Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:34:23 -0600 From: jack white
To: james fetzer Subject: Re: random thoughts on disinformation, evidence, etc. Subject: random thoughts on disinformation, evidence, etc. Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:43:22 -0600 From: jack white Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: jack white jfk educational research CC: "email@example.com" Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk, startext.jfk Random thoughts on disinformationalists and evidence, as discussed here a lot lately: >>>>>>>>>By their fruits ye shall know them. >Matthew 7:20 >>>>>>>>>Judge not, that ye not be judged. >Matthew 7:1 >>>>>>>>>Neither cast ye your pearls before swine. >Matthew 7:6 >>>>>>>>>Thou hypocrite... >Matthew 7:5 >>>>>>>>>Beware of false prophets... >Matthew 7:15 >>>>>>>>>If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... >anon. >>>>>>>>>The lady doth protest too much, methinks. >Hamlet III, ii, 256 >>>>>>>>>Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. >John 8:32 (Ironically, this is the official MOTTO OF THE CIA, engraved in stone in the lobby of the Langley headquarters! Propaganda at its finest!) >>>>>>>>>PROPOSITION: 1. JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy; 2. Evidence exists which shows CIA complicity; 3. Proof exists which shows CIA operations typically use disinformation; 4. CIA operative David A. Phillips was a master of propaganda; 5. Phillips likely as a participant in planning the assassination; 6. The assassination/coverup plan surely included propaganda; 7. The CIA issued a secret memo of how to counteract WC critics; 8. Many documented CIA disinformation campaigns are quite complex; THEREFORE: 1. It is reasonable to assume that JFK disinformationalists are at work; 2. We know of instances of this in media and publishing; 3. The way is paved for Posner, McMillan, etc. to create and sell lies; 4. We can reasonably assume that disinformationalists infest the internet; 5. To be effective, they must be convincing and seem like one of us; 6. However, some are openly obvious, figuring that novices will not notice; 7. Some, however, assume the role of respected researchers; 8. One way to spot them their total denial stance regarding evidence. >>>>>>>>>>Importance of evidence is directly proportional to the vehemence with which it is attacked by disinformationalists and LoneNutters. Therefore, it is very likely: 1. Oliver Stone was right. 2. Badgeman was a shooter. 3. Beverly Oliver shot an important film on Elm Street. 4. Roscoe White was involved in the JFK plot. 5. Phillips, Hunt and Clay Shaw were participants. 6. Jack Ruby was involved with the plotters. 7. Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. 8. Two LHOs were created as part of a false defector program. 9. Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza. 10. CE399 was manufactured evidence to support the SBT and frame LHO. 11. The Files story may have some elements of truth. 12. The backyard photos are fakes. 13. The autopsy photos are fakes. 14. If some photos/films have been altered, then all are suspect, including Zapruder, Nix, and others. 15. Anyone admitting some evidence alteration while denying possibility of other is being illogical. 16. Self-claims of expertise to refute tampering assumes full knowledge of technical techniques used by those doing the tampering. >>>>>>>>>>Only the CIA paymaster knows for sure which posters here are paid disinformationalists, but all intelligent researchers have a good idea who they are...and should ignore them. >>>>>>>>>>Genuine JFK researchers have a motive...a desire for truth, justice and history to prevail. >>>>>>>>>>LoneNut disinformationalists have NO motive to devote so much time and effort to supporting the obvious big lie of the Warren Report. They are not stupid people. Why do they persist in this crusade to prop up murderers among us? The logical conclusion...it is a job. I could go on and on, but am out of time. Add to my list if you think of something. Disinformationalists are welcome to dispute the above, and thus reveal yourself. Jack White IN REPLY TO THIS GENERAL MESSAGE, MENTIONING NO NAMES, Martin Shackelford wrote: > > Jack: > > Your "random thoughts" come close to sounding like The Gospel > According to Jack White, especially when you declare that anyone > disagreeing with your Gospel will "reveal themselves" as > disinformationalists. This is the kind of asinine intimidation attempt > that we've seen too much of lately. You need to take a vacation from Jim > Fetzer and get your head straight. > Speaking of