This piece was written by “straightfromthedevilsmouth,” or the man I call “Straight,” or at one time “MR.” We have endured some disinfo attacks at another blog, a sign that we are coming closer to truth. As Dr. Judy Wood says, the closer you are to your target, the more flack you draw. He addresses the psychological aspects of the criticism, which I had not considered. I merely thought the guy “Willard” was a dumb shit, and gave him a short (but polite, I thought) answer.
Anyway, below it Straight’s analysis if “Willard,” most likely a paid disinfo agent. When they come directly to this blog I delete their comments, which appears to be the reason they are ganging up at Fakeologist.
_________________
Inspired by some disinfo artists I’ve come across in the Fakeologist comment section, I’ve decided to put some work in on exposing their tactics that are based on social psychology.
Anybody who has taken a Social Psychology course in the last 25 years has heard of Robert Cialdini. His work on persuasion and influence is about as respected as it gets in that field, and no doubt in use by Intelligence agents around the world. In particular, I would like to focus on his work with “Trigger Mechanisms” in animals.
Here’s a couple excerpts (note: I know that I, personally, very often skip the quotes section of posts and only read the poster’s words, in this case please read the quotes as they are very important to what I am trying to get across).
“Turkey mothers are good mothers— loving, watchful, and protective. They spend much of their time tending, warming, cleaning, and huddling the young beneath them. But there is something odd about their method. Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the “cheep-cheep” sound of young turkey chicks. Other identifying features of the chicks, such as their smell, touch, or appearance, seem to play minor roles in the mothering process. If a chick makes the “cheep-cheep” noise, its mother will care for it; if not, the mother will ignore or sometimes kill it. The extreme reliance of maternal turkeys upon this one sound was dramatically illustrated by animal behaviorist M. W. Fox in his description of an experiment involving a mother turkey and a stuffed polecat. 1 For a mother turkey, a polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. Indeed, the experimenters found that even a stuffed model of a polecat, when drawn by a string toward a mother turkey, received an immediate and furious attack. When, however, the same stuffed replica carried inside it a small recorder that played the “cheep-cheep” sound of baby turkeys, the mother not only accepted the oncoming polecat but gathered it underneath her. When the machine was turned off, the polecat model again drew a vicious attack.” (Cialdini PhD, Robert B.. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Collins Business Essentials) (p. 2). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.)
But certainly not all animals are this dumb, are they?
“How ridiculous a female turkey seems under these circumstances: She will embrace a natural enemy just because it goes “cheep-cheep,” and she will mistreat or murder one of her own chicks just because it does not. She looks like an automaton whose maternal instincts are under the automatic control of that single sound. The ethologists tell us that this sort of thing is far from unique to the turkey. They have begun to identify regular, blindly mechanical patterns of action in a wide variety of species. Called fixed-action patterns, they can involve intricate sequences of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals.”
OK, but definitely not humans, right?
“This parallel form of human automatic action is aptly demonstrated in an experiment by Harvard social psychologist Ellen Langer. A well-known principle of human behavior says that when we ask someone to do us a favor we will be more successful if we provide a reason. People simply like to have reasons for what they do. Langer demonstrated this unsurprising fact by asking a small favor of people waiting in line to use a library copying machine: Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush? The effectiveness of this request-plus-reason was nearly total: Ninety-four percent of those asked let her skip ahead of them in line. Compare this success rate to the results when she made the request only: Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine? Under those circumstances, only 60 percent of those asked complied.”
OK, interesting. But what’s my point in bringing this up to you?
“But a third type of request tried by Langer showed that this was not the case. It seems that it was not the whole series of words, but the first one, “because,” that made the difference. Instead of including a real reason for compliance, Langer’s third type of request used the word “because” and then, adding nothing new, merely restated the obvious: Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies? The result was that once again nearly all (93 percent) agreed, even though no real reason, no new information, was added to justify their compliance. Just as the “cheep-cheep” sound of turkey chicks triggered an automatic mothering response from maternal turkeys— even when it emanated from a stuffed polecat— so, too, did the word “because” trigger an automatic compliance response from Langer’s subjects, even when they were given no subsequent reason to comply. Click, whirr!“
Aha! There’s the trick. Just like turkeys, humans are such automatic creatures that all we need is to hear the word “because” in order for us to do someone a favor. We don’t even care about the reason, or even if there is a reason, we just need to hear the word “because”.
