Coping with the Disinformaton

On the Television there are many programs that completely try to debunk every UFO conspiracy theory out there.

Unsolved History did a stab at the Mt. Rainier sighting by Kenneth Arnolds, they concluded he that the objects weren't moving as fast as he claimed and weren't as far away, but worse yet, they claimed it was more than likely just glare on his cockpit's glass!

Next in line was the Rosswel incident, they had a congnitive psychologist come in and she concluded that memories over time become very distorted, but I think an event like that would be burned in people's memories, the story didn't come out until the 70's but that was mainly because people were affraid to speak about it since they were threatend by the MP's guarding it, also they were claiming both Project Mogul and Highdive was being done above NM BEFORE they were officially started!

The last in line was the Mantell case, this one was a more probable debunk, esspecially since our resident UFOLogist, Gazrok, explained it pretty well that it was quite likely the skyhook balloon.

But there is a fair share of disinformation out there, just to drive us UFOlogist and conspiracy theorist into complete desperation and make us doubt our own research, also we are being made out as some crazy 'conspiracy theorist' that make up the most of the theories and have some insane defenses against to those claims...

[edit on 3/17/2006 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Rationalization is not debunking and I don't believe that all the shows are part of a Disinformation campaign. Promoting UFOs makes big $$$. There is a built in audience that funds movies, documentaries, and books. In short there is more to gain in keeping UFOs aloft than shooting them down. Proof or no proof.

That being said there is a serious "UFO Content Crisis". The best stuff is old and almost legend now. I'll note that UFO shows retread many of the old stories and scenarios that have been beat to death. Yes there are only so many ways you can skin a cat. I'll also note the repeated topics and images and videos that make the rounds on ATS. Need fresh blood soon. Not just the stuff for believers but material for Skeptics alike.

There needs to be another Roswell or a UFO to smack right into a huge metropolis. Hi res images of the old metal UFOs with windows. Less blurry lights and more daylight saucers. When a subject reaches mythos status it loses its historical relevence. It loses its relevent edge. It becomes a belief as opposed to a science that can be proven by material fact.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
But there is a fair share of disinformation out there, just to drive us UFOlogist and conspiracy theorist into complete desperation and make us doubt our own research, also we are being made out as some crazy 'conspiracy theorist' that make up the most of the theories and have some insane defenses against to those claims...

This is true, but part of the learning process is to see both sides of an argument, because the truth usually lies somewhere in between. The trick is to have confidence in your research, and not be afraid to admit you’ve made a mistake if that is the case.

Originally posted by nullster
That being said there is a serious "UFO Content Crisis". The best stuff is old and almost legend now. I'll note that UFO shows retread many of the old stories and scenarios that have been beat to death. Yes there are only so many ways you can skin a cat. I'll also note the repeated topics and images and videos that make the rounds on ATS. Need fresh blood soon. Not just the stuff for believers but material for Skeptics alike.

Just because it's old doesn't make it untrue.

I believe the best evidence is the older material. There are government documents that prove the US government was very concerned about the phenomenon and that it was real. I think there is more to learn from the past because it has stood the test of time.

So how do you deal with the disinfo? Well unless there is substantial evidence, you take it for what it's worth. It may be an interesting story, and worth investigating, but most of the time it is not that difficult to discern what is true. Sometimes it isn't, and then it should go in the gray basket. If you're interested in this subject, you have to take the good with the bad, and don't be deterred by skeptics who write off the whole subject. They think we believe everything and get a kick out of distracting people. In my opinion this is more of a detrimental psychological disorder that believing in aliens.

As the saying goes, if only one of these stories is true, then the implications are astounding.

"there are many programs that completely try to debunk every UFO conspiracy theory out there" == GrOuNd ZeRo

I think you got it backwards. Conspiracy theories are not real unless proven. Having reality presentations colliding
with the myths is not debunking. Debunking occurs when a PROVEN thing is attacked. From that world view,
the REAL debunkers are the conspiracy theorists, who are attacking the existing world view.

"an event like that would be burned in people's memories" == GrOuNd ZeRo

Agree. So why does all the wild testimony about it NEVER show up until the early 80's ? You would be amazed
if you lay all the testimony out, along with dates of first appearance, put it in chronological order, and a very
different story unfolds.

"the story didn't come out until the 70's" == GrOuNd ZeRo

It was not widely known until the 80's. Modern myths have certain characteristics. Tracing them back will usually
give an interesting starting point. Roswell is EXTREMELY interesting because of the nature of how all the UFOlogy
folks have kept reasonable records. (Foot stomping hint follows) You can trace the Roswell Myth starting point not only
down to the day, month, and year, but to WITHIN an HOUR.

