Was Gary Webb Suicided to Kill New Book?

webbgaryjpg-0aec-c9be4Kill the Messenger, the new film on San Jose Mercury News investigative journalist Gary Webb, debuts in movie theaters across the United States this weekend. Questions still remain as to whether the Pulitzer Prize-winning newsman, who was betrayed by his colleagues for his brave investigative work, wasn’t “suicided” by the very forces whose crimes he endeavored to expose.-JFT

By Charlene Fassa

[This article originally appeared at Bellaciao.org in December 2004.]

Before all articles, legitimate questions, and informed speculation critical of Webb’s alleged ’confirmed’ suicide are automatically tossed in the ’memory hole’, or are destined to endlessly travel through the ’conspiracy belt’ – I have some new and important revelations that need to be factored into the Gary Webb death equation, including information that he was working on a NEW book that he would soon finish.

And what would people think about Gary Webb’s OFFICIAL airtight ’confirmed suicide’ pronouncement – if they were to read an email containing a recollected conversation between Jon Roland and Gary Webb about this very subject: the possibility of Webb’s being “suicided”, where Webb confirms that if he’s found dead it would never be a suicide.

In case you’re wondering who Jon Roland is, he’s a constitutional reporter. He’s also the founder and the webmaster at www.constitution.org. I called Jon to clarify the details around the revealing email he had sent out to various listserv groups, shortly after Webb’s death. When I spoke with Mr. Roland, I asked him approximately when he had this conversation with Webb.

Jon said, “after the Mercury articles were written, and Gary had been living in Sacramento 3 or 4 months.” Jon also reiterated that Gary had a cache of evidence, left over from his writings that had never been published, which made him concerned for Gary’s life.

I found this email and other incendiary information I’ll be discussing about Webb, from an excellent article on Gary Webb’s death by reporter Virginia McCullough here.

Here’s the email –
Original Message —–

From: “Jon Roland” To: Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 3:57 PM

Subject: c-a] Obituary: Gary Webb, investigative reporter, author of “Dark Alliance”,

Gary Webb first came to attention with his series for the San Jose Mercury News, “Dark Alliance”, which presented evidence the CIA supported the importation of cocaine into the United States. See




I spoke to Gary and in the conversation he indicated he had a lot of evidence that did not appear in his writings. I cautioned him that the CIA might contrive to “suicide” him, and he indicated that if he died it would not be suicide.

The CIA has experts on producing authentic-appearing “suicide notes”. If you ever get a report like this about me, you can be absolutely certain it was not suicide.

— Jon

Another gem mentioned in the McCullough piece is that Gary Webb was working on a book! That’s right a BOOK, according to Luis Gomez, a fellow investigative reporter associated with the Narco News School of Authentic Journalism. Luis had worked with, learned from, and admired Gary. Here’s a quotation from his heartfelt eulogy to Webb:

Chief Gary, pardon this digression, but did you finish that book you were working on? I remember that a few months ago everything was up in the air while you looked for work, but when you wrote to me again for the last time, you were already a reporter again. So I suppose that it is finished, because a journalist does not leave work hanging, and you were one of the best that I’ve known, that I’ve read. Now, I hope it gets released, so that we can find out what you were doing these last few months because I really don’t know, and that ignorance makes me cry, chief.

So where’s the manuscript? Why are the “confirmed suicide” mongers stridently asserting that Gary wasn’t working on anything before he died? Who benefits from this lie? This begs the question, If Gary was indeed working on a new book, what kind of book was it? Well, we know he had evidence laying around about the CIA, the Contras, drug trafficking, etc. I think we’re safe in speculating his book probably would have been related to this subject matter in some way.

Unfortunately, Luis can’t help us here. So I’m going to get a little help from my friends at Liberty Lobby Forum. The rumor mill was churning hot and heavy at Liberty Forum and Webb’s death was addressed with an attention-grabbing post: Did the Israelis pay a Visit to Webb?

