Misdirection agents

[Tim Gratz]

There may be "disinformation agents" (I'm going to start another "thread" on what that means. There may also be "misdirection agents". This is an interesting comment I "borrowed" from the Lancer Forum:

Confound and confuse...One of the oldest tricks in the book. All the government has to do is throw out a juicy tidbit that they know ahead of time is going nowhere to redirect, {misdirect}, people's attention elswhere. Why don't we stay on the simple, provable points and demand response on those? Examples... The doctors at Parkland identified the throat wound as an entrance wound. How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back? The body was removed from Dallas under gunpoint illegally. The head wounds were different in Washington then they were in Dallas. Why don't we demand response on THESE points instead of increasing the volume of material to consider. Couldn't they also be playing "Divide and Conquer?"

Gordon Nightshade

I do not like to impugn another person's motives. Too many people have impugned mine. So I will not posit that anybody has a hidden agenda in posting meritless theories on this forum.

That being said, let me make another (hopefully final) comment re the "Dillon did it" scenario. ANYTHING is possible, so it is certainly possible Dillon did it, even though he was one of Kennedy's personal friends and had no discernable motive. By the same token it is POSSIBLE one of the first 100 names in the 1963 Boston telephone directory did it. But by causing the members of this forum spend literally hours arguing the responsibility and ethics of claiming Dillon was a conspirator, much valuable time was lost which could have been spent researching the movements and/or backgrounds of people and.or organizations much more likely to have been a conspirator.

In one sense it might be akin to the controversial subject of "profiling" in the terrorist investigation. If a terrorist investigator wastes time examing grandmothers and Norwegian mothers, he or she might allow a true terrorist to escape.

We need to "run down" likely suspects before we going chasing scenarios with little likely relationship to reality.

[Pamela Brown]

There may be "disinformation agents" (I'm going to start another "thread" on what that means. There may also be "misdirection agents". This is an interesting comment I "borrowed" from the Lancer Forum:

You may be defining the central issue as to why there is so little agreement after such a long time. Because of the nature of the events that took place and the gross lack of process, there needs to be definition of the flaws and acknowledgment that they are serious enough to render any judgments questionable.

First, the crime scene was only partially examined, and that (TSBD) after it had been trampled by the press. The limousine was never examined in Dallas as it should have been. The DPD did not move as quickly as the SS did, and by the time they realized they needed to examine the car it was on its way back to DC. In addition, the crime scene also included the entire area of Dealey Plaza and the surrounding buildings, including the grassy knoll and the Triple Underpass. Elm St needed to be closed off. In addition, PH needed to be considered part of the crime scene, especially as the 'magic bullet' was 'found' there. Those things were not done.

Second, and most important, the body of JFK needed to be autopsied at once, and in Dallas, where he had died. The sheer moving of his body out of PH, to the place, to Bethesda, was enough to render any judgments made at Bethesda meaningless.

Therefore, the JFK assassination was at once turned into a great circus. Anything goes, and most every imaginable theory has been trolled in front of us. It hardly makes any difference if the failing is a simple lack of research or a serious hidden agenda.

[Tim Gratz]

Excellent and insightful post, Pamela. Thank you.

In "The Death of the President" Manchester makes the Dallas medical examiner who (almost literally) fought to keep the body in Dallas appear to be the villain. If indeed there were any shenanigans involving the body, they probably would have been avoided had the Dallas ME had his way--which was simply following the law.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

There may be "disinformation agents"

"May" be?  How long have you been at this?

(I'm going to start another "thread" on what that means.  There may also be "misdirection agents".  This is an interesting comment I "borrowed" from the Lancer Forum:

Confound and confuse...One of the oldest tricks in the book. All the government has to do is throw out a juicy tidbit that they know ahead of time is going nowhere to redirect, {misdirect}, people's attention elswhere. Why don't we stay on the simple, provable points and demand response on those? Examples... The doctors at Parkland identified the throat wound as an entrance wound. How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back? The body was removed from Dallas under gunpoint illegally. The head wounds were different in Washington then they were in Dallas. Why don't we demand response on THESE points instead of increasing the volume of material to consider. Couldn't they also be playing "Divide and Conquer?"

