posted 03-31-2002 12:25 AM               

HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING (Abridged) by Daniel Drasin

In the course of my research activities I have made it my business to collect particularly egregious examples of the art of *debunkery* -- the substitution of scient*istic* propaganda for scient*ific* method. A few years ago I began to analyze what makes debunkery tick, and wrote several papers on the subject that catalogued literally dozens of manipulative tricks and techniques with which generations of debunkers have successfully achieved the arrest or suppression of a broad range of discovery and innovation.

To provide additional assistance and inspiration to the novitiate and seasoned debunker alike, I have carefully combed my extensive collection and assembled below a modest primer on the how-to's of debunkery. Properly understood and applied, these principles may be instrumental in delaying rational inquiry into the question of extraterrestrial life by decades, perhaps centuries.

General Debunkery

* Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

* Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery-worshiping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.

* Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

* Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative process can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")

* Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

* Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts " which are "stated."

* Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear.)

* If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here." If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

* Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy. subjective or metaphysical terms.

* Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals *reductionism*. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

* Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science.

* At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is *familiar* is necessarily *rational*. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational. and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

* State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

* Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw or misstep invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

* "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," suggests that the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most *familiar* explanation is by definition the *simplest*.

* Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical and philosophical parallels between science and democracy.

* Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.

* If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not *supposed* to prove *anything*.

* In any case, imply that proof *precedes* evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

* Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist!

* Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any Point in time.

* Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly *assumed* to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and simply say "I rest my case."

* Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

* Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

* By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.

* Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

* Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and time-consuming, while deeming that of unusual phenomena so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff' or "freak," or as "self-styled" -- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."

* Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit part of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically *could* explain it; c) declare that, therefore, this one element *has been* explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the *entire case* has been explained.

* Find a prosaic phenomenon that superficially resembles the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.

* Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the physical sciences have always dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity, electromagnetism, etc. . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."

* Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds.

* Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all such questions: "If extraterrestrials exist, why haven't they landed on the White House lawn?"

* Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position they've taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to mis-replicate their experiments or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be "ridiculous" or "fruitless." To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

* Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

* When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this statement as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her behavior cannot possibly be scientifically correct.

* If you are unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad-hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators or chroniclers of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition of their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers." Take care not to inadvertently apply such judgments to those pursuing, in similar fashion, orthodox activities.

* Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as experts on the ET question, although course credits in ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.

* Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!'' Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims. or, for that matter, even exist.

From "The McDaniel Report" by Stanley V. McDaniel(North Atlantic Books: 1993), ISBN 1-55643-088-4.
http://www.skiesare.demon.co.uk/debunkal.htm

posted 04-01-2002 03:38 AM            

[* Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence. ]

I'd like to add this for the suppression of information that could lead to the truth.
Classified information .......

* Department of Defense security definitions:

* Classified agreement: "An agreement that requires access to classified information by the contractor or designated employess in the performance of tasks or services in the agreement."

* Classified document: "A document containing information, the disclosure of which could damage the national security of the United States."

* Confidential: "The lowest DOD classified level applied to information whose unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause damage to national security."

* Secret "The DOD classification level between Confidential and Top Secret that is applied to information whose unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause serious damage to national security."

* Need-to-know: "A determination made by the possessor of classified information that a prospective recipient, in the interest of national security, has a requirement for access to, knowledge of, or possession of classified information in order to perform tasks or services essential to the fulfillment of a classified contract or program."

(definitions courtesy of Prof. Norm Swazo)

posted 04-01-2002 01:11 PM               

Luckily the debunkers I've had to deal with are using 20 year old arguments and kind of lose all credibility when I come up with all the latest findings. - Of course when they're being paid to do the debunking, they kind of forget to read the latest research developments and just hope that their status and credentials will protect them.

Concerning the field of archaeological research, one of my colleagues, who is now deceased, wrote the following"

“Engrained ‘Pabulum’ is protected, nurtured, and becomes gospel… If one is not a camp follower, then one is denied admittance to the Academic Bordello, and its inane doctrines… As they say, “Been There - Done That.” Twenty-seven years teaching Earth Sciences was my lesson in the dumbing of America: Curricula and texts disappeared; fun and games prevailed; Scientific method abandoned.

