It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Pentagon Propaganda Documents Go Online! But Will The Media Ever Report Them?

page: 1
39
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+12 more 
posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Pentagon Propaganda Documents Go Online! But Will The Media Ever Report Them?


counterpunch.org

Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
LOL!!!

Better hurry and read em while you can folks!! Guaranteed these will either be disappearing or blacked out in no time flat!



News of the Pentagon's online posting of the documents came from Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who notes that NSNS provided the New York Times "limited information about a military office early in the reporting process."

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

www.dod.mil...

More than two weeks after the New York Times reported on the Penatgon's military analyst program to sell controversial policies such as the invasion of Iraq, the broadcast television news outlets implicated in the program are hoping to tough out the scandal by refusing to report it.



counterpunch.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Priceless!

The fact that the format makes indexing it a problem means it will be that much longer before valuable analysis can be made regarding timing and contacts between the 'talking heads' their own business concerns, the pentagon, and the media. Also it will render a side-by-side market performance comparison a bit more challenging. But once done, we will see who profited, when, and where - and how the media became the tool for, dare I say it? Treason.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
This looks awesome dude. What's the gurantee of authenticity of those though? Flagged and starred. Now get your behind over to the Blackwater thread, lol. Nah, great work DD. I'll stay tuned to this thread.

YouTube video of The Pentagon getting caught red-handed :



Another YouTube video on The Pentagon :



Video footage of The Pentagon, not being hitting by a Boeing 757 :



[edit on 7-5-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
So here we are...with an oppurtunity to take advantage of the huge member resource we have and just released proof of the DoD actively conspiring on how to best present information to the public in an effort to gain public support, if not just dissuade popular derision.

I don't know about you, but I am pretty fed up with being lied to and taken for granted here....so let's divide the work load and decide where best to place the results....Research Forum anyone? Given enough interest and the appropriately motivated individuals...I say that there is no reason why we can't just download all the documents now and start annotating and analyzing beyond the wonderful, "So there is proof and now I am going to go buy doughnuts," reaction that many of us have had in the past...

To get us started and show that I am not just interested in spouting an rally cry...


www.dod.mil... .pdf

"Likely Questions"

Anticipation of media/public inquiry and prepared answers. Something that would be more interesting to get in further after more context has been established by research and corroboration of 'period' sources and information. Suffice to say that it is important (as well as a nobrainer) to acknowledge that these things are planned for. The potential tidbits of interest are potentially contained in extrapolated pieces or connections (contradictions, omitted information)...such as the following question.

Why was "The Major Theater War" Strategy conceptualized at the end of the Cold War, which was in 1991? Granted the Gulf War began in 1991, but the War on Terror wasn't coined for another decade. MTW, by the way is the capacity to fight regional wars simultaneously and its' coined term suggests that our defense sector successfully anticipated the 'miniturization of war'. Speculation at this point by me, but enough to cause me to raise an eye brow...

The documents are worth a look through...and there is much to learn. By pooling our resources and attention, we may come out with something than a, "Well Duh, I have known that all along."



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Man I hope you saved a copy of that cause the page is now gone. I would love to help I am good at paperwork.

Kinda a lot of information were going to want to know might fall in our laps soon. According to annother thread with some good information a lot of stuff just got leaked out. So someone out there might leak it further out.

Happy to help out with this.

like this

nevermind sorry read some other thread simmilar to this tonight.

[edit on 5/7/2008 by whatukno]

[edit on 5/7/2008 by whatukno]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Fixed Link

Kind of weird how the link above doesn't work...but it is document 41 under the May 10, 2007 heading using whatukno's link....


No Problem, whatukno...give me a bit of time to familiarize myself with the various directions and to draw up project goals, etc. and we'll get this party started.

I can't see an opportunity like this pass by...we see 'interesting' information everyday, but how often do we get to situate ourselves in the middle of a breaking story?

We have the resources and intelligence. Let's use them...


[edit on 7-5-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Looks like a job for a good OCR Program and someone with too much time on their hands to visually confirm. You should split this up between a large group of people.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   


Anyone want to perhaps offer suggestions as to what the highlighted material means?

