John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist

[Jean Ceulemans]

Read the Litwin topic, you can do that? Your question to repeat, we´ve been there, old strategy really.

Btw, off-topic : you haven´t replied to my FB related post (any specific reason, as it seems to be working now? ), don´t want to go off- topic,so plse pick it up there. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Let's cite this as Example 1A of what happens when a moderator thinks that attacking the motivations of others is okie-dokie. 

Pat,

      At the risk of my being accused by Greg Doudna, once again, of "running amok," may I ask you, politely, to specify how Mr. Hofelung's commentary (above) is factually inaccurate, or a violation of forum decorum?

      Do you consider it a violation of forum decorum for members to discuss alleged CIA internet psy ops?

      Also, were you posting this comment without intentional irony-- i.e., attacking a moderator for criticizing posts that promote disinformation?

     

[Sandy Larsen]

 

In my opinion:

1. There is nothing wrong with a member saying that they suspect or believe there to be CIA disinformationists on the forum, as long as member names are not given.
2. Moderators are also members and should be able to post anything that other members are allowed to post.
3. The purpose of the JFK Assassination Debate forum is to discuss the assassination conspiracy and cover-up, NOT whether or not they occurred. It has already been abundantly established that they occurred.
4. If it weren't for the fact that (some) LNers are useful to our cause, I'd be in favor of a forum rule against claiming there wasn't a conspiracy or cover-up. If it were practical, I would go so far as banning all LNers from the site.
5. LNers can be very useful to our cause. They fact check our posts and challenge our ideas. We should welcome and thank them for their contribution.
6. Some LNers contribute virtually nothing and waste our time and irritate us. I'd like to get rid of them if possible.

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Sandy Larsen

[W. Niederhut]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In my opinion:

1. There is nothing wrong with a member saying that they suspect or believe there to be CIA disinformationists on the forum, as long as member names are not given.
2. Moderators are also members and should be able to post anything that other members are allowed to post.
3. The purpose of the JFK Assassination Debate forum is to discuss the assassination conspiracy and cover-up, NOT whether or not they occurred. It has already been abundantly established that they occurred.
4. If it weren't for the fact that (some) LNers are useful to our cause, I'd be in favor of a forum rule against claiming there wasn't a conspiracy or cover-up. If it were practical, I would go so far as banning all LNers from the site.
5. LNers can be very useful to our cause. They fact check our posts and challenge our ideas. We should welcome and thank them for their contribution.
6. Some LNers contribute virtually nothing and waste our time and irritate us. I'd like to get rid of them if possible.

 

Good point, Sandy.

I think it was Nietzsche who once said that he, "had learned more from his (intellectual) enemies than from his friends."

My main point on this thread is that John Simkin, himself, described McAdams as a CIA propagandist, and Simkin also expressed concerns about CIA disinformation on the internet 20 years ago.

So, based on Simkin's example, it isn't a violation of Education Forum decorum to talk about CIA disinformation ops on the internet.

Those who presume to speak for John Simkin should reference his actual comments, as I did at the top of the thread.

Edited 16 hours ago by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

If it was not for the ARRB, we would never have known that, for example, Jim Phelan was an FBI informant on the JFK case.

Why?  Because he always denied that he was. He even threatened me about this.

When I got the documents that proved he was, he still tried to deny it.

Walter Sheridan was in contact with the CIA for his NBC special on Garrison.  His family refused to turn over papers from that special that Sheridan still had when he died. 

Now, did McAdams not know he was running CIA commercials on his station?  Did he not listen to his own shows, at least once in awhile?

And now that he is dead for years, we cannot even talk about the Nolan affair?

Edited 16 hours ago by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If it was not for the ARRB, we would never have known that, for example, Jim Phelan was an FBI informant on the JFK case.

Why?  Because he always denied that he was. He even threatened me about this.

When I got the documents that proved he was, he still tried to deny it.

Walter Sheridan was in contact with the CIA for his NBC special on Garrison.  His family refused to turn over papers from that special that Sheridan still had when he died. 

Now, did McAdams not know he was running CIA commercials on his station?  Did he not listen to his own shows, at least once in awhile?

And now that he is dead for years, we cannot even talk about the Nolan affair?

All this has been brought up numerous times and no one is claiming it is out of bounds. Heck, I am the one who discovered and brought to the public's attention that McAdams had CIA ads on his music station. 

