Who Are: Mack, Perry, Russo, Zaid, Loomis, Pozner, McAdams, et al.?!

[Peter Lemkin]

http://www.blackopradio.com/black430c.ram
Take a listen....!

[Paul Rigby]

http://www.blackopradio.com/black430c.ram
Take a listen....!

I did, and I'm still left with the same questions as when I read DiEugenio's essay:

Given that the Z film is a blatant fake, in what way is Groden less of a purveyor of disinformation than Mack? Is it that the latter's role at the Sixth Form Museum of Correction is, in and of itself, much more blameworthy? If so, why? And how would replacing Mack with, say, Groden, improve matters?

I'm beginning to suspect that what we are witnessing is nothing less than a campaign to effect the Obama-isation of the SFM and the Z fake: a new, more plausible face on a tawdry, if profoundly successful, establishment deception.

[Peter Lemkin]

http://www.blackopradio.com/black430c.ram
Take a listen....!

I did, and I'm still left with the same questions as when I read DiEugenio's essay:

Given that the Z film is a blatant fake, in what way is Groden less of a purveyor of disinformation than Mack? Is it that the latter's role at the Sixth Form Museum of Correction is, in and of itself, much more blameworthy? If so, why? And how would replacing Mack with, say, Groden, improve matters?

I'm beginning to suspect that what we are witnessing is nothing less than a campaign to effect the Obama-isation of the SFM and the Z fake: a new, more plausible face on a tawdry, if profoundly successful, establishment deception.

Paul, I wish you'd start another thread on that. I find the issue of the Z-film only very tangential to this matter and to me not important in this regard. I personally believe all kinds of hanky-panky went on with that film [and perhaps others], but that is neither here nor there vis-a-vis who is GM, Russo, Pozner, Perry and the host of other 'sleepers' or turned researchers. I personally don't think that everyone who thinks the Z film is real is 'on the other side'; thought all 'on the other side' of course believe the Z film is the rosetta stone and the original one. [i.e. belief in film alteration is not the acid test]. I also personally believe Grodon would run a museum that would be the contrapositive of the 6th Floor. We [in the research community] don't all agree on everything. I'll work with anyone who agrees on the basics - a large conspiracy; a patsy or a few; LHO a government agent; a cover-up at the highest levels; no Castro-did-it nonsense; it was a coup d'etat under which we still live...etc. We can argue about all kinds of details. I know you think the Z film is important. I do too, but there are other important matters, as well. I'm more concerned with the orchestrated disinfo campaign and those involved in it - as they are the ones keepin most Americans confused - as is their job....and it is our job to thwart, counter, and expose them. Ditto on 9/11 and all the other Black Ops.

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, I wish you'd start another thread on that....

Me, too, Evan...

We can argue about all kinds of details. I know you think the Z film is important. I do too, but there are other important matters, as well. I'm more concerned with the orchestrated disinfo campaign and those involved in it...

But here's the rub, Peter - the Z fake isn't peripheral or tangential to the cover-up, it's central to the "orchestrated disinfo campaign." It's the photographic equivalent of the "Castro-did-it" nonsense. Indeed, it's the bedrock deception upon which the CIA and allies construct their deceits. Just like the fake films on 9/11, which replicated the basic imagery control of 11/22. Groden was a key front man in the latter - and DiEugenio champions him.

Paul

[Dawn Meredith]

http://www.blackopradio.com/black430c.ram
Take a listen....!

I did, and I'm still left with the same questions as when I read DiEugenio's essay:

Given that the Z film is a blatant fake, in what way is Groden less of a purveyor of disinformation than Mack? Is it that the latter's role at the Sixth Form Museum of Correction is, in and of itself, much more blameworthy? If so, why? And how would replacing Mack with, say, Groden, improve matters?

I'm beginning to suspect that what we are witnessing is nothing less than a campaign to effect the Obama-isation of the SFM and the Z fake: a new, more plausible face on a tawdry, if profoundly successful, establishment deception.

Paul why do you find it so necessary to keep changing the subject? If someone posted about the medical evidence, or Harvey and Lee, would just come back about the Z film? To lump Bob Groden in with Mack et al is absurd.
Jim has already offered to have this discussion privately with you, so why not take him up on it? Peter's question is a legitimate and important one. If you want to question the validity of the Zapruder film please start a thread doing so.
Thank you,
Dawn

[Paul Rigby]

Paul why do you find it so necessary to keep changing the subject? If someone posted about the medical evidence, or Harvey and Lee, would just come back about the Z film? To lump Bob Groden in with Mack et al is absurd.
Jim has already offered to have this discussion privately with you, so why not take him up on it? Peter's question is a legitimate and important one. If you want to question the validity of the Zapruder film please start a thread doing so.
Thank you,
Dawn

DiEugenio publicly dismisses my objection to his attempt to depict Groden as Mack’s antipode, but simultaneously uses a proxy – you – to send me an email suggesting a private exchange on the subject of Z film alteration. Now, where have I run into that before? Ah, yes, with one Gary Mack. The subject? The Z fake. Was Mack interested in establishing a productive dialogue with the truth as its goal? Er, not exactly: I was to listen to him reading from the stone tablets of revealed truth. The tablets, inevitably, turned out to be made of plastic and manufactured in Langley.

