Appealing to Opposing Authority

'P1: A certain group of authority figures say that Y is true.

P2: These experts are part of a group that is biased against Y (ie, would benefit from Y being false, or people believing Y is false).'

These statements relate to public perception, and not necessarily reality. In all likelihood a higher level of financial power that owns both oil companies and the media that tells us what they do and think is manipulating that perception to effect a wider plan of energy interdependence in the future, much more profitable and controlling than oil ever was, and fully backed by government decree. Climate change is merely the boogey man to drive change, like terrorists are when you want to bomb some innocent country and make yourself look like a hero.

That would be my response as a professional conspiracy theorist.

No, that's not it.

Scholars state that Y is true.

Scholars would benefit from Y being false.

Therefore, Y is true.

To use the oil company example from my initial post:

P1: Major oil companies publicly state that climate change is real, and driven by fossil fuels.

P2: Oil companies stand to lose a lot of profit from limitations placed on fossil fuels to mitigate climate change.

C: Therefore, climate change is real and driven by fossil fuels.

In this case, the experts are taking a position that is against their self-interest, which would indicate that they are driven by facts rather than bias.

Even if something goes against someone's self-interest, they could be biased for other reasons. So I'd exercise caution with this heuristic, as sensible as it sounds.

I realize that, logically, it's not an absolute proof of truth. Typically, if one side has put their argument against a seemingly unfalsifiable backstop (expert consensus can't be trusted because all the experts are biased, facts can't be trusted because they've been manipulated), I'll use this as a way to dislodge/discredit that line of thought.

It seems like a hasty generalization . 

I can understand that a person or entity may be willing to make themselves look bad if there was some tradeoff that gained them some greater benefit. However, I would not assume that anyone making themselves look bad is doing this unless a convincing motive was provided. I do find the example provided pretty suspect, partly for that reason.

[To FormerRedditor]

The tradeoff is there - infiltration is achieved.

I have to say I'm mystified by the fact that people question the phenomenon of pushing out "looking bad" stuff. It's just part of the bread and butter of power. The thing is everyone knows that bad stuff happens in war and, in fact, what's happened in Iraq is way, way worse than a few civilians "mistakenly" being gunned down. Way, way, way worse. For goodness sake. There were no consequences to this alleged "collateral murder". None. Where is the problem in pushing it out? In fact, having this fake, sanitised Hollywood kind of violence be shown in place of the real stuff probably works in their favour.

Here's an article on how to approach alleged leaks.

https://off-guardian.org/2023/04/17/pentagon-leaks-5-ways-to-tell-real-from-fake/
In summary:
1. If your “leak” tells you stuff you already know, it’s probably a fake leak.
2. If your “leak” reinforces the mainstream narrative, it’s probably a fake leak.
3. If your “leak” gets MASSES of media coverage, it’s probably a fake leak.
4. If your “leak” source is revealed immediately and publicly, it’s probably a fake leak.
5. If your “leak” tells you what you want to hear, it’s probably a fake leak.

When I claim that Collateral Murder is faked I make no assumptions, I judge purely by the evidence. I worked out that it was faked after prompting by a glamour shot of Chelsea Manning that looked as if it had a lot of money behind it. It struck me as incongruous with her status as a treasonous leaker of state secrets. I thought, "Hmmm, let me check this out, if Chelsea's an agent, then the film is bound to be a fakery. They're not going to push out real stuff, that isn't they way they do things."

Do I know anything about warfare? I do not. Did I know that 30mm cannon does more damage than is indicated in the film or anything of that nature? No. But there's other things the non-military mind can appreciate such as evidence of 13 call signs in the transcript when there's only two Apache helicopters ... who very strangely are not in communication with their ground crew ... and a number of other things such as the "the background talk like the rude comments, laughs etc sounding out of place as well" as mentioned by the person I cited.

Regardless of presence or absence of motive, it's the evidence that counts and the evidence clearly shows fakery. If you like, check the film out yourself.

Collateral Murder film - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
Transcript - http://collateralmurder.wikimee.org/en/transcript.html

So, aside from what I mentioned, your initial post raised two other big red flags for me. One is citing a very unofficial-looking source for information - a forum post in this case, but a blog post or an article from a website with obvious bias would have done it as well.

