Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "Albert Doyle" Operation: Evidence and Conclusions
It is with confidence and a sense of urgency that Greg Burnham, Phil Dragoo and I present our case for the hostile penetration of Deep Politics Forum by agents provocateur posting on DPF's now-infamous thread JFK thread worth reading.

( )

Our argument, based upon informed analyses of the evidence at hand, may be stated simply:

At least two individuals have been posting material to that thread over the signature "Albert Doyle" in the process utilizing, wittingly and with sinister intent, tactics commonly employed by agents tasked with spreading disinformation on and otherwise disrupting the operations of Internet forums such as DPF.

When I first shared this hypothesis on DPF, I was not aware that Greg had been thinking along the same lines. In typical fashion he courageously made public his own suspicions. Phil quickly reached the identical basic conclusion, and soon we were waging a common campaign some of it out in the open, some of it behind the scenes against the attackers and those who, naively and/or with malice, aid and abet them by naysaying our charges.

As Greg reminds me, conspicuously and suspiciously absent from the naysayers' chorus is the voice of the subject of the accusation, the so-called historic "Albert Doyle." "His" always tortured prose and frequently unfathomable reasoning long ago were established as "his" literary and intellectual fingerprints on DPF and other, related forums. As of the date of this post, "Doyle" has yet to offer to DPF membership convincing assurances that "he" alone is the author of all posts over "his" signature.

My comrades have contributed their own Introductions to this thread. You will find them below, along with my brief appreciations of their work.

The most important component of this opening post, however, is the attached WORD document painstakingly constructed, through multiple iterations, by Phil. Some 70 pages in length, it collects posts written over the "Albert Doyle" signature and includes brief commentary by the compiler.

The wide, blatant variances in grammar, punctuation, usage, and literary styles easily detected in the posts attributed to "Albert Doyle" cannot, in our unanimous opinion, have an innocent explanation. This conclusion is strengthened when viewed in light of the documents referenced by Greg in his introductory remarks.

None of us are prepared to venture guesses as to the identities of the "Doyle" ghostwriters. While we have noted striking stylistic and rhetorical similarities between many of the problematic DPF posts and other, unrelated Internet submissions on a variety of subjects written over the years by Professor James H. Fetzer, we cannot quite close that circle; thus we cannot state with confidence that Fetzer is part of the "Doyle" intelligence operation (and we are certain that "intel op" precisely defines what we have discovered in this instance). Further, the coincident withdrawal of "Doyle" from these pages and the re-appearance of Fetzer, while highly supportive of the Fetzer/"Doyle" linkage hypothesis in our opinion, alone does not meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. (Although we are left to wonder, with deepest apologies to George and Ira, "How long has this Ben-Gurion?")

We must also acknowledge the possibility that Fetzer's style and tone are being mimicked in support of the ongoing operation to exacerbate the rift developing between the aging, chimera-chasing professor and the community of honorable, competent researchers and scholars who study deep politics and in whose ranks he once proudly stood.

In the final analysis, however, discovery of the identities of the agents provocateur, while potentially of great value to our work, is less important to our larger goals than is the lesson to be learned here. To wit: We remain at war with the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And all who would deny this fact, or who believe that Marquess of Queensberry or Geneva Convention rules apply to this conflict, should reflect deeply on the events that took place in Dealey Plaza, in the city of Dallas, Texas, in the United States of America, for six to eight seconds beginning at approximately 12:30 PM Central Standard Time, on Friday, November 22, 1963.

How many tender mercies were extended to John in those terrible moments, in that bloody place?

[GREG BURNHAM's credentials as JFK assassination historian, investigator, and activist are as exemplary as they are widely appreciated. His contributions, in those roles and as Sergeant-at-Arms to the late Richard DellaRosa's JFKresearch Assassination Forum, cannot be overestimated in terms of the manners in which they have furthered our shared work. Greg's discovery of suspected agent provocateur activity in many of the posts ostensibly written by the historic "Albert Doyle" in the "JFK thread worth reading" DPF thread was coincident with my own. Along with Phil Dragoo, he has played a vital role in the research and analysis that we can now present for your review.]

Pondering the early days of the JFKresearch Assassination Forum, it is difficult to imagine it not being the target of agents provocateur. After all, it was started by a group of very dedicated researchers who, both collectively and individually, had made their objective quite clear: the undaunted repudiation of the Official Government Report(s) on the murder of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy.

This group of core Founding Members included Richard DellaRosa (Owner and Admin), Jack White, Richard Martin, Phillip Giuliano, Scott Myers, John Austin, Robin Deloria, and Greg Burnham (Sergeant-At-Arms). Shortly thereafter we had a membership in excess of 500 (eventually 1200), and we had attracted several renowned authors, including David Lifton, Gary Aguilar, MD, James Fetzer, PhD, and Josiah Thompson, PhD, among others. Various scientists, among them Australian physicist John Costella, PhD, and chemist Adele Edison, PhD, came on board. We attracted law enforcement officers, including Nick Principe of the DC Park Police, who was the lead motorcycle escort for President Kennedy in Washington, DC. We attracted attorneys such as, Doug Weldon and DPF's own Dawn Meredith, JD. Experts in film production, such as David Healy, sharpshooters such as, John Ritchson, and many others subsequently joined us. We launched several books from the forum, including John Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee", the work of Jim Fetzer et al, such as, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" and "Murder In Dealey Plaza", "The Innocent Man Script" by T. Mack Durham, and more. The list is far too long to include everyone worthy of note in this limited space.

But, suffice it to say, we weren't a band of rag-tag conspiracy theorists. We were and remain serious and specifically resistant to irresponsible supposition. Furthermore, ours was the very first Internet Forum dedicated exclusively to the study of the assassination of JFK. Consequently, we drew considerable attention to ourselves, and not all of it was welcomed.

During this time it became necessary for us to maintain a high degree of vigilance because there were (and are) those who would disrupt the research that was being conducted there (and here). If anyone doubts that this was the case I would kindly refer you to the CIA internal memo found at this link:

In it, CIA agents are offered instructions on how to discredit critics of the Warren Commission Report. For a more detailed strategy, see the more recent COINTELPRO document: "A Gentlemen's Guide to Forum Spies," found here:

Keep in mind that the tactics outlined in the CIA document can be used to subvert any inquiry, not only the intended target (JFK research).

The vast majority of the forum's policing duties, however, fell upon Rich and me. The questions always were: "Once perfidy is detected, how is the subject broached with the suspected individual? Should we do it publicly, since the offense was committed out in the open, or should we approach the individual in private e-mail in order to allow him or her to answer the accusation privately?" It was decided that we should handle these matters on a case-by-case basis, but generally we all agreed that "sunshine" is always preferable to shadow. We were completely aware that none of us are infallible and that what may appear to be suspect behavior might instead be a sign of ineptness, ignorance, a nasty disposition, or a person whose method of communication simply includes vitriolic venting of the spleen at given intervals.

But, the purpose of the forum was to conduct research, first and foremost. The disrupting of that purpose was clearly prohibited in the forum policy statement. Yet, it is the disruption of select forums with which COINTELPRO and related programs were and are tasked.

It is impractical and counter-productive for a disruptor to state his intent openly. Similarly counter-indicated are less-than-expertly disguised tactics employed by the professional in order for him to appear to be an amateur. Whether the disruption is gross or negligible from its inception, the subsequent result is all-telling. It is similar to disrupting an opposing basketball player's lay-up: The defender need not flagrantly foul when a simple nudge at the hip will do.

In any event, Rich and the rest of us believe in and defend Freedom of Speech above all else. Much to his credit, Rich specialized in guarding almost to a fault that principle upon which the forum was built. As a counter-balance to his forgiving nature, he asked me to "protect the forum" both from enemies from within and from enemies from without. But, make no mistake; the burden of proof was always on me to demonstrate an individual's unambiguous intent. Without clear proof of an overwhelming nature, Rich would not ban them from the forum. In the 13-year life span of the forum, fewer than a dozen persons were banned9 was the total, if memory serves. This was not a function of there having been only that many provocateurs; rather, it was because, then as now, provocateurs tend to run in groups of mini-networks. Once the head is severed, the rest leave of their own accord or become lurkers since the operation is blown and their assault has been fully exposed. *

The easiest way to recognize attempted infiltration for yourself, if you do not perceive such things easily or naturally, is to study the individual's entries and compare them to the tactics suggested by the CIA and/or the COINTELPRO documents referenced above. I suggest that anyone who wishes to comment on this subject of "Smoking Out Moles" become familiar with these documents thoroughly before doing so.

Now to the Subject at hand: Albert(s) Doyle. I will let them speak for themselves. I assure you there is something up with Uncle Albert. No question in my mind. Exactly what that is, I am uncertain, but I have grave suspicions.

However, again, I suggest that interested parties become familiar with the tactics outlined in the referenced documentation, conduct their own forensic study on the archived posts provided, and ultimately draw their own conclusion.

Greg Burnham
Founding Member, Sergeant-At-Arms
JFKresearch Assassination Forum

*Hence we paused in wonderment at the timing when we observed Albert Doyle apparently fighting a rearguard "CYA" action as "he" claimed to be called away to tend to "other research needs," which coincidentally triggered or so it seemed the re-emergence on DPF of Jim Fetzer, whose "absence" had been less-than-sorely lamented.

[PHIL DRAGOO's intellect and poetic sensibilities are well known to the vast majority of serious students of deep politics. Many of us also are in position to appreciate his extraordinary work ethic; Phil makes an Amish elder look like an opium-addled slacker. His efforts on behalf of this investigation have been herculean to say the least. What you see in the attachment to this post represents just a small percentage of his work product. Phil is a warrior-poet one without whom this forum would be a far less lively, challenging, and intellectually rewarding place.]

I have reviewed my initial commentary of Albert Doyle a work in progress and summarize thusly:

When the demander of agreement brandishes a deus ex Echevarria and punctuates his harangue with tauntology and a damning I-thou comparison in ranges of articulation from autistic to savant, there is a method and a cast of mischief afoot.

Whether Eve has X faces or talks through her navel, the purpose is to shunt the pursuit of justice and light into six-degrees-of-Ben-Gurion or a doorway beneath a flashing neon sign.

Shills! Shills! Shills!

Give us instead an author whose notes and personal amplification show us the groundwork for valid conclusion.

Send out the clowns.

Phil Dragoo

Attached Files
.doc   ALBERT DOYLE - A WORK IN PROGRESS.doc (Size: 246.5 KB / Downloads: 43)
What a massive wank.
Was Pat's above comment edited by him or someone else?

What I saw originally is not what is posted here.
I went through the Word document, and read all of the comments in red. I didn't see any handwriting analysis, or any comparisons of posts between the person you think was the "real" Albert Doyle and those you think were written by a group of disinfo agents. All I saw was a continuation of the debate on Piper's thesis, a critique of the posts written by Doyle on this subject.

This is your evidence?
I post comparisons of "Doyles" -- more than once -- on the original thread. Once again, you demonstrate an impenetrable ignorance of the subject on which you comment.

One more thing:

"Handwriting analysis"???

Just how much of a fool are you, Don?
Mark Stapleton Wrote:What a massive wank.

But we tolerate you anyway, Mark.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Was Pat's above comment edited by him or someone else?

What I saw originally is not what is posted here.

Who is "Pat"? And to which "comment" do you refer?

Obviously, that was an inadvertent error to write "handwriting" analysis. What would you call it- "writing style" analysis? At any rate, I didn't see any analysis or comparisons at all in the Word document, only critiques of his (or their) posts.
Don Jeffries Wrote:Charles,

Obviously, that was an inadvertent error to write "handwriting" analysis. What would you call it- "writing style" analysis? At any rate, I didn't see any analysis or comparisons at all in the Word document, only critiques of his (or their) posts.

So has Albert been banned or is he free to post? I wouldn't blame him if he decided not to come back here any more.

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Detailed discussion and analysis of the H&L evidence David Josephs 105 246,271 24-08-2020, 03:26 AM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  Oswald and the mysterious Albert Schweitzer University James Lewis 9 5,517 14-03-2018, 08:23 PM
Last Post: David Josephs
  INDISPUTABLE Evidence for Harvey & Lee Sandy Larsen 1 2,348 10-02-2018, 06:14 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! Sandy Larsen 0 1,535 07-02-2018, 04:40 AM
Last Post: Sandy Larsen
  Where the heck is Albert Doyle? Richard Gilbride 80 48,917 16-10-2017, 05:36 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Story about Albert Osborne John Kowalski 14 17,152 02-08-2017, 01:41 AM
Last Post: Alan Ford
  3 FBI names directly associated with the evidence get no mention on this forum David Josephs 0 1,572 09-12-2016, 12:53 AM
Last Post: David Josephs
  Jfk's operation twist; Bernice Moore 0 1,937 01-09-2011, 01:27 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Jerry Hill, Dallas officer who found JFK evidence and handcuffed to Oswald, dies at 81 Bernice Moore 2 3,633 21-08-2011, 04:58 AM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  CIA Official History of Bay of Pigs Operation Ed Jewett 2 2,855 07-08-2011, 03:31 AM
Last Post: Bernice Moore

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)