William Kelly Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 TODD LEVENTHAL – MINISTER OF DISINFORMATION http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html During the Cold War and the hot wars that followed, “disinformation” was the buzz word for the false and deceptive information surreptitiously promoted by communist and foreign intelligence services. Promoting disinformation wasn’t something that the United States itself did, at least it wasn’t something they wanted anyone to believe they did, as it was discussed by John Barron and others who studied and wrote about the propaganda put out by the Soviets’ official Ministry of Dizinformation. That the United States doesn’t engage in such psychological warfare is an urban myth quickly dispelled by Todd Leventhal, America’s Minister of Disinformation, whose official title is State Department Counter-Mis and Disinformation Officer. As such Leventhal has been the subject of a spate of recent publicity, especially in regards to debunking conspiracy theories. We’ve heard from Leventhal before, pushing the Bush foreign agenda, disputing reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was a false pretense for war, and more recently as the State Department’s spokesman designated to officially debunk conspiracy theories that the federal government considers serious threats—like UFOs, faked moon landings, 9/11 missiles and President Obama’s birth certificate. Leventhal’s official blog on debunking such “conspiracy theories” serves as fodder for legitimate journalists looking for a good column when news is slow, but most real conspiracy theorists considered him just another media spokesperson for the government, not unlike those who speak for the al Quada and the Taliban, and trusted as much. But Leventhal recently created a mini-firestorm when some mainstream publications began commenting on his inclusion of the assassination of President Kennedy among the “conspiracy theories” worth debunking, and his ridicule of those who believe anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the murder of Kennedy. As the official State Department specialist and spokesperson whose job is to counter-misinformation and disinformation, Leventhal’s blog (since suspended but archived under Rumors, Myths and Fabrications1[/url]) touches on a number of controversial subjects, including AIDS, the moon landing and the war in Iraq, but the subject of the Kennedy assassination seems to have struck the most sensitive nerve. http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html Bill Kelly http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted October 15, 2010 Author Share Posted October 15, 2010 (edited) TODD LEVENTHAL MINISTER OF DISINFORMATION http://www.ctka.net/.../Levanthal.html During the Cold War and the hot wars that followed, "disinformation" was the buzz word for the false and deceptive information surreptitiously promoted by communist and foreign intelligence services. Promoting disinformation wasn't something that the United States itself did, at least it wasn't something they wanted anyone to believe they did, as it was discussed by John Barron and others who studied and wrote about the propaganda put out by the Soviets' official Ministry of Dizinformation. That the United States doesn't engage in such psychological warfare is an urban myth quickly dispelled by Todd Leventhal, America's Minister of Disinformation, whose official title is State Department Counter-Mis and Disinformation Officer. As such Leventhal has been the subject of a spate of recent publicity, especially in regards to debunking conspiracy theories. We've heard from Leventhal before, pushing the Bush foreign agenda, disputing reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was a false pretense for war, and more recently as the State Department's spokesman designated to officially debunk conspiracy theories that the federal government considers serious threatslike UFOs, faked moon landings, 9/11 missiles and President Obama's birth certificate. Leventhal's official blog on debunking such "conspiracy theories" serves as fodder for legitimate journalists looking for a good column when news is slow, but most real conspiracy theorists considered him just another media spokesperson for the government, not unlike those who speak for the al Quada and the Taliban, and trusted as much. But Leventhal recently created a mini-firestorm when some mainstream publications began commenting on his inclusion of the assassination of President Kennedy among the "conspiracy theories" worth debunking, and his ridicule of those who believe anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the murder of Kennedy. As the official State Department specialist and spokesperson whose job is to counter-misinformation and disinformation, Leventhal's blog (since suspended but archived under Rumors, Myths and Fabrications1) touches on a number of controversial subjects, including AIDS, the moon landing and the war in Iraq, but the subject of the Kennedy assassination seems to have struck the most sensitive nerve. http://www.ctka.net/.../Levanthal.html Bill Kelly http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/ I spent a lot of time on this article, and would like to get some feedback and a discussion going. My purpose is to reframe the debate from the traditional LN vs. CT, and arguments over the details of the evidence, to one in which it can be shown that Lee Harvey Oswald was misdiagnosed as a Lone Nut case, as he was not nuts. I also provide an alterntive profile. Being from New Jersey, where we have a reputation for racial profiling, I was disapointed in the Secret Service officail studies of presidential assassins, so I developed my own - the Covert Operational Personality Profile (COPP), which can be applied to those who have a miliary background, are trained in crafts and technques of intelligence, and use such operational procedures. Whether the lone assassin or a Patsy, Oswald was not crazy and fits, rather sets the prototype for the Covert Operatonal Personality Profile. I also try to show why it is imperative, using the assassination of Rabbi Kahane as an example, to differenciate those who are truely crazy lone nut cases - like Howard Unruh and the Texas Tower murders, and covert operations carried out by Covert Operative Profile personalities, like the assassin of Kahane and JFK. In doing so, I hope to suggest that this issue is not just a matter of getting the history right, but making it a national security issue, in that it should be determined how and why the President was killed so it can't happen again. I know the article is kind of long, and I hope to edit and post a synopsis soon for those who don't want to wade through the whole thing. But if there's a mistake in the conent or in my logic, I'd like to hear about it. And I'd like to use this as a basis for further discussion of these issues. Thanks to all who read it, and thanks to Jimmy D for posting it at CTKA. BK Edited October 15, 2010 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Feemster Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted October 15, 2010 Author Share Posted October 15, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 (edited) Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. Edited October 15, 2010 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. So you characterize me as a "certain crackpot"? This demonstrates your ignorance of these subjects. The perps were all the same...the MilIndComp which Eisenhower warned us about...and it is all about control and guns-oil-drugs and big money. It is not I who is a crackpot...It is those who cannot connect the dots and get the big picture. Get it? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted October 15, 2010 Author Share Posted October 15, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. From where I'm standing, it appears that the Crackpots are the 20% Lone Nutters who believe that the government of the United States changed hands and policies because of a Lone, deranged nutcase, when in fact, it can be shown that he wasn't a loner or a nut case at all. It is Leventhal and company who want to lump all conspiracies into one barrell. I'm the one who says that whatever it is you believe happened at Dealey Plaza is much more serious than any other policial issue. And after I go to all the trouble of trying to Zoom in on the issue of the ostensible motive of the accused assassin and Patsy you would prefer to dispense with the discussion with a wave of your hand. If you read Ed Lutwack's book Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, he explains how it necessary, in the course of the coup, to control the communications, but afterwards, it is only necessary to control the economy, and beef it up, as if the economy is strong, the people won't care about the coup anymore. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. So you characterize me as a "certain crackpot"? This demonstrates your ignorance of these subjects. The perps were all the same...the MilIndComp which Eisenhower warned us about...and it is all about control and guns-oil-drugs and big money. It is not I who is a crackpot...It is those who cannot connect the dots and get the big picture. Get it? Jack Jack It's not so much a question of what your position is on any issue. It's more a question of how you argue your position. Anyone who's prepared to have an open minded debate, no matter what their position is, should be respected for his or her views. If, however, the arguments are not based on facts it's another matter. And should this way of reasoning apply to a set of issues that has nothing whatsoever to do with each other it's probably time to be careful. This is usually combined with an unusually well developed ability to avoid answering any subject matter questions. Moreover, if character assassinations starts at square one, you should be aware there is crackpot alert. And if, on top of all this your motives are questioned, you can be reasonably comfortable that you are dealing with a crackpot. Not an exact science by any means, but it works pretty well most of the the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. So you characterize me as a "certain crackpot"? This demonstrates your ignorance of these subjects. The perps were all the same...the MilIndComp which Eisenhower warned us about...and it is all about control and guns-oil-drugs and big money. It is not I who is a crackpot...It is those who cannot connect the dots and get the big picture. Get it? Jack Jack It's not so much a question of what your position is on any issue. It's more a question of how you argue your position. Anyone who's prepared to have an open minded debate, no matter what their position is, should be respected for his or her views. If, however, the arguments are not based on facts it's another matter. And should this way of reasoning apply to a set of issues that has nothing whatsoever to do with each other it's probably time to be careful. This is usually combined with an unusually well developed ability to avoid answering any subject matter questions. Your attention should be even higher once it becomes clear that all sorts of well defined idiots are being referred to. Moreover, if character assassinations starts at square one, you should be aware there is crackpot alert. And if, on top of all this your motives are questioned, you can be reasonably comfortable that you are dealing with a crackpot. Not an exact science by any means, but it works pretty well most of the the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 ...your motives are questioned... So now I am a crackpot AND my motives are questioned? This guy does not know me or my studies and has the gall to call me a crackpot and question my motives. Just WHAT does he think my motives are? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted October 16, 2010 Author Share Posted October 16, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. So you characterize me as a "certain crackpot"? This demonstrates your ignorance of these subjects. The perps were all the same...the MilIndComp which Eisenhower warned us about...and it is all about control and guns-oil-drugs and big money. It is not I who is a crackpot...It is those who cannot connect the dots and get the big picture. Get it? Jack Jack It's not so much a question of what your position is on any issue. It's more a question of how you argue your position. Anyone who's prepared to have an open minded debate, no matter what their position is, should be respected for his or her views. If, however, the arguments are not based on facts it's another matter. And should this way of reasoning apply to a set of issues that has nothing whatsoever to do with each other it's probably time to be careful. This is usually combined with an unusually well developed ability to avoid answering any subject matter questions. Moreover, if character assassinations starts at square one, you should be aware there is crackpot alert. And if, on top of all this your motives are questioned, you can be reasonably comfortable that you are dealing with a crackpot. Not an exact science by any means, but it works pretty well most of the the time. Glen, What does any of this have to do with my article? As far as I am concerned you are the one who is the Crackpot. You want to debate an issue then read my article and debate me. You want to call other researchers names, do it somewhere else. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 (edited) ...your motives are questioned... So now I am a crackpot AND my motives are questioned? This guy does not know me or my studies and has the gall to call me a crackpot and question my motives. Just WHAT does he think my motives are? Jack Jack That was an attempt to describe who I would place in the crackpot category, that's all. I was trying to do that in general terms, but perhaps that wasn't clear enough. It was not directed specifically towards you or anyone else. I apologize if I gave any other impression. I have no idea what your views are in any matters beside the JFK assassination. Edited October 16, 2010 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. So you characterize me as a "certain crackpot"? This demonstrates your ignorance of these subjects. The perps were all the same...the MilIndComp which Eisenhower warned us about...and it is all about control and guns-oil-drugs and big money. It is not I who is a crackpot...It is those who cannot connect the dots and get the big picture. Get it? Jack Jack It's not so much a question of what your position is on any issue. It's more a question of how you argue your position. Anyone who's prepared to have an open minded debate, no matter what their position is, should be respected for his or her views. If, however, the arguments are not based on facts it's another matter. And should this way of reasoning apply to a set of issues that has nothing whatsoever to do with each other it's probably time to be careful. This is usually combined with an unusually well developed ability to avoid answering any subject matter questions. Moreover, if character assassinations starts at square one, you should be aware there is crackpot alert. And if, on top of all this your motives are questioned, you can be reasonably comfortable that you are dealing with a crackpot. Not an exact science by any means, but it works pretty well most of the the time. Glen, What does any of this have to do with my article? As far as I am concerned you are the one who is the Crackpot. You want to debate an issue then read my article and debate me. You want to call other researchers names, do it somewhere else. Bill Kelly See my answer to Jack. It was not directed to any person in this thread. And I am sorry, I just answered a question and had no intention of changing subject here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. From where I'm standing, it appears that the Crackpots are the 20% Lone Nutters who believe that the government of the United States changed hands and policies because of a Lone, deranged nutcase, when in fact, it can be shown that he wasn't a loner or a nut case at all. It is Leventhal and company who want to lump all conspiracies into one barrell. I'm the one who says that whatever it is you believe happened at Dealey Plaza is much more serious than any other policial issue. And after I go to all the trouble of trying to Zoom in on the issue of the ostensible motive of the accused assassin and Patsy you would prefer to dispense with the discussion with a wave of your hand. If you read Ed Lutwack's book Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, he explains how it necessary, in the course of the coup, to control the communications, but afterwards, it is only necessary to control the economy, and beef it up, as if the economy is strong, the people won't care about the coup anymore. BK I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Is it your view that those who believe Oswald killed JFK - the 20% - are wrong because they don't connect the (changed) policies of later administrations and president's to the JFK-assassination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted October 16, 2010 Author Share Posted October 16, 2010 Hey Bill, I always read your posts but barely