UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 7

Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 23:39:20 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:25:55 -0500
Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation


<snip>

>Source: http://www.trufax.org/research2/disinforules.html

>Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - The Politicians Credo

>Courtesy of American Patriot Friends Network and Walt
>July 15, 1998

>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.

-- This is a very important consideration because the people you
have to watch, in any area of human endeavor, are the leaders,
or those who purport themselves to be. That is, who else has
the ability to simply pronounce something and have it accepted,
at least by some? Upon reflection it is obvious that the people
who REALLY have the power to use disinformation ARE the most
visible people, the erstwhile leaders.

>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.


-- An excellent point, especially where "ufology" is concerned.
That is, there are certain areas where certain ufological
leading lights dare not go and that is most interesting and
illuminating. It is a fact that what is NOT in the written
corpus of an author is just about as important as what IS in
that corpus. We all have biases and sorting out those biases is
absolutely necessary, espcially among the "leaders."

>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.

-- This was the immediate reaction when I first raised my
questions about Dr. Hynek.

>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.

-- In the academicised portions of ufology there are vast areas
of the past that are simply off limits and not the subject of
legitimate discussion. One of these is the nature and scope of
"intelligence community activity" among ufologists. On this
point the "silent press" attempts to re-invent the past by
ignoring important facts. It's a powerful technique if you hold
the high ground, a hard thing to do in the days of the InterNet.

>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.

-- What are the real issues in the dispute which broke out last
month over Dr. Hynek? This real issues revolve around the fact
that there is AMPLE evidence, evidence tantamount to proof, FOR
ME, that Dr. Hynek was working both sides of the street in his
later career as Godfather of ufology. What is proof? It is the
evidence that convinces YOU. That is, there is no absolute
proof available in this area, short of the individual at issue
owning up in public, as did Dr. Thornton Page (who was also a
member of the Robertson Panel with Hynek,the web link to this
information was included in one of my postings) a few months ago
and just before his passing. All we are going to have is
evidence.

>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.

-- Here is where my critics excell!

>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.


-- Here again is where my critics triumph. Where important
issues are concerned I have tried to respond in some detail, at
least with as much as this forum deserves. Those who have read
the all the messages know which issues have been ignored by my
critics.

>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.

-- Again, my critics excell in this area, perhaps because they,
too, operate under hidden parameters. It's a tough world.

>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.

-- Here again, certain of my critics shine in this area.

>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.

-- My critics say I have provided no proof and as I have said
(because it's true) proof is the evidence that convinces you.
Assemble these threads from front to back and read them closely,
sorting out the invective from the evidence. Who wins? The
relevant message threads are:

	More 1950s UFO History: The Role Of Dr. James McDonald
	UFOs - Ersatz Exposure, Oh Shocking!
	The Art Of Propaganda In The UFO Field
	Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

>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 part of what I call the "Tag Team" approach, on which
I will have more to say later.

>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.

-- I have made no mistakes except in presentation. That is, my
early messages in what became multiple threaded messages:

	More 1950s UFO History: The Role Of Dr. James McDonald
	UFOs - Ersatz Exposure, Oh Shocking!
	The Art Of Propaganda In The UFO Field
	Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

were created under the assumption that the particular discussion
would not last long. If I had known up front how many exchanges
would have been permitted, well, things would have been
different.

>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.

-- This is the general position of the "leadership" in ufology
where uncomfortable associations exist. They seem to believe in
the possible existence of aliens from outer space, and some even
cite evidence for crashed space ships, while at the same time
balking at certain behaviors of an ordinary human kind. I must
admit puzzlement.

>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.

-- We have lots of facts, lots of them. It's the interpretation
of those facts that is at issue. The problem with Dr. Hynek is
that the closer you look at him the more, well, interesting he
becomes, and not because of his "ufology."


>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.

-- Once again, here my critics are working overtime.

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

-- We are dealing here with probabilities. That is, given what
we know, what is the probability that Dr. Hynek was NOT
maintaining any of the associations he had back in the late
1940s and early 1950s when he was, like St. Paul, actively
prosecuting those he would later champion? It's your call.

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

-- This is the tack taken by Mr. Clark in his encyclopedia where
whole aspects of ufology are disappeared. I can speak with
authority here because I am sure I am one of the few people on
this list who actually owns the work and has studied it -- hard.

>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.

-- I have been accused of doing this and it's true that the
subject did change -- because a much more interesting topic was
brought up, by my critics! This did lead to this revealing
series of threads.

	More 1950s UFO History: The Role Of Dr. James McDonald
	UFOs - Ersatz Exposure, Oh Shocking!
	The Art Of Propaganda In The UFO Field
	Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

>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".

-- I plead guilty to a little of this, but under duress.

>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.

-- Once again, this is an area where my critics do well.

>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.

-- Everything I've mentioned is on the public record except for
a couple of items which, it turns out, aren't even key to the
issue at hand. My critics have, in the main, blown themselves
out of the water as anyone can see by reading the entire series
of threads.

	More 1950s UFO History: The Role Of Dr. James McDonald
	UFOs - Ersatz Exposure, Oh Shocking!
	The Art Of Propaganda In The UFO Field
	Sherman J. Larsen and Ufology

>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.

-- This is the job of the Tag Team, the unofficial police agency
of the list. But they haven no power of arrest.

>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.

-- The "leadership" of ufology is entirely self-created and
maintains itself, in part, by NOT addressing certain issues.

>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.

-- Take a look at the MJ-12 business, closely, and think about
where the headwaters of that activity probably arose. But, oops,
that's one of those off-limits areas!

>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.

-- List owners have the ultimate power here and I must say that
in the particular case, of the _Sherm Larson and Ufology_
thread, and the others too, I have no reason for complaint.

>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.

-- No doubt my critics believe they have made things hot for me
on this list and that I will vanish. Hardly. I, too, can't stop
laughing.

Yes, Roger I am waiting for that invitation from Art Bell... see
what you can do to expedite it.

Gary Alevy


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com