One thing I have noticed about obvious disinformation is that it has a purpose. The purpose is to control us and what we think and BELIEVE and
to shut us up about talking about it.
I agree that it has a purpose (actually, several and often conflicting purposes, IMO) but I don't think they're to "....control us and what we
think and BELIEVE and to shut us up about talking about it."
I think that lot of the real hard-core conspiracy stuff is backed up by disinfo. Examples might include fake "analyses" of "chem-trail residue"
(google "therese aigner" for an example of this); or "radar returns" from weather radar which is deliberately mis-interpreted in order to lend
credence to the belief that the HAARP programs are influencing the weather; and other similar scams.
And the reason that the believers in the "HAARP plot" or "chem-trails" use this stuff (if they know it's disinfo) is that they want you to
believe their stuff so badly
they'll deliberately make up manufactured "evidence" to make their case look good.
Another type of "disinfo" is the proponents of a particular hypothesis making themselves out as much more educated, higher-up, or having more
expertise than they actually do.
A prime example of this is a guy named Al Cuppet, an old-time conspiracy weenie that passed himself off as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Now, the JCS are the top guys in the US military, and are the chief military advisors to the president, all three- or four-star generals. You figure
if this Al Cuppett is a retired JCS general, he's a heavy-duty weenie, right? But what Cuppet was is a retired sergeant who, as a civilian, got a
staff job working in the office of tjhe JCS. in other words, he was a glorified secretary. Yet if you read the blurbs about him from the conspiracy
shows or sites, he's referred to as a "distinguished retired military officer" which he isn't.
Another case of using disinfo to make oneself appear more important is the case of one Cliff Carnicom, one of the chief "chem-trail" hoaxers, often
referred to as a "researcher and scientist". He's not. he was a surveyor for the government for about ten years and now owns a computer store in
Of course, the "legitimate" scientists tend to put out disinfo too, often cooking the books or engaging in ad hominem
non-scientists in an effort to make their own hypotheses look like they're beyond reproach.
The big difference is that scientists tend to check each other out constantly; that's what science is about. If a non-scientist like, say, Tom
Bearden or James McCanney comes up with a weird sounding theory and a mainstream scientist shoots it down, he'd better have his facts and data
together, or another mainstream scientist will do a research study to try to prove him wrong.
The bottom line is not that there's a "huge disinfo plot". People put out disinfo (that is, the ones who do it deliberately) for much more mundane
reasons -- to sell books or keep their ego up and running!
[edit on 1-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]