This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Government is Dealing with the Oil Spill Like the Soviets Dealt with Chernobyl
The Soviet Union was famous for covering up its environmental disasters.
As award-winning journalist Dahr Jamail points out in a must-read article about the oil spill:
“It
is well known that after the Chernobyl accident, the Soviet government
immediately did everything possible to conceal the fact of the accident
and its consequences for the population and the environment: it issued
“top secret” instructions to classify all data on the accident,
especially as regards the health of the affected population,”
journalist Alla Yaroshinskaya has written.
In
1990 Yaroshinskaya came across documents about the Chernobyl nuclear
catastrophe that revealed a massive state cover-up operation, coupled
with a calculated policy of disinformation where the then Soviet
Union’s state and party leadership knowingly played down the extent of
the contamination and offered a sanitized version to the public, both
in and out of Russia. To date, studies continue to show ongoing human
and environmental damage from that disaster.
When
the disaster at Chernobyl occurred, it was only after radiation levels
triggered alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden that the
Soviet Union admitted an accident had even occurred. Even then,
government authorities immediately began to attempt to conceal the
scale of the disaster.
But it's not just the communist Soviets ...
The U.S. also has a long history of covering up environmental and health disasters, as shown by the following examples.
The Bush administration covered up the health risks to New Orleans residents associated with polluted water from hurricane Katrina, and FEMA covered up the cancer risk from the toxic trailers which it provided to refugees of the hurricane.
The Centers for Disease Control - the lead agency tasked with addressing disease in America - covered up lead poisoning in children in the Washington, D.C. area.
The government's response to the outbreak of mad cow disease was simple: it stopped testing for mad cow, and prevented cattle ranchers and meat processors from voluntarily testing their own cows (and see this).
The government also underplayed the huge Tennessee coal ash spill. As the New York Times noted in 2008:
A
coal ash spill in eastern Tennessee that experts were already calling
the largest environmental disaster of its kind in the United States is more than three times as large as initially estimated, according to an updated survey by the Tennessee Valley Authority.
***
The
amount now said to have been spilled is larger than the amount the
authority initially said was in the pond, 2.6 million cubic yards.
(The former head of the National Mine Health and Safety Academy says that the government whitewashed the whole coal ash investigation.)
And
the government allegedly ordered Manhattan Project scientists to
whitewash the toxicity of flouride (flouride is a byproduct in the
production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium). As Project Censored noted in 1999:
Recently
declassified government documents have shed new light on the
decades-old debate over the fluoridation of drinking water, and have
added to a growing body of scientific evidence concerning the health
effects of fluoride. Much of the original evidence about fluoride,
which suggested it was safe for human consumption in low doses, was
actually generated by “Manhattan Project” scientists in the 1940s. As
it turns out, these officials were ordered by government powers to
provide information that would be “useful in litigation” and that would
obfuscate its improper handling and disposal. The once top-secret
documents, say the authors, reveal that vast quantities of fluoride,
one of the most toxic substances known, were required for the
production of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. As a result,
fluoride soon became the leading health hazard to bomb program workers
and surrounding communities.
Studies commissioned after chemical
mishaps by the medical division of the “Manhattan Project” document
highly controversial findings. For instance, toxic accidents in the
vicinity of fluoride-producing facilities like the one near Lower Penns
Neck, New Jersey, left crops poisoned or blighted, and humans and
livestock sick. Symptoms noted in the findings included extreme joint
stiffness, uncontrollable vomiting and diarrhea, severe headaches, and
death. These and other facts from the secret documents directly
contradict the findings concurrently published in scientific journals
which praised the positive effects of fluoride.
Regional
environmental fluoride releases in the northeast United States also
resulted in several legal suits against the government by farmers after
the end of World War II, according to Griffiths and Bryson. Military
and public health officials feared legal victories would snowball,
opening the door to further suits which might have kept the bomb
program from continuing to use fluoride. With the Cold War underway,
the New Jersey lawsuits proved to be a roadblock to America’s already
full-scale production of atomic weapons. Officials were subsequently
ordered to protect the interests of the government.
