Classic example of disinfo website -'Dolphins Fleeing

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:41 pm

<a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3315.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3315.topic</a> More wierdness from mother nature: Dolphins fleeing north This article is a 'honeypot' draw back to the disinfo website. It is probably spreading around the internet like a virus to sow confusion and doubt. The source website is a mix of 'honeypot' articles and obvious satire. I don't mean the person posting this here was a disinfo agent. Instead, they accidentally provided a perfect lab for understanding how the internet and discussion boards are the new frontline for MindWar. And I want to use it to share this educational experience. This article was brought here innocently and I in no way mean to suggest otherwise. I start a thread on it to share a perfect illustration of how disinfo is booby-trapped information like ant-food poison brought back to the nest for more to eat. Disinfo is packaged in very believable ways that cause us to share it like a communicable disease.This is how we are set-up to harm the very issues we are most concerned about. See this recently declassified WWII era OSS document on the 'Criteria of a Successful Rumor' and you'll get an idea of the methodical tactics used against our understanding anything- <a href="http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/rumormanual2june1943.htm">www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/os...ne1943.htm</a> Global warming is a large target topic for internet disinfo war. Environmentalism eats into corporate profits so science must be discredited to slow the losses. Someone innocently posted an article that seems to be about an environmental problem but it is a disinfo piece meant to 'poison the well' of belief with distrust so people don't swallow anything. This insulates the audience in their own self-congratulatory skepticism. Scan the original posted article about dolphins supposedly fleeing north and the subsequent conjecturing responses which take the original story at face value. But I looked at the original source for the story and posted my findings, a psy-ops website. I was pretty damn mad, too, and swore like it. <a href="http://www.ecoenquirer.com/dolphins-heading-north.htm">www.ecoenquirer.com/dolph...-north.htm</a> I wrote- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A mix of articles that are 'Onion' satire- 'California Town Bans Tsunamis' 'EPA to Mandate Reductions in Emissions from Volcanoes' and some that match what the ecologically-minded would expect, believe, and pass on- 'California Might Restrict Vandenberg Rocket Launches' 'NASA Satellite Observes Massive Vegetation Die-Off' so the website is thereby discrediting any environmental story as either ALARMIST or a HOAX. This, my friends, is the CIA/Pentagon war against the truth and The People now being waged on the internet just as it is in every other institution and venue by sowing confusion and tripping up well-meaning people who unknowingly spread it like a communicable disease. <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/5/06 1:02 pm

by **Avalon** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:13 pm

But I looked at the original source for the story and posted my findings, a psy-ops website. When you see a website with goofy articles about characters named Jeremiah Johnson (a polar bear hunter), Sky McCloud (a meteorologist), and Prof. Topanga Wildwood (a penguin linguist from Rutgers University), maybe looking at the "terms and conditions" page for the website to see what they are about would be a really good idea before posting all sorts of paranoid nonsense about it: DISCLAIMER All content on this site, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only. If any content is found to be offensive or objectionable in any way, please accept our apologies... but we also suggest that you get a life. <a href="http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Terms-Conditions.htm">www.ecoenquirer.com/Terms-Conditions.htm</a> Cry "Psyops!!!" too often and people won't recognize a real one when they see it.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:25 pm

ON EDIT: Shit. More tactics. We are both right! You get different pages to the 'home page' depending on where you start from. One takes you to a big 'humor disclaimer' but one takes you to the crop of half gag and half serious looking enviro-articles. This is exactly how to make some say "whaddyamean? No one would fall for that stuff. Calm down!" Even more muddying and division accomplished. sheesh. The tactics are built in to the technology. You have to try every link at every page to see how they are connected, too!! I'm going to open the serious-looking ones because I suspect they are honeypots, too. my original comment below>. --------------------------------------------------------- The only clues in the original honey trap article were two names of 'scientists'- Prof. Bonita Krillman Dr. William Fishman and a 'student'- 'Crystal Dearing' Easy to miss in the rest of the article that is entirely credible with no humor at all. The source page articles are half obvious and half totally normal titles. When you go to the Onion's website you can tell that every piece is a gag. No one would mistake it for a psy-ops page. This isn't a humor site as advertised. It is far more deceptive. Don't forget that most internet users don't know a fraction of what is common knowledge here. I posted the thread about it and not just the original source to show how we get distracted by seeming veracity and watch the ball instead of who threw it. This is disinfo for newbies and some of us vets can fall for it, too. Yes, a real psy-ops page. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/5/06 1:40 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:51 pm

More honeypot paths into the website come from this link there <a href="http://www.weatherstreet.com/">www.weatherstreet.com/</a> Satellite photos and such. Notice that the link at ecoEnquirer.com logo is a rip-off of Sesame Street, too. Only the dolphin article is as stealthy. The other serious looking headlines open into articles that are Onion-like. So this dolphin article is the lure into the discrediting snare. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/5/06 1:54 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:56 pm

I call the forces behind the environmental confusion factory "The War on Terra."

by **Avalon** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:01 pm

They've already added you to their parody fan mail page. If it was bait, you sure snapped it up: <a href="http://www.ecoenquirer.com/fan-mail.htm">www.ecoenquirer.com/fan-mail.htm</a> If like most other internet venues, we continue to discuss and absorb information without examining its context or implications, this place will be a magnet not only for every bad guy who wants to take us down, but for every grifter who feels he should never give a sucker an even break and who likes to fuck with people just for the sake of fucking with people. More honeypot paths into the website come from this link there www.weatherstreet.com/ Satellite photos and such.  EcoEnquirer links to WeatherStreet, not the other way around. A Google advanced search for pages linking to ecoenquirer.com did not show a single site listed as linking to it, nor is it showing any links to the specific dolphin article using a search on link:ecoenquirer.com/dolphins-heading-north.htm. So what links to it are you talking about? Its recently registered domain is registered to an PO box in Vancouver (owned by <a href="http://privacypost.com/">privacypost.com/</a> ) that is also home to some sort of credit card processing spam operation. Though dodgy fellow domain owners may come with the territory for privacy-minded domain owners. The WeatherStreet domain is owned by William D. Braswell, who has published in the journal of the American Meteorological Society.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:05 pm

Now they have a link back to this site with my quote in their fanmail saying: (Hugh Manatee Wins, 1:16 a.m.. Mar 5, 2006, Re: Dolphins fleeing tropics) "...This, my friends, is the CIA/Pentagon war against the truth and The People now being waged on the internet just as it is in every other institution and venue by sowing confusion and tripping up well-meaning people who unknowingly spread it like a communicable disease...." (view thread) Pro: More will understand 'means, motive, opportunity' and qui bono from disinfo who might have only seen a gag. Con: More pranksters or hostiles will be arriving here by bus any minute. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/5/06 3:13 pm

by **Avalon** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:24 pm

Hugh, I see an awful lot of postings that you make that you are editing very soon after. Might I suggest with all due respect that it might be better to wait and think about what you have just typed before sending it? When people keep destroying the integrity of their postings, it does not look like they are willing to take responsibility for what they said.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:28 pm

Avalon, thanks for saying what I was trying to illustrate even though I made errors of my own. You seem to be right. EcoEnquirer links to WeatherStreet and not the otherway around. But until you've tried every link (and Google search doesn't) you can't be sure just as the humor disclaimer at EcoEnquirer is there when clicking on some of its story headers and not others. The Dolphin article is the one most easily swallowed and is, I think, the bait for the naive and gullible with further sophistication as one goes deeper for a multi-layered strategy. This 'joke' article is the lynchpin motive for making ecodisaster 'funny' for the future and the White House seperating the Katrina horror from US energy policy - <a href="http://www.ecoenquirer.com/ancient-hurricane.htm">www.ecoenquirer.com/ancie...ricane.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Evidence of Hurricanes Before Global Warming? >snip< Hurricane expert Dr. Judith Cruddy, who examined the photograph, dismissed the evidence as either a well-crafted forgery, or the date was not recorded correctly. "We now know that hurricanes are a relatively modern phenomenon. Probably no true hurricanes existed before manmade global warming started in the early 1900's. Sure, there were some big oceanic thunderstorms before then -- some even sank ships in previous centuries -- but the hurricane as we know it is a modern phenomenon", Dr. Cruddy explained. <hr></blockquote> Atrocity and suffering is soooooo funny. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/5/06 3:35 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:39 pm

I've been trying to write "on edit" when I've actually changed the meaning of what I wrote instead of just polishing up so responses still make sense. But you're right about having less I want to edit. Thanks again for good advice.

by **BajaSur** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:00 pm

Reguarding the dolphins fleeng northward, I read the article only and commented on that. I stand by my comments. Reguarding checking out the entire site before commenting, yeah thats a unwritten rule I can go by. I would point out the unwritten rule part of that. Reguarding Avalons comments about "paranoid nonsense", I don't know to what comments you mean, but as I said in that thread I feel the navy's use of sonar is a valid topic. One that I have had dialogue with people many times before, and given the opportunity will do so in the future. Its a well documented subject and one that impacts all sea life.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:25 pm

Hell, yes. All the topics brought up in response to the original dolphin article are valid and I share concern about them. The navy's destruction of marine life is appalling. So I completely understand why we all 'went there' and it was a learning experience about info war on the internet. So I'm trying my best to do a 'lessons learned' excercise instead of just letting it go.

by **rothbardian** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:31 pm

I am someone who doesn't buy into the global warming thing, and looking at the 'big picture' concerning this bogus story about the dolphins I see that it has the net effect from top to bottom...of reaffirming the global warming myth: First of all, the PTB know that 99% of those who come across this story will use it to routinely reaffirm their belief in global warming. But I think the PTB expect the remaining 1% to fall victim to a kind of 'double reverse' psychology: 1) A superficially believable news story is published. 2) The One Percent got to work and rather easily uncover the prank element of the story. 3) The One Percent then conclude that this was designed to embarrass the eco-liberals, therefore this is an attempt to discredit global warming. The net result?-- The 99% are reaffirmed in their global warming beliefs AND...the One Percent are reaffirmed in their global warming beliefs. Look at the big picture here. The PTB love pushing global warming...it gives more excuse for more authoritarian, coercive governmental power.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:11 pm

Why? Qui bono? Because it has implications for energy policy which we now know is treated as a national security issue by the PNAC neocons. Environmentalism has been targeted since it became obvious to many that corporations poison us while they claim "evidence isn't conclusive." So we see more and more of the kind of tactics used to portray tobacco as harmless- fake studies and discrediting science itself Here is a similar bogus group in the UK which is protecting profits by trying to hide the dangers of cellphone microwaves and toxic vaccines: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4771154.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4771154.stm</a> >snip< A report by the Social Market Foundation (SMF), an independent research group, has accused the UK media of sensationalising science. It says irresponsible reporting can undermine public confidence in science and government, and on issues such as vaccination may even cost lives. The think-tank blames inaccurate reporting for the scare that led some parents to shun the MMR vaccine. The SMF study was sponsored by mobile phone operators in the UK. Claudia Wood of the SMF said journalists tended to seek black and white stories and looked for certainties that could not be provided by science. "The media has to be very aware that what it says can have huge impacts on the public's behaviour," she told the BBC. "I think the media has to be very cautious in how it gives over scientific evidence, and has to make sure that people understand that there are certain risks to some things but a lot of the time evidence isn't conclusive."

by **rothbardian** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:57 pm

You're asking why the PTB want more power??? Seriously? Maybe I'm not understanding your question. The following fact remains, regarding this dolphin story--- The 99% are reaffirmed in their global warming beliefs AND...the One Percent are reaffirmed in their global warming beliefs. It's win-win for global warming advocates. I don't think you addressed my point here.

Classic example of disinfo website -'Dolphins Fleeing

Classic example of disinfo website -'Dolphins Fleeing

Re: Classic example of disinfo website -'Dolphins Fleeing

Re: Classic example of disinfo website -'Dolphins Fleeing

Re: Opening more links at that site finds honeypot path

Re: Opening more links at that site finds honeypot path

Chumming

Re: Chumming. Well, I didn't bring it here, I debunked it

Before you touch that key

Re: Chumming. Well, I didn't bring it here, I debunked it

Re: Before you touch that key

Dolphins Kidnapped My Sister

Re: Dolphins Bribed My Senator

double reverse psychology

Re: The US government has denied warming up and down.

Re: The US government has denied warming up and down.

Who is online