The Case of Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals.

Anagrams for CHARLES DRAGO:

SCHOLAR RAGED

A LORD CHARGES

ORCHARD GALES

SOLAR CHARGED

CHARRED GOALS

And not relevant but interesting:

HARDCORE GALS

[Charles Drago]

Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals.

Anagrams for CHARLES DRAGO:

SCHOLAR RAGED

A LORD CHARGES

ORCHARD GALES

SOLAR CHARGED

CHARRED GOALS

And not relevant but interesting:

HARDCORE GALS

Not relevant to YOU, perhaps ...

[Craig Lamson]

What about this, Len?

Mark,

I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person.

As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.

The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies.

Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion:

Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows:

Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen.

Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity?

Charles

Very good point, Charles.

The style of post, which can range from a single word or sentence to a long essay, is usually consistent, being a function of the writer's past experiences, etc. It would be very unusual for the writer to change his/her style so abruptly in under two days.

Len's 'answer' was a dismissal not a real explanation. John should take a look at this, imo.

It's the most telling point so far in the case against Len Colby.

More paranoia run amuck....

[Dawn Meredith]

What about this, Len?

Mark,

I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person.

As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.

The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies.

Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion:

Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows:

Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen.

Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity?

Charles

Very good points CD.

[Charles Drago]

More paranoia run amuck....

Let me state for the record that Silence of the Lamson is but a single entity. The consistency of the seemingly endless expressions of his/her insights, eloquence, and intellect, as captured above, cannot be denied.

[Len Colby]

As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.

The style of post, which can range from a single word or sentence to a long essay, is usually consistent, being a function of the writer's past experiences, etc. It would be very unusual for the writer to change his/her style so abruptly in under two days.

Drago - No known qualifications in the subject.

Stapleton - No known qualifications in the subject.

Meredith - No known qualifications in the subject.

“…no individual writer writes the same way all the time.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=oFMW8RZmh...6&ct=result

Dr. Gerald R. McMenamin, Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, pg 163

MA - Linguistics California State University -Fresno 1972

PhD - Spanish linguistics El Colegio de Mexico 1978

Since 1980 professor of linguistics at CSU-Fresno,

“Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic linguistics, including the 1993 book Forensic Stylistics.

Pg vii

So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one? People often do the opposite, pretend to be more than one person so as to make it appear their position has wider support (Google - sock puppet) . The three of you are looking like paranoid fools.

[Charles Drago]

If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.

According to Gerald R. McMenamin, author of Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, "Reference writings," against which suspect writing samples can be compared, must be identified and collected before meaningful analyses can be conducted.

Alas, in the cases of "Colby" posters, "reference writings" neither can be identified nor collected. There are simply too many significantly divergent examples from which to select a consistant reference style.

So further applications of McMenamin's analyses are stymied -- other than within so-called "negative template" applications.

McMenamin does note the following: "Individual differences in writing styles are, therefore, due to the writer's choice of available alternatives."

He adds, "Identification and analysis of a writer's choices, i.e., of his or her style markers, constitute stylistic analysis which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts." [emphasis added by Drago]

So "Colby" and "his" masters are either choosing to present as clearly recognizable divergent authors/entities, sufficiently incompetent and/or arrogant to the degree that they do not fear exposure, or profoundly disturbed. Perhaps even possessed.

Where's father Karas when we need him?

When "Colby" asks, "So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one," "he" is conducting a circular argument akin to Vincent Bugliosi's (I paraphrase), "Why would conspirators choose a shmuck like LHO to do their work?"

No one, least of all I, would suggest that "Colby's" masters intend to present such easily identifiable multiple authors for "his" posts. This is a straw man argument.

"Colby" and "his" masters hold you and me in contempt. They think we're stupid and gullible.

Such is their fatal flaw.

They are losing. We have them on the run.

"Colby" and "his" masters are not used to being called on their pseudo-intellectual posturings. If "Colby" is in search of qualifications for posts, "he" might start with "his" own for any number of pontifications offered by "his" collective entity on subjects clearly beyond "his" meager intellect -- as displayed, of course, on these cyber pages.

This is a joke, ladies and gentlemen. "Colby" are exposed.

Keep sticking your extremities in my meat grinder. It smells like victory.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Craig Lamson]

More paranoia run amuck....

Let me state for the record that Silence of the Lamson is but a single entity. The consistency of the seemingly endless expressions of his/her insights, eloquence, and intellect, as captured above, cannot be denied.

Yes, I did get it exactly correct in your case.

[Craig Lamson]

If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.

According to Gerald R. McMenamin, author of Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, "Reference writings," against which suspect writing samples can be compared, must be identified and collected before meaningful analyses can be conducted.

Alas, in the cases of "Colby" posters, "reference writings" neither can be identified nor collected. There are simply too many significantly divergent examples from which to select a consistant reference style.

So further applications of McMenamin's analyses are stymied -- other than within so-called "negative template" applications.

McMenamin does note the following: "Individual differences in writing styles are, therefore, due to the writer's choice of available alternatives."

He adds, "Identification and analysis of a writer's choices, i.e., of his or her style markers, constitute stylistic analysis which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts." [emphasis added by Drago]

So "Colby" and "his" masters are either choosing to present as clearly recognizable divergent authors/entities, sufficiently incompetent and/or arrogant to the degree that they do not fear exposure, or profoundly disturbed. Perhaps even possessed.

Where's father Karas when we need him?

When "Colby" asks, "So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one," "he" is conducting a circular argument akin to Vincent Bugliosi's (I paraphrase), "Why would conspirators choose a shmuck like LHO to do their work?"

No one, least of all I, would suggest that "Colby's" masters intend to present such easily identifiable multiple authors for "his" posts. This is a straw man argument.

"Colby" and "his" masters hold you and me in contempt. They think we're stupid and gullible.

Such is their fatal flaw.

They are losing. We have them on the run.

"Colby" and "his" masters are not used to being called on their pseudo-intellectual posturings. If "Colby" is in search of qualifications for posts, "he" might start with "his" own for any number of pontifications offered by "his" collective entity on subjects clearly beyond "his" meager intellect -- as displayed, of course, on these cyber pages.

This is a joke, ladies and gentlemen. "Colby" are exposed.

Keep sticking your extremities in my meat grinder. It smells like victory.

Yes it is a joke ladies and gentlemen. This is much, much more than paranoia run amuck. Maybe Colby's "masters" are right....

Edited August 14, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

There's still no satisfactory explanation from Len to the question posed by Charles in post #14.

I'm with Dawn and Charles in expressing doubt as to whether they were written by the same person. Personally I couldn't care less but in Len's case it's important because Len, like myself, Charles and others, posts here regularly and is a vocal advocate of his various positions within the political conspiracies subforum.

I wouldn't want to think that Len operates with an effective reserves bench, employed to make posts on his behalf but it looks that way to me. I always wondered how Len becomes (with great rapidity) an expert on a diverse range of issues.

[Evan Burton]

Charles,

Your posts are very interesting but totally without basis. For any query you raise against Len, the same can be raised against you.

Let me - if possible try to address this to your satisfaction.

Exactly what evidence will confirm to your satisfaction that Len Colby is who he says he is? Please remember privacy regulations of various countries, so asking Len to post a copy of his passport on a public thread is NOT an option.

BTW, this is a move totally on my behalf. Len is quite within his rights to totally refuse any suggestions put forward. I'm asking to try and figure out what standards of proof you consider adequate.

[Len Colby]

If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.

According to Gerald R. McMenamin, author of Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, "Reference writings," against which suspect writing samples can be compared, must be identified and collected before meaningful analyses can be conducted.

Alas, in the cases of "Colby" posters, "reference writings" neither can be identified nor collected. There are simply too many significantly divergent examples from which to select a consistant reference style.

Rubbish - I’ve made over 2900 posts some quite lengthy. I challenge “Drago” or “Stapleton” to send any combination of them to Dr. McMenamin or some other similarly qualified expert and commission him to determine if they were written by the same person. I imagine this will be rather expensive, but there is a well known adage about “fools and their money”.

In the mean time the following bears repeating.

Drago - No known qualifications on the subject.

Stapleton - No known qualifications on the subject.

“…no individual writer writes the same way all the time.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=oFMW8RZmh...6&ct=result

Gerald R. McMenamin, Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, pg 163

MA- Linguistics CSU-Fresno 1972

PhD Spanish linguistics El Colegio de Mexico 1978

Since 1980 professor of linguistics at CSU-Fresno,

“Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic linguistics, including the 1993 book Forensic Stylistics.

Pg vii

.

"Colby" and "his" masters hold you and me in contempt. They think we're stupid and gullible.

“Drago” finally gets something right if one limits his "you" and “we” to him and certain rather small ‘select’ group of members.

[Len Colby]

There's still no satisfactory explanation from Len to the question posed by Charles in post #14.

What part of “…no individual writer writes the same way all the time” did you fail to understand?

I always wondered how Len becomes (with great rapidity) an expert on a diverse range of issues.

I have preexisting "expertise" in some from having researched them; as for the others, we live in the ‘information age’.

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

Your posts are very interesting but totally without basis.

Evan,

If the single example of "Colby" multiplicity that I have presented for review on this thread does not suggest to you the likelihood of at least two individuals posting under the "Colby" signature, then I doubt I could help you to discern bases on which to build questions regarding the validity of the SBT, or the Frank Olson "suicide" conclusion, or the Gulf of Tonkin "attacks" scenario, or the "innocent" explanation for the 18.5 minute gap in a Watergate tape, or the "all-natural" contours of Jane Fonda's breasts.

Your "totally without basis" assessment, stated with authority, is at best a wholly subjective, fatally vulnerable opinion.

For any query you raise against Len, the same can be raised against you.

Sheer balderdash! You can quickly substantiate my identity in any number of non-invasive fashions. You may feel free to check me out by, for instance, going to the Lancer website or to Google and search for data and images. I'm all over the place (Oh lucky world!).