In the last three years leverage from on-high and an early retirement package eased me out of my life work or so I thought…” (Charles Boyle, 7-28-98)

I should add that Mr. Boyle was an expert in linguistics, with a BS degree in botany, an MA degree in Education, an MS degree in Geology and a MA in Theology and a teacher of the Earth Sciences for over 27 years prior to his retirement so he knew what he was talking about.

posted 04-01-2002 06:26 PM               

Dan, glad to see that you're once again talking about the whole conspiracy issue and providing information on the debunking process, something that we both have had first hand experience with.

I'll see what other information I can come up with when I get a chance.

posted 04-02-2002 01:04 AM               

I should also mention that I got my start as an archaeological researcher in the Hudson and Putnam Valley regions of New York State where there was a lot of very unusual things going on back in the 1980's and still are going on today to a certain extent.

posted 04-02-2002 08:28 AM            

I want to take your third paragraph - which I agree with - and expand on it a bit. My emendations are in italics. If you look at both versions, I think you'll see that they're both valid. Here we go:

"In almost every field of research, there are just as many researchers as there are debunkers. Some (researchers) (debunkers) are disgruntled, washed up, scientists (frustrated non-scientists) who could not make a living from their research and found out that they could make more money (friends) (prestige) by turning their backs on true science and became nothing more than puppets with antiquated (untested) paradigms.

My point is that science must equal skepticism. Just as people speaking from "authority" have misused their authority to try to stop true (although revolutionary) science, non-scientists have used their popularity and communications skills to postulate non-science. A classic example of the former is the Church refusing to even look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter - because they knew that nothing could revolve around any body but Earth.

Just as insidious, although not as well known, is the 'establishment' ignoring the pioneering work of Lister and his theories of sepsis. Microscopic dot-thingies, those bacteria-whatchamacallems, as everyone knows, simply cannot cause or transmit diseases. Lister died a broken man, thousands of women went to their death from "childbed fever"; and we think of him every time we gargle with our favorite mouthwash. There's your antiquated paradigms!

Yet the other side of the coin is just as bad. Replace a scientific fool wedded to his aged hypotheses with another fool wedded to a completely new hypothesis because he thought it up, and you end up with the same assault on human knowledge and progress. The work of Ernst Haeckel with his 'dynamic recapitulation'; Profim Lysenko with his Stalin-inspired pseudo-genetics; and Bishop Berkeley's quackery at the expense of Darwin come to mind. And who can forget Velikovsky and his quackery? Completely debunked by Newtonian physics fifty years ago and further debunked by our knowledge of planetary geology today, there are still people who have intellectually crippled themselves by worshipping at the shrine of "Worlds in Collision"!

We as scientists must be skeptical of everything. If we hold on to outdated beliefs, we stagnate. If we grab at every will-o-the-wisp that comes along, we go down the path to silliness. In both cases, we have failed in our endeavor to promote knowledge and advance the race.

And how do we determine what paradigms are outdated and useless or are meaningless or silly? If I knew, I'd get the Nobel Prize in Something-or-Other, that's for sure. But since science, like most other human experience, draws on our predecessors, we must use, as a baseline, that which has gone before. Remember, 'as a baseline' doesn't mean that we must be married to it; but we have to start somewhere.

I could go on for days of the way that television and now the Internet has both advanced and crippled science, but that's the subject for a different rant. All I personally can do is to be open minded about as much as possible; be willing to look at a new hypothesis (to accept or reject it), and review the existing hypothesis (to accept or reject it as well).

All I have to go on is evidence and my interpretation of it. That's all anyone has.

posted 04-02-2002 09:47 AM            

Step right up! Get yer chem-buster shower curtain rods here! Get yer silver soda-pop here! Get yer anthrax cure here! Get yer books and tapes here! Get yer fee-based Internet broadcast download here! Get yer feeling of belonging to an in-group here! Get yer chance to have people pay attention to you and give yer life some meaning here!

"...I think I speak for all science oriented chemtrail activists..."

