The Problem of WCR/'Lone Nut" Disinformation on the Education Forum

[Keven Hofeling]

35 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So the HSCA's Photo Panel was just lying through their collective teeth here, eh? (Yeah, right.)....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Volume 7; Pg. 41

 

Yet more disinformation from Mr. Von Pein!

Why do you persist in ignoring the fact that the HSCA authentication is fraudulent Mr. Von Pein?

You are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper:

The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public).

In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote:

"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors 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 wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39)

The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy."

When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "top secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows:

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

The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar:

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

Thus, 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, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding.

Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials:

And, as you well know, Dr. David Mantik's spectrographic testing of the "original" autopsy photographs subsequently confirmed suspicions that the back-of-the-head photos had been altered via the soft matte edge insertion process Robert Groden had described to the HSCA, as indicated by Mantik in the following video:

Thus and therefore, contrary to your conclusion that the HSCA Final Report "proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong" for "all time," it is in truth the descriptions of Dr. McClelland and some fifty other witnesses as to the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head that are in fact true.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand how disputes about questionable photographic and X-ray evidence are resolved in the real world.

This is the process by which fraudulent photographs -- like the JFK back-of-the-head autopsy photograph -- are excluded from evidence (except to prove fraud) in American courtrooms...

 

FRE 402 HEARING RESULTING IN FINDING THAT AUTOPSY MATERIALS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE -- EXCEPT TO PROVE FRAUD:

The evidentiary dispute about whether the autopsy photographs were authenticated or are fraudulent -- as well as the Autopsy Protocol and X-rays [and the Zapruder film would also be subject to a similar legal process]) would result in a 402 evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence where members of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel would be subjected to cross examination about the voluminous medical evidence they were denied by the HSCA; Robert Groden (photographic consultant to the HSCA) and Dr. David Mantik would present testimony about the BOH photographs being proven to have matte inserts by stereoscopic testing of the purported "originals"; and there would be a long list of 11/22/1963 first day witnesses (the records and testimony of those who are deceased would be admitted into evidence under the official records exception to the hearsay rule) whose testimony would demonstrate that the extant autopsy photographs, X-rays, autopsy report and Zapruder film misrepresent the true nature of JFK's wounds. The court would exclude the autopsy evidence EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING FRAUD, and the matter would proceed to trial on the basis of the admissible records and testimony.
_____________
Digital and photographic evidence is thrown out of courtrooms every day once shown by multiple testimonial witnesses to be fraudulent. Photographic fakery is more common than most people realize.

Disputed photographic evidence must be authenticated in a Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402 evidentiary hearing before being admitted into evidence, and if found to be fraudulent (most often as the result of conflicting testimonial evidence), it is excluded as evidence and very often ruled to be admissible ONLY to prove fraud.

With regard to the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in particular in the JFK case, we are not talking about just 1 or 2 witnesses that dispute their veracity, BUT OVER 40 WITNESSES WHO DO. And it's not just a mere matter of those witnesses having widely varying accounts of the back-of-the head wound actually seen on 11/22/1963; the vast majority of them describe the actual wound as being in the same location, and having virtually the same characteristics, placing defenders of the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in the impossible position of claiming it is mere coincidence that 40+ witnesses were not only wrong, BUT WRONG IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. This simply isn't going to go ever well in an American courtroom. The back-of-the head autopsy photographs would be found to be fraudulent and excluded from evidence except to prove fraud.
 

James DiEugenio made a very interesting post in this forum a few months ago about how the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs would be evaluated in a FRE 402 hearing that is probably pretty close to how it would actually transpire, as follows:
_____________
"As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pretrial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer.

I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film. Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht. (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?)

This is what would occur:

1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures.

2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas.

3. The lawyer would then ask him: what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it?

4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted? Well, does it look disrupted to you here?

5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures? He would likely say yes. The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique? He would say no. At this point the attorney would call Robert Knudsen to the stand.

6. Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain? Yes, that is Ansco. What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack.

7. Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body? Yes I did. Are you aware that those pictures do not exist? Yes I am.

8. Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965? Yes I did. Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for? Yes it does. You yourself knew that was a false statement. Yes I did. Why did you sign it? Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. Lawyer says, but some people don't. Stringer says: but they don't last very long.