"But there is a fair share of disinformation out there" == GrOuNd ZeRo

I have tried in the disinfo forum so I will try here. I doubt that anyone who believes a conspiracy theory would recognize
disinfo if it bit them. The primary characteristic of disinfo is cute. Those who are victims of it become the biggest proponents
of it, and they recognize it not. I would submit that what most mean when they say disinfo is actually misinfo, which abounds
and is the great confuser of all. It is easy to prove me wrong. Give me a specific example of disinfo and a specific disinfo agent.
Doty don't count. Just because HE claims to be one dont make it so. Likewise, when one individual CLAIMS another
is a disinfo agent, that dont make it so. (Another hint) What makes anything so is simply what YOU CHOOSE to believe.

"That being said there is a serious "UFO Content Crisis". == nullster

But most cannot even recognize that. I suspect the Crisis began on or about the origin date of the Roswell myth. That is the
primary focus of my own investigations.

"Just because it's old doesn't make it untrue." == Hal

But it does guarantee it will ALWAYS be taken out of context.


[edit on 18-3-2006 by nightwing]

The only truth is the truth that can stand up to ridicule and scrutiny. If you have the facts /evidence to back up your case then no amount of dis info can sway even the harshest sceptic.
I have seen just as many programs promoting our views as those debunking, look at all the pro paranormal/alien shows on t.v at the moment. Surely healthy debate is a good thing.
I personally believe that there are aliens out there, it is my personal belief, i dont have the evidence. Others believe the opposite, neither do they have the evidence to disprove my belief. There's really only one answer to this conundrum. I hope they arrive/show themselves in my lifetime!

"no amount of dis info can sway even the harshest sceptic. " == mojo4sale

You can fool all of the people some of the time. If I were in the disinfo business, that would
be the mission. If disinfo actually accomplished that mission, there would be a few kneejerk
naysayers, but no skeptics. The secondary objective of disinfo would be to steer the crowd
on down the road.

"Surely healthy debate is a good thing. " == mojo4sale

It can be. The null case is where beliefs are unchangeable. In that case, there is no purpose
served by debate other than a selfish one. But back to the topic at hand, the debate in UFOlogy
has been infected with a virus, thus is no longer healthy. I believe that virus is the Roswell Myth.
If the Roswell myth is one of the few real examples of disinfo, who would challenge it ? Those
who steer the disinfo certainly won't. Those who swear by the myth cannot do other than constantly
perpetuate it. It now has a life and evolution of its own. Its kinda fun to watch.

UFO's are real. Thousands of credible eye-witnesses are not lying. I believe them. I believe my eyes. Quite often, UFO's are literally in "your face" and appear in broad daylight, and therefore, can't be characterized as hiding. They are in total control and I suspect they probably get tickled and may laugh at our feeble attempts to understand them. But nevertheless, it's obvious they are trying to communicate with us and educate us that there is more to this life and this world than we comprehend. Personally, I feel more threatened and more danger from other humans than UFO's. History proves me on this my friends.

I am actively seeking to learn the truth about them and "their ways". ATS is the forum I am accessing. Because our corrupt military/industrial complex driven government refuses to acknowledge the reality of UFO's, here I am posting messages to a bunch of strangers, many of whom think I'm some kind of nut. Ha! If I am crazy, I'm in good company. These are just my opinions.

Originally posted by nightwing

"Just because it's old doesn't make it untrue." == Hal

But it does guarantee it will ALWAYS be taken out of context.

And what context should these quotes be taken?

From the General Twining Memo:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.

[snip]

e. The apparent common description is as follows:-

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.

from www.roswellfiles.com...

From the Wilbur Smith Memo:

a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.

b. Flying saucers exist.

c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush.

d. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to be of tremendous significance.

from www.roswellfiles.com...

I don’t think there is any doubt as to the context from which they are referring.

Rationalization is not debunking and I don't believe that all the shows are part of a Disinformation campaign.

That is very true.

Take the Mantell Case. I certainly went into the case thinking of it as a UFO classic. However, the simple fact is that the evidence of the case strongly pointed to a skyhook balloon being the culprit. There was no good evidence to the contrary.

However, debunking efforts are easy to recognize, as they blatantly ignore crucial evidence not supporting their theory. Instead of pointing out this evidence and refuting it, they simply ignore it. Roswell is a key example. Simply ignoring the fact that the claim is intel officers mistook balsa wood, tin foil, and balloon debris for an alien ship, or that High Dive happened about 5 years AFTER Roswell...shows a serious attempt to debunk, rather than rationalize. Also, ignoring the DOCUMENTED military activity at the time, and the fact that it NEVER happened with a Mogul recovery prior or since the Roswell incident, and you again see the attempt to debunk rather than rationalize.

