Two Questions For James DiEugenio

[Paz Marverde]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, Paz and Larry, you are both correct about TG.  And I am glad others have seen this.

Self-evident 

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

Self-evident 

James,

With all due respect, who is "TG"?

Tim Gratz?

Your talking "in code" here somehow reminds me of the fact that you have no photo of yourself on your Facebook "profile page."

Why it that, James?  Are you afraid you'll be tracked down by the evil, evil, evil CIA, or those Flesh-Eating Boys From Brazil, or the Ghelen Organization, or, or, or... (gasp) ... The George Soros Foundation ...? 

Some dishwasher from a Russian-based polonium tea house in Merry Old London Town?  (I rather doubt that you would be concerned with THAT, old boy.)

I mean, I mean, I mean ... That was Litvinenko's problem, not yours.  Must have received too many X-rays or something, right?

 

--  Tommy 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - you cite, with sideways swipes at Jim and others, facts which you then elevate and take out of context. It’s exactly what Nunez did with his FISA memo, or Trump does with his Fox News tweets. KGB bad guys? Sure. No one is leaving them out. But you put in the same sentence and draw a false equivalence between post war Nazis and the George Soros’ foundation. I’m not nissing something, so don’t bother with that defense. You’re  playing intellectual games. Yeah, some scientists dispute that global warming is man made, and some CIA analysts think Nosenko remained KGB, and some few think as you do that Russia killed our beloved president. And for you the big proof is that they finally completed their coup by bringing us our worst nightmare - Donald Trump. In order to come to that conclusion you, Thomas Graves, have eliminated all static and have penetrated the fog of history. With all due respect Tommy. 

[Thomas Graves]

6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - you cite, with sideways swipes at Jim and others, facts which you then elevate and take out of context. It’s exactly what Nunez did with his FISA memo, or Trump does with his Fox News tweets. KGB bad guys? Sure. No one is leaving them out. But you put in the same sentence and draw a false equivalence between post war Nazis and the George Soros’ foundation. I’m not nissing something, so don’t bother with that defense. You’re  playing intellectual games. Yeah, some scientists dispute that global warming is man made, and some CIA analysts think Nosenko remained KGB, and some few think as you do that Russia killed our beloved president. And for you the big proof is that they finally completed their coup by bringing us our worst nightmare - Donald Trump. In order to come to that conclusion you, Thomas Graves, have eliminated all static and have penetrated the fog of history. With all due respect Tommy. 

Paul,

With all due respect, which facts have I cited , and then elevated, and taken out of context?

Or is it cited, and then taken out of context, and then elevated?

Or is it ...

 

--  Tommy 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 2/4/2018 at 10:05 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Which was in Epstein's book in 1966.

And somehow you transfer your contempt for Epstein over to the evidence he presented?

It wasn't his research -- it was Vincent Salandria feeding the clothing evidence to both Edward Epstein and Gaeton Fonzi.

Fonzi then shoved it down Arlen Specter's throat.

The Weaponized Fact -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound -- either use it or it gets used on you.

On 2/4/2018 at 10:05 AM, James DiEugenio said:

And?

All you Micro-Analyzers are jerking everyone off.

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/4/2018 at 9:49 AM, James DiEugenio said:

If you read my review, or saw that fine film Ukraine on Fire, you will see the utter and sickening hypocrisy of the Neocons.

It is A OK if they interfere with elections all over the map through their differing NGO fronts and their reps in the State Department like Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife.  And by backing a bunch of neo Nazi thugs who then shoot innocent people in the streets.  That is fine and dandy, and very few people, except the late, great Robert Parry, will report it.  Or even print information about it.  Even though it is proven!

Geez TG, so I guess you think that is just OK because its America doing it?  Kill a few people, burn a few buildings with people trapped inside,  hey that is OK because its the USA, right?

 

James,

With all due respect, it's obvious to me that you've been fooled and "brainwashed" by the cumulative effects of 90-plus years of Soviet/Russian active measures counterintelligence operations, mixed oh-so skillfully with 58 years of Second Chief Directorate Department 14 "operational deception" programs.  

