CIA Agent "outs" himself!

[Greg Burnham]

What are the odds of:

1) this being the same Len Colby?

2) this claim being true?

3) this having NO MEANING at all?

I would think that CIA agents would not "out" themselves for obvious reasons. Valerie Plame is a case in point. But, in this case, the self described "profile" bears a remarkable resemblance to the subject. This is not an accusation, rather it is a report.

A "Len Colby" claimed:

"As an undercover CIA agent, I professionally debunk government conspiracies on discussion forums. It's my profession to lie and to know when other people are lying. Sarah Palin, like most Republicans, is a xxxx."

Is this the same guy? Was this a joke? Thanks to Steve Gaal for the heads up...

CIA Agent Len Colby

[Greg Burnham]

Is there another Len Colby who does the same thing on discussion forums?

I am sure Len will say that someone disguised himself as he.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!!

Check it out:

[Pat Speer]

Is there another Len Colby who does the same thing on discussion forums?

I am sure Len will say that someone disguised himself as he.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!!

Check it out:

Smells like the work of a Varnell... LOL.

What about it, Cliff?

[Cliff Varnell]

Is there another Len Colby who does the same thing on discussion forums?

I am sure Len will say that someone disguised himself as he.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!!

Check it out:

Smells like the work of a Varnell... LOL.

What about it, Cliff?

I dislike talk of "CIA disinfo" agents.

Don't put this xxxx on me, pal.

I think the powers that be learned decades ago that the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical

Research Community would generate vast mis-information out of ridiculous pet theories

(like your T1 back wound, Pat) and thoroughly obfuscate the crucial evidence in the case with

the best of intentions.

With guys like you around, Pat, the government can save the money.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Is there another Len Colby who does the same thing on discussion forums?

I am sure Len will say that someone disguised himself as he.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!!

Check it out:

[sarcasm]Of course I get my checks weekly...[/sarcasm]

I guess when ct's are getting that azz'a handed to then it's any port in a storm in a vain attempt to save face.

Hell forget the truth, ct's have a worldview to defend..

[Greg Burnham]

Is there another Len Colby who does the same thing on discussion forums?

I am sure Len will say that someone disguised himself as he.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!!

Check it out:

Smells like the work of a Varnell... LOL.

What about it, Cliff?

I dislike talk of "CIA disinfo" agents.

Don't put this xxxx on me, pal.

I think the powers that be learned decades ago that the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical

Research Community would generate vast mis-information out of ridiculous pet theories

(like your T1 back wound, Pat) and thoroughly obfuscate the crucial evidence in the case with

the best of intentions.

With guys like you around, Pat, the government can save the money.

Well, I do wonder what that was all about. Colby and Lamson on the same blog; same page; same day...and Colby claiming to be a paid government conspiracy forum buster employed by the CIA. I appreciate your dislike of talk about this subject, Cliff. However, I wonder what those posts meant?

If he wasn't being impersonated, then he either is what he claimed to be or he was lying about it. Either way, it's disturbing. On the other hand, if he was being impersonated, he potentially has more things to worry about than this forum--like identity theft, defamation of character etc.

[Pat Speer]

Is there another Len Colby who does the same thing on discussion forums?

I am sure Len will say that someone disguised himself as he.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!!

Check it out:

Smells like the work of a Varnell... LOL.

What about it, Cliff?

I dislike talk of "CIA disinfo" agents.

Don't put this xxxx on me, pal.

I think the powers that be learned decades ago that the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical

Research Community would generate vast mis-information out of ridiculous pet theories

(like your T1 back wound, Pat) and thoroughly obfuscate the crucial evidence in the case with

the best of intentions.

With guys like you around, Pat, the government can save the money.

Cliff, in case you missed it, my suggestion that it was you was done with a smile. Maybe it's your punk rock background, or maybe it's your scrappy attitude toward Lamson (and strangely, myself) but I see you as the kind of guy who'd sign on to a website with multiple sign-ons--using names of people he disrespects--and bust people's chops.

If not you, who? It's almost certainly someone from this forum...

[Len Colby]

LOL - Pretty obviously Craig did NOT write "Republicans are lying, evil fascists, who are determined to destroy the USA. Vote for Barack Obama and save America!" He is a diehard conservative Republican who thinks Bush was too liberal and hates Obama. And just as obviously a CIA agent wouldn't out themself like that. Presumablly the same person "imitated" both of us. Either that or the person who "imitated" Craig told a friend here and they followed suit. Note that they are the only two posts where the commentors used their last names. The funniest part is that whoever made those posts waited a long time for anyone to notice.

Question for Steve,did you find that on your own or did someone else tell you about it?

[Greg Burnham]

Well, Pat--I don't claim to know what this means either. Steve Gaal sent the info to me to post as he is having some technical difficulties.

Note that I haven't accused anyone of anything. I'm just "reporting" an anomaly.

