The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Charles Drago]

This thread is rapidly approaching the points of diminishing returns, self-parody, and self-defeat.

"Cinque" and Fetzer have been exposed as agent provocateur and cognitively impaired pseudo-intellectual respectively. The former represents enemy action, the latter a profound and, for some of us, deeply affecting tragedy. Overkill says more about us than it does them.

So too has the EF's suicidal pacifism in the midst of war been exposed for the manner in which it further's the enemy's prime agenda: maintenance of doubt in the face of certainty.

Two observations by Don Jeffries do warrant responses, however.

I know you all love to refer to the EF as a "swamp," but imho it provides for the most wide ranging discussions you find on this subject presently on the internet. Sure, we could ban Colby, Lamson, DVP and others, but what purpose would that serve? To quote an episode of the Twilight Zone, "When everyone is beautiful, no one will be." Without wrong, there is no right. How often can one debate those he almost completely agrees with? What exactly would there be to discuss? At what point do you grow tired of patting each other on the back?

In regard to the JFK assassination, we are not engaged in "debate." As I have written and stated on numerous occasions: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. To "debate" the conspiracy (truth)/non-conspiracy (lie) "positions" is to play directly into the enemy's hand -- the enemy who has never sought to eliminate doubt and who depends upon doubt to preserve and protect its power.

If Mr. Jeffries is more interested in discussion than in resolution, then he is part of the problem and not the solution.

If Mr. Jeffries reads the DPF thoroughly and finds nothing but back-patting here, then ESL courses are in order for him.

"Colby" and "Von Pein" are hydras -- multi-headed entities assigned to disrupt,distract, disinform, preserve doubt, provide illusions of academic and intellectual respectability for the Lie, and otherwise serve the enemy and its agendas. Lamson is a wanker with a darkroom.

The only honorable, survivable response to their attacks is to expose them as such. To support the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and our truth is to bring a knife to a tank battle.

Charles Drago may want to figuratively "burn down" the EF, and probably doesn't see the frightening thought process behind his declaration, but when someone wants to take away YOUR right to express your views, I promise I'll be there to defend you, too.

If my "thought process" as expressed above "frightens" Mr. Jeffries, then he should seek Conscientious Objector status in this war and go to the rear to roll bandages.

[Don Jeffries]

Charles,

Exactly what have you done in the "war" you speak of that I haven't? My 2007 novel "The Unreals" included lots of JFK assassination stuff, all from a conspiracy standpoint. I'm finishing up a huge non-fiction work now that delves into the past fifty years of conspiracies and corruption. I post as much as I can, or am interested in, on forums like this and try to make intelligible points. I'm about as radical as they come, and about as "extreme" a conspiracy believer as there is. What else could I do?

The only thing any of us can really do at this point is post on forums like this, or hope to get our thoughts published to a wider audience. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially since I'm quite aware of how out of the mainstream much of my own thinking is. I know there was a huge conspiracy to kill JFK, and that the most powerful forces imaginable planned it. Clearly, the cover up was even bigger, and continues to this day. I don't share your virtual certainty that I "know" much beyond that.

Do you even entertain the possibility that people like Ralph Cinque, Jim Fetzer and others are simply wedded so strongly to their own theories that they can't be persuaded in another direction? I have a good friend and neighbor who I know is not a "disinfo" agent, but when I tried to talk to him about the JFK assassination, he simply wouldn't budge off the lone nutter nonsense. He'd read Posner, and is a typical conservative Republican, so I understand how hard it would be to reason with him about the subject. My own sister, who's heard me rant and rave about this subject for decades, was turned to lone nutterism by the ABC Peter Jennings crap. That's the power of the media.

If I can't make my own sister see the truth about a subject I'm a genuine expert on, I surely will not be able to persuade the Colbys and Lamsons. We know that Cass Sunstein has officially lobbied to make conspiracy "theories" illegal and advocates using undercover disinfo agents on forums like this to undermine the truth. I recognize that. I know there are people posting on JFK forums that have a dishonest agenda. However, there is a huge difference in being aware of that, and specifically accusing individuals of being a disinfo agent. You can't prove these kinds of accusations, and thus calling them names and intimating that you have some esoteric knowledge about them that others don't is really counterproductive.

