Discerning Alien Disinformation: Part 3

montalk.net » 20 October 08

The Nature of Disinformation

Disinformation is the most potent tool for manipulating mass consciousness. While there is no shortage of innocent misinformation stemming from logical fallacies, wishful thinking, false assumptions, selective evidence, and outright ignorance, disinformation intentionally exploits these weaknesses to shape the beliefs and actions of targeted audiences.

Disinformation is especially successful when its core agenda is bundled in the sincere convictions of disseminators who have their own vested interests in believing and defending it. A cold and calculating intelligence may devise a disinformation package to be propagated through a naive individual who finds it so appealing to his ego identity and emotional security that he will do everything to defend it. This allows a small and unseen group of disinformers to work through a vast body of unsuspecting vectors who sincerely believe in what they are doing.

Disinformation also uses selective evidence to support false conclusions. Good reasoning may proceed from false premises, fallacious twists of logic are used, or reasoning is discouraged and the conclusion asked to be taken on either the emotional appeal or authority of its purported source. Disinformation has no problem throwing strategic gambits, revealing genuine but convenient truths to make its case if the payoff is bigger than the sacrifice.

Discerning Disinformation

Discerning disinformation is tricky business. It amounts to performing a mental biopsy on the pathological underpinnings of a suspect source. It helps to have a well-honed intuition that can detect pretense, after which critical thinking converges on the exact problem. Problems tend to be false assumptions, ignored counterexamples, logical fallacies, and ulterior motives.

More specifically, alien disinformation plays to these common psychological vulnerabilities: lazy thinking, ego insecurities and the desire to be special, naive optimism that leads good intentions down a dangerous path, greater respect for credibility and authority than personal discernment and intuition, wishful thinking, desperation for answers and consequent lowering of standards, wonderment at amazing but superficial appearances to the point of gullibility, and desire for escapism out of sheer boredom.

Since the goal is to influence opinion, the best disinformation is concise, slick, and persuasive. It maximizes credibility by taking whatever form of authority the target respects most and is careful to dispel suspicions that the source is doing it for fame or financial gain. It is false to assume that if someone risks publishing revelatory information without asking anything in return, he must be sincere; on the contrary, what disinformation asks for in return is belief in its half-truths.

The best disinformation so tidily packages its deceptions that the containing story can be impressively concise, charming, entertaining, and easy to follow. It goes beyond mere logical fallacies and employs hypnotic techniques to massage the targeted mind into accepting the payload. These manipulation tactics are nothing exotic. Psychological warfare specialists, street magicians, neurolinguistic programmers, and advertisers make regular use of them in their professions.

Disinformation must ideally exploit the deepest desires, insecurities, and blind spots of the target, which necessarily vary by audience type. The originators of disinformation therefore use different methods and sources to appeal to different audiences. In the case of individuals used as unwitting agents of deception, their selection depends on how easily their weaknesses allow them to be hooked into performing that function and how well their strengths are suited to playing on the weaknesses of the audience. In this way a chain of influence reaches the audience by way of an intermediary who has the added appeal of being skilled and respected.

Avenues of Disinformation

What follows is an exploration of several avenues for alien disinformation and why they are convenient and effective. This should indicate just how easily the fringe research community and general public can be misled by sources they trust if they fail to consider the possibilities discussed below. NOTE: These avenues can also be outlets for truth, so my aim is not to universally discredit these sources, but rather point out their potential shortcomings.

The Channeler

Summary: Channeling involves one or more individuals allowing themselves to be used by unseen intelligences who communicate information through them. This includes the use of Ouija boards, mediumistic trance states, automatic writing, and conscious verbalization of intuitive impressions. Pendulum dowsing, muscle testing, scrying, and crystal gazing may also allow such communication. The channeled sources may claim to be anything ranging from aliens to angels, deceased persons to demonic beings, famous individuals in history, time travelers, other dimensional entities, the subconscious, and impersonal archetypes.

