oracle broadcasting Revere Radio

12.08.2009 Banned by the Catholic Church

If you go to this link and listen to it 3 times in a row…. you tell me why the church banned this ghost band?

http://margaretnoble.net/blog/banned-by-the-catholic-church/

Please leave your comments on the original page… and wait to see what happens….guess what the church was scared off???

lets see who posts the right answer before October 31 2010

USE THE FORCE LUKE

12.08.2009
Banned by the Catholic Church
Categories: Sound Oddities

800px-Shepard_Tones_spectrum_linear_scale

Sound Clip: Shepard Tone by Roger Shepard

This is a classic sound oddity and illusion. Or is it? There are some corrections to this post with much discussion, see below and follow the trail of comments to clarify the inaccuracies.

Originally posted:

“It is rumored to be called the “devil’s tone” by the Catholic church. The Shepard tone is a sound consisting of a superposition of sine waves separated by octaves. When played with the base pitch of the tone moving upwards or downwards, it is referred to as the
Shepard Scale. This creates an auditory illusion that continually ascends or descends in pitch, yet which ultimately seems to get no higher or lower.”

shepard_tone2

Corrections here and below in comments from Brent Williams:

“Hi Margaret.

“Baned by the Catholic Church“, about a Shepard-Risset Glissando. This post contained links to certain webpages, but when the post went up (even before it was moderated) the links were missing. Just in case you want to put them up for your readers, here they are:

The original source page for this sound file is here . It is in French.

You can find the Wiki source page here . This contains a little more info on the sound. This is where I confirmed that the sound is a minor chord of synchronised Shepard-Risset glissandi.

Read about Diana Deutsch here . She is currently a Professor at UCSD.

All the best, and please continue with your excellent website.

Brent Williams”
Categories: Sound Oddities -

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite PicLens

$115M lawsuit launched against G20 police

September 4, 2010 by  
Filed under Big Brother, Featured Stories, World News

Source: CNews

TORONTO – Two Torontonians are launching a $115-million class-action lawsuit against police on behalf of everyone detained during the G20 protests in July.

Miranda McQuade and Mike Barber, who were both arrested during the Summit, are suing on behalf of 1,150 people who were detained.

The statement of claim filed Thursday names the Toronto Police Services Board, the Attorney-General of Canada and the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board as co-defendants.

QMI Agency’s requests for comment from the co-defendants were not immediately returned.

“The wholesale violation of civil liberties which occurred during the G20 must be addressed by the courts to preserve our democracy,” said lawyer David Midanik in a statement. “These violations will escalate unless and until people are willing to stand up for their rights in a court of law.”

Read Full Article Here…

International Center for 9/11 Studies Secures Release of Thousands of Photos and Videos from NIST

September 2, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, World News

Submitted by JGourley on Tue, 08/31/2010 – 11:32pm

The International Center for 9/11 Studies has secured the release of hundreds of hours of video footage and tens of thousands of photographs used by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. This material is being released to the Center under the Freedom of Information Act, in response to a lawsuit the Center filed against NIST.

The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records. To date, the Center has received over 300 DVDs and several external hard disk drives that contain responsive records – more than 3 terabytes of data so far – and NIST has indicated that additional records will be released in the future.

We are currently looking at the best ways to distribute these materials to interested researchers and journalists around the world. It has taken NIST more than 8 months so far to produce a partial archive of photographs and videos in their possession, but we hope to be more efficient in our efforts. Because of the huge volume of data, we are working on a wiki-style website to facilitate review and discussion of any interesting items that are discovered by researchers.

Justin Keogh, our Chief Technical Officer, is preparing the website and materials for release. The first batch of materials we are releasing is a group of video clips sent to us on an external hard disk drive labeled “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.” We believe NIST entered these clips into a searchable database called the Cumulus database, and used them as the basis for the investigation and reports. Researchers may be interested to see which video clips NIST determined were important to its investigation, and compare these clips to the raw footage we release at a later date. Justin will be posting more details about the data release in the next week or two. Any questions about the FOIA Request, lawsuit, or data release should be submitted via the Contact Us page at the Center’s website: http://www.ic911studies.org/Contact_Us.html

Although the Center has extremely limited resources with which it can review this mountain of data, several interesting items have already been discovered. Below are five items the Center has uncovered so far. The items below have not been altered from the original provided by NIST, except in three cases where a short section of footage was extracted from a much longer video. Otherwise, no alterations have been made to the video or audio. For the best viewing experience, you should watch all of the videos below in the highest resolution available. We will supplement the list below in the coming days and weeks.