[Craig Lamson]

Pretty obviously Craig did NOT write "Republicans are lying, evil fascists, who are determined to destroy the USA. Vote for Barack Obama and save America!" He is a diehard conservative Republican who thinks Bush was too liberal and hates Obama.

I thought that was what the lines meant. It was intended to be satiric or sarcastic. So that tone would be in keeping with a "diehard conservative Republican who thinks Bush was too liberal and hates Obama."

Interesting that you know that about him though.

If one hates Obama, one would despise JFK, since Kennedy was more progressive than Obambi.

Finally, if one thinks W was too liberal, a guy who most historians rate as one of the five worst presidents ever, a man who essentially brought the country to the brink of economic disaster, then one's politics must be close to neo fascist. Or maybe Alex Jones type Libertarianism.

That insight explains why one would want to cover up the murder of JFK.

Ah DiEugenio, you just can't help yourself can you. Still smarting over that backyard photo thing and Farids sterling work which you cannot refute. Must suck to be you right now watching your worldview crumble...

[Len Colby]

Pretty obviously Craig did NOT write "Republicans are lying, evil fascists, who are determined to destroy the USA. Vote for Barack Obama and save America!" He is a diehard conservative Republican who thinks Bush was too liberal and hates Obama.

I thought that was what the lines meant. It was intended to be satiric or sarcastic. So that tone would be in keeping with a "diehard conservative Republican who thinks Bush was too liberal and hates Obama."

Interesting that you know that about him though.

You're new here, anyone paying attention here 2005 - 9 knows this. Do a forum search for posts he made with the keywords 'bush' and 'obama'

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, in case you missed it, my suggestion that it was you was done with a smile. Maybe it's your punk rock background, or maybe it's your scrappy attitude toward Lamson (and strangely, myself) but I see you as the kind of guy who'd sign on to a website with multiple sign-ons--using names of people he disrespects--and bust people's chops.

I'll have a beer with you someday Pat and convince you I'm not that kind of guy.

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson, you are really funny.

Almost no one here takes you seriously anymore. You are fighting with 4-5 people at any single moment. And the more that comes out about you, like your visits over to Duncan and DVP country, the more we understand your agenda.

And anyone who can still uphold an analysis of the BYP which does not take into consideration the missing post office forms or Marina's Secret Service interview, I mean, what can one say about such lousy scholarship? Except that it betrays a political agenda.

We all know that now.

Keep on making converts Craig. I mean DUncan and DVP must like you anyway. Hey, they believe in Hoover and CE 399.

Converts. Geez Jim. I'm not a whack job who needs "converts" like you do.

Its really simple Jim, I'm sure that even a lousy teacher from the land of fruits and nuts should be able to understand.

I'll speak r e a l l y s l o w for you so as not to confuse you.

My agenda is clear. I deal with the photgraphs and I bust the silly claims and use solid photographic principles to do it. That makes me no friends in this climate and quite frankly I find that very entertaining. Nothing like watching ct's burst into flames as their pet theory gets blown away by photographic fact. I know it cuts you to ribbons Jimbo, but quite frankly thats really fun to watch.

Heres the great thng and of course its your hotbutton and you get it all wrong...of course.

Photograhic principle cannot be bent by "historical context" nor your speculation stated as fact. It can't change how a lens works. It can't change how parallax works. It can't change how ghost images are formed. It can't change how the sun creates highlight and shadow ect. Thats the beauty of it. It's not OPEN TO SPECULATION. It's BLACK AND WHITE. What IS...IS.I

Of course thats why there is pushback. CT's are seeing things crumble before their eyes. You are a perfect example. You simply can't refute Farids work for so you publish a diatribe filled with gross errors, character assassination, links to works that fail technically on their face after the first paragraph, speculation stated as fact and just plain handwaving bullsnit. You are a hack of the highest order.

You don't like me. Great, I don't like you either.

Your dislike however does not dismiss the photographic fact I present.

Fact is not tainted by the presenter. Either you can debunk it or you can't. So far its quite clear you don't have what it take to even UNDERSTAND the arguments, let alone try and debunk them.

[David G. Healy]

...

Converts. Geez Jim. I'm not a whack job who needs "converts" like you do.

...

there you go AGAIN Lampoon, living in that photog fantasy world of yours..... LMFAO! Carry on!

[Craig Lamson]

...

Converts. Geez Jim. I'm not a whack job who needs "converts" like you do.

...

there you go AGAIN Lampoon, living in that photog fantasy world of yours..... LMFAO! Carry on!

So davie, back from the grave I see. And posting nothing again. Imagine that.

So do your pal monk a favor. He's stuck on st____well lets just say he's stuck.

He can't figure out how to save dr.johns bacon, heck he can't even understand how parallax works ( neither can dr john)

So prove my work wrong davie, go out on a limb and actually DO something for a change besides crib notes and images...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson