posted 03-25-2001 11:42 AM            

They come from every angle. Tones over your cable TV. Letting you know with "drops" that they know about your personal life ala birthdates and the like. Agressive survelliance. and on and on and on.

And the computers profile every second you speak into a phone or write an email, to find weaknesses they can exploit.

Are you in league with the bad guys? Some terrorist?

posted 03-25-2001 11:52 AM            

But don't you think it's important to rule out the ordinary first? If we jump to conclusions and just say every thing in the sky is a chemtrail and every one who has a view that is contrary to the conspiracy theory of the day is a “disinformation agent”...don't you think that's as damaging to public awareness as the so-called “debunker” spin?

posted 03-25-2001 01:15 PM            

I'm not lying by saying that the first I heard about Chemtrails was online. I didn't think much of it until a week or so later when a woman and her kid stops me on the street (when I'm wearing my flight suit) and harasses me about me dumping things on her head. After this and several phone calls, I had gotten upset enough to go back online and see what kind of "garbage" people were saying. To my surprise, I didn't find a whole lot of garbage. I found a whole lot of disinformation about the military and basic flight information, and a lot of folks who wanted to know what was going on over their heads. Fair enough. I did find a few posts on Cliff's which did harass the military, and I chose to vent some of my anger on these posts. I apologize for that. First Amendment won out, though, at least until I was silenced by Cliff.

I have maintained all along that I am no scientist, so you won't see me debunking things like barium salts, red blood cells, and spider webs. I was surprised to see on Cliff's site how I was almost expected to try and debunk these things. I think that I disappointed them when I didn't.

So, let's move on from this, PLEASE! I'm keeping my eyes open and I am always open to change. If you want to trash me, go to my site.

I remember on Cliff's site how much I was continually stepped on by Guided Muscle and NSASucks. From someone calling me "agency," what percentage of their posts are actually about chemtrails? Just an observation.

Maverick

posted 03-25-2001 01:36 PM            

No matter how well planned, no matter how well executed, no matter how well timed, each and every operation is subject to Murphy's Law: Whatever can go wrong, will...and at the worst possible time.

posted 03-25-2001 01:54 PM            

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 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.

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 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.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items 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. Vanishing 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 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.

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 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.

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.

posted 03-25-2001 02:21 PM            

By the way...how'd you like my Gore clone? I thought that was some of my best work, but they said he was too wooden and kicked me off that job. Tell you what I think, I think he was too good, and almost won the election so Bush Sr had me demoted to chemtrail detail. Any way though, we may not be the cream of the crop....but we try..

By the way, I see that folks like "guided muscle", "3T3L1", and "Military Lies" are doing a better job of following that list than we CIA agents are! Oh well, I'm learning....


[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 03-25-2001]

posted 03-25-2001 03:09 PM            

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney

posted 03-25-2001 04:22 PM            

its obvious when you have been pushed to the limit of your intellect. i havent read ONE coherent response to any of TopGun's points. you have not refuted anything that he has said. do you know why? because you cant. the only way to prove his conclusions and observations wrong is by saying that they are invalid because he is a disinformation agent. amazing. and you think he is not adding anything to the dicussion.

posted 03-26-2001 09:37 AM            

please direct me to one post of yours that has subtance.

all your posts are personal attacks. i cant remember you discussing the issues in any of your posts.

this shows me your intellect (or lact thereof). if you cant compete then let the name-calling begin. typical of ultra left-wing mamby-pamby liberals.

prove me wrong and dispute anyhing that topgun or myself have stated. it is obvious that you cant. there are several on this board who do a great job of discussing the evidence and at least are trying to support their beliefs. you are not one of them. you are good for a laugh though.

prove to all on this board that you have something positive to add to the discussion besides 6th grade remarks.

posted 03-26-2001 09:43 AM            

Actually I didn't call you a whining liberal...just asked the question. One tactic they always use is to name call when they are unable to converse logically on an issue, and another indicator is their loathing of the American military, so hey...I'm sorry if I put two and two together. Watch Hannity and Colms sometime, and you'll see what I'm saying.

But now that I'm a liberal.....that image might work for me. That way I won't offend so many liberal Democrats, and can sneak up on them with my way of thinking and convert them over to Rush without them knowing. But as for idiocy...you'll have to be more specific, I thought my "CIA" stuff was pretty good. If I get accused of being a secret agent, I thought...hell, why not be one? Gives people like Sedona and yourself the satisfaction, and we're all happy....right?

posted 03-27-2001 02:45 AM            

Enough said.

posted 03-27-2001 10:01 AM            

Seriously, you have a lot of anger and you probably shouldn't go out in traffic that way. You're going to end up killing somebody, and we'll end up reading about you on the news.

Delphi mentioned something about Prozac...and it's the one thing I agree with her about. That stuff is like LSD, and it will cause strange abnormal bouts of anger. I think most all of those school shootings occurred with kids on some form of Ritilin (a cousin to Prozac)

posted 03-27-2001 10:21 AM            

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney

posted 03-28-2001 02:43 AM            

The lying bastards from the military intel (topidiot and the porno guy) can't erase those great tests and photographs.

People see that first. It confirms it for them, regardless of their PD hangouts now being demonstrated by all aware people who come and go from this board.

There's other good news. These guys know too much. If the op becomes too dangerous for exposure, low-level operatives like these guys will be setup or outright wasted, if needs be. That's heart-warming. You thought you will going in for a check up, but they found cancer in your prostate, Dirk.

No, it's all good. The buffoons are made, cover blown. And all they did was make CT aware people even MORE ANGRY.

And the research and the pics go on, and no one NO ONE is believing a single lie out these two obvious disinfo pigs.

No one.