Theresa J Morris, ACO Club American Communications Online Theresa J Morris Ministries ACE Metaphysical Institute

ACO Researchers

False Flag Information for Researchers

On the subject of false flag information, I am doing what I can to share information on cosmology, and our reality that we can substantiate among the critical masses among the public.

There are many people with various jobs in the past with high top secret crypto clearances in the USA and those who claim to have experiences in the ufology field. Actually it may be now combined with alientology.

We must learn how to research information and to know who is telling the truth. All truths are provisional and can be corrected. We learn how to advance on our own merits of change and growth in our entire populations overall opinion We share notes on our good science and our good spiritual science. We can always be open-minded.

People who are nice and mean well but cannot substantiate their own claims has to be listed in our folklife and folkore. The stories we here among humans may be truth or imagination. It may be a person’s truth inside their own minds which may be greater than their own reality. Some people become delusional and we all have to live on the same planet.

It is with great desire to know the truth that I listen and make my own decisions as to what resonates with me and my own personal research. I rarely take one’s story at face value without looking into the possibilities that there is some stimuli for claims of experiences including my own.

However, while I am researching my own life story I also research how certain people cross my path on my own spiritual journey. Life is what we make it. We can change our reality. I choose my friends carefully in real 3D world. I allow others to become friends in cyberspace on social media whom I have not met.

Just because people can speak and make inferrences to others and drop names of people in a field of endeavor do not make people more believable. We all have an unconscious side and we all have imaginations. But to reveal a truth we must know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can prove something to our own self. I can only vet for myself and share my own opinion and point of view.

If someone is in charge of the secret space program in the UFO world, then there is also someone in charge of discrediting this person. We have those who distract various people from truth and information.

We can share information, disinformation, and misinformation.

FAKE STORIES can become TRUTH in what we now call the MANDALA EFFECT which taints the truth as claims. Many people have claims but how do we know that their stories are not folkore?

We must be diligent at learning about those who are simply used in information gathering for truth or fiction.

Some people have genuine belief, motivation, and want to share the path or journey for people seeking information.

Researchers look for the truth. We must learn to research the stories and listen scientifically if we can prove information that is trusted.

What we know and what we believe sometimes is manipulated. The news in cyberspace is subjective. We know it can be manipulated.

We caution people about making valued judgments. We can learn from our open access to truth. However, information that we can work with as researchers is more than just talks of our imaginations.

Much of the consciousness, new age, love and light community is more than the ascension message of raising our spiritual consciousness. We know of spiritual science and science is coming together into a place and plance in the ufology field.

We must learn to define our truth.

ACO Club
Theresa J Morris
& Friends

False flag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.[1]
Historically, the term “false flag” has its origins in naval warfare where the use of a flag other than the belligerent’s true battle flag before (but not while) engaging the enemy has long been accepted as a permissible ruse de guerre; by contrast, flying a false flag while engaging the enemy constitutes perfidy.[1]
Operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, can (by extension) also be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation.