To summarize: allegations are made that Webb was working on a new book exposing the hidden Jewish element that is the controlling factor behind drug trafficking in South America.

Apparently, a huge drug war in South America is about to erupt. It’s characterized as a massive power grab against South American Jewish-drug-lords. According to this scenario, Hugo Chavez is playing the foil, and is planning to clean-up drug trafficking in his neighborhood, or at least look as though he is, by militarily moving against Columbia. The prize is control over the illicit $50 billion cocaine and marijuana market. According to this speculation, Webb was “suicided” by Mossad because he was getting ready to break this story via his new book. Is the above true? I have no idea. I’ve not been involved with any research about South American drug trafficking. But, I do know and it has been reported that Chavez has purchased MIG-29’s from Russia. And at this point, it’s anyone’s guess as to what Gary’s alleged book contains. One thing is for sure, this sort of material would be his bailiwick. Does this information merit further investigation? I think it does, although some may disagree. I’m merely bringing this to the attention of serious researchers and truth seekers. It’s up to them to decide if the material merits more study.

At this point, let’s revisit “Freeway” Ricky Ross’ comments about Webb in an entirely new light.

After all, he was one of Webb’s primary sources for the Dark Alliance-CIA Drug series. Let’s remind ourselves of this fact, Webb based his reputation and career on much of what Rickey told him. If Ricky Ross was a “good enough” source for Gary Webb, meticulous researcher that he was, then he should be a good “enough source” for us. So I ask you, reader: “Why would Ricky Ross all of a sudden turn into an unreliable source NOW?”

At any rate, here’s an excerpt from a recent Kevin Booth interview by Alex Jones. It’s based on a telephone conversation between Kevin Booth, a documentary film maker who’s working on a film about the drug war, and “Freeway’” Rickey Ross who is serving time in prison for drug dealing and related crimes. It centers on Ross’ comments after learning about Gary Webb’s alleged “suicide”. In the recorded phone conversation, Freeway Rickey corroborates what Luis Gomez tells us: Gary was working on a project. Additionally, we learn via Rickey that Gary had told him that he was receiving death threats and harassment from government types.

Here’s a segment from Alex Jones’ interview of Kevin Booth:

KB: Right, it was all these cartels. So, like you said, he (Freeway Ricky Ross) was in the Victorville prison, right above Los Angeles there and the last time he spoke to Gary, which wasn’t that long ago, he told me that Gary was still working on the story. This was the kind of thing that Gary was never going to give up on because Gary felt like he could just keep going with this forever and uncover more and more people and exposing more names. But he (Ricky Ross) did tell me that Gary knew he was being followed. Every time he drove somewhere, there were always cars following him around. He said he knew it was government people.

The entire transcript and audio of the conversation between Ross and Booth is available here.

Doesn’t it make you wonder – where the hell are Gary’s papers and research documents, evidence, etc.? I’ve heard nothing about them from the mainstream stenographers – have you? Sam Smith is wondering too. He’s a “Scoop” reporter who wrote: Sam Smith, The Gary Webb Case, full text here.

One clue still to come: did Webb leave his files with anyone he trusted or have they disappeared? It would have been highly unusual if he had left them for law enforcement officials to find, especially with the threat they might pose to sources. In any case, somebody’s got them now.

I have a hard time believing that Webb wouldn’t have at least safely hidden his more sensitive information, etc. in case of a hit, at least to protect his sources if for no other reason. I can’t help but wonder if someone out there has safely stored some of Gary’s stuff for him, or even a manuscript of his almost finished book? It would be sad if those who got to Gary also got his materials.

Then this from “Remembering Gary Webb” by Alan Goodman

Gary Webb paid a personal price for his work. When I talked with him, he was acutely aware that people get killed for revealing the kinds of horrors he uncovered. He was very concerned for the safety of his sources in prison and in Central America. The DEA raided the office of the literary agent who was helping Gary get a book contract. Shortly before we met, one of Gary’s associates had been run off the road by a military vehicle in Nicaragua”. So now we have even more testimony that Gary was aware of the possibility of being “suicided”, and that he was concerned not just for himself, but also for his sources.