After the war, ... the dissemination of misinformation continued.
These
are just a few of many examples showing that the U.S. has long acted
just like the Soviets in covering up the magnitude of environmental
disasters.
Government Says Oil Has Disappeared
The
government is now saying that almost all of the oil has already
disappeared, and that the small amounts of remaining oil are not toxic.
Many have pointed out that it is still easy to find oil even on the surface. As National Geographic points out:
In fact, scientists are still finding plenty of spilled Gulf oil—whether it's bubbling up from under Louisiana's islands, trapped underneath Florida's sugar-white beaches, or in the ocean's unseen reaches. (See pictures of spilled Gulf oil found just under Florida beaches.)
This week, biological oceanographer Markus Huettel and colleague Joel Kostka dug trenches on a cleaned Pensacola beach and discovered large swaths of oil up to two feet (nearly a meter) deep.
Oil gets trapped underground when tiny oil droplets penetrate porous sand or when waves deposit tarballs and then cover them with sand, said Huettel, of Florida State University in Tallahassee.
(Read more about oil found under "clean" Florida beaches earlier this month.)
And see photographer Julie Dermansky's report.
As the Washington Post points out, scientists aren't buying the government's spin either:
But,
in interviews, [government] scientists who worked on the report said
the figures were based in large part on assumptions and estimates with
a significant margin of error.
Some outside scientists went
further: In a situation in which many facts remain murky, they said,
the government seemed to have used interpretations that made the gulf
-- and the federal efforts to save it -- look as good as possible.
"There's
a lot of . . . smoke and mirrors in this report," said Ian MacDonald, a
professor of biological oceanography at Florida State University. "It
seems very reassuring, but the data aren't there to actually bear out
the assurances that were made."
***
But scientists who
worked on the report said many of the numbers on the WhiteHouse's pie
chart had significant margins of error. The estimate of how much oil
evaporated was calculated using a formula designed for spills near the surface, not 5,000 feet underwater.
The calculation of how much oil would be "dispersed" as it flowed from
the well was a new one, extrapolated from data about the way oil is
broken by waves.
***
The situation is "being portrayed
as 'the oil is out of the environment; it's gone,' " said Michael J.
Blum, a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans. But, he said,
all that's certain is that "the form of the oil has shifted. Dispersed
oil is still oil. It's just in a different form."
Indeed,
because - according to the US Minerals Management Service and a
consortium of oil companies, including BP, themselves - as little as 2% of the oil which spilled from BP's oil well ever made it to the surface, any formula based on surface spills is worthless.
In other words, as much as 98% of the spilled oil may not yet have even
made it to the surface, but may have been suspended under the surface
the whole time.
And since the government and BP have been using
Corexit to sink the small proportion of oil visible from the surface,
that means that more than 98% of the oil might be lurking beneath the surface.
National Geographic makes a similar point:
To University of South Florida chemical oceanographer David Hollander, the NOAA estimates are "ludicrous."
"It's almost comical."
According
to Hollander, the government can account for only about 25 percent of
the spilled Gulf oil—the portion that's been skimmed, burned off,
directly collected, and so on.
The remaining 75 percent is still unaccounted for, he said.
For
instance, the report considers all submerged oil to be dispersed and
therefore not harmful, Hollander said. But, given the unknown effects
of oil and dispersants at great depths, that's not necessarily the
case, he added.
"There are enormous blanket assumptions."
***
Oil
cleanup is mostly getting rid of what's on the surface, [Robert Carney,
a biological oceanographer at Louisiana State University in Baton
Rouge] said. There's a common perception that "as long as you keep it
off the beach, everything's hunky dory," he added.
***
Whether
microbes munch the oil—the most common way oil breaks down—depends on
how much oxygen is available for the tiny organisms to do their work....