1. Video Footage of Explosion Before Collapse

In the video below, at about the 0:59 mark, a high-pressure explosion occurs in one of the Twin Towers, below the impact zone, while the building is still standing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1FJBVkh4s

In the final report on the collapse of the Twin Towers issued by NIST, it appears to attempt an explanation for this explosion by suggesting it is a smoke puff resulting from a pressure pulse inside the building, perhaps from a collapsing wall or ceiling, or sudden opening of a door. (See NCSTAR1-5A, p. 52) However, as can be seen from the screen capture below, it isn’t merely smoke and dust being ejected. There appears to be a massive object being ejected along with the explosion.

WTC Explosion

2. Audio Evidence of Explosions During Collapse

Several videos released to the Center have clear audio tracks that contain distinct sounds of explosions occurring at the World Trade Center. These audio tracks provide support to the many eyewitness statements referring to explosions occurring when the buildings collapsed. Explosions can be heard at the initiation of the South Tower collapse in the following two videos. The explosions are clear enough at normal volumes, but turning your speaker volume up a bit can help provide a full appreciation of the sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0a3Iz6Z0tg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-8kmnnEjr0

The video below contains distinct sounds of explosions occurring throughout the collapse of the North Tower. The native audio track is at very low volume, so your speakers should be turned up enough to hear the explosions. (Please be careful to turn your volume back down after watching this video.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e6KTRh92wM

In the next video, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

David Chandler will soon be publishing a video that contains a more in depth analysis of this footage, including audio enhancements of the explosion.

3. Visual Evidence of Explosions During Collapse

Several videos also have clear visible explosions that occur above the airplane impact/collapse zone in the South Tower. In the video below, the collapse begins at about the 3:45 mark. If you watch the corner of the South Tower nearest the camera, at a point about halfway between the airplane impact zone and the top of the building, you will see puffs of smoke and a flash at about the 3:49-3:50 mark. The corner of the building also appears to lose structural support (or “kink”) at this same location. These are the obvious result of explosive charges severing the steel structure at the near corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlMqGwGwGc

In the next video, a similar phenomenon can be seen, but from a different angle and not quite as clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=170XJFF2KTQ

The video below is raw footage from a news outlet of the South Tower exploding. Explosions can be seen ahead of the collapse front. The newscaster even calls it a “huge explosion.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE7fWV2qUVU

4. Missing Video

Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented in item 2 above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_Lv_sevwY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyhMTOdRnRo

Another clip from the Cumulus database (below) begins after initiation of the WTC 7 collapse. The soundtrack is curiously silent during the entire collapse, only to turn on after the collapse has already finished.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT3ea4AC2K8

In the next video, the camera catches the South Tower collapse from very close to the building. The initiation of the collapse is missing and appears to have been cut from the original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YoQb4_awRA

The video clip below also begins after collapse initiation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3vX2kmLpXw

There are many video clips in the Cumulus database that do not show collapse initiation – the only event even purportedly explained in the final report from NIST on the Twin Towers.

5. Footage of WTC 7 Before Collapse

The video below is a series of clips taken near World Trade Center 7 after at least one of the Twin Towers has collapsed. This video shows Michael Hess yelling for help from the 8th floor window, beginning at about the 1:09 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZduP7HTM3cg

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite PicLens

School Lockdown and 14 year old Charged with Terroristic Threats Over Facebook Post

March 13, 2010 by  
Filed under Big Brother, Featured Stories

UPDATE:  The 14 year old is one of only three black students at Johnson Central.  He was harassed and called racial slurs for 2 days then falsely accused of posting a threat on facebook about saying he would “shoot up the school” by one of the students who called him “nig**r” repeatedly.  The problem is the accused does NOT have a facebook account.  None of the students who called  him racial slurs were suspended.  The 14 year old accused has been held for over 8 days in jail with no bond and absolutely NO CONTACT with his mother or ANYONE for that matter.

PAINTSVILLE – Johnson Central High School and Johnson County Middle School were placed on lockdown Thursday morning, after a student allegedly made threats that led to his arrest by the Paintsville City Police.