Then consider this cautionary disclaimer by the iconoclastic Voxfux, who mentions that he and Gary had communicated in the past, excerpted from his no-holds-barred rant on Gary Webb’s death. You can read the entire article here . “I published a “disclaimer of death” in 2001. My declaration stated in advance that if is (sic) was to be found in a scenario that appeared to be a suicide, that it was not a suicide. That declaration made a little noise back then – now all the other researchers are publishing similar disclaimers and declarations that they are not suicidal nor will they ever be suicidal.”

Is Voxfux merely paranoid, or is he a realist? Too bad Gary didn’t sign a similar public declaration. But there’s still time for us. Maybe we should construct a website dedicated to these types of declarations – a type of suicide protection insurance. Additionally, it could serve as a memorial to those who have already been “suicided.”

So, where am I going with all this? I’m positing that the carefully crafted impressionistic picture that was feed to us about Gary Webb’s suspicious death —was just that. In other words, it was a psyop. Of course, an INDEPENDENT investigation would uncover more facts and details about Webb’s death that would inevitably change the carefully crafted, initial picture. And isn’t that a primary reason why there will be no real investigation?

It’s all about perception control, isn’t it? If you carefully limit the scope and the quality of information about a subject effectively, people are restricted in their ability to critically think in that arena. And those who try to open up the flow of information once it’s been officially shut down —those people are labeled conspiracy wackos.

It’s mind control pure and simple, a form of invisible mental fencing. Since I’m feeling pretty artistic today, I’m going to try and create a different picture for you to view. I’m sure you’ve heard this before: it’s not what they tell you that’s really important, it’s what they don’t tell you – that’s where the greater truth lies.

And I can’t help but wonder how we in America got stuck with such an absurdly low standard when it comes to pronouncing a death an official suicide. A distinct possibility sounds more like another way of saying maybe! Yet, that was the official statement made about Webb’s death by coroner Lyons. It sounds more like an official pronouncement that’s heard in a banana republic, not in a democratic republic. Is this representative of the rule of law or the arbitrariness of a dictatorship? What happened to “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

In England “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard used to declare a suicide or a murder, although it’s not being applied to the Kelly case, another who was likely ësuicided’. Not having an independent investigation is an easy way to protect the guilty. And here’s another piece of illuminating information reported by Virginia McCullough, the reporter from NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM in her piece about Webb’s death:

“The [moving] company’s estimator, Steve, had talked with the homeowner [Webb] recently, and he had felt that the man seemed saddened or depressed. The homeowner had just sold the home for $321,750 and said that he would be moving in with his grandmother who lived nearby.”

First, what strikes me as suspicious is how quickly Steve echoes the official spin that Gary seemed depressed. And here’s where Steve loses all credibility for me: Steve the moving company estimator, knows the EXACT amount of money Webb’s house sold for? Excuse me, but if a moving company employee asked you how much your house sold for, would you give them an exact dollar amount? Instead, wouldn’t you throw out a rounded up figure like in the 3oo’s or something more general?

Then Steve tells us all of Gary’s belongings are boxed and ready for storage. Again I find this odd. People on the verge of committing suicide are more likely to give away or sell their belongings. That’s a lot of work to pack and label all those boxes and then arrange and pay for storage. Frankly, most clinically depressed suicidal people wouldn’t have had the energy to initiate and finish a project like that.

And while we’re on the subject of personal belongings, it seems to me that if Gary were on the verge of killing himself, he would have given his beloved motorcycle to one of his sons or another family member. Suicide is the ultimate in letting go, so why all the hanging-on?

And then Steve tells us Gary is planning on moving in with his grandmother, who lives nearby. Why haven’t we heard from the grandmother about why Gary was going to move in with her? My bet is that if the reason he was moving in bolstered the “confirmed suicide” theory, we would have heard a few sound bites from her.

Bottom line is — I don’t think “A Better Moving Company” should be let off the hook so easily. Hmmm, Mossad, moving companies, drug turf wars in South America, exposing hidden Jewish elements that allegedly control the South American Drug trade — which could have been the topic, or a topic in Webb’s new book? This is what investigations are for – to check out these red flags and leads and see where they go.

Don’t you think it’s important that Jon Roland tells us that according to Webb, he still had in his personal possession potentially incriminating evidence that was yet to be published. And then there’s Webb’s concurrence with Roland confirming the unlikelihood of a Webb suicide. This tells us that Webb would remain a target and closely watched, and gives us a reason to DOUBT he would take his own life.

Then there’s Alan Goodman’s interview with Webb. He tells us how concerned Gary was for his sources and by implication for his own life. So, Gary knew he was in constant danger. Wouldn’t that danger escalate if he were writing a new book? I don’t think Luis Gomez added the aside about Gary’s new book, in his moving eulogy to Webb in order to be provocative. And I don’t think Gary lied to him either. “Freeway” Ricky Ross also said Gary had told him he was continuing to work on this material, and he says Gary knew his life was in danger.

Need I mention why very few people knew Webb was working on a new book? Remember, Webb was said to be very concerned for the safety of his sources. It seems to me he would have wanted to protect his family, keeping them “out of the loop” by not telling them about his new book.

My picture looks something like this. Gary Webb was working on a new book that implicated more people in high places who didn’t like the idea of an expose book blowing their cover. In all probability, the book was an extension of his previous work. I think Gary was smart enough to have stashed a copy or copies of his manuscript somewhere safe.

As far as selling his house and moving in with his grandmother, that very well could have been done to lower his overhead so he could spend more time finishing his book, and therefore wouldn’t have to get another job to make his mortgage payments and cover his expenses. We don’t know how much Gary profited from the sale of his house, but he may have garnered a bit of financial cushion with that sale. This can be checked into via public records at the local recorders’ office.

California is an open state for real estate information, and the amount of his previous mortgage and the sales price would be there. The difference would have been his, approximately. Also consider this: if Gary were in the black after having sold his home and he was about to commit suicide, why not send a check to Sue Bell, his ex-wife, with one of those (computer generated?) letters Gary (or someone pretending to be Gary) allegedly sent to family members? That to me would have been a stronger indication of his intent to kill himself, rather than merely making her a beneficiary of his bank account, which he may have done because of death threats. If we were to have a legitimate investigation, we could potentially confirm some of this – maybe even find a copy of his manuscript.

Phone records could be retrieved, as well as email correspondence; interviews could be done with colleagues, suicide notes examined by a forensic graphologist–and on and on. My guess is if Gary did write the alleged handwritten suicide notes, it was under duress – maybe a threat to harm his family, or else? But I bet the letters that went out to family members just before his death were computer generated. An autopsy could have revealed by checking under Gary’s fingernails for skin, foreign blood cells, DNA, etc. that there was a struggle. Gary’s blood could have been checked for any injected drugs. You can fill in the rest. Sadly, by now his body has been cremated, or will be soon. I’ll end with an insightful quote I found from Gary. It was in a Dec. 17th 2004, tribute article to Webb by Bill Conroy called: “Gary Drew Blood”.

In his article, Conroy decided to call Chuck Bowden to get his take on Webb’s alleged suicide. According to Conroy, Webb had confided that, “he Gary would trust Chuck Bowden with his life”. That’s why Conroy decided to call Bowden. The quote was part of a conversation between Webb and Bowden. In 1998 Bowden had been working on an Esquire article that validated Gary’s work, Dark Alliance. Bowden flew to Sacramento to interview Gary for his Esquire piece. “He (Gary) was drinking Maker’s Mark whiskey,”’ Bowden recalled, “and I remember he slapped his hand down on the table and said, ’I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I believe in conspiracies.’ ” http://narcosphere.narconews.com/st…

I believe that Gary Webb’s death is being sold as a “confirmed suicide” when in reality it’s a “confirmed conspiracy.” I also believe that Webb was “suicided” to kill his new book. To those of you who would say, “you can’t PROVE Webb was working on a new book.” I say, “you can’t prove he wasn’t.”