hypocrites, there are even more of them quoting the > BIble (and the Koran, and the Talmud, etc.) than there are wrapping > themselves in the flag. > "By their fruits ye shall know them"? Who's judging the fruit, > Jack--you? I suppose you are also defining the "false prophets"? Gee, I > thought it was ME that Fetzer compared to a religious fanatic! > "Neither cast your pearls before swine"--your explanation for > often declining to post evidence? > What is "Judge not, that ye not be judged" supposed to mean in > this context, Jack? Don't criticize anyone's hypotheses? "Thou > hypocrite"--addressed to who, Jack? These both come from the same > chapter. Let's look at a good translation of the entire passage: > Do not judge, and you will not be judged, because the judgements > you give are the judgements you will get, and the standard you > use > will be the standard used for you. > Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never > notice > the great log in your own? And how dare you say to your brother, > "Let me > take that splinter out of your eye," when, look, there is a great > log in your > own? Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then > you will > see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye. > > Did you send these quotes to Jim Fetzer, or don't you think they apply > to him? > The other quote also deserves a fuller quote in context: "If > you make my word your home you will indeed be my disciples; you will > come to know the truth, and the truth will set you free." This is > actually quite a subtle passage, and could be easily considered by the > CIA as a blueprint for disinformation--"be OUR disciples, accept OUR > truths." (Do I hear a chorus of "Give me that alt. time religion, give > me that alt. time religion"?) > I suppose that tossing in a marginally relevant passage from > "Hamlet" ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks") isn't too far off > the mark, as Shakespeare was writing around the same general period that > the scholars of King James were busy mistranslating your family Bible, > but what are you suggesting? That those who deny being disinformation > agents really are? All those who deny it? So the only innocent people > are those who decline to defend themselves? Crap, Jack, and you know it. > > The quote that has no business whatsoever being in this > collection, perhaps one of the dumbest guidelines I've ever heard, is > "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...." > I've noted in the past that Sen. Joe McCarthy was fond of that one, for > good reason--it is a cheap substitute for thinking, and he didn't want > people thinking about his phony charges. That's the parallel--not that > I'm saying anyone who uses the statement is a McCarthy--just that > they're offering the statement as a substitute for thought. > All that said, there are certainly things upon which we agree > in your summary: > 1. JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy (YES). > 2. Evidence exists which shows CIA complicity (Depends on what you mean > here, Jack. > Did the Agency kill JFK, or were some CIA employees involved > without the Agency's > sanction? I don't know the answer to this one, though I suspect the > latter was true.) > 3. Proof exists which shows CIA operations typically use disinformation. > (Is the Pope > Catholic? I would think this one goes without saying. > Disinformation is an integral > part of CIA operations, as is clear from Philip Agee's CIA Diary > discussion of day > to day operations in Latin America.) > 4. CIA operative David A. Phillips was a master of propaganda. (Another > given.) > 5. The assassination/coverup plan surely included propaganda. (An > assumption, but a > logical one.) > 6. The CIA issued a secret memo of how to counteract WC critics. > (Well-known.) > 7. Many documented CIA disinformation campaigns are quite complex. (I'm > not sure I > agree with this one, Jack. From what I've read, a good > disinformation campaign is > relatively simple. Pick a theme, or a few basic themes, and > repeatedly hammer them > home--re-read some of Jim Fetzer's posts--he knows how to use this > approach.) > [I thought, by the way, that a Proposition was supposed to be clearly > stated, not made up of eight different elements of varying credibility.] > > 1. It is reasonable to assume that JFK disinformationalists are at work. > (An assumption, > but again a logical one--unfortunately probably greatly inflated by > paranoia. In the > 60s, FBI surveillance was relatively limited, due to manpower > factors, but Hoover > wanted it scattered in such a way as