UFO misinformation in Snowden leaked files

[UM-Bot]

Leaked slides appear to offer guidelines on how to create and spread false information on the Internet.

Part of a set of documents released by NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, the Powerpoint Presentation includes a series of 50 images including 3 that appear to show unidentified flying objects.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/263159/ufo-misinformation-in-snowden-leaked-files

[ChrLzs]

Hmm.. So one was dismissed as an "out of focus picture of a seagull", eh?

Would that possibly be one of at least TWO that I know of that WERE of motion-blurred seagulls? (yes, it is..) Is this article making some sort of obscure point about most people not knowing how to tell the difference between out of focus and motion blurring, or is it in fact a damning indictment of the state of our education system in relation to seaside wildlife identification..?

You be the judge... the document can be found here if you wish to browse. The starting slide certainly screams credibility....

[Just Dave]

Question then, why would you want to spread miss information if such things didn't exist? Or do they?

[Troublehalf]

Simple. To cover stuff up. Remember, it works both ways. A new type of aircraft can be tested, but dismissed as a UFO. "Earth couldn't possibly have such technology" kind of thing.

It's interesting, because, remember, if Earth has been visited and governments, such as the UK and US (two of the recent biggest countries) as well as Russia and so on, could have come into contact with alien technology which is/has been used in terrestrial built vehicles or technology. If one is spotted, the government can remain silent while spies go and spread that it's a UFO and not a special aircraft being tested by the government.

So, next time you see somebody going "It's a UFO man!" have a think.

[Hawken]

The internet is so full of crap you don't know what is true or false. I think it needs to be shut down once a year and given a cleaning.

[McFakename]

Wait... The government had to teach people how to lie on the internet?

[DemonicCupcake]

What if they created the file so that if it was leaked it would give cause to question it? Why would they need to make up UFO sightings unless something more sinister was happening? So many questions, so few answers.

[novabnt]

What if they created the file so that if it was leaked it would give cause to question it? Why would they need to make up UFO sightings unless something more sinister was happening? So many questions, so few answers.

First think I could think of was to divert attention away from secret projects

[pallidin]

Interesting topic, but I am kind-of at a loss for words.

The 50-slide presentation, which I did view, seems to be a mix of professional and "childish" slides.

So, I reserve comment as to it's authenticity at this time.

Just my take...

[Hawken]

Don't bother posting links for info on this subject to make a point. How can you be sure it's credible?

I'm sure if someone with great computer & web building skills can build a site and fabricate articles

and videos and make them look genuine then upload them on their website to justify their cause.

Either to support ufology or debunk it.

[DONTEATUS]

THat does it ! Snowden leaked WHat ? Was it a smelly Liquid by chance?,Was it from the mouth of the Insane by Chance?

Now Im sure its All legit !

[sinewave]

So that would mean that really suspicious, fantasy prone people could be leveraged to spread disinformation that would tend to passively cover-up secret government programs. Interesting. And I thought conspiracy theorists were useless.

Edited March 2, 2014 by sinewave

[JesseCuster]

Interesting topic, but I am kind-of at a loss for words.

The 50-slide presentation, which I did view, seems to be a mix of professional and "childish" slides.

So, I reserve comment as to it's authenticity at this time.

Just my take...

In fairness, I've seen myself powerpoint slideshows that were put together by relatively senior personnel and which looked like they were done by a 10 year old. Images from Office clip-art and found via Google image search, ugly typefaces, etc. I've also seen powerpoint slideshows that were cobbled together from slick well designed slideshows intermixed with their own shoddy work.

It's not uncommon (in my experience) for management to put together their own slideshows in PowerPoint for a meeting and thus subject people to a series of hideous gaudy graphics because they have no sense of design or style.

[calaf]

Wait... The government had to teach people how to lie on the internet?

Who better?

[Mikko-kun]

Whatever the rest of you say, I'm just not buying the "we disguise it as an UFO/ET sighting because we want to cover up our military technology", I mean the other governments and their intelligence agencies can't be stupid enough to bypass all the "UFO sightings" when they gather their intel about other governments' new tech test sites. Chinese for example are widely known to be interested in copying foreign technology and making their own variations, they buy military tech from Russia. In large enough volumes though the UFO boguses might be a good distraction, if there were many enough of them set out well enough.

I feel like the "prove this prove that 100% solid" thing is much connected, it's basically a common habit to ask proof instead of keep listening like you'd have to always do it... it adds up to undermining credibility and indoctrinating others to not believe or even listen in any serious way to any UFO claims. It just doesn't seem like a sensible effort to try disguise the new military tech testings as UFO flights or something, considering the point is not to disguise from the public but from another government which has assumably a very powerful intelligence agency, many governments with powerful intelligence agencies and lots of personnel at their disposal. Just info flood, no. At best you can slow them a bit. And if the UFO photos can be discovered to be fakes by amateurs, then it's all the more likely foreign governments can tell they're fakes even easier, and it's convenient to have amateurs do the work for them.