50 thoughts on “Was Gary Webb Suicided to Kill New Book?”

  1. Reblogged this on Joseph Davis and commented:
    I’m looking forward to Kill the Messenger about journalist Gary Webb. I’m sure it will be watered down and won’t mention anything about Gary’s “suicide” involving two gunshots to his head. But it may open some eyes to how the US government truly operates.

    Please also see my post, Drug War Fraud & the Prison Industrial Complex. It includes a link to Gary’s Dark Alliance writings and more.

  2. The American people still do not fully accept that we are being ruled by political gangsters. They kill regularly to implement policy, and the media covers it up. Michael Hastings was the most recent murder of a noted investigative reporter, chilling the investigation of the American power system and the murderous CIA. That is a major reason for revealing and publicizing the evidence behind these false flags and homicidal operations, to increase the distrust of the American people of anti-people American power.

    In November, 2011, an intruder shot at least 7 bullets in the upper story of the White House, near the living room. He was not caught by the Secret Service, who is ostensibly there to protect the president, until days later. A man with a knife recently scale the perimeter fence of the White House, and entered it, unstopped by the Secret Service. Three days earlier, in a building Obama was visiting, and armed man, with a criminal record of three assaults, mingled with the Secret Service and got in the elevator with the president, unstopped by the Secret Service.

    In the mainstream truth, this is considered ‘mistakes’ and bungling g and the head was fired for it. No. Kennedy had the same problem, and tried to include an African American policeman in Chicago to join the CIA, but he only served a few months before leaving. Obama is being threatened with death in the same way, showing him how easy it would be to kill him. He did not learn of the elevator incident until it appeared in the Washington Post. The details are posted by Finian Cunningham in today’s Strategic Culture article.

    Nothing can be done about this, or about the 9/11-anthrax homicides, until the American people understand that false flags and homicide operations are now an intrinsic part of American rule. That is why the Gary Webb murder is politically important; it illustrates the fear it instills in a journo and how it is covered up in the media. It is necessary to reveal that American rule is homicidally corrupt at the highest level, as was the Roman Empire in its last days.

    If the American people are not afraid to accept the evidenced truth, they will become the sea in which honest truthers can swim to confront the selectively fraudulent media and other truth institutions. This gets easier to do as homicides cumulate, and the distrust of American anti-people power grows.

  3. Mike Ruppert who knew Webb was sure it was suicide and explained that contrary to common perception having to fire twice to the head in a suicide is not al that rare.
    I have no opinion of my own. Just thought this ought to be mentioned here. Below a recent discussion mentioning this and criticising Ruppert, who also claimed in 2005 that 9/11 was a dead subject.

    1. Ruppert was a troubling character in many ways. He was an early 9/11 researcher-although he insisted that the official story was correct. Becoming something of a star, he was invited to speak at conferences, doing interviews on the radio, etc, but quickly he refused to talk about 9/11 when he was behind the lectern or the mic, because, he insisted with great urgency, that “peak oil” was the only thing worth talking about.

      Dave McGowan (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com) was doing intensely valuable 9/11 research at the time, and he started looking into this bizarre turn of events. He quickly discovered that “peak oil” is a hoax, and started probing the reasons Ruppert was pushing it with such intensity. Mike became very belligerent toward Dave because of this, and in fact very bullying to anyone who challenged the “peak oil” hypothesis, a sequence of events Dave chronicled in great detail in his newsletter. As always, his ability to see absurdity and ridiculousness in pompous blowhards makes for a delightful romp. Mike never saw how funny he was being, and only gave Dave more to laugh at. For those who want to look into it, check out issues 52-57, 64, 66, 69, 70, 83 and 84.

