Layers of Deception

In my last article, Ukrainian Goulash, I took Robert Parry to task for framing his article in such a way as to bring about the opposite effect of what he was apparently trying to achieve. I outlined the methods that could be seen in his article and explained how they were counterproductive to the cause of exposing the truth. I copied his article in full and placed what I called 'minimizing language' in bold in his article and added explanatory notes in the text indicating misleading words and statements within brackets and highlighted those notes in blue.

I added an introduction and an epilogue to provide a context and give an explanation of the meaning I arrived at from my reading of Robert Parry's article.

The Saker at The Vineyard of the Saker blog has repeated the visual method of bolded text and comments in blue with an article he has copied from AP but has used it in a different manner to me to arrive at a different sort of conclusion. But more on that below.

Disinformation articles are poorly arranged logically. This shouldn't be a surprise as the intent is to confuse. The masters of this art are able to confuse the reader just enough so they are not consciously aware that they are confused or mislead because of the inconsistencies and contradictions.

So it is beholden on someone who wants to convey truth to be clear and consistent. There is a tried and true method of doing that using what is commonly known as a logical structure. This used to be formally taught in schools a century ago and was called 'the Trivium'. It consists of laying out the data using sentences or language that makes sense grammatically. This might include some history and a context. There will be facts which will be sourced and are verifiable. Next these facts are arranged in a logical sequence that is consistent and with no contradictions or fallacies. From this might be drawn meaning and wisdom; true knowledge and actionable understanding, in other words.

For an example of this clear, consistent and logical layout, please watch Zack Taylor make the case for the breakdown of the Border Patrol effectiveness in southern United States and the government's active and deliberate participation in this breakdown of what amounts to a gross breach of national security. The subject is important in itself and has parallels to what is going on in Ukraine in so far as US govt lying and asymmetrical warfare are concerned.

But I have included the video in this post because it is such a good example of how matters should be reported to the public. Mr Taylor sets out the context and the facts. He ties the facts together using logic and draws the obvious (once they are pointed out) conclusions that follow on from the logic.

In another video he goes on to what needs to be done. (You will find that at the youtube link below if you follow it). You may or may not agree with his conclusions but you will know where the weaknesses are if there are any because of the layout. There is nothing hidden or presented in such a way to be confusing.

After you watch the Zack Taylor video, I will take apart the AP article paragraph by paragraph and then point out what the real context for it is and how that, as well as the internal inconsistencies, changes the meaning of the 'news' article.

In other words, disinformation is made up of not only what is wrong within the article but what is wrong by being left out of the article; the lack of proper context. But first, Zack Taylor-

Notice how everything is relevant and connected to give an overall meaning. There's no padding or waffle and no unsubstantiated opinions. It makes a very interesting comparison with the AP article below which is anything but these things.

Now lets look at the AP article that The Saker attempted to take apart. You can view his take on it here.
He has missed some very important points, I think, which I would like to remedy.

At first, I was tempted to repeat the visual format of my Parry article and which Saker has used as well but I have decided to unpack the disinformation in a different way so it doesn't become too confusing when the reader compares it to The Saker's version. I will leave out the bolded text and just insert my comments between the original paragraphs rather than within the text.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions" that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

("Senior U.S. intelligence officials" is a useless source. There is no name we can follow up with. Therefore there's no verifiability and no accountability. Plus, it is the job of intelligence officials to collect data, establish truth, convey that truth to their superiors and political leaders who will use it for propaganda purposes.

The business of intelligence is the business of misleading people. Not a good source for truth for us. The use of the words "creating the conditions" is vague and designed to be interpreted any way you want to fit your prejudices. The term is so ambiguous as to be meaningless in this context. "But they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement" are weasel words or what The Saker calls 'caveat words'.

I covered in my previous article how the use of a proposition phrased in the negative i.e. 'no evidence' actually goes into the subconscious mind of the unwary reader as 'evidence' because the subconscious mind cannot process negative terms and understands only images or facts as positives - only things that exist. In this case, 'evidence' (which exists) and not 'no evidence' (which does not exist.)

The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.

(The non credible, unnamed and unaccountable and perhaps fictitious intelligence officials prevaricate over their story. The word "cautious" is supposed to convey some sort of wisdom and restraint. Their claim that the Russians are arming the separatists is unsubstantiated and again we have the inclusion of "no evidence" planting the seed of suspicion.)

The officials briefed reporters Tuesday under ground rules that their names not be used in discussing intelligence related to last week's air disaster, which killed 298 people.

(These are serious charges that some are using to push the case for war and yet we are told these 'facts' in all seriousness but no names and therefore no one will be held accountable and there is no verifiability should it all lead to bloodshed. Why the need to hide behind anonymity if it is factual?)

The plane was likely shot down by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, the intelligence officials said, citing intercepts, satellite photos and social media postings by separatists, some of which have been authenticated by U.S. experts.

(In fact, the evidence points to an air to air missile being responsible for shooting down the airliner. Again we have an unknown source quoting vague evidence some of it from discredited social media sources and absolutely no verification supplied. Remember the first step in clear thinking and presentation is to verify the facts. You cannot proceed to the logic or the meaning without that verification step being undertaken and expect to arrive with any truth.)

But the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. They were not certain that the missile crew was trained in Russia, although they described a stepped-up campaign in recent weeks by Russia to arm and train the rebels, which they say has continued even after the downing of the commercial jetliner.

(Again, we have the insertion of the erroneous concept that a surface to air missile is the culprit. Also there is not one single establishable fact in this paragraph. It is all unsubstantiated opinion and therefore valueless for our purposes. Within it, though, is the linking of Russia with "the downing of the commercial jetliner" in a sentence but without the grammatical linkage. But these experts in deception know that many readers will gloss over the lack of grammatical connection and just go with the fact that these two things, 'Russians' and 'downed airliner' in the same sentence, will be put together in the reader's mind and assume guilt. This is a common tactic)

In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality," one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here."

(My, there's a lot of things we don't know here but the clear implication is that they know something. "we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality" implies that they are perhaps 50% sure of even 80% but certainly not 0%. Doubt is introduced here. The Perry Mason quip means that 'we know who, what and where but we can't prove it completely'. All bloody nonsense, of course)

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the U.S. was still working to determine whether the missile launch had a "direct link" to Russia, including whether there were Russians on the ground during the attack and the degree to which Russians may have trained the separatists to launch such a strike.

(Finally, we get a name but he is propaganda hack so still zero credibility as a source. "Direct link" implies they have indirect evidence but haven't quite got the 'smoking gun' yet. Again we also get the repetition of 'no evidence' with its implied guilt and again, the notion that the murder weapon was a surface-to-air missile. This is becoming rather 'ad nauseum'. Still, repetition is the foundation of all brainwashing techniques and is always present. Any continual repetition should be a warning signal of mind altering propaganda)

"We do think President Putin and the Russian government bears responsibility for the support they provided to these separatists, the arms they provided to these separatists, the training they provided as well and the general unstable environment in eastern Ukraine," Rhodes said in an interview with CNN.

(Pure supposition from a PR flack without any credible basis. "We do think" means they can make up anything they want later to justify saying this. They don't need proof because they are not saying "we know". They are saying "we think". Not that it would bother them too much anyway.

The hypocrisy is outstanding given that Victoria Nuland has admitted to spending $5b of US govt money 'bringing about democracy' i.e. the coup, the preceding riots and that she subsequently appointed the Ukrainian junta government who then istigated the war against its own civilians)

He added that heavy weaponry continues to flow into Ukraine from Russia following the downing of the plane.

(Unsubstantiated, of course. "Heavy weaponry" is a very vague term and presumably they are hoping the unsuspecting reader will interpret that to mean high altitude surface-to-air missiles - which Russia certainly has never supplied the resisting army of Novorossia. I know this is getting repetitive and tedious but we'll soon get to the end of this assault on our sensibilities. Hang in there folks!)

The intelligence officials said the most likely explanation for the downing was that the rebels made a mistake. Separatists previously had shot down 12 Ukrainian military airplanes, the officials said.

(Ah, we are back to Messrs No-names with their musing about the Novorossians ability to shoot down low flying aircraft belonging to the Ukrainian Air Force who have a predilection for strafing and bombing civilian apartment blocks, kindergartens and hospitals. This, of course, has no applicability to the shooting down of an innocent passenger aircraft flying at elevated altitude of 33,000ft. It's entirely irrelevant. But, I guess it is put in there just in case someone might erroneously make that connection. Why else would they mention it?)

The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile.

(Who needs better evidence than this? Social media postings from the thugs that make up the Ukrainian government? You've got to be kidding. These people have been caught faking social media evidence. Its so easy to do anyway. So zero credibility there. And how is any of that credible intelligence? Absolutely no sense of shame exhibited here.)

But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be.

(This is called CYA!)

Despite the fuzziness of some details, however, the intelligence officials said the case that the separatists were responsible for shooting down the plane was solid. Other scenarios — such as that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane — are implausible, they said. No Ukrainian surface-to-air missile system was in range.

(Don't you love the logic? Despite the "fuzziness", the case is "solid". But there are no verifiable facts to build any sort of logical case on. It's all back to front as all propaganda is. Start with the conclusion and fudge the facts and hope no one is watching. Its getting boring but I have to point out that they are repeating the notion of the guilty land based surface-to-air missile by engaging the 'no evidence' principle yet again. There's also the small problem that the Russians have identified Ukrainian missile detachments in the target area.)

From satellites, sensors and other intelligence gathering, officials said, they know where the missile originated — in separatist-held territory — and what its flight path was. But if they possess satellite or other imagery of the missile being fired, they did not release it Tuesday. A graphic they made public depicts their estimation of the missile's flight path with a green line. The jet's flight path was available from air traffic control data.

(This is outright lies. The US intelligence agencies' satellites and radar facilities are all over Eastern Ukraine and if the Novorossians had fired the missile that brought down the airliner, we would be seeing the missile tracking data, and not some 'estimation', on the six o'clock news and repeated every hour if not more often. )

In the weeks before the plane was shot down, Russia had stepped up its arming and training of the separatists after the Ukrainian government won a string of battlefield victories. The working theory is that the SA-11 missile came from Russia, although the U.S. doesn't have proof of that, the officials said.

(Not long to go now folks. Promise! What can I say? It's the 'no evidence' ploy again to plant doubt and suspicion in the reader's mind. We've been here before many times but, to be effective, this 'no evidence' technique needs to be repeated ad nauseum, as I said.)

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said last week that "because of the technical complexity of the SA-11, it is unlikely that the separatists could effectively operate the system without assistance from knowledgeable personnel. Thus, we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel in operating the systems," she said.

(This is called "begging the question" in logic analysis. It is a fallacious argument whereby the conclusion assumes the presence of evidence in the premise to support it. Perhaps that's not well expressed but the point is it's circular and self referential and therefore valueless if not meaningless.

Because they don't know something, they can't rule anything out. They don't know if the separatists can operate the missile firing technology, therefore they don't know if the Russians helped them. It is nonsensical in the extreme. You cannot conclude anything form this and you can never prove a negative, anyway.

This all, of course, leaves aside the fact that the Novorossians don't have all the required radar equipment and also the fact that the airliner was not shot down with a land based missile, in any case. Bizarre! But what else would you expect from the foam flecked lips of Samantha Power?)

Asked about evidence, one of the senior U.S. intelligence officials said it was conceivable that Russian paramilitary troops are operating in eastern Ukraine, but that there was no direct link from them to the missile launch.

(Anything is conceivable. Even the possibility of a verifiable fact from the likes of the US Administration or even AP, though definitely not in this case. (Yet) Again, we are being beaten over the head with the 'no evidence' canard. It's like being beaten to death with a wet tissue. When will it ever end?)

Asked why civilian airline companies were not warned about a possible threat, the officials said they did not know the rebels possessed SA-11 missiles until after the Malaysian airliner was shot down.

(I figure you folks can sort this last one out by now. I'm done!

As a piece of journalism, the above article is a piece of shit! It reverses the logical process by starting with the conclusion and if facts are supplied to support the erroneous and fictitious contentions, they are either false or unconnected or totally irrelevant. Added to this are fallacious arguments and mind bending brainwashing techniques.

Whenever someone messes in any way with the logical format of assembling the data, verifying it, arranging the data/facts in logical sequence without contradictions or gaps and drawing the resulting conclusions, you are not going to get the truth. Unfortunately, the simple process outlined here is rarely followed and never followed when it comes to the so-called mainstream media.

But as a piece of disinformation, the above article from AP is tight. You might have noticed that my explanatory comments amounted to more words than the original article. The writers (whoever they are) packed a lot into that short shitty article so that the unpacking was necessarily longer than the offending nonsense.

The article is also misleading by what is not mentioned in it. The proper context is not there.
-There is no mention of the United States being the principal instigator of the Ukrainian coup and the subsequent war on the citizens of eastern Ukraine resulting in hundreds of innocent deaths.
-There is no mention of the fact that the US govt and other NATO countries are supplying the Ukrainian forces with all manner of weapons and equipment including attack helicopters.
-There is no mention of the fact that the Malaysian airliner was shot down with an air to air missile and that the Novorossians therefore couldn't possibly be involved in that.
-There is no mention that the US Armed Forces and intelligence agencies have full surveillance of everything that moves and doesn't move in Eastern Ukraine. So if anyone fired a missile from Ukrainian (or Russian) soil, they would not only know but they would have the proof.
-There is no mention, of course, that they would have all the evidence needed to show that the Ukrainian Air Force was responsible for shooting down the civilian airliner
-There is no mention of the Russian military providing solid evidence of the above point of an air to air missile attack.
-I'm sure as soon as I post this article, I'll think of half a dozen other things that are pertinent to this case but are not mentioned.

The Saker in his unpacking of this same article misses a lot of what I've covered. Indeed, he puts in black bold the false accusation against the Novorossians and the Russians without any explanation. And I, in turn, cannot explain that because he is doing what I pointed out Robert Parry was doing in his article; repeating the false accusations against Russia without unpacking them and therefore reinforcing them in the minds of the readers. It's a mystery to me.

The Saker does spend time, though, explaining the pain that the intelligence agency staff have to endure through being misrepresented as morons by administration officials who put together this nonsense. But really, as I said further up the the article, intelligence agencies are in the business of misleading (polite term for lying) the public and foreign agencies. It is not their job to tell the public (and therefore foreign intelligence agencies) the truth.

It is not the job of intelligence agencies to provide accurate data to determine whether a country needs to go to war or not, either. It is the intelligence agencies' job to provide the rationale for going to war; a war that has already been predetermined. And we've seen that time and time again. Think Colin Powell. Think Nigerian yellow cake. Or the whole al Qaeda thing, for that matter.

The other point is that this misrepresenting of the truth is nothing new. It has been going on forever and if any intelligence agent isn't aware of that, then I don't know how they keep their job. On the other hand, if they are aware of it and continue to work for the spook agencies, then they are complicit in the resulting crimes against humanity and do not deserve any consolation, in my view. Certainly not from me, anyway.

What is the wider context?

So zooming right out, how are we to make sense of this article from AP and many others like it? Not many people will take the time to pull this kind of crap apart like I have, but then, they don't have to. Many people such as those who read here and at Saker's, for instance, will know straight away that it is just propaganda and zone out. So who is the intended audience and why?