I would like to show you how a disinfo poster that goes by the name of Willard uses these tactics to give the appearance of a solid rebuttal, when in reality offering nothing whatsoever. Here was a part of his post when being told to provide evidence against face splitting technology.
“Mark, you wanted evidence from me. Here goes:
You posted this list below of replaced people.
You preface this list below of replaced people with this sentence:
“So far we have given you, sometimes with help from outsiders, and always with whiners and bitchers crying it just ain’t so,…”
A grown man talking about bitchers and whiners. This sentence is written by a man involved in an intellectual pursuit?
Here is your list:
- ‘Bill Hicks became Alex Jones. He’s a conspiracy guy. Controversy swilled about us, but Straight nailed it with a dental analysis.
- Jimi Hendrix became Cornell West. He undermines philosophy. It is his job now.
- Rocker Duane Allman became heavy metal artist Lemmy Kilmister.
- Phil Hartman became Glenn Beck. Acting training taught him to cry on screen.
- Gary Hinman, whose talents were uncertain anyway, became Maury Povich, but I repeat myself.
- Pamela Courson became Barbara Walters, a later-life body switch.
- Brandon DeWilde became Thom Hartmann, who in reality loathes liberals and progressives.
- Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the fake Columbine shooters, using fake names (as fake people do), became Matt Stone and Trey Parker, also fake names for the fake creators of South Park. Fake fake fake fake fake!
- Bobby Fuller became Bill O’Reilly, a fake singer turned fake pundit.
- David Box became Charlie Rose, so that the ‘thoughtful’ PBS set is kept in the dark too.
- Bruce Lee became Judge Lance Ito, totaling nailing the part.
- The Janis Joplin twins became the Amy Goodman twins.
Mark, you even have the temerity to bring the Paul McCartney/ Mike McCartney! twin noise!”
Here the link … Etc.
You provide photo comparisons elsewhere on your blog as evidence.”
(http://fakeologist.com/blog/2016/09/01/audiochat-unreal-on-black-frosting/#comments)
If you read closely, you’ll see that all Willard did was quote Mark, and provide a few links to where he found the quotes. 90% of what he wrote was “you said this…” The other two points were ad hominems (“a grown man….”) (“you have the temerity…”).
So why did Willard bother to do that?
Well I suspect Willard is taught to use the principles of “Trigger Mechanisms” as explained by Cialdini above. Most lurkers don’t read closely, they just skim, and when they do read closely they are not thinking too deeply.
Similar to the subjects who did people a favor for the sole reason of hearing the word “because”, third-party readers may accept Willard’s answer and expertise for the sole reason of seeing him quote Mark and providing a rebuttal, regardless of how empty it was. By quoting Mark and providing links, it taps a trigger mechanism in a reader’s brain that says “this person did his research, thus I should respect his opinion”.
Here’s some more from Willard:
“Here is one you gave. You assert Pete Ham became Bill Maher. IMHO, the two images do not match. Neither does Bruce Li and Jusge Ito or Jimi Hendrix and Cornel West, etc. ad nauseum. How do I know they do not match because I can see they do not match.”
“They do not match because I can see they do not match”. Appeal to self-authority with no evidence cited. Why would a 3rd party reader react to Willard’s self-authority? In reaction to the trigger mechanism he flipped earlier in the post, which gives the impression he is a man who does his research.
Here is how Willard ends the post and I am including the image because I think it is very important to recognize what I’m about to tell you as a common disinfo trigger mechanism:
“What does match is how your provocative assertions about people being replaced, supported with dubious photo evidence is similar to Dallas Goldbug. You are a poor man’s Dallas Goldbug because, like McGowan, and Tom dalpra and Blue Moon, you have no class. You can not disagree without being disagreeable. You can not answer a critic without resorting to profanity and name calling.
I do not think Dallas Goldbug stoops that low.
Mark, go back and look at the question I asked Brandon about the woman from the Apple Records/ Paul McCartney camp. McGowan was in contact with the McCartney Machine before Weird Scenes Facebook went online. Either wittingly or unwittingly, McGowan ran interference for Apple, huge cash cow, with the Paul Is Dead/Paul is Alive disinfo.