The JFK Assassination may very well have been the ultimate case in point, followed closely by the "election" of Putin's "useful idiot," Donald Trump, as our president.

You, and so many other Americans.

 

--Tommy 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

It’s nonsense Tommy. You’re the one who is being duped. You are more monotoned than even Trejo, who at least sees JFK’s tremendous enemies on the RIGHT. But again, if you wish to entertain the possibility that the enemy was and is transnational, that the left-right war is evidence of a divide and conquer strategy of control, that Angleton’s true loyalties remain hidden, I’ll go there and look at your pet theory in that light.

[Thomas Graves]

12 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

It’s nonsense Tommy. You’re the one who is being duped. You are more monotoned than even Trejo, who at least sees JFK’s tremendous enemies on the RIGHT. But again, if you wish to entertain the possibility that the enemy was and is transnational, that the left-right war is evidence of a divide and conquer strategy of control, that Angleton’s true loyalties remain hidden, I’ll go there and look at your pet theory in that light.

Paul,

With all due respect, there is no sense in you and I communicating with each other, given the fact that you (not wanting, evidently, to endure excruciating cognitive dissonance) refuse to read the three works I've suggested to you for some time now (Spy Wars, Ghosts of the Spy Wars, and, to a lesser extent, Legend).

Have a nice day.

--  Tommy 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - I’ve read Legend, I’ve read some of Bagley at your suggestion last year. Nosenko being real or fake defector does not influence my take on JFK or Oswald. What happened in MC does not change my view that Oswald was innocent. Fun and games with Oswald doesn’t tell us who did the deed. US-Soviet relations are not the only thing that matters in the world. Power is corrosive. Money talks. Big money hold their cards very close. What we are looking for, IMO, is who wanted JFK dead and why it matters. 

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - I’ve read Legend, I’ve read some of Bagley at your suggestion last year. Nosenko being real or fake defector does not influence my take on JFK or Oswald. What happened in MC does not change my view that Oswald was innocent. Fun and games with Oswald doesn’t tell us who did the deed. US-Soviet relations are not the only thing that matters in the world. Power is corrosive. Money talks. Big money hold their cards very close. What we are looking for, IMO, is who wanted JFK dead and why it matters. 

Paul,

With all due respect, why would fake defector Nosenko try to get us to believe that KGB had had absolutely nothing to do with the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald the two and one-half years he lived in the Soviet Union?

Do you think the Kremlin was afraid we would nuke 'em, some two months after the assassination?  (LOL)

Isn't it possible that KGB Manchurian-Candidated LHO, or otherwise trained him to assassinate, and then, after Oswald was sent back to the U.S., Khruschev got "cold feet" (especially after JFK's heartwarming American University speech)?

--  Tommy 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 2/5/2018 at 6:52 AM, James DiEugenio said:

“Judgments are not intended to imply we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” This means the assessment represents simply the opinions of handpicked agents, opinions which are not necessarily factual. And although the agents from the CIA and FBI expressed “high confidence” in their opinions, the report goes on to say: “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”

 

Nice one Jeff.  That has been laying out there for a long time and no one wants to quote it.  Only Bob Parry had the chutzpah to do it.

BTW, Paz and Larry, you are both correct about TG.  And I am glad others have seen this.

 

Jeff, I like your post(s) and that disclaimer  is worth mentioning.

But it is called "intelligence gathering" and really says that's there's a lot of due diligence still involved in ferreting out the situation to establish the facts with a high degree of certainty. I'm sure high confidence in judgments from potentially other spies, and practiced liars can be pretty dubious.

 

But it's more than just the NYT and the Wapo, CNN, CNBC. It's the public admissions from witnesses and some of the principals involved, and I think confessions count, and some is corroborated by intelligence outside of the U.S. If all these other MSM supporting connections are wrong, we could  have a revolution on our hands. Ok

 

Then on other hand, what do we have?