I don't think it is the general public, as such, because the administration does not need all of them. I think it is a little more focused than that. I remember many years ago here in Australia when our national telco was still owned by the public and had no commercial competition. It was running a nation-wide advertising campaign and I couldn't see the point of it. That is, until I asked the right person. Why was Telecom (as it was known then) advertising how good they were when it has no competition and was not entirely profit driven, anyway.

The answer to my great surprise and education was that the entire campaign was primarily aimed at Telecom employees and not the public as a whole as I had assumed. It was designed to boost the Telecom employees' morale and self image in their own, their families' and, lastly, the public's eyes. It was aimed at increasing the commitment and pride of their employees to doing 'a good job' and saving money by reducing absenteeism and 'foot-dragging' on the job.

So I'm reminded of this campaign when I look at this blatant shameless propaganda from AP and the nameless intel agents. My guess is that it is aimed at current military personnel and their families to increase their commitment to 'the cause'. Military personnel live much more in a controlled bubble environment than the rest of us do and are much more susceptible to this brainwashing. It is very important for the military and political leaders that the troops believe in what they are doing; that they believe the bullshit. The Viet Nam military campaign fell apart because the troops no longer believed in what they were doing. Many of them deeply resented being there in the first place as they were conscripts.

Viet Nam was a profound lesson for the leaders of America and that is why there will never be a conscripted army again. The current crop of soldiers are 'economic conscripts' but they don't understand that. They think they have chosen freely to join the military and so, human nature being what it is, they will defend that choice to the death, literally.

Unless . . . . unless they become persuaded that their leaders have lied to them and the most likely revelators of this are going to be their own family members, friends and neighbours. So it is of supreme importance to target these people as well as the soldiers with the propaganda and to drown out the opposing voices. Hence the constant barrage of, what is to readers here, verbal garbage.

It won't hurt recruitment either. The more blatant the propaganda the better. Those who see through it are not wanted by the military, anyway. The military do not want a fifth column within its ranks.They learnt that lesson in South East Asia. No, the military wants the ones who will hear, believe and do what they are told without question and without thinking. In the long run, though, this is a self defeating strategy for the military.

But, in the meantime, welcome to the wonderful world of social engineering with a none too subtle blunt instrument.


Shifting Headline

Here's a comment I've copied from Saker's blog regarding the AP article that is the subject of this post-

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's also funny about the AP piece is that its headline was changed at least twice. The final version as it is now is:

US: Russia 'created the conditions' for shoot-down

before that, it was for a short time:

US: No evidence of direct Russian link to plane

and the original headline was:

US: No link to Russian gov't in plane downing

Was amazing to watch how all the carriers of the AP story changed the headlines accordingly. You can still see the redirections, for example look at this URL of the Boston Herald and see on which URL you'll end up.

Ministry of Truth corrected that all-too-direct editor. ;o)

23 July, 2014 09:24


I neglected to give credit for the link to the Zack Taylor video to Motherbarbarian who left the link at Penny's.

McJ's picture

Mossad Involvement

Good job James on this unpacking and your last post taking apart Robert Perry's nonsense/propoganda. This is very valuable for any of your readers that sincerely desire to understand how the media brainwashing game works. smiling

Via Pepe Escobar - an interesting read regarding the Mossad's possible involvement in the crash. I haven't followed this incident very closely so I don't know how plausible this may be in light of the evidence. I don't believe the "luring a rebel intercept missile to incercept" would fly as a scenario or even if it is possible. If there was a bomb on the plane, could it have been triggered/set off by one of the following Ukranian fighter jets leaving little to no evidence of their involvement? Perhaps Mossad's involvement could have been to maneuver the plane into the kill zone.