 

[Pat Speer]

37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In my opinion:

1. There is nothing wrong with a member saying that they suspect or believe there to be CIA disinformationists on the forum, as long as member names are not given.
2. Moderators are also members and should be able to post anything that other members are allowed to post.
3. The purpose of the JFK Assassination Debate forum is to discuss the assassination conspiracy and cover-up, NOT whether or not they occurred. It has already been abundantly established that they occurred.
4. If it weren't for the fact that (some) LNers are useful to our cause, I'd be in favor of a forum rule against claiming there wasn't a conspiracy or cover-up. If it were practical, I would go so far as banning all LNers from the site.
5. LNers can be very useful to our cause. They fact check our posts and challenge our ideas. We should welcome and thank them for their contribution.
6. Some LNers contribute virtually nothing and waste our time and irritate us. I'd like to get rid of them if possible.

 

 

Sandy wrote:

3. The purpose of the JFK Assassination Debate forum is to discuss the assassination conspiracy and cover-up, NOT whether or not they occurred. It has already been abundantly established that they occurred.

 

Sorry, Sandy. This is complete nonsense. This forum was created by an historian and educator to lay out the facts of the case and present arguments for and against conspiracy for students of the case. His intention was that actual witnesses and actual researchers could meet here and add pieces to the story and/or share information. He was hoping to build a consensus of sorts but gave up and left after it became clear that this format--a format in which anyone with a computer can pretend to be an expert and offer up an opinion--invited a certain kind of behavior that he found unattractive. 

Now, there WAS a small group of members here who resented the input of LNers and double-checkers like myself, and left to start their own forum...a forum in which people already convinced of a certain viewpoint could share "at a-boys" and "look-at-me"s without ever being challenged. That forum was the Deep Politics Forum and it collapsed due to internal squabbling and was pretty much dried-up, last I checked. 

As for John, he still has an interest in the case, but restricts his comments primarily to email groups comprised of long time researchers and scholars--roughly half of whom are convinced of Oswald's guilt. 

 

[Pat Speer]

45 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Good point, Sandy.

I think it was Nietzsche who once said that he, "had learned more from his (intellectual) enemies than from his friends."

My main point on this thread is that John Simkin, himself, described McAdams as a CIA propagandist, and Simkin also expressed concerns about CIA disinformation on the internet 20 years ago.

So, based on Simkin's example, it isn't a violation of Education Forum decorum to talk about CIA disinformation ops on the internet.

Those who presume to speak for John Simkin should reference his actual comments, as I did at the top of the thread.

No one said it was a violation to talk about CIA disinformation. But there has been an effort to undermine and force certain people from this forum for disagreeing with what some here are dying to believe is gospel...under the pretense they are spreading propaganda.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

The topic of this segment of the EF is "The JFK Assassination Debate." 

We can't really have a "debate" if a premise of the EF-JFKA is that LN'ers are "spreading disinformation."

Earnest and intelligent observers can have different opinions, interpretations on the JFKA/RFK1A. To say the least. 

Let it go at that. Try to be collegial, civil. 

If an LN'er or CT'er makes a factually incorrect statement, then write a response with a correction of the mistake (as you see it), but not an attack on the LN'er or CT'er. 

Surely, we can tolerate and even invite a wide range of views on the EF-JFKA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The topic of this segment of the EF is "The JFK Assassination Debate." 

We can't really have a "debate" if a premise of the EF-JFKA is that LN'ers are "spreading disinformation."

Earnest and intelligent observers can have different opinions, interpretations on the JFKA/RFK1A. To say the least. 

Let it go at that. Try to be collegial, civil. 

If an LN'er or CT'er makes a factually incorrect statement, then write a response with a correction of the mistake (as you see it), but not an attack on the LN'er or CT'er. 

Surely, we can tolerate and even invite a wide range of views on the EF-JFKA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. And I'll go one further. Even IF one presumes LNers are here to spread "disinformation", one should not push for their removal, but instead confront their disinformation with what one considers more factual information. That is the nature of debate, IMO.

[Jean Ceulemans]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In my opinion:

1. There is nothing wrong with a member saying that they suspect or believe there to be CIA disinformationists on the forum, as long as member names are not ..

