Mockingbird Lives!!

[Matt Allison]

Also, I don't think everyone is aware that Rolling Stone was sold a few years back, and is now owned by a right-winger, albeit a right-winger that doesn't care for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Penske

[W. Niederhut]

12 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Also, I don't think everyone is aware that Rolling Stone was sold a few years back, and is now owned by a right-winger, albeit a right-winger that doesn't care for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Penske

Interesting, Matt.

That would, certainly, explain why the Tim Wiener article got published.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Also, I don't think everyone is aware that Rolling Stone was sold a few years back, and is now owned by a right-winger, albeit a right-winger that doesn't care for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Penske

Matt:

Perhaps 99% media-sphere, and both major parties, are owned by right-wingers. Some put on woke-sheep's clothing. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

22 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Come on, Kirk. You should be able to present your dismissals without resorting to wild hyperbole or yet again dredging up the Clinton / Fluornoy matter (to which I offered at the time to present a dozen sources which informed my offhand statement). Who said “writers are being paid off by some totalitarian bureaucracy”? I suggested there appears to be some orchestration without then theorizing about deep-state paymasters. Orchestration has been a hallmark of support for the official story and attacks on the critics since the WR was released. Or do you propose that three separate writers got out of bed one recent day and decided to write about the Garrison-Shaw trial, homophobia, and the new Oliver Stone documentary which was at the time (quietly) said to be in production?

It’s a nominally free society, so critics of the critics are fully part of the story here, and if they can get their work published or lauded in the MSM then that is simply their advantage. That they feel their points are best supported with shrill insults and dire association… that’s been the style since 1964. You saw it too - the fallback limited hangout acknowledging at least cover-up in JFKA was field-tested on “Face The Nation” back in 2013, but evidently is not yet ready for prime time so out come the QAnon slurs.

 

I don't meant to pick on you Jeff, but indulge me.

 

Jeff, your answer was supported with no facts at all, and I assume Ben didn't answer my question because he knows he can't back up any answers with facts.

 

Jeff: there appears to be some orchestration

 

(Hedging?)Yes, well. appearances can be deceiving.

You use the word "orchestration". But you're not telling me whose orchestrating? And I suspect you won't.

 

Jeff: Or do you propose that three separate writers got out of bed one recent day and decided to write about the Garrison-Shaw trial, homophobia, and the new Oliver Stone documentary which was at the time (quietly) said to be in production?

 

I'm not proposing anything. You've made the assumption. It would sound more impressive if you said 100 "writers got out of bed". You're being vague on specifics, So no facts, but "its fairly obvious" yet again Jeff? A substantive assertion would be to state who these authors are and their ties to intelligence or whoever may be hiding their involvement in the JFKA.

And Ben, couldn't supply any facts either.

So it;s,

Jeff    0

+Ben  0

 

Facts total: 0       It's got to be based on more than just your fears and feelings.

 

But I do get it, what's the harm in projecting an enemy whose opposing you at every turn? It's sort of like when we were kids playing army and concocting elaborate schemes as to what our opponents were doing, even if we weren't playing opponents.

 

My answer is first, Don't get me wrong. It's not that people can't air non facts or speculation here. People here can feel free to express  their theories which may hold water or not. It's always better when they say it's an idea they're exploring. But unfortunately there's been a lot of fearmongering here by a few people who are utterly convinced, and portray their narrative as facts, but they have no real facts. I've seen in the past where people have accepted these fears in sort of a lockstep response, and it's produced a sort of cult like atmosphere here that in my mind, was becoming rather spooky.

JMO

****

[Jeff Carter]

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

I don't meant to pick on you Jeff, but indulge me.

 

Jeff, your answer was supported with no facts at all, and I assume Ben didn't answer my question because he knows he can't back up any answers with facts.

 

Jeff: there appears to be some orchestration

 

(Hedging?)Yes, well. appearances can be deceiving.

You use the word "orchestration". But you're not telling me whose orchestrating? And I suspect you won't.

