The unmentionable - the 'other' Forum

[Peter Lemkin]

Sorry to sully this electronic space with anything about the 'other' Forum, but things are again heating up to the boiling point [seems to happen about this time each year]. Anyone who still cares and has posting rights might want to join in the fray - or set the record straight; protect the afflicted; afflict the protected, etc.......the threads will be obvious.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Peter - my own view is clear and unequivocal.

The other place is gone. There is no meaningful or interesting debate there. Only fistfights involving provocateurs and disinformation constructs.

These often seem to involve a shift system of individuals - some of whom are reasonably eloquent whilst others are close to illiterate - posting under the same account.

I do not want the DPF sullying with their filth.

[Peter Lemkin]

Originally Posted by Jan Klimkowski

Peter - my own view is clear and unequivocal.

The other place is gone. There is no meaningful or interesting debate there. Only fistfights involving provocateurs and disinformation constructs.

These often seem to involve a shift system of individuals - some of whom are reasonably eloquent whilst others are close to illiterate - posting under the same account.

I do not want the DPF sullying with their filth.

Understand, but thought some might like to lend some support. I was made a moderator there and thought, though distasteful in the extreme, I'd do so until I could clean up 'Dodge' a bit. I'm under attack as moderator for being too 'biased in my viewpoints on 911 and other matters' and such. Never mind, if you don't want to. Those who do, the support would be appreciated and the posts will certainly remind you of old-times and give you a laugh at how little has changed.

[Charles Drago]

Originally Posted by Jan Klimkowski

These often seem to involve a shift system of individuals - some of whom are reasonably eloquent whilst others are close to illiterate - posting under the same account.

I can trace the beginning of my glidepath to oblivion on that "forum" to the day that I exposed what Jan so succinctly and accurately characterizes as the "shift system" posting through a single cover identity -- the one who is quick to tell the world that "his" family was decimated by the Holocaust, yet whose father is best described as the Dr. Mengele of the holocaust inflicted on the world by Big Tobacco.

How well I remember the fan's blades turning brown when I posted, side by side, examples of work, ostensibly from the cover identity, that ran the gamut from, again as Jan puts it, "near-illiteracy" to "reasonable eloquence."

No one in a position of authority on that "forum" ever took the time to respond -- at least not overtly.

I have monitored that "forum" over the past few months, and the shift system referenced here (there may be others) is more obvious than ever. Heavily researched and cited posts instantly appear in response primarily to 9-11 conspiracy offerings; there is simply no way that the cover identity -- or anyone else, with the possible exception of Peter Dale Scott -- could bring to bear so much at-the-fingertips knowledge so quickly.

(It must be noted that, unlike Professor Scott's work, the shift members' output is pure disinformation. Another example from personal experience: One or more shift members, writing over the cover identity, took a quote from one of my 9-11 posts -- "There was no damage to the Pentagon and the lawn consistent with the impact of a large airliner." -- and quoted me as having written, "There was no damage to the Pentagon." When I called "him" on it, "his" explanation was that "his" response was not focused on issues relating to the lawn. To be fair, one of that "forum's" moderators did take the cover identity to task for what was a blatantly intentional attempt to disinform and disparage.)

And so it goes. My only disappointment is that otherwise accomplished and honorable members of that "forum" -- especially those who post regularly in its JFK section -- continue to play the game.

As if we're not at war. As if the enemy is not inside the citadel.

Peter, I'm done with them. I shall not post on that "forum," but I shall continue to expose its infection to that greatest of healing agents, light itself.

[Mark Stapleton]

Bloody hell, I just had a look over there and it's still the same. They spent more time complaining to moderators, arguing semantics and throwing personal insults than they spend on rational debate, by a mile. The shift entity is usually in the thick of it, spewing allegations this way and that. The moderator complaint thread is one of the longest.

The shift entity is still in rare form. This I love:


Gary I expect such flawed logic from Peter and Jack but not from you who I have found to normally be quite rational


Any others who stray from the flock can expect a similar paternalistic putdown. Happily, Gary dispatched this delivery over the fence and out of the arena.

From the spelling and punctuation I couldn't determine who was on shift at the time. The entity's spelling and punctuation go in and out so much--a bit like his interest in the assassination.

[Peter Lemkin]

Originally Posted by Charles Drago

I can trace the beginning of my glidepath to oblivion on that "forum" to the day that I exposed what Jan so succinctly and accurately characterizes as the "shift system" posting through a single cover identity -- the one who is quick to tell the world that "his" family was decimated by the Holocaust, yet whose father is best described as the Dr. Mengele of the holocaust inflicted on the world by Big Tobacco.