I would think that the "science oriented chemical activists" would choose a "science oriented person" as their spokesperson.

"I'm thinking seriously of requiring my children to remain indoors until the spraying stops,thier outside time is limited now to 1 hour per day..."

The idiocy of the fathers.... I am sure your children will remember your actions for the rest of their lives.

"Congratulations for helping to create such a convincing nightmare for my children,Duncan..."

Most parents, even those unstable ones who punish their children for not conforming to their own views, need to find someone else to blame for their behavior.

posted 04-02-2002 03:07 PM               

When I started my archaeological work, I wasn't in it for the money, prestiege or anything else like that. I never received any funding or compensation for my research effort and had to do all kinds of odd jobs just to be able to buy film for my cameras. Like some researchers in my field, I wasn't a professional archaeologist and even if I was, I would have been considered a maverick and would not have received any funding anyway. Even a few researchers that were professional archaeologists, had been told that if they didn't abandon their work, they would lose their status, funding and would be forever banned from conducting any field work in the future. Even professional European archaeologists were afraid to offer assistace. One such example of this fear is noted by one of my colleagues in the book I am writing concerning my research.

“A prominent European archaeologist visiting New England a few years ago sat in one of the Chambers and said ,incredulously, “what is this doing here in America?” And if you ever say I said that, I’ll deny it.” The story illustrates a distressing problem within the archaeological establishment and the academic community. Competition, professional standing and credibility already established historical notions and
theoretical frameworks, all of this adds up to fierce reluctance or fear to consider seriously anything outside the paradigm currently in power." (Enrique XXXXXXX, 1998)

It was painful for the professionals to have to admit that the Vikings were here and would be evn more painful to admit that the Vikings weren't the first Europeans to cross the Atlantic. Even with the lack of funding, we have been able to gain recognition and have a lot of our findings taken seriously.

At one time when some of us would approach members of the established archaeological community, we would be laughed at and called amatuers and shrug us off as just some blind followers of Barry Fell whom they had already spent a considerable amount of time picking to pieces. Now at least, a few of them are beginning to reconsider their positions in the matter since so much concrete evidence has been presented to them and are willing to finally re-examine the whole controversy.

Even the researcher who had gotten me started, finally had to admit, after years of sifting through my data, that I was truly a dedicated and credible researcher. Even the Archaeologist that had originally debunked me is having second thoughts. He found it difficult to dispute a lot of my findings and could only comment on my apparent lack of knowledge of American history and native culture. He even tried to blame a lot of the anomalies that I had found on glacial activity when he in fact wasn't even a glacieologist or a geologist for that matter. He was also apparently not aware that glacieologists that had been brought in to study some of these anomalies had already stated that they were not caused by glacial activity.

He also had to admit that he wasn't an expert in linguistics and could offer no opinion of my translations of certain European words that showed up in the vocabulary of local native tribes.

His one argument was that the majority of the stone walls in New England, some 252 thousand miles of them, were colonial in origin even though there were a number of historical accounts of natives building walls in colonial times. Unknown to him, a few of the walls in certain parts of New England had been carbon dated and were found to be thousands of years old. Not to mention that none of the walls I had found in conjunction with these anomalous sites did not even fit the criteria of colonial walls. Not only that, but quite recently, the walls that I had been studying, were found to be located in areas that were considered to be undesirable land that was never used for farming in colonial times. This fact was confirmed by a local historian.

Of course, I had mentioned the fact that he had been hired by a developer and would be biased and that he would probably never work again if he didn't dispute my findings.

posted 04-12-2002 01:28 AM               

The article was based on the Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

I chose to use the expanded version of it because it contained examples and proper responses. I divided it into 2 parts to make it a little easier to digest.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation (part 1)
(Posted to newsgroups alt.conspiracy.new-world-order and alt.illumination April 28, 1998 by wildfire@ionet.net

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 to 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 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" 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 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 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 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. "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 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 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 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)?

posted 04-12-2002 01:41 AM               

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)?

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 the media reported the 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 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 no drug money was laundered 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 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 YOUR 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 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 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.

posted 04-12-2002 02:13 AM               

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.