21-03-2010, 03:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-03-2010, 04:07 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
When an Adrian Mack has such an obvious agenda to subvert an historic thread on a forum that was founded, in large measure, to exclude hacks, shills, and trolls, it baffles me that he should be given such a wide latitude to practice his skills. When I organized a research group to study the assassination of JFK in 1992, I did so by inviting those who know more than I about various aspects of the case, including a world authority on the human brain, who was an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who was also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology; a physician who had attended the moribund president in Trauma Room #1 and then, two days later, was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin; a legendary photo-analyst, who had testified before the HSCA during its reinvestigation about fakery in the Oswald "backyard photographs"; and an Australian Ph.D. in physics, this time with the area of specialization of electromagnetism and the properties of light and the laws of optics. I have continued that practice here by inviting an expert on psy ops to offer his observations about what has been going on here, up to this point, primarily on the Simkin forum, but here and now on this thread and in this forum.
We have reinvestigated the case from the ground up, including reviewing the authenticity of the medical record, including the autopsy report, the X-rays, the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives; the physical evidence, including the alleged assassin's weapon, the paper bag, and the presumptive "assassin's lair"; the forensic evidence, including the shell casings allegedly found at the scene, the paper bag in which the carbine was supposed to have been brought into the building, and the testimony of co-workers, who observed him in and around the lunchroom on the second floor at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM, and as late as 12:25 PM by the executive secretary to the Vice President of the Book Depository. The entire case against Lee Harvey Oswald is an enormous house of cards, where, no matter where you begin, sustained and serious inquiry leads to the same conclusion, namely: that Lee Harvey Oswald was exactly what he said he was when he described himself as "a patsy". The weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed the president; he was not on the 6th floor at the time; and he admired JFK and had no reason to want to assassinate him. So the alleged assassin lacked motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK.
There are many indications that Lee was recruited by ONI as a Marine recruit and that his pseudo-defection to the Soviet Union was a mission for which he had been delegated by the intelligence services of the United States. Of all the potential sources of information about him, especially regarding his activities after his return to America and relocation in New Orleans, none has greater promise to shed light upon some of the murkiest aspects of the plot to kill the president than the personal reports of a woman who had an extensive relationship with him, both as a co-worker in a cover asset, the Riley Coffee Company, and as a collaborator in covert operations, where she maintained many of his work records and conducted research on cancer and bioweapons in association with some nefarious characters on the scene at the time, including Alton Ochsner, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack Ruby, and even Carlos Marcello. Her first-hand interactions with his man and others who were involved with him promises to expose some of the seediest features of intelligence agency operations, not only in gun-running and sabotage operations against Castro but also in manipulating agents for the sake of unspecified objectives, where compartmentalization of information and classification of operations was the name of the game that she reveals.
It would be inconceivable to me that a source of this magnitude would not be subjected to multiple forms of harassment and that, on a forum of this kind, attempts to subvert her story would not be made. It is not Judyth who has offered the moon landing hoax or the events of 9/11 as other examples of "the big lie". And merely mentioning the hypothesis that big medicine, big pharma, and the cancer society might share an interest in silencing her because she offers the promise of curing cancer does not discredit her. On the contrary, it offers a perspective from which it becomes entirely plausible why she may pose a threat on multiple levels, not only in humanizing the alleged assassin and thereby undoing decades of demonization but also in exposing the long-standing interest in our intelligence agencies in the development of subtle means for killing people, especially targeted enemies, but also those who know too much and whose information, were it to become a matter of public knowledge, would threaten the covert operations and potentially even the existence of the agencies that pursued those themselves. In order to gain insights about what has been going on here--both with respect to what this crucial witness knows and the multiple forms of attack to which she has been subjected--therefore, I invited commentary from someone more expert than I.
Anyone who reads what my psy ops expert has to say will realize that what is really at stake appears to be far greater than merely the romance between an intelligence asset of the United States and his paramour. That is not something I would have recognized on my own. Moreover, that the underlying motivation for attempting to marginalize her could run so much deeper than I had supposed came as a revelation. In spite of what you are being told by Adrian Mack, no one should have any difficulty sorting out who is speaking in any of these posts. I have clearly demarcated those that have come from my expert source, while Adrian has insinuated more than once that his comments are obfuscating the record. We are engaged here in multiple activities, however, both receiving Judyth's story and interpreting it. No one is being compelled toward any predetermined conclusion, but I am doing everything I can to make the kind of resources that can assist us in understanding what we are learning from her and why it is so important to understanding the accused assassin but also the methods of our intel ops available here. Having created this thread, I am doing everything I can to make it a data-rich and intellectually informative experience. But that is not his approach.
