Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Simkin: CIA Agent?


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi John,

The greatest threat to these people is the free flow of ideas and the ongoing exchange of research and information, such as occurs here.

If you were in some way inhibiting or directing these exchanges, perhaps a case could be made: get them all together in an environment they trust and then lead/direct/massage course of the discussions. I'm not saying that he worked for the CIA, but our old buddy Tim Gratz tried his best to bludgeon us all to death with the same nonsense that the CIA has been trying to peddle since 1963 (Castro did it) and nobody bought it because the evidence does not support it, nor does it make any sense. If I were CIA and looking to make an impact in the research community, I'd learn from Tim's failures and spend a lot of time building relationships, credibility and trust with the key members (the ones other members respect and follow) of a forum like this. And then gradually, gently, subtly begin trying to manipulate discussions in such a way that diverts attention, gets important threads off track, or otherwise gets us to chase our collective tail. They may be cowards and pathetic traitors, but as we well know- they are not stupid. Quite the opposite.

If the Agency wants to impact what's happening here, my guess is their 3 best options are:

1. Technical Sabotage - I'm no techie, but I'm sure there are multiple ways to make it cumbersome

and/or impossible to visit a website, e.g. viruses, slow/lost connections, bringing down your server,

etc.

2. Agents Provocateurs - Perhaps using methodologies like Tim Gratz employed. Or perhaps being

smarter about it and using methodologies like the one I suggest above.

3. Reputation and Credibility - Attack the reputation and credibility of the information being exchanged

here by calling into question the legitimacy of the key purveyors of said information. No proof

needs to be provided. Simply begin to sow the seeds of doubt within a community, let's face it, that is

by its very nature suspicious. Do this over time and with the reputations and credibility of the key

players becoming increasingly "questionable", the information and ideas exchanged here are

diminished in value.

Perhaps they are running a number 3 from their little playbook in Langley. You mentioned Larry's name above, which I think is interesting. Personally, if I were Agency and had a few minutes between assassinations, wars, and cover-ups and I was concerned about what's happening on this website, I'd come up with a way to impugn the reputation and credibility of John Simkin, Larry Hancock, James Richards, and Pat Speer. While there are dozens of intelligent and valuable researchers here, in my opinion these four individuals (sorry to have saddled the four of you mates with this responsibility) are the prime movers. Maybe a few others also, but diminishing the credibility of any or all of these 4 individuals would severely limit what can be accomplished here. And fingering someone as CIA is a sure way of damaging one's credibility within the research community. If you think that the Forum is garnering attention in Langley, that's what I'd be on the look-out for.

But to answer the question... No, I do not think you are a CIA agent. That "James" on the other hand... (just kidding!)

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I suppose I should take it as a compliment that those opposed to the investigation into the JFK assassination have felt the need to smear me in this way.

Yes, you should. A most perverse compliment, but a sign you are making significant progress.

To be truthful, if I was in charge of Operation Mockingbird, I would launch a smear campaign against me. Not because of the quality of my work but because of the influence that I have on JFK research. I am talking about this forum and the high-ranking that my JFK website has achieved in the search-engines.

What I cannot understand is what these people who believe that I am a CIA agent consider what my motivation is?

It could be paranoia, based upon some fact. After all, there are some webmasters who have demonstrated an unhealthy willingness to shill for CIA, but they are self-evident to all with half their wits about them.

As for whomever is casting this aspersion, if they are themselves moles in the community, the point is not whether they truly believe you are CIA, but that they get others to assume you are. It would reduce the willingness of others to confide in you, as several important people have been doing for some time now.

I would be grateful if any other members of the forum have heard these CIA stories could post on this thread. I would be interested in hearing the names of the people who told them these stories (by email if you prefer not to embarrass the person concerned). I am particularly interested in what my CIA “motivation” is for creating my JFK website and running this forum.

I've hear nought, but don't correspond with more than a few other members here. Now I want to know why I've been left out of this important loop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not heard these rumours.

Funnily enough though, it has occurred to me that you may be a gatekeeper as such. I mean you have probably the most influential sites, top researchers, access to authors and their thoughts, perhaps even sources. This site has one of the best reputations on JFK research and education.

Within this site is everything any intelligence agent probing/guarding 'what the researchers know', would have a fairly comprehensive overview and more.

A very perceptive post.

For example, if I was in charge of protecting the CIA from claims that their agents were involved in the assassination of JFK, I would get someone to establish a website and forum on the subject. This person would have to give the impression that they were someone who was determined to get at the truth. I would also feed them information so that they could create credibility. The most important fact about being a disinformation agent is that you have to provide some information that is true. You need use this credibility to move people in a direction that you want people to go. More importantly, away from the right path. This of course what Dick Billings, did during the Jim Garrison investigation.

This person, once trusted, would receive information from people who knew the truth about the assassination. They would be used to disseminate this information without it being traced back to the informant. Of course, if this person was really a disinformation agent, the CIA would be told about who was “talking”.

Finally, this person would announce that after examining all the evidence for many years, they had decided that the Warren Commission got it right and JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.

As you can see, I could be a CIA disinformation agent. However, if I was, would I make a posting like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had this email from a fellow JFK researcher this morning that included the following passage. “This is where I have to tell you that a researcher of some repute told me just two days ago that you are CIA.”

The most interesting aspect of this is the phrase “a researcher of some repute”. This is not the first time I have been told about this CIA smear. One friend actually named the person who told him I was a CIA disinformation agent. To my surprise he was a member of this forum who I consider to be one of the leading researchers into the JFK assassination. I imagine that most researchers would have believed the story if they heard it from him. The point is that I am convinced that this person is not CIA. He is also extremely intelligent, yet he appears to genuinely believe this story.

I suppose I should take it as a compliment that those opposed to the investigation into the JFK assassination have felt the need to smear me in this way. To be truthful, if I was in charge of Operation Mockingbird, I would launch a smear campaign against me. Not because of the quality of my work but because of the influence that I have on JFK research. I am talking about this forum and the high-ranking that my JFK website has achieved in the search-engines.

What I cannot understand is what these people who believe that I am a CIA agent consider what my motivation is?

I would be grateful if any other members of the forum have heard these CIA stories could post on this thread. I would be interested in hearing the names of the people who told them these stories (by email if you prefer not to embarrass the person concerned). I am particularly interested in what my CIA “motivation” is for creating my JFK website and running this forum.

**************************************************************

Don't worry, John. I think any of us who've been independent thinkers over the years have been accused, at one point or another, of possibly being assets, if not agents, ourselves.

Have you gotten our pictures, yet? You can post them if you'd like, and let the members view some of your American contingency in the U.S.

Terry [posting from Dawn's rig, again] :cheers

Have a few friends who are retired Agency - you should be flattered - they're some of the best people I know-people like Phillips, Morales, et al - are in the distinct minority.

Besides, I have it on good authority that you're actually a Taliban Recruiter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So John are you going to tell us who said this? Inquiring minds MUST know. :cheers

I truly doubt it was Ashton Gray. That would very much surprise me. He defends you

not defames you.

Who ever it is is just trying to get yor goat perhaps?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you probably know, I also received this moniker from a "researcher of some repute" some time ago. It was said I was writing posts from a cubicle at Langley to disrupt forums and keep people from knowing what they claimed was the truth. Some of my fellow members at Lancer were asked by that person to vouch for me. That person then proceeded to "check me out", and actually posted personal information about me that he had discovered.

When you vociferously disagree with some pet theories, you run the risk of being called nearly anything. As you said, it makes no sense. I am one of the most vocal supporters I know of the case against the CIA, as you are. If I was CIA, I'd be agreeing with some of the more outlandish theories out there, trying to deflect attention away from the Company(of course then some moron might see that as a PSYOP, and cite it as "proof"!).

I accept your point about researchers who disagree with your theories spreading rumours about you being CIA. I therefore would not be surprised if people I have clashed with me in the past like Tim Gratz, Tim Carroll, Ashton Gray, Wim Danbaar, Tom Purvis, etc. put it around that I was CIA.

Well, it's always hearwarming to see one's name up in lights, even in a Rogues' Gallery.

And while I hate to have facts interfere with fiction, I am, after all, on the record with copious amounts of laudatory admiration for your dedication and devotion to research and to the open airing of many points of view, particularly your exposure of the crimes of CIA. So I'm very surprised to find that you "would not be surprised" to hear that I made any such patently asinine statement. If you ever do hear any such vicious lie, be very surprised indeed, and post the name of the xxxx who told you any such thing here. I'll take it from there. :cheers

Hell, I didn't even know we had "clashed." I guess one man's clash is another man's bumper cars.

