Asking the obvious

[Guest]

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Here is a list of the 12 CIA Directors just since 1992. Since the creation of the office of Director of National Intelligence in 2004, there have been 12 DNI's or acting DNI's. Presidents since 1992, of course, have included Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.

Rather a disparate list of characters, it seems to me.

Is it plausible to you that ALL these people would have joined in the CIA stonewalling if the objective of said stonewalling were to hide LHO's role as an operative and/or some level of CIA involvement in the assassination? Really? Why?

Who do you think controls the release of documents - some secret cabal within the CIA that thumbs its collective nose at the President, DNI and Director of the CIA, perhaps some secret cabal (reptilian aliens?) that actually controls the Government if not the World?

As with so many things in Conspiracy World, the logic of this escapes me. (FWIW, precisely the same logic applies in UFO world, where there is always some super-secret cabal of Keepers of the Alien Truth that is answerable to no one and somehow maintains the Dark Secrets from generation to generation over a span of decades.)

Robert M. Gates (November 6, 1991–January 20, 1993)

R. James Woolsey (February 5, 1993–January 10, 1995)

John M. Deutch (May 10, 1995–December 15, 1996)

George J. Tenet (July 11, 1997–July 11, 2004)

Porter J. Goss (September 24, 2004–May 26, 2006)

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, U.S. Air Force (May 30, 2006–February 13, 2009)

Leon E. Panetta (February 13, 2009–June 30, 2011)

Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Army (September 6, 2011–November 9, 2012)

John Brennan (March 8, 2013–January 20, 2017)

Mike Pompeo (January 23, 2017–April 26, 2018)

Gina Haspel (May 21, 2018–January 19, 2021)

William J. Burns (March 19, 2021– )

Lance, when you fire out an ill thought out post like this, one reading can only come to a couple of conclusions:

1) You want to provoke/agitate members.

2) You’re not thinking at all. 
 

I’ll answer a question with a question, and let you connect the dots in your own time. 
 

Do you really think any head of a government organisation wants to reduce its credibility and reputation to tatters by releasing documents that may have the capacity to do so? 
 

It matters not whether the CIA did it or were involved in the assassination or not, to the new head of the CIA. His/her prerogative and oath will be to protect the organisation and maintain its authority/prestige. Simply, its far easier to keep deferring the release until someone else is on watch. If you were in that position, I suspect you wouldn’t want to see the docs, or do anything that would make you complicit. 

 

 

[Guest]

On 12/18/2022 at 6:40 AM, Chris Barnard said:

Lance, when you fire out an ill thought out post like this, one reading can only come to a couple of conclusions:

1) You want to provoke/agitate members.

2) You’re not thinking at all. 
 

I’ll answer a question with a question, and let you connect the dots in your own time. 
 

Do you really think any head of a government organisation wants to reduce its credibility and reputation to tatters by releasing documents that may have the capacity to do so? 
 

It matters not whether the CIA did it or were involved in the assassination or not, to the new head of the CIA. His/her prerogative and oath will be to protect the organisation and maintain its authority/prestige. Simply, its far easier to keep deferring the release until someone else is on watch. If you were in that position, I suspect you wouldn’t want to see the docs, or do anything that would make you complicit. 

 

 

Hi

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Is it plausible to you that ALL these people would have joined in the CIA stonewalling if the objective of said stonewalling were to hide LHO's role as an operative and/or some level of CIA involvement in the assassination? Really? Why?

Yes, because one does not rise to the rank of CIA Director by being a free-thinking radical determined to destroy the system.

I'm surprised anyone would expect a CIA Director to come into the job with the intent of airing any of the Agency's dirty secrets, much less maybe the dirtiest secret of them all.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Ah, "ill thought-out," was it? Any post that doesn't parrot the Conspiracy Line is, of course, viewed as "provoking" and "agitating" by those who believe this forum is the First Church of Conspiracy and Lone Nut infidels shouldn't be allowed to disturb the peaceful worship.

Perhaps you missed my "Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game" in 2019, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25995-a-beginners-guide-to-the-conspiracy-game/#comment-405798. If so, it might be distinctly provoking and agitating reading. I plan to update and refine it soon.

To respond to your question, I assume on the basis of considerable experience that even conspiracy enthusiasts who are wrapped head to toe in tinfoil don't actually think the assassination was a full-tilt CIA operation, duly approved at all levels of the agency up to and including the Director. But even if it were, who in the CIA would really care in 2022? If it was essentially a rogue operation involving characters like George Joannides, who in the CIA would really care in 2022?