Strength of Source: Discarnate entities, alien beings, and advanced human military factions can transmit verbal and visual information remotely, whether electromagnetically or telepathically. They also have limited ability to induce paranormal phenomena, predict the future, and arrange synchronistic events by which they can prove their existence and overwhelmingly awe the target into submission. This exploits the logical fallacy that truth of existence somehow equates to existence of truth, which ignores the possibility of real sources providing bogus information where it counts. These demonstrations of faux omniscience, omnipotence, and precognition rule out that the source is just a fabrication of the channeler, but do not prove that the source being channeled is necessarily being truthful.

Channeling also affords deceptive sources anonymity and freedom to fabricate an identity and back-story. Channeling is therefore highly customizable to the weaknesses of the targets. The same source can change identities repeatedly to whatever sounds most authoritative.

Weakness of Vector: Establishing and maintaining a connection requires mental dissociation so that the source can come through clearly without restriction by the conscious mind of the channeler. This amounts to a relinquishing of freewill, and a manipulative entity may abuse this offer by sinking roots into the mind of the channeler, deeper than it could otherwise. In worst cases this can lead to possession, where the channeler not only transmits disinformation during specified sessions, but becomes a walking extension of the negative entity, serving an agenda in broader ways. Conscious abandonment over the channeling process may also grow into habitual abandonment of discernment and critical thinking, whereby the channeler simply accepts and relays what is transmitted after having been won over with convenient but trivial truths.

Strength of Vector: Being just the messenger frees a channeler from having to personally defend the information received. The source is likewise freed from always having to back up its claims, relying instead on self-proclaimed authority and various specious excuses. Through channeling, disinformation is given unlimited creative latitude, taking bold and direct expressions since claims that are too far-fetched for other audiences will readily be accepted by channeling enthusiasts. If especially entertaining and fascinating, source and channeler rise to cult or celebrity status, which adds to the authority factor that overrides critical thinking.

Weakness of Audience: Since channeling is perceived by rationalists as a dubious means of investigation, it appeals more to people who pride themselves on being open minded and not fettered by the limitations of cold intellect. Yet there is a fine line between open mindedness and gullibility, and those who would replace rather than complement reason with intuition leave themselves vulnerable to logical sleights of hand, emotional manipulation, wishful thinking, and other forms of subjectivity. Channeled disinformation would play upon these weaknesses.

Remote Viewer

Summary: Remote viewing uses rigid protocols to psychically gather information about a target with minimal subjective bias. Several remote viewers may tune into the same target and receive similar impressions, which are then analyzed afterward to construct an accurate assessment of the target. The U.S. military is publicly known to have explored remote viewing as an intelligence gathering method. More recently, various researchers have used remote viewing to probe the nature of the alien presence.

Strength of Source: As in the case of channeling, alien and advanced human disinformers can transmit information remotely through natural or artificial telepathy. Remote viewers, even entire teams, are thus open to having their psychic line spliced by such disinformers and fed misleading impressions.

Weakness of Vector: The greatest weakness is assuming that remote viewing success is measured by its signal to noise ratio, which ignores the possibility of a strong but counterfeit signal. Even with subjectivity eliminated, what remains is no guarantee of being truthful.

Strength of Vector: Remote viewing has a reputation for being rigid, objective, and even scientific. Some of its practitioners have worked for the military, others have respectable academic backgrounds. All this gives it an air of credibility and authority that can augment any disinformation disseminated through it.

Weakness of Audience: Remote viewing appeals to open minded individuals who value objectivity and scientific procedure. Although it is more hard-edged than channeling, when used for disinformation the apparent objectivity is just better window dressing for the same deception. That the public military has experimented with remote viewing and successfully gathered intelligence on targets in nations without psychic defenses does not mean remote viewing alien targets is equally reliable. Disinformation passed through remote viewers disseminates deceptive ideas under the guise of strict objectivity.

Insider / Whistleblower

Summary: Insiders are members of secret societies, military projects, or government agencies who are privy to non-public information. For various reasons, insiders may leak some of this information to the public. Often they do it anonymously, perhaps through third party contacts on the outside who can vouch for their identity but keep it confidential while relaying the information. They may also speak openly without hiding their identity, but then tend to be careful about not revealing more than they are allowed. Some self-claimed insiders are casually upfront and detailed, seemingly holding nothing back.

