Why does Mary Ferrell have such a bad rep?

[Pat Speer]

25 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Your choice of words, not mine. If she'd been asked to just keep track of it, did she do a good job of that or not?

I didn't know her, you did, but I find it odd that it's ludicrous to suggest she kept track of - or kept tabs on it - because of her being personally warm and helpful to others. So I'll ask again, since you avoided answering the question last time.

If an intelligence group did want someone to just keep tabs on the community for decades - not destroy it, not wreck it, just keep tabs on it - would they get someone personally warm and helpful to do that? Or would they get someone cold and unfriendly and unhelpful to do that?

I'm assuming it would have been a useful thing to have someone, warm and friendly, helping out in the community for years. And you're saying it's ludicrous to suggest this, because Mary was warm and friendly, and helping out in the community for years. 

The intelligence agencies have sponsored propaganda books on the case for five decades. Did they ever want to know what the researchers were doing in advance, or did they just decide to wait until each researcher's volume was in the shops before deciding on a response? The former would suggest in interest in the matter, the latter a lack of interest. So were they interested in what researchers were up to, or not?

If it helps, I'm sure Mary was a nice lady, and I never met her, so my query just goes as far as it goes. And the Mary Ferrell Foundation website is a great site. But Joe isn't the first writer to question her motives first hand, and when I read the responses, there's a lot of "But Mary was so nice and helpful for years!" as the main point of rebuttal, and I'm waiting for the rest of the argument to be offered. Beats me. Joe has more details about her background in his piece than some others here. Did Mary ever contribute an article to a book talking about her interest in the case, or did she just hang out with researchers all the time?

I also don't think that people who help out the CIA from time to time - if they do - are necessarily the devil. So again, this query isn't intended as a personal slight against Mary Ferrell. I'm sure she was nice to have a coffee with, while she was encouraging every researcher out there to bring their papers and discoveries just to her.

I note in passing that Mary seemed to have an easier time of things overall than Mae Brussell.

So you're saying Ferrell may have had the occasional chat with someone in the government who wanted to know what's going on. That's not the crime for which she is normally accused. At one point she joined a retired intelligence officer society so she could get their newsletter. This was later blown up to her being a spook, who somehow controlled the research community, and derailed real research for decades. That's ludicrous.

P.S. If anyone in the CIA or NSA or PSA wanted to know the status of the research community, they wouldn't need to have someone on the inside. The latest research has been routinely presented in newsletters and at conferences. And yet, since the 60's, there has been little if any interest by the intelligence agencies in what's reported in these newsletters and what goes on at these conferences. (I would say there's no interest at all but you can bet the farm that someone keeps track of Oliver Stone, much as someone kept track of Mark Lane in the 60's, 70's and 80's.) 

In any event, if the CIA is reading this, feel free to give me a call... I'll tell you everything I know. (With apologies to Sonny Boy Williamson). 

[Anthony Thorne]

Yeah I would say Ferrell being a spook who somehow controlled the research community and derailed real research for decades would be a big reach. I didn't mention anything about that in my comment though.

And it's great to know that 'having the occasional chat with someone in government who wanted to know what's going on' isn't the crime that she's normally accused of. But I don't care about what crimes she's normally being accused of, largely as I'm not the one making those accusations. I'm simply asking if anyone in intel might have wanted to keep tabs on the research community, and also whether Ferrell could have been a suitable candidate to do such a task. Because as noted, she did keep tabs on the research community. So the responses I've had back are basically, yeah she did, but she couldn't have had an alternate motive in doing so as she was such a warm and helpful person, or, yeah she might have chatted to people in government, but you should see what other people have accused her of, it's really nuts.

You then eventually get to my point in the PS part of your message - "If anyone in the CIA or NSA or PSA wanted to know the status of the research community, they wouldn't need to have someone on the inside. The latest research has been routinely presented in newsletters and at conferences." I'll simply note, (a.) would 'having someone on the inside' tell them anything more about the research community? I'm assuming it would. - (b.) is there ever any research done in the field that doesn't get presented in a newsletter or at a conference? I'm assuming there is. - (c.) Do those conferences happen monthly, biannually, or just every November, so would intel be sitting around going, don't worry guys, we know it's six months away but that researcher we've heard about will probably be in Dallas in November, unless he pops up in a newsletter first, and (d.) I know Ferrell (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't write a lot of articles, but I know she sometimes popped up at conferences because she spoke at one at least once, so hearing that she couldn't have been an insider keeping tabs because she attended conferences and helped others organise them, doesn't really strike me as evidence that she couldn't have been an insider keeping tabs.

There's been talk a couple of times in this thread that Ferrell has been weirdly accused of being in control of the research community, and / or derailed the work of researchers. I would have figured simply keeping an eye on what was happening would have been a perfectly welcome goal for intel in its own right, and she could have been asked to do it without necessarily having been a super spook who flew back over to Langley every other week likes James Bond. Joe made points about her background, and points about her behaviour when he met her. I'm yet to see them really refuted, other than comments saying jeez, do you really think she was a super spook, or isn't it funny how these crazy accusations get thrown at her. she was such a helpful lady, etc etc. The truth could have been quite mundane. She helped out, and kept an eye out, for decades because she was asked to, and the people asking her to do it didn't need her to do anything more than that. I'm not sure if this is any more astonishing or ludicrous a suggestion than a JFK author (Epstein) later becoming an establishment spokesperson for the neoconservatives, or having a Brandeis academic (Jacob Cohen) come out of the blue when Salandria was offering debates, and then go on to devote most of a 50 year career to attacking JFK conspiracies and the research community. Wondering if Ferrell had been gently asked to assist matters from another angle doesn't strike me as being particularly beyond the pale. Are there many other members of the research community who didn't bother to do much research of their own, but were always around to corral the work of others? Just wondering. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Anthony Thorne

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Yeah I would say Ferrell being a spook who somehow controlled the research community and derailed real research for decades would be a big reach. I didn't mention anything about that in my comment though.

And it's great to know that 'having the occasional chat with someone in government who wanted to know what's going on' isn't the crime that she's normally accused of. But I don't care about what crimes she's normally being accused of, largely as I'm not the one making those accusations. I'm simply asking if anyone in intel might have wanted to keep tabs on the research community, and also whether Ferrell could have been a suitable candidate to do such a task. Because as noted, she did keep tabs on the research community. So the responses I've had back are basically, yeah she did, but she couldn't have had an alternate motive in doing so as she was such a warm and helpful person, or, yeah she might have chatted to people in government, but you should see what other people have accused her of, it's really nuts.

You then eventually get to my point in the PS part of your message - "If anyone in the CIA or NSA or PSA wanted to know the status of the research community, they wouldn't need to have someone on the inside. The latest research has been routinely presented in newsletters and at conferences." I'll simply note, (a.) would 'having someone on the inside' tell them anything more about the research community? I'm assuming it would. - (b.) is there ever any research done in the field that doesn't get presented in a newsletter or at a conference? I'm assuming there is. - (c.) Do those conferences happen monthly, biannually, or just every November, so would intel be sitting around going, don't worry guys, we know it's six months away but that researcher we've heard about will probably be in Dallas in November, unless he pops up in a newsletter first, and (d.) I know Ferrell (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't write a lot of articles, but I know she sometimes popped up at conferences because she spoke at one at least once, so hearing that she couldn't have been an insider keeping tabs because she attended conferences and helped others organise them, doesn't really strike me as evidence that she couldn't have been an insider keeping tabs.

There's been talk a couple of times in this thread that Ferrell has been weirdly accused of being in control of the research community, and / or derailed the work of researchers. I would have figured simply keeping an eye on what was happening would have been a perfectly welcome goal for intel in its own right, and she could have been asked to do it without necessarily having been a super spook who flew back over to Langley every other week likes James Bond. Joe made points about her background, and points about her behaviour when he met her. I'm yet to see them really refuted, other than comments saying jeez, do you really think she was a super spook, or isn't it funny how these crazy accusations get thrown at her. she was such a helpful lady, etc etc. The truth could have been quite mundane. She helped out, and kept an eye out, for decades because she was asked to, and the people asking her to do it didn't need her to do anything more than that. I'm not sure if this is any more astonishing or ludicrous a suggestion than a JFK author (Epstein) later becoming an establishment spokesperson for the neoconservatives, or having a Brandeis academic (Jacob Cohen) come out of the blue when Salandria was offering debates, and then go on to devote most of a 50 year career to attacking JFK conspiracies and the research community. Wondering if Ferrell had been gently asked to assist matters from another angle doesn't strike me as being particularly beyond the pale. Are there many other members of the research community who didn't bother to do much research of their own, but were always around to corral the work of others? Just wondering. 

1. There have been tons of records released over the years indicating that the FBI kept tabs on Mark Lane, etc. A lot of these records indicate that FBI informants were attending his presentations and reporting back to uncle Edgar. I believe similar reports were generated on Jim Garrison. But I've not seen or heard about any records which would indicate someone was reporting on the Dallas research community. There are a number of FBI reports, as I recall,  where witnesses to the shooting contacted the FBI to complain that they'd been contacted by a researcher. In none of them, as I recall, was the identity of the researcher revealed by an informant.

2. Yes, there was a certain amount of keeping tabs on the research community, but it was done informally. Famously, Liebeler contacted former members of the WC to tell them of his conversations with David Lifton. As I recall, none of the reports to come out of this mentioned an informant, who was keeping tabs on Lifton. As I recall, the FBI's attitude was that Liebeler was the real troublemaker. 

3. As far as "gatekeeping" etc, there was a famous incident demonstrating that this did occur, but it didn't involve Ferrell. Harold Weisberg had developed a relationship with a number of journalists, and would occasionally feed them stories. And he was disturbed by Oliver Stone's attitude during the creation of JFK. In short, he thought Stone was gonna fill the movie with a lot of nonsense that would damage the reputation of the research community, and pollute the historical record. So he leaked a copy of the script to The Washington Post, which then wrote a hatchet-job on Stone. This was like 6 months before the release of the movie. As I recall much of what alarmed Weisberg, which was then reported by the Post, had already been cut from the movie. (I'm sure Jim D knows the specifics.) In any event, Weisberg, much as Ferrell, had a ton of documents at his house, and had regular visits to his "archives". He was known for his generosity with these documents. But he was a difficult personality, who sought to derail the film JFK well before its release. 

4. I have witnessed attempts at "gatekeeping" during my own adventures in wonder-land. I have spoken at a conference where some of the prominent attendees were opposed to my appearing, and thought those opposed to my research should be given a chance to refute whatever I said directly after I spoke. (To his everlasting credit, John Judge shot this down.) I have also had two run-ins on this forum where members tried to have me removed, once because I had found evidence one of the members was using a fake name and photo and was trying to use the forum to spread his religious beliefs (if Scientology can be considered a religion). Some considered my exposure of this fraud to be harassment, and my asking if I could meet this person in the flesh to verify he was who he said he was "a threat". As to the second run-in, well, a then-prominent researcher/showman and his minions were upset that I regularly schooled them, and sought to drive me from the forum by proclaiming I was CIA-affiliated and inherently untrustworthy (which was a reference to a point I had made about the CIA and military being omnipresent in American society, and that in my own case my best friend's mom had worked for the CIA during the Bay of Pigs, and my ex-girlfriend's dad and my own stepdad had worked decades at Skunkworks--Lockheed's top secret plant that built top secret planes. )

Sorry about the ramble.

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Anthony Thorne]

Thanks for the detailed response Pat, I appreciate hearing your thoughts in response to my own ramble above.