The student, a 14-year-old freshman, was arrested at home and charged with terroristic threatening and disorderly conduct.

“We had a kid that threatened some students yesterday and we suspended that student,” said Johnson County Supt. Steve Trimble. “We followed up with a police report. There were a lot of things on the internet and Facebook, according to some information we received, and it was said that some threats were made that he might come back to school today.

“As a precautionary measure, we put our kids from the high school and middle school in the gym and put the schools on lockdown just to be safe. He never did come on our campus. We actually talked to him at his home to make sure he was there. When he was taken into custody, we sent our kids back to class. There’s no guarantee that he sent any texts or emails, but we are going to take even rumors of a threat seriously.”

According to Paintsville City Police Capt. Jason Arms, the student did not have any weapons when he was arrested.

“At no time did he have any weapons,” Arms said. “He was arrested for a threat that he was going to be bringing weapons to school.”

When the schools were put on lockdown, an emergency communication system sent messages and phone calls to parents to inform them of what was going on.

“The safety of our students and staff is our top priority,” said Trimble. “Everything else comes second.”

US creates terror groups, ex ISI-intelligence chief says

March 5, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, World News

Source: Press TV

Former head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency Hamid Gol says the United States is seeking to create and train terrorist groups in the region.

In a Wednesday interview with Fars news agency, Gol said Washington had been making efforts to destabilize the region through supporting groups like the Pakistan-based Jundallah terrorist group.

Gol went on to say that such attempts by the US intelligence agencies were in particular directed at fomenting unrest in Iran.

“The US intelligence agencies pursued just one goal by forming Rigi’s group which was provoking unrests and instability in Iran,” Gol was quoted as saying.

He also accused Washington and its western allies of seeking to strain ties between Iran and Pakistan.

The remarks come days after Iranian security forces arrested Jundallah ringleader Abdolmalek Rigi while he was aboard a Kyrgyz airliner on a flight from the United Arab Emirates to Kyrgyzstan.

In his confession broadcast by Press TV in late February after his arrest, Rigi talked about offers of unlimited support by the US spy agency, the CIA, saying the Americans offered to “cooperate with us” and “promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan near Iran.”

Rigi’s group has claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks in Iran. The group has carried out murder, armed robbery, kidnappings, acts of sabotage and bombings inside Iran.

Why the White House Won’t Release a Key Cyber Paper

March 5, 2010 by  
Filed under Cyber/Space Control, Featured Stories, US News

Mar 4 2010, 5:58 PM ET

Even as the new government-wide cyber coordinator, Howard Schmidt, pledged to promote transparency as the government moves to protect cyberspace, the administration won’t release a legal memorandum that many, including the one-time head of its cyber security review, hoped would be made public.

The memo was drafted as an appendix to the White House Cyberspace Policy Review led by Melissa Hathaway, at the time the acting senior director for cyber issues at the National Security Council.  Hathaway has since left the government.  She has told colleagues that the White House overruled her decision to release the legal annex. Administration officials dispute the idea that it was her decision to make in the first place.

Speaking at last year’s RSA conference, Hathaway praised the review process for its “unprecedented transparency.”  A footnote in the appendix of the main report notes that the legal analysis was not intended to be of the type that would or could influence policy. And the report itself calls for a new interagency legal review team — the team that would produce products for internal, executive-branch only deliberation.

Hathaway, in discussing the review the next week, expressed enthusiasm about the legal review to an audience of intelligence professionals and journalists at a conference in Virginia.   Bob Gourley, a former senior intelligence official, blogged after the event that Hathaway  bragged about the comprehensiveness of the legal review. Gourley noted that the legal annex “captures some of some of the opinion of federal legal experts from across the government.”

Wednesday, Schmidt announced the declassification of part of the Comprehensive National Cyber Initiative, which has been shrouded in secrecy, even to members of Congress. Even though most of the information has been in the public domain, the declassification marked a step that the previous administration was unwilling to take.

A senior administration official said the legal report would not be released because its contents are classified. The official cited “national security” as the reason why the legal annex has not been released, said that the White House should have been given more credit for declassifying some information about the CNCI, and said that President Obama is committed to as much “transparency as possible.”  Congress has also asked the White House for a copy of the annex and as of a month ago had not received it.  Schmidt told an audience earlier this week that administration lawyers are working on about 40 discrete issues.

