Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Exchange with Reprehensor on 911Blogger about William Pepper (15 posts)

  1. christs4sale
    Administrator

    [Here is the link for the original: http://911blogger.com/node/19880] Thanks for this.

    For a background on UFOs, please read Vallee's Messengers of Deception, Vesco's Man-Made UFOs, 1944-1994: Fifty Years of Suppression and a transcript of John Judge's 1989 radio interview on them from his book Judge for Yourself. Also, Dave Emory's Lecture: The Political Implications of the UFO Phenomenon and the “ET” Myth is a great resource that can be found here: http://spitfirelist.com/?p=520

    For a background on William Pepper's sometimes poor ability to identify disinformation, see:

    From Peter Dale Scott's Road to 9/11, Introduction end notes:

    "Most of what Pepper writes about army surveillance of King is documented and corroborated (cf. Steve Tompkins, "Army Feared King, Secretly Watched Him. Spying On Blacks Started 75 Years Ago," Memphis Commercial Appeal, March 21, 1993 [http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/1993/mar/21/army-feared-king-secretly-watched-him/]). Unfortunately, Pepper also transmitted the claim made to him that the 20th Special Forces Group had a sniper team in Memphis on April 4, 1968, to ensure that King was murdered. I believe from my own research that the sniper team story was disinformation from high sources in order to discredit Pepper. In particular, an alleged authorizing cable, citing Operation Garden Plot, is to a trained reader a self-revealing forgery."

    From Lisa Pease's Real History Archives:

    "Remember what happened to William Pepper? He believed some Ayers-like informants on the MLK case and made a central case against a former military man whom Pepper believed (and wrote) was then dead. So on national TV, what happened? The "dead" guy walked out onto the stage. His living didn't negate all of Pepper's work in reality. But in the popular mind? Pepper was the guy who had 'gotten it wrong' on TV. I fear strongly the same will happen to those who pursue this line of inquiry."

    http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2006/11/di...

    Here are Lisa's comments regarding a disagreement between Peter Dale Scott and William Pepper at the Making Sense of the 60's conference in 2008: http://www.blackopradio.com/black403b.ram

    Her comments on Pepper begin at 23:30.

    Here is an excerpt about William Pepper from Joan Mellon's talk from this same conference:

    "A digression about sources. From about fifty hours of taped interviews, I could not use any of what a New Orleans figure named Gordon Novel told me. With a soldier of fortune named Gerald Patrick Hemming, the percentage of the truth to fabrication was 50-50. Knowing of my interest in Colombia, Gerry told he he had been imprisoned on Gorgona. (This was an island off the western coast of Colombia, named because of the preponderance of poisonous snakes wandering there. I didn’t believe him. This seemed like bragging. No, it turned out to be true. Smuggling drugs and not paying off the right people in Medellin, Gerry found himself on Gorgona.

    Gerry told me that Robert Kennedy had addressed a group of Cuban exiles at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida in the summer of 1963. I needed corroborating witnesses; Gerry promised to name some, but couldn’t, and I broke off all contact with him. I forgot about this matter until a researcher named William Pepper told me the same story. His source, Pepper said, was an aging, very ill documentary filmmaker who had been a close friend of Robert Kennedy’s. He had won eight Emmys! Pepper said. And no, he couldn’t give me this dying man’s name.

    As a film historian, I could reach any documentary filmmaker, and I called about ten people. None had ever heard the Homestead story. Then I contacted people close to Bobby Kennedy: Peter Edelman; John Seigenthaler; one of Robert Kennedy’s daughters; Ed. Guthman; Frank Mankiewicz; George Stevens; and Joey Gargan, a Kennedy cousin; the list goes on. None had ever heard of the Homestead story. Seigenthaler suggested I call the Kennedy library and ask to see the appointment book of Bobby’s secretary, Angie Novello. I did. They searched. 1963 was missing!

    I went back to Pepper and insisted that he name his source – and it turned out that the source was…Gerald Patrick Hemming! In the course of the same conversation, Pepper told me that Bobby had flown to Dallas on the evening Oswald was arrested, and talked to Oswald in his cell! But I must not use this revelation! So historians must be wary, especially in this field."

    http://www.joanmellen.com/oswald.html

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. christs4sale
    Administrator

    [His response] christ4sale, I have annotated your "Background" post. Annotations blockquoted, in italic (I apologize for the length, but this is no doubt the proper place for this post);

    "For a background on UFOs, please read Vallee's Messengers of Deception, Vesco's Man-Made UFOs, 1944-1994: Fifty Years of Suppression and a transcript of John Judge's 1989 radio interview on them from his book Judge for Yourself. Also, Dave Emory's Lecture: The Political Implications of the UFO Phenomenon and the “ET” Myth is a great resource that can be found here: http://spitfirelist.com/?p=520 "

    On John Judge:

    John Judge is one the one hand a useful activist, but Judge also makes mistakes. His stance on exclusion of the controlled demolition debate from 9/11 inquiries has turned out to be harmful, IMO, just as Michael Ruppert's very public and conscious decisions to marginalize physical evidence investigations and even the possibility of remote control aircraft on 9/11 has been a detriment, creating artificial divisions of inquiry within the 9/11 Truth movement that don't need to be there. I'm willing to bet that Judge will not be moved by the now multiple peer-reviewed papers on controlled-demolition, and will continue to take up the argument from the debunker's array of sources, exluding even new solid evidence from Jones & Co. I have personally heard him vehemently arguing the case for the fire-induced collapse of WTC7, and the fire/damage induced collapse of the Twin Towers. But more directly, in this article, Judge transmits factually incorrect information to his readers;

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A...

    "And finally, the Pentagon sits inside the P-56-A restricted air space section that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, and that activated air defenses from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA for many years prior to 9/11. Interceptor fighter jets in that area, which is separate from and more restricted than FAA commercial air space, as well as much better defended, were regularly scrambled when small or commercial planes went off course or were not on scheduled routes within a larger Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that extends 50 miles out to give time for the response. Andrews Air Force base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defenses for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings. Having grown up and lived in the area for most of my life, I saw such defensive responses many times, guiding planes away from the restricted area. Commercial pilots have also long complained about the difficult curving maneuvers necessary to land or take off at Washington National Airport (now Reagan) to avoid entering P-56-B, the three-mile inner restricted zone above the White House, Capitol and Pentagon."

    The Pentagon does not sit inside P-56A or B, and to my knowledge it never has: http://www.faa.gov/ats/dca/dcaweb/p56.htm

    If someone has an older map of P-56 to disprove this, I'd like to see it. Also, the DC ADIZ did not come into effect until after 9/11; http://www.iflyamerica.org/faa_fact_sheet.asp http://web.archive.org/web/20060128114626/http://w...

    I have written to Judge and Ratical.org directly to have this information corrected, with no response.

    In 2002, Judge gave this talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZb2vWvXjpY

    In which he says at the 19:32 mark;

    "...and then in July of last year (2001) Colin Powell the Secretary of State made a special trip, it was reported on in the Times of India, to Pakistan, India and Uzbekistan, and surrounding countries around Afghanistan, and he told the leaders of those countries that the United States would militarily intervene in mid-October in Afghanistan. This was in July."

    I can find no citation for this. Can anyone else?

    Since Judge is wrong about his divisive exclusion of the controlled demolition debate from 9/11 research (arguably, the most fruitful avenue of research we have seen), wrong about Washington's air defense apparatus, and apparently wrong about Colin Powell's activities in 2001, should we tar and feather him, too? Or, is Judge an earnest researcher who has made a few mistakes? If Judge is an earnest researcher who has made a few mistakes, why can we not extend this courtesy to William Pepper, who is surely human? To my knowledge, Judge has no issues with William Pepper that prevent him from associating with Pepper. Does Judge display a "poor ability to identify disinformation"?

    On Dave Emory:

    Dave Emory may have contributed one or two useful nuggets in his day, but since 9/11, his insistence on the perpetuation of the term "Islamofascist" is counter to an objective reading of the facts of 9/11. Also, his perpetuation of Paul Manning's misinformation on Martin Bormann, which was officially laid to rest in 2000, is inexplicable. Finally, Emory is infamous for his on-air attacks on other researchers; including John Judge, Carol Brouillet and most recently, Steven Jones. Emory is an ad hominem attack artiste, who doesn't let facts get in his way when he is on a roll. Emory refers to 9/11 Truth as the "9/11 B.S. Movement" and the "9/11 Lie Movement" because generally, Truthers don't spend much time fretting about the Muslim Brotherhood. Like Judge and Ruppert, Emory eschews any scientific examination of the claims of controlled demolition, and prefers to attack Jones' religious beliefs, engaging in character assassination, rather than an evenly-administered debate.

    Emory is wrong about Bormann (and probably wrong about the Super Secret Crypto-Fascist Government too), wrong in his slathering attacks on controlled-demo research, wrong about his characterizations of key members of the 9/11 Truth phenomenon, and lets his mouth run on.

    Emory does indeed display a "poor ability to identify disinformation", and is a frothing slander-monkey, yet you are using him as a reference to shore up your post which intends to cast doubt on Pepper's abilities to separate the wheat from the chafe.

    Perhaps his UFO information is actually quite good, and all of the above are merely mistakes on the part of an earnest researcher. If Emory is an earnest researcher who has made a few mistakes, why can we not extend this courtesy to William Pepper, who is surely human?

    For a background on William Pepper's sometimes poor ability to identify disinformation, see:

    From Peter Dale Scott's Road to 9/11, Introduction end notes:

    "Most of what Pepper writes about army surveillance of King is documented and corroborated (cf. Steve Tompkins, "Army Feared King, Secretly Watched Him. Spying On Blacks Started 75 Years Ago," Memphis Commercial Appeal, March 21, 1993 ( http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/1993/mar/21/a... ). Unfortunately, Pepper also transmitted the claim made to him that the 20th Special Forces Group had a sniper team in Memphis on April 4, 1968, to ensure that King was murdered. I believe from my own research that the sniper team story was disinformation from high sources in order to discredit Pepper. In particular, an alleged authorizing cable, citing Operation Garden Plot, is to a trained reader a self-revealing forgery."