9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen. He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland. One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember. Namely a baseball sized cavity.

10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment. He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand. He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas. And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now: Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it. Lawyer says: how convenient. The lawyer then asks: but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture? After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me. Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject.

Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible.

Judge: Motion is sustained.

Bugliosi starts stamping his feet, and yelling objections.

Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt. This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28751-the-402-hearings-on-the-autopsy-pictures/

 

Edited August 12 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Anyone who disagrees with you about anything is a potential Government Sponsored Operative.

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

What, are you trying to suggest to us that you have some kind of personal stake in repudiating the well documented fact that government operatives are intensely engaged online in maintaining the cover stories for political assassinations and other state sponsored crimes?

Why?

 

Edited August 12 by Keven Hofeling

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Why do you persist in ignoring the fact that the HSCA authentication is fraudulent Mr. Von Pein?

It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Hofeling, but not all people on this Earth believe that everything is fraudulent in the JFK case.

Shocked to hear that, aren't you Keven?

The "Fraudulent" argument is, of course, nothing but a big ol' cop-out utilized by CTers because they have nothing else to argue.

It's really quite tiresome to keep hearing that pathetic and unprovable fake/fraudulent refrain year after year.

 

Edited August 12 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

54 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

What, are you trying to suggest to us that you have some kind of personal stake in repudiating the well documented fact that government operatives are intensely engaged online in maintaining the cover stories for political assassinations and other state sponsored crimes?

Why?

Attaboy!  Cast the kind of aspersion I was holding up to ridicule.  Good job!

Years ago a fellow who called himself "Ashton Gray" posted here.  He and I agreed that the place to start looking for perps was the Technical Services Division of the CIA.  He suspected one corner of the TSD, I suspected another.  It so happened that we disagreed about the throat wound.  I argued that JFK was struck in the throat around Z200.  He vehemently disagreed, claiming that Nurse Diana Bowron shoved a needle into JFK's throat on the trip from the limo to the ER. 

He accused me of being a Government Sponsored Operative.

For a decade I found holes in Jim DiEugenio's analyses of the back/throat wounds, the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of Diem, the partition of Laos, and modern American politics.  Every time he smeared me for having some sinister "agenda."

Like you are trying to smear me now, just because we disagree on this issue.

Why?

Because it's a counter-productive paranoid dead-end.  IF I wanted to go down that road I'd suspect not only LNers but so-called "CTs" who posted interminable analyses of ancillary evidence, Keven.

[Keven Hofeling]

13 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Hofeling, but not all people on this Earth believe that everything is fraudulent in the JFK case.

Shocked to hear that, aren't you Keven?

The "Fraudulent" argument is, of course, nothing but a big ol' cop-out utilized by CTers because they have nothing else to argue.

It's really quite tiresome to keep hearing that pathetic and unprovable fake/fraudulent refrain year after year.

 

Does anyone notice how Mr. Von Pein failed to address any of the evidence I presented proving that he is disseminating disinformation and peddling fraudulent claims and materials?

Mr. Von Pein merely complains that he finds it tiresome that he has been repeatedly confronted for peddling his fraudulent claims and materials for many years. He doesn't even attempt to convince us that there is a secret spice involved that none of us knows about.

And he even throws in the word "pathetic," as if he is oblivious to the corrupt nature of what he has been doing, and about the existence of mirrors.

Just more of the same from Mr. Von Pein, of course...

 

[Cliff Varnell]

delete

Edited August 12 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

 

Edited August 12 by Cliff Varnell

[Keven Hofeling]

41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Attaboy!  Cast the kind of aspersion I was holding up to ridicule.  Good job!

Years ago a fellow who called himself "Ashton Gray" posted here.  He and I agreed that the place to start looking for perps was the Technical Services Division of the CIA.  He suspected one corner of the TSD, I suspected another.  It so happened that we disagreed about the throat wound.  I argued that JFK was struck in the throat around Z200.  He vehemently disagreed, claiming that Nurse Diana Bowron shoved a needle into JFK's throat on the trip from the limo to the ER. 

He accused me of being a Government Sponsored Operative.

For a decade I found holes in Jim DiEugenio's analyses of the back/throat wounds, the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of Diem, the partition of Laos, and modern American politics.  Every time he smeared me for having some sinister "agenda."

