My New Book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is outrageous. Are you now the sole arbiter of what constitutes "propaganda?" How is this being allowed from a forum moderator? We are treading back into Sandy Larsen territory here, which I never thought was possible..

FWIW, John Simkin created this forum with the specific intent of allowing an open exchange of ideas between people of different convictions, AND the sharing of information between those of a similar mindset. He mentioned this many times--that his background as a British educator led him to believe that varying approaches and understandings of a topic should be presented to the reader so that the reader can decide for themselves...that TRUE learning comes not from reciting what someone else has said, but from weighing divergent interpretations of facts and coming to one's own conclusion. 

I would like to address something else as well--that some of what is shared on this website is propaganda. This is usually a one-sided argument--that the American government is behind this propaganda. But this is ahistorical. The reality is that the computer attacks on this forum--which in the past has led to shutdowns--had come from a pro-Israeli groups, and that the only known instance of a member using a fake name in an effort to fill the forum with deceptive nonsense--to push an agenda beyond discovering the truth of 11-22-63--came from a scientologist. 

So, yes, the forum is vulnerable to outside pressure. But I, for one, have never been contacted by the government to see if I could refine an argument against a conspiracy point for future use by the government or some such thing, and am unaware of any of my arguments being repeated by anti-conspiracy talking heads. I was involved in many discussions and arguments on the late John McAdams' newsgroup, for example, but never saw any of my arguments against specific conspiracy theories repeated by McAdams or anyone of his ilk. My take was that they were afraid to give any credit whatsoever to a conspiracy theorist such as myself--because that would destroy their whole argument that conspiracy theorists were wackos and not to be trusted. And yikes...that might mean someone such as myself or Jim D could be invited on...PBS...or NPR...or any of the places McAdams had claimed as friendly soil. (In the years since, we've seen Jeff Morley slip into these territories, but only after assuring the muckety-mucks he is a journalist and not a conspiracy theorist.) 

In any event, I was approached by Russian media at one point. They were gonna write a CIA did-it type article for international release and wanted some quotes from me. Well, I asked them if they were allowed to say anything negative about Putin or Russia--if they were serious journalists who questioned their government as well as others--and asked if they could send me a link to any article they'd written which reflected negatively on their own country. And I never heard back. 

And there's this to consider... One of the forum's loudest voices back in the day reached a sufficient volume where he was invited to Iran to give anti-American talks...and happily agreed. 

SO...IF this forum is being used for propaganda purposes, it would follow that this propaganda could be coming from a number of parties, with a number of agendas. 

Edited Sunday at 06:16 PM by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

16 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Anyone yapping about the Lone Nutters seems to be insecure in countering their arguments. I am not. I just say "See Gil Jesus'" webpage on whatever topic is being discussed.

Wrong adjective, Robert.

I don't feel the least bit "insecure" about our 60 years of CIA-funded WCR/Lone Nut propaganda.

I feel indignant about it.

It's an ethical issue, and truth matters.

Pat Speer's denial of the 60-year CIA/M$M propaganda psy op to cover up the conspiracy to murder JFK is categorically false.  Operation Mockingbird is an historic reality.

I wonder if there are any examples of John Simkin responding to WCR/Lone Nut disinformation on this forum.  I can't imagine Simkin approving of it.

Perhaps LN disinformation wasn't as prevalent here during Simkin's moderation of the forum.

Things seem more sophomoric here nowadays.

As for the other solipsistic arguments (above) denying the reality of LN disinformation, we discussed the issue at length in August, on my thread entitled, "The Problem of WCR/Lone Nut Disinformation on the Education Forum."

Rather than reinventing the wheel,  I'll refer interested parties to that debate.

Edited Sunday at 07:58 PM by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Agreed. If EF is to remain a forum open to all ideas, they need a different moderator. 

More LN baloney.

There's nothing wrong with people having "different ideas," and "differing opinions."

The issue is "alternate facts" and the orchestrated posting of falsehoods-- disinformation.

We discussed this issue in detail on the, "Problem of WCR/Lone Nut Disinformation," thread.

But, I must say, I'm not surprised to hear vehement objections to a moderator criticizing WCR/LN disinformation from Steve Roe, Jonathan Cohen, and W. Tracy Parnell.

Where are David Von Pein, Gerry Down, and Bill Brown?

 

Edited Sunday at 08:05 PM by W. Niederhut

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

The issue is "alternate facts" and the orchestrated posting of falsehoods-- disinformation.

The issue should not be concern about "alternate facts." If someone posts something that another believes is false, let them refute it or post a link that refutes it. If this is truly an open forum, any post that does not violate the forum rules should be allowed. And I see nothing in the rules that says LN ideas are not allowed.

More importantly, I don't believe a moderator should be implying that individuals are associated with the CIA without proof. And refusing to reply to one of your demands is not proof. A moderator should be a fair-minded individual who looks for rules violations. However, this is just my opinion and the EF can have whoever they like as a moderator. 