    On Peter Dale Scott:

    When Scott wrote this footnote, he was unaware of a key aspect of Pepper's situation. Pepper's cable (which indeed appears to be a forgery) was at the time considered genuine by his sources. It took a third corroborating source to convince Pepper to use the cable in his first book on the King case, "Orders to Kill". This third source was a man by the name of Jack Terrell. Peter Dale Scott was hustled by Jack Terrell, too. He writes about the hustle in his poem, "A Ballad of Drugs and 9/11", in which he laments the fact that he trusted Terrell at all, and also reveals that he may have misplaced trust in the secretary to whom he gave a secret memo for delivery (bolding added);

    "...One is never sure whom to trust
    as I learnt years ago at a Washington Center
    researching for Senator Kerry's investigation
    into Contra support operations and drugs

    I think of the secret memo in two copies
    I had my secretary a student intern
    hand-deliver from the Center
    to Brian Barger and a Bob Parry

    who phoned back to say he was furious
    (There are things you don't write down in Washington)
    and somehow Secord's lawyer got hold of it
    to file as a Court Exhibit in the Christic case

    and what about Jack Terrell at the Center
    a man intimate with the mercenary "community"
    who had fought for the whites in Rhodesia
    who had earned the confidence of the Miskitos

    by shooting thirteen of their prisoners
    with their hands tied behind their backs
    and who knew about the military coup in Fiji
    that night before anyone in the press

    Jack was shown to have told the truth
    about the Contra cocaine operation
    disguised by imports of frozen fish
    in the memo he prepared for Senator Kerry

    which was stolen for the Reagan Justice Department
    after which Oliver North
    classified Terrell as a "Terrorist Threat"
    and our Center was put under FBI surveillance

    after which I got a call from the Center:
    Why did you finance Terrell's scheme
    to destroy Manglapus (who had been expected
    to succeed Cory in the Philippines?)

    In this way naïve good will
    implicated me in the defeat
    of the one candidate committed to removing
    the U.S. military bases.

    Jack himself still later invited me
    to think he might have been the "Carson"
    who led Bill Pepper to the wild lie
    discrediting his book on Martin Luther King.

    so that we still do not know for certain
    who was behind King's murder
    (or for that matter the Kennedys')
    any more than who Jack was really working for

    though he claimed that he was told by phone
    to penetrate North's Contra support effort
    by Donald Fortier and the NSC
    Oh Jack! Though I knew enough

    never completely to trust you
    I still thought of you as my friend -
    and that like me you were fighting the traffickers
    not just your enemy Oliver North.

    The American dilemma: to heal this world
    we must become intimate with it
    but the search for political truth
    will lead one deeper and deeper into falsehood..."

    (more on Secord and the Christic Institute)

    Even though Scott can now say that Terrell was a bad source, and Pepper was unwise to trust him for corroboration, Scott was unable to penetrate Terrell's carefully constructed facade, and trusted Terrell to a degree; even though he knew that Terrell had been jailed for theft early on in his life. And, even though Scott recognizes Terrell for a fraud now, he still maintains that some of the things that Terrell told him were true. I believe that Terrell was an extremely effective con-man, and the effect that Terrell had on Pepper is what lingers, causing him to still hold belief in some of the things that Terrell told to him. Scott does not say, "My work with the International Center for Development Policy is discredited because of my use of Jack Terrell as a source," but a harsh (or desperate) enough critic certainly could.

    Scott makes errors as a researcher, just like all of us do. In "The Road to 9/11", and in "Oil, Drugs and War", he says that Pakistani Gen. Haq was allegedly "heavily engaged in narcotics trafficking." However, he has changed his mind on this point; http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090223... - (It appears that some pretty high-level sources played multiple researchers on that point.)

    Speaking of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, Scott said, "...which, by the way I didn't totally disapprove of. I personally, although I believe as much in peace as anyone else, I felt that some kind of response was appropriate," when pressed on this support of military action, "...reluctantly accept, would be more like it. I think if, uh... if those buildings had gone down and the Pentagon had gone down, I mean-- in the first place it's inconceivable that America would do nothing. But if it had nothing, it certainly would be an invitation to have more than that. At first, I was not sure-- I thought it was appropriate to go after Al Qaeda, I was not sure it was appropriate to go after the Taliban, because I thought at the time that the Taliban was essentially a nationalist movement that was concerned about Afghanistan, not about Islam in the world. I actually think I was wrong, and the [Bush] administration was closer to the truth than I was..." (February 5, 2002, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center - video currently unavailable, I'll try to load up my copy in the near future)

    Yet, now Scott says, "This hypothesis of an underlying continuity and similarity between JFK, 9/11, and intervening deep events suggests that we should look for some continuing and hostile force within our society to help explain them -- and not, as we have been encouraged, to blame them uniquely on external forces -- such as either Castro (in the case of Oswald) or angry Middle Eastern Muslims (in the case of 9/11)."

    This fully voids any intellectual support that can be accorded to military action in Afghanistan, because that action is predicated on the basis of 9/11 as an act of Muslim terrorism. Knowing what we know now about 9/11, and the scholarship that authors like Nafeez Ahmed have applied to "Al Qaeda" and the manipulation of the Arab Afghans as proxy armies, Scott's early statement on Afghanistan seems untenable now.

    Was Scott a victim of propaganda and disinformation? Is this what led to his tacit support of military action in Afghanistan? Did Scott display a "poor ability to identify disinformation"? I know that I certainly did not support the invasion of Afghanistan. I was waiting for PROOF that "Al Qaeda" even pulled off 9/11. I'm still waiting for that proof. Does that make me better than Scott? No. Does that make Scott a conscious purveyor of disinfo? No. He was simply advancing an argument with the tools available to him at the time, and over time, he has changed his position.

    Did Scott display a poor ability to identify (and properly sequester) a disinfo artist in Jack Terrell? Even though he knew that Terrell had a criminal past?

    Let's assume the worst of Scott for rhetorical purposes. He can't see a con man when it's right in his face, uses disinfo about Gen. Haq without rooting out the corroborating source material, and backed the wrong horse in the wake of 9/11. Does this negate his good work? Should we dredge it up every time Scott writes a new paper and posts it here?

    If we are willing to overlook mistakes that Scott has made, for the greater effect that his overall acheivements as a scholar have produced ("Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" for example) why is this an untenable position for our assessment of William Pepper? Why can we we not say that Pepper is a good man, who is misled at times, like Scott (and anyone else who has fallen prey to a pathological liar)?

    Further, although the 9/11 skeptics have been targeted for disinfo, it absolutely pales in comparison to the parade of disinfo that has been churned out against earnest researchers like Scott, Pepper, and others. The mistakes on display by these researchers probably only constitute a percentage of information that has been supplied to them that cannot be verified, will not be verified, is sometimes posted as fact, and later fails to meet the test of time. We're talking about the resources of the most powerful Military-Industrial-Complex on the planet, and its agents, working against those of us who turn over rocks and shed light.

    From Lisa Pease's Real History Archives:

    "Remember what happened to William Pepper? He believed some Ayers-like informants on the MLK case and made a central case against a former military man whom Pepper believed (and wrote) was then dead. So on national TV, what happened? The "dead" guy walked out onto the stage. His living didn't negate all of Pepper's work in reality. But in the popular mind? Pepper was the guy who had 'gotten it wrong' on TV. I fear strongly the same will happen to those who pursue this line of inquiry." http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2006/11/di...

    Here are Lisa's comments regarding a disagreement between Peter Dale Scott and William Pepper at the Making Sense of the 60's conference in 2008: http://www.blackopradio.com/black403b.ram Her comments on Pepper begin at 23:30.

    The final chapter on the above "Lazarus" has not been written. I'll be looking into that one. I'm painfully aware that Pepper and Scott are at odds over the Terrell-confirmed forgery. Pease has been, to my knowledge a careful researcher, and very lucky so far.

    Here is an excerpt about William Pepper from Joan Mellon's talk from this same conference:

    "A digression about sources. From about fifty hours of taped interviews, I could not use any of what a New Orleans figure named Gordon Novel told me. With a soldier of fortune named Gerald Patrick Hemming, the percentage of the truth to fabrication was 50-50. Knowing of my interest in Colombia, Gerry told he he had been imprisoned on Gorgona. (This was an island off the western coast of Colombia, named because of the preponderance of poisonous snakes wandering there. I didn’t believe him. This seemed like bragging. No, it turned out to be true. Smuggling drugs and not paying off the right people in Medellin, Gerry found himself on Gorgona.

    Gerry told me that Robert Kennedy had addressed a group of Cuban exiles at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida in the summer of 1963. I needed corroborating witnesses; Gerry promised to name some, but couldn’t, and I broke off all contact with him. I forgot about this matter until a researcher named William Pepper told me the same story. His source, Pepper said, was an aging, very ill documentary filmmaker who had been a close friend of Robert Kennedy’s. He had won eight Emmys! Pepper said. And no, he couldn’t give me this dying man’s name.

    As a film historian, I could reach any documentary filmmaker, and I called about ten people. None had ever heard the Homestead story. Then I contacted people close to Bobby Kennedy: Peter Edelman; John Seigenthaler; one of Robert Kennedy’s daughters; Ed. Guthman; Frank Mankiewicz; George Stevens; and Joey Gargan, a Kennedy cousin; the list goes on. None had ever heard of the Homestead story. Seigenthaler suggested I call the Kennedy library and ask to see the appointment book of Bobby’s secretary, Angie Novello. I did. They searched. 1963 was missing!

    I went back to Pepper and insisted that he name his source – and it turned out that the source was…Gerald Patrick Hemming! In the course of the same conversation, Pepper told me that Bobby had flown to Dallas on the evening Oswald was arrested, and talked to Oswald in his cell! But I must not use this revelation! So historians must be wary, especially in this field."

    http://www.joanmellen.com/oswald.html

    So now, Mellen is ok? When I posted an interview with her last October, you made no comments or criticism of the interview, but instead posted a link to a critical review of her book, "A Farewell to Justice". http://www.911blogger.com/node/18136#comment-19914... - but now that you have found a snippet of her writing that works for you, I don't see you criticizing her. So, when her arguments are suitable, you sample her, otherwise you just work to cast doubt on her abilities as a researcher, hinting to the readers of the blog that she should be read very critically... except when you need to use her observations to make a point?

    When Dave Emory attacks us, and the controlled demo argument, we should ignore that and just look at his good stuff (the little there is)?

    You seek to cast doubt upon, and I guess discredit Pepper as a suitable member of the yet-unfounded Commission. But all of the authors of the sources that you cite have suffered (excluding Pease, AFAIK) indignations/disinformation problems/misinformation problems in varying degrees, not entirely dissimilar to the motes you point out in Pepper's eyes.

    No matter who heads up a new Commission, whether it is independent or Federal, the leaders of this Commission will be under an unbelievable barrage of disinfo, misinfo, and outright lies. Any one of the sources you cite, (or you, or me), would be put to the same test if we were in the position of tackling the 9/11 lie. Any one of them could fall, or be tripped up by these distractions. Any one of them. There is no perfect Commissioner.

    I don't think the NY Independent Commission will the best one, or the last one, should it pass. I expect to see an International Commission eventually; there is just too much interest now outside of US borders, and Federal disinfo can only be propagated for so long.

    Finally, I think Edgar Mitchell should not be a part of the Commission, and I will write to the NYC CAN email address to suggest that he step down on the very day the Ballot Measure passes (should it pass).