As a result of their past history, they would probably not be believed.

While I find the very notion that you're somehow "CIA" to be laughably absurd, you do have the art of smear down pretty well. Of course, fishwives have, too, through the ages, so this is no refined or arcane art.

However, the person who has been named does not fall into this category. We never clash and I virtually agree with everything he says. I also do not believe he is himself CIA. He is also extremely intelligent. Therefore, he has obviously been told a very convincing story by someone he trusts. Maybe he will be willing to post this story.

I'm on the record calling for this person to do just that. And I'm on the record as saying loud and clear and unequivocally that however "intelligent" or "agreeable" someone is, if they are spreading rumors that you are CIA, their intent is not in the least benign.

One day, when we all grow up and get out of short pants, we may start to face the fact that there actually is evil afoot in the world, and that it does not wear the uniform or costume or face that we individually might assume evil to come in. It comes in every conceivable size, shape, and description. Intelligence and ability and "agreeability" have zero to do with intent.

In fact, even a moment's reflection will tell the astute that no covert or intelligence operation in the world ever got anywhere without inducing trust and deceiving. The most important weapon they use is inducing trust, then betraying it. They are masters of the con. That's why they are in the business at all. And they are a tiny minority, but they do the most egregious and gratuitous and infamous self-serving evil that the world ever knows.

But: you often would think you were talking to your best friend. That's why they get the big bucks.

I have also been told that Debra Conway is a CIA agent. Again, a ridiculous idea and probably another case of jealousy. Debra’s JFK Lancer website and forum is one of the most important sources of information for genuine researchers.

Although I haven't been subjected to the rumor that you are "a CIA agent" by anyone directly (and it's a damned good thing), I have been "warned" about Debra Conway and the Lancer site—which I promptly ignored, and have found in her work concise, accurate, unvarnished facts that I had previously had a great deal of trouble trying to track down. I completely agree about the value of her work, in which I have seen not the slightest spin or deceptive agenda.

I have not been told that she was "a CIA agent." So as not to create any mystery, I'll air what I was told: that her husband had been ONI, and that someone who tried "couldn't get any background on her." Like I give a damn.

These are exactly the kinds of rumors and personal smears that I uniformly ignore completely. I once told someone else who posts here that I never read any bios of the members. They were astounded. They just couldn't get it.

The only point is that the only sure antidote I've ever found for the institutional deception of the very agencies so often discussed in these forums is to pursue facts, not personalities, because their stock-in-trade—just as you state below—is the smearing and discrediting of individuals who start to expose them or get close to the truths they so desperately want hidden.

So whenever I begin to be smeared and attacked on a personal basis (a favorite indoor sport of a few people in this very forum), I just pour on the coals. It's the best indication I know of that the train is on the right track.

I recently had a conversation with my most important source of information on the JFK assassination. He has contacts from within the intelligence community. He told me the CIA is very concerned about my website and forum. He also warned me not to write about certain characters who had in the past been CIA assets. I asked him what would happen if I did write about these characters. Would I be in a danger? He laughed and said the CIA no longer kills people. What they would do is to discredit me. I thought it interesting that these are virtually the same words used by Gene Wheaton in the filmed interview where he named Carl E. Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as two of the men behind the assassination of JFK.

You posted this before, and I urged you then to expose this, because with the phrase "no longer kills people," you have implied strongly a connection to someone with unique percipient knowledge that the CIA has murdered people in the past with premeditation and malice aforethought. These are capital crimes being bandied about. With laughter.

I don't find it funny. Who does?

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you probably know, I also received this moniker from a "researcher of some repute" some time ago. It was said I was writing posts from a cubicle at Langley to disrupt forums and keep people from knowing what they claimed was the truth. Some of my fellow members at Lancer were asked by that person to vouch for me. That person then proceeded to "check me out", and actually posted personal information about me that he had discovered.

When you vociferously disagree with some pet theories, you run the risk of being called nearly anything. As you said, it makes no sense. I am one of the most vocal supporters I know of the case against the CIA, as you are. If I was CIA, I'd be agreeing with some of the more outlandish theories out there, trying to deflect attention away from the Company(of course then some moron might see that as a PSYOP, and cite it as "proof"!).

I accept your point about researchers who disagree with your theories spreading rumours about you being CIA. I therefore would not be surprised if people I have clashed with me in the past like Tim Gratz, Tim Carroll, Ashton Gray, Wim Danbaar, Tom Purvis, etc. put it around that I was CIA. As a result of their past history, they would probably not be believed. However, the person who has been named does not fall into this category. We never clash and I virtually agree with everything he says. I also do not believe he is himself CIA. He is also extremely intelligent. Therefore, he has obviously been told a very convincing story by someone he trusts. Maybe he will be willing to post this story.

I have also been told that other members of this forum are CIA. One named Larry Hancock as a CIA asset. He even gave me details of where and when he was recruited. It was pure nonsense of course but this researcher had been given this information by someone they trusted. In this case I think it was pure jealousy. Larry, to my mind is the most important JFK researcher we have.

I have also been told that Debra Conway is a CIA agent. Again, a ridiculous idea and probably another case of jealousy. Debra’s JFK Lancer website and forum is one of the most important sources of information for genuine researchers.

Why do some of us believe these stories? The problem is that we all believe in conspiracies. Therefore we are easy targets for people who want to spread disinformation or want to create disunity amongst us.

I recently had a conversation with my most important source of information on the JFK assassination. He has contacts from within the intelligence community. He told me the CIA is very concerned about my website and forum. He also warned me not to write about certain characters who had in the past been CIA assets. I asked him what would happen if I did write about these characters. Would I be in a danger? He laughed and said the CIA no longer kills people. What they would do is to discredit me. I thought it interesting that these are virtually the same words used by Gene Wheaton in the filmed interview where he named Carl E. Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as two of the men behind the assassination of JFK.

I therefore would not be surprised if people I have clashed with me in the past like Tim Gratz, Tim Carroll, Ashton Gray, Wim Danbaar, Tom Purvis, etc. put it around that I was CIA.

Although the thought that you may represent some of those* who have interest in maintaining the confusion surrounding this subject matter has come to mind (*(not the CIA), such suspicion has been kept entirely to myself.

When one observes what is an obviously intelligent person expouse some of the socio-political philosophies as well as JFK assassination theories, which you appear to support, then one must look at a variety of potential answers for such demonstrated displays of misguided thought.

As a result of their past history, they would probably not be believed.

Then it should come as no suprise that "Tom" certainly had no great expectations of being "believed".

In fact, this is why he rolled up his JFK information and packed it away long ago.

However, if one is to believe the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, as well as a great majority of the witness statements of those who were in Dealy Plaza, then there was only a Lone/Single assassin, who fired three times from the 6th floor window of the TSDB, and he struck JFK with 3 out of the 3 shots fired.

And, anyone who lacks the capability for independent thought process, in which they can conduct the research necessary to verify or negate forensic; ballistic; pathologicl; and physical fact, as well as logical deductive reasoning, truly has no business in making statements as regards the JFK assassination.

And, since it does not require even a great degree of "smart" to figure this one out, I therefore must assume that you have some AGENDA in this matter.

I for one, most certainly will admit that I do!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Thomas Graves beat me to it. You must be running a "limited hangout." Or I should "unlimited." The CIA is using you and your forum to so expose them in the JFK assassination that they will finally have to admit that they did it. Devilishly clever. But why such a long, drawn-out process? Well, spooks never seem to do things the easy way. They like to analyze, compartmentalize, hypnotize, marginalize, terrorize, and when possible (as with their drug running) capitalize. In this case, I guess they just want to put off confessing as long as they can, hoping that by the time they confess, most people just won't care anymore. (But isn't that already the case?)

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Thomas Graves beat me to it. You must be running a "limited hangout." Or I should "unlimited." The CIA is using you and your forum to so expose them in the JFK assassination that they will finally have to admit that they did it. Devilishly clever. But why such a long, drawn-out process? Well, spooks never seem to do things the easy way. They like to analyze, compartmentalize, hypnotize, marginalize, terrorize, and when possible (as with their drug running) capitalize. In this case, I guess they just want to put off confessing as long as they can, hoping that by the time they confess, most people just won't care anymore. (But isn't that already the case?)

