Call me Delores, says MI5 whistleblower David Shayler

[Peter Lemkin]

As has been predicted by our model analysis of this affair, at least one known Internet agent provocateur whose identity is used to channel a host of official ghostwriting disinformation sources (in this case, on a widely read Internet symposium based in the UK, among other sites) has checked in with the inevitable follow-up:

"So how do you think [Shayler] was 'neutralized.' [sic] The cross dressing [sic] self styled [sic] Jesus seems to have gone off the cliff on his own despite his ex-girlfriend's rationalisation. The million dollar question is how sane he was when he first started pushing inside job nonsense? A disproportionate numbers of truther 'experst' [sic] and witnesses it seems are crazy, frauds and/or political extremists."

I outed this individual as a fount of disinformation over a year ago. One of the methods I utilized to demonstrate that his posts in fact are ghostwritten by a number of authors was to compare their widely disparate grammar, punctuation, spelling, and regional/national idiosyncracies.

Note, for instance, how the actual author of the above post uses the British spelling of "rationalisation." This allegedly from a for-the-record poster who seldom exhibits such a preference.

Back in August, 2008, I compared two posts allegedly written by the same person (names have been redacted):


Post #53, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 9, 2008, 9:22 AM DST, east coast, USA

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now XXXX, you’ve insulted other members (XXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXX) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to XXXX “you don't have your facts straight” not?


Then, just two days later, we see this:


Post #66, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 11, 2008, 9:08 AM DST, east coast, USA

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent XXXXXXXXX) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.


Permit me to tighten the focus. Compare the following:


If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now XXXX, you’ve insulted other members (XXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXX) in the past.

and

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt.


Another dead give-away: This individual's multiple personalities render immediate, lengthy, detailed responses designed to debunk pro-conspiracy hypotheses through the use of misdirection, disinformation, and the flooding of the system with innumerable red herrings -- among other tactics.

The real-time speed at which these posts appear forces unbiased observers to conclude that a full-time operation is underway to maximize their inherent potentials for disruption and misdirection. Through more nuanced linguistic analysis we can identify specific ghostwriters who specialize in particular subjects (9-11, political assassinations, etc.).

The irony thickens. This individual's scientist father, allegedly a Holocaust survivor, in fact was a facilitator of Big Tobacco's ongoing Holocaust as inflicted upon smokers around the world. His dark mission was to assure us that cigarette smoking poses no dangers whatsoever. He was handsomely paid for his crimes against humanity, and now it seems that the sins of the father are being committed by the son.

At the height of my counter-attack against this operation, the individual in question -- or, to be precise, one of his ghostwriters -- once again gave away the game, this time by making a too-clever-by-half attempt to depict me as a lunatic fringe 9-11 "truther" by intentionally altering a passage from one of my earlier posts:


In that earlier post, I had described, "the near total absence of damage to the building [the Pentagon] and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]."

Caught red-handed, the cornered ghostwriter was forced to downplay the failed effort by claiming that he merely "truncated [that passage] to 'the near total absence of damage to the building' because [he] wasn’t responding to the part about the lawn."

The intent to ridicule and marginalize me here is quite clear. It is one of the disinformation artist's most commonly utilized weapons.


And just when you thought it couldn't get more tragically absurd, we note the following: At the aforementioned UK Internet symposium where this monstrous multi-personality is given free rein, moderators are currently engaged in a melodramatic wringing of hands and rending of flesh precipitated by debate on the issue expressed thusly: "Should posters' motives be questioned?"

The equivalent of which would have been Kellerman or Greer asking, "Is that guy on the knoll just a hunter with a lousy sense of direction?"

When I posted it on the other Forum, I realized I could leave out the term '91'1 in the title and that person would likely not have posted; but chose to add it - and they predictably did. I agree with most of your analysis above. Well, we all have a job to do - some finding and exposing the truth; others burying it, or trying to shoot the messengers of it, those who seek it, etc. I wonder how they turned him. I just looked again at his analysis of 911 and it is sound, sane, IMO on the mark, and dangerous to the intelligence agencies and Deep Political Establishment

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...6814574974