I respect many posters here, including you. I wouldn't go on other forums and bash DPF. The EF is different from this forum, just as Lancer is different from both. Duncan's forum is different as well. They all serve a purpose. I didn't support banning Peter Lemkin, and tried hard to advocate for him. I don't own the forum, just like I don't this one. How would you feel if someone on the EF posted a comment about "burning down" DPF? Somehow, I think we'd see a post or two full of your acerbic criticism in response.

I try to be cordial to everyone, on every forum I frequent. If that makes me look weak or half-hearted, I don't apologize. That's my nature, and I believe I make my points just as well without resorting to name calling, snide put-downs and unprovable insinuations about individual characters. You've been following this case long enough to understand the personalities that gravitate to it. Far too many JFK researchers are pompous, arrogant and intolerant of other opinions. They each think they have "the" answer. As you've noted, anyone who's studied this case knows Oswald didn't do it. Period. Beyond that, the nature of the cover up proves there was a huge conspiracy involving powerful forces. Obviously, the forums illustrate what happens when these kinds of personalities interact with each other.

But to pretend that we know for certain the CIA was or wasn't the impetus, or that LBJ was or wasn't a willing participant, with absolute certainty, is simply ridiculous. I strongly disagree with those who think anti-Castro Cubans were important participants, for instance, or that "Cuba" was a fundamental reason behind the assassination. I believe that the whole Cuban connection was another smokescreen to deter attention away from powerful forces in the U.S. government. But I also realize that many well intentioned researchers, from Larry Hancock to Gil Jesus to Cliff Varnell, believe that the Cuban question was connected to the assassination. I don't dismiss them as idiots and ridicule their theories. Does that make sense?

I "supported" Ralph Cinque's right to speak, just as I'd support yours. When I disagree with what someone says, I feel even more compelled to argue against censoring them. Must be my early infatuation with Patrick Henry or something. My point was that the issue of who was in the doorway hasn't been settled, even if nearly everyone thinks Cinque and Fetzer's photo analysis has. Do you agree that there are serious questions about who was in the doorway in the Altgens' photograph?

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,

As a point of logic:

A straw man fallacy occurs when one participant in a debate exaggerates the argument of his opponent in order to more easily defeat that argument. I don't believe that you have demonstrated a straw man on Cinque's part in this instance.

No, he's clearly using a strawman. A strawman is when you set-up a straw figure that isn't a sincere effort to answer the main point and then knock it down with the suggestion you have answered the main point. Cinque has clearly done that with his post-Baker lunch argument while failing to answer why Fritz noted the Baker encounter well before mentioning "Out on the steps with Bill Shelley in front". Cinque knows there wasn't enough time for Oswald to eat lunch after the Baker encounter, but he's using it to avoid answering why Fritz wrote his notes in that particular chronological order.

No disrespect Greg but you are trying to use honorable rules of debate and logic with two WWF clowns in Fetzer and Cinque over there. Cinque is an obnoxious little pissant who doesn't belong in the same ring as the people on EF, who shouldn't be taking him as seriously as they are. I swear he's almost like a Saturday Night Live character in a skit.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert Doyle,

I'm glad I checked in on this thread. Didn't know I was getting this kind of attention from you.

First, I'm not "defending" Ralph Cinque. I don't find his photo interpretations convincing in the least, and none of my posts on that thread support his contentions. The point I've been trying to make is that this issue has NOT been settled definitively. There are serious questions about Lovelady, and the man in the doorway just should not be assumed to be him because Groden thinks so, or because internet posters like you keep yelling that the matter has been resolved, and no more debate can be permitted about it.