      I would advise starting with issue 57, which details how both were invited to speak at a 9/11 conference, and Mike sabotaged Dave’s invitation because of his obsession with the “peak oil” idea. The second one I’d read would be 70, followed by 69. It was quite a show.

      In one of them, I can’t remember which, Dave speculates on why Mike fled to Venezuela. Ruppert didn’t stay there long; I believe he sojourned for a while in Canada, and then returned to the US, but by then no one payed any attention to him. It strikes me that the guy had a very sad life for a very long time.

  4. Ruppert, after being poisoned almost to death, made some conciliatory comments later, including the ones Peter mentioned. I was at a conference with him in NY in 2010, and was startled by his pollyanish comments. As I’ve said before, almost being killed tends to concentrate the mind. Not necessarily in a constructive way. This may have contributed to his tragic suicide.

  5. To answer the question posed in the title of the posting – ABSOLUTELY.

    Double-shot to the head? Ridiculous.

    WBAI did a piece yesterday on Gary – the program director, Mario Murillo unfortunately stayed with the official narrative on the report of his passing.

  6. ry Web

    I listened to both the segments on Gary Webb’s life and passing on “Democracy Now.” Amy Goodman kept repeating that he committed suicide. The other film mentioned was a documentary by a French filmaker…think title was “In the Shadow of Democracy” or a similar phrase.

    Goodman won’t touch 9/11 with a ten-foot-pole. She is receiving funding from the usual right-wing foundations and goes around the world touting her progressive and humanitarian credentials. I stopped idolizing her for this reason long ago. Is she just another opportunistic radio personality lacking depth and protecting her own fiefdom and reputation? Sadly, sometimes I think so.

    Is she a globalist at heart without knowing it?

    1. “Is she a globalist at heart without knowing it?”

      Yes. This is a key element of the theory I developed in the article Modern Politics is Masonry Writ Large. (http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/06/16/modern-politics-is-masonry-writ-large/) The official organs of both “left” and “right” unconsciously act as gatekeepers to protect the secrets of the “temple,” the establishment–the secret government.

      Many of Miles Mathis’ articles assign the largest role in this to the CIA, which he argues created pretty much all modern popular culture, including modern art, the “Beatniks,” and the Paris bunch in the 20s that included Hemingway and Fitzgerald. His article on Walt Whitman even indicates that Intelligence created and sustained HIS career. The idea is that by constant repetition in school and the media we are all told how great these things are, even if there is no real art in them–even if they are utterly revolting. This indoctrination turns out people who unconsciously protect that artificial world, even as they believe that they are rebels.

      An interesting analysis, and worth looking into.

      1. Frequent visitors to mileswmathis.com might have noticed that the site was wonky for a week or so a bit back. I contacted Miles to ask about it, and he assured me that it is now up and running smoothly again.

        I strongly suspect that he operates almost entirely through donations. Personally speaking, I enjoy his writings at least as much as I do any given issue of a magazine, and generally a whole lot more. I cancelled a couple of my magazine subscriptions and donated that money to Miles. As far as I can tell, it’s a win-win. Just a reminder: we need to support the kind of media we want to see more of by putting our money where our mouth is.

        Cheers, all.

      2. Patrick, that was nicely put. “The idea is that by constant repetition in school and the media we are all told how great these things are, even if there is no real art in them–even if they are utterly revolting”.

        I have been trying to convey that to others for many years. The public domain, like “TV News” has a role. They repeat lies designed to give the impression of a functioning government consisting of two parties who are more or less interested in the thoughts of their constituents.

        These so-called “alternative commentators”, like Goodman, are “gate-keepers”. They are there to capture anyone who begins to peek behind the curtain. They set up a “second line of defense” in establishing the “acceptable limits of discourse”.

        Those “investigative journalists”, like Webb, uncover things that are much more surprising to most than to me. People are utterly shocked that these things exist. If they only saw the bigger picture the financing of their operations would be considered “minor”.