But two people who have seen the report say that although it covers sensitive matters like the legal authority the United States has to conduct offensive cyber warfare, a minimally redacted version could be released without compromising any intelligence program or strategy. The document poses many questions, these people said, and does not presuppose that the U.S. government has come to any conclusions. For example, a portion of the document about the laws of war is a straightforward, academic discussion about how they might or might not apply to cyber attacks.
According to these people, the report also includes a rigorous discussion about whether offensive cyber capabilities are best described as a traditional military activity (and therefore be subject to Title 10 of the US code) or an intelligence activity, which would impose a different set of legal requirements upon whatever action was being considered.  The analysis also ponders whether the U.S. might establish a “first use” doctrine of cyber offense.

The legal annex includes some discussion about the National Security Agency’s data collection and retention policies, most of which has already been declassified in other forums by the previous administration.  Among the more sensitive political issues that harass elected officials is the degree to which the NSA might have to monitor the dot.com domain in order to fully protect the country from major cyber attacks. To date, government officials have been reluctant to even acknowledge that the possibility would ever be discussed, which would require Congress to change current law.

From the administration’s perspective, because the questions raised in the analysis were brought forward by lawyers working for intelligence agencies, releasing the information would provide enemies with an insight into what capabilities the government might have or might want to develop.

“As vitally important as openness is, every organization also needs to have confidentiality around legal deliberations so that the client can get sound, unvarnished advice from counsel. That concern is particularly acute in matters of national security,” the official said in an e-mailed statement. “These deliberations concerned important legal issues facing the cyber review team, and should remain privileged.”

The official would not say whether the administration planned to discuss the complex legal issues in public at any point. Aside from offensive cyber warfare, these issues include the legal implications of the government working with the private sector, restrictions imposed by the 4th amendment, whether existing statues like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act need to be expanded.

In 2006, the Justice Department produced an unclassified white paper on the National Security Agency’s surveillance program that was well received, even as it protected sensitive programs and even as many legal experts profoundly disagreed with the analysis.  In 2009, it released an unclassified legal memorandum on a sensitive government program known as Einstein II, which was set up to protect servers on the dot.gov domain.

In February, at a symposium at the University of Texas at Austin’s law school, a CIA consultant gave an unclassified speech, which included CIA-approved Power Point slides, about the difficulties inherent in crafting a comprehensive legal approach. The consultant, Sean Kanuck, included several slides about the current questions the U.S. government is wrestling with, including what type of cyber attack constitutes an act of war, and whether offensive cyber security actions require the government to take into account the potential for human suffering on the other side.  (Kanuck said at the time that his presentation was not endorsed by the CIA and that his discussion did not necessarily reflect any specific internal deliberations.)

As with the NSA program, the cyber law terrain triggers extreme sensitivities, with journalists and commentators worrying about whether the government is planning in secret to take control of the Internet. They aren’t — but in refusing to open parts of the issue to public discussion, they are feeding the uneducated and impoverished public discourse on the subject.

“Why can’t we have a debate about nuclear weapons that it’s in the open and not have that debate about cyber?” said James A. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has consulted with the administration in the past about cyber security issues. “The answer they give is that we would give our adversaries notice of our red lines. Well, that assumes the enemies don’t know our  red lines already.”

Federal agencies may expand internet monitoring to beef up cybersecurity

March 5, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Stories

By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, March 4th, 2010 — 10:19 am

The federal government may be expanding its monitoring of online communications in the name of thwarting cyberattacks.

A top cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security said in an interview with CNET that it’s considering greater use of a federal technology that provides the department information in order to help prevent online attacks.

Called the Einstein technology, it’s currently only used by federal networks, but DHS’s Greg Schaffer said the government might expand its use to “critical infrastructure spaces” in the private sector. CNET’s Declan McCullagh explains:

Not much is known about how Einstein works, and the House Intelligence Committee once charged that descriptions were overly “vague” because of “excessive classification.” The White House did confirm this week that the latest version, called Einstein 3, involves attempting to thwart in-progress cyberattacks by sharing information with the National Security Agency. []

Earlier reports have said that Einstein 3 has the ability to read the content of emails and other messages, and that AT&T has been asked to test the system. (The Obama administration says the “contents” of communications are not shared with the NSA.)