Ron

they may not kill them any more but they don't kill them any less either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

I have not heard these rumours.

Funnily enough though, it has occurred to me that you may be a gatekeeper as such. I mean you have probably the most influential sites, top researchers, access to authors and their thoughts, perhaps even sources. This site has one of the best reputations on JFK research and education.

Within this site is everything any intelligence agent probing/guarding 'what the researchers know', would have a fairly comprehensive overview and more.

As you can see, I could be a CIA disinformation agent. However, if I was, would I make a posting like this?

I just love that last line :-) because that's precisely what you would do...wouldn't you? :cheers .

As Huntley said through his actions "If I killed the girls, would I be helping you look for them?".

How about Morales "If I'd anything to do with RFK's murder, would I really be at the hotel?"

Michael Corleone "If I was going to have him killed, would I have agreed to be Godfather to his child?"

Double bluff or truth.

The coward does it with a kiss, the brave man with a sword.

It really is a judgement call and that's where the confidence man earns his corn.

Truth is John, I don't know you from Adam. I certainly don't know nearly enough to say yay or nay to your membership of the CIA. I'd be disappointed though not shocked if you were; disappointed because you have gained a certain amount of my respect and trust. Similarly I'd be contented and not surprised if you weren't.

Anyhow, I love reading your posts, and those of all the researchers gathered here, for whom I have the greatest respect. I then try to form my own opinions, irrespective of the messenger.

Kindest Regards

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, if you were an agent of the CIA, you could be running this forum under the philosophy of, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."

You must be getting too close to *something* -- whether it is JFK directly or something of nearly equal significance that is in the surroundings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear.

I have no intention of naming anyone but I do know that such accusations have been made about many people and in each case there is no proof or anything which could be described as evidence.

There is just an implication, "it would be in the interests of... (CIA, KGB,the Nazis, the Kaiser)" though in this instance that seems pretty obscure.

I would take it as a sort of backhanded compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very strange.

This is obviously a sliming maneuver to lower Simkin's reputation.

In fact, the entire McAdams website appeared to me to be a CIA mouthpiece,

so I joined the enlightened critical thinking alternative here at the ED FORUM.

John, Andy and I are warmly slandered (photos and all) as "arch Zionists" now on a website

run by a Nazi that we pushed off of the FORUM.

Everyone is trying to figure out who the "respected member" is, but it is definitely not me........

...............If John Simkin is CIA,

then I work the counter at Negroponte's ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that certain "agencies" would use paranoia as a tool of control should come as no surprise to most members, it has a long history as a ruling class method of internal disruption, with false flag terrorism its outward manifestation. This is a sure sign that this Forum is getting just a little bit to close to certain unpalitable truths for some peoples palates, and a sign that we should ignore all attempts to distract us. CARRY ON RESEARCHING.

Yup, "Divide and Conquer." Works like a champ. Anyone ever see the movie "Matewan"? It's about West Virginia coal companies versus miners trying to form a union. The whole plot is about the company's divide and conquer tactics.

I can't say if they worked 'cause that would be a spoiler. :cheers I will say that the movie depicts a true historical episode accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I am usually dismissive of this notion, but occassionally I think of Kenny Everetts "Round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards" skit as an analogy for the forum. :-)

...

That's my answer to John's question about possible motives for a CIAer to run such a forum. Actually John himself said something like that recently. This forum is a way for the CIA to get *real names* of people who research this topic, and track the progress of those people, and probably mess with them eventually. And if a researcher gains prominence the CIA would no doubt be ready with background checks done and smears ready to deploy. (If you ever stole a quarter from your mother's purse as a kid, the world will know.) In fact that's why I objected in another thread to the use of real names; it makes people vulnerable to this very thing. In that way the forum is no doubt a valuable CIA database.

However, I also understand the value of using real names, and Lancer has the same requirement. It's a trade off. And the value of coming here for information, IMO, outweighs the risks because the CIA does so much info bombing to overwhelm and confuse us, and this forum saves a lot of time we'd otherwise spend sifting thru all the garbage for the gold.

Anyway, that's my answer to the question. This forum "outs" researchers. The CIAers of course remain the shadowy anonymous self-serving cowards they've always been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...