Again Don, this answer alone reflects why I said what I did. There is much more information than you acknowledge to show the figure is indeed reasonably Lovelady. Because you fail to reflect the numerous levels of evidence to show it is Lovelady in your overly-general response does not mean what you say is valid. What you describe as "because you keep yelling" is actually pages of posts showing some very intelligently researched and vetted information that proves within reasonable doubt that the figure is indeed Lovelady. Meanwhile your forgery advocate Cinque is the one who runs roughshod across the offerings of some serious JFK Assassination researchers. And you are defending Cinque whether you admit it or not. Go back and read your recklessly conciliatory posts.

Just because Cinque and Fetzer are making an unpersuasive, specific argument doesn't mean that all those who believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway or, like myself and Greg Burnham among others, think there are reasonable doubts about the identify of the figure, are wrong. You are like Tink Thompson and others who proclaim that previously strong indicators of conspiracy like a bullet hole in the limo windshield or the bizarre Umbrella Man have been innocently explained away and can no longer be discussed. Lovelady has not been "proven" to be the figure in the doorway, no matter how many times you say it.

I disagree with Greg's approach and think it gives too much leeway to people who don't deserve it. I think Greg's rules of logic refereeing is regressive and has the unintended effect of giving license to people in contempt who don't deserve that license. If anyone has noticed Cinque and Fetzer are ignoring Greg's admonitions.

I'm sorry Don but you keep referring to your reasonable belief in Oswald being in the doorway but it is backed by anemic material similar to what you offer here. Everything points towards Lovelady being the man in the door. Nothing points towards it being Oswald, yet you seem to think you hold some kind of superior logically-sound position when the facts say otherwise. Your position is entirely theoretical. Of the two leaps yours is the one that fails to land on the stage of reality.

I've been a student of the JFK assassination since I was a volunteer for Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s. I know what I'm talking about. You, like too many others in this community (and ironically, obviously Cinque and Fetzer would fall into this category) simply cannot accept disagreement with others. I am as strong a believer in conspiracy as you're going to find on any of these forums. I have never wavered in my belief that Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963. Yet you think I am "incompetent" and am "showing my true colors" because I agree with some of the points Cinque has made, all of them outside the realm of photo analysis?

Yes I do, I'm sorry. I don't think you should be allowed to exert moderator authority with such weak points. I'm sorry. Assassination tenure is no replacement for sound argument. Whether you take responsibility for it or not YOU are the one who has cracked open the door to one of the most credible Assassination public forums to a credulous troll in the form of Ralph Cinque. Truth is you show more resentment and protest towards myself than you do towards this risible character. No principle or theory can justify that. Your argument exposes itself in its once-removed theoretical nature. You are arguing the idea of the Cinque debacle instead of arguing his points. If you look at my entries they argue Cinque's points directly. So there's two types of "disagreement". Yours, removed and theoretical, and mine direct. I hope you can understand why I reject yours.

I believe my points about the Fritz notes were sound. You came in and criticized them in defense of Cinque. You didn't protest Cinque not answering the main point nor did you protest Cinque totally ignoring my original post, posted by Jerry Dealey, criticizing his silly Lovelady imposter theories. There's different kinds of criticisms with different values Mr Jeffries. I hope people are wise enough to see which are the most important. Some may think their theoretical "tolerance" is noble and not see what price it comes at.

[Charles Drago]

Don,

I have very serious questions about the identity of Doorway Man, the provenance/legitimacy of the image, the early and contemporary manipulations by accessories after the fact of said uncertainty. I don't know who it is.

I think that if you go back far enough in the EF archives you'll discover that I posted very complimentary words about you and your work. I mention this in passing and for whatever it's worth. Our respective contributions to the struggles for truth and justice in this case, however, are hardly the issue in this discussion.

I refer to the EF as a "swamp" because its former co-owner, Andy "Nine Iron" Walker, repeatedly lied when he denied that I was blocked from accessing the site, and because he and the currently AWOL John Simkin have allowed the EF to be infiltrated and manipulated by agents provocateur.

From a March 20, 2010 post on DPF:

[B]Andy "Nine-Iron" Walker orchestrated the effort to drive me from the EF. And throughout, I was his willing accomplice. I set the trap, and the little nitwit walked right into it.

