Paid disinfo agents... we have your proof right here!

All kidding aside, the story has credible sources:

blog.wired.com...

Bloggers: If you suddenly find Air Force officers leaving barbed comments after one of your posts, don't be surprised. They're just following the service's new "counter-blogging" flow chart. In a twelve-point plan, put together by the emerging technology division of the Air Force's public affairs arm, airmen are given guidance on how to handle "trolls," "ragers" -- and even well-informed online writers, too. It's all part of an Air Force push to "counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force," Captain David Faggard says.

[edit on 7/1/2009 by kosmicjack]

reply to post by kosmicjack


Well, that article links back to the original blog as its source. So, I still find it hard to believe that ther is no "official" link to the Air Force on this. And I dont know anyone in the Air Force who has seen this.

That paragraph is linked back to:

www.webinknow.com...

And his blog banner says: Online Thought leadership & VIRAL MARKETING....

Anyways, if im wrong and it is legit, I will own up to that

[edit on 1/7/2009 by greeneyedleo]

I did check on the white pages at AF.mil and Capt David Faggard (you know he had to fight his way thru grade school with THAT name!) does exist in the AF.

Ok. Upon further research I see that this chart has completely different contact imformation:

freshspot.typepad.com...

Also, it looks like its purpose is NOT for disinfo but to help those in the military who may be posting online and how to handle situations: trolling, lies, etc. and how to properly post for example, providing links to anything you claim.

I dont see the disinfo connection. We KNOW people of the military post here. But there is NO proof they are being paid to spread disinfo.



[edit on 1/7/2009 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Sweet! That's great work!

That does make more sense when you look at it in the proper light. Of course, that won't get much mileage here.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


I posted this elsewhere but i believe it is relevant.
Its from an article dated 28 july 2006.

Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers
source~ The Times

Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.

More like rent-a-crowd rather than dis-info perhaps, i`m sure they believe 100% of what they say.

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Sweet! That's great work!

That does make more sense when you look at it in the proper light. Of course, that won't get much mileage here.

Eh. Like I said. If it is legit and Im wrong, I will own up to it

I just dont see the dinsinfo connection at all I think "infowars" distorted what this chart means - if it is in fact legit


[edit on 1/7/2009 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Thanks for the good laugh.

I think people are more than a little paranoid when they think there are paid disinfo agents working to argue points on a conspiracy web site like this.

Yep and I have proof in the following thread that one actually posted a story on this in itself.

You will need to read the entire 5 pages to see what I mean, but I dis-infoed the Disinfo guy....

Has happened to me a few times on ATS and funny enough this was a Chinese disinfo agent posting about American disinfo lol....

read and weep guys about how to catch them out when you catch them at it.

Its prolific! on sites such as this.

How to deal with them can be seen in my posts here:

US-Psy OP's Teams Posting On Forum's

Once I proved his status he Left and I show some info on what they get paid etc...

Ultimate spin, posting about disinfo whilst doing it yourself...

Mmmmmm

OP???

Lol

Kind Regards,

Elf.

And of course these disifo spooks won't hear about this and label it as a HOAX or something of that degree.

We're onto you goons. Wonder how much money it takes to sell out on your own humanity. Keep protesting on the thread, if anything it helps expose who you guys are and what you stand for.

Also the other links posted on similar themes of this thread are well worth the read, thanks for the links people.

wZn

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
And of course these disifo spooks won't hear about this and label it as a HOAX or something of that degree.

We're onto you goons. Wonder how much money it takes to sell out on your own humanity. Keep protesting on the thread, if anything it helps expose who you guys are and what you stand for.

Also the other links posted on similar themes of this thread are well worth the read, thanks for the links people.

wZn

I love your logic.

"If you call this thread a hoax, it just PROVES you're a disinfo agent!!!"

Click here for more information.

From: www.whale.to...

"PROPAGANDA, "PSYOPS", DEBUNKING TECHNIQUES
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

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

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof 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 may require 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.

cont...

[edit on 7-1-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

cont...
"20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen."

Nice summary...and if you look you'll already see elements of these tactics showing.

wZn

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
yap yap yap yap

That's all I ever hear from you...

Sorry about that, Gus. Want a little cheese to go with your "whine"? This is a public forum and I'm allowed to post my opinions and views here just as much as you are.

And I've stated my opinions and views on this topic in my previous posts.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
yap yap yap yap

That's all I ever hear from you...

Sorry about that, Gus. Want a little cheese to go with your "whine"? This is a public forum and I'm allowed to post my opinions and views here just as much as you are.

And I've stated my opinions and views on this topic in my previous posts.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.



wZn

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


I'll have to agree, that is a very nice summary. Thanks for posting. I've seen probably all of them occur here on ATS every day by anyone that gets their panties in a bunch over someone debunking their thread or topic.

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

 

I'll have to agree, that is a very nice summary. Thanks for posting. I've seen probably all of them occur here on ATS every day by anyone that gets their panties in a bunch over someone debunking their thread or topic.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

this is fun!



wZn

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


You posted NO. 17 and said J65 was changing the subject.... yet you said "yap yap yap, that's all i ever hear from you"... is that not pot>kettle????


If i were judging solely on this thread between the two of you, I'm afraid it's you who seems like a disinfo agent.... WZN...

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

 

You posted NO. 17 and said J65 was changing the subject.... yet you said "yap yap yap, that's all i ever hear from you"... is that not pot>kettle????


If i were judging solely on this thread between the two of you, I'm afraid it's you who seems like a disinfo agent.... WZN...

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

George Carlin Rocks!

wZn