[W. Niederhut]

7 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The issue should not be concern about "alternate facts." If someone posts something that another believes is false, let them refute it or post a link that refutes it. If this is truly an open forum, any post that does not violate the forum rules should be allowed. And I see nothing in the rules that says LN ideas are not allowed.

More importantly, I don't believe a moderator should be implying that individuals are associated with the CIA without proof. And refusing to reply to one of your demands is not proof. A moderator should be a fair-minded individual who looks for rules violations. However, this is just my opinion and the EF can have whoever they like as a moderator. 

W. Tracy,

     Do you believe that the CIA "Mockingbird" propaganda establishment would limit their journalistic contracts solely to mainstream media corporations in the 21st century-- as opposed to also funding disinformation websites and "cognitive infiltrators" of "conspiracy theory" forums?

Edited Sunday at 08:06 PM by W. Niederhut

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

W. Tracy,

     Do you believe that the CIA "Mockingbird" propaganda establishment would limit their journalistic contracts solely to mainstream media corporations in the 21st century-- as opposed to also funding disinformation websites and "cognitive infiltrators?"

I have no idea and I don't care one way or another. I do my own research (not just about JFK but everything else as well) and make up my own mind. Personally, I think it is pretty easy to tell where any source of information is coming from.

[W. Niederhut]

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have no idea and I don't care one way or another. I do my own research (not just about JFK but everything else as well) and make up my own mind. Personally, I think it is pretty easy to tell where any source of information is coming from.

But do you have an opinion?

Given what we know about "Mockingbird" psy ops and the M$M, do you doubt that  "Mockingbird" ops would have expanded in the 21st century to influence public opinion on the internet-- e.g. John McAdams and David Reitzes?

Edited Sunday at 08:14 PM by W. Niederhut

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

But do you have an opinion?

Given what we know about "Mockingbird" psy ops and the M$M, do you doubt that  "Mockingbird" ops would have expanded in the 21st century to influence public opinion on the internet-- e.g. John McAdams and David Reitzes?

Could the CIA be funding propaganda in 2024? Sure, anything is possible. But I think they would normally work with journalists (you scratch my back) rather than be actually funding them at this point.

I knew McAdams and I know Dave. Neither are/were involved in any such operation. McAdams was just a very opinionated person who sometimes rubbed people the wrong way and probably enjoyed that. He didn't have to be paid to say the things he did. Dave was originally a CT and his work against conspiracy theories was born when he realized he had been misled. In fact, my debates with him about John Armstrong helped switch him over.

Now you can say Dave was play-acting for the CIA and creating a CT persona which he later denounced but I don't believe it. 

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

But do you have an opinion?

Given what we know about "Mockingbird" psy ops and the M$M, do you doubt that  "Mockingbird" ops would have expanded in the 21st century to influence public opinion on the internet-- e.g. John McAdams and David Reitzes?

Two points. One which will you not like. And one which you may find interesting. 

The first is that you seem really really concerned about Op Mockingbird on this forum. If you go back into the archives on this forum you will see that John Simkin wrote about this extensively, and pretty much introduced the term into the CT lexicon, and that I was a major contributor to those threads, and supporter of those threads. 

But it baffles me as to why you seem to have no concern for the dissemination of anti-American propaganda on this forum. IF, as you claim, those continuing to stick to the LN mythology are knowing misinformants, what do you have to say about those pushing utter nonsense--such as Hickey did it or Greer did it--which ultimately undermine the credibility of the research community? 

That's the first point.

The second point will intrigue you, I suspect. I worked for a number of years in the record industry, in a position where I was given thousands upon thousands of free compact discs. Upon my leaving the industry--or more like the industry leaving me--I started selling some of these CDs online under an assumed name. Over a five year period or so, I sold roughly 15,000 individual CDs to 15,000 individual buyers, and mailed them out to addresses around the world. Well, sometimes I'd recognize a name. Over the years I sold CDs to known authors and TV personalities, and even a few well-known musicians. And on two occasions I recognized the names of someone from the JFK research world. And on both occasions it was to a well-known LN. And those two LNs were the two you cited as possible agents of mockingbird: McAdams and Reitzes. 

I found this quite the coincidence. But the world is filled with coincidences. 

Edited Sunday at 08:35 PM by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

7 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Could the CIA be funding propaganda in 2024? Sure, anything is possible. But I think they would normally work with journalists (you scratch my back) rather than be actually funding them at this point.

I knew McAdams and I know Dave. Neither are/were involved in any such operation. McAdams was just a very opinionated person who sometimes rubbed people the wrong way and probably enjoyed that. He didn't have to be paid to say the things he did. Dave was originally a CT and his work against conspiracy theories was born when he realized he had been misled. In fact, my debates with him about John Armstrong helped switch him over.

Now you can say Dave was play-acting for the CIA and creating a CT persona which he later denounced but I don't believe it. 

As an American tax-payer I would hope that the propagandists hired to do a job would effectively do their jobs, AND reach a wide audience. The only people in LN-land of recent years who might fit that description, IMO, are Posner, Bugliosi, McAdams, and Holland.  

Bugliosi proved he was not a CIA shill, IMO, when he wrote a book calling Bush a war criminal, and traveled around the country promoting it. 

And McAdams, IMO, was also unlikely, as he was such a blowhard on other matters, and spent so much time arguing with people like me, as opposed to pushing out material on YouTube or making TV appearances.

And Holland is also unlikely, as his books and blog never reached a wide audience, and his pet theory about the assassination tended to divide the LN position, rather than solidify it. 

Well, that leaves Posner. While we can't rule him out, IMO, I think his overall footprint has been minimal. 

 

[Steve Roe]

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

In my opinion, you should be banned from the Education Forum for persistently posting false, "Lone Nut" propaganda and, now, posting false, defamatory statements about a moderator.

@Mark Knight Mr. Knight, you should seriously address these inflammatory remarks from one of your moderators. Mr. Niederhut has constantly insulted, demeanor and consistently sidestepped/ignored the rules of this forum as many people have noted here. I trust you will correct this in a reasonable manner and stop this egregious behavior. 

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As an American tax-payer I would hope that the propagandists hired to do a job would effectively do their jobs, AND reach a wide audience. The only people in LN-land of recent years who might fit that description, IMO, are Posner, Bugliosi, McAdams, and Holland.  

Bugliosi proved he was not a CIA shill, IMO, when he wrote a book calling Bush a war criminal, and traveled around the country promoting it. 

And McAdams, IMO, was also unlikely, as he was such a blowhard on other matters, and spent so much time arguing with people like me, as opposed to pushing out material on YouTube or making TV appearances.

And Holland is also unlikely, as his books and blog never reached a wide audience, and his pet theory about the assassination tended to divide the LN position, rather than solidify it. 

Well, that leaves Posner. While we can't rule him out, IMO, I think his overall footprint has been minimal. 

 

Question to you Pat. Bottom line, in your opinion, there is no CIA propaganda program aimed at the JFKA Education Forum? 

I think you know my answer although there are claims put forth by certain members here (you know who they are) accusing those members here that do believe Oswald murdered the President are engaged in CIA propaganda operations. 

If I misunderstood, please qualify. 

[Joseph McBride]

Pat Speer thinks that some posters on this forum

are "anti-American." Perhaps he could define

what he means by that.

[Jim Hargrove]

Hi, Joe.

Hoping I'm not anti-American, I do think the Kennedy assassination was an inside job.  Can we agree on that?

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

 

 

38 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Pat Speer thinks that some posters on this forum

are "anti-American." Perhaps he could define

what he means by that.

 

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Two points. One which will you not like. And one which you may find interesting. 

The first is that you seem really really concerned about Op Mockingbird on this forum. If you go back into the archives on this forum you will see that John Simkin wrote about this extensively, and pretty much introduced the term into the CT lexicon, and that I was a major contributor to those threads, and supporter of those threads. 

But it baffles me as to why you seem to have no concern for the dissemination of anti-American propaganda on this forum. IF, as you claim, those continuing to stick to the LN mythology are knowing misinformants, what do you have to say about those pushing utter nonsense--such as Hickey did it or Greer did it--which ultimately undermine the credibility of the research community? 

 

Pat,

     Bugliosi, Posner, McAdams, Reitzes, and now Mr. Litwin have published disinformation promoting Allen Dulles's WCR/Lone Nut narrative and/or impugning the reputations of important WCR critics-- e.g., Jim Garrison, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, and James DiEugenio.

     Who paid them?  And why?  

      My own suspicion is that the CIA "Mockingbird" propaganda establishment has been involved in this WCR/LN propaganda campaign from the very beginning, and there was, in fact, a 1964 CIA Executive Order instructing agency personnel to do "whatever is necessary" to promote public acceptance of the WCR.

      And it's interesting to observe forum reactions to my efforts to talk about the subject of CIA propaganda.

      Apparently, it's supposed to be unmentionable-- the way that Victorians objected to any comments about sex.

     

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

@Mark Knight Mr. Knight, you should seriously address these inflammatory remarks from one of your moderators. Mr. Niederhut has constantly insulted, demeanor and consistently sidestepped/ignored the rules of this forum as many people have noted here. I trust you will correct this in a reasonable manner and stop this egregious behavior. 

I'm Dr. Niederhut, Mr. Roe.

You have now posted a series of false, defamatory claims about me on this thread-- even after I "set the record" straight, at your request.

And what you are doing here this weekend is called, "mob trolling"-- somewhat akin to guys who used to lead vigilante mobs against Civil Rights protesters back in the day.

 

Edited Monday at 12:44 AM by W. Niederhut