Strength of Source: Insiders work within highly controlled, compartmentalized, and monitored environments as demanded by the secret nature of their work. They are therefore in proximity to high level sources of disinformation who have immediate access to them, particularly sources stationed above them in the hierarchy. If the source is an advanced military faction, the covert nature of the military network allows personnel to be abducted and mind programmed as necessary to create unwitting disinformation vectors. Personnel may also be tested, monitored, and recruited into becoming skilled disinformation operatives, whether fully aware of their mission to deceive, or given a convincing cover story and some fake but noble sounding reason to leak “important” information to the public. Some may even be shown misleading evidence and documents and stealthily nudged into becoming whistleblowers, thereby spreading deception with full conviction that they are somehow undermining their superiors when, in actuality, they are doing the opposite.

Weakness of Vector: Insiders gain increasing levels of security clearance by demonstrating a need to know, passing tests of allegiance and usability, signing secrecy oaths, giving away personal rights, and agreeing ahead of time to the punishments for breaking these oaths. Secretive networks have numerous methods for ensuring that security stays intact including monetary incentives, blackmail, threats to livelihood, hypnotic mind control, and selecting only highly manageable and obedient candidates for recruitment. Personnel are only told what they need to know to do their jobs, which often includes false but plausible stories to compel their cooperation.

Compartmentalization makes it difficult for an insider to compare notes with others to detect disinformation fed to him by superiors. Despite having secret knowledge, insiders are still woefully in the dark concerning information beyond their clearance level. Compartmentalization keeps the bigger picture out of sight, and without that context insiders may not always detect disinformation in what they have already been told.

Strength of Vector: Anyone who is verifiably on the “inside” is venerated for being in so privileged and qualified a position, and for being courageous and generous enough to risk leaking precious information to the public. This bestows upon their words great credence because what they say amounts to expert witness testimony, words by those who are positioned to know. Of course this appearance of authority creates the perfect vehicle for seeding disinformation. Secrecy oaths and national security laws are also good excuses for dodging certain inconvenient questions and adding an atmosphere of intrigue.

Weakness of Audience: Compartmentalization and secrecy laws prevent the public from more thoroughly investigating insider claims by barring them from accessing evidence under wraps, documents still classified, and witnesses unwilling to risk their lives. Much of what insiders say must be taken on their credibility. If they can prove their credentials, that impresses many, but insiders are secured an influential voice if their story is also conveniently corroborated by leaked documents and intriguing photos that pander to the audience’s assumptions, questions, and desperation for confirmation.

Audiences are guaranteed to be duped if they fail to rule out the possibility of the insider being a disinformer regardless of his credentials, especially if his claims are supported by forged photos and documents supplied by the well-equipped and connected network sponsoring him. The best that audiences can do is look for errors and contradictions in his claims and, more importantly, make a probabilistic assessment of his integrity based on the angle behind his claims and whom it would benefit most.

Public Official

Summary: Public officials include elected or appointed members of political and religious institutions, those with special titles and credentials who are in respected positions of leadership.

Strength of Source: Disinformers hold the great advantage of influencing through a highly visible figurehead without themselves being seen. They can be among his personal advisors, programmed or recruited associates who are planted close to him to sway his beliefs and decisions, secret organizations from which he periodically receives instructions, or alien factions abducting and programming him into adopting their goals. These sources can easily blackmail the official, exploit his naiveté, offer incentives of money and power for obedience, and tell or show him whatever “truth” shocks him into cooperating.

Weakness of Vector: The official is foremost a public figure whose loss of reputation and popular support spells the end of his career. He can therefore be threatened with character assassination, real assassination, or bribed with promises of personal and institutional advancement and protection. Being a public official can be so time-consuming that time for personal independent research and thorough contemplation is limited, which may make him dependent on advisors for condensed briefings and recommendations. This makes for reliance on potential sources of disinformation and an overall lack of discernment concerning matters beyond his expertise. His prominence as a public figure may also make him too much of a liability to be given the real truth, so he may be barred from higher security clearances unless he has an absolute need to know. Unless he has intelligence, allegiance, and power that surpass his role as public official, he is expendable.