Guess what Dr. Niederhut has done... (regarding the mentioning names he suspected of being CIA disinformationists).  If you didn´t read the Litwin topic and related, that´s where it is, that´s were it was even protested against (by a number of members).

 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

16 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

If members suspect these things, they should report it to the mod (....), IMO that´s the intention of the rule, members are not supposed to start accusing each other..., that goes bad in a hurry.

You can discuss cia propaganda as much as you like, different thing.

In case you missed it. But you can find plenty of protests against what Dr N did.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yep. And I'll go one further. Even IF one presumes LNers are here to spread "disinformation", one should not push for their removal, but instead confront their disinformation with what one considers more factual information. That is the nature of debate, IMO.

Pat,

    Kindly go back and carefully read my commentary on my recent thread, "The Problem of WCR/LN Disinformation on the Education Forum."

     You either didn't read my comments, or you didn't understand them. 

     My thesis in that discussion was that, because of our admirable tradition of freedom of speech, we are forced to tediously rebut redundant disinformation, as an alternative to censorship.

     And I also maintain, correctly, that the WCR/ "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination has been debunked by multiple lines of contrary evidence.  It's not a valid explanatory theory for the JFKA data.  

    As I have explained to Ben Cole, and others, valid theories-- by philosophical definition-- must explain all of the facts without being refuted by any facts.  It's a very high bar, and the WCR/LN theory doesn't even come close to clearing it.

   As for your claims about John Simkin's opinions, post his actual quotes, as I have done (above.)

   

Edited 13 hours ago by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

48 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Guess what Dr. Niederhut has done... (regarding the mentioning names he suspected of being CIA disinformationists).  If you didn´t read the Litwin topic and related, that´s where it is, that´s were it was even protested against (by a number of members).

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

In case you missed it. But you can find plenty of protests against what Dr N did.

Jean,

         No doubt, there has been some curious LN mob trolling on the forum following my posts of James DiEugenio's Litwin essays-- in response to Mr. Litwin's thread about his new book.  

        In fact, our forum's contingent of WCR/LN apologists have raised quite a hue-and-cry about any references to putative CIA internet disinformation ops.   Some people here, apparently, consider the subject unmentionable.

     As for your false allegation that I accused our LN contingent of being paid by CIA-affiliated corporations, I specifically stated-- on Saturday at 10:22 AM--that, rather than accusing any specific WCR/LN promoters on the forum of being paid by CIA-affiliated companies to post disinformation, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are simply ignorant.  

Here's my exact comment, to Joe Bauer.  (Red italics mine.)

* 

W. Niederhut

• 
• Moderators
• •  7k
• Location:Denver, Colorado
• Interests:American history, European history, economics, world literature, philosophy, science, medicine, psychiatry, JFK assassination, 9/11

• Author

Posted Saturday at 10:22 AM (edited)

  On 10/5/2024 at 4:47 AM, Joe Bauer said:

BINGO!  WN.

Joe,

     When I first discovered the Education Forum, in about 2015 or 2016, I realized that it was a rare, special place on the internet where researchers like John Simkin, James DiEugenio, Joseph McBride, Larry Hancock, Vince Palamara, and others were writing about the true history of the JFK assassination.

      It was a striking contrast to the numerous disinformation sites on the internet that I had perused-- e.g., John McAdams, David Reitzes, and the usual mainstream media Lone Nut narratives.  The disinformation sites always appeared at the top of my JFKA Google searches in those days.

      Of course, it took a while for me to gradually distinguish the writings of the accurate, honest historians from the CIA propagandists.

      What concerns me now is that we seem to have a cadre of Education Forum members promoting disinformation.

      Whether they are being funded or doing this for free, based on ignorance and lack of discernment, is unclear to me.

      When the question of government-funded disinformation arises, there is always a wild hue-and-cry of moral indignation from the guys who promote disinformation here-- accompanied by outrage that a "moderator" would dare to raise the question!

      So, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are simply ignorant.

Edited 13 hours ago by W. Niederhut

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

• There is nothing wrong with a member saying that they suspect or believe there to be CIA disinformationists on the forum, as long as member names are not given.
• Moderators are also members and should be able to post anything that other members are allowed to post.
• The purpose of the JFK Assassination Debate forum is to discuss the assassination conspiracy and cover-up, NOT whether or not they occurred. It has already been abundantly established that they occurred.

I agree with these statements.