 

Jeff: Or do you propose that three separate writers got out of bed one recent day and decided to write about the Garrison-Shaw trial, homophobia, and the new Oliver Stone documentary which was at the time (quietly) said to be in production?

 

I'm not proposing anything. You've made the assumption. It would sound more impressive if you said 100 "writers got out of bed". You're being vague on specifics, So no facts, but "its fairly obvious" yet again Jeff? A substantive assertion would be to state who these authors are and their ties to intelligence or whoever may be hiding their involvement in the JFKA.

And Ben, couldn't supply any facts either.

So it;s,

Jeff    0

+Ben  0

 

Facts total: 0       It's got to be based on more than just your fears and feelings.

 

But I do get it, what's the harm in projecting an enemy whose opposing you at every turn? It's sort of like when we were kids playing army and concocting elaborate schemes as to what our opponents were doing, even if we weren't playing opponents.

 

My answer is first, Don't get me wrong. It's not that people can't air non facts or speculation here. People here can feel free to express  their theories which may hold water or not. It's always better when they say it's an idea they're exploring. But unfortunately there's been a lot of fearmongering here by a few people who are utterly convinced, and portray their narrative as facts, but they have no real facts. I've seen in the past where people have accepted these fears in sort of a lockstep response, and it's produced a sort of cult like atmosphere here that in my mind, was becoming rather spooky.

JMO

****

Fear and feelings? WTF…

Back in the 1960s, CBS News twice put together programs supporting the Warren Commission which purported to be objective analysis but were actually coordinated with representatives of the Commission. The Garrison-Shaw trial featured nightly briefings to coordinate press coverage and talking points, in addition to the prior NBC hatchet job (se DiEugenio’s “Destiny Betrayed” for detail).

At time of Stone’s “JFK”, Random House sponsored an obscure writer with no history of interest in the case to author an “Oswald did it” book which became lauded across the MSM and provided the talking points used to attack the film. Bugliosi’s book too was sponsored.

Now, as the “JFK Revisited” film is released, three separate authors publish work attacking the film, all using the same historical event filtered through the exact same lens (Garrison’s alleged homophobia). So suggesting this fits a pattern is not a paranoid projection, nor is it an observation devoid of facts.

Demanding the names of supposed “paymasters” or an exact chart of how this process unfolded is a reductionist position which basically echoes the lone-nutters final demand to “name the shooters”.

[David Andrews]

22 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Now, as the “JFK Revisited” film is released, three separate authors publish work attacking the film, all using the same historical event filtered through the exact same lens (Garrison’s alleged homophobia).

The only cancel culture-worthy topic they could find in the whole affair.  At this rate, Tommy Lee Jones' performance as Shaw in JFK will be next to go to the block.  Or maybe JFK deserved to get hit because #timesup.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jeff: It’s fairly obvious the American establishment remains deeply concerned this genie gets out of the bottle, 

That's a very empowering statement Jeff. Because it means you can pull anything out of your a-s and pass it off as fact.

heh heh

May I count the ways of presumption?

1) whose the American establishment? ( That's a vague all encompassing, all knowing phrase a Canadian would say.)

2) So you actually think that we are so hot on their trail that anybody is worried?

3) So we're on the verge of exposing everyone of them and destroying their lives and /or empires? That is about as naive as I could imagine.

You're also making fundamental assumptions that I don't find in evidence.Your first making the assumption that there are people who

4.) know the truth about who killed JFK

5.)are greatly resisting the information getting out.

 

Which is interesting because I've started a thread to ask that question, and nobody as of yet has expressed commitment to the idea that any specific person is deeply concerned that "the genie gets out of the bottle." Of course that begs the question, if no one cares. Why presently, would there be the need of an "Operation Mockingbird to specifically suppress details about the JFKAC conspiracy at all!  When there are much more important, immediate things.

 

Since Ben is always making statements implying an imagined ongoing battle with a similarly fearful opponent to himself.  I'll address this to him as well, though I've never had a real dialog with him and don't expect one to start now! But I give you credit, Jeff.

My answer to that, as I stated earlier is, nobody is telling anybody else what to write. There is absolutely no fear of what's coming out in the JFKAC. They won that battle maybe 30 years and going on 2 generations and a lost memory  ago.

It's critical to ask yourself, What's the worst that could happen  now, 58 years later if this secret were revealed? (Of course we're not even asking how could it be revealed, and what would be revealed.) Most likely, nobody is alive that can be prosecuted. As to the heirs of the perpetrators. Families can issue statements of sorrow and regret. It's being done all the time with the families of mass murderers. Some in the past  have called press conferences to implicate their fathers in the JFKA dubiously, and even write a book about it!

 

On a corporate level Jeff. Do you really think there's any more likelihood that any corporation now would be held to any scrutiny? Probably  no more likely then Exon, Aramco, and Enbridge (Canadian) and the other oil companies who have committed crimes to humanity and the planet 1000 worse than any present day corporation that may have had some information of the JFKA 58 years ago , but no current executives even aware of it?, Have you given this much thought?

 

Institutionally, Nobody is going to disband any element of the NSS for something 58 years ago, though I'd like it to stimulate a conversation and a stiff defunding,  but I don't even think that would happen.

 

So as far as "deeply concerned that this genie gets out of the bottle."

 

I find that a very realistic question to ask is. If we're really the big bad wolf, whose afraid of us? 

Why would anybody really fear us?

 

 

[Matt Allison]

Using FUD as a propaganda technique is really stale. It works on dummies, not people that are adept at critical thinking. Just sayin'.

[James DiEugenio]

Jeff, to put a bit finer touch on it.  Posner was plucked by two very powerful men: the late Harry Evans and Bob Loomis.

His POS book was then given one of the greatest publicity tours in the history of publishing.  You literally could not buy that kind of a tour.  All for what? A rerun of the WCR?

But the key was they needed Posner to blot out the 30th anniversary. They did not want the Stone film to carry over.  And that is what Posner's book was used as.

And then Harry's wife gives Posner a job at Daily Beast?

Where Alecia Long came from is a real puzzler.  But she has been the beneficiary of some foundation money.

BTW, I am still waiting for a review to actually be a review.  That is to discuss how the film is made and what is in it.  Tim Wiener just made up stuff about us. Long avoided the subject.

[Jeff Carter]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: It’s fairly obvious the American establishment remains deeply concerned this genie gets out of the bottle, 

That's a very empowering statement Jeff. Because it means you can pull anything out of your a-s and pass it off as fact.

heh heh

May I count the ways of presumption?

1) whose the American establishment? ( That's a vague all encompassing, all knowing phrase a Canadian would say.)

2) So you actually think that we are so hot on their trail that anybody is worried?

3) So we're on the verge of exposing everyone of them and destroying their lives and /or empires? That is about as naive as I could imagine.

You're also making fundamental assumptions that I don't find in evidence.Your first making the assumption that there are people who

4.) know the truth about who killed JFK

5.)are greatly resisting the information getting out.

 

Which is interesting because I've started a thread to ask that question, and nobody as of yet has expressed commitment to the idea that any specific person is deeply concerned that "the genie gets out of the bottle." Of course that begs the question, if no one cares. Why presently, would there be the need of an "Operation Mockingbird to specifically suppress details about the JFKAC conspiracy at all!  When there are much more important, immediate things.

 

Since Ben is always making statements implying an imagined ongoing battle with a similarly fearful opponent to himself.  I'll address this to him as well, though I've never had a real dialog with him and don't expect one to start now! But I give you credit, Jeff.

My answer to that, as I stated earlier is, nobody is telling anybody else what to write. There is absolutely no fear of what's coming out in the JFKAC. They won that battle maybe 30 years and going on 2 generations and a lost memory  ago.

It's critical to ask yourself, What's the worst that could happen  now, 58 years later if this secret were revealed? (Of course we're not even asking how could it be revealed, and what would be revealed.) Most likely, nobody is alive that can be prosecuted. As to the heirs of the perpetrators. Families can issue statements of sorrow and regret. It's being done all the time with the families of mass murderers. Some in the past  have called press conferences to implicate their fathers in the JFKA dubiously, and even write a book about it!

 

On a corporate level Jeff. Do you really think there's any more likelihood that any corporation now would be held to any scrutiny? Probably  no more likely then Exon, Aramco, and Enbridge (Canadian) and the other oil companies who have committed crimes to humanity and the planet 1000 worse than any present day corporation that may have had some information of the JFKA 58 years ago , but no current executives even aware of it?, Have you given this much thought?

 

Institutionally, Nobody is going to disband any element of the NSS for something 58 years ago, though I'd like it to stimulate a conversation and a stiff defunding,  but I don't even think that would happen.

 

So as far as "deeply concerned that this genie gets out of the bottle."

 

I find that a very realistic question to ask is. If we're really the big bad wolf, whose afraid of us? 

Why would anybody really fear us?

 

 

Thanks, Kirk. You have clarified your position:

1) you do not believe there is an “Establishment” in the United States.

2) you feel the need to sarcastically demean anyone who does.

The instances of sponsorship and orchestration supporting campaigns to uphold the Warren Commission and denigrate the critics is long-standing and has a material record which can be referred. You are of course free to argue that this is merely the activity of individuals acting on their own personal initiatives, and that commonality with intent and practice is simply coincidence, but that’s not exactly what you are doing.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, what I stated above is a fact.

And it came out of Posner's mouth.

After a live broadcast debate with Jim Marrs in Dallas, Jim asked Posner how he got into the JFK case.

He said Loomis asked him to write a book. That invite came right around the time the Stone film debuted.  You can tell by reading the footnotes in the book.

Secondly, Evans and Loomis purchased the large two weeks long ad in the NY Times for the book which started it all off. We know that through the lawsuit Roger Feinman brought against Random House. At the same time it exalted Posner it denigrated the critics like Groden, Marrs and Lifton.

Make no mistake. Posner was a conscious British/American establishment project designed to thwart Stone and to dominate the 30th.

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, what I stated above is a fact.

And it came out of Posner's mouth.

After a live broadcast debate with Jim Marrs in Dallas, Jim asked Posner how he got into the JFK case.

He said Loomis asked him to write a book. That invite came right around the time the Stone film debuted.  You can tell by reading the footnotes in the book.

Secondly, Evans and Loomis purchased the large two weeks long ad in the NY Times for the book which started it all off. We know that through the lawsuit Roger Feinman brought against Random House. At the same time it exalted Posner it denigrated the critics like Groden, Marrs and Lifton.

Make no mistake. Posner was a conscious British/American establishment project designed to thwart Stone and to dominate the 30th.

But they didn't win!  And ultimately posner is revealed a a poser.  Bless the memory of Jim Marrs. 

[James DiEugenio]

In the long run Posner did not end up being a good long term asset.

In fact, the other side is now reduced to Long and Litwin.

Pretty thin gruel.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jeff, you made this statement.

Jeff: It’s fairly obvious the American establishment remains deeply concerned this genie gets out of the bottle, 

The central question I'm asking everyone is in 2021, Why would anybody fear us? And I make the arguments that at the levels of  the personal and familial, at the corporate and at the government NSS, that nothing would change, no one would be brought to justice. So what case is there to be made that anyone would fear us?

 

[David Andrews]

In researching 9/11-related matters, I came across this Mockingbird-style reference:

• The nearest thing to an explanation of why there has never been an exploration of the US intelligence agencies in relation to Lockerbie may be, by implication, a lecture by William M. Baker, the CIA's chief spokesman during the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing (NYT 2/25/89) given at Harvard University, July 27, 1989, on "Restraining the Media at the CIA" with specific examples of stories killed at the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post.

http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/hartlidov.html

The lecture is also cited in a footnote to Inside the CIA, by Ronald Kessler.

If any enterprising soul could link me to the text of this lecture, it would be appreciated.