The similarity in method between Mack and DiEugenio does not end there. Like Mack, DiEugenio uses a proxy – for Bill Miller et al, read Dawn Meredith – for the incredibly complicated business of posting on a forum. The idea appears to be that if one uses a proxy, the need to engage in the tiresome business of defending the content of one’s post is mysteriously obviated. Well, sorry to be disobliging, but it isn’t.

A third reason for not taking up DiEugenio’s offer of private exchanges on the subject of Zapruder fraudulence: In my one and only exchange with him – more accurately, through a proxy (you) - to date, DiEugenio sought to pretend black is white, and that he didn’t mean what he wrote, which was in any case “a guess.” The exchange is here:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...nio&page=2

Your latest post confirms the wisdom of my decision not to have any part in any private exchange with either DiEugenio or you.

Paul why do you find it so necessary to keep changing the subject?

I’m not, Dawn: the championship of Groden is in DiEugenio’s piece. It’s just that you, for whatever reason, don’t want public discussion of this section of the essay. This begs the obvious question: Why? Because if it really is self-evident that “To lump Bob Groden in with Mack et al is absurd,” why the fear of public debate?

And so to the crowning glory:

If someone posted about the medical evidence, or Harvey and Lee, would you just come back about the Z film?

Of course not: But then as you well know, this isn’t the case here, for DiEugenio offers us a moving portrait of Groden as persecuted “holy fool,” mounting a lone battle in favour of truth and light in a hostile Dallas; and seeks, yet again, to sell us the Z fake as smuggled, dissident truth:

The only way it was shown was when Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film for the trial of Clay Shaw and when Bob Groden spirited out a copy to finally show to the public on TV in 1975. Got that, 12 years later the public saw it. I think 12 years is enough for emotions to cool down.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

This is even poorer history than that served up by the very Museum DiEugenio (rightly) criticises. As a matter of readily verifiable fact, the second version of the Z fake was first shown on US television by a Los Angeles TV station in February 1969. Try here for confirmation:

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html

Show #368, 3 April 2008: Pat Valentino

In conclusion, if Groden is the answer, DiEugenio's asking some very strange questions.

[Dawn Meredith]

I have come to the conclusion that you are a fucking loon. First of all I am not a proxy for anyone. Jim does not post on any forum. At one time he did but got sick of all the bickering, infighting and other wastes of his time. So he merely OFFERED to continue the conversation with you in private.

We started this forum to avoid this very thing-flaming- so Paul you can have your opinion. Avoid me all you wish, go back to arguing with CD and Peter who can out argue you while asleep.

I am GLADLY done with you. Your lack of logic speaks for itself.

I was tempted to just ignore your childish post lest I lower myself to the level that so irritated me at prior forums. But for you to lump Mack in with DiEugenio is beyond laughable. And actually not even worth defending.

I am beginning to suspect your true motives!

Have a good life.

Dawn Meredith

[Charles Drago]

When I become the voice of reason, we're all in deep doo-doo.

As a generous pourer of gasoline, permit me to mix it with an even heftier water chaser.

Why don't we all -- starting with yours truly -- step back a few paces and agree on the following:

Paul's "Greer Did It" hypothesis is rejected by everyone else who has participated in these discussions. It does not naturally follow that Paul is wrong. Rather, the facts make this conclusion inevitable.

That being said, Paul continues to be welcome on this Forum -- at least as far as this co-founder is concerned. Thanks to his bold presentations, we have been given opportunities to question and, if not retire, then at least cause grievous harm to one of the most persistent examples of disinformation in the JFK case.

For what it's worth, I do NOT accuse Paul of consciously spreading what he knows to be disinformation. I believe that he honestly believes what he's presenting to be a factual description of the manner in which the fatal shot was fired at JFK.

What I don't appreciate is the degeneration of this discussion into a "you're a proxy/you're a loon" exchange.

Paul, I'm all for outing agent provocateurs and disinformationists in our midst. If you wish to present evidence in this regard, please hold your fire: I intend to begin a thread dedicated to exposing "The Enemy Within" this forum.

