http://www.opednews.com/articles/More-9-11...090906-636.html

For someone who claims to have taught logical and critical thinking, Unca Fetz displays neither.

Another disinfo piece from Unca Fetz.

Evan,

Please don't confuse what Fetzer puts out with Disinformation.

Disinformation is a very specific form of propaganda that's used as part of a designed psychological warfare operation and dispensed by agents and assets that are affiliated with a national intelligence agency or network.

Whatever Fetzer says or does, it isn't affiliated with any intelligence agency or network, foreign or domestic. He's a lone wolf, and doesn't dispense his nonsense on behalf of any intelligence, as far as I can tell.

That can't be said about others, who do dispense, real, certified and distinguised Disinforation, like Russo, Holland, Epstein, et al.

Maybe its Misinformtion, or just plain confusion, but Fetzer is not disinformation, while the real Disinformaiton is worth studying because it leads to those who were behind what happened at Dealey Plaza.

BK

Bill, I was going to disagree but I looked up the word disinformation:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).
2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

You're right. Perhaps I should use prevarication? The question is: does he sprout this (and other) nonsense through woeful ignorance or deliberate intent?

Despite it having being pointed out to him on several occasions they are wrong he keeps repeating the same claims. So its willful ignorance somewhere between mis and dis info.

The only thing new here is that he seems to be once again embracing the thermite theory that he had rejected for the last couple of years as inadequate.

No Len,

It's not in between anything.

If it's not "deliberately misleading information announced or leaked by a government or a government intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion...." it's not disinformation.

Fetzer isn't an agent or asset of any government or intelligence agency so why confuse the matter?

The only person between confused is you.

BK

methinks you Evan need to review what is known re updated information concerning 9/11 rather than what you WANT to believe.... Fetzer has more solid ground under him than you, Len or Craigster when it comes to this topic.... All your dancing won't change that...

Come on David, Fetzer publishes the crap by Costella that is completely thrashed here:

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm


He can't deal honestly with the truth. Why should we expect him to deal with 9/11 any differently? Once a snake, always a snake.

tsk-tsk heard it all before Craig.... ya simply can't find a Ph.D in Physics (optics or any other category for that matter) to back up lone nut contentions. Ya got three (3) of them contributing to TGZFH, and YOU can't find one to support you in 6 years? C'mon Guy! What are they paying you for?

What good are PhD's when they have an epic FAIL?

Yea, those yahoo PhD's from TGZFH tried in vain to refute the unimpeachable empirical evidence that Costella can't understand the simple physics of parallax. That is an epic FAIL.

Your guys are hiding under a rock afraid yo show therir faces on this one davie.

The proof is unimpeachable and Fetzer is still spreading his own brand of DISINFORMATION, along with the rest of the PhD gang that do basic physics....
Please try again next time davie.


For Bill Kelly, this fits Fetzer and company to a tee:

Main Entry: dis·in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dis-ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1939

: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

Although American Heritage uses the definition quoted by Evan and Random House defines it as:

false information, as about a country's military strength or plans, publicly announced or planted in the news media, esp. of other countries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinformation

…most dictionaries don’t say the source of disinfomation has to be a government agency.

Definitions:

Noun Date: 1939 : false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

Noun false information intended to mislead

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disinformation

Noun * S: (n) disinformation (misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.))

WordNet -Princeton University
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=disinformation

Information that seems truthful, relevant and based on unbiased facts, but has been concocted to mislead the recipient in order to attain fraudulent monetary, military, political, or religious objectives. The information explosion has been continuously shadowed by an almost equally powerful disinformation explosion, especially on the internet.

BusinessDictionary.com
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definiti...nformation.html

false information which is given deliberately in order to hide the truth or confuse people, especially in political situations [↪ misinformation]:

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [British]
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/disinformation

Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

In espionage or military intelligence, disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.

Disinformation techniques may also be found in commerce and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor. It is an act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth.

Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation#Other

Additionally in the real world the term is normally used to refer to false (or supposedly) false information from non-governmental sources. He are the relevant results (other than definitions) from the 1st page of Google hits none refer to government sources.

“Automakers Launch New Disinformation Ad Campaign”

“ExMo Aims Its Disinformation At Europe”

“The year before the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment in Rio, a coalition of coal and utility companies launched a disinformation campaign designed by a public relations firm”

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2asA2v...lient=firefox-a

“Disinformation: 22 media myths that undermine the War on Terror”
http://books.google.com/books?id=CwjWnPT01...;q=&f=false

“The White House wants people to believe they are losing the health care debate because “scary … videos are starting to percolate on the internet” that are spreading “disinformation” about Obama’s health care plan.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/05/mornin...bout-obamacare/

"DISINFORMATION”

A GOP video challenging the Obama administration’s claim that opposition to their health care plan is “disninformation”.

http://www.gop.gov/media/features/09/08/06/disinformation

Novruz Mammadov: “Turkish newspaper’s disinformation about Azerbaijan shocked me”

http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=107069

I don’t think Fetzer is being intentionally inaccurate and misleading but nor is he wholly innocent because his errors have been pointed out to him on several occasions.

EDIT: Formatting

I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation.

Thanks Evan,

I think if we define things more specifically we can think more clearly about these things.

Of course, if you assume the more broad way of defining things, as Len would have us do, then you can make things more confusing for everyone, if that is your intention.

BK

FAIL? You're still here putting up a less than feeble fight aren't ya? Tinkster, Mack and Co., too.... The credibility of the alleged in-camera Z-film is in question, so just who is it that's hiding? See below:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...hoax/index.html

everything you need to know right at the above url. 6 years and all we hear is whining, ya can't debunk Z-film alteration, wonder why?

Yep!..FAIL.

Your dear leader J.P Costella PhD Physics, can't even figure out the concept and basic physics of photographic parallax.

And your THREE PhD's from hoax can't figure out how to refute this very simple empirical experiment that proves dear leader J.P.Costella is as dumb as a box of rocks.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Now considering that jonboy Costella does not have an ounce of intellectual honesty, tell us again exactly WHY we should believe a word he utters, given that he has zero photographic experience (and he IS writing on photography) and can't even get the basic physics of photographic parallax correct?

Z-film alteration...what a hoot!

What's next...you pimping Jack Whites awful work? ROFLMAO!

Nope youe dear leader is an epic FAIL.

That's why he is hiding like a coward under a rock down in OZ.

Try again next time davie, you lose again....

The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof.

Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually?

How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood?

When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional.

Thus it is disinformation.

You make a good point Craig. Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government, I think it could apply to the individual. I can accept misinformation being incorrect data, told in the belief it is correct.

Deliberate dissemination of data that is demonstrably false, on the other hand, would be disinformation: an attempt to deceive, perhaps propaganda.

That raises the question once again: is Unca Fetz a myopic zealot, or is he a disinformation agent?

Bill

If what what you think is an overly broad definition of the term disinformation is so upsetting to you I suggest you edit the Wikipedia entry and then contact the editors of the five dictionaries I cited including Websters, Collins and Longman as well as the majority of writer who used the word and berate them for sowing confusion.

Evan wrote: "Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government,"

Look at my previous post most dictionaries / users don't indicate disinfo has to be from a governmental source.

Evan,

There's nothing to argue about.

If you want to accept the less refined, more confusing definition, I don't care.

But if you want to use it in discussing Fetzer or the assassination of JFK or discuss disinformation with me, then use the classic definition, because then we know what we are talking about.

If you want to continue to confuse things, then continue to do so, but don't argue with me about it.

BK

Disinformation isn't just intentionally wrong, it's dispensed on behalf of an agency or government in the course of support for policy or a covert operation, just as the idea that Castro was behind Dealey Plaza.

Now if someone is simply dispensing wrong information and they know its wrong, then its called lying.

You can call it misinformation, if they're confused or maybe not doing it intentionally.

But its still not DISINFORMATION if the source is not an agency or government and its not done to promote a policy or support a covert op.

You want to confuse things further, you can call Fetzer a disinformation agent, but anybody who knows Fetzer knows that's a joke and won't take you seriously.

Those who really do dispense disinformation in the course of supporting policies and covert ops know what it means and use it distinctly.

Those who want to make fun of Fetzer or don't care can call him anything they want, including disinformation agent, but in doing so, don't try to discuss real disinformation with anyone in the military or involved in government or covert ops, because you don't know what you are talking about.

BK

Well I guess Bill is a dismoron who simply can't read. Len was kind enough to post more than one published definition showing you incorrect. Put that in your specfic pipe and smoke it Bill.

To quote willy "If you want to continue to confuse things, then continue to do so, but don't argue with me about it."

It's about INTENT willy.....govermental or individual.

Bill you're normally quite rational so I don't know why you are getting so worked up, hostile and insulting over the definition of a word. But a word to the wise if you are going to insult people at least get your facts straight neither Craig nor I made our own definitions of "disinformation" several dictionaries including Princeton, Collins, Longman (British) and Webster's considered to be the most authoritative American dictionary and it turns out so does Oxford considered to be the most definative British one

"disinformation • noun - information which is intended to mislead"

Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disinformation?view=uk

You're wrong but you are too stubborn to admit it or do you think your understanding of English is better than the editors at Websters and Oxford etc?

Fetzer gets published, simple as that -- nutter-trolls can't, they languish in the dark recesses of their minds hurling disinfo nuggets on whatever board allows them to post (including this board)....

End of Story!

There is a much bigger market for books supporting conspiracy theory than there is for books debunking it. This is not however a measure of the accuracy, quality or educational significance of the former. The Sun newspaper for instance far outsells the Guardian. Dan Brown outsells George Orwell. More people listen to Michael Jackson than do Mozart.
Market success is not often much more than a successful pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Who cares if he "publishes" And who cares if I get published. In fact its about the last thing I would want.


Facts are stubborn things and here are some facts your merry band of wacko PhD's simply can't refute.

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

END OF STORY!

I would think the opposite.

There is a much more rewarding market for those debunking conspiracy theories or promoting a bogus one - ie. Mafia, Cuba, than there is for anyone trying to promote the truth - Larry Hancock, Dick Russell, Tony Summers, et al.

The line isn't drawn in the sand between those who believe in conspiracies and those who don't, the line is drawn between those who seek the truth and those who are promoting their own theory.

As for those who want to define disinformation as anything other than originating from a government or intelligence agency in promotion of their policies or actions, then we must come up with another word that describes this specific task, because it certainly doesn't relate to Fetzer by any stretch of the meaning of the word.

BK

Well, now I know why the HSCA and ARRB and other official reports and laws, put their specific definitions of frequently used words in the very beginning, rather than at the end.

And since I am going to be focusing on the very origin of the Castro killed JFK DISINFORMAITON - I define that here as information promoted by an agent or asset on behalf of a government or intelligence agency or network - and not anything else.

Anything else could include somebody like Fetzer, who promotes his own theories, but isn't backed or supported by any agency or government;

Why do you insist on calling Fetzer a disinformation agent, when he isn't an agent at all.

Isn't an agent someone who represents someone else?

So we agree he doesn't represent anyone else, so why insist he be called a disinformation agent when he is really a totally different animal, other than to dilute the meaning of the term, and thus put misguided professors like Fetzer into the same category as real DISINFORMATION agents like Epstein, Russo, Holland, et al.?

But even if you expand this definition to include anyone with the intention of misleading others - regardless of their support or motivation, that still doesn't include Fetzer, who I do not believe intends to mislead, because he believes what he says.

So, if you forget the misleading, liberal generalists and Wicki, Websters and Oxford, and accept the classical definition of disinformation as that info dispensed by a government or intelligence agency to promote their policies and actions, then we can begin to discuss who is really forming and shaping policies and actions rather than being sidetracked by misguided professors, who you apparently find a more easy target.

BK

Funny. Although you may be incapable of being otherwise, being so bossy doesn't seem to help your cause much, Mr. K. Because someone could point out that you yourself don't seem nearly so meticulous about how you use other terms -- like for instance the term assassination ..... It's often confusing that you seem to use this term to represent any murder, or homicide, or even just an untimely death:


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...14165&st=15

Post #29; March 29, 2009

"More governments change hands by political assassination than by democratic means, and since being assassinated is President Obama's most serious threat today, political assassination is the most serious threat to the national security of the United States, and that is the case because the assassination of President Kennedy remains unresolved."

At first glance this (these?) categorical statement(s) seemed unusually questionable since I had a very definite idea of what "political assassination" means -- for instance, the murder of a head of state, leader of government, or a political leader in general; and this occurring outside the given legal framework of a society; and this occurring in societies that have moved beyond hunter-gatherer tribal forms. So for instance I wouldn't have thought to include the murders of tribal chiefs among Neanderthals as "political assassinations." And I wouldn't have thought to include the executions of John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, King Charles I or King Louis XVI as "political assassinations," since in each case the person in question was subjected to capital punishment by the existing state authority. I admit this gets a little murky, since Julius Caesar was assassinated by a number of Roman senators (arguably constituting "state authority").

What was more difficult to figure out was this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14516

Post #4; July 2, 2009

"It seems like when the foreign interest in Iran declined (with Michael Jackson's assassination), the Iranians got harsher on dissent, but while the world was watching they backed off."

At the time you wrote this, it was assumed by some unsentimental folks (me) that Michael died because he'd had no nose left with which to breathe. But in any event, the investigation eventually ruled it as a case of homicide, and yet prior to all that you called it an "assassination." This is very puzzling, since Michael Jackson can hardly be considered any kind of "political leader." At most, more sentimental people than myself might speak of such stars having "political influence" of some kind ("moral influence" maybe), but that seems fairly nebulous in terms of real political power and I don't think Bono or Sting or Bob Geldof or Diana Spencer or even John Lennon represented any "political threat" in the sense that we think of Martin Luther King, Jr. representing such ...... So in terms of your insistence on clarity and precise definitions and getting rid of confusion, it might be helpful to not include so many deaths under the general blanket term assassination.


On another point, it may also be unhelpful to your cause that you've jumped in with your biceps unfurled, throwing around your typically categorical statements -- this time about things we can be sure of in the case of Jim Fetzer. This only lends credence to the research of Tim and Jim Imbecile, as they've noted the phenomenon of Respectable Researchers taking up for Extremist Researchers in the Conspiracy Research Community, as if some sort of game would fall apart if the Extremists were ever exposed as a real detriment to the whole research effort ......... This was exactly the sort of thing that caused Prince Philip to lose support among the youth, when he'd previously scored so many point with all the drug-running .........

First off, you have yet to see my biceps.

Second, there is no such thing as the "research coummunity," and while I've never been called bossy before, I'm just sticking to my guns.

And I'm not defending Fetzer, I'm just saying he's not a disinformaiton agent.

As for the wanton use of political assassination, point well taken. I won't do it again.

And thanks for pointing out that Michael Jackson statement. I don't remember writing about "Michael Jackson's assassination," and I'm glad you cited the link because I wouldn't have believed I wrote it myself, but there it is, and in rereading it, I must have just read a reference to that - and was just kidding. Like Peter referred to Ted Kennedy' assassination.

Exaggerating the death of Michael Jackson certainly did take the Iranian elections off the front page, and I guess I thought it was funny, so I'm not all that stiff and stuffy.

But I most certainly won't use the term that way again, even trying to be funny.

As it turns out, as you point out, we learn after I wrote that, that MJ was murdered.

And I think we should distinguish the difference between murder and assassination.

Since there are different types of murder - homicide, first degree, spree, manslaughter, there should be different types of assassination, and the differences should be made clear, that is if anyone wants to discuss them seriously.

BK

Bill in an earlier post you accused me of being confused but that was a rather obvious case of projection. I never said Fetzer was a “disinfo agent” in fact I never used the word ‘agent’ on this thread (until now of course). I didn’t even say he pronouncements were pure ‘disinfo’ but rather that they fell between ‘disinfo’ and ‘misinfo’ because he repeated the same errors despite having been corrected on several occasions.



On what basis did you determine that your definition of the word was "the classical" one? I cited 7 dictionaries, 5 (3 American, 2 British) agree with me but only one agrees with you and one gives a definition different from both of ours (indicating that it only refers to military info.)

You can't say disinformation without attaching it to agent because they are connected and have been connected since the word was first coined.

Oh, but you can call Fetz a part time disspensor of disinfo without being an agent?

And all the definitions say it is intentionally wrong information, and we both agree that Fetzer isn't intentionally wrong, so that doesn't apply either.

And if you use the general definition that does not apply to the promotion of a government policy or action, then how do we discuss those issues that I want to discuss?

You want to badmouth Fetzer, go ahead.

You want to say he sometimes puts out disinformation, but don't cite the cases, go ahead.

I'm just telling you that when the word was first coined it referred to governments and agency use of information, and not professors like Fetzer.

Now you want to change the use of the word, go ahead.

BK

'There's a special place in hell', if I can misquote the honourable Fetzer, reserved for those who argue interminably about semantics
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/...structural.html

Bill,

The words "disinformation" and "agent" aren't joined at the hip like linguistic Siamese twins. I cited all the uses of the former from the 1st page of Google hits and none used the latter perhaps YOU can't use one without the other but I and others can. I'm not "chang[ing] the use of the word"

Fetzer frequently repeats the same errors despite repeated correction. For example he claims that the head pilot of the Wellstone crash had 5200 flight hour but has repeatedly been told

-Even according to the charter company’s records he only had 5116 hours
-That total was based on a declaration he gave the FAA in which he claimed to have lost his logbooks
-Under subpoena his widow found the “lost” logbooks and his total hours were 1460 less than he had informed the FAA
-Even that total might well be exaggerated, he had duplicate log books for the same period one with forged signatures from a flight instructor one had repeated entries for repetitive flights that his wife (widow) could not explain. He repeatedly exaggerated about his flight experience including under oath during his civil and criminal trials for fraud.

I previously gave examples of Fetzer being intentionally careless with the truth in the thread and post linked below and elsewhere.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7340
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=40521

Based on my experience with Fetzer re the limo myth of the 'spiral nebulae' that he was pushing, there seemed to be some sort of agenda in his refusal to even acknowledge the possibility of another position.

If I remember correctly, the last straw prior to his worst tirade and rant on this subject was when I suggested that it was the absence of damage to the limo, not a high degree of damage, that is proof of conspiracy.

rewriting WEBSTER'S eh? Hey Len you've been nailed, acceptance is the key.... carry on.... Where's Wild Bill Millah when you need him!

How about we say that if Unca Fetz were advocating the government report, it'd be disinformation?

If we're going to be more civil and less hostile in our responses, I'm afraid people will think we're starting to have feelings for each other. But I'll risk it and say I often agree with your opinions and your perspective and I've admired your articles a great deal. It just gets a little scary when you get bossy and your biceps (guns) seem threatening.

I (think I) understand where you're coming from on the standard use of the specific technical term "disinformation," as false information coming from governments/intelligence organizations with the intent to mislead and to impact policy. But the problem is that so-called private organizations do this same thing all the time, and I'm not sure there should be so great a distinction between the Nazi Party/Third Reich using disinformation from 1933-1945 and Nazi Party propaganda prior to 1933. As it applies in these venues, I think it's important to recognize and emphasize that it wouldn't only be an intelligence agency that would spread false information (for instance, about Pres. Kennedy), but that political/ideological organizations with their agendas would also spread false information with the intent to mislead and impact opinion, policy, etc (appealing to "conspiracy researchers" or "the public at large"). This seems part of the problem in that there's so much focus on the CIA to the exclusion of almost everything else, people may often be misled by "private" interests about any number of issues.

I agree completely with your attitude re the Iranian elections issues and the pathetic switch-over to 24-hour coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. I think it's evidence that the mainstream media is less co-opted by the CIA than it serves as a reflection of how odd our priorities are in terms of what we think is "important." The main thing for the TV media is ratings, and protest demonstrations against the regimes in Iran or China just aren't real big ratings-grabbers.

On your last points, I agree that it might be helpful to distinguish between different types of murder or even different types of assassination. (But then I tend to refer to Pres. Kennedy's assassination as murder because "assassination" is thrown around so often that the term seems stale, and it seems important to emphasize the murder aspect as opposed to any "political aspect.") But if we want to talk seriously about things and clear out some of the b*llsh*t, maybe the issue has less to do with terminology and semantics than with how we evaluate power and possibilities, and whether we're being honest and realistic in doing this.

So for instance, on a different subject, the power of Saddam Hussein and the threat he represented wasn't really comparable to that of Adolf Hitler; and the "War On Terror" isn't really comparable to World War II (if it were, we should have 12 million Americans serving in the armed forces instead of recycling the same troops over and over). Instead of asking whether the Bush Administration's equating Hussein with Hitler and a War On Terror with WW II was disinformation or a different technical term, we're only focusing on whether or not such parallels are really accurate -- and then if they're not, whether the drawing of the parallels was a case of dishonesty or a case of stupidity.

To use another example, the generic term "Military-Industrial Complex" is thrown around a lot in these venues, sort of representing "The System That Is Evil" or something, but people ought to be made aware that what President Eisenhower was talking about in his farewell address was more than anything else a warning about the unusual concentration of power invested in the US Air Force, the aerospace industry, and their host congressional districts. Eisenhower had reason and experience to understand and be worried about the USAF's monopoly of our nuclear arsenal (bombers and missiles), which when combined with the extremely capital-intensive nature of the aerospace industry (lots and lots of big money invested in high-tech engineering projects) points to an amazing, almost unfathomable amount of power that was difficult to regulate and could truly be a threat in a number of ways ........ That sort of detail and background is much more interesting than "military-industrial complex" without any content.

I could unfortunately go on and on along these lines, so I'll cut it short except for a few other points. When I was actively involved in researching the Far Right, I explored Michael and Judy Newton's Klan Encyclopedia and found that it was Bill Turner's Power on the Right which was the source for an enormous amount of entries. That obviously says a helluva lot about Bill and the amazing work he's done, but also points to the lack of work done by others in that specific area. This was one of the reasons I was inclined to defend John Bevilaqua in what he had to say in the forum, despite his abrasive tendencies. In my own research I had eventually run across the name of Gen. Pedro Del Valle in his associations with Far Right people and organizations; I did an archive search on him at Lancer and found nothing; I did an archive search here and found a single mention of him, appearing in the midst of a list of names in a post by James Richards. This seemed odd in light of the interesting details of the general's life and career and ideology and associations; he would in other words be just the sort of fellow many of us might regard as suspicious in terms of how he might've felt about the Kennedy Administration.

So I guess my general point would be that some areas seem greatly underexplored and the Far Right is one of the main ones. (But then you know that much the same could be said for the Office of Naval Intelligence and Army Intelligence and maybe especially Air Force Intelligence.) For some of us, John Kennedy's murder seems to be a case where the chief executive might've been thought to be too "threatening to the national interest" in a number of ways -- more a coup d'etat than a (simple) assassination. It would be a shame if it turns out that for half a century the Far Right had successfully gotten most everyone to focus almost exclusively on the CIA, whether their false information is called disinformation or some other term.

Good luck to the Eagles, btw; at least they have a chance every year, which can't be said for my Redskins.

That explains a lot. A Redskins fan.

Thanks for reading my stuff, thinking about it, and commenting on it.

Will get back to you later on specifics,

BK