Strength of Vector: Officials are decision-makers, opinion leaders. If their reputation is intact, their words hold sway over public opinion. They can influence public opinion to hijack democracy, advancing private agendas under the protection of majority vote. Officials can also invoke the power and reverence of the institutions they represent, like a church official declaring some political agenda as being in the will of God.

Weakness of Audience: The audience in this case is the general public, the least discerning audience of all. Typically speaking, the public has blind respect for authority, is easily impressed by credentials, and lacks the knowledge and context to properly evaluate what they are told — especially if they are told disinformation concerning fringe subjects like aliens. This is simply the fact of statistical averages. The mainstream public needs security, stability, and certainty, which authorities are obliged to provide, though not without political motivation. Should public officials reveal the existence of aliens with full sanctioning by their affiliated institutions, the shock to mass consciousness and ensuing clamor for answers would allow these officials to unload a well-received torrent of disinformation concerning alien motivations and identities.


Summary: Academics include credentialed doctors, scientists, professors, theologians, analysts, and other highly educated specialists whose research and presentations methods are formal, systematic, and sophisticated. Those involved in researching various facets of the alien phenomenon may have degrees useful to their facet of study. They typically cite other academics to boost their own credibility, drawing their conclusions by surveying the relevant literature and collating authoritative viewpoints into a generalized observation somewhat enhanced by their own original research.

Strength of Source: Since the intellectual capabilities and strategic value of an academic can be inferred without difficulty through his credentials, reputation, and publications, a broad pool of candidates may be monitored to select who is most qualified to be groomed into a disinformation vector. Academics who refuse to cooperate and become liabilities can be eliminated, either through murder or smearing of character.

Alien and military factions can also corrupt the relied-upon data pool by inserting decoy data, say through abductees programmed with screen memories that portray a false picture of alien motivations. In that case, without suspecting the possibility of deception, an academic will accept the decoy at face value and inject its contents into his works. Even if he suspects it, his suspicions cannot be voiced without risking his credibility by appearing paranoid.

Weakness of Vector: The need to preserve reputation and appear reasoned, cautious, and formal can lead to an agnostic timidity that keeps the academic from taking those creative leaps of thinking necessary to penetrate the depths of a mystery. It also discourages him from acknowledging sources of information that do not meet the standard of his peers despite containing critical pieces of the puzzle. Additionally, it is no secret that universities are as much indoctrination and filtering devices as they are educational institutions, and those who most successfully pass through that filter have demonstrated programmability and a willingness to obey the rules and pander to group consensus. Despite having a sharp intellect, the potential lack of individualism and astute intuition can make a renowned academic gullible to the grandest of deceptions, especially those endorsed by his respected peers and academic superiors.

Strength of Vector: The primary strength of an academic is his level of sophistication, in the sense of being cultured and refined. However, sophistication does not necessarily mean discernment as it could equally mean being a sophisticated rationalizer and disinformer, hence a master sophist. Further, academics are automatically endowed with credibility due to their credentials and often work in positions of influence and advisement. Credibility and sophistication together lead to effective debunking of truths and verification of lies. They can also function as role models in the fringe community, spreading an infectious attitude of myopic agnosticism to those most in need of the opposite.

Weakness of Audience: For some audiences, academics are epitomes of objectivity and respectability who are beyond reproach, especially groups of academics in agreement with each other. The most skeptical audiences will listen to academics more than other types of disinformation vectors. They may find the disinformation to be more plausible than the truth because at least it fits their unrealistic assumptions and comes from an assumedly incorruptible source. The job of an academic disinformer would be to make an intricate case for a deceptive agenda while marginalizing contrary truths as not meeting the standards of plausibility and credibility.

Abductee / Contactee

Summary: Abductees and contactees are people who have had direct contact with alien beings. Abductees are taken from their familiar surroundings and brought into the abductor environment where they undergo various procedures. Contactees have conscious participation in the interaction and become spokespersons for their alien contacts. Not all contactees are necessarily abductees, nor are all abductees necessarily contactees, but the two categories overlap since contactees get abducted and abductees can be groomed into consciously facilitating an alien message.