 

I've posted a thread and I've PM'd members for privacy on this forum who have mentioned  a "Deep State" and asked them what is the nature and goals of the current deep state. Everyone of them could not articulate any idea. It finally gets down, to essentially "Gee Whiz Kirk, can't you just let me have my "deep state", I've had it so long."

I guess we accept it as "Faith" and there's just some things in life we don't need to talk about?

We have Jim Di, who some think brilliant, stymied, unable to say a word about Trump other than to make a reference to "Stormy Daniels" as if that's the primary thing going on with Trump. Jim Di , who won't pass on anything, including reviewing every movie as an historical document and writing a manifesto about it..

Jeff says:

To my knowledge, actual facts about purported “Russian hacking” or other election meddling have not yet been conclusively established.

 

Jeff, now we have Putin buddy, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying that the Russians are going to interfere with our elections in 2018, but we may not be able to do anything about it! What a sell out to the Deep State! Oh well.

But it's about more than just Russian hacking, though I admit you certainly wouldn't know that from Tommy and his continual obsession with Putin. But it's like this Russian hacking issue has become a smoke screen  for the deep state people to hide from any real discussion.   .

It's amazing the dummying down I'm seeing, of people who won't even consider the case against the President, or the Constitutional issues behind it, and they won't even consider it short of the "Russian hacking" . It's a shame because it's really a fascinating topic, and there's much still to see, and it addresses the nature of the "deep state" today as opposed to 50 years ago,. But I guess if the "deep state" isn't as prevalent in the same form as it as it was 50 years ago, it would somehow invalidate their JFK conspiracy theories, it doesn't at all. But I guess we can still conjecture endlessly about Ruth Paine.

 

IMO, this silence is a  consensual suspension of all critical thinking and inductive reasoning. It's as if a number of physics majors took a right turn and graduated into the "Flat Earth " society. I'm not saying I have all the facts, but I prefer facts than unsubstantiated theories and feelings.

Meanwhile the JFK assassination conspiracy is passively waiting for the release of the April 26th documents. They're fragmented and can't get together on a list of demands for public information, which if even futile, would at least inform the public what the outstanding issues are and give an ongoing narrative. Oh well

But at least we'll be able to blame it on the "Deep State."

[Jeff Carter]

One of the lessons from the JFK case is the need to identify politicized intelligence, which has been a damaging feature of the American system for some time - i.e. Iraqi WMD, Team B in the 1970s, the various reports emanating from Mexico City regarding Oswald’s alleged meetings and public threat-making, etc. Russiagate, in my opinion, is a subsection of a broader “Russian threat” concept which really gained traction during the 2014 events in Ukraine - which, if analyzed objectively, demonstrates both provocation and extreme deceit on behalf of the NATO alliance. The purpose appears to be linked to justifying expensive arms programs, including a multi-trillion dollar nuclear weapon revamp. This threat enhancement was exactly the intent of Team B back in the 1970s. Most of the intelligence developed by Team B was later shown to be BS, but it helped justify the Reagan arms buildup.

The old Roman adage comes into play here:  who is guarding the guards?  When a report is sold as the absolute judgment of the entire intelligence community and then through gradual quiet retractions revealed to be simply the opinions of “hand-picked” agents - even as the report is used to ignite a media firestorm and generate hostile diplomatic manoeuvres - then there is a distinct whiff of deliberate manipulation in the air. And, since at least 2002, the mainstream media is joined at the hip with these dark arts, and could well be said to be co-conspirators (just as they manipulated the public over the Warren Report). For example, consult the New York Times coverage of the release of the unclassified Russian meddling document I shared.The reporters aren’t stupid and presumably read it, but report the findings as “conclusions” and do not mention the critical page 13 qualifications at all. Just a few weeks ago the Times described Russian hacking/meddling as “objective reality”, linking to precisely that document as their proof. There have been no public admissions or confessions, and the intelligence from outside the country is less than it again seems. (Or may be compromised as well - remember that, if the CIA’s Mexico office had their way with their Oswald stories, it would all have been “corroborated” by Mexican authorities, and remember that lies from the Brits helped cement the WMD story in 2002). 

That said, I too prefer facts to unsubstantiated theories and feelings. Like a lifeboat in a xxxxstorm.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

One of the lessons from the JFK case is the need to identify politicized intelligence, which has been a damaging feature of the American system for some time - i.e. Iraqi WMD, Team B in the 1970s, the various reports emanating from Mexico City regarding Oswald’s alleged meetings and public threat-making, etc. Russiagate, in my opinion, is a subsection of a broader “Russian threat” concept which really gained traction during the 2014 events in Ukraine - which, if analyzed objectively, demonstrates both provocation and extreme deceit on behalf of the NATO alliance. The purpose appears to be linked to justifying expensive arms programs, including a multi-trillion dollar nuclear weapon revamp. This threat enhancement was exactly the intent of Team B back in the 1970s. Most of the intelligence developed by Team B was later shown to be BS, but it helped justify the Reagan arms buildup.

The old Roman adage comes into play here:  who is guarding the guards?  When a report is sold as the absolute judgment of the entire intelligence community and then through gradual quiet retractions revealed to be simply the opinions of “hand-picked” agents - even as the report is used to ignite a media firestorm and generate hostile diplomatic manoeuvres - then there is a distinct whiff of deliberate manipulation in the air. And, since at least 2002, the mainstream media is joined at the hip with these dark arts, and could well be said to be co-conspirators (just as they manipulated the public over the Warren Report). For example, consult the New York Times coverage of the release of the unclassified Russian meddling document I shared.The reporters aren’t stupid and presumably read it, but report the findings as “conclusions” and do not mention the critical page 13 qualifications at all. Just a few weeks ago the Times described Russian hacking/meddling as “objective reality”, linking to precisely that document as their proof. There have been no public admissions or confessions, and the intelligence from outside the country is less than it again seems. (Or may be compromised as well - remember that, if the CIA’s Mexico office had their way with their Oswald stories, it would all have been “corroborated” by Mexican authorities, and remember that lies from the Brits helped cement the WMD story in 2002). 

That said, I too prefer facts to unsubstantiated theories and feelings. Like a lifeboat in a xxxxstorm.

Jeff,

With all due respect.

Couldn't read it all.

Not CDS (cognitive dissonance syndrome), just ... well ... too darn erudite for me.

So, point being?

You're with Binney, et al., on the hacking and distribution issue, etc.?

You aren't going full-on Illuminati, are you? 

Are you (still?) of the evil, evil, evil, MIIC frame of mind? 

Anyone but Vladdie?

 

--  Tommy

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Jeff Carter]

Tommy - sorry for being erudite.

I believe Wm Binney made the point that the fingerprints of any hacking could be identified by the NSA, as was the case a few years ago when the Chinese government was busted for hacking attempts against US gov’t computers. There was no dispute in that case, unlike this scenario. Here, the NSA has either been inexplicably sitting on evidence or has no evidence. Also, Scottish diplomat Craig Murray was indirectly involved with the DNC emails and Wikileaks, and he has been adamant that it was a leak not a hack. Murray and Binney are straight-shooters and credible sources.

Otherwise, your questions veer to the “when did you stop beating your wife” side of the ledger and are best left alone.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Tommy - sorry for being erudite.

I believe Wm Binney made the point that the fingerprints of any hacking could be identified by the NSA, as was the case a few years ago when the Chinese government was busted for hacking attempts against US gov’t computers. There was no dispute in that case, unlike this scenario. Here, the NSA has either been inexplicably sitting on evidence or has no evidence. Also, Scottish diplomat Craig Murray was indirectly involved with the DNC emails and Wikileaks, and he has been adamant that it was a leak not a hack. Murray and Binney are straight-shooters and credible sources.

Otherwise, your questions veer to the “when did you stop beating your wife” side of the ledger and are best left alone.

Jeff,

With all due respect, did you garner "the real scoop" from Putin's slick mouthpiece, RT? 

The Nation?

 

Have you read this article, written in response to the latter?

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong%3famp#ampshare=http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong

 

--  Tommy 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves