adam Makkai proposes the distinction between misinformation and disinformation to be a defining characteristic of idioms in the English language. An utterance is only idiomatic if it involves disinformation, where the listener can decode the utterance in a logical, and lexically correct, yet erroneous way. Where the listener simply decodes the lexemes incorrectly, the utterance is simply misinformation, and not idiomatic.

^ Adam Makkai (1970). "Statistical Aspects of Phrasal Verb Idioms in Modern English". Proceedings of the Xth international congress of linguists, Bucharest, 1967. pp. 969972.


Disinformation Techniques

Poisoning the Well

Method: Placing lies alongside the truth, in order to discredit the truth by association. Your mark will pick up and pass on the disinfo alongside the real information you wish to disguise or conceal, thereby discrediting himself and any real information he may have disclosed.

Well poisoning muddies the water, and makes the facts harder to resolve.

The Red Herring - False Lead

The term "Red Herring" comes from a practice of dragging a herring along the ground to create a false scent trail. "Red Herrings" refer to a specific type of diversionary tactic whereby a false trail or lead is created to send the dogs (or your mark) chasing a different scent than they were originally after.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the Red Herring:

The red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.

The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.

Bait & Switch

Method: A "Bait & Switch" in counter-intelligence, is different than the more commonly known Bait & Switch tactic of Retail Fraud. In counter-intelligence, a Bait & Switch is when fake documents are substituted for real documents, in order to discredit the real ones if they are ever released later in the future. The real documents will be discredited by association with the fake ones.

Example: Fake documents were released to CBS's 60 Minutes depicting George W. Bush's tarnished National Guard record. The documents were soon proven fakes, and later when the real documents came out, they received little attention because of the negative association with the fake documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

From Wikipedia

The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard in 1972-73. Four of these documents[2] were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents.[3][4][5] Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the documents are blatant forgeries,[6][7] as have most media sources. No forensic document examiners or typography experts have authenticated the documents, and this may not be technically possible without original documents.[8] The provider of the documents, Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, claims to have burned the originals after faxing copies to CBS.[9]

CBS News producer Mary Mapes obtained the copied documents from Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard, while pursuing a story about the George W. Bush military service controversy. The papers, purportedly made by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s. In the 60 Minutes segment, anchor Dan Rather stated: "We are told [the documents] were taken from Lieutenant Colonel Killian?s personal files"[10] and incorrectly asserted that "the material" had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS.[11]

The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media.[12] Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the documents for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from other news organizations and independent analysis of the documents obtained by USA Today and CBS raised questions about their validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now ? I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[13] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[15] CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate them and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."

The Insider Strawman aka The Plant

Method: Demonize activists or other messengers of truth by having one of your guys pose as a member of the target group, then have your plant disseminate false information or take actions which will discredit or demonize the target group by association.

Example: In the documentary "Promise Land" it depicts Gas fracking companies using fake environmentalists, in order to discredit the real environmentalists by false association, essentially "vaccinating" them against environmentalist truth. Although the fracking and oil companies strongly deny using fake environmentalists, you've gotten to admit, that it's a pretty sly technique.

The Mockumentary / Parody

Method: Similar to the "pseudo" gang method (as described on my CoIntelPro page) but the target is a specific video documentary or movie, that you wish to discredit, demonize, marginalize, well-poison, and what have you.

Example: After "Loose Change" recieved over a million views on Google Video back in 2005, a series of copy-cat mockumentary conspiracy films were produced called "September Clues" which used similar music and narration to the loose change style and "unfastened coins" which alleged a conspiracy to sink the Titanic. September Clues spread the widely disproven and discredited "No Planes" theory, this was followed by a series of radio and television hit pieces on 9/11 Truth which brought disinformation agents onto shows posing as 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, forward absurd theories and claims, and then be completely ripped apart like the straw-men they were set up to be, and

The impression to the public will be that ALL 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe that no planes hit the towers, and other such ridiculous things... The end.


Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The Rules of Disinformation
 (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)  by H. Michael Sweeney
 copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
 (Revised April 2000)

 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 Author's Web site:
 <http://www.proparanoid.com>

 Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation


 Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth  Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate  in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. 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 truth and/or 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. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

 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 to) 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 interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory  is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

 It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, 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 solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, 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 by means of intimidation to prevent discussion  in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent  rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence 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 ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have
NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, 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 select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, 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. Likewise, 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 position, idea, or solution -- very much 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 their early successes. 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 anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), 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 seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]

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 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.
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.
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 which 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' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
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.
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.
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.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be 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.
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.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials 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.
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 - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) 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 then 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.
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, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
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 lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
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.
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.'
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, it may be required that 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.
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.
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 and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. 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.
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.
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.
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 theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
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. .

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 (now 8) distinct traits: