It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


[INFO] 25 Rules of Disinformation implemented on forums.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:06 PM

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Click the links for a more descriptive view.
DisinformationRule1: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

DisinformationRule2: Become incredulous and indignant

DisinformationRule3: Create rumor mongers

DisinformationRule4: Use a straw man

DisinformationRule5: Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule

DisinformationRule6: Hit and Run

DisinformationRule7: Question motives

DisinformationRule8: Invoke authority

DisinformationRule9: Play Dumb

DisinformationRule10: Associate opponent charges with old news

DisinformationRule11: Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

DisinformationRule12: Enigmas have no solution

DisinformationRule13: Alice in Wonderland Logic

DisinformationRule14: Demand complete solutions

DisinformationRule15: Fit the facts to alternate conclusions

DisinformationRule16: Vanish evidence and witnesses

DisinformationRule17: Change the subject

DisinformationRule18: Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad

DisinformationRule19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs

DisinformationRule20: False evidence

DisinformationRule21: Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor

DisinformationRule22: Manufacture a new truth

DisinformationRule23: Create bigger distractions

DisinformationRule24: Silence critics

DisinformationRule25: Vanish

You will notice these are common tactics.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:29 PM
Just to add got something similar off another interesting site:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney

1) Avoidance. 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) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose 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 commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. 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) Teamwork. 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) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have 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) Artificial Emotions. 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 rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' 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, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

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.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:57 PM
As I think about internet disinformation I am beginning to wonder if creating obviously nonsensical theories and then pushing them in news groups is another form of disinformation. (i.e. running a thread that JFK was an alien until any participants in a discussion about JFK look absurd.) Has anyone considered that angle?

[edit on 1-1-2008 by Bruce001]

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:56 PM
Or like finding out the WTC could of been controlled demo'd but conspiracy sites try to make you focus on the planes, missiles,pods,holograms,etc.

Or finding out no plane crashed in shankville(flight 93) and thousand websites open up saying No plane at the Pentagon and missile at wtc.

Welcome to the world of disinfo and 911 coverup.

In due time you will be able to identify them in one sentance.

They are a weak pathetic bunch. They had their run in the last few years but they have no idea how the truth will come soon. Oblivious.


posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:09 AM
I think one or more of these techniques coupled with the Tag team approach is what i have seen most often.

It would be no problem at all for a disinfo agent to have more than one account and user name so the tag team effort only really requires one agent and it is the most used technique - especially because it can be easily utilized to reinforce all and any of the other disinfo methods.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:08 AM
Tell me about it.

Sorry in advanced for releasing some forum member's handbook.

Lol. Pwned.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:28 PM
If you want to see any or all of these tactics in action... just go to the Secret Societies Board and post a thread that is anti-freemasonry. They even have mason moderators that close down or totally remove threads... and if you try and ask why... nobody answers your questions or U2U's. The mods can check out your IP addy to verify your post, and then do whatever they want with your information.

The Secret Societies board with mason moderators is the biggest and most laughable flaw on ATS imho. I wonder if the owners are masons themselves that they would allow such an obvious conflict of interest.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

I'm really glad you posted this Ivan!
Starred and flagged by me. Every point valid here. I'm mean it really is good what you've put together. I call it truth. It is so now and in your face. I love it. I'm too young to really understand 911 other than many died and it was what made the US go all info-rhoid-war-mental, but I do remember it. It seems to be micro-managed to death spin wise. There is only one truth. Thinking tools like you have posted about are excellent. Every post so far "has it goin' on". Hip.

Last summer I had like, no idea, y'know, but now I see it everywhere (not only 911) everywhere. It's all "managed" and it works both ways, sometimes many ways, common sense and critical thinking skills are a great counter-disinformation weapon. Your tools give the conceptual framework method and self-veracity.
Required reading.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by Mira_of_lurk0more]

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by yankeerose

Um, right. We only have 2 mods that are Masons out of a staff of 55. They may participate in the forum but they don't moderate it. The 3 most active mods in that forum are Kinglizard, chissler and myself. None of us are Masons. You might want to look a little closer at why threads get closed there. Usually it's a total copy and paste from another site. That's a no-no. Do we shut down Masons threads if they aren't ATS material? Hell yes. This is the Secret Societies forum, not a Masonic forum.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by Mira_of_lurk0more

It seems to be micro-managed to death spin wise. There is only one truth.

And they have had thousands of years to perfect the art of confusion,obfuscate,dis/misinform on the soceities.

I like people who lie and confuse, their methods actually reveal the truth in more ways than you know and empower others to seek the truth.