To the best of my knowledge, the face of "Colby" appears only as a Forum avatar that bears a too-striking resemblance to the actor Denzel Washington. I've Googled "Colby" and visited "his" business website. Can't find bio material or photos anywhere.

(By the by, are you convinced that the "Colby" Forum avatar is a truthful depiction of the "person" posting under that name?)

But my point has never been that a historical "Len Colby" never existed. Rather, I have submitted evidence to substantiate my charge that the "Colby" who allegedly posts here is in fact at least two -- and probably more -- individuals on common missions of disruption, obfuscation, and God knows what else.

And oh yes, I have NEVER written a word for public consumption over an alias -- which is more than anyone can say for "Len Brazil."

Exactly what evidence will confirm to your satisfaction that Len Colby is who he says he is? Please remember privacy regulations of various countries, so asking Len to post a copy of his passport on a public thread is NOT an option.

See above. I'll readily concede that a "Len Colby" exists. But you are going to be quite hard-pressed to defend the notion that the posts I've referenced within this thread are the product of a single mind.

The "Len Brazil" operation, as "Colby" substantiates it, stands as prima facie evidence for the "Colby" entity's willingness to engage in identity-related subterfuge -- which in fact "he" brags about and continues to commit. Or as a barrister might say in defending such evidence, "It goes to state of mind."

In other words, "Colby" has admitted that "he" uses at least one alias -- on a website that clearly is designed to deceive unwary readers. Indeed, "Colby's" 9-11 website itself stands as prima facie evidence for "his" masters' efforts to deceive history by offering what to unwary, ill-informed, and/or naive observers are scientific bases derived by "experts" -- who refuse to identify themselves -- for claims that are supported only by "peer reviews" signed with aliases.*

Dressing a pig in surgical garb does not qualify the pig to remove my spleen.

As I've stated so often in the past, "Colby's" masters aren't interested in winning arguments, but merely prolonging them so as to create, if I may coin a term, "plausible confirmation" -- as opposed to "plausible denial" -- for otherwise wholly implausible and discredited claims and historical interpretations.

The actions of "Colby" on this Forum clearly are in service to just such an agenda.

And by the way, I would not dream of resorting to invasions of privacy such as the posting of passports in order to substantiate the identity of a person who I herein concede likely exists. Again, it isn't the physical reality of anyone that is at issue, but rather the identities and agendas of individuals who present as this Forum's "Colby" entity.

BTW, this is a move totally on my behalf. Len is quite within his rights to totally refuse any suggestions put forward. I'm asking to try and figure out what standards of proof you consider adequate.

Evan, given my concession that a Len Colby likely exists, your question is rendered moot. The only way I or anyone else can "prove" that the "Colby" posting here is a variety of Hydra is through the presentation of circumstantial evidence such as the study of "Colby's" language and the "Len Brazil" perfidy committed elsewhere on the Internet.

I'll close by noting the furtive efforts by "Colby" to dismiss my discovery of evidence pointing to the multiple nature of "his" "identity."

Is "Colby" the best they can do?

Charles

______________________________________________

* As Jan Klimkowski has explained:

On the Education Forum, "Colby" routinely demands citations, peer-reviewed papers& official documents from posters whose views he is opposed to.

Well, the "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories" looks very rigorous and academic: http://www.jod911.com/

The website proudly proclaims that it publishes "peer-reviewed papers".

But there's a problem. The website states, "The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet. Anonymity is provided to prevent harassment from fringe members of the 911 conspiracy movement."

Maggie Hansen and I questioned the nature of this peer review process. Anonymity is no part of any proper peer review process. However, "Len Brazil" aka "Colby", an advisor to that website, was able to clarify what "peer review" amounted to. "Colby" wrote:

"As for Maggies 'point' that people normally use their real names at peer reviewed journals, that is the truth but JOD911 is no ordinary peer reviewed journal. Two of the advisors use obvious pseudonyms (Shagster and Debunking911) and three use partial pseudonyms (JamesB, ScottS and me). Calling it 'peer reviewed' was meant to be a tongue in cheek stab at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" which makes the same claim but apparently their only peer review process is posting articles on a closed forum before publication."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10872&st=60

In other words, the website is telling lies. It is not engaged in a proper peer review process. However, casual visitors to that site would not have the benefit of its "advisor" "Brazil/Colby" informing them that the peer review claim was "tongue in cheek". Casual visitors may innocently have believed it was akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine".

So, it's not just a lie. It's a Big Lie.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Now for my latest Fearless Prediction -- one that, once made public, likely will be rendered moot.

Expect, within the next 24-36 hours, the "Colby" entity to post, on a thread unrelated to topics herein under discussion, a "subtle" reference to "his" liberal, establishment-bashing sensibilities.

As in post 110 of the "Will Obama be Assassinated" thread, where "Colby" too-cutely references "his" alleged anti-conservative leanings at a time when the exposure of the intel op that has culminated in this thread was building momentum.

I LOVE dese guys!