Story continues below…

The nature of the technology raises important civil liberties issues about government surveillance of Americans’ private communications, which became a major national controversial during the Bush administration’s wiretapping scandal. Federal agencies like the NSA were involved then, ad they are likely to be in his new endeavor.

But Schaffer said the technology can be used effectively to enhance cybersecurity without unlawful invasions of privacy.

“I don’t think you have to be Big Brother in order to provide a level of protection either for federal government systems or otherwise,” he told CNET.

“As a practical matter, you’re looking at data that’s relevant to malicious activity, and that’s the data that you’re focused on. It’s not necessary to go into a space where someone will say you’re acting like Big Brother. It can be done without crossing over into a space that’s problematic from a privacy perspective,” he added.

But it appears President Obama is taking steps to ensure transparent and accountable use of this technology by the government in beefing up cybersecurity, which the White House describes as “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.”

At WhiteHouse.gov, he posted a declassified memo this week outlining the goverment’s once-secret plans on how to use the Einstein technology.

White House computer security coordinator Howard Schmidt (and former Microsoft security executive) said in a conference this Tuesday that “[p]artnerships and transparency are concepts that have to go hand in hand” when it comes to computer security, the Washington Post reported.

“There are a lot of legal issues about what we’re doing,” he admitted at the conference, according to Wired magazine. But he said the government is systematically working to address the legal concerns with the program and will not spy on Americans.

“We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans,” he said.

Ideal use of the technology, according to CNET’s Declan McCullagh, would “help less-prepared companies fend off cyberattacks, including worms sent through e-mail, phishing attempts, and even denial of service attacks.”

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite PicLens

Disinformation Tactics: The Methods Used To Keep You In The Dark

February 10, 2010 by  
Filed under Big Brother, Cyber/Space Control, Featured Stories

Source: Dprogram.net

There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation. Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. In fact, during the early Middle-Ages in most European countries commoners were not even allowed to own a Bible, nor was the Bible allowed to be interpreted from Latin to another language, let alone any other tome that might breed “dangerous ideas”. This was due in large part to the established feudal system and its hierarchy of royals and clergy. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical, or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.

With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elites were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Democracies (and Democratic Republics), with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born. The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the elites.

The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a “Gordian Knot” of misdirections and fabrications so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.

In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly. In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.

Media Disinformation Methods

The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a PR firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone, and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.

The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press, however, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation. Hearst’s legacy of lies and sensationalism lives on in the Hearst published magazine ‘Popular Mechanics’, who accuse the growing 9/11 Truth Movement of outrageous “conspiracy theory” while at the same time consistently publishing articles about UFO sightings and secret government flying saucer programs.

popularmechanics-hearst-911-med.jpg

As we will show, this strange juxtaposition of mixed signals and hypocritical accusations is characteristic of all purveyors of disinformation.

Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:

Lie Big, Retract Quietly

Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out. A good example of this would be the collusion of the MSM with the Bush administration to convince the American public after 9/11 that Iraq had WMDs, even though no concrete evidence existed to prove it. George W. Bush’s eventual admission that there had never been any WMDs in Iraq (except chemical weapons which the U.S. actually sold to Saddam under the Reagan / Bush administration) was lightly reported or glazed over by most mainstream news sources. The core reason behind a war that has now killed over a million people was proven to be completely fraudulent, yet I still run into people today who believe that Iraq had nukes…

Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact

Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith. A recent example of this would be the Osama Bin Laden audio tapes which supposedly reveal that the Christmas “Underwear Bomber” was indeed Al-Qaeda:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/osama-bin-laden-addresses-president-obama-audio-tape/story?id=9650267

The media treats the audio tape as undeniable fact in numerous stories, then at the same time prints a side story which shows that the White House cannot confirm that the tape is even real:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60N16I20100124

If the White House cannot confirm the authenticity of the tape, then why did the media report on its contents as if it had been confirmed?

Calculated Omission

Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.

Distraction, and the Manufacture of Relevance

Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important! An example of this would be the recent push for an audit of the Federal Reserve which was gaining major public support, as well as political support. Instead of reporting on this incredible and unprecedented movement for transparency in the Fed, the MSM spent two months or more reporting non-stop on the death of Michael Jackson, a pop idol who had not released a decent record since “Thriller,” practically deifying the man who only months earlier was being lambasted by the same MSM for having “wandering hands” when children were about.

