Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jason Vermeer

Members
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,956 profile views

Jason Vermeer's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. A person who learns of the identity of a covert agent through a “pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents” and discloses the identity to any individual not authorized access to classified information, with reason to believe that such activities would impair U.S. foreign intelligence efforts, is subject to a fine or imprisonment for a term of not more than three years. To be convicted, a violator must have knowledge that the information identifies a covert agent whose identity the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal. TITLE VI-- PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION* [* Title VI was added by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-200)] PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES Sec. 601.(a Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (B Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. © Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
  2. Leonardo writes.... "Ironically though he seemed intent on creating discord he to a certain degree has generated unity causing Jack to agree with Denis, Fetzer to agree with me and me to agree with Jack and Fetzer and (I bet for the first time in yeas) Tink and Fetzer are of one mind." Thanks for picking up on it Leo...I did it on purpose. Confused? Check my response to Kathy...oh heck....I'll snip it and post it here for ya! "FROM TIME TO TIME....I LIKE TO GIVE STAUNCH OPPONENTS A COMMON ENEMY. SOMETIMES IT WORKS! ABOUT 9 YEARS AGO OR SO I GOT FETZER AND THOMPSON TO PUBLICALLY AGREE, THREAD NEXT TO THREAD, THAT THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS INVOLVED IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION....................................AND LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE COME!!!!! OH WELL, I THINK JACK WHITE MADE A NEW FRIEND?" I said the same thing on Lancer. When things get really nasty between factions (too nasty really) I like to give a visceral reminder that people can come together even if the fight is over something stupid...and believe me....this forum and MANY others frequently decompensate to the point they're unworkable. I believe Dr Fetzer can outline the characteristics of what a working group is. Now do I get to pick if I'm a fool, or nut or xxxxx or a combo??? Personally I like nut the best. Now HERE's something maybe the alterationistas and the non-alterationalinstitutionalists can come together over....THE PHOTOMODELOR PROGRAM. Posted by yours truly eons ago. I'll bet that post is still dusty but worthy of a second look. Not so much by you though....You're better making your own contributions to the research community by pushing other researchers to their best with your sarcastic questioning responses. That IS what you do right?
  3. This shows that he, unlike the rest of us, has the ability to step "back from the issue and look at it clearly." Also he then elaborates on it and demonstrates that he can perceive when one is operating under free will or under something else... Usually, he is pretty sharp,and I think, although I am not sure why, that Jason is pullin' our leg. ...AND YOU WOULD BE QUITE CORRECT KATHY. MOST PERCEPTIVE. FROM TIME TO TIME....I LIKE TO GIVE STAUNCH OPPONENTS A COMMON ENEMY. SOMETIMES IT WORKS! ABOUT 9 YEARS AGO OR SO I GOT FETZER AND THOMPSON TO PUBLICALLY AGREE, THREAD NEXT TO THREAD, THAT THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS INVOLVED IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION....................................AND LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE COME!!!!! OH WELL, I THINK JACK WHITE MADE A NEW FRIEND?
  4. Sooo maybe I'm a disinfo agent as well!?!?!? But you're proving my point lots of people use such tactics, yes I’ve been known to and you're a master of it yourself – are you on the CIA’s payroll? ....AS A MATTER OF FACT..... Aren't you the one supposedly against personal attacks? And you’re the guy who started a divisive thread and began it by comparing 2 member's methods to Hitler’s but claims to be against divisiveness, name calling and personal attacks, is that ironic, hypocritical or both? I think it's probability the former because I suspect you're wrapped in your fantasies you fail to see the contradiction ....COMPARING NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR TO PAST EXAMPLES OF NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES NAMECALLING. MMMMM. DON'T SEE THE IRONY SO I MUST STILL BE WRAPPED IN FANTASY.....AND YET, EVEN AT MY WORST...YOU'RE STILL PINNED TO THE MAT. Your history is way off as you could have seen if you’d bothered to check. The bitter infighting over ‘Moorman in the street’ and related issues began long before I started the poll. I tried to use its results (to no avail) to get “my” side (anti-alterationists) to drop the issue and thus end the battle. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’ LOLZ...I BETTER KNOW WHAT COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS WITHOUT GOOGLE. HERE'S ONE FOR YOU THOUGH LEONARD....GOOGLE "PUTZ" At first Peter didn’t seem to mind. I agree w/ the other member who said it puts him in a more sympathetic light than his posts. Posts which frequently included labeling those he disagreed with (including me) Nazis. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’. I though other members would enjoy it and didn't think he would objeject. OBJECT EJECT?? OBIWAN JE JOBI? ALTHOUGHT YOU THOUGH HE WOULD ENJOY IT, WAS THAT REALLY YOUR INTENT? You omitted the “larouchian [sic] theory” was about who was responsible for the JFK assassination and that John Simkin, the forum’s administrator thought it relevant. I wanted to see if the theory’s proponent could justify it, as I suspected she couldn’t. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’ SO YOU.....BASICALLY POSTED SOMETHING YOU (THOUGH) SHE COULDN'T JUSTIFY IN THE FIRST PLACE....RATIONALIZED IT INITIALLY AS WANTING TO SEE IF SHE COULD JUSTIFY IT BUT THEN REALIZING YOUR TRUE A-HOLE NATURE AND JUST PUTTING IT UP TO MAKE HER LOOK FOOLISH???? HMMMM? YEAH???? LIL CLOSER RIGHT LEONARD??? [PS Terry - You still owe me the money from the brt you lost] Non-sequitur and ad hom: ‘You’re obnoxious, therefore you’re not a good judge of “what constitutes evidence”’. Once again you engage in a tactic you supposedly oppose. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’ WHAAA! SO WHAT? I was going to say this yesterday but I had problems w/ my internet connection; you seem to be powered by sour grapes. Tink’s and Fetzer’s camps spurned your “statistical” LoS idea and you come to imagine them as villains, I point out the deficiencies in your latest loony idea and become your new boogyman. FETZER WAS ALL FOR IT AT THE TIME, JACK DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SAFE AND JT DIDN'T CARE. I WAS LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS BEFORE UNDERGOING GATHERING VARIANCE POINTS. YOU PUT QUOTES UP AROUND STATISTICAL SO I GATHER YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD MEANS. YOU POINTING OUT MY "LOONIASITY" AMUSED ME BECAUSE YOU REALLY GOT YOUR MOJO GOING AT THE THOUGHT....I'M SORRY "THOUGH" OF HOW WELL YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED IN FRONT OF YOUR PEERS. Your “theory” is almost as preposterous as the “evidence” you cite in its favor. WHEEEW..I'VE BEEN OWNED! 1)You claim without presenting much evidence that they engage in “propagandist” tactics but fail to take into account many others, including yourself, employ the same methods. I'M RACKED WITH SELF LOATHING! 2) You failed to show that a propagandist equals someone with ulterior motives, that isn’t always the case, I don’t even know if normally is the case. I imagine most people who write and produce political ads actually support the candidate/cause/party they work for. I think Rove is an SOB but have no doubt he is a fanatically loyal Republican. YOUR FIRST TWO SENTENCES REALLY ILLUSTRATE THE NEED FOR YOU TO REMAIN ON YOUR MEDS LEO. GOOD ONYA ABOUT ROVE THOUGH. Unless you say something worthwhile in a subsequent response, don’t expect me to further reply to you in this thread. PROMISE?
  5. You know what they say about the "road to hell". Thompson et al and Fetzer et al could say their "intent is NOT to sow discord" but by accusing them of being disinfo agents you being disingenuous or naive by seeming surprised that could be result. Saying "enough already" is one thing accusing people of ulterior motives is another. Regarding the email or IM when someone responds to your post. That does happen on this forum. Fetzer and Thompson would have to indicate how they were getting their alerts years ago. This is rather silly you have yet to demostrate examples of what you speak, (sorry your memories of what happened years ago doesn't suffice) then you'd have to show that the particular forum did NOT have an alert service at the time. Even if you could do that you couldn't rule out the possibility that as obsessed partisans they didn't keep checking to see if the other had replied. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard. This proves little because as Kathy and I pointed out many people use these teqniques and T & F don't use all of them. Sorry you "theory" concists of nothing more that speculation and undocumented "observations" "Glittering generalities" and "Name-calling" (comparing peoples methods to those used by Hitler and accusing them of being disinfo agents). As for you LoS idea I don't see why objections from either or both camps should stop you, are you afraid they might have been right and it wouldn't work? To be honest it sounds loony to me but perhaps it would make more sense in execution than as described. Mmmmmhm. You demonstrate a lot of the examples I'm talking about Leonard. I perused your quality postings here such as a Moorman poll seemingly to merely cause infighting, posting a video of Peter Lemkin you offer no response for and then clipping and pasting a larouchian theory from another area of the Education forum merely to make fun of it. You deciding what constitutes evidence for a theory is like asking a college theater major for economic evidence the recession is over.
  6. Craig, the ANOVA was never completed. Both sides of the issue would not agree that it would be effective at solving the problem at hand. They simply maintained their methodology was more effective and used the results to simply bolster their own argument. I don't think an independent study was welcomed given the amount of polarization of the groups. My procedure was relatively simple and involved marking corresponding plot points down on a grid directly below what was determined to be a potential line of sight from the stationary drum scan of moorman's photo. A minimum of 50 plot points would generate a "spread grid". The statistical analysis would determine the most statistically probable position of the lens straight down to the ground based on the spread of the plot points. I think the final bone of contention was from Jack who said if I would plot these points then I would most certainly be struck by a car as Mary was in the street. Since I didn't complete the study, I couldn't form a valid opinion on the authenticity of the z-film based on the available construct. I hadn't subjected it to any statistical verification. My INITIAL reaction was that the line of sight hypothesis put forth by what's now referred to as the "alterationist" camp was flawed. I was prepared to be wrong.
  7. Kathy, it's written that the most succesful forms of propoganda induce the individual to maintain that they've made a certain action out of their own free will. This occurs despite the fact that stepping back from the issue and looking at it clearly, one arrives at the conclusion that choosing between an intentionally created dichotomy was not "free will" at all but a designated response by those that created the dichotomy to begin with. Of course, you may be right about all of this. After all, the federal government has outlawed the use of propoganda on its citizens...
  8. This may help Len...They are explained in more detail at this particular site but it's not limited to these tactics. Obviously there are more 'black methods' of propoganda such as falsely planting information that's supposed to be attributable to one source when it really comes from another. You should no my intent is NOT to sow discord. Quite the opposite really. I denounced this years ago and I do so today. Regarding the email or IM when someone responds to your post. That does happen on this forum. Fetzer and Thompson would have to indicate how they were getting their alerts years ago. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard. Bandwagon: Pump up the value of 'joining the party'. Card-stacking: Build a highly-biased case for your position. Glittering generalities: Use power words to evoke emotions. Name-calling: Denigrating opponents. Plain folks: Making the leader seem ordinary increases trust and credibility. Testimonial: The testimony of an independent person is seen as more trustworthy. Transfer: Associate the leader with trusted others. Do you see anything familiar here? And this was how many years ago?
  9. Despite your protests Dr Thompson, you failed to address that I allowed for the fact that your and Dr. Fetzer might not be working together although the appearance and timing of your back and forth posts often looked suspicious. It was almost as if someone was alerting you to his posts with certain buzzwords and vice versa. If you had read further, you would have noted that I indicated sometimes this process involves bringing two enemies together. If "enemies" is to strong of a word then let's use something more akin to "polar opposites". Something similar to the way Jerry Springer brings in groups or individuals with characteristics that will promote eventual conflict on air. As far as you taking offense to the claim that there are similarities to the way you and Fetzer argue, I would encourage you to consider that you yourself outlined a similarity a mere three sentences or so later. Ad hominem attacks. Just as you have also used duck and cover attack methods on the Lancer forum regarding Fetzer, Fetzer himself has attacked you on JFKresearch - even going so far as to outline episodes of previous personal relationship problems you've had. His justification is that you have done the same. So yes, there are a number of ways the both of you interact that are very similar to me and I HAVE been reading the arguments over the years Josiah. A lot of us have. Do you deny that there are two "camps" with regards to the Zapruder film and claims of alteration? Can you remember when and how this began?
  10. Jason, have you ever been a part of either of the two groups involved? Are you or have you been privvy to the provate conversations of either? Craig, I witnessed the debate first hand on just one of the forums but did not participate in the specific experiments done by each team designed to bolster their theory. I suggested and then constructed a statistical methodology for analysing the variance of the lines of sight so that one might find the most statistically likely position of Moorman. I suggested a more neutral approach. That being said, this was not agreed upon by any of the members so as I was not involved I did not hear the private conversations of either group. Hearing or not hearing these conversations I assume will impact the level of credence you give to the above theory.
  11. Thanks for pointing out my math mistake Mr Colby. Perhaps you can use my slip up to further discredit the post which DOES offer supportive evidence. I've outlined the similarities between what is occuring here and what is employed by propogandists. There are a number of very similar occurances. Perhaps the fact that I pointed out the fact that there was extreme division between the camps irritated you? Is it because you are so solidly in line with one camp in particular. I guess I'd be upset too if I started to think my allegiances were the possible result of a manipulation. You need to check your history as well. MOST people believed LHO either did not act or did not act alone long before the Z-film debate occured.
  12. "Just what we need...another nut!!" Denis most of my posts on this forum predate your August 2007 post where you describe yourself as a "newbie". If you could read those previous posts, you may find most of them are quite measured and rational. I would have appreciated the first response to my post from you be of a little more substance rather than an ad hominem attack on my mental status. How about something more substantive or was it your purpose merely to broadcast a condemning statement to a larger audience?
  13. A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote... "Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this... "400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4) That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be? "The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized". Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves. Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate? There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective... "The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results. When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments. Jason
  14. I suspect you already have an answer for "why" he was kidnapped and tortured and left for dead. Rather than this being another quiz show ((which is really just a psy-op tactic of bestowing a "man with the answers" moniker on yourself)) why dont you simply PROVE HOW his torture was related to the JFK assassination. I for one dont care IF he was or was not tortured. For arguments sake let's just say he was....Frankly it would suprise me if someone DIDN'T torture Files. Show us proof of how it was related to the JFK assassination and not just because Files said it was.... Jason
×
×
  • Create New...