Who is a disinformation agent?

[John Simkin]

It is indeed true that several people on this forum have been called disinformation agents. I was told by one member that a rumour was being spread that this forum was a CIA operation. The theory being that it allowed the CIA to spread disinformation. More importantly, it enabled the CIA to discover who had what information.

I once had a long telephone conversation with a former member of this forum. He had in the past been a CIA contract agent who was in dispute with the organisation over the non-payment of work done in the past. That included the posting of disinformation on forums. He told me that the most effective forms of disinformation had to include important classified information. In fact, the most important part of CIA disinformation is to take researchers away from a path that the CIA consider to be moving into dangerous territory. In this way, the CIA use researchers against other researchers. His job was to supply this information to individual researchers, thus enabling others to post this disinformation. Of course, this information that he gave me could have been itself disinformation. As James Jesus Angleton, the master of CIA disinformation once said, it is all a “wilderness of mirrors”.

In regards to the above, let us not forget one aspect of Gordon Winslow.

It was his calling card into the research community.

He would mail out letters to all known researchers each year.

The letter would request your personal field of interest/expertise.

Once he got it back, he would then put together a directory of all the researchers who had replied and their fields of interest. He then mailed it to the respondents at their request.

So therefore, Gordon had all this info on file, and a legitimate excuse to field it.

There was a curios quandary though. I don't think I ever met a more narrowly focused researcher than Winslow. Or many researchers who more quickly came and went.

I accept that it is possible that the information included on Cubans connected to the JFK assassination on Gordon Winslow's website might be selected in order to support his view that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman. However, I would not describe him as a disinformation agent as I am unaware that any of his information is inaccurate. I suspect the CIA use people who have got a great deal of credibility with the research community. This was definitely true of the CIA disinformation agent that I mentioned above. They definitely do not use people like the lone gunman nutters we get on this forum.

[William Kelly]

Has anybody here read my article on the Minister of Disinformation at Dealey Plaza?

There's a real definition of Disinformation in there that I hold strong to and that everybody should adhere to, and that

is that real disinformation stems from an intelligence agency or government and just isn't something or someone one happens

to disagree with.

http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/the-minister-of-diz-at-dealey-plaza-ctka/

http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html

John Simkin calls John McAdams a disinformation agent because of his web sites, which promote the lone nut assassin scenario.

At first I didn't see where McAdams was anything more than the disturbed academic who promotes his own false perceptions,

much like Ken Rahn or any of the thousands of other academics who believe Oswald was a nut-case assassin.

But after the FBI Informant specialist came by here and brought up the fact that Marquette Prof. Athan G. Theoharis, an FBI

documents expert was also on the faculty at Marquette, and McAdams denied having anything to do with him, and

Tom Scully recently showed how the Marquette's dead is tied to the Buffalano mob, I am now leaning towards the application of

the term "disinformation agent" to McAdams, though I think more ties are warrented before a final determination is made.

After I wrote the article about the Minister of Dis at Dealey Plaza for Jim at CTKA, I offered to write an article on the

Real Dizinformation Agents at Dealey Plaza, including those who I mention in the article, going into more depth as to why

they are real disinformation agents and not just in disagreement with the truth as to what happened there.

These include Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Hugh Aynesworth, David Atlee Phillips, Virginia Prewett, Issac Don Levine,

Edward J. Epstine, Thomas Buchanan, Hal Hendrix, Max Holland and Gus Russo, among others.

Those who sprout the lone nut thesis that don't appear to have ties to the intelligence community include real lone nutters like Ken Rhan,

David Von Pain, Dale Myers, Dave Reitzes, and McAdams, now under review and reconsideration.

Of course being a "real" disinformation agent requires difinitive proof that these persons are in fact tied directly to a government intelligence agency or

network, and aren't, as some say, just in disagreement with what one has to say.

