Originally published at: ALLEGED MEMO SAYS GENERAL MCCASLAND TRYING TO ESCAPE SECRET NETWORK
This next weekend will see the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the United States from Great Britain. The revolution had already begun prior to the Declaration’s signing, an act which “made it official” and heralded the beginning of seven long years of warfare that ended with the surrender of…
3 Likes
Who makes sure government secrets stay secret, the intelligence agencies. Who’s known to spin yarns, plant false evidence, “unlive” and threaten citizens at will using the latest technology and has media conglomerates by the throat to silence “any noise” about possible disclosure of information deemed secret due to “national security”, intelligence agencies.
1 Like
… it is when one sees “information” like this that one is reminded that 1) Operation Mockingbird is more than simply alive and well but that it is thriving and 2) that Richard Doty’s 80/20 Disinformation Formula (80% trivially true and 20% mis/dis information with the 80% being what makes one bite down hard on the 20%) is in operation and is being used way more than we think. At this point in time we have NO reason to trust any “government” released information (real or implied or inferred). In fact given your observations …
" I have no doubt that it’s true. But again, we are not told (1) the process of reasoning leading to those requests; and (2) what were the specific requests for? In other words, did Ms. Bondink specifically request this particular piece of information, and if so, how did she know to request it? Or conversely, was the information merely shared - planted? - in whatever materials were released in the FOIA request? The Daily Mail article is unclear.
And that, of course, brings us to the Daily Mail article itself. Notice that the headline reads “Shocking memo reveals missing UFO-linked scientist was trying escape a secret Pentagon network before vanishing.” Yet, in the article which follows, there is no mention whatsoever of a memorandum, nor even if such a memorandum was what was sought in Ms. Bondink’s FOIA request, nor if it was simply included. There’s no mention of a memo at all, and thus not of any of its contents."
… One could make the argument that what is being attempted here is a very subtle attempt to alter the understanding of “how we understand the news” (to paraphrase Neil Postman). First, there is certainly an attempt to “smuggle” in certain premisses as being True (e.g. memo yet no mention or text of proof of the existence of said memo). Second, there is an attempt to use (introduce / infuse / employ?) an alternate semantics (see Henkin Semantics - a strategy for automated reasoning using natural languages). Why do I say this? In this entire discussion there appears to be an attempt to “surpass” the use of the simple informal fallacy of equivocation (in this case I suggest between something being inferred v implied)… Instead of simply shifting the meaning of a word or phrase throughout the “argument” one senses instead the attempt at a “laying over” of a non-explicit ambiguity created by an alternate semantics being used to create a certain kind / type of entailment thus becoming an integral (if not determining in terms of understanding) part of the “argument” itself.
Other things of note … Who exactly is this Sara Bondink? … Who was she before being connected to this “alleged” memo? and Who exactly will she be now? Would she release her financial details before and after the “memo”? … Surely these “missing” scientist incidents must have set off many, many FOIA requests … How many total FOIA requests for information relating to the “missing” scientists were made? … Were there any others who received the same information? … Was she the only one who received this document? Did the many FOIA requests result in any other documents? … Do any of us really believe that these “document” releases aren’t manipulated in some way? … Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and in the world of Hoaxclosure or Dishoaxure (your choice).
1 Like
Over the years as journalism gradually dropped the “who, what, where, when and how” for reporting, which editors allowed and encouraged to attract more viewers, increase revenues and to appease government and advertisers, the readers and viewers gradually adapted to the new format. It was still called news, but it wasn’t. Dumbing down education wasn’t the only thing dumbed down.