Like you are trying to smear me now, just because we disagree on this issue.

Why?

Because it's a counter-productive paranoid dead-end.  IF I wanted to go down that road I'd suspect not only LNers but so-called "CTs" who posted interminable analyses of ancillary evidence, Keven.

You are dancing around the question, Mr. Varnell:

You are the one who wishes to assure us that there is no need for concern that there are government sponsored operatives attempting to manipulate public opinion and squelch dissent. What I asked you is why you seek to influence the perceptions of the members of this forum in such a manner, despite the considerable evidence that it is so.

Your response is a Speer style anecdote about your involvement in past strange exchanges on the forum, rather than presenting evidence in support of your claim.

Again, I ask why?

This time take a stab at rebutting the evidence, why don't you?

'HOW COVERT AGENTS INFILTRATE THE INTERNET TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND DESTROY REPUTATIONS'
THE INTERCEPT | By Glenn Greenwald | February 24 2014, 4:25 p.m. | https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today...

____________

'GCHQ secret unit involved in domestic internet manipulation - report' | https://www.rt.com/uk/270418-british-spy-manipulating-behavior/ | RT | Published time: 29 Jun, 2015 15:16

...A 42-page report from 2011, entitled ‘Behavioral Science Support for JTRIG’s Effects and Online HUMINT [Human Intelligence] Operations,’ which details JTRIG’s activities, has recently been made public. It describes how the unit uses tactics to manipulate public opinion based on scientific and psychological analyses.

Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Fishman, who released the report, suggest that the targets of these manipulations are “traditionally the province of law enforcement rather than intelligence agencies.”....

____________

'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.

____________

“Cointelpro 2016” Lecture by Webster Tarpley

https://gangstalkingmindcontrolcults.com/cointelpro-counter-intelligence-provocation-gang-stalking-2016-dr-webster-tarpley/
____________

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | August 14, 2021 | http://911freefall.com/cognitive-infiltration

In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall, host Andy Steele talks about cointelpro, particularly Cass Sunstein’s proposed plan to undermine and break up the 9/11 Truth Movement and other so-called “anti-government conspiracy groups” by employing the strategy of cognitive infiltration.

____________

 

Edited August 12 by Keven Hofeling

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You are dancing around the question, Mr. Varnell:

You are the one who wishes to assure us that there is no need for concern that there are government sponsored operatives attempting to manipulate public opinion and squelch dissent.

For all we know you"re the rat!

https://youtu.be/lqXwkA3RKSw?si=X0MMwEGZvRTBl3zq

My point is the suspicion could hang on anyone.

Edited August 12 by Cliff Varnell

[Keven Hofeling]

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

For all we know you"re the rat!

My point is the suspicion could hang on anyone.

You are still dancing around the question, Mr. Varnell.

What is your evidence that online covert operations are not conducted to influence public opinion and squelch dissent, and what is your personal interest in attempting to float such a storyline? 

As for your effort to place my bona fides in question, I am perfectly content that my work speaks for itself. This is, of course, true for all of us, and thus the purpose of this particular thread...

 

'HOW COVERT AGENTS INFILTRATE THE INTERNET TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND DESTROY REPUTATIONS'
THE INTERCEPT | By Glenn Greenwald | February 24 2014, 4:25 p.m. | https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today...

____________

'GCHQ secret unit involved in domestic internet manipulation - report' | https://www.rt.com/uk/270418-british-spy-manipulating-behavior/ | RT | Published time: 29 Jun, 2015 15:16

...A 42-page report from 2011, entitled ‘Behavioral Science Support for JTRIG’s Effects and Online HUMINT [Human Intelligence] Operations,’ which details JTRIG’s activities, has recently been made public. It describes how the unit uses tactics to manipulate public opinion based on scientific and psychological analyses.

Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Fishman, who released the report, suggest that the targets of these manipulations are “traditionally the province of law enforcement rather than intelligence agencies.”....

Edited August 12 by Keven Hofeling

[Cliff Varnell]

6 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You are still dancing around the question, Mr. Varnell.

What is your evidence that online covert operations are not conducted to influence public opinion and squelch dissent, and what is your personal interest in attempting to float such a storyline?

What is your evidence I ever promoted such a claim?

6 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

As for your effort to place my bona fides in question, I am perfectly content that my work speaks for itself. 

You go on forever about marginal issues.  You fit the profile of an agent of distraction.

Gentle reader, please note that David Von Pein is happy to engage Mr. Hofeling but extremely shy about engaging me.

[Keven Hofeling]

COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Provocation)/Gang Stalking/”Touchless Torture:” Youtube with Dr. Webster Tarpley, 2016

 

[Keven Hofeling]

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What is your evidence I ever promoted such a claim?

You go on forever about marginal issues.  You fit the profile of an agent of distraction.

Gentle reader, please note that David Von Pein is happy to engage Mr. Hofeling but extremely shy about engaging me.

Are you accusing me of being a covert disinformation operative, Mr. Varnell?

Edited August 12 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

C'mon, David.

Surely, you and Pat Speer aren't denying that Allen Dulles aggressively pushed his Lone Nut narrative, from the get go, in the Warren Commission hearings, are you?

He opened the Commission meetings with the CIA's Lone Nut declaration-- which was also their psy op in the mainstream media.

Or that Dulles, Hoover, et.al., aggressively suppressed and manipulated evidence to support the Lone Nut psy op?

We've had to endure 60 years of this nonsense.

There are multiple lines of evidence debunking the defunct LN theory.

 

So, let's be clear, W. Do you believe the Johnson Administration was led astray by Dulles? 

And that the "truth" of the assassination would have been revealed by the Warren Commission if it were not for Dulles?

Is that what you are suggesting? 

Because I spent years researching this stuff and the cover-upleads back to LBJ, and Warren, with Dulles as but a minor player. 

From Chapter 3c:

Here, then, is a partial list of Warren "no-no"s, as we now know them.

1. Chief Justice Warren was determined from the outset that the commission investigating President Kennedy's death limit its scope to the investigations already performed by the Dallas Police, Secret Service and FBI. Yes, unbelievably, the transcript of the commission's first conference reflects that Warren wanted the commission to have no investigators of its own, no subpoena power, and no public hearings.

2. When the Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr, persisted in his plan to convene a Texas Court of Inquiry, a public hearing at which much of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald would be presented, Warren convinced him to cancel his plan by assuring him the commission would be "fair to Texas." No record was made of this meeting.

3. Not long thereafter, the commission became privy to the rumor Oswald had been an intelligence asset. Although commissioner and former CIA chief Allen Dulles assured Warren and his fellow commissioners the FBI and CIA would lie about this, he also told them the only way to get to the bottom of it was to ask President Johnson to personally tell the heads of the FBI and CIA not to lie. Warren did not do this. And the transcript of the hearing in which this rumor was first discussed was destroyed, undoubtedly at Warren's direction.

4. The commission's staff had questions about the medical evidence. They were particularly concerned about the location of Kennedy's back wound, which may have been too low to support the single-bullet theory deemed necessary to the commission's conclusion Oswald acted alone. Even so, Warren personally prevented Dr. James J. Humes from reviewing the autopsy photos he'd had taken, and wished to review. 

5. The commission's staff had questions about Oswald's trip to Mexico. What did he say to those he spoke to? What did he do at night? Did he actually go to the Cuban consulate and Russian embassy on the days the CIA said he'd visited the consulate and embassy? And yet, despite the commission's staff's fervid desire they be allowed to interview Sylvia Duran, a Mexican woman employed by the Cuban consulate, who'd handled Oswald's request he be allowed to visit Cuba, (and who, it turns out, was rumored to have entertained Oswald at night), Chief Justice Warren personally prevented them from doing so, telling commission counsel David Slawson that "You just can't believe a Communist...We don't talk to Communists. You cannot trust a dedicated Communist to tell us the truth, so what's the point?"

6. The commission's staff had questions about Russia's involvement in the assassination. Oswald, of course, had lived in Russia. His wife was Russian. While in Mexico, he'd met with a KGB agent named Kostikov, who was believed to have been the KGB's point man on assassinations for the western hemisphere. Shortly after the assassination, a KGB officer named Yuri Nosenko defected to the west. Nosenko told his handlers he'd reviewed Oswald's file, and that Oswald was not a Russian agent. The timing of Nosenko's defection, however, convinced some within the CIA that Nosenko's defection was a set-up. The commission's staff hoped to talk to Nosenko, and judge for themselves if his word meant anything. The CIA (er, rather, The CIA's Assistant Director of Plans--its master of dirty tricks) Richard Helms, on the other hand, asked the commission to not only not talk to Nosenko, but to avoid any mention of him within their report. Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting alone, agreed to this request. He later admitted "I was adamant that we should not in any way base our findings on the testimony of a Russian defector."

7. The commission's staff had questions about Jack Ruby's motive in killing Oswald. Strangely, however, the commission's staff charged with investigating Ruby and his background were not allowed to interview him. Instead, the interview of Ruby was performed by, you guessed it, Chief Justice Earl Warren. Despite Ruby's telling Warren such things as "unless you get me to Washington, you can’t get a fair shake out of me...I want to tell the truth, and I can’t tell it here. I can’t tell it here…this isn’t the place for me to tell what I want to tell…” Warren refused to bring Ruby to Washington so he could provide the details he so clearly wanted to provide.

8. The commission's staff had even more questions about how Ruby came to kill Oswald. It was hard to believe he'd just walked down a ramp and shot Oswald, as claimed. As Ruby had many buddies within the Dallas Police, for that matter, it was reasonable to investigate the possibility one or more of the officers responsible for Oswald's protection had provided Ruby access to the basement. Commission counsel Burt Griffin even found a suspect: Sgt Patrick Dean. In the middle of Dean's testimony in Dallas, in which Dean said Ruby had told him he'd gained access to the garage by walking down the ramp, Griffin let Dean know he didn't believe him, and gave him a chance to change his testimony. Dean was outraged and called Dallas DA Henry Wade, who in turn called Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin. Dean then asked that he be allowed to testify against Griffin in Washington. Not only was he allowed to do so, he received what amounted to an apology from, you guessed it, Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren told Dean "No member of our staff has a right to tell any witness that he is lying or that he is testifying falsely. That is not his business. It is the business of this Commission to appraise the testimony of all the witnesses, and, at the time you are talking about, and up to the present time, this Commission has never appraised your testimony or fully appraised the testimony of any other witness, and furthermore, I want to say to you that no member of our staff has any power to help or injure any witness." It was later revealed that Dean had failed a lie detector test designed to test his truthfulness regarding Ruby, and that the Dallas Police had kept the results of this test from the Warren Commission. If Griffin had been allowed to pursue Dean, this could have all come out in 1964. But no, Warren made Griffin back down, and the probability Dean lied was swept under the rug. (None of this is mentioned in Willens' book, of course.) 

9. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and wanted all the evidence viewed by the commission to be made available to the public, he (along with commissioners McCloy and Dulles) came to a decision on April 30, 1964, that the testimony before the commission would not be published along with the commission's report. (This decision was over-turned after the other commissioners--the four elected officials on the commission, and thereby the only ones accountable to the public--objected.)

10. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and wanted the public to trust the commission's decisions, he wanted to shred or incinerate all the commission's internal files, so no one would know how the commission came to its decisions. (This decision was over-turned after commission historian Alfred Goldberg sent word of Warren's intentions to Senator Richard Russell, and Russell intervened.)

11. Although Warren was purported to have worked himself day and night in order to give the President the most thorough report possible, he actually flew off on a fishing trip that lasted from July 6 to August 1, 1964, while testimony was still being taken, and the commission's report still being polished. 

12. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and felt the commission's work should speak for itself, he (according to Howard Willens' diary) asked the National Archives to hold up the release of assassination-related documents that were not used in the commission's hearings, so that said documents could not be used by critics to undermine the commission's findings. 

So let's review. The Chief Justice, who was, by his own admission, roped into serving as chairman of the commission by President Johnson through the prospect of nuclear war, refused to allow important evidence to be viewed, refused to allow important witnesses to be called, cut off investigations into controversial areas, demanded that testimony before the commission be done in secret, agreed to keep the testimony before the commission from the public, tried to keep the commission's internal files from the public, and ultimately asked the national archives to help hide some of the evidence available to the commission from the public until a decent interval had passed in which the commission and its friends in the media could sell the commission's conclusions.

Now if that ain't a whitewash, then what the heck is? 

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Are you accusing me of being a covert disinformation operative, Mr. Varnell?

You sure like to dish it out, don't you, Sgt. Price?