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. christs4sale
    Administrator

    [my response]

    Hi Reprehensor,

    Thanks for your candid response. I think that we are actually in agreement with many of these issues and with our general opinions of these individuals that have been discussed. I for the most part stand by my statement about William Pepper having “a poor ability to identify disinformation.” Maybe that is too broad a statement and I should have said “IS HAVING a poor ability identifying disinformation.” I should have said that my general opinion is that William Pepper has done a great service to the King Family and that most of what he has uncovered in the King Case is first rate. On the other hand, I do think that he should be far more critical of others involved in NYCCAN and should have been the same in the NYC Ballot Initiative. I will address Pepper at the end and respond to some of the points that you raised in your response.

    Joan Mellon:

    So now, Mellen is ok? When I posted an interview with her last October, you made no comments or criticism of the interview, but instead posted a link to a critical review of her book, "A Farewell to Justice". http://www.911blogger.com/node/18136#comment-19914... - but now that you have found a snippet of her writing that works for you, I don't see you criticizing her. So, when her arguments are suitable, you sample her, otherwise you just work to cast doubt on her abilities as a researcher, hinting to the readers of the blog that she should be read very critically... except when you need to use her observations to make a point?

    Yes, Mellon IMO is fine FOR THIS, but let me separate two things here. First, I trust Joan to tell her own story and experiences accurately. I actually like much of her work and I think that she is correct about Garrison’s legacy. Unfortunately she plagues her work with a near-hatred of JFK and RFK. I sighted Jim DiEugenio’s review because I think that it is a good critique of this bias and of the sources she used to exercise it. In short, I think that I can endorse someone discussing a specific personal experience and not agree with her political biases.

    After thinking about this for a while, I actually think that this is not that big a deal for Pepper because he was only talking privately with Mellon from what I can gather and in private, I think we all speculate in ways that we never would in a public forum or in a book, etc. Maybe Pepper should have been more skeptical of Gerry Patrick Hemming, but it doesn’t look good on Mellon’s part because she revealed the contents of a private conversation.

    John Judge:

    I fully agree with you that John makes mistakes. As a long time listener and supporter of John, I can say that he definitely has issues with getting names correct (one of his lectures on 9/11 he was referring to Montague Winfield as Winthrop Montague and Mahmood Ahmad as Mormar Ahmed), he says things that I can not verify (I have never been able to find a source other than John that the original British edition of Orwell’s 1984 was titled 1948) and he says things that are inaccurate (like the examples that you provided and about Flight 77 making a 270 degree turn around the Pentagon). That is why I always corroborate what I hear and read from other sources as any of us should. I believe these mistakes to be honest and more due to forgetfulness than to any malicious intent (Not that this is Pepper’s issue). I think that John’s overall instincts about issues and people within the movement are right on (A major issue for Pepper). I have had several email conversations with him, so some of this might not be as apparent in his lectures that are widely available.

    The reason I mentioned him is that he did an interview on KPFK in 1989 that I have a recording and transcription of that I feel is a good overview of what UFOs really are and what the implications of being a promoter of them as extraterrestrial craft are. Too me, this is a good overview, but it still should be corroborated. It is meant to provide context for why Edgar Mitchell should NOT be a part of this commission. A transcript of this interview is in John’s book Judge for Yourself.

    Does Judge display a "poor ability to identify disinformation"?

    No, as I do not think that the mistakes that John tends to make are the same type of mistake that William Pepper is making. John is occasionally getting a name wrong, a fact wrong or a source wrong. John has a very good track record of steering clear of people that could undermine him or our movement later. To me, 9/11 Citizen’s Watch and most of the conferences John has participated in are good examples of this.

    Dave Emory:

    I fully agree with you about Dave Emory after 9/11. Actually, if you listen to his lectures before 9/11 and after 9/11, it almost sounds like a different person. To hear his lectures on the Clinton Administration, Waco, the Militia Movements or UFOs (all from the mid to late 90s), he is easily one of the best authorities on these topics. He actually said that he believed Monica Lewinsky to be part of a right-wing element of Mossad. Could you imagine him saying that today? Emory’s format in his lectures, as in his radio shows, involves him largely reading from books. Emory reads from Jacques Vallee and Renato Vesco in the excellent UFO lecture, which IMO is an even better overview of UFO history than the Judge interview on KPFK and additionally provides more context to why Edgar Mitchell should be off the commission. I think that a well read, critically thinking person would benefit significantly from listening to this lecture. And just because I like his UFO lecture does not mean that I support much of what he has done in recent years.

    If Emory is an earnest researcher who has made a few mistakes, why can we not extend this courtesy to William Pepper, who is surely human?

    I certainly do not know if he would qualify as an earnest researcher at this point. He probably would not after 9/11, which I think was his clear turning point. On the UFO lecture by itself, I think he would and that is why I recommend it.

    But if you really want to steer clear of Judge and Emory, then just read the Vallee and Vesco books and get the information from its original sources.

    Peter Dale Scott:

    Thanks for the information on Peter Dale Scott. I am fully aware that he is human and capable of mistakes. But he has a good track record of correcting himself and saying publicly when he has been incorrect.

    Why can we we not say that Pepper is a good man, who is misled at times, like Scott (and anyone else who has fallen prey to a pathological liar)?

