John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist

[W. Niederhut]

35 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I received this response to an email to John Simkin

 

Hi Pat,

 

I am still alive and well and still investigating political corruption. However, I am not involved with JFK research as I have enough on my hands with what is going on in the UK. I do not post on the forum and play no role in the way it is run. However, you have permission to quote this email on the forum.

 

I initially set up the forum to discuss different interpretations of the past. Over time the JFK assassination began to dominate the forum. From the very beginning I allowed people to join the forum with a wide variety of different views on the assassination. That includes those who believed in the lone-gunman theory. One example of this was J. Timothy Gratz who was one of our most regular posters. I also arranged for people like Don Bohning and Nina Burleigh to join the forum to discuss their books on the forum although they did not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK (see link below). Even when Bohning went on to write an article in a journal for retired CIA officers where he attempted to smear me with the claim that I was a "communist" I did not remove his membership. I am someone who believes in free speech for everyone, not just for people who agree with me.    

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/forum/204-history-and-political-books-debates-with-authors/

 

John   

And notice, Pat, that no one has attempted to ban Mr. Litwin, or his WCR/LN disinformation fan club, here on the Education Forum.

But let's be clear.  John Simkin described John McAdams as a purveyor of CIA disinformation, as I indicated by referencing Mr. Simkin's 2005 thread about Operation Mockingbird.

Ergo, I don't believe that John Simkin would have objected to forum members posting critiques of putative CIA disinformation.

Yet, what you have been doing during the past three or four days, is attacking a moderator for posting critiques of Mr. Litwin's curious publications smearing Jim Garrison and James DiEugenio.

In effect, you have been supporting the LN mob trolling of a moderator who has raised questions, and posted critiques, about Mr. Litwin's work.

Then you attacked our former, and current, forum moderators, Sandy Larsen and Ron Bulman, for accurate commentary about LN disinformation.

It's one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed on this forum.

Edited 3 hours ago by W. Niederhut

[Keven Hofeling]

Just now, Jean Ceulemans said:

@Keven Hofeling

Feel free to file a complaint against me for false accusations if you feel that is justified.  And most certainly do it if makes you feel better. But I don´t really care.

The operative point is, in my opinion, that in making the claim -- that the concerns expressed in this thread and others about the dissemination of disinformation and propaganda in this forum actually represent an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members" -- you demonstrated that you are deliberately and knowingly disseminating disinformation and propaganda, and are now conceding that that is exactly what you are doing.

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

And notice, Pat, that no one has attempted to ban Mr. Litwin, or his WCR/LN disinformation fan club, here on the Education Forum.

But let's be clear.  John Simkin described John McAdams as a purveyor of CIA disinformation, as I indicated by referencing Mr. Simkin's 2005 thread about Operation Mockingbird.

Ergo, I don't believe that John Simkin would have objected to forum members posting critiques of putative CIA disinformation.

Yet, what you have been doing during the past three or four days, is attacking a moderator for posting critiques of Mr. Litwin's curious publications smearing Jim Garrison and James Dieugenio.

In effect, you have been supporting the LN mob trolling of a moderator who has raised questions, and posted critiques, about Mr. Litwin's work.

Then you attacked our former, and current, forum moderators, Sandy Larsen and Ron Bulman, for accurate commentary about LN disinformation.

It's one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed on this forum.

I have not done these things that make you so sad. I applaud the posting of critiques of Litwin's work, so he can respond. That is what this place is about. 

What has been disappointing has been that some have taken to insinuating his presence here is at the behest of a malicious entity, and that several have come flat out and said that this forum was NOT created for people like him, but only people like themselves.

Which--huh--looks awfully like the beginnings of a purge--an attempt to purify the ranks so the "true believers" will be safe from the observations and conclusions of heretics and naysayers. .

So let's nip this in the bud, shall we? 

Please acknowledge that the members of this forum should be free to post and respond without the moderators stepping in to claim that the point in discussion has been settled and that only CIA propagandists would say otherwise. 

Can you not see how that is an abuse of one's position? 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

45 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

The operative point is, in my opinion, that in making the claim -- that the concerns exprssed in this thread and others about the dissemination of disinformation and propaganda in this forum actually represent an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members" -- you demonstrated that you are deliberately and knowingly disseminating disinformation and propaganda, and are now conceding that that is exactly what you are doing.

 

Leaving out a part of my response, doesn´t work here, nice try Mr., but rather cheap in the end.

So I´ll complete it for you:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Cut

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.

Cut

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Jean Ceulemans

[W. Niederhut]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I have not done these things that make you so sad. I applaud the posting of critiques of Litwin's work, so he can respond. That is what this place is about. 

What has been disappointing has been that some have taken to insinuating his presence here is at the behest of a malicious entity, and that several have come flat out and said that this forum was NOT created for people like him, but only people like themselves.

Which--huh--looks awfully like the beginnings of a purge--an attempt to purify the ranks so the "true believers" will be safe from the observations and conclusions of heretics and naysayers. .

So let's nip this in the bud, shall we? 

Please acknowledge that the members of this forum should be free to post and respond without the moderators stepping in to claim that the point in discussion has been settled and that only CIA propagandists would say otherwise. 

Can you not see how that is an abuse of one's position? 

 

Pat,

    Posting evidenced-based critiques of disinformation is not "abuse."  It's Social Ethics 101.

    Do you agree with Education Forum founder, John Simkin, that CIA disinformation about the JFK assassination exists in the mainstream media and on the internet?

    Acknowledging that Orwellian reality seems like a small step for mankind but, perhaps, a giant leap for Pat Speer. 

    

[Keven Hofeling]

15 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

As you seem to have missed a part, I´ll repeat it for you :

 16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cut

If it weren't for

Leaving out a part of my response, doesn´t work here, nice try Mr., but rather cheap in the end.

So I´ll complete it for you:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Cut

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.

Cut

Mr. Larsen described a hypothetical circumstance pursuant to which he would favor such a ban, but did not, as you are claiming, call for an actual ban under the present circumstances, so would you please kindly explain the point of your comment? 

Also, I repeat, would you please kindly present links and citations to substantiate your claim that the concerns expressed in this thread and others about the dissemination of disinformation and propaganda in this forum actually represent an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members"?

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

... several have come flat out and said that this forum was NOT created for people like [Litwin], but only people like themselves.

 

We didn't say that the forum was created just for CTers. We said that the forum is that way now. It makes no sense to keep debating a position (lone gunman) that has been proven to be wrong. Doing so would be like scientists debating the flat earth theory.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Mr. Larsen described a hypothetical circumstance pursuant to which he would favor such a ban, but did not, as you are claiming, call for an actual ban under the present circumstances, so would you please kindly explain the point of your comment? 

Also, I repeat, would you please kindly present links and citations to substantiate your claim that the concerns expressed in this thread and others about the dissemination of disinformation and propaganda in this forum actually represent an agenda to arbitrarily and capriciously ban "LN members"?

 

Hypothetical... yep.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cut

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.

Cut

 

Note that in context, I was saying that I would like to ban all LNers if they didn't add anything to our cause. (And would do so only if it were practical.) Just like the American Medical Association (AMA) would like to get rid of quack doctors.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Some back business here. I would expect we'd send a million bots to our enemies because that's what they're doing to us. My point is I don't think the CIA or anyone domestically gives a crap about about the JFKAC, but maybe someone like Putin. It could never stir a big enough crowd here , not 1% of the population could even tell you who Ruth Paine is, so what kind of political constituency could it possibly acquire? And that's reality.

 

Of course I would never start such a thread as this because personally I don't give a sh-t what John Simkin thinks. I have my own values, and assessments of paid disinformation agents. However he has come back here a very few times,and I like him. I tended to agree with Pat,, because he's the person whose had a lot more interaction with him and sure enough,  he'd probably welcome divergent views without so much of your squawking, W. 

His having started this, it just makes more sense. But  I'm not sure he'd be so impressed with some of the echo chamber aspects of the current forum, viciously  protecting it's pet theories, conspiracy superheroes and authors.

And my impression of Mac Adams has always been that he's just a nut, looking for notoriety. 

 

I'm sorry W. but going to have to give you some tough love.

How about this. .

 

W to Roe:

Get a clue, Beer Can Dude.

I'm Dr.Neiderhut Mr. Roe! I'm a Harvard grad.  Do you know anything about New England's oldest institution of higher learning?

 

Actually I do, it's a total JFKAC sh-thole  where people have to unlearn  everything they learned  about it there and we in the end have to pay for it here  with their newly converted evangelist zeal,  which in your case is double, being such a heavily proclaimed religious person you often have a sort of a yucky "focus of evil aspect" to boot! JMO  Some day you'll thank us, though probably not. 

 

You might check out Morrow' who was here for quite a while before mentioning his academic bona fides and his account of his Ivy League years and what a JFKAC wasteland that was for for him.  Too bad you weren't more reflective to have written  something so eloquent W. 

I'm just trying to push your writing  to be more interesting.

heh heh

 

 

W. Let's look st these threads.   First Litwin's thread "My book, a Heritage of nonsense: Garrison etc.. You dominate that thread with 42 posts replete with Jim Di K&K links on Litwin!, Litwin's only got 25!

 

Then in a week, first you single handedly started another  of your Di Eugenio tribute threads: "James Di Eugenio 1999 Essay on Rose Cheramie Story", Again  adding  to your impressive arsenal of Jim Di K&K links! You were 3 of the first 4 posts on that until people instantly got tired of it and it became Morrow talking his book on LBJ. 

Now you've started this thread' "John Simkin thought John Mac Adams was a CIA propagandist*. A little more equal. With now 4 people giving you a run for your money now pretty much equally sharing this post with you. ok. 

 

What I object to is you in your need for control makes you inject yourself into the middle of everything.* that we end up just being puppets to feed your psychological needs. Have you always been such an attention monger?  I assume you've been in therapy. Do you know why you're doing this?

 

As I said, My biggest criticism of the JFKA forum is that it's just become an echo chamber, and IMO, you're making it much worse. You actually thrive in political discussion because you're so well informed, have ready command of good sources and you are very articulate. Just a fantastic ally to have!

I wanted to end this on a positive note.

 

 

 

 

*Such as shaking down LNer's for their alleged CIA Operation Mockingbird ties.

[David Von Pein]

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It makes no sense to keep debating a position (lone gunman) that has been proven to be wrong.

But that's the rub. Because, to date, nobody on Planet Earth has proven that a conspiracy positively existed on 11/22/63. And it's quite arrogant (and just flat-out wrong) to suggest otherwise.

 

Edited 20 minutes ago by David Von Pein