"This is to be examined with EXTREME care - an investigation inside an investigation. Shimatsu is a very serious character - and has proven himself in the past. I use Schiphol a lot and share some of his observations. And then there's the key theme of intimidating Malaysia." Pepe Escobar

"As the only non-European journalist to cover The Hague inquiry into the Amsterdam crash of El Al flight 1862 (October 1992), which destroyed a Biljmeer district apartment complex, I discovered many aspects of the Israeli security set-up at Schipol International Airport and the role of the Mossad intelligence agency in secret operations there, one of Europe’s business transport hubs.

This same airport spy network is very likely involved in the recent crash of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 over the Ukraine. "


"Initial information, even before the start of an official inquiry into MH17, raise serious questions of whether Israeli intelligence tampered with the flight controls and radar identification (transponder) system of the Malaysian-operated Boeing-777:

- MH17 deviated from the civilian flight path, which should cross close to the exit mouth of the Azov Sea, away from the current battle zone between the Ukraine military and militant ethnic Russian irregulars. Instead its navigation steered the jetliner on a more northerly course in contested airspace, where Ukraine military aircraft conduct both air strikes and troop transport missions, putting the Malaysian Airlines jet into jeopardy.

- The wide-body Boeing-777 jumbo jet is similar in profile to the Antonov (built by Kharkov Aircraft Industries in Ukraine) and Ilyushin (Russian-built) transport craft in service with the Ukraine military and air cargo fleets. At higher altitudes (MH17 was flying at 35,000 feet), the only way from ground level to identify a plane is by a coded radar response from its transponder signal. One possibility was that MH17 was programmed with a false responder code; while another problem could have been confusion with the transponder beam from a nearby Ukraine military craft. A more sinister scenario is the sending of a false ID signal from a ground-based vehicle.

In short, Israeli operatives could have loaded a bomb onto MH17 or used a false responder signal to lure a rebel missile battery to intercept a suspected incoming troop landing."

Israel's involvement and survival

Thanks McJ. Certainly israeli security firms running airport security around the world is a key way that Mossad is able to export terrorism to wherever they want. They use terrorist attacks to intimidate resistant countries. It seems that every 'terrorism' event has some Mossad security company involved somewhere in the chain.

The Malaysian flight was delayed 15mins before takeoff. If you are going to disable or compromise an aircraft, the time to do it is just before takeoff so as to minimize the compromising act from being discovered before the flight begins. So if the plane was tampered with, it was done by the israelis in Amsterdam and done in that 15min window (or before and including that 15min window).

The airliner seemed to be intact (apart from an engine on fire) when it was plummeting towards the ground. That tends to rule out a bomb onboard and also a surface-to-air missile which would blow the plane to pieces or at least put a big hole in it.

But the airliner needed to be over the battle field for the false flag op to be effective so it was critical to position the airliner where it was. We know that its course was changed. Was this voluntary? Did the Ukrainian fighter jets flying nearby have the equipment (and personnel) onboard to commandeer the flight? Did the airplane need something added to its transponder or auto-flight software to facilitate this takeover. If it did, then that would have been done at the Amsterdam airport by the israelis.

Lots of questions but one thing is for certain, as far as I'm concerned. If Russia can prise the major EU countries away from using the $US along with themselves and China, then the value of the $US will plummet and if countries around the world refuse to accept it for their exports to the US (and the US military) then the US will not be able to support their economy nor their far flung military occupation of one hundred plus countries. This means they will have to withdraw their troops back to the US and not be able to protect israel militarily nor support it economically. (israel survives only on US handouts)

Therefore, israel's survival is at stake in a very real and direct way. So what wouldn't israel do to survive? Given that it is obviously run by psychopaths, not much if anything, in my view.

Israel needs to make Russia the demon and have Europe and the Pacific Rim countries combine against Russia and China and so preserve the use of the $US in those countries to save the dollar and themselves. These are the highest stakes imaginable for israel. The US will survive a collapse of the $US, though not well, but israel will be headed for the 'S' bend along with their banker owners.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.