"So
far, we haven't seen any rapid degradation in these deep layers,"
[biological oceanographer Markus Huettel] said, though he noted oil at
the top of the sand has been disappearing within days.
With little oxygen, the buried oil may stay for years, until a storm or hurricane wipes away the upper sand layers.
Previous
oil spills suggest that the buried beach oil may continuously migrate
not only out to sea but also into groundwater, where it can harm
wildlife, Huettel said.
Oil-laden groundwater in Alaska following the Exxon Valdez spill, for instance, led to "significantly elevated" death in pink salmon embryos between 1989 and 1993, he said....
Another "open question" remains, FSU's Huettel noted: What is happening to the oil deep in the Gulf?
For
the first time during an oil-spill response, officials used chemical
dispersants to break up oil at ocean depths between 4,000 and 5,000
feet (1,200 and 1,500 meters). The dispersant-treated oil bits may have
sunk to the seafloor, Huettel said.
In the cold, dark
ocean, this mixture of oil and chemical dispersants may be suspended
and preserved, causing long-term problems for deep-sea animals, Texas
Tech University ecotoxicologist Ron Kendell said during August 4
testimony before the U.S. Congress.
"We have very limited
information on the environmental fate and transport of the mixture of
dispersant and oil, particularly in the deep ocean," Kendall said.
Some
oil fragments are so tiny they can't be seen with the human eye, said
the University of South Florida's Hollander. Others are big enough to
be gobbled up by baby fish that mistake the oil for food....
Predicting
what will happen to the deep-sea ecosystem is "uncharted territory,"
said Hollander, who's studying what the oil is doing to deep-sea
creatures during a series of research cruises this summer and fall.
***
"We're
getting into something different than the 2-D petroleum spill" on the
Gulf's surface, he added. "All of the sudden you've taken this 2-D
disaster and turned it into a 3-D catastrophe."
And the Guardian notes:
"Recent
reports seem to say that about 75% of the oil is taken care of and that
is just not true," said John Kessler, of Texas A&M University, who
led a National Science Foundation on-site study of the spill. "The fact
is that 50% to 75% of the material that came out of the well is still
in the water. It's just in a dissolved or dispersed form."
Would I Lie To You, Comrade?
Florida
State University oceanographer Ian McDonald points out that the
government scientists claiming almost all of the oil is gone are the
same folks who said that only 5,000 barrels of oil were leaking a day,
and who denied that there were underwater plumes:
Anderson Cooper made a similar point:
The
bottom line is that the government's entire response to the oil spill
is to try to cover it up, just as the Soviets tried to do with
Chernobyl, and just as the U.S. government has done with the financial crisis, torture, 9/11, the anthrax attack, and every other crisis.
- advertisements -
OK, OK. You've just been upgraded to shill. Satisfied?
Wang and Cog Diss are the official ZH sanctioneers of shill VW so you can now be happy. Keep in mind their definition - speaking facts, articulate posts and failing to post drivel on topics where you have no expertise are the three critical elements for a definition of shill. Wear the badge with pride.
You know, the idea that non-experts are incapable of rational thought is pretty insulting when you think about it. I don't have any degrees in anything. However, I do understand what evaporation is. So maybe you can fill me in. When oil evaporates, what happens to it? Does it leave a little tar residue, or does it condense and precipitate? What of the chemical cocktail? The MSM would have us believe that this disappeared from the universe. This clearly isn't the case. Please, what happens to oil when it evaporates?
I have no freakin idea what happens, and I have no idea how much, if any, evaporated. I'm a stock trader not a smart engineer type.
What I do know is a lot of zh'rs were playing up (and dare I say drooling over) (both here and on TOD) the idea that this spill would be some monumental disaster.
On TOD some incredibly patient (man those guys should get medals) knowledgeable people explained over and over again how the second leak, the oil lake, the methane bubble, the tsunami etc were not just unlikely but completely impossible.