Dishonest Debate Tactics

Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media knows they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.

TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good;” essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment, and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics?

Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition. These tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own positions.

3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks.

4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Dennis Kucinich is short and weird.” “9-11 twoofers wear tinfoil hats.” Ridicule is almost impossible to counter. It’s irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example, it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun keeps your side motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.

6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

See rule number 6. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, its easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.

7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

This goes hand in hand with Rule #1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.

9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.

10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions. The idea is to provoke (or stage) ruthless attacks against ones’ self, so as to be perceived as the underdog, or the victim. Today, this technique is commonly used to create the illusion that a certain movement is “counterculture” or “anti-establishment.”

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer a solution.

12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The targets supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.

The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.

Internet Disinformation Methods

Because the MSM’s bag of tricks has been so exhausted over such a long period of time, many bitter and enraged consumers of information are now turning to alternative news sources, most of which exist on the collective commons we call the internet. At first, it appears, the government and elitists ignored the web as a kind of novelty, or just another mechanism they could exploit in spreading disinformation. As we all now well know, they dropped the ball, and the internet has become the most powerful tool for truth history has ever seen.

That being said, they are now expending incredible resources in order to catch up to their mistake, utilizing every trick in their arsenal to beat web users back into submission. While the anonymity of the internet allows for a certain immunity against many of Saul Alinsky’s manipulative tactics, it also allows governments to attack those trying to spread the truth covertly. In the world of web news, we call these people “disinfo trolls.” Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Raw_obtains_CENTCOM_email_to_bloggers_1016.html

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090104/FOREIGN/882042198/1002

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/10793-twitterers-paid-to-spread-israeli-propaganda-internet-warfare-team-unveiled.html

Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly being employed by private corporations as well, often for marketing purposes. In fact, it is a rapidly growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

1) Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the web.

2) Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. Here is a live example of this tactic in use on Yahoo! Answers.

The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association.

In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the notorious MIAC report and other ADL/SPLC publications which purport that constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

3) Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.

4) Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. 9/11 “debunker” trolls are notorious for this.

5) False Association: This works hand in hand with item #2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.”

For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”. Deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with big foot or alien enthusiasts, because of the inherent negative connotations. Using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.

6) False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”

7) Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words. For example: “9/11 truthers say that no planes hit the WTC towers, and that it was all just computer animation. What are they, crazy?”

Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.

Government Disinformation Methods

Governments, and the globalists who back them, have immense assets — an almost endless fiat money printing press — and control over most legal and academic institutions. With these advantages, disinformation can be executed on a massive scale. Here are just a handful of the most prominent tactics used by government agencies and private think tanks to guide public opinion, and establish the appearance of consensus:

1) Control The Experts: Most Americans are taught from kindergarten to ignore their instincts for the truth and defer to the “professional class” for all their answers. The problem is that much of the professional class is indoctrinated throughout their college years, many of them molded to support the status quo. Any experts that go against the grain are ostracized by their peers.

2) Control The Data: By controlling the source data of any investigation, be it legal or scientific, the government has the ability to engineer any truth they wish, that is, as long as the people do not care enough to ask for the source data. Two major examples of controlled and hidden source data include; the NIST investigation of the suspicious 9/11 WTC collapses, in which NIST engineers, hired by the government, have kept all source data from their computer models secret, while claiming that the computer models prove the collapses were “natural”. Also, the recent exposure of the CRU Climate Labs and their manipulation of source data in order to fool the public into believing that Global Warming is real, and accepting a world-wide carbon tax. The CRU has refused to release the source data from its experiments for years, and now we know why.

3) Skew The Statistics: This tactic is extremely evident in the Labor Department’s evaluations on unemployment, using such tricks as incorporating ambiguous birth / death ratios into their calculation in order to make it appear as though there are less unemployed people than there really are, or leaving out certain subsections of the population, like those who are unemployed and no longer seeking benefits.

3) Guilt By False Association: Governments faced with an effective opponent will always attempt to demonize that person or group in the eyes of the public. This is often done by associating them with a group or idea that the public already hates. Example: During the last election, they tried to associate Ron Paul supporters with racist groups (and more recently, certain Fox News anchors) in order to deter moderate Democrats from taking an honest look at Congressman Paul’s policies.

4) Manufacture Good News: This falls in with the skewing of statistics, and it also relies heavily on Media cooperation. The economic “Green Shoots” concept is a good example of the combination of government and corporate media interests in order to create an atmosphere of false optimism based on dubious foundations.

5) Controlled Opposition: Men in positions of power have known for centuries the importance of controlled opposition. If a movement rises in opposition to one’s authority, one must usurp that movement’s leadership. If no such movement exists to infiltrate, the establishment will often create a toothless one, in order to fill that social need, and neutralize individuals who might have otherwise taken action themselves.

During the 1960’s and 70’s, the FBI began a secretive program called COINTELPRO. Along with illegal spying on American citizens who were against the Vietnam conflict or in support of the civil rights movement, they also used agents and media sources to pose as supporters of the movement, then purposely created conflict and division, or took control of the direction of the movement altogether. This same tactic has been attempted with the modern Liberty Movement on several levels, but has so far been ineffective in stopping our growth.

The NRA is another good example of controlled opposition, as many gun owners are satisfied that paying their annual NRA dues is tantamount to actively resisting anti-gun legislation; when in fact, the NRA is directly responsible for many of the compromises which result in lost ground on 2nd amendment issues. In this way, gun owners are not only rendered inactive, but actually manipulated into funding the demise of their own cause.

6) False Paradigms: Human beings have a tendency to categorize and label other people and ideas. It is, for better or worse, a fundamental part of how we understand the complexities of the world. This component of human nature, like most any other, can be abused as a powerful tool for social manipulation. By framing a polarized debate according to artificial boundaries, and establishing the two poles of that debate, social engineers can eliminate the perceived possibility of a third alternative. The mainstream media apparatus is the key weapon to this end. The endless creation of dichotomies, and the neat arrangement of ideologies along left/right lines, offers average people a very simple (though hopelessly inaccurate) way of thinking about politics. It forces them to choose a side, usually based solely on emotional or cultural reasons, and often lures them into supporting positions they would otherwise disagree with. It fosters an environment in which beating the other team is more important than ensuring the integrity of your own. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the social engineer to determine what is “fair game” for debate, and what is not.

Alinsky himself wrote: “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

One merely needs to observe a heated debate between a Democrat and a Republican to see how deeply this belief has been ingrained on both sides, and how destructive it is to true intellectual discourse.

Stopping Disinformation

truth.jpg

The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest, and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes, and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.

The truth, is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society that have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process. The human psyche breathes on the air of truth, without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse in on itself, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance. Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt, all things that lead to destruction. It can lead good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite PicLens

Pentagon calls for ‘Office of Strategic Deception’

January 28, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, US News, World News

By Sahil Kapur
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 — 9:47 am

WASHINGTON — Remember the Pentagon Office of Special Plans that helped collect dubious intelligence that led to the war in Iraq? Or the program where the Pentagon secretly briefed military analysts to promote the Iraq war?

Meet the would-be Office of Strategic Deception.

In a little-noticed report earlier this month, the Defense Department’s powerful Defense Science Board recommended creation of an entity designed solely for “strategic deception” against US adversaries.

“Specifically,” the report reads (pdf), “we recommend that the Secretary [of Defense] task both the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy and Intelligence, and the Joint Staff, working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to create a tiger team to lay out courses of action and a way ahead for establishing a standing strategic surprise/deception entity. Once the initial work has been completed, all parts of the interagency should be brought into this effort.”

“Strategic deception has in the past provided the United States with significant advantages that translated into operational and tactical success,” it continues. “Successful deception also minimizes U.S. vulnerabilities, while simultaneously setting conditions to surprise adversaries.”

Deception is a common war-time tactic nations use to gain a leg up on their enemies, but as Wired notes, the Pentagon apparently believes the United States must begin engaging in strategic tricks even before it wages war against another country.

“Deception cannot succeed in wartime without developing theory and doctrine in peacetime,” the DSB report reads. “In order to mitigate or impart surprise, the United States should [initiate] deception planning and action prior to the need for military operations.”

And such attempts at strategic trickery must occur at virtually every stage in the United States’ dealings with other nations, the Pentagon’s science board says.