Bill Kelly

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Information is neutral with respect to its truth value and could be true or false: one could either assert that extraterrestrials are among us or deny it. One of those is true but we might not know which. Misinformation is false information, where those who disseminate it may or may not know better. Those who assert that JFK was taken out by a lone gunman, for example, are clearly misinformed (given the massive evidence that contradicts their assertion), but they might sincerely believe what they are maintaining. To rise to the level of disinformation requires deliberately asserting what they know to be false with the intent to mislead or deceive the target audience, which makes disinformation comparable to lying.

To commit a lie is to deliberately assert something you know to be false with the intention to mislead. Bear in mind, by the way, that disinformation is not necessarily meant to convince you of something that is false. As Martin Schotz, a psychiatrist by profession, observed in HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US, the purpose of disinformation is to make everything believable and nothing knowable. As long as there is uncertainty about the death of JFK (those who were involved in 9/11, and so forth), the public will be unable to take a stand, for or against, even in relation to something as blatant as 9/11, because they are not sufficiently familiar with the evidence to have confidence in their own beliefs.

Bill's suggestion that misinformation does not qualify as disinformation unless the person disseminating it is actually working for an intelligence agency, I think, appropriately characterizes (what we might call) professional disinformation agents. But amateurs who are not actually on the government payroll can also play that role. Some of those whom he suggests are sincere in their beliefs are so strident in their conduct and so unwilling to alter their false beliefs even when confronted with massive evidence to the contrary that they appear to warrant that description, even if they are not pros. The government continues to shop its shills, promote agents of disinfo, and publish books that are intended to mislead.

Edited December 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

Has anybody here read my article on the Minister of Disinformation at Dealey Plaza?

There's a real definition of Disinformation in there that I hold strong to and that everybody should adhere to, and that

is that real disinformation stems from an intelligence agency or government and just isn't something or someone one happens

to disagree with.

http://jfkcountercou...ley-plaza-ctka/

http://www.ctka.net/.../Levanthal.html

John Simkin calls John McAdams a disinformation agent because of his web sites, which promote the lone nut assassin scenario.

At first I didn't see where McAdams was anything more than the disturbed academic who promotes his own false perceptions,

much like Ken Rahn or any of the thousands of other academics who believe Oswald was a nut-case assassin.

But after the FBI Informant specialist came by here and brought up the fact that Marquette Prof. Athan G. Theoharis, an FBI

documents expert was also on the faculty at Marquette, and McAdams denied having anything to do with him, and

Tom Scully recently showed how the Marquette's dead is tied to the Buffalano mob, I am now leaning towards the application of

the term "disinformation agent" to McAdams, though I think more ties are warrented before a final determination is made.

After I wrote the article about the Minister of Dis at Dealey Plaza for Jim at CTKA, I offered to write an article on the

Real Dizinformation Agents at Dealey Plaza, including those who I mention in the article, going into more depth as to why

they are real disinformation agents and not just in disagreement with the truth as to what happened there.

These include Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Hugh Aynesworth, David Atlee Phillips, Virginia Prewett, Issac Don Levine,

Edward J. Epstine, Thomas Buchanan, Hal Hendrix, Max Holland and Gus Russo, among others.

Those who sprout the lone nut thesis that don't appear to have ties to the intelligence community include real lone nutters like Ken Rhan,

David Von Pain, Dale Myers, Dave Reitzes, and McAdams, now under review and reconsideration.

Of course being a "real" disinformation agent requires difinitive proof that these persons are in fact tied directly to a government intelligence agency or

network, and aren't, as some say, just in disagreement with what one has to say.

Bill Kelly

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Hi Bill

Have you included Thomas Buchanan in error?

Lee

Yes, Lee,

Thanks for the correction, Thomas Buchanan was President of the United States, I was refering to James Buchanan and his brother Jerry, both of whom I understand were CIA assets, one imprisioned in Cuba by Castro.

There's also a reporter named James Buchanan who wrote for the Miami Hearld, who is not the Buchanan who I believe is a CIA asset, though his paper most certainly is.

James Buchanan, reporter for the Pompano Beach Sun-Sentinel, wrote a Dec. 4, 1963 article in which he connects Frank Sturgis to the Kennedy assassination.

