It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
It seems to be micro-managed to death spin wise. There is only one truth.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
1. Those who know the truth and do a good job at work, this includes disinfo agents that do their job for good reasons