“Denial and deception efforts will be included from the onset, factors into both intelligence and response research and development activities at every stage, including war gaming.”

The DSB report was first flagged by InsideDefense.com.

In 2003, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh highlighted the Office of Special Plans, a closely guarded cabal that did an end-run around the Pentagon to collect purported intelligence suggesting that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction.

“They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans,” Hersh wrote. “In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi.

“According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States,” Hersh added.

Late last year, Raw Story’s Brad Jacobson revealed evidence that directly tied the activities undertaken in the military analyst program under President George W. Bush — where analysts were briefed to promote the Iraq war — to an official US military document’s definition of psychological operations. Such propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, who remains a spokesman for the Pentagon today, told Raw Story the program was intended only to “inform.”

Whitman said he stood by an earlier statement in which he averred “the intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American public.”

US to Pay Taliban Fighters to ‘Lay Down Their Arms’

January 25, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, World News

Karzai to pay Taliban to lay down their arms 22 Jan 2010 Afghan President Hamid Karzai unveiled an ambitious Western-funded plan Friday to offer money and jobs to tempt Taliban fighters to lay down their arms in an effort to quell a crippling insurgency. His comments to the BBC came as US Defence Secretary Robert Gates described the Taliban as part of Afghanistan’s “political fabric”, but said any future role would depend on insurgents laying down their weapons. Karzai’s plan echoed similar proposals by Washington to try and bring low and mid-level extremists back into mainstream society, but the leadership of Islamist insurgent groups remain hostile to negotiations. Militants led by the Taliban movement have been waging an increasingly deadly rebellion against the Afghan government and foreign troops since a US-led invasion ousted the Taliban regime from power in late 2001.

‘Further incentives could include pensions for older fighters and allotments of land.’ Taliban leaders ‘offered asylum’ under London peace plan 20 Jan 2010 Taliban leaders could be offered exile abroad and have their names deleted from a UN sanctions blacklist as part of a peace plan for Afghanistan to be unveiled in London next week. A briefing paper on the Afghan government’s proposals seen by The Daily Telegraph says any peace deal may include “potential exile in a third country” for insurgent leaders… [Nato commanders] are now backing a “carrot and stick” strategy of more troops to reverse the Taliban’s military momentum coupled with incentives for fighters to rejoin society. International donors are preparing to pay hundreds of millions of pounds towards the scheme, with Japan and the US already allocating substantial budgets. In the first phase, junior fighters, who commanders believe are mainly motivated by money, will be offered jobs, training and education if they lay down their weapons and renounce violence. Further incentives could include pensions for older fighters and allotments of land.

And, if the Taliban fighters *don’t* lay down their arms, and instead continue to raise them in battle against the West? Then, the US government will be in the awkward position of funding the enemy of the US soldier on the battlefield. Hmm. ‘Some dare call it treason.’

Paying Taliban fighters to ‘lay down their arms.’ That’s like Barack Obama supplicating himself to Joe Lieberman for his health care vote: Not gonna happen.

We can’t get single-payer health care in the US because the GOP sociopaths and their blue dogs (and their little blue puppy dog Obama, too) claim that such a measure would add to (the Bush-born) trillon-dollar deficit. But, we can simultaneously pay Blackwater to ‘stop’ those we are funding? Hello, McFly?!?

The Taliban Stimulus: ‘Junior Taliban fighters’ are going to be offered jobs at US taxpayer expense. Maybe we can include the newly hired Taliban insurgents in US economic data so the unemployment rate will appear to be on the wane. And, not a GOP signal of discontent in sight! After all, it’s the *Taliban* getting jobs, training and education — not the US poor, so it’s all good.

To top it all off, Bush’s High Whore Court just opened the corporate floodgates to *steal* the last vestiges of democracy in the US. Most of the lamestream media was SILENT or covering John Edwards’ love child.

I’ve covered a lot of BULLSH*T since Coup 2000, but this takes the cake bakery.

It is time (long, long past time) for American Revolution #2. Maybe then the US government can pay *us* to lay down OUR arms, bring us back into mainstream society — and give us health care.

See also: The Obusha AfPak Money Pit –Unlike the ‘public option,’ Congress doesn’t ask if funding the Taleban to blow up contractors’ bridges will add to the US deficit By Lori Price.

*****

Next Page »