Does the Gov bleed out stories to test employees?

Are we to believe that a gov agency plants stories within itself to see how far it will go? And if so, do these stories have a grain of truth to them as John Lear keeps alluding to when he says that Serpo is a lot of disinfo mixed with some truth?

This Steve Hammons story: www.ufodigest.com...

at UFO digest has some interesting points but what are we to believe regarding how the gov disseminates top secret info or disinfo?


[edit on 29-9-2006 by jbondo]

The best lie is a lie mixed with the truth.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Acharya]

Psychological media operations have to be tested in order to determine their true effectiveness. If 'mostly harmless', why not use the greatest testbed of them all? (I know why you shouldn't, but many scientist collegues are challenged in that department.)

I am 99.99% certain that they do. I made some statements on a thread within the past few months explaining one way I know it works. Here is an excerpt:

For instance, I suspect (though I have no proof) that if we take someone who is privy to some "controlled" information, the agency who is providing that person with the information might find it wise to deliberately seed it with tiny little bits of disinformation, and keep track of who it was that was told that disinfo. That way, if the controlled information suddenly goes public, and lo and behold, that nugget of disinfo that was only told to one person is part of it, then "they" know who their leak is.

Here's another question:

Could John Lear be a person that is deliberately told things? I know he's not a gov employee but he is connected thru others and his past.

Originally posted by jbondo
Here's another question:

Could John Lear be a person that is deliberately told things? I know he's not a gov employee but he is connected thru others and his past.

Yes he could be, any of us could be, for that matter.

Though what he is kind enough to share with us could just be the truth as presented to him...it could still be disinfo. Just because he seems to come from the heart and be very honest, doesn't mean that his own sources were sincere and truthful.

Whatever he saw, whatever he was told, it's accuracy can be no more certain than any information that you or I might someday be privy to.

Originally posted by therainmaker

Here's another question:

Could John Lear be a person that is deliberately told things? I know he's not a gov employee but he is connected thru others and his past.

Yes he could be, any of us could be, for that matter.

Though what he is kind enough to share with us could just be the truth as presented to him...it could still be disinfo. Just because he seems to come from the heart and be very honest, doesn't mean that his own sources were sincere and truthful.

Whatever he saw, whatever he was told, it's accuracy can be no more certain than any information that you or I might someday be privy to.

I agree completely. I would/could be an excellent disinformation conduit. Although I "think" my ideas are my own this could be a totally false impression. Who knows when or where I could have been fed or 'programmed'. I can tell you I certainly have had a lot of strange things happen in my life. It is my opinion that anyone can be 'tampered' with and not have the slightest idea. I personally believe that all of the current shooters/gunman have been programmed. And of course I could have been programmed to say that.

I read a few posts here and at open minds which lead me to believe that you were aware of all the disinfo during the height of Serpo John.

So would you agree with Steve Hammonds article referenced in the opening post?

By the way, thanks for the input!

Originally posted by jbondo

I read a few posts here and at open minds which lead me to believe that you were aware of all the disinfo during the height of Serpo John.

So would you agree with Steve Hammonds article referenced in the opening post?

Yes