Gordon Nightshade

I do not like to impugn another person's motives.  Too many people have impugned mine.  So I will not posit that anybody has a hidden agenda in posting meritless theories on this forum.

That being said, let me make another (hopefully final) comment re the "Dillon did it" scenario.  ANYTHING is possible, so it is certainly possible Dillon did it, even though he was one of Kennedy's personal friends and had no discernable motive.  By the same token it is POSSIBLE one of the first 100 names in the 1963 Boston telephone directory did it.  But by causing the members of this forum spend literally hours arguing the responsibility and ethics of claiming Dillon was a conspirator, much valuable time was lost which could have been spent researching the movements and/or backgrounds of people and.or organizations much more likely to have been a conspirator.

It seems the whole Dillon thing erupted because his participation  was bruited as a possibility, which you denounced as inconceivable and preposterous.  The ball being back in their court, others chimed in to note it was neither inconceivable or preposterous.

If anyone in the Secret Service is considered suspect for negligence or dereliction of duty or shifting protocols or repeated late-night drinking while on White House detail, then one must consider suspect all Secret Service personnel, up and down the chain of command.  As we saw with Watergate, Iran-Contra and other scandals, the disclosure that a few lower level flunkies were caught doesn't mean the culpability ends with them alone.   

In that context, Dillon is fair game, as he was the man ultimately atop the Secret Service pyramid.  That he was a Kennedy acquaintance may be exculpatory, but so long as there are unresolved questions about Secret Service competence, or worse, there will, and should be, questions asked about all in a position to influence that competence.  Or worse.

Aside from the lack of action in Dealey Plaza, and what might caused it, one must consider other factors in the SS domain. 

Who provided false but accurate day-of SS credentials to the false agent known to have been present?  That's a shocking breakdown in security for an honour guard sworn to protect the President. 

During the Florida leg of the southern trip, SS received assistance from the CIA in making security arrangements, and swapped information on possible [Cuban] threats to the President's wellbeing.  Perhaps this could explain how false but accurate day-of SS credential were obtained.  Either way, this joint effort between SS and CIA compromised the security of SS protective protocols. 

Who scrubbed down the limo at Parkland Hospital, and at whose direction? 

Let us not forget that the bullet retrieved from Parkland somehow morphed from what Tomlinson and Wright saw, into a bullet in evidence they no longer recognized.  One cannot wave off the potential for Secret Service culpability, as the bullet was in SS possession long enough to substitute a false round into the evidence pool.

I don't read this as evidence against Dillon, per se, but nor does the fact that he was a Kennedy acquaintance automatically negate very real questions about the Secret Service, and the man to whom it was ultimately answerable.

I have pointed out before, but will do so again for anyone who may have missed it, Dillon was among the select few in the Eisenhower administration given a key role in drafting BoP plans.  [There is also a possibility he was witting of the plans to assassinatine Castro as a component of the BoP plot.]  If he was as revolted by the outcome as were its other architects, and joined them in fingerpointing at Kennedy as the cause of that tragic outcome, it may have strained the Dillon-Kennedy acquaintance beyond the breaking point.

None of this puts Dillon in Dealey Plaza with a weapon.  However, nor does it make him a citizen above suspicion. 

Does this qualify me as a misdirecton agent? 

In one sense it might be akin to the controversial subject of "profiling" in the terrorist investigation.  If a terrorist investigator wastes time examing grandmothers and Norwegian mothers, he or she might allow a true terrorist to escape.