Suggestive....also, could someone perhaps go through this document to the part where Rumsfeld is discussing "Embedding"? I have no idea what that means and would like some help figuring that one out...2007 Rumsfeld Interview




And this is what I am talking about...documented source showing a General advising the media to discuss an out of context conflict (Syria) when referencing the War on Terror in terms of public presentation.

The military and media have lied. Period and end of story. Are we going to let it slide by?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Looks like a job for a good OCR Program and someone with too much time on their hands to visually confirm. You should split this up between a large group of people.


A large group of people? You mean perhaps the membership of ATS? As mentioned in my prior posts?

Way to show up Blaine91555....


I will post the link for the Research Project here when it is about ready...I'm thinking about a week or so. Until then, I suggest that those who are willing go ahead and peruse some of the documents and post some initial interpretations here. That way, we can get an idea of interest in terms of personnel as well as a preview of the types of interpretations we have.

Even a few pages from everyone is what we are looking for...



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I have tomorrow off so I could put in some time. I just ran a page through an OCR that came with my scanner and it does a fair job. Digitized this would be far easier to work with.

It needs to be divided up logically to avoid duplicated efforts. For now, sadly, I have to go to work



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The links are broken?

Why am I not surprised.
Rumsfeld's statements alone open up the Administration to about 100 counts of perjury.

If we tried politicians like we did street scum, the entire Bush Admin would be up in Chino for 35 years.

And not one single media outlet picks this up?

This # runs deep my friends....



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
It needs to be divided up logically to avoid duplicated efforts. For now, sadly, I have to go to work


Agreed. For now, we should keep a tally on who is interested and the amount of time available for each person....the divison of documents can be based on that. I don't see any need to do everything immediately, so let's do an obligatory look and provision of examples for this thread until we have that rough idea of who will contribute in a more organized fashion (Research Forum)....


I'm at work right now...typing this as my Boss is sitting right next to me; talking to my team


I can't do that forever...


Edit to Add: GodFather....start with whatukno's post....all links work from then on...


[edit on 8-5-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
This might be helpful.
Free OCR Program

I'm off to stare at a computer at work



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
~snip~
I'm at work right now...typing this as my Boss is sitting right next to me; talking to my team


I can't do that forever...

~snip~

[edit on 8-5-2008 by MemoryShock]


Not to derail the thread, but, check out Ghostzilla....

Now back to our regularly scheduled conspiracy!



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I've downloaded all the files and am checking out a few OCR packages.

If all goes well, we could have these all up on ATS, as text, somewhat soon.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Ive got some time on my hands if your looking for volunteers. Let me know.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Thank you Memory Shock and SkepticOverlord!!

I see the docs are now starting to trickle out to some of the "watch-dog" net sites---Found this article today...Nice that these "analysts" were using Rummy as their orating pupeteer, and to "attack dissent" against those speaking out...


‘Military analyst’ to Rumsfeld: ‘You are the leader. You are our guy.’



The Pentagon recently released documents related to its propaganda program, first disclosed by The New York Times on April 20. Media Matters notes that the now public records reveal a meeting in April 2006 between then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace, in which one unidentified “analyst” praised his “leader”:

During the meeting, one of the attendees tells Rumsfeld, “[W]e get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating” and says that he would “personally love” for Rumsfeld “to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we’re — forgive me — we’re parroting, but it’s what has to be said. It’s what we believe in, or we would not be saying it.” The individual adds: “And we’d love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy.”


Source
thinkprogress.org...



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Yea I have no life whatsoever so I can help out a lot with this project. I just need what you want me to find out about this. Especially I can help with the POs and other invoices as I have a lot of experience with accounting.

I am also going to start looking over the audio files attached with this to get some sound bites that will be usefull.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I've downloaded all the files and am checking out a few OCR packages.

If all goes well, we could have these all up on ATS, as text, somewhat soon.


ROCK AND ROLL!!!



Great onya, whatukno...


I'm thinking that we need to find a way to organize and collate for easy reference. I still need to continue searching through these to find out what we have thematically and specifically. I don't necessarily like the division of documents by date for the reason that we don't have any continuity and topical guide to what is contained.

I think our ultimate goal is to create an easy reference that is accessible as a source to refute the 'trust your government' discussions. Easily understandable with what I envision to be inclusive of an ATS commentary or synopsis for every "grouping" as well as what we determine to be the most relevant examples.

Still a work in progress...



new topics

top topics



 
39
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join