This is seen in Arnold's sighting as well. Lets ignore the fact that Arnold was a skilled pilot with lots of logged flight time, in the same craft, in the same area...and that the idea of him somehow mistaking reflections as craft over a period of time is rather a stretch...and just dismiss it. That is debunking. A more serious attempt, or rationalization, would be to try and use the US craft explanation. There was a test craft which looked a lot like Arnold's craft at the time. However, there weren't enough in operation, or in that area at the time of the sighting. But, at least that would be a more plausible rationalization, versus simply trying to dismiss it.

Hi Hal. I love when you decide to play straight man for a good joke.

"And what context should these quotes be taken?
From the General Twining Memo:
From the Wilbur Smith Memo
I don’t think there is any doubt as to the context from which they are referring." == Hal

I love when you prove my point for me. Thanks Hal.

Certainly not out of context as you have done. The Twining memo is real and was a response. The whole
series must be read for context. The Twining Memo leads to the Walker Memo, which leads to the European
Command letter of inquiry on the Horten Brothers in Germany. I cant believe ANY serious UFOlogist would
bring up the Smith Memo. Did you read the site reference you gave me ? Here is the CONTEXT of the
SMITH MEMO.

"Smith had long exhibited signs of "mental disturbance". He had been known to sit in his orchard with a tape recorder,
so that when the "Space Brothers Topside" came down, he could record his interview with them.
Smith did not have the authority to stamp any documents Top Secret, and was not working on any Top Secret projects.
However, he had been known to stamp even his personal papers Top Secret. The Smith memorandum is not considered
to be a real top secret document worthy of study by very many people in UFOlogy" ==From Hal9000's site reference

Originally posted by nightwing
Hi Hal. I love when you decide to play straight man for a good joke.

Oops, I didn't see that part.

OK, so that site looks like that site is in your camp, but what can I say, I was in a hurry.

Is that true about Smith and the space brothers? That's the first I've heard about it. Could be more Disinfo.

[edit on 3/19/2006 by Hal9000]

Is there some "natural law" saying that all dis-info must contain at least a core of truth ? (Like a certain webmaster's claim of an 80/20 ratio of truthfulness for some anonymous info.) It's just one of those things I sometimes wonder about. Another is whether all aliens must be thousands or more years more advanced than us. Okay, I realize that an alien species still in the stone age, relatively speaking, would probably be kind of hard for us to detect, but still.

Is there some "natural law" saying that all dis-info must contain at least a core of truth ?

Only that the best lies contain the most truth as well. Goes back to school and True/False tests... The best trick ones were the ones that were all true except one word, making it false.

A person who sees the same daily briefing as the president of the US does told me not to bother watching the news, its not even close to accurate or informative.

LOL! What should I make of that?

"Could be more Disinfo." == Hal

And that is the key question, huh ? How can you tell ? What is disinfo besides being
a topic area here that attracts lots of bloviating but no examples ? Until disinfo is pinned
down with examples to compare to, its just a cute word like "gvt cover-up". And
the more confusing this debate terminating word gets, the less likely it can ever be identified
and the more likely all the people can be fooled.

"The best trick ones were the ones that were all true except one word, making it false." == Gaz

Which ones, Gaz, specifically ?

"What should I make of that?" == Ectoterrestrial

A political argument if thats where you wanted to take this discussion.

Originally posted by nightwing
"Could be more Disinfo." == Hal

And that is the key question, huh ? How can you tell ? What is disinfo besides being
a topic area here that attracts lots of bloviating but no examples ? Until disinfo is pinned
down with examples to compare to, its just a cute word like "gvt cover-up".

My guess is GrOuNd_ZeRo was probably referring to Project Serpo, which in my opinion is a good example of disinfo. Maybe he could give an example of what he is referring to.

BTW, I looked into the allegations about Wilbert Smith and the "space brothers topside" and it looks like it's true. I posted my findings in this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

OK, you can laugh some more.

Cheers.

"OK, you can laugh some more." == Hal

Surely you know this online personality better than that. I am laughing WITH
you, never AT you. (Jokes are best shared with, not pulled on, others)

"My guess is GrOuNd_ZeRo was probably referring to Project Serpo, which in my opinion is a good example of disinfo." == Hal

Perhaps he will confirm that. Still, we are getting to the core of the issue. What is disinfo ? Whatever you answer, I suspect
we need a better definition. One with some utility. Lets try a starting position.