Here's an example of what I mean regarding Buchanan.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lAwkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LQUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3745,199128&dq=by-james-buchanan&hl=en

[Pamela Brown]

JS said:

In fact, the most important part of CIA disinformation is to take researchers away from a path that the CIA consider to be moving into dangerous territory. In this way, the CIA use researchers against other researchers. His job was to supply this information to individual researchers, thus enabling others to post this disinformation.

IMO, nowhere is this more the case than in everything connected to NOLA in the summer of 1963.

[William Kelly]

Has anybody here read my article on the Minister of Disinformation at Dealey Plaza?

There's a real definition of Disinformation in there that I hold strong to and that everybody should adhere to, and that

is that real disinformation stems from an intelligence agency or government and just isn't something or someone one happens

to disagree with.

http://jfkcountercou...ley-plaza-ctka/

http://www.ctka.net/.../Levanthal.html

John Simkin calls John McAdams a disinformation agent because of his web sites, which promote the lone nut assassin scenario.

At first I didn't see where McAdams was anything more than the disturbed academic who promotes his own false perceptions,

much like Ken Rahn or any of the thousands of other academics who believe Oswald was a nut-case assassin.

But after the FBI Informant specialist came by here and brought up the fact that Marquette Prof. Athan G. Theoharis, an FBI

documents expert was also on the faculty at Marquette, and McAdams denied having anything to do with him, and

Tom Scully recently showed how the Marquette's dead is tied to the Buffalano mob, I am now leaning towards the application of

the term "disinformation agent" to McAdams, though I think more ties are warrented before a final determination is made.

After I wrote the article about the Minister of Dis at Dealey Plaza for Jim at CTKA, I offered to write an article on the

Real Dizinformation Agents at Dealey Plaza, including those who I mention in the article, going into more depth as to why

they are real disinformation agents and not just in disagreement with the truth as to what happened there.

These include Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Hugh Aynesworth, David Atlee Phillips, Virginia Prewett, Issac Don Levine,

Edward J. Epstine, Thomas Buchanan, Hal Hendrix, Max Holland and Gus Russo, among others.

Those who sprout the lone nut thesis that don't appear to have ties to the intelligence community include real lone nutters like Ken Rhan,

David Von Pain, Dale Myers, Dave Reitzes, and McAdams, now under review and reconsideration.

Of course being a "real" disinformation agent requires difinitive proof that these persons are in fact tied directly to a government intelligence agency or

network, and aren't, as some say, just in disagreement with what one has to say.

Bill Kelly

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Hi Bill

Have you included Thomas Buchanan in error?

Lee

Yes, Lee,

Thanks for the correction, Thomas Buchanan was President of the United States, I was refering to James Buchanan and his brother Jerry, both of whom I understand were CIA assets, one imprisioned in Cuba by Castro.

There's also a reporter named James Buchanan who wrote for the Miami Hearld, who is not the Buchanan who I believe is a CIA asset, though his paper most certainly is.

James Buchanan, reporter for the Pompano Beach Sun-Sentinel, wrote a Dec. 4, 1963 article in which he connects Frank Sturgis to the Kennedy assassination.

Here's an example of what I mean regarding Buchanan.

http://news.google.c...-buchanan&hl=en

Bill

When I saw the name Thomas Buchanan I thought you meant Thomas G. Buchanan who wrote 'Who Killed Kennedy?' in 1964. A book that I still holds its own in 2010.

I admire Thomas G. Buchanan which is why I raised an eyebrow when I saw the name included next to some of the other sleazebags mentioned.

Thanks for the correction and further information

Lee

Hi Lee,

Well THAT Thomas Buchanan was also branded a dizinformation agent of the Soviets by the CIA assets and they tried to smear him every way they could.

The disinformation agents I am talking about are clearly identified with an intelligence service, mostly the CIA, though some are affiliated with differnt and sometimes divisive sections of the agency.

The key ingredient of being a disinformation agent is not only saying what they want you to say, but being paid by them or having the personal assocation with a government intelligence agency or military,

as Priscilla Johnson, Issac Don Levine, Hal Hendrix, David Atlee Phillips, Virginia Prewett, Hugh Aynesworth, Edward J. Epstine and Gus Russo clearly do.

