25 rules of disinformation, H. Michael Sweeney 1997: 2001.07.04
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/667

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney http://www.proparanoid.com
proparanoid@yahoo.com hms@proparanoid.com
PO Box 1941, Clackamas, OR 97015
copyright (c) 1997 All rights reserved

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial
use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author
information intact. For more Intel/Shadow government
related info, visit the Light vs. Shadow home page:

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin,
the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing
with
truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied
in public forums. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a
conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a
disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover
and expose the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo
artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this
material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also
prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular
party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more
likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

Understand that when the those seeking resolution of such crimes
proceed in attempting to uncover truth, they try their best to present
factual information constructed as an argument for a particular
chain of evidence towards a particular solution to the crime. This can
be a largely experimental process via trial and error, with a theory
developed over time to perfection or defeated by the process. This is
their most vulnerable time, the time when a good disinfo artist can do
the greatest harm to the process.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will
evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are
solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need
further development before conclusions can be arrived at, or that one
or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily
so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a
particular
link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument.
The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or
weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links.
It is the job of a disinfo artist to at least make people think the
links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break
the chain of evidence, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain
is
broken, either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain
developed, or the basis is lost, but truth still wins out. There is no
shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed chain, if done
with
honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While
it
is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with
a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins,
as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to
emotionalize
and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek
to prevent new links from being forged by a kind of intimidation.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull his strings who stand
to suffer should the crime be solved, and therefore, who stand to
benefit should it be the opposite outcome. In ANY such case,
they MUST seek to prevent rational and complete
examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them.
Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own,
they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those
who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the
intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the
same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well
defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at
large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led
astray by these time-proven tactics.

The overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence
which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever
deceptions or lies to make the links seem weaker than they are, or
better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted
in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the
credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact,
regardless of the source. Truth is truth, regardless of the source.
This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals.
Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the
testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a
known "liar's" testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact,
it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony
(argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts,
it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or
if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this
instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their
own merit, and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as
newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and News Groups,
the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the
principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals
to
cause other persons to become interested in their own particular
problem, position, or idea -- usually ideas, postulations, or
theories,
which are in development at the time. People often use such
mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollenization to
better form their ideas.

Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful,
vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic),
the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in
the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any
supporters as less than credible, should any possible future
confrontation in more public forums result, due to successes in
seeking
a final truth. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by
the
unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than
necessarily
warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or
concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a
professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders
any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone
who disagrees is obviously stupid.

So, as you read here in the News Groups the various discussions on
various matters, decide for yourself when a rational argument is being
applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare
operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later
freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray,
and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run
for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up
or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is
the goal). Here are the twenty-five methods and six traits, some of
which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple
example in the form of actual paraphrases from NG comments or
commonly known historical events, and a proper response.
Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders
and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling
into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared
that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery.
Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as
others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of
the rule sent upon request (see permissions statement at end):

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.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom when in Hunt vs. Liberty
Lobby when CIA agent Marita Lorenz "confession" testimony regarding
CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John
Kennedy was revealed. All media reported is that E. Howard Hunt lost
his liable case against Liberty Lobby (Spotlight had reported he was
in
Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's
Plausible
Denial for the full confessional transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of
the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be
certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a
cover
up.

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.

Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were
murdered! The FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and
best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal
requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could
want to appoint."

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation
tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need
do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you
will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF
at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation
tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

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.

"You can't prove his material was legitimately
from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance
to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was
brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was
the
same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet
for months."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a
single FBI interview statement to media and a
supportive statement by a Congressman who
has not actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being
accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre
claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI
would have reason to paint his material in a negative light.
For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in
the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests
you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question.
Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is
not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully
before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues.
Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation
tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?

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.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that
spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight
800,
a straw man is used. "If these exist, the public has not seen them."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible
and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not
seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever.
To produce them would violate national security with respect
to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should
know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such
disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?

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.

Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher,
Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know
your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly
explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy
theory."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the
basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is a well known Populist media
source, responsible for releasing facts and stories well before
mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of
silence.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack on 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 or 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.

Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come
up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters."
Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if
the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog
or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism,
and
in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?

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.

Example: "With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like
you can make a pretty good living spreading lies."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger
or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence
that this is so. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of
such
disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?

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

"You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic
considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally,
for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair
of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual
450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined
BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive
shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has
ever been flown by Korean nationals , none have ever been trained to
fly it, and none have flown over the Republic of China in a SR or
even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not
authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American
pilots."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to
provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite
sources. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,
avoid discussing issues with denial that 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.

Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your
facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while
others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no
trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by
use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?

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 the 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.

Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB
findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down
at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive
that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as
if new information is irrelevant.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?

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.

Example: "Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time
to
question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4
and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned
about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a
sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing
on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy.
Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations
expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco
aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy feeling it makes us, so much
so that we are to ignore more important matters? Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?

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.

Example: "I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered
since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would
have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that
went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would
have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA,
the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others
from daring to attempt it by making it a much
bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you
refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?

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.

Example: "The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market
where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story --
often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any
evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City
bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They
haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge.
Put up or shut up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here.
Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it?
No, despite their presence at a
courtroom testimony "confession" by CIA operative Marita
Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby,
they only told us the trial verdict. Why do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?

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

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is 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. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

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

Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this
technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the
Warren Report.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals
that of Arlan Specter's Magic
Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was
invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)?

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

Example: "You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was
faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed
there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you
accept the Police reports?" True, since the dental records and
autopsy report showing his body was two inches two long and the
teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry,
and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all
that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished
materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter,
particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up or other
criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against
the discussion, you can respond... You are avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in
contention based on highly suspicious matters which themselves tend
to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the
remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?

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.

Example: "There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering
through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton
knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an
attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a
disadvantage in the election because Dole is such a weak candidate
with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with
something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform."
Response. "You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong
with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in
raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his
hands on..." One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of
choice, to jump in defensively on that one..
.
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues
by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response --
a trap which we will not fall into willingly.
If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this
discussion, as it is not germane unless you can provide concrete facts
to support your contentions of relevance. Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 17- change the subject)?

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".

Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you
such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is
cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only
justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a
drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have
touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too
hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic
Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional
help..."

Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without
discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute
which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide
and unwarranted personal attacks,
if you can manage to avoid sinking so low.

Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can
manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics
(rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?

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.

Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of
witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage
from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter
for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven,
reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald,
Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton,
wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us
anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you
allow
us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB,
Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New
York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical
Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy
divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including
Boeing
Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team --
as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material
out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses
aren't qualified. Only YOUR are qualified to tell us what to believe?
Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks
be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned?
Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented,
demand impossible proofs)?

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.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white
Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the
assassination.
This was a handy "confession", since Jack and Earl were both on the
same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that
Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination.

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you
see
it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known
today
than earlier in time... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your information is known to have designed to side track
this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath
offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives
met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK
to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose
"Solidarist confession" was meant to sidetrack any serious
investigation of the murder. Why do you refuse to address the issues
by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?

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.

Example: According to one OK bombing Grand Juror who violated
the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the
power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power
of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to
hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence
which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint
conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic
except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly
with respect to any possible cover up.

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.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American
Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric
Associations fall into this category, as their founding members
and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind
Control research. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps
oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by
means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing
as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the
topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the
opponent organization, you are well equipped to fight this tactic.

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.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing
trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence
community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking
other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of
the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government
sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over
an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of
exposing government involvements, come up with something else
(any day now) to talk about -- keeping in the sports theme, how about
sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the whole
gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate
and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the
"news flap" or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your
opponents.

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.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire
theories
with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and
threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to
charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to
register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges.
If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think
yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight
regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy
which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness,
a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your
opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls
(see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how
this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same
thing).

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.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't,
somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of
Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this
method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering
it was by foul play as part of a deliberate cover up.

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the
most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end,
you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or
more of seven distinct traits:

1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive
input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials.
Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually
everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert
knowledge
in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either
applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents
who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become
argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the
commentator as well.

3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a
controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in
general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise
tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern.
They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason,
and vanish with the reason.

4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs
or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum,
but
there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this
sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players
will
infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other
tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those
who
in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why,
if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on
defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on
conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make
fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they
hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have
an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to
focus
as they do.

6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick
skin
-- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of
overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from
intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the
evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved
or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can
seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance,
will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But
disinfo
types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and
cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more
calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just
a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well
in a communications medium as they might be able in a real
face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright
rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger
later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned,
no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and
they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any
adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that
game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what
others think might seek to improve their communications style,
substance, and so forth.

7) There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true
self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic,
or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they
really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that
often,
they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes
itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a
Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling,
grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education.
I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college
degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular
topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my book, Fatal
Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled
lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the
veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of
oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil.
God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to
such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits
require...or let us die seeking these things, for without them,
we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 82 members, 1,467 posts in a public,
searchable archive http://RMForAll.blogspot.com
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////