This was the point of my post. It merely identifies the CIA Directors since 1992. Factor in those since 1963 and you're talking about a staggeringly disparate cast of Directors and Presidents. Do you seriously believe, especially in light of all that has come out about the CIA since 1963, that ALL of those characters, representing entirely different backgrounds, political parties and political philosophies, have been determined to preserve the dubious "reputation" of the CIA against the "JFK bombshell," whatever it may be? Apparently you do. This strikes me as self-evidently absurd, which is why I ask what super-secret, super-authoritative cabal you picture as having this sort of power over the Directors and Presidents?

But wait: Most of you folks think an unnamed "someone" has seen those records and feels free to discuss them with - wait for it - TUCKER CARLSON? TUCKER CARLSON??? This is part and parcel of the Conspiracy Game. Actual critical thinking is anathema. Self-evident goofiness is gospel so long as it furthers the cause of conspiracy. Conspiracy Logic is upside-down. You think Clinton, Obama and now Biden are CIA stooges, but an unnamed someone feels free to spill the beans to a right-wing, flappy-mouthed journalistic loon?

In a nutshell, the Conspiracy Game is to keep a micro-focus on every conceivable detail of the assassination and then to fill in the blanks with dark speculation, wild inferences and innuendo. To the extent Lone Nutters debate these details, which I myself have done with some success, they really just play into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. I like to occasionally adopt the "Emperor's New Clothes" approach - i.e., step back and ask, "Does what you're suggesting make any real-world sense at all?"

One of my favorites was to ask what possible sense it would make for the patsy to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. Sandy's response - and he was serious - was that this was such an in-your-face assassination conspiracy the perpetrators didn't even care if the patsy was standing on the steps. The patsy standing on the steps in full view was "sending a message" about their "power." Oh, OK. Conspiracy Logic.

I'm convinced Conspiracy World has little to do with the JFK assassination per se. If it could be proved the Mafia did it, the CT community would be bitterly disappointed. What this forum is really about is dissatisfaction with the history of the country over the past 60 years. The community wants to believe the same Dark Forces that assassinated JFK in 1963 are still controlling things today. Hence, these dark and mysterious forces - the dreaded "other" of scapegoating as articulated by Rene Girard, https://iep.utm.edu/girard/ - is as determined to obstruct inquiry in 2022 as they were in 1963. Conspiracy Logic.

 

You proved point one and two. 🙂 
 

You’ll be pleased to know that I have considerable experience managing the PR and risk to the reputation of brands, its exactly what I get paid to do. It has nothing to do with conspiracy or conspiracy theory, the logic applied is commonplace when protecting something of value. It’s obviously something that you don’t have experience with. 
 

 

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Here is a list of the 12 CIA Directors just since 1992. Since the creation of the office of Director of National Intelligence in 2004, there have been 12 DNI's or acting DNI's. Presidents since 1992, of course, have included Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.

Rather a disparate list of characters, it seems to me.

Is it plausible to you that ALL these people would have joined in the CIA stonewalling if the objective of said stonewalling were to hide LHO's role as an operative and/or some level of CIA involvement in the assassination? Really? Why?

Who do you think controls the release of documents - some secret cabal within the CIA that thumbs its collective nose at the President, DNI and Director of the CIA, perhaps some secret cabal (reptilian aliens?) that actually controls the Government if not the World?

As with so many things in Conspiracy World, the logic of this escapes me. (FWIW, precisely the same logic applies in UFO world, where there is always some super-secret cabal of Keepers of the Alien Truth that is answerable to no one and somehow maintains the Dark Secrets from generation to generation over a span of decades.)

Robert M. Gates (November 6, 1991–January 20, 1993)

R. James Woolsey (February 5, 1993–January 10, 1995)

John M. Deutch (May 10, 1995–December 15, 1996)

George J. Tenet (July 11, 1997–July 11, 2004)

Porter J. Goss (September 24, 2004–May 26, 2006)

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, U.S. Air Force (May 30, 2006–February 13, 2009)

Leon E. Panetta (February 13, 2009–June 30, 2011)

Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Army (September 6, 2011–November 9, 2012)

John Brennan (March 8, 2013–January 20, 2017)

Mike Pompeo (January 23, 2017–April 26, 2018)

Gina Haspel (May 21, 2018–January 19, 2021)

William J. Burns (March 19, 2021– )

You'll find the reason for people's skepticism in Jackie Kennedy's testimony. It's quite clear there.

Meanwhile, maybe instead of looking for evidence of lack of evidence in UFO's and the JFKA you could be really helpful and go find ten people in Arizona who can count to ten? That should keep you busy for a while. 

[Guest]

On 12/18/2022 at 8:00 AM, Chris Barnard said:

You proved point one and two. 🙂 
 

You’ll be pleased to know that I have considerable experience managing the PR and risk to the reputation of brands, its exactly what I get paid to do. It has nothing to do with conspiracy or conspiracy theory, the logic applied is commonplace when protecting something of value. It’s obviously something that you don’t have experience with. 
 