Strength of Source: Abductors have direct access to the abductee in an environment they control. Various alien and military factions can create false memories, scan the mind and the body’s etheric vibrational signature to analyze weaknesses and biases, use posthypnotic mind programming techniques to install subconscious commands, employ telepathic or implant-generated persuasion, monitor their subjects from afar, stage false confirmation through garish coincidences, and construct exquisite lies and rationalizations. They can also scan the population to select those who are most suitable to their aims, employing logistical and hyperdimensional advantages to give customized attention.

Weakness of Vector: The greatest weakness of an abductee or contactee is knowing less about himself than what his contacts or abductors know. They have backdoor entrances to his mind and can perform manipulations that stealthily influence his thoughts and impulses. Unless he is aware of that possibility and guards against it, it is rather inevitable.

Abductees and contactees may feel alienated from society due to having uncommon and unbelievable experiences, thus seeing themselves as different from others. If hitched to ego, this can degenerate into feelings of privilege, superiority, or specialness that serve as hook points for the abductors to compel allegiance. Their identity may become so heavily invested in being the contactee of a particular alien group that any suggestion of dishonest motivations by their alien contacts is subconsciously interpreted as an attack upon their very identity, which naturally provokes an irrational defense mechanism.

Some may simply give up, feeling overpowered by superior intelligences with superior technology, and in a psychotic attempt to salvage the situation turn into willing and zealous cooperators per Stockholm Syndrome.

Strength of Vector: Real abductees and contactees exude plenty of sincerity and conviction in recounting their firsthand experiences with aliens. Their candor can be disarming to undiscerning audiences. Abductees who document their experiences may have audiovisual, medical, or testimonial evidence that they are indeed being abducted, and that alone piques people’s curiosity about what they learned in the presence of real aliens.

Weakness of Audience: Like in the case of channelers, contactees can become the center of personality cults, playing the role of intermediaries between the audience and their alien idols like a prophet or pontiff intermediating between worshippers and the divine. It is the abductee and contactee’s proximity and direct interaction with mysterious aliens that boosts the credibility of whatever disinformation is vectored through them.

The targeted audience consists of abductees searching for answers, researchers of the abduction phenomenon looking for inside information on alien motivations, and people wishing they themselves could be contacted by aliens. Disinformation appeals to their private longings and blind spots, taking what little they know toward false conclusions and satisfying their ego along the way.


Summary: The hypnotist is trained to guide a client into achieving altered states of consciousness deep enough to access the subconscious. The hypnotic trance is one of suggestibility and dissociation. Abduction researchers commonly accept hypnosis as an investigative tool to help their subjects recover abduction memories made inaccessible by having been in an altered state of consciousness during the abduction, or by abductors installing screen memories and posthypnotic commands to forget. Hypnotized subjects can also be used for remote viewing, exploring past and future probable lives, and as passive instruments for channeling other beings.

Strength of Source: Alien and military factions can install screen memories with multiple fail-safe layers in abductees, stage misleading abduction scenarios, and jack into a hypnotized subject’s mind to speak through him while he is unconscious.

Weakness of Vector: Hypnotists may be in over their heads when dealing with disinformation sources coming through their clients. If they are unaware that screen memories can lurk beneath deeper screen memories, they may only penetrate the decoy screen and accept the next one as likely truth. Same with staged abductions, where what is recalled is indeed what was experienced, but the experience itself was staged for the abductee as a diversion. Furthermore, if the hypnotized person becomes an instrument through which a disinformer can directly speak, then the hypnotist is in live contact with someone or something that can play to his weaknesses.

Strength of Vector: The information retrievable through hypnosis is fascinating, entertaining, and sometimes verifiable. This gives it wide appeal and respect in the fringe research field. It may also be used by academics as a research supplement to expand their data pool. Like in the case of channeling, because what is said cannot always be verified, disinformation can be as creative and fantastic as desired.

Weakness of Audience: Disinformation rides the assumption that what is retrieved through hypnosis, if not fabricated by the subject or induced by the hypnotist through leading questions, is very likely the truth. Again, this is the fallacy “if not subjective and false, then objective and true,” which ignores the possibility of objective deception. In ordinary cases where no deceptive intentions are involved, hypnosis can indeed be reliable, but the trust and respect hypnosis earns through reliable cases should not be blindly transferred to potentially disinformative cases.

Direct Messages

Summary: Messages to the public may appear to come directly from aliens without an intermediary. This includes radio signals from space, hijacked television transmissions, crop circles, and anonymously disseminated texts written from their point of view1.

Strength of Source: Any alien or military group with sufficiently advanced technology can create crop circles, take over television signals, broadcast radio signals from space, and use anonymous human proxies to distribute carefully written messages to the world. Their abilities greatly exceed what the casual hoaxer can pull off, which they use to their advantage to make the messages seem beyond hoaxability and thus authentic.

Weakness of Audience: If the audience believes the message really comes from aliens, they will be intrigued and take the message as a sincere declaration of alien intentions. The message may take an authoritative tone, take the form of responses to messages we ourselves have sent into space, appeal to ethical memes like concerns over global warming, overpopulation, or government corruption, tantalize the intellect with feigned crypticism, or prime the audience for future deceptions by giving key future dates and prophecies. The audience must be convinced aliens are sending urgent messages to the world so that the content of the message influences their opinion about the nature of these aliens and what must be done. Disinformation sent by way of direct messages aim to distort public awareness of alien motivations and influence the audience into supporting certain actions and values that are beneficial to an agenda.


As can be seen, disinformation uses a variety of methods to target a variety of audiences:

  • The general public who would prefer stability and security over disquieting truths
  • Spiritual and New Age types who succumb to wishful thinking and emotionalism
  • Intellectuals whose limited reasoning follows from flawed premises
  • Countercultures whose fascination with the bizarre outweighs their interest in truth
  • Factualists who only accept evidence fitting their subjective standards of credibility
  • Political activists who would support false solutions to combat true injustices
  • UFO buffs who hungrily swallow crumbs of disinformation for its sensational nature
  • Abductees whose identities are invested in being liaisons between humans and aliens

Methods include:

  • Appealing to blind respect for authority
  • Appealing to false and limiting assumptions
  • Appealing to emotional biases
  • Appealing to a need for safety, security, and certainty
  • Appealing to the ego’s desire for identity and specialness
  • Appealing to boredom through tantalizing and entertaining stories
  • Appealing to skepticism to ridicule the truth
  • Appealing to mental lassitude by presenting an unnecessarily simplistic picture
  • Offering a false outlet for good intentions
  • Using logical sleights of hand
  • Forcing a choice between two equally false opposites
  • Providing misleading evidence
  • Staging artificial corroboration through seemingly independent sources

How can one tell if a source is peddling disinformation and not just innocently expressing a differing opinion? It is true that people can unwittingly pass on half-truths after having bought into them, but the question concerns the ultimate source of those ideas. The answer is that the intentionality behind disinformation gives its flaws a pointed direction. In other words, the flaws are too clever and directional to be unintentional, bearing the signature of crafty intelligence beneath its projected guise of innocence.

Leaderless Conspiracy

At the same time, it must be emphasized that an agenda can be carried out through seemingly opposing elements, whereby the illusion of outward disunity and independence cloaks the underlying order.

Therefore the conspiracy isn’t as organized as one would think because those beneath the capstone of the pyramid of control may seemingly act on their own. They may be at odds with each other, mutually suspicious or contemptuous, independently carrying out their own agendas and acting on unique ideologies. But like swimmers drifting down a river together despite moving independently relative to each other, these vectors may oppose and cancel each other in the superficial sense while still sharing a common direction that advances the highest unseen agenda.

There is no need for coordination among lower elements of a conspiracy if a broad range of carefully designed causes initiated earlier produce cascading effects that cleverly converge at the right time. For human conspirators this would require incredible foresight, but foresight and hindsight are interchangeable for interdimensional forces operating outside linear time who have no problem scanning the timeline for the right points to target.

So while different streams of disinformation and misinformation appear to contradict each other in the details, it is their common direction and combined synergy that matter. One must examine the ultimate consequences to discern the ultimate motives. This I will do in the next part by providing and analyzing numerous examples of alien disinformation.

Continue to Part 4 »


1 For example, the pirate television transmission by Vrillon in 1977, the message Do You Wish That We Show Up? disseminated on the internet in 2003, and the Crabwood (August 2002) and Chilbolton (August 2001) crop formations.