And I have already mentioned that MM’s Paul McCarthey/Mike McGear material was filched from a private forum.
That is how I troll, homes.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com…
Willard continues his attack by moving away from providing any form of evidence, and instead attacks Mark by comparing him to DallasGoldBug (an agent whose sole purpose was to discredit the idea of replacements), and then changing the topic to Dave McGowan. Again, avoiding providing evidence.
He finishes it off with a “perceived victory” quote “This is how I troll, homes” to tap another trigger mechanism stating that “I am the victor in this argument”. He adds another link for extra measure that is meant to “teach us” something he assumes we do not know, pushing the “I am more knowledgeable” trigger.
And finally, and this is very important, he adds an image from Mark’s site. Why does he do this? It is the final trigger mechanism that you are seeing all over the comments section of Fakeologist, Quora, or any comments section where disinfo gathers. The purpose is simple, the appearance of some form of media whether it is a Youtube video, image, or sound clip, has the appearance of being a “higher” form of evidence. By pasting a photo from POM, Willard gives the impression he did his research, is familiar with the site, and has debunked it to the point that he can ridicule it. However, when you read his post closely you’ll see that he has purposely avoided using any sort of actual evidence to counter Mark’s post.
You can see some more examples of disinfo agents Tom Dalpra and Stephen using the same tactic here. You’ll notice that nearly every post of theirs has some form of media or quotes with links:
http://fakeologist.com/blog/2016/08/13/bill-hicks-is-still-alex-jones-piece-of-mind/
As I have discovered, if he is wearing horn-rimmed glasses, it is Fredo. Also, Fredo has an easy smile, sometimes even looking a little intellectually challenged, the reason for my nickname.
This first one is odd, his original “mug shot.” Keep in mind, there are important pieces of information that prison officials want from a mug shot – height, scars, facial features, date of arrest, prisoner number. For that reason, mug shots are taken with bright lights in front of a camera that slides up and down so as to shoot straight at the face. When the photo is taken, the top of the skull is precisely even with the correct height line. Notice on this mug shot there is no height scale, and that Chapman’s face and neck are shadowed. That is because this is not a mug shot (even as someone is holding up a NYPD prisoner number in the lower left, not seen here). This is a portrait shot of Chapman, not taken in jail. We were easy to fool in 
Next we have what I call “Chapman 72,” a man six feet tall. I have scrolled the number 72 on each side of his forehead for reasons that will be clear later. Make no mistake, this man and the young man up above line up nicely, and are very close in appearance. In fact, I would say they match up perfectly, even as the one on the right is in his middle years, while the one above is in his twenties.
Next we have “Chapman 70.” He is two inches shorter than the one above. You might think it trivial that there is a two-inch difference in height between these two, and indeed that could be the case. Even though prisons try to do their best work, they cannot always be perfect, so it could be that camera angles were not working properly, and that these are the same man. But I doubt it. This man also has a narrower face. But I will do side-by-side comparisons down below.
Finally, we have old Chapman. Again, trust me on this, as this man, Mark David Chapman 72, is the same man as seen above with the numbers “72” on his forehead, and the same man as the young man showing at the beginning of this piece.
I was certain that all photos with “72” were the same man, as you can see at the left … we get perfect alignment of features.
And again, the young man and the old man, perfect alignment.
Now it begins to get a little murkier. This is Chapman 72 and Chapman 70. If it were a mere matter of camera angles, they would match up after the pupil distance is adjusted. And at first glance, they do line up. But look closer … 72 has a much lower ear, and the eye is lower. However, the mouth and nose align perfectly. I would guess here that we are dealing with identical twins, neither of whom is in jail.
Here I have done my best to align the features of Chapman 70 and young Chapman, but they are off just slightly, as with 72 and 70 immediately above. While I can get nose and eyes (mostly), the mouths are off, and the chins and ears do not match up.
I have seen this face before somewhere … Royalty never went away, but with the onset of republican government, they did go underground. This is an old, old painting in the hotel lobby, and when I remember who it is, I will pass it along. No doubt she is related to The Queen of England, as they are all related by intermarriage. She’s little on the homely side too, in my humble opinion. That nose takes up most of her face, but who am I to talk.