Use in warfare
In land warfare such operations are generally deemed acceptable in certain circumstances, such as to deceive enemies providing that the deception is not perfidious and all such deceptions are discarded before opening fire upon the enemy. Similarly in naval warfare such a deception is considered permissible provided the false flag is lowered and the true flag raised before engaging in battle:[2] auxiliary cruisers operated in such a fashion in both World Wars, as did Q-ships, while merchant vessels were encouraged to use false flags for protection.
Such masquerades promoted confusion not just of the enemy but of historical accounts: in 1914 the Battle of Trindade was fought between the British auxiliary cruiser RMS Carmania and the German auxiliary cruiser SMS Cap Trafalgar which had been altered to look like Carmania. (Contrary to some possibly mendacious accounts, the RMS Carmania had not been altered to resemble the Cap Trafalgar.)
Another notable example was the World War II German commerce raider Kormoran which surprised and sank the Australian light cruiser HMAS Sydney in 1941 while disguised as a Dutch merchant ship, causing the greatest recorded loss of life on an Australian warship. While Kormoran was fatally damaged in the engagement and its crew captured the outcome represented a considerable psychological victory for the Germans.[3]
Other examples from WWII included a Kriegsmarine ensign in the St Nazaire Raid and captured a German code book: the old destroyer Campbeltown, which the British planned to sacrifice in the operation, was provided with cosmetic modifications that involved cutting the ship’s funnels and chamfering the edges to resemble a German Type 23 torpedo boat.
By this ruse the British were able to get within two miles (3 km) of the harbour before the defences responded, where the explosive-rigged Campbeltown and commandos successfully disabled or destroyed the key dock structures of the port.[4][5]
Air warfare
In December 1922–February 1923, Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare, drafted by a commission of jurists at the Hague regulates:[6]
Art. 3. A military aircraft must carry an exterior mark indicating its nationality and its military character.
Art. 19. The use of false exterior marks is forbidden.
This draft was never adopted as a legally binding treaty, but the ICRC states in its introduction on the draft that ‘To a great extent, [the draft rules] correspond to the customary rules and general principles underlying treaties on the law of war on land and at sea’,[7] and as such these two non–controversial articles were already part of customary law.[8]
Land warfare[edit]
In land warfare, the use of a false flag is similar to that of naval warfare: the trial of Otto Skorzeny, who planned and commanded Operation Greif, by a U.S. military tribunal at the Dachau Trials included a finding that Skorzeny was not guilty of a crime by ordering his men into action in American uniforms. He had relayed to his men the warning of German legal experts: that if they fought in American uniforms, they would be breaking the laws of war; however, they probably were not doing so simply by wearing the American uniforms. During the trial, a number of arguments were advanced to substantiate this position and the German and U.S. military seem to have been in agreement.
In the transcript of the trial,[9] it is mentioned that Paragraph 43 of the Field Manual published by the War Department, United States Army, on 1 October 1940, under the entry Rules of Land Warfare states “National flags, insignias and uniforms as a ruse – in practice it has been authorized to make use of these as a ruse. The foregoing rule (Article 23 of the Annex of the IVth Hague Convention), does not prohibit such use, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to make use of them during a combat. Before opening fire upon the enemy, they must be discarded’.”
The American Soldiers’ Handbook was also quoted by Defense Counsel: “The use of the enemy flag, insignia, and uniform is permitted under some circumstances. They are not to be used during actual fighting, and if used in order to approach the enemy without drawing fire, should be thrown away or removed as soon as fighting begins.” Subsequently, the outcome of the trial has been codified in the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I):
Article 37. – Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure, or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and disinformation.
Article 38. – Recognized emblems
1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Lion and Sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization.
Article 39. – Emblems of nationality
1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
3. Nothing in this Article or in Article 37, paragraph 1 ( d ), shall affect the existing generally recognized rules of international law applicable to espionage or to the use of flags in the conduct of armed conflict at sea.
See also: Vault 7 § Marble framework
A false flag in the cyber domain is slightly different and easier to perpetrate than in other physical theaters of war. Cyber false flags refer to tactics used in covert cyber attacks by a perpetrator to deceive or misguide attribution attempts including the attacker’s origin, identity, movement, and/or code/exploitation. It is typically very hard to conclusively attribute cyberattacks to their perpetrators and misdirection tactic can cause misattribution (permitting response and/or counterattack as a condicio sine qua non under international law) or misperception which can lead to retaliation against the wrong adversary.
Cyber false flags can exist in the cyber domain when:
Weaponized cyber exploits use recycled code/variants from previous attacks;
Exploits are developed to mimic the scope and complexity of other malware;
Exploits are procured rather than developed;
Exploits are executed from new/unknown operator command servers;
Malware calls out to or connects to known operator command servers;
The action or attack is outsourced (e.g. to criminals);
The compromise is socially engineered to misguide investigations towards other operators;
The audit trail or lack thereof conceals actual intent or actions with other exploits designed to mislead investigators.


We are in the process of learning about the mind, information, and imagination with personal stories vs philosophy and science.

Making a claim to someone we have to prove or disprove or it is not fair for others to corroborate.

In UFOLOGY we are learning to define our concepts of words in epistemology and to learn of those who seek to present evidence and to represent this field.

UFOLOGISTS and ALIENTOLOGISTS are working together to define the framework in investigative reporting.

We are trying to keep the field respectable. This needs to be a WIN-WIN for educated people who are genuinely curious abut the untold truths in the world.
Please take the time to listen to two men who study our fiend in ufology as do I. TJ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Scroll UpScroll Up Theresa J Morris, USA Small Business Woman Owne - Universal Life Ministries of Spiritual Science Non-Denominational Faith Copyright by American Communications Online