Second is if someone points something out that seems so obvious that no one could have missed it. Usually it's more likely that they just don't understand the nuance. I've never been in the military and I've never had a huge interest in any non-small arms weapons, but even I know that a direct hit from a 30mm cannon would rip a person apart, it seems inconceivable that no one in the organization that was "infiltrated" wouldn't have caught that if that line of thinking was correct. But, I also know that with projectiles that large and powerful, you don't actually need to hit a person directly to kill them. Hit the ground or a hard surface near them, and you have some potentially lethal bullet fragments coming towards them. I watched the parts of the video with the shooting, and based on where the dust clouds were forming, seems like that's probably what's happened. Also, I didn't think the audio sounded fake.

I think there's also a leap in logic to assume that, even if the video was fake, that it originated from the US - if a country like Russia, China, North Korea or Iran were to have faked this video, there would be a much more tangible benefit. As for the infiltration motive, I think that one's a bit shaky as well. While I'm sure the US government would love to infiltrate Wikileaks, I think the people at Wikileaks are smart enough not to reveal their secrets or give control to anyone who provides them material.

I skimmed at the article on spotting fake leaks and I found it difficult to take it seriously, it had very strong conspiracy theorist vibes. Use of the term "deep state" in the article, and the home page posting a bunch of anti-vax stuff with obviously alarmist images of syringes and skulls. And, while there is a conspiracy theory fallacy, the points of the article seemed closer to the galileo fallacy .

[To FormerRedditor]

It's funny, what raises a red flag for me and sends my blood pressure soaring is the mention of the word "source" as if it means something. I remember learning at school the importance of source but about a decade ago I started abandoning any concern with source and started treating the process of determining the truth as a puzzle where you take all the pieces you can find and put them together ensuring that for whatever solution you choose all the pieces align.

Despite the fact that I think many people are indoctrinated by authority in what and how to think and are essentially apologists for the mainstream narrative I never resort to stating that in my argument ... because it's not valid. Do you consider yourself indoctrinated by authority in what and how to think? Do you consider yourself an apologist for the mainstream narrative? You don't, do you? Just as I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist and I absolutely reject that term as a propaganda weapon. Please drop it. It is not valid, it is a mindless label, it is a form of ad hominem . Sure, there are people who by default simply disbelieve the authorities ... just as there are people who by default believe the authorities but when you argue with those in either camp or wherever along the continuum, you stick to the argument . I am an analyst of psychological operations or psyops ... and Chelsea, her gang and Collateral Murder are part of a psyop which is very clearly signalled as such.

Second is if someone points something out that seems so obvious that no one could have missed it.

I hear you, I hear you loud and clear. If it's so obvious why wouldn't others have worked it out? Oh my goodness, how can it be that no one else has? As far as I know though a random guy on a survivalist board and I are the only people to work it out - he from the weaponry base and me from the psyop base. How can that be?

Former Redditor, I'll tell you why. It's very hard to get your head around but it is definitely a phenomenon that exists not just in the case of Chelsea and Collateral Murder but in many other cases too.

It's the magic of propaganda . Propaganda has a magical quality where even though it's all done "hidden in plain sight" - in fact "hidden in plain sight" is an essential part of the MO of psyops, people are simply blind to it. And guess what? My former neighbour with whom I was pretty good friends is Julian Assange's father, John Shipton. I tried to tell John about this psyop because I thought the exposure of it would surely help Julian's case but he wouldn't have a bar of it. He told me that he'd been introduced to the relatives of the Iraqi journalists allegedly killed in Collateral Murder - who, funnily enough, lived in Tasmania. Of course he was! The relatives, the loved ones - all part of the psyop.

The source isn't the random guy on the survivalist board, nor is the source me - there is no "reputable" source to consult ... but we don't need it. The source is right there in front of your eyes, the source is the film, Collateral Murder itself. Anyone can look at it and work it out for themselves ... if they are so inclined.

I wrote my earlier reply to your post in a hurry with no response to your last two paragraphs.

With regard to authorship: the US military/intelligence does not deny responsibility for the film so I see no reason to think they aren't responsible.

While I'm sure the US government would love to infiltrate Wikileaks, I think the people at Wikileaks are smart enough not to reveal their secrets or give control to anyone who provides them material.

Oh my goodness I think you are very wrong here. Those in power have conducted espionage for centuries without the little people catching on to their techniques. I must admit I cannot know what secrets the "Wikileaks people" - whoever they happen to be - have revealed to infiltrators but they're utterly clueless in detecting government artefacts faked for the purposes of infiltration - and that alone makes them very vulnerable. I readily admit I didn't doubt for a moment the authenticity of Collateral Murder when its existence was first publicised ... but later when I caught on a bit it all became so obvious and predictable. But now I know I cannot persuade those around Julian of the truth - I've tried to tell others apart from John but no one will listen - it's simply amazing. The wonderful magic of propaganda!