Disinformation

Hi Guy's

I wonder if someone can help me to understand the psychology of disinformation, I don't want to sound too much of a Nelly, but why do people say disinformation is more effective when you add some truth to it?

What's wrong with plain denial or a no-comment response?

I think that adding some credibilty to 'disinfo' cases can indeed make it less obvious, as it will hold a respectable amount of believers... Therefore, the die hard skeptics have more of a 'triumph' when the case is exposed as false, resulting in a misleaded public.

We have a new forum you might want to check out akabigfoot.

Deconstructing Disinformation & Deflection

Thanks i'll check it out

My take on Dissinformation usually comes from the fringe. Anything remotely related to a Space agency or Government is absolute "Dissinfo". Just do a search for NASA and watch the textual pummeling and unfounded accusations fly.

If you present research or examples of field tests that run counter to a popular case, it is conveniently labeled "Dissinfo" without provision of proof for claim so. That means....End of discussion.

There are a few (not enough) middle ground Skeptics and Believers here. I applaud those that can keep both feet on the ground and constructively evaluate sources in detail to try an form a conclusion.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by nullster]