 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 12/18/2022 at 7:58 AM, Denny Zartman said:

Yes, because one does not rise to the rank of CIA Director by being a free-thinking radical determined to destroy the system.

I'm surprised anyone would expect a CIA Director to come into the job with the intent of airing any of the Agency's dirty secrets, much less maybe the dirtiest secret of them all.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 12/18/2022 at 8:07 AM, Bob Ness said:

You'll find the reason for people's skepticism in Jackie Kennedy's testimony. It's quite clear there.

 

On 12/18/2022 at 8:07 AM, Bob Ness said:

Meanwhile, maybe instead of looking for evidence of lack of evidence in UFO's and the JFKA you could be really helpful and go find ten people in Arizona who can count to ten? That should keep you busy for a while. 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Hi Lance, I think you've started a thread that is a strangely askance look at the last few days events. Can I ask you what I think is a more focussed question:

Jefferson Morley alleges the CIA knew far more about Oswald prior to the assassination than they have disclosed. He has presented evidence that this is true. Do you believe this is untrue? I have seen no official attempt to refute this gravely serious charge.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Yes, because one does not rise to the rank of CIA Director by being a free-thinking radical determined to destroy the system.

I'm surprised anyone would expect a CIA Director to come into the job with the intent of airing any of the Agency's dirty secrets, much less maybe the dirtiest secret of them all.

Exactly.

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

. You assume there are "dirty secrets" that would "destroy the system." VAST numbers of dirty secrets have been aired over the past 60 years without much of a dent to the system.

LP, why do you think the Church committee was formed?

Do you also think the CIA ever truly opened and revealed their most important secret doings to that committee?

For decades, as far back as Kennedy ( and even Eisenhower ) Presidents themselves were expressing grave concerns about our secret agencies gaining too much power and influence. Even keeping Presidents from knowing about their most secret doings.

Their black budgets have totaled TRILLIONS of dollars in this time.

Wasn't Eisenhower's 1960 departing office MIC warning speech directly indicating such?

And by the way...your own Arizona Governor Fife Symington ( former Air Force officer? ) publicly stated that he lied to the press about your own UFO event...the "Phoenix Lights" incident when it happened. Made a joke about it. To calm the worked up citizenry who witnessed them by the tens of thousands?

He believed this incident was not a secret American military event.  Do you think Symington was or is one of your conspiracy loon types?

Edited December 18, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Oh, it is? Refresh my memory. Jackie Kennedy's testimony makes quite clear why 60 years of Presidents and CIA Directors, many of whom despised their predecessors, nevertheless conspired to keep the JFK Bombshell secret?

The sentence is referring to people's skepticism, not your nonsense. I graduated high school with a D minus average (and I had to cheat to do that) and you have a JD and say you have been practicing for what, a hundred years? And you defend the findings of several commissions, committees, boards, hearings, authors and bloggers and so on without the testimony of the single most relevant witness not only of the event but issues surrounding it? I've never seen a deposition of her. Maybe I'm mistaking and missed something? How does that make sense counselor? If you were defending LHO would you request her presence and question her?

You don't even question that. That's why I'm suggesting you go find ten people in Arizona who can count to ten.

[Guest]

On 12/18/2022 at 10:31 AM, Joe Bauer said:

On 12/18/2022 at 10:31 AM, Joe Bauer said:

LP, why do you think the Church committee was formed?

 

On 12/18/2022 at 10:31 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Do you think Symington was or is one of your conspiracy loon types?

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I did spend seven years as a Public Information Officer with a federal agency and nearly 40 advising clients on responding to FOIA and Sunshine Law requests as a public lawyer. I obviously encountered some resistance to complete transparency, but nothing of the magnitude you seem to think is routine.

Let me shed some light on my own experience. I’ve seen serious law breaks buried time and time again, which were in the public interest, by people in the CEO and FD positions in the finance industry at multinational companies. There was no written record of this and you always hit bonus and were retained coincidentally. The higher you go up the chain, Lance, the more you’ll encounter it. Nobody throws the baby out with the bathwater. The gravy train keeps running.
 

I would draw an easy parallel with Prouty explaining how the CIA would borrow arms and munitions from the military. Colonels and generals would never ask where or how the arms would be used. Only that they were replaced. Because they didn’t want to be complicit. 
 

Is it really difficult for you to comprehend the implications of the CIA murdering the president? Or, even seeming to have been involved? Or, even further Operation Northwoods style operations being uncovered? The repercussions to the reputation of the government security apparatus are huge. Its easy peasy to comprehend. They’ll protect the reputation of “the company” at all costs and pass the buck at any costs. That’s what we have seen.
 

I get that on a lower level that you’d run to your manager with anything suspect as an honest guy. It isn’t the way things work near the summit of hierarchies. There is more at stake.