How well I remember the fan's blades turning brown when I posted, side by side, examples of work, ostensibly from the cover identity, that ran the gamut from, again as Jan puts it, "near-illiteracy" to "reasonable eloquence."

No one in a position of authority on that "forum" ever took the time to respond -- at least not overtly.

I have monitored that "forum" over the past few months, and the shift system referenced here (there may be others) is more obvious than ever. Heavily researched and cited posts instantly appear in response primarily to 9-11 conspiracy offerings; there is simply no way that the cover identity -- or anyone else, with the possible exception of Peter Dale Scott -- could bring to bear so much at-the-fingertips knowledge so quickly.

(It must be noted that, unlike Professor Scott's work, the shift members' output is pure disinformation. Another example from personal experience: One or more shift members, writing over the cover identity, took a quote from one of my 9-11 posts -- "There was no damage to the Pentagon and the lawn consistent with the impact of a large airliner." -- and quoted me as having written, "There was no damage to the Pentagon." When I called "him" on it, "his" explanation was that "his" response was not focused on issues relating to the lawn. To be fair, one of that "forum's" moderators did take the cover identity to task for what was a blatantly intentional attempt to disinform and disparage.)

And so it goes. My only disappointment is that otherwise accomplished and honorable members of that "forum" -- especially those who post regularly in its JFK section -- continue to play the game.

As if we're not at war. As if the enemy is not inside the citadel.

Peter, I'm done with them. I shall not post on that "forum," but I shall continue to expose its infection to that greatest of healing agents, light itself.

Again, Understood and I agree with all your points. I now spend more time here than there and that shift toward here is increasing. There are a few brave and good souls still there - in with the flotsam you allude to. The game is much the same and two member are now terrified that I'm a moderator and their moderator of choice can't automatically protect them. The big joke is I am being pilloried for being too biased to be a moderator, as if the 'other' they loved so much was not!

OK, I'll go it alone....for a short while, until I can't take the nonsense any further. I would have appreciated the support, however. Oh, by the way, he DID finally comment on his father [first response, I believe] and said his father was in no way connected with any conspiracy, and no matter as it had nothing to do with him or his beliefs. Not a direct quote, but close.

Craig sends me a complaint about posts of mine [going back years] being reason for me to be removed as moderator about once every 90 minutes and Len sites my non-responses to his 'posts' and 'proofs' as another pseudo-reason why I might be relieved of my duties....and it is a real goon show. A few hardy souls still try to post on on topics of substance. All the other moderators are absolutely silent. Only 3 out of the whole Forum there have stated they think I should be removed - despite my having taken only one minor action. Ah, well I won't sully this Forum further.....but must say I find the lack of support there, from any here, disheartening and more than a bit of letdown.

[Dawn Meredith]

I just read throught the poll on 9-11 thread. Good heavens, the more things change...the bad blood just drips...with the ususal suspects making the same threats and comments they have made for years. Why bother?

Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

Well thank you Nathaniel!....You blasted LC right out of the water with your last post there! There is a window of opportunity to shine some light into the dark corners over there, IMO....but it would take several helping. It will never be like here, but maybe it won't be the Great Dismal Swamp it is today. This is not the only 'show in town', as good as it is.

[Peter Presland]

Following an extended exchange in the comments on this blog post which veered into a discussion of 'The Paedophocracy' (a powerfully illuminating and succinct concept which I had not come across before), "Nobody" put together this little resume on how to spot disinfo agents who typically use variations of it as a sort of tactical modus operandi. It reminded me of this thread

- express curiosity for the subject and admiration for the author
- establish credibility by conceding various limited hangout points
- declare yourself off to check out the topic du jour via a bit of research
- return declaring that you looked into and found out it was all bullshit
- employ a straw-man technique of zeroing in on a single aspect of a single scandal
- ignore all evidence of this scandal's repetition elsewhere or anything that points to a bigger picture
- refer anyone who's interested to the website of the IPT where the aforementioned straw-man is destroyed
- use tag-team partners to give the appearance of consensus
- liberally sprinkle your discourse with various buzzwords: 'hysteria', 'witch-hunt', 'overzealous', 'hoax', 'debunked', 'credulous', 'paranoid', etc. etc.
- and sure enough, blame the victims and those attempting to assist them

The above quote is from this 'Nobody' post and his own resume of the exchange is here. Both are worth a look IMHO.

[Dawn Meredith]

Interesting thread re Christchurch Star over there. The fact of TOO MUCH INFO on LHO way too soon that weekend was the very reason I doubted the cover story that very weekend. Real life just does not work that way.

Dawn