The Rise of the Naifs: Fostering and Exploiting False Perceptions of DPF Vulnerabilities

[Charles Drago]

Have these penetration agent provokaturs been publicly identified - and if so who are they again?

thanks,

BK

Am I off-target in detecting a note of sarcasm in your question, Bill?

Do I always answer a question with a question?

Apparently.

Are we at war with the killers of JFK, Bill?

BK: Well my blog is called JFKCountercoup - http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Do we pose threats to them?

BK: I hope so.

Does occupation of the moral high ground require us to fight?

BK: I am fighting, and I like to know who is with me and who is against me.

Have they, in the past, demonstrated passivity in the face of threats?

BK: I don't know what you mean. They are rarely passive.

Were any tender mercies on display in Dealey Plaza?

BK: They don't display tender mercies and I don't towards them.

Do the lessons of deep politics teach you to recognize the enemy when it presents itself?

BK: Well, I know who some of them are, but if they are playing games with me on the internet I want to know who they are.

Do our claims of command of the moral high ground in this case require us to defend it?

BK: I didn't question whether you should defend yourself. I merely asked if you - as you say you exposed them - if you exposed them then you know who they are and have taken off their mask - and I asked you if you have really identified them - and if so, did you tell us who they are - what their real names are? Who are they? Who do they work with? What are their intentions? If you have exposed them, and have already told us who they are, I must have missed that, so I am asking, who are they? Thanks.

Bill Kelly

Bill,

You're posing "Miami CSI" questions in a deep politics context.

You know how much I respect your work. But come on.

Our enemy does not leave fingerprints, let alone DNA. They are sophisticated and elusive. We are forced to draw conclusions that do not often conform to conventional investigative standards or stand up to conventional challenge.

Over at the forum you frequent there operates what I and others have determined to be a disinformation entity calling itself "Colby." BY DEFINITION this provocation is protected from conventional methods of exposure. And so we are left to evaluate such correspondents via the application of deep political investigative methods.

Are there significant inconsistencies to be noted between their initial presentations of credentials and the contents of their later statements?

Do they begin passively and then suddenly embrace aggressive, argumentative tactics?

Do they assume identities that indicate usage of confusing doppelganger tactics and/or reference controversial figures from history, literature, etc. ("Cinque," "Colby," "Oswald LeWinter")?

Do they proffer spirited defenses of long-discredited hypotheses and/or present perspectives that not only are devoid of deep political thinking but that also would inflame conflict among noble researchers and/or set up prominent researchers for future ridicule?

I reiterate, Bill: You pose naive questions. You would have us bring knives to a deep political gunfight.

You are better than this. Much better. You are an ally.