WikiLeaks and DisInfo

Wikileaks provides a very important service to whiste-blowers to anonymously leak confidential or classified information to the public interest. However, this system also allows it to be abused by those wanting to spread Disinformation to discredit the legitimate information contained on Wikileaks.

I was looking at a US Manual on Procedure for Secure Facilities and Installations and it struck me that it wasn't (or couldn't) be real. The reasons why? It was typed in BOLD FACE 16pt -20pt FONT that varied on the same page, used run-on sentences and disjointed topics that were reminiscent of a Dr. Bronner's Soap bottle, and over-abused atrocious circa 1990 era Clip-Art (despite the document being dated in the past two years), and obviously was formatted by someone who has never used a Word Processor before in their life (variable margins off the page or into the footer/header, etc). Even the "Official" logos looked like bad copy & paste jobs from an old 1997 website that had a background color different than the color it was pasted on.

And, I'm sure this isn't an isolated occurrence either.

I understand the reasons why using a source such as Wikileaks to spread Disinfo and false propaganda would be useful to particular groups, but I'm wondering how widespread is it?

Better question...how does one separate the wheat from the chaff? For some (like the example noted above) it is painfully obvious, but others could be so subtle that it would be difficult to spot a carefully crafted fake.

By what rules and measures do ATS members routinely gauge Real vs. Disinfo?

reply to post by fraterormus


I'm not sophisticated in these matters but I think disinformation is also good data...in order for a document to be factually incorrect and yet convincing, or as convincing as a correct one, it has to be doing something else right, to have a certain charm in its structure or components...lies are not random, they have antecedents, like genetic drift...disinformation can be encouraging because it underscores something FORBIDDEN TO SAY kinda nearby, there, know what I'm trying to say...
Like a made-up UFO report is not non-data, it's just a data point in a different study (some different studies) than the study that includes yr real report...

I'm necro'ing an old thread of mine from a year and a half ago now that people on ATS have actually heard of Wikileaks, as this is now a germane topic in light of current events. I'm hoping now there are members of ATS who have a strong opinion, or insight.

While there is little doubt that Wikileaks has been valuable as a Clearing House for leaked documents, recent events have some wondering if Assange is actually working for the other side. However, he has also shown himself to be a major thorn in the side to the DoD. However, it does raise a certain amount of doubt as to the value of Wikileaks.

However, as I stated in the OP, there are instances where leaked documents were questionable at best, as they appear written by someone with a questionable grasp of reality and an even more questionable grasp of military documents (not to mention a questionable grasp of grammar). When one does not review, limit, edit, restrict, or censor documents leaked, a Clearing House becomes as equally a tool for disinformation as it does for Truth.

That is also ignoring the fact that all Military Documents routinely contain both markers and disinformation already. Whether the documents are hard-copy, digital, or electromagnetic, they contain markers as a form of authentication and as a way to determine the source if leaked to unauthorized personnel (which is why Army Intelligence Analyst PFC Bradley Manning was caught so quickly after WikiLeaks went public with some of the 260,000 Classified documents he leaked to WikiLeaks). Military Intelligence goes one step further with spurious entries to mislead unauthorized personnel who may obtain access to the documents, to determine disruptions in the information chain, to validate the reliability of downstream informants, and discover unauthorized plants. Some Military documents are entirely spurious but composed of authentic material, to cloud the process, to entrap, to delude, to fake a vulnerability...basically smoke and mirrors that fellow Intel "magicians" can see through but obfuscate the Truth and intent from those that aren't part of that Intel community.

As such, there is an old saying to never trust an Intelligence source as they are all unreliable.

Should TrustNo1 be used when regarding WikiLeaks, or should it just be treated as all other intelligence sources and be taken with a healthy grain of salt?

So the question is: WikiLeaks useful source if one knows how to separate the proverbial wheat from the proverbial chaff, being able to discern info from disinfo, or are they entirely a pawn of the DoD, unwitting or not?

reply to post by fraterormus


I see a world that is programmed to bite at every little distraction that is thrown our way. And here is yet another distraction. Why debate this? Given at least this truth that came from Manning into the care and keeping of wikileaks and then into the minds of world citizens. Take a look at just one sample of the outcome of Mannings sacrifice made possible by wikileaks www.youtube.com...

I have visited numerous threads here and blogs and what I come away with is the distinct impression we are being steered away from the truth. Criticizing and analyzing the action and motives of Assange and letting slip the fact that there are people fighting for what most of us here in the U.S scream for....transparency and truth. How many of us are taking the sort of action that Assange, and Manning have taken. Assange is acting on conscience...how many of us actually do that. Here is a bit of wikileaks history en.wikipedia.org...

The PTB and the Zionist run media wants you...us to kill the messenger instead of considering the message.

reply to post by fraterormus


Wikileaks is what it is. A place for people to post scuttlebut and release documents they are really not supposed to. It will draw all of the drama and forgeries of those environments, just like ATS does. You'll have your stuff submitted by kooks, and stuff submitted by reasonable people. Wikileaks attempts to do a little bit of correlation with sources to make sure they don't have something completely off the wall - but it can't really help it.

As for your original post - I have to say that many official papers/manuals/briefings made have been created by the most incompetent people placed in front of a keyboard utilizing software fit for an old 8486 system.

Though if it isn't a powerpoint, it probably isn't official. Complete and total abuse of that program in the DoD - stuff that should NEVER be on a powerpoint is, and the powerpoint presentations they do make are so God-awful that every briefing ends with a power-point on suicide awareness. Death by Power Point.

I think I will write a virus that deletes power point off of all DoD computers. Suicide will drop and productivity will soar... until they find the icon for excel and start using it for everything.....

Originally posted by fraterormus
Better question...how does one separate the wheat from the chaff?

Thats the question of life in general, not only in regards to one Info-Source. If you find it out please contact me.

Nice discovery, anyway

reply to post by fraterormus

Your last point really goes into old philosophies like Ontology, Epistemology and Verifiability. Much negleted debates ask how do we know that anything is true? Here one can also go into philology and proving old texts by various contexts.
As for the bits I've seen on Wikileaks, they've been a huge disappointment.
From SA the most interesting document was some essay on the cannabis situation with nothing new at all.
We have a powerful pro-Palestinian/Iraqi/Chinese force in government (the ANC) so we've actually heard for a decade that the Iraqi casualties were close to a million.
A tragedy indeed, but on Wikileaks - very boring and yawn.
I am underwhelmed!

And please, no more on the scientologists, is it really necessary?
On the other hand I also don't understand why it's specifically endangering US troops.
Don't people there want to kill them already?

I spoke to SA mercenaries working for security firms in Iraq, and a lot of it is now done by private armies.

I'd say US Christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and John Hagee endanger US troops with their anti-Islamic war-mongering!
How must we watch such slandering on global networks and think this is not a crusade against Muslims?