    I think that everything that you said here is true of Pepper. My reason for highlighting Pepper on this and not the others, despite all of their flaws, is that Pepper has probably been most visible of these individuals through his work on the MLK case and because of his visible position in NYCCAN. Now the military aspect of the MLK case is one of the most controversial parts of it. Parts of it are well documented and are almost definitely true and parts of it are far less credible. Scott is saying that the notion of a sniper backup team is likely an elaborate disinformation effort designed to discredited Pepper when needed. The whole story relied on individuals who Pepper could not meet with directly, with the exception of Jack Terrell, and reporter Steven Tompkins was required to function as the intermediary. Tompkins does not even agree with how Pepper used the information that he [Tompkins] retrieved from his military sources. With sources like these, this is not something Pepper should have provided as a solid addition to what we know of the narrative of MLK's assassination as the addition was portrayed in Orders to Kill and An Act of State. This eventually was used to discredit Pepper on ABC’s Turning Point hosted by Forrest Sawyer, which aired June 19, 1997. Here is an account of this by Jim DiEugenio in Probe Magazine:

    Predictably, Sawyer constructed a trap for Pepper in the second half of the program. Towards the end of Pepper’s book he details the tale of an Army special forces group sent to Memphis in April of 1968 to surveil King. Working from interviews conducted by reporter Steve Tompkins, Pepper writes that they received a special briefing and were told to actually terminate King. They would have if he would not have been fired upon already. According to Tompkins’ sources, one of the leaders of this group, Bill Eidson, later died. Sawyer took Pepper through this part of his book, questioning his methodology, and then produced Eidson and a cohort. Although Pepper held up fairly well through this elaborate set-up, he had been sandbagged. Strangely, and although the sequence was probably edited to favor Sawyer, he doesn’t seem to have seen it coming. Tompkins was also on the show and he implies that Pepper went too far with the material he had given him. But also, neither Tompkins nor Pepper appear to have checked out their military intelligence sources with the utmost scrutiny.

    So for last year’s 40th Anniversary when interviewed on NPR he brings up the sniper backup team as if it definitely happened. Of all the solid things he could have said about the King case in this short amount of time given to him by NPR and he chooses that.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65CSpD2zm8Q

    To me, someone recognizing the responsibility of being the attorney to James Earl Ray or the King family would have left the more speculative aspects of this case on the drawing board rather than to publish them, which put him in a very vulnerable position. This same uncritical approach to NYCCAN might be leaving other vulnerable doors open if NYCCAN takes off.

    Now Truthmove, the organization I have been a part of, has been very critical of Les Jamieson and his actions in NY 9/11 Truth (see our other posts on his distribution of anti-Semitic material, the big tent, etc.). For the 2007 Anniversery of 9/11, we could see ahead of time that the Ready for Mainstream conference was going to be a mix of credible and not credible presenters and we felt that we should warn the credible people beforehand. Another Truthmove forum regular and I were able to obtain the email addresses and send out emails to two of the presenters, one being Pepper. The other person, when he heard that Webster Tarpley was presenting, cancelled. Pepper on the other hand, spoke about disinformation, but at the same conference Tapley had his infamous meltdown about the Kennebunkport Warning and Alfred Webber spoke about exotic weaponry. Did this experience have any effect on Pepper’s affiliation with the organizers of NY 9/11 Truth? No, he ended up forming the 9/11 Ballot Initiative with them.

    Luckily it looks like Les Jamieson is no longer part of the ballot initiative or NYCCAN. If Pepper is as concerned with disinformation as his Ready For Mainstream or Chicago conference speeches suggest, he should be drawing attention to Mitchell as well, but instead is saying that we can't please everyone. It is naive to think that given the history of the HSCA and the Garrison investigation that this ballot initiative and the possible commission that could result from it are not and will not be infiltrated. There should be sections of the NYCCAN webpage that have a goal of keeping people on their toes concerning the possibility of infiltration and nothing like that is to be found anywhere.

    Finally, I think Edgar Mitchell should not be a part of the Commission, and I will write to the NYC CAN email address to suggest that he step down on the very day the Ballot Measure passes (should it pass).

    Could you turn something regarding this topic into a headline on 911Blogger.com so it gets more exposure? It is a major issue that Mitchell is a part of the commission and I doubt nearly as many people read the comments where this issue has been raised. Given the history of the Ballot Initiative with Les Jamieson in a key position, I see it as a must to warn people about these very likely possibilities.

    p.s. Could you change my name to Christs4sale?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. Arabesque
    Member

    Reprehensor:

    His stance on exclusion of the controlled demolition debate from 9/11 inquiries has turned out to be harmful, IMO, just as Michael Ruppert's very public and conscious decisions to marginalize physical evidence investigations and even the possibility of remote control aircraft on 9/11 has been a detriment, creating artificial divisions of inquiry within the 9/11 Truth movement that don't need to be there.

    Less harmful than insinuating that Ruppert is an agent?

    Ruppert has given articulate and I think compelling reasons why he has chosen to avoid physical evidence arguments. However, nowhere does he "marginalize" the importance of physical evidence. He says quite clearly that physical evidence can bring us to the truth. See his explanation of the JFK assassination video as just one example, if anyone doubts this.

    Ruppert:

    There is a reason why I opened my video The Truth and Lies of 9/11 with a single segment from the Zapruder film, shot on November 22, 1963. It shows that with the fatal head shot, JFK's body was pushed backwards and not forwards. In the simplest laws of physics this means one thing and one thing only; the shot was fired from JFK's front and hence, not by Oswald. The media conditioning - the "Mighty Wurlitzer" described by the CIA's legendary Frank Wisner - has done its job again. Anything that simple couldn't be true. ...

    The key is the experts and the amount of money, time and resources that can and will be brought to bear to gridlock the issue in the mind of the public...

    What Ruppert clearly says in very clear form (which many people seem to misunderstand or haven't bothered to take the time to read) is that physical evidence discussions in the mainstream propaganda outlets will always be used to confuse and muddy the issue. NIST will always support the official story, and the mainstream media will continuously support the official story by parading the experts. I think it's fair to say this will never change, and the endless supply of hit pieces against the 9/11 truth movement will continue.

    This observation is not "marginalizing" physical evidence. It is simply exposing the fact that unfair "debate" tactics HAVE and will CONTINUE to be used against the 9/11 truth movement. It is hard to imagine how anyone can debate this point.

    Instead Ruppert suggests that "framing the debate" about contradictory and self-incriminating statements by government officials is a more effective approach. One that is not easily countered by paid shills in the MSM.

    Ruppert has his own faults, ego, and character flaws, and I do not endorse everything he says. He has even admitted his own mistakes. However, I do endorse his approach to 9/11 truth and I have utilized his very same strategy to effectively expose disinformation in the 9/11 truth movement. By doing so I am not marginalizing the importance of physical evidence. I am simply suggesting that the physical evidence debate in the mainstream media will always be one of "experts versus conspiracy theorists". Will this ever change in the foreseeable future?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. I am simply suggesting that the physical evidence debate in the mainstream media will always be one of "experts versus conspiracy theorists".

    Well said.

    What Ruppert is suggesting is not too much unlike what Jon Stewart did with Jim Kramer. He used Kramer's own words, and actions, against Kramer. Not until Kramer's credibility was shot, did Stewart bring up any actual, serious assertions. It's not speaking truth to power. It's letting power speak itself out of truth.

    Physical evidence theory advocates have essentially stated that, if they create, through extraordinary dedication, the most bright and shining theory (the smoking gun), the general public will be thoroughly impressed, drop their labyrinth defenses, risk their vital social standing, completely understand and agree with the conclusions we hold, give a damn, rush to our defense, spread the word, etc.

    But this most bright and shining theory will need to be defended, against the fearful, all powerful evildoers (NWO), and the brainwashed masses which they control. And that takes a team.

    Not only does it take a team, the theory will necessitate the growth of a team. A larger, more zealous team to defend their theory from the suggestion that, although it may be bright and shining, this theory is not a theory, but instead a hypothesis, a tentative insight into the events of 9/11; a concept that is not yet verified but that IF true would explain certain facts or phenomena. And this hypothesis does not have the means for verification.

    It's David and Goliath, but this one would absolutely necessitate a miracle. Or the remote chance we could somehow outmuscle that other team, Team American Institution, which has a few hypotheses of their own. And an official story from an official commission. Not to mention classified information. A preemptive military, a judicial system, media conglomerates. A populace who's not quite sure if they want to be stuck with the truth when it doesn't serve them.

    And that Team American Institution has absolutely no interest in budging from their viewpoint. And apparently no need to budge, considering it has a competing team of speculators who insist they have the unassailable truth as well, and the only way to differentiate between the two teams is to notice that one team is essentially filled with hobbyists. And this makes the official story seem infinitely more official and powerful to those people who care to watch the game.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. JohnA
    Member

    Giveback I like your writing style and agree with much of what u say. But can I be critical of one tiny thing? I think the use of the NWO label tends to diminish your message. I know where u r coming from using it. But it just resonates with many people the wrong way

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. truthmover
    Administrator

    John, I believe he was referring to their usage, not ours. And, yes, good post.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. Arcterus
    Member

    Physical evidence theory advocates have essentially stated that, if they create, through extraordinary dedication, the most bright and shining theory (the smoking gun), the general public will be thoroughly impressed, drop their labyrinth defenses, risk their vital social standing, completely understand and agree with the conclusions we hold, give a damn, rush to our defense, spread the word, etc.

    Very well said. I think one of the reasons people get attached to theories that are riddled with inaccuracies is because they want to hold on to something that'll prove 9/11 was an inside job. Prove a missile hit the Pentagon and you prove direct complicity from the government. Prove that there were holograms instead of planes and you prove direct complicity. The problem is that the aforementioned theories, along with others, are easily countered, explained, and debunked, and will only serve to push the movement back. For an inclination towards physical evidence, even with legitimate theories, it is much the same train of thought, I think. Proving something as extreme as controlled demolition of the towers would be monumental, but the problem is proving it and not debating about it. If all the movement had was physical evidence, I don't think we'd be able to get much done. Since it's physical evidence, it's up for interpretation and debate. As a result, as important as discussing such things may be, it's also important to have some type of evidence such as documented evidence that is not up for debate. That will drastically increase anyone's position and, at the very least, make it easier to talk about physical evidence.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. JohnA, I agree that "NWO" probably should have been omitted. I was referring to their usage, but even in that case the usage of NWO does diminish the message. A phrase which is both extraordinarily powerful and powerless. Meaningful and meaningless. At any rate, it's a beacon of fear and loathing.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  10. Victronix
    Member

    The other person, when he heard that Webster Tarpley was presenting, cancelled. Pepper on the other hand, spoke about disinformation, but at the same conference Tapley had his infamous meltdown about the Kennebunkport Warning and Alfred Webber spoke about exotic weaponry. Did this experience have any effect on Pepper’s affiliation with the organizers of NY 9/11 Truth? No, he ended up forming the 9/11 Ballot Initiative with them.