We need to "run down" likely suspects before we going chasing scenarios with little likely relationship to reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Pat Speer]

As usual, I have a bit of a different perspective than most of those leaning towards a conspiracy. I think the "lone-nutters" are right on about 80% of the issues. The problem is that their beliefs are so locked in a corner that me disagreeing with them even 5% of the time makes me a conspiracist.

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of Robert Artwohl, Kenneth Rahn, Chad Zimmerman, Joseph Riley, Paul Seaton, John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan. I believe more likely than not they are all sincere. I think you can learn more by figuring out where these men are wrong (and they are) than by deciding that everything they say is disinformation. If there are disinformationalists out there, working for the government, they would have to know that a certain percent of conspiracists will fall for almost anything, and that by falling for the bizarre, they drive a certain percentage of undecideds back towards the lone-nut position. That's just the way it works. As a result, I would suspect that the REAL disinformationalists don't adopt a lone-nut position at all, but create web-sites in which they try and blame the evils of the world on vast right-wing conspiracies against the ever-noble left, etc... Oh when oh when will John Simkin finally step forward and admit his real role...

But wait...maybe John is legit, in which case I'M the disinformation agent... Hmmm

I'm trying to make a point that when conspiracists hunt for disinformation agents they lose the mainstream and appear to be the lunatic fringe. The process is self-defeating. The only way to deal with them is to ignore them on the personal level and PROVE them wrong.

[Tim Gratz]

As usual, an excellent post, Pat! Your points are all well-taken, in my opinion.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of Robert Artwohl, Kenneth Rahn, Chad Zimmerman, Joseph Riley, Paul Seaton, John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan.  I believe more likely than not they are all sincere. 

Pat, elsewhere you've posted on your astonishment at the treatment you've been given by one Dave Perry.  He seems to have deliberately ignored your original concerns over the White copy of the BY photo, and then attacked you - and the tendency toward sloppiness among researchers that he insists you personify - without addressing the very real and legitimate concerns you raised.

Is he, too, "sincere?"  Or is there a skewed agenda at work that might be obvious to "old hands" but not so to entry-level readers? 

I certainly don't begrudge anybody their right to hold an opinion - any opinion - on the topic, no matter how "heretical" it may be, so long as they present some kind of tangible evidence for their position.  Yet I find two common traits shared by all of the above quite fascinating:

The first is that, if they are all convinced that the official version of events re: Dealey Plaza is essentially correct, why oh why do they squander a great portion of their lives trying to shepherd agnostics and non-believers back into line?  It seems a most bizarre and impossible use of their energies.  I understand that a sense of moral outrage over the President's murder motivates many researchers; but what motivates those who feel that this case was closed back in 1963?

The second is the tendency to argue their points, not based upon evidence, but in most cases against it.  Flawed and/or discredited methodology employed by authorities - and the inevitably flawed outcomes generated by that methodology - are accepted as genuine and above reproach.  The old expression "garbage in/garbage out" comes to mind, but entry level readers cannot easily discern the truth of this, which is precisely the gullibility upon which the above rely.

To me, Posner is the most obvious example of this agenda-driven approach to dissecting the case.  Was he, too, "sincere?"  I think even you - moderate and sober a man as you seem to be - would agree that there was something wrong with the way that book was cobbled together, and the massive promotional push it received just when the old Dealey Plaza scab was being scratched by the public, yet again.

That said, however, I most ardently concur with your observation about those in the research community who profess the most outlandish and ridiculous pet theories.  Nothing will push the undecided back into the "official version camp" more quickly and effectively than a brief taste of the hysterical and hallucinogenic.  If anyone is paid to disseminate false data, they would be among my leading candidates for suspicion, since they do far more damage with madness than all the MacAdams and Rahns combined can inflict with their pseudo-rationality.