ever respond because yours are so complete. I learn so much more by reading. What could I add except to say I agree w/you most of the time. In this case when I first started studying JFK A. , I found it difficult to think a spy could be made out of clay and put together at a very early age as Oswald has seemed to have been. Who would have the foresight and the reason to begin "sheep dipping " Oswald from an early age, I thought. Did they know specifically the role Oswald would play or was he just one of many ready to step up and do their duty when the puppet masters sent word to their handlers. After reading and studying and thinking these last 11 years I am amazed by what I still don't know and what guys like you ,Bill, post from your serious research! Jim Hey Jim, Thanks for reading my stuff and responding. It's good to know somebody is getting something out of it. Yea, I had the same problem with Oswald, trying to figure out who he was and what he actually did. As for his early adventures in USSR and Mexico City, I think that Bill Simpich, Greg Parker and others are zeroing in on exactly his role in the early operations were. After beginning my studies of the assassination in 1969, I too am amazed at, after all this time, I am still learing new things that I never even thought of before. And we aren't done yet. Having been in this business for a long time, one thing I've learned that things happen in cycles, and there's levels of interest and disinterest, new revelations and periods of placidity (is that a word Duke?). I have a feeling that we are on the verge of a new period of activity and revelations that will rival the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 70s, and that some new information will radically change the way we all look at the assassination. Stay tuned, as big things are about to happen. Bill Kelly Bill, It would seem ridiculous and unfounded to combine all these conspiracies under one umbrella. Irrespective of whether this is done by those who oppose these conspiracies or those who promote them. Personally, I think these issues ought to be dealt with on their own merits, one by one. The moon landings, 9/11, the JFK assassination for example, have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges. It is one thing that certain crackpots subscribe to all of these - and many other - alleged conspiracies, but quite another that the government is joining in, be it on the opposite side. If the goal with such an action is to get answers, this approach will not do the trick. It will most likely raise the confusion. If it is to convince someone of something it's probably even worse. The US government - the entire political system, more specifically - is at it's lowest approval ratings for decades and an initiative of this controversial caliber is a dead end, making things worse, in my opinion. To extend the alleged cover ups? Absolutely not. Calculate: what has this, or any other US government to gain from such an undertaking as compared to what they have to lose? I'm not referring to actual results but to public opinions. Even though I, as an economist in particular, have lots of quarrels with what the US governments have been doing for years with their utterly disastrous economic policies, I wouldn't underestimate them that much. I'd simply place this governnment stuff in the stupid department. From where I'm standing, it appears that the Crackpots are the 20% Lone Nutters who believe that the government of the United States changed hands and policies because of a Lone, deranged nutcase, when in fact, it can be shown that he wasn't a loner or a nut case at all. It is Leventhal and company who want to lump all conspiracies into one barrell. I'm the one who says that whatever it is you believe happened at Dealey Plaza is much more serious than any other policial issue. And after I go to all the trouble of trying to Zoom in on the issue of the ostensible motive of the accused assassin and Patsy you would prefer to dispense with the discussion with a wave of your hand. If you read Ed Lutwack's book Coup d'etat - A Practical Handbook, he explains how it necessary, in the course of the coup, to control the communications, but afterwards, it is only necessary to control the economy, and beef it up, as if the economy is strong, the people won't care about the coup anymore. BK I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Is it your view that those who believe Oswald killed JFK - the 20% - are wrong because they don't connect the (changed) policies of later administrations and president's to the JFK-assassination? No, I'm saying those 20% who believe Oswald killed the president becuase he was a crazy lone nut are wrong because Oswald wasn't crazy, and it can be shown that he wasn't crazy, so there must be another motive. Most of those who say Oswald was psycho say he he had to be psycho to kill a president and a cop, and then point to a few items before the assassination, such as Dr. Herzog, the Walker incident and his wife refusing to move back in with him after having a baby. Of couse Herzog never said Oswald was a psycho killer until after the assassination, the Walker incident was not something Oswald got involved with after he "snapped" and went crazy, and not every man who is spurrned by his wife goes out and kills a president. So if Oswald was not a Lone-Nut - that is he wasn't mentally deranged, then he must have had another motive, and that motive is one that can be understood and therefore his behavior can be better understood. And as an economist, you should understand that money, the thing that motivates most mobsters and US spies who worked for the USSR, was not Oswald's motive. Get it? Thanks for staying on topic. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now