Now these same disaster loving doomsters are scrambling to cover their asses and claim they never believed any of that nonsense, so they can pretend to have credibility when the next looney scenario presents itself.
It's fun to watch, lol.
I do find watching the doomster mind at work fascinating (and I am a long term bear).
I really think the joy of dreaming about disasters must come from the hatred of success and happiness that others have and that they lack.
Since they will never enjoy success or happiness, the dream is to bring everyone down to their nasty level of miserableness.
makes them not just sad but evil people in my mind.
But that's just my psych 101 analysis, looking forward to observing more.
Fair enough. One last thing: Within your psych analysis, I would ask that you leave a little room for the justifiable general ill-will out there that has resulted from the overarching trend towards lower standards of living for the average human as wealth is concentrated into the hands of the few. Having said that, I'll accept what you're saying.
Last, last thing, (i promise): We're all doomed. We are all going to die. We will never survive this life or achieve immortality. We're a shit smear on unwritten books of history. Doomsters and shills alike. I just hope that y'all live well and don't hurt too many people in the process. That's what i'm shooting for. GL everybody, peace, love, harmony, yada yada...
well now you seem to be a person with whom I could have a reasonable, intelligent discussion.
I don't want to paint all the doomsters with the same brush, I mean good ol Marc Faber says (with a laugh) 'we're all doomed'.
What I like about Faber is he doesn't want the world to collapse, like me, he's having way too good a time.
But he sees the disastrous keynesian policies we have been following for decades and he knows it won't end well.
Now I happen to believe in the inherent goodness of man, so I am an optimist in that sense, I think we'll overcome whatever idiotic mess politicians get us into.
In fact, disasters tend to bring out the best in people, so even if the doomsters finally get their wish, they're going to be sorely disappointed.
There are a few, a very few, really sick, evil minded people walking around, spouting hatred and pretending to be just curious about how a disaster might happen, god forbid, but it's obvious to all their 'curiosity' is a poorly disguised desire to see misery brought down on their neighbours.
These are the ones I will always give a hard time to, because it's one's duty to speak out against the hatred and the irrational, it just happens to also be entertaining.
Luckily truth always wins out in the end (as it is now with some of the looney ideas about the GOM dying etc quickly being abandoned even by their strongest proponents as you can see in this thread)
Now it's my turn to go for a run on the beach here, before it gets too dark.
Look forward to more discussion about some of your other ideas, I have some thoughts on those too.
(like for example, I think it is absolutely criminal to have bailed out the mega rich banks and dealers by stealing from the average joe taxpayer and all of our children and grandchildren)
It's all part of the various techniques used to stifle discussion and dissent. Only experts allowed here, everyone else move along and trust in us. Sprinkle in liberal amounts of ad hominem attacks/arguments and arrogant dismissals and before you know it, everyone walks away feeling it ain't worth their time to argue with the bozo's. Which leaves the bozos in control
See WaterWings post above about the 25 rules for disinformation for a primer.
Man, I usually do my best to not let myself get dragged into this stuff, but sometimes you just have to say something. Whack-a-troll is so much like solitaire. It's sort of a useless, semi-masterbatory exercise in cognition. But shit, sometimes you just gotta play solitare. If nothing else, VW gave me a reason to pull out the ol' logic text book. Thanks sweetie!
I am now off to enjoy nature with my animals. Y'all might want to go out and appreciate something alive today (the page refreshing gets tiresome after too long).
ps. already placed waterwings post in my notes. great info, thank you all.
yes apparently anyone with an opposing POV must be a shill (I mean, how could anyone possibly disagree with their ideas??)
I am quite proud to be a zh shill, just surprised I don't get junked more...not sure what's up with that.
looking forward to some intelligent discussions with the many informed open minded people here (no sarcasm), in the meantime I find this entertaining, at least until the market starts moving a bit.
Humor and sarcasm are lost on some. That's to be expected.
Nice to see GW has been able to attract gasmiinder (and apparently Jim Rockford in new clothes) back to ZH. Thank God, once again we're saved from ourselves.
Cog,
Did you ever get the locations figured out for the 16 wells that BP drilled in secret to 35,000 ft?
And you were so darned serious in the belief. Be proud to be a sucker of that magnitude. I've encountered very few others.
Why yes! So they are...............................
Fluoride huh?
So Dr Strangelove's General Ripper was right all along!!
Does that make Kubrick an Alinsky-like tool?
(why does captcha ask questions with 3 character answers, but only accept 2 character responses?)
I was going to ask if you had never heard ANYONE suggest such a thing about Stanley -- but then I saw your question about the Captcha.
BTW, Captcha just does not like you, everyone else is allowed to enter Avogadro's constant to 128 positions if they feel like it. ;)
BTW terrible tragedy about Simmons but the fact is he should have been in jail. He shorted the stock and than made outrageous claims which he either knew or should have known were not true. AND he said he got this information from sources on the government ships. This was a violation of SEC security law.
What happened to Simmons? Surely he didn't do the honorable thing and commit seppuku, did he?
Wow, how sensitive of you. Jesus christ his body isn't even cold. WTF is wrong with some people on this subject. You guys paid BP hacks or just insensitive pricks with zero critical thinking skills?
"This was a violation of SEC security law."
LOL. They're watching porn.
You guys are really just not that bright. And I am very happy for that fact because I made a ton of mony off this hype. Smart people knew form the beginning that this was all hype. The Gulf of Mexico deals with massive quantities of oil all the time. It was obvious this was not a major catastrophe. In fact, it is almost a slap in the face to the 11 people that died - that was the real tragedy. Yes, the fisherman should be compensated but seriously if you believe this is all one big conspiracy theory than you are just plain dumb. YEs the oil is gone - in fact probably cloder to 90% of it is gone than 75%.
Tell me your post is a joke, please. First this:
Then this:
Then this:
Then this:
Then this:
It is an error in judgement to tell people how dumb they are when you can't proof read your work and post it correctly. I normally don't give a shit, but when you come out calling everyone dumb and claim how smart you are, you lack credibility.
If this is a gag post on your part and I was dense getting it, apologies.
This will be long - I will take the liberty of this massive cut and paste for once - I don't really care if you have to scroll a little further today - true ZHers need a little troll penicillin:
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.
But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant
There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/081010_everything_is_a_lie.shtml
Geo Wash has used all of those methods. Whoever is paying for it is getting their money's worth from this blegger. We need more of the nonsense YouTube videos to get the big score though.
-1
Do show us some examples.
Somebody had to post it. It just ran this morning and the trolls seemed to practically be begging for it...
THX
Excellent info WW. Sadly, Dis-info types and corporate/government shills are popping up like mushrooms all over the web. Especially at sites with a proclivity for truth and open investigation like ZH. Great stuff. Familiar with most of it, but a refresher is always appreciated. One thing to keep in mind. Some folks natural tendency to be brown shirt assholes are hard to differentiate between honest to goodness shills.
Read it, filed it. Thanks.
No, seriously:
Marry me.
What? Oil in Pensacola? 2 ft under the surface? Let's drill !!!!!
move along. nothing to see here...
hey GW, if you want to have something to be scared about, something that actually has scientific evidence behind it that I don't think is even controversial, why not start talking about the massive volcano that lies under yellowstone park? The one that many thousands of years ago blew and covered huge swaths of the US in metres of grey ash, killing everything in sight?
I'm pretty sure you could make the case that the CIA is covering it up too if that rocks your boat.
I can't imagine why you'd expect anything but a lie.
Suppose you have a state that represents the nation's 4th largest GDP, whose main source of revenue is tourism. Even though its real estate bubble popped 5 years ago, there's still no real sign of durable recovery. Another disaster, even a bad hurricane, is going to be the tipping point for something really bad.