Last night I re-read a Ron Rosenbaum piece from 1983, a 20-year retrospective of what had transpired in the research community in the interim.  He chatted with many of the "buffs" and tried to determine if a concensus had been reached.  Despite brief flashes of humour, it was an ultimately depressing read, particularly 22 years after it was written, in part because so little has changed.  "I find myself longing...to come to some conclusion instead of suspending judgement on the crime of the century forever....  although I am resisting it, to my dismay I find myself tempted after all these years to give in and embrace the Warren Report conclusions."

Of course, Rosenbaum then ends his piece by stating his insistence on seeing the issue through to a compelling conclusion:  "As far as I'm concerned, the case is still not closed."  But how many among the great unwashed have the physical and intellectual stamina to continue the pursuit in the face of hostile treatment such as you've received from Dave Perry?  Clearly, the timid and easily cowed would, as Rosenbaum observed, yield to the temptation "... after all these years to give in and embrace the Warren Report conclusions." 

The very goal toward which all of the above labour daily, as if as one. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Greg Wagner]

Hi Tim-

I think you are hitting on something important, and believe it or not, you and I may not be in total disagreement. There is a thread I started awhile back that had some good contributions by a few members, including some by you and Pat. Perhaps John could combine these threads. If not, here's the link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...wtopic=3838&hl=

[John Dolva]

Hi Tim-

I think you are hitting on something important, and believe it or not, you and I may not be in total disagreement. There is a thread I started awhile back that had some good contributions by a few members, including some by you and Pat. Perhaps John could combine these threads. If not, here's the link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...wtopic=3838&hl=

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hear, hear, Greg, Pat , Tim, Charles, et al. Keeping minds open and flagging morales up is important. Far better to bring things out in the open than to try and shut people down with economy driven barrow pushing, or with cronyism. I for one encourage all new researchers to question all previous research with independent critical attempts to confirm/debunk. Naturally with an open mind, prepared to deny the ego a voice. Not an easy task in my opinion, but trying is worthwhile. Who knows, the breakthrough may come tomorrow, it may already be here, but attachments to long held beliefs blinds sometimes even veteran researchers. Should the breakthrough not come for some time, when it does it will be in spite of those who seek to stifle debate. , Good topic Tim. John

[David G. Healy]

Pat wrote:

[...]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of Robert Artwohl, Kenneth Rahn, Chad Zimmerman, Joseph Riley, Paul Seaton, John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan.

[...]

Thats quite a list of characters, Pat -- Might as well throw in 'The Poz', for more local flavor: David Reitzes and if course the imfamous Jerry... I could add another 10 or 15 names from over the years, but the bottom line re these kinds of "lists", almost all if not ALL are the "preservers of history", history that mimicks just the way the WC wrote it...

David Healy

[Pat Speer]

Pat wrote:

[...]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of Robert Artwohl, Kenneth Rahn, Chad Zimmerman, Joseph Riley, Paul Seaton, John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan. 

[...]

Thats quite a list of characters, Pat -- Might as well throw in 'The Poz', for more local flavor: David Reitzes and if course the imfamous Jerry... I could add another 10 or 15 names from over the years, but the bottom line re these kinds of "lists", almost all if not ALL are the "preservers of history", history that mimicks just the way the WC wrote it...

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, David, in that I could have put Posner on there, and Dale Myers, John Lattimer, David Belin, etc... One of the things I found that was somewhat surprising is that when it comes to the medical evidence, these guys are all over the map, and have little consensus. Sturdivan, for example, believes in the low EOP entry and an exit from the forehead. Lattimer, for example, believes the autopsy photos are an illusion and that the back wound/neck wound/back wound really IS a neck wound. It's crazy. In most ways, I don't think these men are that much different from us. They are obsessed with the idea that something is wrong (they think the great wrong is that so many people believe there was a conspiracy, and lack faith in their government) and are determined to correct it. If I was in their shoes, I might try and do the same thing.