Dawn, I ask you too to wait until such a thread is offered -- in a day or so.

Thanks, one and all.

[Paul Rigby]

When I become the voice of reason, we're all in deep doo-doo.

As a generous pourer of gasoline, permit me to mix it with an even heftier water chaser.

Why don't we all -- starting with yours truly -- step back a few paces and agree on the following:

Paul's "Greer Did It" hypothesis is rejected by everyone else who has participated in these discussions. It does not naturally follow that Paul is wrong. Rather, the facts make this conclusion inevitable.

That being said, Paul continues to be welcome on this Forum -- at least as far as this co-founder is concerned. Thanks to his bold presentations, we have been given opportunities to question and, if not retire, then at least cause grievous harm to one of the most persistent examples of disinformation in the JFK case.

For what it's worth, I do NOT accuse Paul of consciously spreading what he knows to be disinformation. I believe that he honestly believes what he's presenting to be a factual description of the manner in which the fatal shot was fired at JFK.

What I don't appreciate is the degeneration of this discussion into a "you're a proxy/you're a loon" exchange.

Paul, I'm all for outing agent provocateurs and disinformationists in our midst. If you wish to present evidence in this regard, please hold your fire: I intend to begin a thread dedicated to exposing "The Enemy Within" this forum.

Dawn, I ask you too to wait until such a thread is offered -- in a day or so.

Thanks, one and all.

Plainly, CD, I can’t continue membership under such a constraint, so must perforce resign.

As is clear, I’m a convinced Greer-did-it man, and have been now for nearly two decades. I’m used to hostility on this subject, but accept it as the price to be paid for holding a heroically unfashionable view on the case. I hold to that position not out of perversity, but from conviction. Sorry, but there we are.

I’ve enjoyed my membership here, particularly the last week or so, for I believe in the fierce competition of ideas and views, even if occasionally expressed with a vigour – what an appropriate piece of Kennedy diction that is - uncomfortable to many. I regard no enemy as more dangerous to us than that of the easy, unexamined consensus.

It only remains to wish you all well, as I am mindful of all the hard work that has gone into the creation of this website: You’ve created something worth having, and you must defend it as you see fit. I shall continue to look in and read with interest. The really good stuff, I shall, of course, nick, and proclaim my own.

Paul

[Peter Lemkin]

When I become the voice of reason, we're all in deep doo-doo.

As a generous pourer of gasoline, permit me to mix it with an even heftier water chaser.

Why don't we all -- starting with yours truly -- step back a few paces and agree on the following:

Paul's "Greer Did It" hypothesis is rejected by everyone else who has participated in these discussions. It does not naturally follow that Paul is wrong. Rather, the facts make this conclusion inevitable.

That being said, Paul continues to be welcome on this Forum -- at least as far as this co-founder is concerned. Thanks to his bold presentations, we have been given opportunities to question and, if not retire, then at least cause grievous harm to one of the most persistent examples of disinformation in the JFK case.

For what it's worth, I do NOT accuse Paul of consciously spreading what he knows to be disinformation. I believe that he honestly believes what he's presenting to be a factual description of the manner in which the fatal shot was fired at JFK.

What I don't appreciate is the degeneration of this discussion into a "you're a proxy/you're a loon" exchange.

Paul, I'm all for outing agent provocateurs and disinformationists in our midst. If you wish to present evidence in this regard, please hold your fire: I intend to begin a thread dedicated to exposing "The Enemy Within" this forum.

Dawn, I ask you too to wait until such a thread is offered -- in a day or so.

Thanks, one and all.

Plainly, CD, I can’t continue membership under such a constraint, so must perforce resign.

As is clear, I’m a convinced Greer-did-it man, and have been now for nearly two decades. I’m used to hostility on this subject, but accept it as the price to be paid for holding a heroically unfashionable view on the case. I hold to that position not out of perversity, but from conviction. Sorry, but there we are.

I’ve enjoyed my membership here, particularly the last week or so, for I believe in the fierce competition of ideas and views, even if occasionally expressed with a vigour – what an appropriate piece of Kennedy diction that is - uncomfortable to many. I regard no enemy as more dangerous to us than that of the easy, unexamined consensus.

It only remains to wish you all well, as I am mindful of all the hard work that has gone into the creation of this website: You’ve created something worth having, and you must defend it as you see fit. I shall continue to look in and read with interest. The really good stuff, I shall, of course, nick, and proclaim my own.

Paul

I don't see where any conditions have yet been set that would constrain anyone - just a call for no one bashing anyone/stepping on toes, etc....