Not saying that it ever was, mind you, but *even if* you knew it was going to turn into a Forbidden Zone for a generation, would you, as president, going to do anything to inhibit the citizenry ('consumers', as they like to call us) from spending vacation money, buying homes and commercial property or starting businesses there?
Announcement to oil spill trolls:
THERE IS NO WAY ALL THE OIL AND DISPERSANTS ARE JUST GONE. Alaska was oily for years. You cannot possibly believe the oil cleared up just days after the temp cap went on. Come, the fuck, on. You do not expect me to believe that. No. Tell me you don't.
Nobody expects YOU to believe it. Nor any of the others here who've apparently bought into all the stuff GW's been scraping out of the loony leftist press to publish on ZH. Quoting Popular Science as a credible source? Come on.
When the theory doesn't fit the facts, deny the facts and plate the theory with solid gold is the new mantra. (Just like Globull Warming.) Meanwhile, the rational minds will say gee, if we can't find it with all the high technology at our disposal, we'll have to accept that it ain't there, and if we care to we'll set out to determine what mechanisms made it that way. Oil isn't gold - it is well known to break down under microbial action, sunlight, etc., etc. And as some folks pointed out from the very first, this was NOT and NEVER WAS an Exxon Valdez - this was light crude, not the almost-asphalt that the Valdez was carrying.
Now, as to whether the Government concealed evidence - I'm morally certain they have. They always do. This fact I've seen from so close up that I'm still scrubbing to get the stench off after 30 years. But that doesn't make all that stuff in this latest GW post any saner. You won't get to any truth from the sources GW keeps quoting, just conspiracy theories and science fiction.
Go ahead, junk away, you trolls. I'm used to it now.
OMFG -- that is truly hilarious.
I will not junk you. Not that it matters to you, just matters to me.
Merlin, are you satisfied it is not underwater? I am not. I could be sold on the idea that it disperses better in the gulf, than Alaska, because of the temperature and the light vs crude issue. But to be as clear as they are saying it is, this soon, stretches credibility. It could not evaporate that much, that fast. And no, I am not a scientist with credentials in this area. I believe the oil still has to be there and it will be an issue, covered up and forgotten, or not, for a long time. It will show up in food chains and dead zones. The oxygen deprivation would be massive if microbes are indeed eating all the stuff. It is a closed system. Something somewhere must give. The narrative proffered does not match the facts.
Thanks for talking.
MsCreant:
Marry me.
well misery does love company
RUN AWAY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H_QxlOeHPk
JOLLY good!
Didn't you hear?It evaporated.From under thousands of feet of water!
Next on today's news magical unicorns will save the US economy by crapping out shiny new Gold Eagles for everyone...YAY!
Right on, MsC. I'm sickened by people's eagerness to believe this problem has magically disappeared... What is going on here??
I can only speak for myself, but no, I don't believe it is ALL gone, but a lot has evaporated, and the rest will take years to dissipate, of course.
Clearly the scale of the disaster was wildly and irresponsibly exaggerated by you doomsters, that's all I'm saying.
Go jump in the Gulf and drink deep. Thank you.
I would not hesitate to drink water from the Gulf of Mexico today. Whatever oil is in it near the surface would be harmless to a human drinking some of it. We don't know what the longer term effects will be. But the effects are certainly not what Geo Wash was warning of.
Drinking salt water makes you loony, brah. I guess you know that already though...
I wouldn't dare.
But OTOH I wasn't hiding in my basement waiting for a methane bubble to explode, or for a tsunami, or for a hurricane of deathly rain...etc etc
BTW, I think it's safe for you to come out now.
Better clear out of the way when I come out then. I don't stop firing until the magazine is empty. Wouldn't want you to get hurt.
now we're seeing the true colours! good on ya buddy!
hope your employer doesn't see ya posting this stuff...oh how stupid of me...employed (smacks forhead)
Yuk yuk yuk.
What about Mexico? Do they publish anything on water quality or at least aqutic sealife (for fishing purposes)?