So to disinfo artists. Bring it on. Your helping the good people find the truth the right way, on their own.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by yankeerose
If you want to see any or all of these tactics in action... just go to the Secret Societies Board and post a thread that is anti-freemasonry. They even have mason moderators that close down or totally remove threads... and if you try and ask why... nobody answers your questions or U2U's. The mods can check out your IP addy to verify your post, and then do whatever they want with your information.

Sorry but IMO this is a load.
Disinformation is one thing. Defending themselves and what they believe in (Masons) from rediculous threats and slander against masonry is something else. Masons are actually very nice and intelligent people, I don't see any reason why they would do anything of what you list, save for defending from an inflamitory thread. No offense but what you're saying is just paranoid silliness. Deny Ignorance and Deny Disinformation. Thanks.
To the OP:
Thank you for listing these, I'll keep my sharp eyes out ^_^

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:36 PM
Subconciously or consciously the threads topic of Disinfo is actually being applied in this thread.

One guy mentioned an opinion over a forum topic and has been rectified shortly after by a courteous moderator.

So stick to topic.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 02:11 PM

I realized after I had posted that my input was a bit off topic. What I wanted to say is that I have noticed all of your posted disinfo tactics being used on the board I mentioned.

Didn't mean to mess with your topic.... sorry for that. I enjoy your posts and read all your threads because of their quality and message.

No disrespect to you was intended.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by yankeerose

I realized after I had posted that my input was a bit off topic. What I wanted to say is that I have noticed all of your posted disinfo tactics being used on the board I mentioned.

Didn't mean to mess with your topic.... sorry for that. I enjoy your posts and read all your threads because of their quality and message.

No disrespect to you was intended.

Pfff, it never even crossed my mind.
Thnx bud.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 02:40 PM
I guess you can find anything on the internet

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from skeptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide


-They assume that they are right.

PCTs assume that their beliefs are correct and that those who don't see things the way they do have been duped or that they need to open their minds.

This stance is an argument from ignorance (see: argumentum ad ignorantiam). They place the burden of proof firmly on their opponents; whose position is wrongly assumed to be to disprove the theories. In fact the PCTs' position does not change even if their theories are disproved: there's always a way of reaffirming their position.

There is usually little or no real evidence to back their theories. Instead, PCTs rely on retrospective analysis: logic and reason don't matter; everything can be twisted to fit the plot. Events are simply interpreted to match the theory.

-Their theories cannot be challenged.

PCTs do not treat their theories the way a historian or scientist treats theirs, which is to welcome challenges to their theory which will either strengthen it or refute/amend it.

PCTs vehemently oppose any challenges to their theories. The first line of defence is to issue personal attacks (see: ad hominem) against their opponents. These are generally in the form of ridicule; their opponents not having the ability to see "the real truth".

-The theories of PCTs are often unfalsifiable of all places, I guess it all depends on what side of the fence you happens to sit.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by Bunch]

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:09 PM
If you would like to see these techniques being poorly deployed,check you the Flight 93 - Smoking gun.

There is one or 2 defendants of the official story could just be the same guy.

Heres is an example

Also, where are the id numbers on those parts. You're saying they're from a cruise missle. Where are the serial numbers? I want you to id those parts THAT YOU NOW SEE and show me where, exactly, they are on that cruise missle. WHat part of the cruise missle are they? What type is the missle? Where did the missle come from?

Classic DisinformationRule14

RulesOfDisinformation Number 14. Demand complete solutions Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as 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. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?


19. Ignore facts 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, it may be required that 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.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:10 PM
Reading all this info made me think of one thing.

If you have access to the real info you cannot be fooled.

So this thread should make you think about things from 3 different perspectives:

1. Those who know the truth and do a good job at work, this includes disinfo agents that do their job for good reasons

2. Those who know the truth but do bad things with this knowledge, this includes disinfo agents that have an evil agenda

3. Those who don't know the truth and might have no clue about the differences between #1 and #2.

Great thing about the 1s and 2s is that nobody knows every truth. Too bad there are way too many 3s that make up more disinfo then all the 1s and 2s can ever do.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by NJ Mooch

1. Those who know the truth and do a good job at work, this includes disinfo agents that do their job for good reasons

Mabey if we were made privy to the " disinfo agents that do their job for good reasons " part, there mabey can be less friction and more understanding and we can work together as a race again.

lol, dream on eh. $$

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:57 AM
thanx for bringing this to my attention op, there were many of these iv seen in use on many diffrent forums, my only problem is that numbers 17 and up dident lead to working pages but im glad to have learned something more about how disinfo opperates. this gets a star and a flag from me.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by krill

Your welcome.

It would be ignorant to assume there was no Counter Interlligence (CointelPro) programs working around anything, WW2, Jewish,Zionist,911,Nukes,New,Politcs.

Name an important issue and there you will find trolls, shills, and anyother name you give the occupation title.

You can google Operation Mockingbird, and COINTELPRO. You will learn more then.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in