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.

 

Disinformation Pattern

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I have noticed a pattern that the machine uses to cause confusion over authenticity of things. I have seen it especially with photos, but it could be used for other things.

Notice the pattern:
Example 1:
1. Photo of John Kerry comes out of him attending a rally. Jane Fonda is in the picture.
2. The photo gets mainstream coverage. The photo is talked about more than it is actually shown. Some people are offended.
3. A different photo of John Kerry comes out of him attending a rally. Jane Fonda is in the picture.
4. Same as step 2 above.
5. This second photo turns out to be a fake. Mainstream news then report that "the John Kerry\Jane Fona photo" is a fake.
6. People don't remember that there are two photos, so they think that there is no authenticate photo at all, even though one is fake and the other is not.


Example 2:
1. Photos of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners surface in the mainstream news.
2. Photos are talked about more than they are shown.
3. More photos comes out, some involving British troops, some shown troops forcing women to do sex acts.
4. Mainstream news announces that the photos (some, only the ones they are specifically talking about), are fake.
5. People don't remember that there are multiple photos, some are fake, others not. So they think they are all fake.


Of course this pattern doesn't work on everybody, especially those who really pay attention.


But the key is to add fake stuff to the real stuff already out there, then claim it (and don't be specific) is a fake. Then people will think it is all fake because they lump it all together. I think this is even harder to detect when we're talking about what people said or did on issues.

Am I right? Can you find other examples of this?




posted on May, 30 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It is classic risk managment for a propoganda department..... some of the same tactics were used by the nazis. it is called dubbing. when some news or info is so revealing or shocking, you simply create a fraudulant situation mirroring the major one, publicise it and the debunk it. this tends to draw the attention away for the real issue.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
I have noticed a pattern that the machine uses to cause confusion over authenticity of things. I have seen it especially with photos, but it could be used for other things.

Notice the pattern:
Example 1:
1. Photo of John Kerry comes out of him attending a rally. Jane Fonda is in the picture.
2. The photo gets mainstream coverage. The photo is talked about more than it is actually shown. Some people are offended.
3. A different photo of John Kerry comes out of him attending a rally. Jane Fonda is in the picture.
4. Same as step 2 above.
5. This second photo turns out to be a fake. Mainstream news then report that "the John Kerry\Jane Fona photo" is a fake.
6. People don't remember that there are two photos, so they think that there is no authenticate photo at all, even though one is fake and the other is not.


Example 2:
1. Photos of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners surface in the mainstream news.
2. Photos are talked about more than they are shown.
3. More photos comes out, some involving British troops, some shown troops forcing women to do sex acts.
4. Mainstream news announces that the photos (some, only the ones they are specifically talking about), are fake.
5. People don't remember that there are multiple photos, some are fake, others not. So they think they are all fake.


Of course this pattern doesn't work on everybody, especially those who really pay attention.


But the key is to add fake stuff to the real stuff already out there, then claim it (and don't be specific) is a fake. Then people will think it is all fake because they lump it all together. I think this is even harder to detect when we're talking about what people said or did on issues.

Am I right? Can you find other examples of this?



A damn fine observation, I agree totally.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
worked on me. i didnt even know british soldiers were doing that.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
that's the way it's done. 'they' also infiltrate organizations and splinter them from the inside through dissent.
the lie sandwich, the truth enveloped in lies.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

same type arguement right there. I don't know if this one is orginally true or not though.




top topics
 
0

log in

join