    Great point. What is the response to this? I don't think there is one.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  11. christs4sale
    Administrator

    No response yet. The only response was that he mentioned Edgar Mitchell at the top of one of the Ballot Initiative posts. I give him credit for that though.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  12. Victronix
    Member

    The only response was that he mentioned Edgar Mitchell at the top of one of the Ballot Initiative posts.

    But only to basically brush aside anyone who disagreed by essentially saying, "I'll make sure they know people don't support Mitchell AFTER the ballot is headed to the voters . . . "

    That's different than actually expressing a concern.

    My posts continue to be moderated on blogger, since I tend to speak my mind about this kind of thing. I guess they want to be able to control what I (as well as others) can say in terms of critique.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  13. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I mean you're right. That post is basically gone now. Hardly an example of raising the issue. This thing still reeks of the big tent and the fact that Blogger or NYCCAN are not dealing with these issues in an open way is troubling.

    I copied my exchange with him as I was worried about being moderated. I do not want to believe it, but it does not surprise me that Blogger is moderating its posters who are providing the best criticism on its forums. At the same time there is so much NWO and "Globalist agenda" nonsense posted that it is not a regular site that I visit. Is there one particular topic that gets moderated?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  14. Arabesque
    Member

    christs4sale:

    I copied my exchange with him as I was worried about being moderated. I do not want to believe it, but it does not surprise me that Blogger is moderating its posters who are providing the best criticism on its forums. At the same time there is so much NWO and "Globalist agenda" nonsense posted that it is not a regular site that I visit. Is there one particular topic that gets moderated?

    My commenting ability was completely blocked for responding/debunking slander against me. I posted one single comment in response, hardly "disruptive" or justifying a complete posting ban. Not put on moderation--completely blocked from posting. I am currently on moderation.

    As for the 9/11 Ballot, I had high hopes that it would succeed, but they couldn't even get the signatures they needed last year. In his recent commentary, Pepper admits that he had not studied 9/11, which means that he has not studied the issue of 9/11 disinformation or appeared to have paid much attention at all to the situation at NY911Truth. Someone was in charge of funding who was under heat for withholding funds to 9/11 activists. That such a thing could happen is beyond incomprehensible, but it did. He even says that a commissioner would resign if they would damage the 9/11 Ballot. I find it hard to believe that he could write such a thing when the very purpose of disinformation is intentional sabotage. The possibility of intentional sabotage cannot be considered?

    I would like to know WHO decided that Mitchel would be put on the list of commissioners? Who did this? Who decided who was on the list? I can only speculate, but I did note on my blog some connections with Mitchell to Alfred Webre, another UFO promoter who also promoted absurd claims about DEW and Judy Wood. But we don't know who really put Mitchell on the Ballet because there is no transparency on this issue, and there is apparent deafness to criticism of the initiative which is just as big a red flag.

    If you have no experience in investigating 9/11 and no experience with 9/11 disinformation, it seems that you should at least make the effort to become educated on these topics. This has not happened and significant mistakes have happened because of this fact.

    Sadly, it is completely reasonable to expect these preventable mistakes to continue, which is a complete disservice to the very purpose of this effort--to secure justice for the 9/11 attacks.

    911blogger will continue to be a target for disruption, but if the reaction is to block legitimate contributors to the site instead of addressing the issue of attackers and disruption, the value of the site will diminish. If that is the case I will not continue to contribute my commentary there. I suggest that those who are critical of the ballet should consider contacting people of influence with their concerns within the Ballot, because that appears to be the only real option for getting the concerns heard at this point. And the starting point is publishing at your own venue--create a blog.

    It is not good enough to listen to people say that Mitchel will be removed after it succeeds passing the votes. That is completely unacceptable. It is an invitation to failure and discrediting the entire effort. It should be non-negotiable that a UFO promoters is on the Ballet. Is it really that hard to find someone who doesn't promote UFO's on a commission to re-investigate 9/11?

    Is it really that hard to see how this would damage the credibility of the effort and result in its ultimate failure? Not to mention the other significant issues already raised (without response) elsewhere.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  15. John Judge is one the one hand a useful activist, but Judge also makes mistakes. His stance on exclusion of the controlled demolition debate from 9/11 inquiries has turned out to be harmful, IMO, just as Michael Ruppert's very public and conscious decisions to marginalize physical evidence investigations and even the possibility of remote control aircraft on 9/11 has been a detriment, creating artificial divisions of inquiry within the 9/11 Truth movement that don't need to be there.

    I can see how this can be true.

    Despite itself, the controlled demolition debate has effectively kept 9/11 truth in the public's consciousness. It has made the 9/11 truth movement phenomenal. It's outrageous. CD debate is a frustrating curiosity, it's difficult to let go once your hooked, and it has a relatively large number of adherents. (The best thing about a big tent, is that it is big.) It has plenty of avid activists, noticeably multiplying over time, with their own history, jargon, symbols, concerns, humor, etiquette, fears, drama, etc. It is not going away.

    In this sense the movement is strong, and to suggest that evidence of controlled demolition is not actionable, or just unwise to publicly promote, certainly would be "harmful", or a "detriment". It would negate the CD debate as a promotional tool. CD is how the movement became a pop icon, albeit a notorious and somewhat cultish one. This pop icon status is the one achievment of the 9/11 truth movement accepted by the mainstream. Nothing else has changed. The resistance to the 9/11 truth movement is still as overwhelmingly strong as when the movement started. To many in the movement, that looks like serious gains.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.