Uselessinfo - "space brothers" category. Not to disrespect those who commune with the Mothership, as some may be sincere,
but the sad result is their information has an overall negative value to UFOlogy. "Lost in Space" was fine for
young imaginations as children but even a child's world view eventually matures.

Misinfo - as simple as hearsay, passing on the fishing stories of others, to the complex Hoaxes, where notoriety or money can
be the motive to generate intentional false claims. The prime characteristic to determine misinfo would be the SOURCE.
The source comes from WITHIN the UFOlogy community. Thus Serpo would be the more complex form of misinfo.

Disinfo - SOURCE external to the UFOlogy community. Motive and players indeterminate without true examples to study. If it exists, it
would be difficult to find as it would be designed to become part of the community belief structure, and even defended
by the very folks who need to learn to identify and reject it.

As to Wilbur Smith, I will add some remarks to yours in the forum you pointed me to. Somehow, I figured you would look into
that more, if for no other reason than to have a good laugh together.

Sorry, I was a bit upset after I saw that documentry, so I was a little bit fast to dismiss it as disinfo, my apologies.

I do believe Serpo (or Crystal Knight as they call it now in the Serpo crowd) is a classic example of disinformation, but I DO believe there IS a core of truth to this sci-fi novel (as I like to refer it to).

Roswell is my only real hope for proof on Extra-terrestials, and Gazrok's post is the only thing that helps me cling to ANYTHING to do with UFO's, I am even starting to doubt my own encounter with a UFO because of those types of programs, I ask my self the question: what's the point in believing something that only "basket cases" believe in (as the media likes to portray UFOlogist).

I am sick of not being taken serious by the main stream.

Originally posted by nightwing
"OK, you can laugh some more." == Hal

Surely you know this online personality better than that. I am laughing WITH
you, never AT you.

No problems mate. I think it's good to find out this kind of info though even if it is a little embarrassing.

Still, we are getting to the core of the issue. What is disinfo ? Whatever you answer, I suspect
we need a better definition. One with some utility. Lets try a starting position.

Uselessinfo - "space brothers" category.

This is a new category, but worthwhile.

Misinfo - as simple as hearsay, passing on the fishing stories of others, to the complex Hoaxes, where notoriety or money can
be the motive to generate intentional false claims. The prime characteristic to determine misinfo would be the SOURCE.
The source comes from WITHIN the UFOlogy community. Thus Serpo would be the more complex form of misinfo.

Disinfo - SOURCE external to the UFOlogy community. Motive and players indeterminate without true examples to study. If it exists, it
would be difficult to find as it would be designed to become part of the community belief structure, and even defended
by the very folks who need to learn to identify and reject it.

I would agree to these definitions except for the motive. Misinformation could come from an honest source trying to make money off of it, but the information is untrue. I would say though that if the source knows the information is false but passes it off as true it should fall in the category of disinfo, but that is my opinion. Most of the time disinfo is given to distract or discredit. I don't think it depends on the source of the information so much as whether the motive behind the source is trying to deceive.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Sorry, I was a bit upset after I saw that documentry, so I was a little bit fast to dismiss it as disinfo, my apologies.

You may be confusing debunking with disinfo unless of course the information isn’t true and the debunker knows that. At the same time, other programs promote the subject, but provide false information in its favor, but I think most of the time it is an honest mistake, but if it isn’t then IMO this is also disinformation.

I do believe Serpo (or Crystal Knight as they call it now in the Serpo crowd) is a classic example of disinformation, but I DO believe there IS a core of truth to this sci-fi novel (as I like to refer it to).

I agree that it falls into the category of disinformation because I believe the source knows the story is untrue but is passing it off as true. If there is any truth to it, it is impossible to extract it from all the rubbish, and has no credibility so IMO it is worthless.

what's the point in believing something that only "basket cases" believe in (as the media likes to portray UFOlogist).

For me, I take this subject as a curiosity and a hobby, so it is not as personal. I am convinced there is something to the UFO phenomenon, and I’m just trying to understand it. For others though it is more personal and so they take offense to disinfo and this is understandable.

Regards.

"The best trick ones were the ones that were all true except one word, making it false." == Gaz

Which ones, Gaz, specifically ?

Merely an example of the old test questions one would see in school, you know... Like:

Penguins, flightless birds which live in extremely cold environments can be found in numerous places near the North Pole.

see, one word makes it false.

An example in UFOlogy would be the Mantell Case. Numerous authors play up the very true events that took place, yet ignore the details such as eyewitness descriptions, etc. So, even with all of the documented military actions etc taking place, the fact that people saw an ice-cream cone shaped object and other details that exactly fit a Skyhook balloon then made the UFO theory false. (in addition to other evidence, but just an example).