to leave the IMPRESSION that > there was "an > FBI agent behind every mailbox." Some people seem to have bought > into the same > phony assumption as it relates to the CIA--let's not hand them power > they don't have! > I'm not afraid of them, nor do I give them as much credit as you > seem to.) > 2. We know of instances of this in media and publishing. (YES) > 3. The way is paved for Posner, McMillan, etc., to create and sell lies. > (Frankly, given > the nature of elite power, this wouldn't require a CIA--just an > Establishment with allies > in publishing. The CIA is a tool.) > 4. We can reasonably assume that disinformationalists infest the > Internet. (No, Jack, we > can't. "Infest" is far too paranoid. There may well be a few > around--how many would > they need, anyway?) > 5. To be effective, they must be convincing and seem like one of us. > (Probable) > 6. However, some are openly obvious, figuring that novices will not > notice. (This is a > little silly. Even novices aren't that naive, and most come on the > Net suspecting a > conspiracy, likely to be suspicious of those who deny one. > Clearly, if you are > sowing confusion, you want someone with a clear, logical-seeming > argument for > the WC version available as an alternative--but you don't need a > team of them. > They can easily simply encourage, and perhaps supply information > to, others who > sincerely share their views--they may not even appear on the Net > themselves, but > just monitor it. Why hire a John McAdams when you can use him for > free, feeding > him occasional information, as Posner did with his partial phone > records? He'll be > a much more effective advocate if he believes what he's saying.) > 7. Some, however, assume the role of respected researchers. (This may be > true, but it > assumes a major investment over a long period of time, something > that operations > like COINTELPRO seemed to avoid. It was easier to drop someone > into a situation, > achieve the desired results of creating division or leading people > in the wrong > direction, then move them on to another situation where they were > needed--again, > personnel were not plentiful, and the FBI tried to use them > economically. I would > assume the CIA would do the same, from what I've read about CHAOS. > The danger > here, of course, is that if you assume a long-term agent, you open > the floodgates to > every wacko yelling "disinformation agent" whenever someone > challenges their > theory, with potential serious harm to innocent researchers, and > an increase in > already disturbing divisiveness in the research community--exactly > the kinds of > things that were among the goals of COINTELPRO.) > 8. One way to spot them [is] their total denial stance regarding > evidence. [I guess you > need to explain this one. Was the kid who said "The Emperor isn't > wearing any > clothes" taking a "total denial stance"? If I look at the > so-called "evidence" of > alteration of the Zapruder film, find none of it convincing, and > express my honest > opinion, am I taking a "total denial stance"? If I say that the > photographic evidence > shows unmistakably that Oswald wasn't standing in the doorway in > the Altgens > photo, is that a "total denial stance"? If you can't convince > people that you have > real evidence supporting your claims, are you going to fall back > on accusing them > of having a "total denial stance" because they honestly believe > you're flat wrong? I > think this item needs a LOT of clarification.] > > And now we come to the most illogical statement in your post: > "Importance of evidence is directly proportional to the vehemence with > which it is attacked by disinformationalists and Lone Nutters." Oh, > really? Lately, there was a vehement attack on the claim that Greer shot > JFK? Was that by "disinformationalists and Lone Nutters"? > Does the vehemence of the attack prove that the claim that Greer shot > JFK is "important evidence"? This is, and I cannot state this too > strongly, probably the STUPIDEST way to evaluate evidence that I've ever > seen. > This leads us to your conclusion that "Therefore [based on > this STUPID guideline] it is very likely:" > 1. Oliver Stone was right. (About there being a conspiracy? Yes. About > the need to > open the files? Of course. But JFK contained a certain amount of > misinformation, > including some of the Prouty stuff--about that, Stone wasn't > right at all. Ultimately, > the statement that "Oliver Stone was right" goes beyond what > even Stone himself > would claim. Of course, if you insist--did you know that he was > asked whether he > thought the