John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist

[James DiEugenio]

This is pretty interesting I think.

 

Which leaves us with a question about McAdams: who is he actually? As I have tried to show here, to think of him purely in relation to the JFK case is a grave error. His domain is wider than that. Which is why he does such lousy research on the Kennedy murder. But we should recall, many rightwing operatives do the JFK hit piece first to prove their bona fides to their benefactors e.g. David Horowitz.

In recent years, the CIA has had an officer in residence program. That is a CIA officer takes a sabbatical or is retired and takes up teaching duties at a university. (Independent Online, "CIA's Man on Campus", by Jon Elliston, November 29, 2000) Various big universities were cooperating with the program. One of them was Marquette. The CIA proudly said the program was overt. So the invaluable Daniel Brandt decided to test the CIA's word on this issue. He wrote a letter to the CIA in February of 2001. He asked them for a list of all CIA personnel who participated in the this program since it began in 1985. Daniel wanted the years of participation, the campus, and the name of the participant. After one year, he got no reply.

So in March of 2002, he filed a Freedom of Information Act request on this same subject. Three months later, he got a reply. The reply said that "the information you seek must be denied since it is classified under the provisions of Executive Order 12958." Brandt concluded that the CIA's overt academic program was a PR front. And the campus was just another tool used for the CIA's secret operations.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, one has to note this:

Before he agreed to debate me on BOR, he insisted that I not bring up the Joe Nolan impersonation.

That is pretty rich is it not?  

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

McAdams did run an acappella music channel, during which he ran advertisements for CIA recruitment.

Just a coincidence I guess.

It should be pointed out, moreover, that when I brought this to Simkin's attention, he, John Simkin, who suspected McAdams had CIA ties, told me he thought it was probably just a coincidence--that google's algorithm had matched up CIA ads with McAdams' website based upon the number of people--including himself--who had mentioned McAdams and CIA in the same sentence. 

As Rex Bradford--who was far more familiar with the workings of websites and ads and stuff than myself--told me the same thing, I let the matter rest. But I brought it back up when McAdams accused Simkin of being an agent or some such thing--I was like "Really? He defended you!!" When I then explained to McAdams the circumstances of my coming across his website and my noting of the CIA ads, he became incoherent, IMO. He insisted there was no way an algorithm could be responsible and that the appearance of the ads on his website must have been ENTIRELY RANDOM. Now I found that hard to believe then and find it even harder to believe now. I mean, I've combed the internet for hours a week for years and years, and don't recall noticing ANY CIA ads on the internet outside those I found on his website. 

So, for me, it's still a mystery.

Edited Monday at 04:21 PM by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, one has to note this:

Before he agreed to debate me on BOR, he insisted that I not bring up the Joe Nolan impersonation.

That is pretty rich is it not?  

I've mentioned this before, but the forum membership has probably had a lot of turnover since that time. 

I was a long-time contributor to McAdams' newsgroup, and routinely schooled him on stuff he did not know. I say this not as a boast, but because it's important to what follows.

Several years into this, I was contacted by a representative of a mid-western university, who offered to fly me out and put me up for a weekend if would have a public debate against McAdams at the University. We spent a few weeks going back and forth, with my explaining that for the debate to be of value, we needed to focus on stuff on which John and I disagreed--stuff like the single-bullet theory, Oswald's marksmanship ability, and NAA. But then a few weeks before the date I was told that McAdams had essentially chickened-out and had contacted the University to tell them they could save money by replacing me with David Wrone, and that the two of them would just drive down together for the day...that it would then be two academics having a friendly discourse on the case, and not an academic getting confronted on his bs by someone like me. After the event, I contacted the representative to see what happened. And he told me it was as I suspected--the "debate" was open-ended, which allowed McAdams to derail the whole thing by talking about Mark Lane's commie ties, Jim Garrison's weird theories, and Wrone's own batshit belief it was Oswald in the Altgens photo. 

IOW, we were all set to debate the facts, but McAdams turned this into an argument about personalities.

And yes, I see the irony. I mention this in a discussion of his personality. 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 04:40 PM by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

https://www.blackopradio.com/mcadams/index.html

 

John Mcadams - Laughing stock of the Internet?       He's the Westboro Baptist Church of The JFK Research Community ! ...McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position -- his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts. - Debra Hartman   Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot? - By Jim Hargrove Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive? He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert, or Crackpot? Here is what was discovered. McAdams is not just a fraud as a teacher. He is a corrupt man. - by Isabel Kirk And not merely corrupt; he is an evangelist for corruption and fraud. He has sought and enlisted disciples, and they employ his knowingly fraudulent "methodology" in their writing "assignments," many of which are posted to the website of Marquette University. John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago by Jim DiEugenio with Brian Hunt Part One Part Two "McAdams did indeed make comments that were intended to imply that Gary Aguilar was a drug addict. IMO, they were deliberate, malicious and intended to smear the doctor." Mcadams Embarrassed at "The Education Fourm"- by John Simkin If you do any research of major figures in the JFK assassination via web search engines you will soon find yourself on John McAdams’ website. He is clearly the main disinformation source on the net. He adopts an academic tone and if one was not aware of the facts of the person or event he is writing about, one would think he has logically looked at the evidence available. He is therefore doing a successful job in misleading students about the JFK assassination. Remember that John McAdams was a representative of ICPSR - By Lisa Pease Reviews of John McAdams' JFK Assassination Logic:   How to Think Like John McAdams - by David Mantik Despite his pompous claim to teach all of us how to think critically, McAdams offers not a single reference to standard works on logical fallacies. Nor does he ever present his unique credentials for this task. A   Review - by Gary Aguilar, MD Right off the bat, John McAdams displays a trait that skeptics find both common and infuriating among Warren Commission loyalists – blatant dishonesty. The Gospel According to John McAdams - by Pat Speer   Review - by Frank Cassano …I suppose McAdams misremembered his real name when he was seen carousing around the 1995 COPA Conference using the assumed name of “Paul Nolan: Jet Propulsion Expert”? Comments on John Mcadams - by Michael T. Griffith It is my contention that most of McAdams’ claims are wrong and that in some cases McAdams presents information that is badly outdated. Critique #1 of John McAdams - by From Ken Vogler Critique #2 of John McAdams - by Jeff Orr Critique #3 of John McAdams Critique #4 of John McAdams The Professor at the distinguished university is an Academic Crackpot... John Mcadams Pedophilia Scandle McAdams accuses group users of pedophilia and drug abuse? On LIne Insults Put Conduct @ Issue - by Tom Vandenbrrok of the Milwaukee -Journal Sentinel - March 24th 1996 A Marquette University professor who hurled profane insults has been chastised by university officials... Wikipedia Scandle John Mcadams flagged hundreds of time "conflict of interest.html" flags for his role Mcadams and Nazis Wiki user pal of mcadams USER Gamaliel aka "Robert Fernandez of Florida" deletes hundreds of posts with Most proud of his contributions to the Wikipedia article on Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone assassin... deletes anything to the contrary.> He had Nazi Swastika on his website Althought I did notice wikipedia editor Gamaliel has a NAZI swastika flag on his talk page. Len Osanic 70.71.5.183 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I'm very discouraged to learn that the editor who took issue with your corrections had a Nazi swastika on his page. User:Pedant 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Sieg heil Gamaliel! Thank you for that utterly worthless block... Gamaliel wikipedia page Maybe you should just lock the page. (John McAdams) Sorry, Wikipedia policies prohibit us from locking the page to protect a preferred version. I will try to keep a better eye on it though. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC) That will be appreciated. (John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.247.65 (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Althought there is no nazi writing on mcadams website shouldn't he be more careful who he associates with? Payback for your own website quote john Radio Debate: Host Anton Batey Tom Rosley vs mcadams Radio Debate: Host Paul Garson Greg Burnham vs mcadams Radio Debate: Host Len Osanic Jim DiEugenio vs mcadams   Mcadams rants and raves about the book "Report From Iron Mountain" Lets look at what the author had to say before Mcadams slanders Fletcher Prouty any further. This is what author Leonard Lewin said about his own book. Read it for yourself first. New York Times Book Review: March 19, 1972 Leonard Lewin wrote a review of his own book in March 19th, 1972 Col. Fletcher Prouty read this and kept it. He quotes from the review during this interview in 1988. He knew for years what Leonard Lewin wrote!   Other opinions of the interview Others have left e-mail with their thoughts on the Report from Iron Mountain and Col. Prouty's comments on the Leonard Lewin novel.

 

 

15 min. clip		"Tom Valentine Show" A discussion of the "Report from Iron Mountain" Tom interviews Col. Fletcher Prouty Tom: One of my listeners sent me some tapes of another radio show out of Seattle, Washington. And there was a guy on, and I'm gonna have that guy on my show next week. A guy named K.C. Depass, Depass yeah. And he was saying that the, the powers structure guys. These same guys we've been talking about, this USTEC and everything. They had, one of your old bosses, was the head man of this group. Were wondering what would happen to the world if it didn't have a war economy. You know as a lot of people say you can't an economy without wars anymore, not under modern...uh... there's no free enterprise anyway but modern capital and communistic type enterprise. You must have wars or you're not gonna be able to sustain an economy, you're gonna have a terrible depression. And these people got together to study, what we can do with the economy, if we have a peacetime situation. And this guy K.C Depass says that "what was written as novel in a book called 'Report from Iron Mountain' is really and truly factual material" from a group of men headed by none other than your old boss McNamara. And these guys where talking about, "how are we gonna keep the economy going in peacetime?" Now what do you think about that book? Col. Prouty's comments follow... please listen to the clip. or to apreciate to wisdom, knowledge, and insight of Col. Fletcher Prouty listen to the whole interview
75 min clip		2. The Entire Interview" The entire interview with Tom Valentine 12/10/88 - Radio free America -

 

---

Asleep at the wheel...
 

McAdams commits daily academic fraud ...McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position -- his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts. - Debra Hartman

 

[Keven Hofeling]

 

https://www.whokilledjfk.net/4527810.htm

 

 

4527810, John McAdams aka Paul Nolan aka Paul Gibson Posted by MinM on Mon Nov-24-08 03:11 PM http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3447.html Of course, no one knows what this means. That's because Mr. Paul Gibson aka Mr. Paul Nolan, aka Mr. John MacMadman, aka Mr. Paul MacNolan's specific purpose here, is the spread of nonsensical disinfo, supposedly disguised as misinfo, with the intention of breaking threads, and sidetracking any legitimate work being done on forums dedicated to the study of the assassination. This is why Shanet succinctly requested, loud and clear, for this thread, and/or any other thread becoming contaminated by the likes of this scam-artist, be allowed to wither on the vine, or better yet, to crash and burn... Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot? John McAdams attended the 1995 Copa Conference using the assumed name Paul Nolan. More than that, he also fabricated a background to go with the name in that he purported himself to be a jet-propulsion expert and some-time computer store owner from Sherwood, Wisconsin. In that guise, he was quoted in an article in the Washington press by journalist Matt Labash. Mr. Labash later confirmed that McAdams had duped him. Mr. Labash had quoted Paul (McAdams) Nolan in good faith whilst in fact McAdams was lying through his teeth. McAdams later claimed he had used an assumed name to avoid contact with users of the alt.conspiracy group who may have been attending the conference. With McAdams record of willfully abusing users of the group, this story might seem plausible but going to trouble of inventing a detailed cover story and lying to the press have more sinister overtones... Riiight. McAdams/Nolan/Fisher is a real credible source :sarcasm:

4527950, I didn't recommend him as a source.... Posted by Adsos Letter on Mon Nov-24-08 03:26 PM he had the links to the audio files of the Oswald interviews on his site. I came across them while doing a web search.

4528150, My response was to post #1. Not the OP... Posted by MinM on Mon Nov-24-08 03:55 PM Sorry if there was any confusion. :hi: Here's more LHO: DEBATE: Lee Harvey Oswald vs. Carlos Bringuier & Ed Butler 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2a9mRWkso http://www.geocities.com/oswaldpatsy/

4528164, Thanks for the links!... The confusion was solely on my part... Posted by Adsos Letter on Mon Nov-24-08 03:57 PM

[Keven Hofeling]

https://www.blackopradio.com/mcadams/faq.html

 

Who is Mcadams, CIA disinformation asset, or just plain Crackpot?
Since Mcadams is known to use the alias "Paul Nolan" just how many other names has he used to deceive?
He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert... or Crackpot?
Here is what was discovered...

---

T H E   O F F I C I A L   M A C A D A M S  F A Q
Frequently Asked Quuestions regarding john mcadams / aka - paul nolon
By Jim Hargrove
This FAQ info seems to have prematurely disappeared from DejaNews, but after considerable searching on my old hard drive, here, by popular demand, is the "Official John MacAdams FAQ," first posted on Usenet way back in 1995 by a wonderful Englishman named Bill MacDowall. Bill made "John Locke" (an earlier and even meaner version of "Amythest") stop smearing people on this newsgroup forever by using well-paid lawyers, who for once served a reasonably worthy cause.

This FAQ exists to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about John McAdams.

This FAQ will be posted regularly to forewarn new users of the dangers of becoming another McAdams victim.
 

---

1. Who is John McAdams?

John McAdams is a professor of political science employed in the Jesuit Marquette University.

---

2. Is John McAdams hell-bent on destroying the (alt.conspiracy.jfk) newsgroup?

Sadly yes. His own words appended below summarize his intentions better than I could.

From jmcadams@primenet.com Sat Feb 15 05:17:02 1997
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Blown back by shot
From: jmcadams@primenet.com (John McAdams)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700

You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme
to make this group a shambles.
And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret.
I have publicly announced it.
I have made it perfectly obvious.
I have rubbed you buffs' noses in it.
It's blatantly obviously to everybody.

.John



John gives the victory sign after deleteing posts at alt.jfk
 

---

This recent post by McAdams should be viewed in terms of the Charter
he submitted as part of the process of forming the moderated JFK group:

 

CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY

This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK's death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this important topic.

One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content.
 

---

3. Is McAdams connected to the CIA?

Many people have suggested he is and it would not be difficult to imagine how useful a professor of political science at a respected university would be as a CIA asset. It is impossible to know if McAdams has "company" links but his background and behavior may shed some light.

The following is a quote from a letter written by McAdams to the Milwaukee Sentinel Newspaper:

(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.

The article below throws some light on just how "un-spooky" the ICPSR actually is

This is a repost of something Lisa Pease posted a while back that elaborates on these spook research grants and also contains Mcadams' admission, if not boast, that he was at one time "official representative" to ICPSR.

They have a web page, so you can check it out for yourself. You may notice studies on assassinations and the courses on the "formation of elites" in Chile etc..

The URL is: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/

Of course, McAdams may or may not be connected with the CIA, you pay your money and take your chance in dealing with him.
 

---

CIA infiltrating as Teachers ?

Search for "Marquette University & the CIA" on any search engine a see what comes up...
Here's a small sample of what I found

CIA Sends Agents To Schools -- To Teach
... Floyd L. Paseman, who ran the CIA's East Asian operations and is now on a two-year
teaching stint at Marquette University in Milwaukee, draws similar plaudits ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines/041800-02.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages


CIA Officer in Residence Program
... according to Carlos D. Davis, deputy director of the CIA's ... of Southern California,
the University of Maryland, New Mexico State University, Marquette ...
www.cia-on-campus.org/foia/oir.html - Similar pages


Center for Studies of Intelligence: Educational Outreach
... Since the program started in 1985, CIA has ... University of South Carolina, University
of Oregon, University of Kentucky, Texas A&M, Marquette ...
www.cia.gov/csi/officer.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages


dci_annual_report_99_22
... American University, US Naval Academy, US Naval War College, Ohio State University,
Marquette University ? New Information Services Governance Process: CIA?s ...
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fy99intellrpt/ dci_annual_report_99_22.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.cia.gov ]


Marquette University - Chris Sloane
... For more on the trebuchet, visit http://www.marquette ... Future plans: PhD program in
Physics at the University ... working in industry or government — maybe the CIA. ...
www.marquette.edu/as/featured_profiles/sloane.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.marquette.edu ]

 

---

4. Has McAdams any track record in covert-type activity?

It seems he has!

John McAdams attended the 1995 Copa Conference using the assumed name Paul Nolan. More than that, he also fabricated a background to go with the name in that he purported himself to be a jet-propulsion expert and some-time computer store owner from Sherwood, Wisconsin. In that guise, he was quoted in an article in the Washington press by journalist Matt Labash. Mr. Labash later confirmed that McAdams had duped him. Mr. Labash had quoted Paul (McAdams) Nolan in good faith whilst in fact McAdams was lying through his teeth.

McAdams later claimed he had used an assumed name to avoid contact with users of the alt.conspiracy group who may have been attending the conference. With McAdams record of willfully abusing users of the group, this story might seem plausible but going to trouble of inventing a detailed cover story and lying to the press have more sinister overtones.
 

---

5. Has McAdams accused other group users of pedophilia and drug abuse?

He most certainly has!

In 1997 McAdams openly accused one Stuart Lyster of having served time in prison for child abuse and accused Dr Gary Aguilar of being a drug addict.

In the light of McAdams behavior in the group and his other activities such as at the Copa Conference, Stuart Lyster asked McAdams explain his motives in using this group and in return posted the following offensive reply:

From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: A cornered rat turns vicious
Date: 12 Sep 1995 13:04:53 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services


In article < 405_9509091355@miratel.uniserve.com,
Stuart.Lyster@miratel.uniserve.com (Stuart Lyster) writes:

And .John refuses to discuss how he uses this newsgroup for profit.
So, .John, are you ready to discuss your *REAL* use of this newsgroup
and why you are here, and....


Stuart, you've first got to address charges that you are a pedophile
who has served time in jail for molesting young children.
I'm going to keep after you on this until you respond.


.John



This reply earned McAdams coverage in the Milwaukee Sentinal newspaper:

By Tom Vanden Brook of the Journal Sentinel staff
_____________________________________

A Marquette University professor who hurled profane insults across the Internet - including accusations of drug use and pedophilia - has been chastised by university officials, has annoyed people across the country, and has sparked a small, intense debate on etiquette in cyberspace.

John McAdams, a political science professor who teaches a course on the Kennedy assassination and has created a home page on the World Wide Web devoted to the topic, admitted to using blue prose in computer correspondence.

But he defended himself by saying he was responding in kind to people he says are viciously critical of his views on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. "The Internet used to be a reasonable place to discuss the Kennedy assassination," McAdams said. "Now, it's a complete 'flamefest'."

 

"Flaming," in Internet circles, refers to diatribes aimed at those with differing viewpoints. McAdams is a vocal opponent of academics and others who ascribe to various conspiracy theories concerning the assassination.

Last fall, participants in an assassination discussion group complained to the Roman Catholic university about McAdams' profane references to them on computer bulletin boards. Gary Aguilar, a San Francisco surgeon, said he contacted MU after McAdams asked him to respond to charges that he had used drugs. Aguilar vehemently denies using drugs.

"He's extremely mean-spirited," Aguilar said. "What academic purpose can be served by calling people these names? I find it peculiar in the extreme that a professor at Marquette University, a Catholic institution, would do this."

 

 

In response to these criticisms McAdams said

"I refuse to be driven off the Internet by abuse or attacks," McAdams said. "If I called somebody a bimbo, it's in reaction. I refuse to be bound by any notion of political correctness."

Of course McAdams didn't call anyone a "bimbo" which is hardly a description calculated to fuel anger. What he did do is make allegations of child abuse and drug taking which is quite different.

McAdams has made repeated claims that he did not accuse Stuart Lyster of child abuse, merely asked him to address allegations.... readers will recognize semantics when they encounter them.

Subsequently, McAdams claimed Stuart Lyster had apologized to him and was not making an issue out of the pedophilia slurs.

To date, despite repeated requests, McAdams has been unable to post this alleged apology. McAdams protestations of not actually having called Stuart Lyster a pedophile fails to square with an article written by Heather Anichini in Marquette University's own newspaper:

In condemning Vanden Brook’s ‘unfair’ assessment of him, McAdams wrote that his school paper, the Marquette Tribune, had produced a very fair story. In that story, written by Heather Anichini and printed on 10/17/95, McAdams claimed he had only called someone a pedophile in response to that correspondent’s accusing me (McAdams) of using the group to write a book....

McAdams explained his actions in the Tribune saying, I was attempting to show the ridiculousness of such claims. ONE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH STATEMENT WITHOUT FOUNDATION. (emphasis added).

The man later wrote and apologized (as noted above, no proof of this alleged apology has ever been offered by McAdams...perhaps he doesn't know how to fake email)

So McAdams, in order to illuminate the inadvisability making charges without having a foundation, made himself the unfounded, and decidedly more mean-spirited, charge of pedophilia!

The purpose of this FAQ is to address the McAdams problem facing this group and provide some insight for new users to the group of what is actually behind the flame wars being carried out by McAdams and a few of his associates.

 

--Jim Hargrove

[Robert Morrow]

I have personally been accused (years ago) by morons of being "CIA" because I say that Lyndon Johnson orchestrated the JFK assassination.

As for John McAdams, it would be nice if someone could actually PROVE HE WAS BEING PAID BY THE CIA. My guess is that John McAdams was not being paid by the CIA nor was he a CIA media asset. I put him more in the "useful idiot" category, but I could be wrong.

Perhaps Adams was just a mere "Lone Nutter" who happened to agree in general with government propaganda.

One time I accused Hugh Aynesworth of being a "CIA media asset," which, of course he was. Aynesworth's immediate reply to me at the 2013 Texas book festival was "THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION." You can be a "CIA media asset" without being paid by the CIA if you have a relationship with them whereby you do favors for them/trade information with them and they do favors for you to add value to your job.

Hugh Aynesworth was also a great friend with the LBJ White House and the FBI.

Hugh Aynesworth answers the question “Are you a CIA media asset?” – Asked by Robert Morrow

 2013 Texas Book Festival – CSPAN2 Tent – Austin, TX

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTaz95ni22E

 Aynesworth answered: “That is a fair question.”

 James Feldman comment on video on YouTube:

 QUOTE

 I note that Hugh Aynesworth does NOT answer the key operative part of the question put to him: Are you or have you ever been a CIA media asset? He only says that he did not take money from any government agency, but that too does not help to answer the question, and, in fact, is a MISLEADING answer because the CIA very often pays its assets through business intermediaries and other such non-government fronts. I will give Aynesworth credit as a very skilled liar, however, with his cleverly deceptive and evasive answer that appears to be "sincere." But his complete failure to answer the question in a forthright, honest manner merely supports those who assert that Aynesworth has been a CIA media asset.

 UNQUOTE

 

 

Edited Monday at 04:59 PM by Robert Morrow

[James DiEugenio]

So this idea that somehow Mockingbird is not around anymore, and has no influence on the critical community, I think that is dubious.

Before the Nolan impersonation, there was a meeting of some CIA guys, assets and symps, I think Gus Russo was there.

And they talked about how to discredit the community, and their sympathy for poor David Phillips.

Now, am I saying this Nolan incident was a direct result?

Maybe not, but the proximity was pretty interesting.

[James DiEugenio]

Finally let me add this,

There is a very interesting book by Tricia Jenkins, called The CIA in Hollywood.

The Agency was very disappointed that they had no prior influence over the making of and distribution of Oliver Stone's JFK.

They decided that should not happen again.

So Gates sent an officer out to Movieland by the name of Chase Brandon, and he set up shop there and went about his work making sure that the CIA was not depicted again as Mr X did in Stone's film.

As Jenkins notes, to say he was successful, does not do him justice.  They retired him and sent him to the Roswell case.

So again, to say these kinds of things do not happen, and that they are musings by people who are not reality based, this is false.  Its quite the contrary.   And its fact based.

Edited Monday at 05:08 PM by James DiEugenio

[Keven Hofeling]

Every once in a while, there are leaks which reveal the basic outlines of the inner workings of these disinfo operations, and how they function, such as this 2014 Intercept article:

 

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

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. <!--more-->

Glenn Greenwald

February 24 2014, 6:25 p.m.

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:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

 

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

 

 

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Documents referenced in this article:

• The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations

 

[Keven Hofeling]

President Obama appointed Professor Cass Sunstein to implement his "Cognitive Infiltration" doctrines in social media...

 

And legitimate researchers unwittingly encounter these cognitive infiltration operatives every day, both through the mainstream media, academia, and particularly on social media platforms...

 

[Keven Hofeling]

The CIA, of course, has long been concerned about the effects of the assassination research community on public perceptions of the government and the intelligence services...

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Maybe it's because if you do all quit the forum in protest, you won't earn your paychecks?

Looks like it's becoming a habit for some EF members to totally ignore this forum rule:

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

Accusations of Member Credibility:

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at [this] forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum.

Such behavior may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25465-forum-rules-and-membership-behaviour/

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

Edited yesterday at 12:06 AM by David Von Pein

[Mark Ulrik]

23 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Looks like it's becoming a habit for some EF members to totally ignore this forum rule:

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

Accusations of Member Credibility:

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at [this] forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum.

Such behavior may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25465-forum-rules-and-membership-behaviour/

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

Even the mods don't give a hoot anymore.