I think the key to understanding these men is that they are anally retentive--they want things to be CLEAN. When they look at the case, they see SO MUCH that leads to Oswald that they fill in the blanks with Oswald Oswald Oswald, even though the evidence indicates conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy. I think these men would look away from a car crash and tell themselves everybody's okay rather than be a looky-loo or God-forbid stop and get out. In Posner's case I think there was an economic incentive as well; he knew that after JFK there was bound to be a backlash and he rode it like a wave, straight to the bank.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, elsewhere you've posted on your astonishment at the treatment you've been given by one Dave Perry.  He seems to have deliberately ignored your original concerns over the White copy of the BY photo, and then attacked you - and the tendency toward sloppiness among researchers that he insists you personify - without addressing the very real and legitimate concerns you raised.

Is he, too, "sincere?"  Or is there a skewed agenda at work that might be obvious to "old hands" but not so to entry-level readers? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ironically, I believe it was Perry's annoyance with disinfo that led him to attack me in the first place. The Geneva White story was something he'd helped debunk, and he was PO'ed that I brought her up as if she might have any credibility. I also suspect he's become a little too friendly with the DPD; his refusal to acknowledge that DPD officers at the very least stole some key evidence (2 of the 3 BY negatives disappeared) is proof of that.

[Pamela Brown]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of [...] Chad Zimmerman, [...] John McAdams. I believe more likely than not they are all sincere.

You might want to brush up on your discernment acumen with these two, along with some others. Both McAdams and Chad have seem to have agendas to follow and they aren't comfortable when the agendas are exposed. McAdams' tactics are a bit more sophisticated though. Chad has tended to get huffy and run away.

[Pat Speer]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of [...] Chad Zimmerman, [...] John McAdams. I believe more likely than not they are all sincere.

You might want to brush up on your discernment acumen with these two, along with some others. Both McAdams and Chad have seem to have agendas to follow and they aren't comfortable when the agendas are exposed. McAdams' tactics are a bit more sophisticated though. Chad has tended to get huffy and run away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, save me the effort and tell me what these bad boys have been doing. I saw Zimmerman on TV one day demonstrating how a skinny man wearing a loose fitting coat could have his coat bunch up so that an entrance higher than his throat could be 6 inches below his collar. While I found this demonstration sneaky and deceptive, it was actually par for the course and not much different than Myers' cartoon or Lattimer's rocking skulls, which are equally misleading.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of [...] Chad Zimmerman, [...] John McAdams. I believe more likely than not they are all sincere.

You might want to brush up on your discernment acumen with these two, along with some others. Both McAdams and Chad have seem to have agendas to follow and they aren't comfortable when the agendas are exposed. McAdams' tactics are a bit more sophisticated though. Chad has tended to get huffy and run away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, save me the effort and tell me what these bad boys have been doing. I saw Zimmerman on TV one day demonstrating how a skinny man wearing a loose fitting coat could have his coat bunch up so that an entrance higher than his throat could be 6 inches below his collar. While I found this demonstration sneaky and deceptive, it was actually par for the course and not much different than Myers' cartoon or Lattimer's rocking skulls, which are equally misleading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much of the work of Chad is reliable and well worth the time of anyone who seriously wishes knowledge related to the assassination and does not want to expend the effort to acquire their own rifles; ammo; etc; and thereafter conduct their own ballistic testing.

Physically, the "bunch theory" is considerably more than theory as numerous photographs demonstrate this bunching/fold in the coat of JFK.

That no photograph exist "at the moment of impact" of the first shot is the last hang-on of those who oppose this explanation as to why the bullet entrance in the coat and the bullet entrance into the back/shoulder area of JFK do not align perfectly when the coat is worn in the normal position.

Since JFK had, on at least two occassions, stopped the vehicle and exited it, only to return and be re-seated, as well as other motions in his seat, it is entirely logical and understandable as to why the coat was pushed/bunched up slightly in the back. Fortunately, there are also numerous photographs which demonstrate this as well.

The "bunch" theory is a physical fact, which is fully supported by adequate photographic evidence.

Tom