While Jimmy D said he had already assigned the idea of doing a story on the Real Dizinformation Agents of Dealey Plaza to someone else, I think I'll write an article on the subject myself anyway, after I finish

writing a review of The Kennedy Detail and a few other things I have already started.

BK

[Jack White]

Has anybody here read my article on the Minister of Disinformation at Dealey Plaza?

There's a real definition of Disinformation in there that I hold strong to and that everybody should adhere to, and that

is that real disinformation stems from an intelligence agency or government and just isn't something or someone one happens

to disagree with.

http://jfkcountercou...ley-plaza-ctka/

http://www.ctka.net/.../Levanthal.html

John Simkin calls John McAdams a disinformation agent because of his web sites, which promote the lone nut assassin scenario.

At first I didn't see where McAdams was anything more than the disturbed academic who promotes his own false perceptions,

much like Ken Rahn or any of the thousands of other academics who believe Oswald was a nut-case assassin.

But after the FBI Informant specialist came by here and brought up the fact that Marquette Prof. Athan G. Theoharis, an FBI

documents expert was also on the faculty at Marquette, and McAdams denied having anything to do with him, and

Tom Scully recently showed how the Marquette's dead is tied to the Buffalano mob, I am now leaning towards the application of

the term "disinformation agent" to McAdams, though I think more ties are warrented before a final determination is made.

After I wrote the article about the Minister of Dis at Dealey Plaza for Jim at CTKA, I offered to write an article on the

Real Dizinformation Agents at Dealey Plaza, including those who I mention in the article, going into more depth as to why

they are real disinformation agents and not just in disagreement with the truth as to what happened there.

These include Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Hugh Aynesworth, David Atlee Phillips, Virginia Prewett, Issac Don Levine,

Edward J. Epstine, Thomas Buchanan, Hal Hendrix, Max Holland and Gus Russo, among others.

Those who sprout the lone nut thesis that don't appear to have ties to the intelligence community include real lone nutters like Ken Rhan,

David Von Pain, Dale Myers, Dave Reitzes, and McAdams, now under review and reconsideration.

Of course being a "real" disinformation agent requires difinitive proof that these persons are in fact tied directly to a government intelligence agency or

network, and aren't, as some say, just in disagreement with what one has to say.

Bill Kelly

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Hi Bill

Have you included Thomas Buchanan in error?

Lee

Yes, Lee,

Thanks for the correction, Thomas Buchanan was President of the United States, I was refering to James Buchanan and his brother Jerry, both of whom I understand were CIA assets, one imprisioned in Cuba by Castro.

There's also a reporter named James Buchanan who wrote for the Miami Hearld, who is not the Buchanan who I believe is a CIA asset, though his paper most certainly is.

James Buchanan, reporter for the Pompano Beach Sun-Sentinel, wrote a Dec. 4, 1963 article in which he connects Frank Sturgis to the Kennedy assassination.

Here's an example of what I mean regarding Buchanan.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lAwkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LQUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3745,199128&dq=by-james-buchanan&hl=en

James Buchanan was president of the United States.

[Glenn Viklund]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "failed".

The idea behind people like Epstein, Priscilla Johnson and Aynseworth was to use them as 'experts" and then funnel them through the MSM. The purpose was to confuse the public as to the merits of the case e.g. Epstein was to distort and disguise Oswald with his book Legend, PJM did the same almost from the getgo, and Aynseworth was meant to smear Garrison.

With Russo, he got the PBS gig with Frontline. John McAdams gets mated with Wikipedia.

Afforded platforms like that, plus Newsweek and Reader's Digest, they succeeded in muddying the waters. Although the public felt the JFK case was a conspiracy, they also knew that they did not understand why or how. And they also understood that the MSM was dead set against helping them. Therefore they were powerless.

