Doug Horne Responds to Gary Aguilar's Recent Review of "What the Doctors saw"

[Keven Hofeling]

 

Dr. Gary Aguilar's review of Paramount+'s documentary "What the Doctor's Saw" notes that the filmmakers missed an important opportunity by failing to explore the fraudulent treatment by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of the overwhelming witness evidence that President Kennedy had a large avulsive wound in the back of his head. The HSCA final report had concluded that the testimony of the Bethesda autopsy participants and witnesses the Bethesda autopsy had indicated that all of the Parkland witnesses that had reported the back of the head wounds had been mistaken, but in fact "[t]he autopsy witnesses had described a rearward skull defect to the HSCA verbally, in writing, and by sketch diagram," and as elsewhere reported by Dr. Aguilar, the HSCA had denied its Forensic Pathology Panel access to this crucial evidence and classified it "top secret" for 50 years. It was only upon the release of these classified files by the Assassination Records Release Board in the 1990's that this fraud was exposed, and then at a 1995 JFK conference attended by former HSCA counsel Andy Purdy and former Forensic Pathology Panel member Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht where HSCA officials were confronted about the fraud, it turned out that none of the HSCA officials would take responsibility for the misrepresentations made in the HSCA final report, and denied having knowledge of who had authored them.

The following is the excerpt from Aguilar's recently published article that appeared in Kennedy's & King:

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull."

 

"...In neglecting the autopsy witnesses, the program missed a great opportunity – a long known, underreported HSCA scandal that the producer, Jacque Lueth, knew all about from repeated, personal conversations with me over the past several years. (Ms. Lueth told me she wanted to present this material on film but was blocked by others involved in the documentary.) Only when the ARRB released the accounts of the autopsy witnesses in the late 90s did we discover that the Select Committee had misled the public about what they had said in the 1970s. It had everything to do with the heart of Paramount’s documentary: JFK: What the Doctors Saw.

Confronting the conflict between autopsy photos that show no damage to the rear of JFK’s skull and the Parkland doctors who said damage was in the rear, the HSCA reported it had resolved the problem. “Critics of the Warren Commission’s medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors,” they wrote. “They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds…In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts … Further, if the Parkland doctors are correct, then the autopsy personnel are either lying or mistaken. It did not seem plausible to the Committee that 26 persons would by lying or, if they were, that they could provide such a consistent account of the wounds almost 15 years later. Second, it is less likely that the autopsy personnel would be mistaken in their general observations, given their detailed and thorough examination of the body…it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect.” (7HSCA37-9. Emphasis added.[12])

This was clearly false. The autopsy witnesses had described a rearward skull defect to the HSCA verbally, in writing, and by sketch diagram. The HSCA, however, reported that the autopsy witnesses had refuted the Dallas witnesses whom, in fact, they had actually corroborated. There is an additional aspect of this that might have also been worth a few moments of film.

At the one hour, 18-minute mark, the program showed a clip of the HSCA’s Andy Purdy declaring that the ‘Dallas doctors are wrong; these recollections afterward are faulty.’ As noted above, it was Purdy who was wrong, as the doctors’ ‘recollections afterward’ closely aligned with what Parkland’s experts documented on the day of the murder as per the Warren Report. They also snugly fit with the suppressed claims of the autopsy witnesses whom Purdy had himself interviewed, and whose diagrams he had signed (See Figs. 1 & 2). Though arguing that the public has been misled, Paramount Plus missed a perfect opportunity to both expose the government’s false claim, while debunking one of the government officials whom they had on film pushing that claim, Andy Purdy...."

___________________

[12] 7HSCA37-39 https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

___________________

EXCERPT REGARDING HSCA BACK OF HEAD WOUND WITNESSES

In formerly suppressed witness interviews that were not available to David Lifton when he wrote Best Evidence, but were to Doug Horne, the HSCA reported the following:

• Bethesda lab technologist James Jenkins told the HSCA that, “he saw a head wound in the ‘…middle temporal region back to the occipital.’”[2]
• In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA, FBI agent James Sibert wrote that, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head … a large head wound in the upper back of the head…”[3]
• The HSCA’s Andy Purdy interviewed Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared John Kennedy's remains for burial.: "Approximately where was (the skull) wound located?" Purdy asked. "Directly behind the back of his head," Robinson answered. Purdy: "Approximately between the ears or higher up?" Robinson, "No, I would say pretty much between them.”
• Jan Gail Rudnicki, Dr. Boswell's lab assistant on the night of the autopsy, told the HSCA’s Mark Flanagan, the “back-right quadrant of the head was missing.”[4]
• When first asked, John Ebersole, MD, the attending radiologist who took JFK's autopsy X-rays, told the HSCA, “The back of the head was missing,” Hethen waffled after being shown the autopsy photographs.[5]
• Regarding the Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., Philip C. Wehle, the HSCA reported that, “(Wehle) noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up.”[6] (emphasis added throughout)

__________________________________

[2] HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #65, see p.4 and diagram on p. 16.

[3] HSCA rec # 002191. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #85, see p. 3 and diagram on p. 9.

[4] HSCA rec. # 180-10105-10397, agency file number # 014461, p. 2.)

[5] https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image04.htm

__________________________________

 

'JFK: WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW - AN IMPORTANT ADDITION, AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY'

 

Written by Gary Aguilar | Thursday, 04 January 2024 04:08 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity

 

"Dr. Gary Aguilar examines and evaluates the evidence in the Paramount Plus special exposing the deceptions surrounding the false claims of the House Select Committee on the exit hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull."

 

Gary L. Aguilar, MD, is one of the few physicians outside the government ever permitted to examine the still-restricted photographs and X-rays taken during President Kennedy’s autopsy. He has published widely on the medical evidence in professional journals, books and on-line. He has lectured before academic medical, academic medico-legal, and non-professional public audiences on the subject. He is currently Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, U.C. San Francisco, and the head of ophthalmology and the Vice Chief of Staff at Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco.

 

 

 

Edited January 8 by Keven Hofeling

[Jonathan Cohen]

You do realize people here can read, right? So why do you keep repeatedly posting the full text of articles in forum threads? And why are all of your posts in bold?

[Keven Hofeling]

9 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You do realize people here can read, right? So why do you keep repeatedly posting the full text of articles in forum threads? And why are all of your posts in bold?

Because it is my style to do so. Are you some kind of authoritarian moderator wanna be?

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Are you some kind of authoritarian moderator wanna be?

Hardly. I'm offering suggestions to at least make your posts more readable, but there's not much to say in terms of you repeating the same film and photo alteration nonsense over and over.

[Keven Hofeling]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Hardly. I'm offering suggestions to at least make your posts more readable, but there's not much to say in terms of you repeating the same film and photo alteration nonsense over and over.

Are you an online JFK disinformation xxxxx, or what?

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Are you an online JFK disinformation xxxxx, or what?

No, just someone who has researched this case for more than 30 years, collaborated with some of the top thinkers in the field and spoken as an invited guest at numerous JFK conferences. There's not a shred of disinformation in my posts. Did I hurt your feelings by questioning your theories on film and photo alteration?

Edited January 8 by Jonathan Cohen

[Keven Hofeling]

More from Dr. Gary Aguilar regarding the fraudulent HSCA cover up of the JFK back of the head evidence...

 

The confusion about the true nature of JFK's head wounds -- which still lingers in the JFK research community today -- is the direct result of the HSCA's concealment of critical medical evidence substantiating that JFK's head wound was in fact located in the occipital-parietal region of the back right side of his head.  Evidently, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thus forcing the pathologists to rely primarily upon the so-called "official' Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding (See 'THE JFK MEDICAL EVIDENCE: INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL' https://healthdocbox.com/Brain_Tumor/97385332-The-jfk-medical-evidence-inadmissible-at-trial.html).

 

Additionally, JFK researcher John Hunt (now deceased) unearthed compelling evidence that the answer to the mystery of the culprit who altered the Final Report of the HSCA Forensic Panel is Chief HSCA Counsel, G. Robert Blakey (See 'A DEMONSTRABLE IMPOSSIBILITY: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence', Footnote 31, by John Hunt -- https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

___________________________

REGARDING THE HSCA MEDICAL COVER-UP:

"...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed.

⁠
By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028.

⁠
This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position. But misstating and suppressing the nonsensitive assertions of its own witnesses was not all the HSCA did to impeach witness accounts of a gaping rearward wound in JFK’ skull....

⁠
In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents.

⁠
In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .”Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had.

⁠
The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288]

⁠
Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense.

⁠
More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses.

⁠
That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289]

⁠
So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants.

 

'HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG'

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham
May 2003

Introduction
I-A. The First Investigation - The Warren Commission
I-B. The Warren Commission Examines Kennedy's Medical/Autopsy Evidence
II. The Justice Department Investigates JFK's Autopsy
III. The Clark Panel
IV. The Rockefeller Commission
V. The 'Last' Investigation - The House Select Committee on Assassinations
Discussion
Conclusion
Appendix - Tables and Figures

⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

 

[Keven Hofeling]

32 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

No, just someone who has researched this case for more than 30 years, collaborated with some of the top thinkers in the field and spoken as an invited guest at numerous JFK conferences. There's not a shred of disinformation in my posts. Did I hurt your feelings by questioning your theories on film and photo alteration?

No. Your just a disinfo operative as far as I can see. Go annoy somebody else.

[Keven Hofeling]

[PDF] 'RECORDS RELEASED UNDER THE JFK ACT SHOW HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE MISREPRESENTED MEDICAL EVIDENCE'


By Jim Lesar, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht, and Kathy Cunningham:

 http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/H%20Disk/House%20Select%20Committee%20on%20Assassinations/Item%2011.pdf

"...The HSCA report found that the Parkland doctors were more likely to be in error than the autopsy personnel because their examination of the President's body was cursory and they were primarily concerned with "administer[ing] emergency procedures to save the life of the President, rather than [trying] to document the nature and location of his wounds."

The HSCA's finding was devastating to those critics who relied upon the testimony of the Parkland doctors. But in accordance with normal procedures, the House Committee's records were placed under seal, so the critics had no way of comparing the HSCA's findings with the actual evidence an which they were based. Until now. And now that what the Bethesda witnesses actually said is at last public, it is clear that the HSCA misrepresented their testimony...."

"...Nor were the FBI agents alone in affirming that there was, as agent O'Neill said, "more of a massive wound. . . ." than is shown by the photos. When the underlying evidence--the depositions, statements, and diagrams--of the Bethesda witnesses is examined, it turns out that they describe the same gaping wound at the rear of the President's head testified to by the Parkland doctors. The HSCA'c claim that the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses disagreed on the existence of a large wound at the rear of the President's head is simply wrong! It is not true, as the HSCA said, that the autopsy witnesses unanimously corroborated photographs showing JFK's gaping skull wound was toward the right front side of his head, rather than towards the rear. To the contrary, whereas over 20 witnesses at Parkland described the skull wound as rearward, the newly released documents show that more than 20 Bethesda autopsy witnesses said the same thing. In fact, not a single witness described what is visible in the photographs--a wound toward the right front of JFK's skull...."

"...As outlined above, the records released by the ARRB indict the HSCA for having falsified its own medical evidence. But the implications go far beyond that. Shown the suppressed interviews of autopsy witnesses and their diagrams in 1995, two key members of the HSCA's medical panel--its leader and the lone dissenter from some of its findings--admitted that they had never seen them before. Yet it was their responsibility to assess such evidence for the HSCA...."

"...For many years the autopsy photographic record was thought to be definitive because the HSCA reported it had authenticated the images. But the Review Board discovered what the HSCA had suppressed--the fact that the extant photographs could not be matched to the original autopsy camera. And that now the original camera is nowhere to be found.

The new evidence unearthed by the JFK Act and the ARRB leaves some medical mysteries surrounding President Kennedy's autopsy unresolved. Sadly, it makes it abundantly clear that all official investigations of the Kennedy assassination to date have relied upon a very incomplete record of the medical evidence, and the possibility that the record has been tampered with also has become increasingly evident as well.

The sense of disquiet concerning the state of the medical evidence is only enhanced by a fascinating passage buried in the ARRB's final report. The Review Board reported that it had contacted the children of deceased vice admiral George C. Burkley, who was the military White House physician to President Kennedy, to find out if their father had deposited his papers at any institution, or if they possessed any assassination records. The Review Board also stated that according to HSCA records "Burkley's personal attorney apparently told the HSCA that his client believed there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy." As Kennedy's physician, Burkley was present both at Parkland and at Bethesda. If anyone was in a position to know whether the medical evidence indicated a conspiracy, or if it had been tampered with, he was the one. The attorney who reported Burkley's views to the HSCA is dead, and the executor of his estate, his daughter, refused to sign a waiver allowing the Board to have access to papers at his lawyer's law firm.

Thus, ironically, whether Burkley's records would shine any light on the assassination remains cloaked in the very secrecy that the ARRB was created to end. It is in some ways a fitting epitaph to nearly four decades of coverup...."

Edited January 8 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

'1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD'

 

Amazing HSCA fraud conference -- Panel at 1995 COPA Conference -- Michael Baden, Andy Purdy, Cyril Wecht, Gary Aguilar...

 

COURTESY OF AUTHOR AND JFK ASSASSINATION RESEARCHER VINCE PALAMARA @VincePalamarasecretservicejfk

 

Vince Palamara originally titled this video as follows: 'AMAZING HSCA PANEL COPA CONFERENCE 1995: BADEN, PURDY, WECHT + GARY AGUILAR AND KATHY CUNNINGHAM' Vince Palamara | Jun 10, 2022 | https://youtu.be/LoHk5Y6pqFY

 

"As I stated, I am done with all my MP4 files, but I found this amazing gem (one of three) on a DVDr (burned from long-gone VHS) that I and a colleague were unable to convert into an MP4. So, I did the next best thing: I did an iPhone MP4 and here you go: a world (internet/You Tube) exclusive!"

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Your just a disinfo operative as far as I can see. Go annoy somebody else.

Your poor spelling notwithstanding, I’m not going anywhere, pal. I look forward to commenting on all of your posts and calling out your absurd claims.

[Keven Hofeling]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Your poor spelling notwithstanding, I’m not going anywhere, pal. I look forward to commenting on all of your posts and calling out your absurd claims.

Yes, you're a legend in your own mind. I was studying this case before you were born kiddo...

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I was studying this case before you were born kiddo...

Doesn’t look like it has helped much!

[Keven Hofeling]

15 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Your poor spelling notwithstanding, I’m not going anywhere, pal. I look forward to commenting on all of your posts and calling out your absurd claims.

I guess that's just what's in your playbook, isn't it?  Get a life kiddo...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 'COINTELPRO: EIGHT TRAITS OF THE DISINFORMATIONALIST'

https://decryptedmatrix.com/cointelpro-eight-traits-of-the-disinformationalist/

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8 ) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Oh no! You've discovered my playbook! My days as a paid disinformation specialist sent specifically to bother you will be numbered!