John Simkin: CIA Agent?

[Pat Speer]

"CIA overthrew Nixon because he was gonna blow the whistle on their scientology research." —Pat Speer

Is this an actual quote?

Ron, I wrote those words while trying to paraphrase what I interpret to be Ashton's theory on Watergate. He now posts it as an exact quote by me and implies it is my own theory as a way of discrediting me. He does this for the exact reasons someone is saying John is a CIA agent. Some have a real hard time engaging in debate. They believe the purpose of debate is to convince others their way is the light. When that fails they seek to question the other person's intelligence and/or integrity. But enough about the unknown entity using the name of "Gray." LOL

As for John being CIA, nothing could be more ludicrous. If anything, John himself is spreading rumors that he is CIA in order to deflect attention away from the more obvious fact he is KGB. LOL. I honestly don't believe anyone on this forum represents any intelligence agency. The CIA concept of "limited hangout" has become so ingrained in the thinking of conspiracy researchers that it is now used as an "unlimited copout." I disagree with person X, and he agrees with me part of the time, and fails to agree with me on some matters that I consider important, and disrupts me on these matters whenever I try to talk about them with others, so THEREFORE person x is a CIA agent performing a limited hangout. This kind of thinking is self-serving, and overly paranoid, IMO.

Outside of their refusal to give up certain documents, I doubt the CIA has a policy about the Kennedy assassination. I doubt they give a crap about it. Why would they? The public record is a confusing mess. The media, the AMA, and the Justice Department have all staked their reputations on Oswald acting alone. Let them do all the fighting. The only possible role I see for the CIA is in the representation of the assassination overseas, which COULD include this forum, as it is based out of England. If the CIA, as a matter of policy grandfathered from LBJ days on down, considers it a matter of national interest that the single-assassin myth be pushed into foreign countries, it is not unreasonable to believe they provide funding and/or tech support for foreign channels running such bs fests as JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet and JFK: Beyond Conspiracy. It's possible they are involved in such matters. I suspect, however, that they are much more interested in infiltrating and controlling the new Al Jazeera station. If ever a media outlet was of interest to the CIA, this would be it.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I wish you wouldn't be so coy, Jack, and would just come out and say who you think such disinformation agents are. I've made no bones about my own opinion on that count.

Ashton Gray

I can attest to the truth of this statement from Mr. Gray, since he accuses me of being a CIA disinformation asset on the very Diem thread he cites in his most recent post.

I am glad John Simkin has opened up this topic. As Clemenza said in The Godfather, it's good to shed a little blood now and then, it clears the air.

It also raises the question: Are Ashton Gray's thought processes truly rational? If Mr. Gray's reasoning that I am a CIA asset was rational, and if he respected the rationality of his readers, he would have provided something in the way of evidence to support his accusation. So far Mr. Gray has not provided even a scintilla, beyond the fact that I made him angry when I pointed out that he was defending E. Howard Hunt against the well-proven charges that Hunt was guilty of Forgery and Uttering a Forged Document in an attempt to posthumously assassinate the character and reputation of JFK. It is still not clear whether Hunt was acting on his own or on someone else's behalf, or both.

So the humour of it all is that Mr. Gray accuses me of being a CIA asset in the same breath that he defends Howard Hunt. Go figure.

Edited November 24, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Evan Marshall]

I wish you wouldn't be so coy, Jack, and would just come out and say who you think such disinformation agents are. I've made no bones about my own opinion on that count.

Ashton Gray

I can attest to the truth of this statement from Mr. Grey, since he accuses me of being a CIA disinformation asset on the very Diem thread he cites in his most recent post.

I am glad John Simkin has opened up this topic. As Clemenza said in The Godfather, it's good to shed a little blood now and then, it clears the air.

It also raises the question: Are Ashton Grey's thought processes truly rational? If Mr. Grey's reasoning that I am a CIA asset was rational, and if he respected the rationality of his readers, he would have provided something in the way of evidence to support his accusation. So far Mr. Grey has not provided even a scintilla, beyond the fact that I made him angry when I pointed out that he was defending E. Howard Hunt against the well-proven charges that Hunt was guilty of Forgery and Uttering a Forged Document in an attempt to posthumously assassinate the character and reputation of JFK. It is still not clear whether Hunt was acting on his own or on someone else's behalf, or both.

So the humour of it all is that Mr. Grey accuses me of being a CIA asset in the same breath that he defends Howard Hunt. Go figure.

no wonder the National Debt is so high-we're all on the Agency's payroll-my checks late-again

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I've got a source that claims I'm a poor speller.

I can understand John's need to start this thread. If you know yourself to be a target of disinformation,

it is a personally very troubling thing. This is because it is done outside the public realm and with the express purpose of destroying the public sphere that is the foundation of the Enlightenment and democracy, wheterver is left of that stuff. You are left wondering if you should legitimate the rumors by commenting on them, but also realizing that you have no idea how far they are spreading. I know this feeling because I used to participate in a Free Speech Speak Out in Union Square, and watched it disintegrate.( I am about 75% certain that very very low level police agents were used. I read up a bit about the use of "red Squads' in a book published in 1990 and found that much humbler and less visible groups were targetted). Sure its easy to claim paranoia and shrug it off. Its not so easy when you know you are the target, and have no idea how far these

rumors have spread.

That said, the proof will be in the pudding. The sooner we get back to research and off personal attacks the more clearly we will make it known that such divisive tactics will not work. Whoever wants to continue the bickering will only draw suspicion to themselves. This, by the way does not mean that I think there are are not people who wish to discredit the forum. I think it likely that there are such creeps, and that they are the antithesis of 1776-- though they probably see themselves as the logical outgrowth of 1787. As for me I fancy myself a 76er. Wish there were more alive today.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

I think Myra is right that this Forum is an easy place [there are a few others] to make an interesting list of those interested in the truth of Dallas [and the Secret Government(s) around the world and their actions, generally] - and to learn our interests, biases and thoughts. I'd only add that even were we to use false names we would only be fooling the others on the Forum....but the NSA and other such would be able to put together exactly who was whom, sadly...such is the state of the black 'arts'. So, we are all 'outed' - even those of you using false names. That being said, I can see where someone would be concerned that entry to this Forum [or at least this and related parts of it] could 'reward' them with attention they would not otherwise have upon themselves.I think, however, that the xyz people have a lot on their 'plates' and don't take action on thoughts or speculation so much....it is when one tries to put thoughts into citizen action or making a new connection, reveal a new player, etc. that things usually start to get 'strange'. And, maybe they will learn something about morality....and how they are regarded by some who see their actions - for their lack of it.

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

"were we to use false names we would only be fooling the others on the Forum....but the NSA and other such would be able to put together exactly who was whom, sadly...such is the state of the black 'arts'."

Not to mention the ability to track your IP address. Anybody can be found, even if you're posting from a cyber-cafe, hotel, or pull up outside of somebody's house with a wireless and interface with their DSL connection. And if you think about it, the former "black arts" [as you refer to the technology] utilized by the military in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf is what you're presently being able to connect to the web and to this forum via. Last week I witnessed a new form of communication device that was a phone, computer, mini-cam, and GPS locater with realtime capabilities. You could hone into any IP address or phone number, and track them via a google-earth-type gridmap that made mapQuest look like a cartoon. This woman could see her boyfriend's truck parked outside of the place he was calling her from.

You can run, but you can't hide...

[Ashton Gray]

"CIA overthrew Nixon because he was gonna blow the whistle on their scientology research." —Pat Speer

Is this an actual quote?

Ron, I wrote those words while trying to paraphrase what I interpret to be Ashton's theory on Watergate.

Doh! Imagine how silly I feel to find out you were only "trying to paraphrase" and to "interpret" me. And here I had thought you were maliciously misrepresenting me. Funny how it worked out, though, that you were maliciously misrepresenting me. So if I ever post a "help wanted" ad for a Paraphrasing and Interpreting position, don't apply. You clearly aren't qualified.

He now posts it as an exact quote by me and implies it is my own theory as a way of discrediting me.

Hmmmmm. Stroking me chin whiskers here and trying to think this through: Let's see, now. When you posted it and falsely attributed it to me, you put it into quotation marks, now, didn't you? Why, yes, you did. (A very, very odd way of "paraphrasing and interpreting," by the way.) So I dutifully recorded it as an "exact quote"—just the way you wrote it—and I've attributed it correctly to its own sole author—which is you—and that somehow is a way of discrediting you?

Well, now, Pat: surely you don't feel discredited by the "exact quote" you wrote and attempted falsely to attribute to me, do you? Because if you do, that's going to sort of smell like that is the very thing you were attempting to do to me in the first place. Nawwwwwwwww! Pat, you wouldn't stoop to such slimy tactics, would you?

Heh. Of course you wouldn't. Don't know how I even could have thought the thought.

Oh, well, the thing has just gotten too complicated for me to figure out now. But look: if you ever get the irrestistible compulsion to "paraphrase and interpret" me again, by all means go right ahead. There's plenty of room left in my sig space.

Ashton Gray

Edited November 25, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Myra Bronstein]

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.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 imposes criminal penalties on those who have authorized access to classified information and intentionally disclose names of "covert agents." Those who do not have authorized access to classified information--- such as journalists,etc.---may be subject to penalties if they engage in a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents...with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."

Pffft, too funny Richard.

Whew, did you have to look that rule up or do you have it committed to memory?

[Jack White]

I have personally seen NO indication that Mr. Simkin is a agent of disinformation.

However, his partner seems intent on playing "bad cop" to John's "good cop."

A long-time JFK researcher whose opinion I respect disagrees and tells me

this is a CIA disinformation site, but more clever than the McAdams and Conway

forums by performing clever limited hangouts.

There ARE several disinformation agents at work here, and they are given free

rein. But I have never detected anything except good research from John himself.

My only question is the volume of his work and the time he devotes to the forum.

One sign of disinformation is that the perpetrator devotes more time to research,

writing and posting than there are hours in the day. There are at least three here

who exhibit that trait. Some seem to have more information than they could have

come up with alone, as if someone is feeding them a mass of research, facts,

documents etc.

I doubt that John is a disinfo agent; if so, he is the most clever I have encountered.

My biggest complaint is that little is done to deter all of the obvious agents.

Jack

I find it interesting that two persons responded to this as if they think

I was accusing THEM of being agents. I had not even considered them.

I have named the provocateurs numerous times, but will not again,

since Mr. Walker takes a dim view of such.

Jack

[John Simkin]

I can understand John's need to start this thread. If you know yourself to be a target of disinformation,

it is a personally very troubling thing. This is because it is done outside the public realm and with the express purpose of destroying the public sphere that is the foundation of the Enlightenment and democracy, wheterver is left of that stuff. You are left wondering if you should legitimate the rumors by commenting on them, but also realizing that you have no idea how far they are spreading.

That was the reason I did it. Another reason was that I hoped people would email me with information on the people putting out these rumours. Some people have done that and I now know who is behind these rumours. It is the person who I believe is the real CIA asset within the JFK research community.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 imposes criminal penalties on those who have authorized access to classified information and intentionally disclose names of "covert agents." Those who do not have authorized access to classified information--- such as journalists,etc.---may be subject to penalties if they engage in a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents...with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."

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

""The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 imposes criminal penalties on those who have authorized access to classified information and intentionally disclose names of "covert agents." Those who do not have authorized access to classified information--- such as journalists,etc.---may be subject to penalties if they engage in a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents...with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States.""

Now who do we have to thank for that little piece of legislation? Carter or Reagan? And if by chance it was the latter, it sure came in handy to Karl Rove now, didn't it? When are the criminal penalties going to be imposed upon him? Sorry to bring that up, but it merely jumped off the page at me, and gave me pause to think.

______________________________________________

John, on what page of the forum do I go to update my bio? Also, if you got those pictures Dawn sent to you, could you please cut out my head on one of them and replace my present picture [which is now 3 years old] with a new one, like you did for me when I first joined the forum? Thanks, Terry.