And that's the strange part, why would government on the one hand encourage scepticism (I know no source but they do encourage scepticism in 9/11 and lots of other things), and on the other hand they put up these bogus UFO things. And yeah government(s) would probably want to encourage over-gullibility too, but not the kind of gullibility where you'd give a benefit of the doubt and keep find out more about the actual thing instead of just reinforcing your beliefs.

Do they have some stupid reason to do these elaborate things or what are they hiding?

[regeneratia]

That doesn't at all eliminate the validity of the charts. I have looked at some 20 of them, rememeber recent history and realized that those charts are indeed what is being used to discredit and publicly smear people who report the truth. I didn't see any on UFOs.

This is why I say that the ridicule factor is no longer a valid way to discuss anything, that it is merely used to discredit. When there is such an effort to discredit, I look much deeper into what the discredited person says, for the truth may well lie within the person's words. I do the oppposite of what the initial agencies want me to do.

[regeneratia]

The internet is so full of crap you don't know what is true or false. I think it needs to be shut down once a year and given a cleaning.

But we do have means to determine what is true and what is not within seconds. Get out there and look for it. It IS out there.

[regeneratia]

In fairness, I've seen myself powerpoint slideshows that were put together by relatively senior personnel and which looked like they were done by a 10 year old. Images from Office clip-art and found via Google image search, ugly typefaces, etc. I've also seen powerpoint slideshows that were cobbled together from slick well designed slideshows intermixed with their own shoddy work.

It's not uncommon (in my experience) for management to put together their own slideshows in PowerPoint for a meeting and thus subject people to a series of hideous gaudy graphics because they have no sense of design or style.

No one claimed that the people in initial agencies are smart people. They merely think they have control of our perceptions. In fact, they assume it.

[qxcontinuum]

In fairness, I've seen myself powerpoint slideshows that were put together by relatively senior personnel and which looked like they were done by a 10 year old. Images from Office clip-art and found via Google image search, ugly typefaces, etc. I've also seen powerpoint slideshows that were cobbled together from slick well designed slideshows intermixed with their own shoddy work.

It's not uncommon (in my experience) for management to put together their own slideshows in PowerPoint for a meeting and thus subject people to a series of hideous gaudy graphics because they have no sense of design or style.

That depends of the quality of the senior personnel mentioned, their preparation, experience and and the institutions they represent. In my place of work i haven't seen a single flow in any pp presentation, introduced by high or medium rank managers.

[Dark_Grey]

The NSA already has paid internet "trolls" and a program to use troll-like tactics to discredit certain groups online. I have to find that leaked document; it's as hilarious as it is unnerving.

I wouldn't put it past them to try and discredit UFO sightings as well - nothing they do really surprises me anymore.

[sinewave]

The NSA already has paid internet "trolls" and a program to use troll-like tactics to discredit certain groups online. I have to find that leaked document; it's as hilarious as it is unnerving.

I wouldn't put it past them to try and discredit UFO sightings as well - nothing they do really surprises me anymore.

ET visitation believers are completely capable of discrediting themselves. No dark government plots required.

[Mikko-kun]

ET visitation believers are completely capable of discrediting themselves. No dark government plots required.

You can't honestly say that discreditor trolls wouldn't influence opinions. Or well people can claim whatever they want as we've all seen, but lets just say that you cannot make me see it that way no matter how hard you'd try. And I'd like to think I have quite an open mind.

[sinewave]

You can't honestly say that discreditor trolls wouldn't influence opinions. Or well people can claim whatever they want as we've all seen, but lets just say that you cannot make me see it that way no matter how hard you'd try. And I'd like to think I have quite an open mind.

So is that what you are going to call people who disagree with you?

[Mikko-kun]

So is that what you are going to call people who disagree with you?

So that's how you read me, like the devil the bible? There's a difference between questioning UFO stuff and just plain discrediting remark like "crazy ppl see ufos". I didn't say everyone with a non-believer view was like that. I'm not an UFO-believer really either, not much. Maybe because I say stuff you dont like, you try to read my words as ill-mannered as possible? Or did you just misunderstand?

And yeah, the post of mine you quoted and asked that, two posts before that of mine, there's talk about NSA's discreditor trolls. By saying discreditor trolls I ment people who act like that, not anyone with actually healthy scepticism. I dont know if explaining myself like this helps you to understand my point there, which shouldn't be hard considering how brief my post was, but if it's hard to you, then that might tell something about your attention span or thinking capacity...?

Edited March 5, 2014 by Mikko-kun

[sinewave]

So that's how you read me, like the devil the bible? There's a difference between questioning UFO stuff and just plain discrediting remark like "crazy ppl see ufos". I didn't say everyone with a non-believer view was like that. I'm not an UFO-believer really either, not much. Maybe because I say stuff you dont like, you try to read my words as ill-mannered as possible? Or did you just misunderstand?

And yeah, the post of mine you quoted and asked that, two posts before that of mine, there's talk about NSA's discreditor trolls. By saying discreditor trolls I ment people who act like that, not anyone with actually healthy scepticism. I dont know if explaining myself like this helps you to understand my point there, which shouldn't be hard considering how brief my post was, but if it's hard to you, then that might tell something about your attention span or thinking capacity...?

No, just wondering why you would make that point about trolls sent here to discredit believers.