Mentioning the moon hoax or 9/11 as other examples of THE BIG LIE from our government is no disservice to Judyth. And citing an hypothesis that was enunciated by Eustice Mullins is not an obfuscation of her story. That Adrian Mack would treat them as though they made a crucial difference to understanding and appreciating what she has to say is both misleading and dishonest. They are, like JFK, examples of THE BIG LIES that our American government has advanced to deceive and manipulate the citizens of this country in the pursuit of its political agenda. The force of attacking me for even mentioning them derives from the presumption that most members of this forum do not accept them, which is a modest example of the fallacy known as the appeal to popular sentiments: since most people believe X, it follows that X must be true. If most members of this forum happened to believe that the moon landings took place and that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and performed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan, then he can impugn my character and tarnish me as a credible source by claiming that my views are outlandish and unsupported.
An even more blatant example has merged from his grotesque exaggerations about Eustice Mullins and his insinuations that anyone who should mention him is somehow diminishing Judyth and her story in his attempt to trash my psy ops expert. But discounting an hypothesis because of its source is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Even assuming that Eustice Mullins is a bad person, it remains the case that even bad people can say things that are true. And I have already explained that my psy ops expert drew on that remark (without thereby meaning to imply he was endorsing every other view represented by his source) because it seems to fit Judyth's case and explain at least in part why she has been subjected to forms of hounding and harassment that otherwise appear out of proportion to the threat she might pose as someone who knew the alleged assassin up close and personal. Even Jack White, no fan of Judyth, has acknowledged that this makes her situation more plausible. But as a professor of critical thinking, I am in awe of the guy who could pack such an elaborate smear as "managed to associate Judyth Baker with chemtrails, moon-landing hoaxes, exotic mega-double-top-secret-super-soldiers, and now a jew hating nutcase" into a single sentence!
So I have no illusions about who I am dealing with. Adrian Mack appears to be a very clever fellow who would have you believe that discussing what has been happening to Judyth and why it might be important in itself should not take place on this forum. He scrambles the eggs to such an extent that he even insinuates that the members of this forum are unable to discriminate between Judyth's reports, my comments, and the observations of my expert. Could any claim be LESS WARRANTED when I have so clearly demarcated who is speaking in every post? This man is playing the members of this forum for saps. He has an agenda, which is to smear me, discredit my expert, and trash Judyth. He has gone so far as to suggest that I don't even belong on my own thread, where I am presenting Judyth's posts after making minor corrections and occasional tweaks--which she later reviews--on behalf of a woman who is nearly blind, in need of new glasses, and who is using a computer equipped with a Hungarian keyboard! And do not miss his intent: Were I to post Judyth's reports WITHOUT MAKING SUCH OBVIOUS CORRECTIONS, HE WOULD FIND THEM EASIER TO RIDICULE AND DISMISS. Adrian Mack, I am convinced, is not seeking the truth and does not have Judyth's best interests at heart. It is obvious to me that he has an agenda that is contrary to the aims and objectives of this thread and of this forum.
We have reinvestigated the case from the ground up, including reviewing the authenticity of the medical record, including the autopsy report, the X-rays, the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives; the physical evidence, including the alleged assassin's weapon, the paper bag, and the presumptive "assassin's lair"; the forensic evidence, including the shell casings allegedly found at the scene, the paper bag in which the carbine was supposed to have been brought into the building, and the testimony of co-workers, who observed him in and around the lunchroom on the second floor at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM, and as late as 12:25 PM by the executive secretary to the Vice President of the Book Depository. The entire case against Lee Harvey Oswald is an enormous house of cards, where, no matter where you begin, sustained and serious inquiry leads to the same conclusion, namely: that Lee Harvey Oswald was exactly what he said he was when he described himself as "a patsy". The weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed the president; he was not on the 6th floor at the time; and he admired JFK and had no reason to want to assassinate him. So the alleged assassin lacked motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK.
There are many indications that Lee was recruited by ONI as a Marine recruit and that his pseudo-defection to the Soviet Union was a mission for which he had been delegated by the intelligence services of the United States. Of all the potential sources of information about him, especially regarding his activities after his return to America and relocation in New Orleans, none has greater promise to shed light upon some of the murkiest aspects of the plot to kill the president than the personal reports of a woman who had an extensive relationship with him, both as a co-worker in a cover asset, the Riley Coffee Company, and as a collaborator in covert operations, where she maintained many of his work records and conducted research on cancer and bioweapons in association with some nefarious characters on the scene at the time, including Alton Ochsner, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack Ruby, and even Carlos Marcello. Her first-hand interactions with his man and others who were involved with him promises to expose some of the seediest features of intelligence agency operations, not only in gun-running and sabotage operations against Castro but also in manipulating agents for the sake of unspecified objectives, where compartmentalization of information and classification of operations was the name of the game that she reveals.
It would be inconceivable to me that a source of this magnitude would not be subjected to multiple forms of harassment and that, on a forum of this kind, attempts to subvert her story would not be made. It is not Judyth who has offered the moon landing hoax or the events of 9/11 as other examples of "the big lie". And merely mentioning the hypothesis that big medicine, big pharma, and the cancer society might share an interest in silencing her because she offers the promise of curing cancer does not discredit her. On the contrary, it offers a perspective from which it becomes entirely plausible why she may pose a threat on multiple levels, not only in humanizing the alleged assassin and thereby undoing decades of demonization but also in exposing the long-standing interest in our intelligence agencies in the development of subtle means for killing people, especially targeted enemies, but also those who know too much and whose information, were it to become a matter of public knowledge, would threaten the covert operations and potentially even the existence of the agencies that pursued those themselves. In order to gain insights about what has been going on here--both with respect to what this crucial witness knows and the multiple forms of attack to which she has been subjected--therefore, I invited commentary from someone more expert than I.
Anyone who reads what my psy ops expert has to say will realize that what is really at stake appears to be far greater than merely the romance between an intelligence asset of the United States and his paramour. That is not something I would have recognized on my own. Moreover, that the underlying motivation for attempting to marginalize her could run so much deeper than I had supposed came as a revelation. In spite of what you are being told by Adrian Mack, no one should have any difficulty sorting out who is speaking in any of these posts. I have clearly demarcated those that have come from my expert source, while Adrian has insinuated more than once that his comments are obfuscating the record. We are engaged here in multiple activities, however, both receiving Judyth's story and interpreting it. No one is being compelled toward any predetermined conclusion, but I am doing everything I can to make the kind of resources that can assist us in understanding what we are learning from her and why it is so important to understanding the accused assassin but also the methods of our intel ops available here. Having created this thread, I am doing everything I can to make it a data-rich and intellectually informative experience. But that is not his approach.
Mentioning the moon hoax or 9/11 as other examples of THE BIG LIE from our government is no disservice to Judyth. And citing an hypothesis that was enunciated by Eustice Mullins is not an obfuscation of her story. That Adrian Mack would treat them as though they made a crucial difference to understanding and appreciating what she has to say is both misleading and dishonest. They are, like JFK, examples of THE BIG LIES that our American government has advanced to deceive and manipulate the citizens of this country in the pursuit of its political agenda. The force of attacking me for even mentioning them derives from the presumption that most members of this forum do not accept them, which is a modest example of the fallacy known as the appeal to popular sentiments: since most people believe X, it follows that X must be true. If most members of this forum happened to believe that the moon landings took place and that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and performed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan, then he can impugn my character and tarnish me as a credible source by claiming that my views are outlandish and unsupported.
An even more blatant example has merged from his grotesque exaggerations about Eustice Mullins and his insinuations that anyone who should mention him is somehow diminishing Judyth and her story in his attempt to trash my psy ops expert. But discounting an hypothesis because of its source is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Even assuming that Eustice Mullins is a bad person, it remains the case that even bad people can say things that are true. And I have already explained that my psy ops expert drew on that remark (without thereby meaning to imply he was endorsing every other view represented by his source) because it seems to fit Judyth's case and explain at least in part why she has been subjected to forms of hounding and harassment that otherwise appear out of proportion to the threat she might pose as someone who knew the alleged assassin up close and personal. Even Jack White, no fan of Judyth, has acknowledged that this makes her situation more plausible. But as a professor of critical thinking, I am in awe of the guy who could pack such an elaborate smear as "managed to associate Judyth Baker with chemtrails, moon-landing hoaxes, exotic mega-double-top-secret-super-soldiers, and now a jew hating nutcase" into a single sentence!
So I have no illusions about who I am dealing with. Adrian Mack appears to be a very clever fellow who would have you believe that discussing what has been happening to Judyth and why it might be important in itself should not take place on this forum. He scrambles the eggs to such an extent that he even insinuates that the members of this forum are unable to discriminate between Judyth's reports, my comments, and the observations of my expert. Could any claim be LESS WARRANTED when I have so clearly demarcated who is speaking in every post? This man is playing the members of this forum for saps. He has an agenda, which is to smear me, discredit my expert, and trash Judyth. He has gone so far as to suggest that I don't even belong on my own thread, where I am presenting Judyth's posts after making minor corrections and occasional tweaks--which she later reviews--on behalf of a woman who is nearly blind, in need of new glasses, and who is using a computer equipped with a Hungarian keyboard! And do not miss his intent: Were I to post Judyth's reports WITHOUT MAKING SUCH OBVIOUS CORRECTIONS, HE WOULD FIND THEM EASIER TO RIDICULE AND DISMISS. Adrian Mack, I am convinced, is not seeking the truth and does not have Judyth's best interests at heart. It is obvious to me that he has an agenda that is contrary to the aims and objectives of this thread and of this forum.