It began when he blocked my IP. Then, in response to a revelatory post I made via a friend's computer, he stated publicly that I had not been banned, that if there was an access problem it must be attributable to a failure of my computer, and that in any event I was lying.

So again I used that same friend's computer, accessed the site, and posted on a topic that now escapes me.

Here's how Nine-Iron gave away his game: The following week I once again tried to access the EF from the same friend's computer, and lo and behold ... its IP address also was blocked.

After a few months and without notice, I once again could access the EF. And no, I had not repaired my computer, which otherwise had worked perfectly throughout this charade.

Nine-Iron made the terrible mistake of attempting to engage me in a battle of wits. Against all rules of gentlemanly conduct, I chose to fire on an unarmed man. He was humiliated, and he quickly disappeared my posts.

He next challenged me to a debate (on God knows what!), understanding full well my position on debating long-settled issues. All the while, Burton and the multiple identities posing as "Colby" egged him on. "Drago is a coward!" they proclaimed.

Yawn.

Nine-Iron is, in my Constitutionally protected and well-informed opinion, a liar, an agent provocateur, and a sissy.
[/B]

For some revealing reading, see: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....3278&st=45


So no, I do not believe that "Colby," for instance, is simply "wedded strongly to his theories." On the EF I clearly demonstrated that "he" is all but certainly a front man for multiple posters assigned to disrupt, disinform, and disparage EF and all its noble contributors. There was nothing "exotic" or "secret" about the methodology I used to argue and, I'd submit, prove my hypothesis. Look it up -- if, that is, it hasn't been sanitized.

"Cinque," too, in my strong and informed opinion, is a pimp for the enemy.

Jim Fetzer is simply a lost soul ... a tragic figure who once was my friend and who now is playing directly into the hands of those he most fervently wishes to defeat.

As for "burning down" the EF, Simkin seems to be doing just that by refusing to acknowledge the critical difference between discussing the assassination of Julius Caesar and investigating the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Hope this helps.

Charles

[Albert Doyle]

Don,


Your points supporting the possibility of Doorway Man being Oswald are weak. There's no doubt that all other photographic evidence of Lovelady in the entryway to the Depository 1) show him in the correct position for the Altgens shot 2) Universally show him wearing the plaid shirt. You and Fetzer have failed to show any arguments proving how the alleged forgers managed to change all these other shots? Especially Weigman, which clearly shows Lovelady in the plaid shirt and holding on to the railing in the right spot. You make an argument for Lovelady sitting, but this is easily disproven by Lovelady standing and holding onto the railing in Weigman - where there wasn't any time for him to jump up from a sitting position and stand. So while you say you offer a reasonable counter-position on the Doorway Man issue you show in your own public statements that you fail to offer information that honors the reasonably established facts. The problem I have with yours and Greg's arguments is that you dwell on regressive positions while failing to see the cutting edge of the argument is up here with these points.

If Lovelady and Oswald resembled each other it is mainly because of the planted suggestion of these theories. Any close look will show the distinct features of Lovelady on the man in question. Even Fetzer and Cinque admit the man's bears Lovelady's features. The question, then, is were they placed onto this figure by forgery? So far, as you yourself admit, Fetzer and Cinque have not been able to produce any sound evidence showing how this was done. Especially in the way of possession times of the Altgen film. Fetzer now has mobile CIA forgery labs floating around Dealey Plaza. At what point do we draw the line for the ridiculous?

The idea of Oswald sprinting back up to the lunchroom from the front door is even less likely than Oswald sprinting down from the 6th floor. There's no way Oswald could have done that and not been out of breath when confronted by Truly and Baker. Or not have been seen either. I feel you don't have a good grasp of Oswald in your speculations. As I've written previously, Oswald's behavior at the police station shows he was maintaining cover, which means he was following orders. So there's no reason to think he wasn't doing the same thing at the Depository when he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom and not watching the motorcade. The facts show there's no reason to ignore all this and suggest he should have been out on the front steps. The most reasonable explanation for Oswald being in the lunchroom is that he was being set-up as an Operation Northwoods patsy and needed to be out of the way during the shooting.