Edited November 25, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[Dave Weaver]

A long-time JFK researcher whose opinion I respect disagrees and tells me

this is a CIA disinformation site, but more clever than the McAdams and Conway

forums by performing clever limited hangouts.

Jack

Mr White,

with all due respect.

Jfklancerforum is a CIA disinformation site ?

That means, the members making the posts

are CIA ?

Conway is CIA ?

I am CIA ?

I've heard that before, but have yet to see an

iota of proof, in fact, when asked for proof,

all I got was BS from the weirdos that made

those claims.

Maybe your source is different in that regard, I hope it

for you.

Please, name that person or have that person

contact me immediately via mail, as you know

I am one of the 2 admins there, so that accussation

targets also me.

I do take such an allegation very serious and it will not

reflect well on you should you refuse to follow up on

my request.

Thank you !

Edited November 25, 2006 by Dave Weaver

[Jack White]

A long-time JFK researcher whose opinion I respect disagrees and tells me

this is a CIA disinformation site, but more clever than the McAdams and Conway

forums by performing clever limited hangouts.

Jack

Mr White,

with all due respect.

Jfklancerforum is a CIA disinformation site ?

That means, the members making the posts

are CIA ?

Conway is CIA ?

I am CIA ?

I've heard that before, but have yet to see an

iota of proof, in fact, when asked for proof,

all I got was BS from the weirdos that made

those claims.

Maybe your source is different in that regard, I hope it

for you.

Please, name that person or have that person

contact me immediately via mail, as you know

I am one of the 2 admins there, so that accussation

targets also me.

I do take such an allegation very serious and it will not

reflect well on you should you refuse to follow up on

my request.

Thank you !

Mr. Weaver...I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your reading comprehension level is low. Read what I

wrote again. I WAS QUOTING A FRIEND WHOSE OPINION

I RESPECT who was discussing the Simkin forum. He

lumped it in with Lancer and McAdams as sites to be

wary of for providing false trails. As far as I know, only

McAdams warrants such criticism. John Simkin seems

on the level. I do not always agree with Debra, but she

too seems sincere, though sometimes misguided. Many prominent

researchers I know were enamored of her initially but soon

became disenchanted and distanced themselves for reasons

unknown to me...for instance David Lifton, Jim Fetzer, George

Michael Evica, Robert Groden and several others. I suspect

it is a matter of personality clashes, since Deb can be somewhat

tempramental and domineering.

I had no idea that you are associated with the Lancer

forum. I have never visited the Lancer forum, but have

heard that it is largely run by "Bill Miller" and that certain

topics are taboo there. I have heard that respected researcher

Larry Hancock is also associated with Lancer, but know no

details. I have never heard the name Dave Weaver mentioned

as being associated. Your taking offense at me quoting a fellow

researcher is odd and surprising.

"With all due respect."

Jack

Edited November 25, 2006 by Jack White

[Terry Adams]

My first wife's uncle lived in South Florida and I thought that he was one of the nicest old men that I had ever known. I married in June, 1972. When this old gentleman died in the mid 80's,we were very surprised to learn that he had over two (2) million dollars in various bank accounts. His sister told me he had worked as a CIA agent. His job was carrying cash (very large amounts) to leaders, diplomats, etc. of other countries. I was unable to find out anything else about this man. His only "job" was as an investor. Obviously he was good at his job. The reason that I bring this up is that one's appearance and demeanor in any particular situation does not necessarily let us know who he is.

Terry

Please understand that this does not reflect on John in any way, it was just something that I thought the forum would find interesting. What he brings to the JFK investigation is unequaled. I only wish that I had been more alert about what I was being told back then, and could have questioned my wife's relative as to his activities. (not that he would have elaborated, but who knows)

Edited November 25, 2006 by Terry Adams

[Myra Bronstein]

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 researcher of some repute should feel free to PM me. I would welcome it.

[Thomas Graves]

On 11/24/2006 at 0:07 AM, John Simkin said:

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.

Dear John,

At least now you know how it feels.  

But then again I would say that, wouldn't I?

(lol)

--  Tommy

Edited May 4, 2017 by Thomas Graves