Zapruder film had been altered, ran it by some of > his special effects > experts, and concluded--according to Jane Rusconi--that the > alteration claims > were a total crock. Zapruder's daughter agrees, according to > what she said in a > recent oral history interview shared in part with me last week.) > > 2. Badgeman was a shooter. (This is a matter of considerable legitimate > controversy. > Once again, the useless guideline of vehemence sheds no light on > the issue.) > 3. Beverly Oliver shot an important film on Elm Street. (The babushka > woman may have; > the FBI seems to have used it in a reconstruction; whether > Beverly was the woman > filming remains a matter of legitimate controversy. Again, the > guideline is useless.) > 4. Roscoe White was involved in the JFK plot. (I suspect he was up to > something, but I > don't know exactly what. I was looking forward to more from > Larry Howard, and still > hope that someone will continue his research, but again the > guideline is useless.) > 5. Phillips, Hunt and Clay Shaw were participants. (Possibly, but your > guideline is no > help here. More important is the evidence pointing to them.) > 6. Jack Ruby was involved with the plotters. (Probable, but not because > of your > guideline, because of his stalking of Oswald, his probable late > Saturday night > calls, his likely inside contact with the police, etc.) > 7. Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. (Probable--again, due to evidence, not > to your > guideline.) > 8. Two LHOs were created as part of a false defector program. (I'm not > sure I've seen > this attacked with vehemence, Jack. There have been questions > raised about the > meanings ascribed to some of the evidence John has unearthed, > and recently > Jim Hargrove has initiated quite a civil discussion of the > issues.) > 9. Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza. (YES--due to the evidence, > not a "guideline".) > 10. CE399 was manufactured evidence to support the SBT and frame LHO. (I > think it > was planted before the Single Bullet Theory was conceived, but I > agree that it was > probably planted to frame Oswald--again, based on the evidence, > not a guideline.) > 11. The Files story may have some elements of truth. (The most vehement > person in the > Files debate is Bob Vernon, who is pushing the story--your > guideline doesn't even > seem to apply here, and even if it did, the evidence remains the > main issue.) > 12. The backyard photos are fakes. (Maybe. Some of the evidence on this > hasn't stood > the test of time, and your guideline isn't enough to salvage it. > Other factors, however, > suggest a problem with the backyard photos, so this remains an > open issue.) > 13. The autopsy photos are fakes. (I don't buy this one, Jack, and your > guideline isn't > going to help out here at all. Kathy Cunningham and Kathlee > Fitzgerald, among > others, make a good case that the photos are authentic, but > often misinterpreted.) > 14. If some photos/films have been altered, then all are suspect, > including Zapruder, Nix > and others. (No help from the guideline here, Jack. It's > useless. Photos and films > are only legitimately suspect if there is evidence of > alteration. As Zapruder, Nix, > Muchmore and Bronson are consistent with each other, either they > were altered > to match before Muchmore was shown on WNEW-TV on November 26, > 1963, or > they are all authentic. This is an argument among a list of > statements.) > 15. Anyone admitting some evidence alteration while denying possibility > of other is > being illogical. (Another argument among a list of statements, > and an illogical one > at that. Admitting alteration of evidence where there is proof > of alteration is in no > way inconsistent with denying alteration where that proof is > lacking.) > 16. Self-claims of expertise to refute tampering assumes full knowledge > of technical > techniques used by those doing the tampering. (A third argument > among a list of > statements--none of this relates to your guideline, Jack. Are > you saying that there > was alteration, but it was too cleverly done to clearly > prove--but the alterationists > have cleverly spotted it anyway? Very amusing, but not very > convincing.) > > So, "all intelligent researchers have a good idea of who [the > disinformationalists] are." Fine. If you know of any intelligent > researchers, ask them for a list and post us. Don't leave us in > suspense, and don't threaten people's reputations by being vague. You > don't need to stoop to this kind of thing. > > Martin > In favor of truth, justice and accurate history--and evidence.