[Greg Burnham]

Albert,

As a point of logic:

A straw man fallacy occurs when one participant in a debate exaggerates the argument of his opponent in order to more easily defeat that argument. I don't believe that you have demonstrated a straw man on Cinque's part in this instance.

No, he's clearly using a strawman. A strawman is when you set-up a straw figure that isn't a sincere effort to answer the main point and then knock it down with the suggestion you have answered the main point. Cinque has clearly done that with his post-Baker lunch argument while failing to answer why Fritz noted the Baker encounter well before mentioning "Out on the steps with Bill Shelley in front". Cinque knows there wasn't enough time for Oswald to eat lunch after the Baker encounter, but he's using it to avoid answering why Fritz wrote his notes in that particular chronological order.

No disrespect Greg but you are trying to use honorable rules of debate and logic with two WWF clowns in Fetzer and Cinque over there. Cinque is an obnoxious little pissant who doesn't belong in the same ring as the people on EF, who shouldn't be taking him as seriously as they are. I swear he's almost like a Saturday Night Live character in a skit.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a [FONT=arial !important]person[/FONT] simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
   
2. Person B [FONT=arial !important]presents[/FONT] position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
   
3. Person B attacks position Y.
   
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
   

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

• Prof. Jones: "The [FONT=arial !important]university[/FONT] just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
  
• Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
  
• Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
  
• Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
  
• Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
  

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,

As a point of logic:

A straw man fallacy occurs when one participant in a debate exaggerates the argument of his opponent in order to more easily defeat that argument. I don't believe that you have demonstrated a straw man on Cinque's part in this instance.

No, he's clearly using a strawman. A strawman is when you set-up a straw figure that isn't a sincere effort to answer the main point and then knock it down with the suggestion you have answered the main point. Cinque has clearly done that with his post-Baker lunch argument while failing to answer why Fritz noted the Baker encounter well before mentioning "Out on the steps with Bill Shelley in front". Cinque knows there wasn't enough time for Oswald to eat lunch after the Baker encounter, but he's using it to avoid answering why Fritz wrote his notes in that particular chronological order.

No disrespect Greg but you are trying to use honorable rules of debate and logic with two WWF clowns in Fetzer and Cinque over there. Cinque is an obnoxious little pissant who doesn't belong in the same ring as the people on EF, who shouldn't be taking him as seriously as they are. I swear he's almost like a Saturday Night Live character in a skit.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a [FONT=arial !important]person[/FONT] simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
   
2. Person B [FONT=arial !important]presents[/FONT] position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
   
3. Person B attacks position Y.
   
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
   

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

• Prof. Jones: "The [FONT=arial !important]university[/FONT] just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
  
• Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
  
• Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
  
• Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
  
• Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
  

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

No offense Greg but I think what you are doing here only proves my point. For your entry to have any merit you would have to show where Cinque made any attempt to answer the main point about the chronological order of Fritz's entry. I think you are offering inert content that is counterproductive to the thread. I think you will get a perfect alignment of the logical universe just about the same time Fetzer and Cinque prove their theoretical arguments.


Cinque loves this by the way. It helps feed and maintain his purpose. You see the problem with what you're doing here Greg is that it stops short of analyzing why Fritz wrote "had lunch" after the Baker encounter. I honestly believe Baker wrote that because he was foreshortening Oswald's telling him that, since he had already eaten lunch, he went to the 1st floor and exited. When you view Fritz's notes in that context they make perfect sense. Proof of Cinque's strawman here is that he knows the 1 minute Oswald had to depart was not enough time to eat lunch and is using that as a distraction to not answer what, then, Fritz's notes mean? I dare say I've answered that while you and Cinque display the same trait of not only not answering this but showing no interest in doing so either while dwelling on sophist points.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Don - thank you for making thoughtful and considered posts articulating your view.

We know that Cass Sunstein has officially lobbied to make conspiracy "theories" illegal and advocates using undercover disinfo agents on forums like this to undermine the truth. I recognize that. I know there are people posting on JFK forums that have a dishonest agenda. However, there is a huge difference in being aware of that, and specifically accusing individuals of being a disinfo agent. You can't prove these kinds of accusations, and thus calling them names and intimating that you have some esoteric knowledge about them that others don't is really counterproductive.

As a long term researcher of deep political matters, I suspect you would agree that many techniques and technologies being used for covert operations do not become public for a decade or more after they were first introduced and utilized.

For me, the only surprizing aspect of Sunstein's utterances are that he made them publicly.

If you deconstruct his covert operation - for that is what it is - it is instantly recognizable.

Sunstein's psyops are no more, nor less, than Operation Mockingbird for the digital age.

Mockingbird began at least as early the 1950s, but was created for a world where the means of distribution of "information" and "opinion" resided in a small, chosen, few: primarily journalists and broadcasters.

From wiki:

Further details of Operation Mockingbird were revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) in 1975. According to the Congress report published in 1976:

"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."

The internet has changed all that, as anyone can "publish" their opinions to the entire "global village".

So, the original Mockingbird tactic of "owning" hundreds of journalists in key publishing and broadcasting organs across the world is no longer sufficient to control consensus reality.

Here is Sunstein in his own words (see Phil's post #250 in this thread for more):

Government agents (and their allies)
might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises,
causal logic or implications for political action.

In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no
effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that
Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in
dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not
usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In
another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false
identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but
potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials
participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and
conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from
the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the
tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be
suspected of government connections. Despite these difficulties, the two forms of
cognitive infiltration offer different risk-reward mixes and are both potentially useful
instruments.

So, "government agents" are covertly to "cognitively infiltrate" internet forums, social media, essentially any public non-MSM controlled space, to disrupt "conspiracy theories".

This is not about debate, discussion, free speech.

This is not a fair fight governed by Queensberry Rules.

This is about criminals, acting anonymously, using illegal and malicious means to prevent their crimes being investigated.

If Sunsteinian psyops are Mockingbird operations for the internet age, then I believe we can reasonably assume that they have been in use for at least a decade, and possibly more.

Nailing an individual Mockingbird to the wall is always going to be a dangerous process.

However, I would argue that it is incumbent upon us to identify the traces of a Mockingbird operation.

Here are some of the key factors a Sunsteinian psyop would likely exhibit:

- the disruption of serious research
- the banalization of serious research
- the relentless promulgation of hypotheses after they have been thoroughly debunked
- the publicizing of those hypotheses in arenas likely to get MSM attention
- the knowledge that these hypotheses, their key evidence and their chief protagonists will not survive basic due diligence from MSM researchers

All serving the End Purpose of a Sunsteinian psyop: To delegitimize research which challenges officially sanctioned history, and to enable MSM to say "Look - this is why you can't trust conspiracy theorists".

Once again, we are not playing by Queensberry Rules.

Indeed, we are not playing at all.

[Keith Millea]

"Colby" and "Von Pein" are hydras -- multi-headed entities assigned to disrupt,distract, disinform, preserve doubt, provide illusions of academic and intellectual respectability for the Lie, and otherwise serve the enemy and its agendas.

Well,can you not say the same for Fetzer(and his team)?Has his "unidentified intelligence expert made his entry yet?Why do some think Fetzer is getting senile?Backstabbing and senility are not synonymous!

So no, I do not believe that "Colby," for instance, is simply "wedded strongly to his theories." On the EF I clearly demonstrated that "he" is all but certainly a front man for multiple posters assigned to disrupt, disinform, and disparage EF and all its noble contributors. There was nothing "exotic" or "secret" about the methodology I used to argue and, I'd submit, prove my hypothesis. Look it up -- if, that is, it hasn't been sanitized.

I challenge anyone to try to find the post that Charles is talking about.I believe this was shortly before the formation of DPF.I read it back then,and it devastated the "Colby" hydra.Find it...see for yourself.....The EF should rightfully be called "the swamp".