A good example of this was a story told by Jerry Policoff. Back in the late sixties, he had been doing a lot of reading on the case in high school. He even bought the Warren Commission. His mother did not understand why. So he said to her one day, "Mom, Oswald did not do it. It was a conspiracy. The media and everyone else is lying." She looked at him flabbergasted, like "Not in this country. Not to me."

THe next week he came home from school one day. She had just finished Six Seconds in Dallas. She got up off the sofa, put the book back and said, "You're right. It was a conspiracy. And I don't ever want to talk about it again." And she didn't.

That story perfectly encapsulates what the MSM cover up has done to this country. So no, it has not been a failure. It has been an insidious success.

Jim,

I'd appreciate you elaborating a bit about "the insidious success". Could this be because no one has yet been convicted? Or perhaps because there's really not much consensus within the CT community about who was responsible and as to what happened?

In one sense I'd say it could be argued that - if your assumptions about these disinfo events are correct - they have failed. I haven't seen the latest numbers, but historically usually four out of five americans still believe there was a conspiracy. As one of goals with these disinfo efforts should presumably have been to promote the Warren Commission conclusions?

Edited December 20, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

What I mean by that was I thought illustrated by that anecdote.

It was also illustrated by Dan Alcorn's call to Ross Perot when he was running for president.

Alcrorn called his office and, amazingly, got Perot on the phone. He asked him what his stance was on the JFK case. Perot said, "Oh, you will never get to the bottom of that one."

The constant attempts to prop up the WC by the likes of Jim Moore, Posner, Bugliosi etc., plus the related propaganda efforts of the likes of Russo, Waldron, John Davis, Blakey etc. achieve the net effects of:

1. Muddying the waters so that the message is that the JFK case is all one huge messy morass. Therefore the effort to try and find out who was really responsible is just not possible. And hey, there are some lawyers out there who think Oswald did it anyway.

2. Therefore, why should anyone waste their time or money trying to find out.

3. And finally there is the Chomsky, Cockburn, Hersh, (and their new stable boy Anton Batey) saying that it woudn't make any difference anyway since JFK was really Nixon.

Its all BS of course. But this is how wide, deep, and multi sided the effort is. And it has been successful.

Ok, thank you Jim.

A few thougts; the muddy waters I strongly doubt derives from disinfo; one just have to take a look at a couple of CT sites to realise that the "muddy waters" does not have a few sources; there are hundreds of them. Looking at the developments since the Internet came along - the waters are gone get even muddier, I believe.

I agree - Chomsky's position is peculiar/strange, to say the least; as a leading think tank he should have known much better. He usually does know better, much better. But in this case his position has for decades been unreasonable. Perhaps it's a personal thing, I don't know.

My guess is that he wants to focus on the issues at hand, not at issues that completely steals the spotlight, as the JFK assassination continue to do.

[B. A. Copeland]

I won't go on to say that the source posted below is THE definitive source for knowing how to notice or understand a disinfo operative however, I do believe it is an imperative source in having some idea of how they usually behave, especially concerning "big events". It's simply a good source to own.

http://breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm

P.S - Also, please people, do NOT waste your time being sucked into the latest Wikileaks Op. It is all or mostly disinfo designed to distract and confound.

Edited December 20, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[Guest Robert Morrow]

What I mean by that was I thought illustrated by that anecdote.

It was also illustrated by Dan Alcorn's call to Ross Perot when he was running for president.

Alcrorn called his office and, amazingly, got Perot on the phone. He asked him what his stance was on the JFK case. Perot said, "Oh, you will never get to the bottom of that one."

The constant attempts to prop up the WC by the likes of Jim Moore, Posner, Bugliosi etc., plus the related propaganda efforts of the likes of Russo, Waldron, John Davis, Blakey etc. achieve the net effects of:

1. Muddying the waters so that the message is that the JFK case is all one huge messy morass. Therefore the effort to try and find out who was really responsible is just not possible. And hey, there are some lawyers out there who think Oswald did it anyway.

2. Therefore, why should anyone waste their time or money trying to find out.

3. And finally there is the Chomsky, Cockburn, Hersh, (and their new stable boy Anton Batey) saying that it woudn't make any difference anyway since JFK was really Nixon.

Its all BS of course. But this is how wide, deep, and multi sided the effort is. And it has been successful.

Interesting that Ross Perot would say that ... because Perot almost got murdered by the same people who murdered John Kennedy. And that would be elite assassination squads run by very high level insiders who are accountable to no one except themselves.

I think George Herbert Walker Bush was one of the elite murderers of John Kennedy, and I GHW Bush came very close to being a murderer of Ross Perot in 1992; the CIA Pegasus intimidation tactics of Perot were so effectively that it scared Perot out of the race while the billionaire was LEADING IN THE PRESIDENTIAL POLLS IN 1992!! Perot knew all about the Bush/Clinton/CIA gargantuan drug smuggling of the 1980's and GHW Bush was terrified at what a President Perot would do with this knowledge. So Bush let out the dogs on terror/intimidation campaign of Ross Perot. Perot later got back in the race after he had put up a security net and also to make sure that Bill Clinton got elected.

Chip Tatum Pegasus - http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/TATUM/tatum.html

[Evan Burton]

To further bookend the arc of a decade through the lens of conspiracy, both WikiLeaks and the September 11 attacks are now being linked by some, albeit fringe, elements who see Julian Assange's arrest as part of a plot to ensure the truth about the World Trade Centre attacks is not exposed. In the mid-1990s, the American sociologist Ted Goertzel surveyed thousands of residents across the United States to appraise their acceptance or rejection of popular conspiracy theories. Goertzel identified three traits that correlated with such beliefs.

Read more at:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/conspiracy-fears-at-fever-pitch-20101220-1930r.html

[Pamela Brown]

JS said:

In fact, the most important part of CIA disinformation is to take researchers away from a path that the CIA consider to be moving into dangerous territory. In this way, the CIA use researchers against other researchers. His job was to supply this information to individual researchers, thus enabling others to post this disinformation.

IMO, nowhere is this more the case than in everything connected to NOLA in the summer of 1963.

You got that right.

I will never forget what Wesley Liebeler said in 1967 after Garrison surfaced his discoveries.

He called a press conference and said words to the effect that he had seen all the FBI files while on the Commission and there was nothing suspicious

THen Ford said Garrison should turn his evidence over to the Justice Dept..

That does not surprise me. Liebeler was without conscience to do that.

Now NARA has Garrison's files but they refused to let me see them in 08, claiming that they would not allow me to have access to them in the time that I had available. I have little doubt they were being culled.

[B. A. Copeland]

Chomsky, Hersh, incredible. They have always smelled like rats to me. These are people who are generally "looked up to" as well. I feel the same way about Prof. Stephen Jones and his smearing of Cold Fusion, which logically necessitates concern when he shows up in 9/11 "scholar" circles.

[Thomas Graves]

On 12/18/2010 at 11:48 AM, Glenn Viklund said:

I've been a member of this forum for nine months by now, and it's been an amazing flow of alleged "disinfo agents" that seem to be somehow involved in almost every issue and thread discussed. Heck, I was accused of being one myself when bringing some information forward related to Judyth Baker.

Nevertheless, I don't see much in the way of backup for those claims. And I have to say that sometimes it seems to be more a matter of disagreement with for example an authors views about the assassination, than it is having substance behind the claim that the person in question is actually some kind of disinfo agent. The description then tends to get a bit inflationary when used with such high frequency here at Edu. To me, very often this looks like a simplification used more as an excuse for not accepting someone else's views. And no, I don't primarily mean other members here, but rather persons discussed who from one angle or another are related to the JFK case.

What determines whether someone is a disinformation agent, and how can this be verified with some degree of certainty? I would like to think that this is more than a matter of opinion.

 

Question:  "Who is a disinformation agent?"

Answer:  "Clearly, anyone who causes me painful, painful cognitive dissonance and rocks my 'world view'!  I mean, I mean, I mean, ....... the way I see it, Killery-Shillery Clinton or the evil, evil CIA must have sent people like that to bedevil me with the truth."

LOL

--  Tommy

Edited May 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves