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

[Bill Kelly]

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

[Charles Drago]

You're welcome.

I'm legitimately interested in your answers to my questions.

[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.

[Bill Kelly]

Charles,

You say that you have identified, exposed and banished some enemy infiltrators, and all I ask is who are they?

Do they have names? Did they use aliases while posting here?

Did they do any harm?

I know all about Colby, and have him cornered so he can't hurt me or my work and he just argues with those who want to argue with him.

You are correct in that we are at war, but it's not just as simple as being able to banish instigators from your forum, as they will just go elsewhere and continue to wreck havoc.

Can you identify those who you have exposed and banished or not, and if not, why not?

Even though they can no longer post here and bother you, they are still a threat to others, including me.

Dan Brandt, one of the first to post online really significant information about those who killed JFK in his NAMEBASE, and who was the first to post one of my articles on line (A New Oswald Witness Goes Pubic), has been attacked by these same forces and has thrown in the towel, has surrendered and is now offline.

If we are really at war, we must not only draw the battle lines, but outline the order of battle so we know who we are up against and can defend ourselves against them.

Smuggly kicking them off your forum without identifying them to others is not a good defense.

We are under attack, and if Dan Brandt has surrendered his site, we have lost a major ally.

That's not a sense of sarcasm you detect, it is a sense of dismay and gloom, and if you can tell us who they are, please do so others, like me, can protect ourselves.

Bill Kelly
JFKcountercoup

See:
Scroogle, the search engine operated by privacy militant and self-appointed Wikipedia watchdog Daniel Brandt, has folded for real. After enduring DDOS attacks "around the clock" that sent a flood of unsustainable traffic to his servers, Mr. Brandt took down the search engine along with his other four domains, namebase.org, google-watch.org, cia-on-campus.org,and book-grab.com. His theory is that he was being attacked by hackers with a personal vendetta.

"These four domains had also been on the web for a longtime NameBase first went online in 1997, and before that had been available on telnet since 1995. I spent 27 years developing NameBase," he said in an email, and referred to the Wikipedia page.

"I no longer have any domains online," Mr. Brandt wrote."I also took all my domains out of DNS because I want to signal to the criminal element that I have no more servers to trash. This hopefully will ward off further attacks on my previous providers."

Scroogle was a basic search engine that takes users to their Google results through a circuitous route that masks much of the data Google normally harvests. Google tolerated the site, which had its own nonprofit, and a Google engineer even helped Mr. Brandt get Scroogle white listed a few times. But recently, Google started punishing Scroogle severely for queries, choking off access for 90 minutes at a time. Google says it was not targeting Scroogle but that the search engine may have tripped a spam control mechanism.

"Scroogle.org is gone forever," Mr. Brandt wrote. "Even if all my DDoS problems had never started in December, Scroogle was already getting squeezed from Google's throttling, and was already dying. It might have lasted another six months if I hadn't lost seven servers from DDoS, but that's about all."

The search engine had some die-hardfans. But if privacy friendliness is what you seek, there are otheroptions.

Scroogle.com, formerly a porn site and the cause of someembarrassing NSFW confusion, has also gone off the air.

Adrianne Jeffries is a reporter for Betabeat and The NewYork Observer. GPG public key: 222D2F697E12899D. Follow Adrianne on Twitter or via RSS. ajeffries@observer.com

See also
ScroogleMay Have Been a Victim of Hackers, Not GoogleDidGoogle Just Disable Privacy-Friendly Scroogle? [UPDATED]

[Peter Lemkin]

Bill, Others, I don't attempt to answer for Charles, who is most capable to answer for himself. Just some musings on the subject. First, we do not know if the 'persons' who came here [or to the EF or others such] are using their real names and IP addresses, etc. or not]. Second, if we assume they are, only the most egregious, IMO, should be publicly named and their names spread around. Some might be amateur disinfo agents simply feeling they are doing their duty to save the 'honor' of the 'perfect' USA [history and form or governance - not to mention checks and balances] - or might have been mistakenly branded. I know I have at times! Some take years to surface as moles and disinfo agents - others are caught at their first pronouncements or actions. Some are so muddled in controversy and confusion [and changing opinions] it is hard to tell where they stand. When someone is really a problem and one feels they are disinfo beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm in favor of their being called on it [giving whatever name[s] they use and the nature of their 'game']. It is a war and if we had any doubts, Mockingbird, Chaos and now Sunstein [not to forget deaths and dirty tricks] have laid that to rest - along with many other things and persons I could name. Caution is called for. We operate in a minefield - we always did - in some ways the internet has made it easier for the disinfo agents, who can easily re-appear under a new name, new IP and with a new 'line' - although many have a favorite line they like to pursue. It would be an interesting [but highly contentious] work for someone to try to list the major disinfo players, past and present, along with references. But, it might have some value, especially if others are allowed to counter with doubts and disagreements and let the user decide.

[Ed Jewett]

Suggestion: build a model (graphically, textually, and/or with computer mapping or other software) of the actors and their spheres of influence, and grids which chart five factors: power, influence, interest, impact, salience (power, urgency and timing).

[Bill Kelly]

Bill, Others, I don't attempt to answer for Charles, who is most capable to answer for himself. Just some musings on the subject. First, we do not know if the 'persons' who came here [or to the EF or others such] are using their real names and IP addresses, etc. or not]. Second, if we assume they are, only the most egregious, IMO, should be publicly named and their names spread around. Some might be amateur disinfo agents simply feeling they are doing their duty to save the 'honor' of the 'perfect' USA [history and form or governance - not to mention checks and balances] - or might have been mistakenly branded. I know I have at times! Some take years to surface as moles and disinfo agents - others are caught at their first pronouncements or actions. Some are so muddled in controversy and confusion [and changing opinions] it is hard to tell where they stand. When someone is really a problem and one feels they are disinfo beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm in favor of their being called on it [giving whatever name[s] they use and the nature of their 'game']. It is a war and if we had any doubts, Mockingbird, Chaos and now Sunstein [not to forget deaths and dirty tricks] have laid that to rest - along with many other things and persons I could name. Caution is called for. We operate in a minefield - we always did - in some ways the internet has made it easier for the disinfo agents, who can easily re-appear under a new name, new IP and with a new 'line' - although many have a favorite line they like to pursue. It would be an interesting [but highly contentious] work for someone to try to list the major disinfo players, past and present, along with references. But, it might have some value, especially if others are allowed to counter with doubts and disagreements and let the user decide.

Peter, I am keeping track of the opposition, and if Charles or anybody at DPF has unmasked and exposed any of those who attack us via the internet, all I asked was who they are?

If they are capable of hurting anyone, we should know they're names and keep track of them or else they will attack on another front.

BK
JFKcountercoup

[Bill Kelly]

Suggestion: build a model (graphically, textually, and/or with computer mapping or other software) of the actors and their spheres of influence, and grids which chart five factors: power, influence, interest, impact, salience (power, urgency and timing).

Ed, I like the idea of building a model - or a matrix chart of the players and assigning them ranks and degrees of power, like chess pieces.

That's how some of them perceived themselves - Hunt and Phillips being Knight and Bishop.
BK
[URL="http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/"]
JFKcountercoup[/URL]

[Ed Jewett]

Suggestion: build a model (graphically, textually, and/or with computer mapping or other software) of the actors and their spheres of influence, and grids which chart five factors: power, influence, interest, impact, salience (power, urgency and timing).

Ed, I like the idea of building a model - or a matrix chart of the players and assigning them ranks and degrees of power, like chess pieces.

That's how some of them perceived themselves - Hunt and Phillips being Knight and Bishop.
BK
[URL="http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/"]
JFKcountercoup[/URL]

For a more complete picture, see the last link of this blog entry:

http://summonthemagic.blogspot.com/2012/...ed-of.html