        The biggest fear these manipulators have is that the eaters will see it for what it really is, an illusion. Tilting at windmills will not “solve” our collective problems. Awareness and acceptance of reality is the beginning of taking control of our lives.

        We have been discussing many levels of that here at MHB. The central theme is “manufacturing reality”. It is not merely events like SHES that contribute to that effort. Every “news” broadcast and explanation of world events is nothing more than a deliberately false explanation designed to sustain a false reality.

        Why would anyone imagine that anger would be the response to disbelief from those who put this garbage out there? Isn’t it “news”? What’s to be angry about? Oh, I see, it isn’t really “news” after all, now is it?

        Those who are entrapped by the likes of Amy Goodman are just as surely in sway of the Cabal as any Joe or Jill Sixpack watching NBCCNBSFOXMSNBC. They think they’re “The Kool Kidz”, though. After years of watching this I’m beginning to think that “moronic” is the human condition.

      3. Hunting more on Amy gatekeeper Goodman and came up with this discussion in a rather revealing piece: “Hypocracy Now!”


        The evolution of leftist gatekeeping and how the vaunted icons of liberalsim drank the koolaide of establishment rhetoric over time to consolidate their brand and insure foundation money streams would not be interrupted by misspeak. They walk a tricky and hazardous croopked path.

        A good lesson on the vagaries of human nature.

  7. documentary directed by Jean-Philippe Tremblay is entitled “The Shadow of Liberty. I read “Dark Alliance” when it was first published.Also read Ben Bradlee’s

    REAGAN’S REIGN OF terror was written in blood
    in both LA and Central America. The price of our “liberty.”

    Total lack of leadership unmoored our ship of state for years. Small wonder Amy Goodman and others seem lost in a fog of illusion. Never did buy the Daniel Ellsberg story of heroric exposure in the Pentagon papers saga.
    Seemed too melodramatic and stagey. Must be me being me. Others more savvy than i am agree.

  8. Fo0llo0wing up on Ellsberg: Webster Tarpley says Wikileaks is ‘contgrolled opposition’ and meant to dump disinformation to cover up other maybe worse gov crimes.

    He sites the Pentagon Papers as being in the same pattern of dumped info meant to divert attention from other CIA misconduct. Also, JFK investigator L. Fletcher Prouty says Ellesberg was a clown.

    Prouty has been taken to task on most of his interpretations of deep events–which goes with the terratory–but he was in Christchurch, New Zealand when JFK was killed;however, reports of Oswald’s implication in assasination were published a day ahead as they are in another time zone that predates the U.S.–a day before Oswald was even indicted. Info was at the ready to sell his guilt. Ellsberg was an employee of the Rand Corporation, known for govenment colaboration.

    Likewise Edward Snowden was a CIA asset when he dumped his papers to Wikileaks who is ‘controlled opposition.’

    Get it? A little reading and research clarifies most mysteries.


    1. Here is another reason to read Miles Mathis. His article on Watergate tells us this about Daniel Ellsberg (about 1/3 of the way through http://mileswmathis.com/watergate.pdf):

      “In this way, we can see that the Pentagon Papers were also just more misdirection and damage control. All you have to do is follow the timing. They came out in June 1971, just a few months after Congress had repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. By February 1971, the Vietnam War should have been over. Once the resolution was repealed, the war was effectively illegal. It had always been illegal and undeclared, but once Congress removed its weak stamp of approval, the war hadn’t a leg to stand on. So the government had keep people from coming to that realization. The government intended to spin the war out for another several years, legal or not, and to do that they had to keep the repeal off the front pages….

      “The Pentagon Papers were published to take everyone’s eyes off current events and put them back on the Johnson administration. The timeline of the Pentagon Papers was mostly 1955 to 1964, so they were taking your eyes off the present. Even so, Johnson is the goat of the Pentagon Papers, which is odd in itself. In that timeline, Johnson is responsible only for 1964, of course. You may ask yourself why Kennedy doesn’t take more blame in the Pentagon Papers.

      “The Pentagon Papers also make a case for the war, explaining it as containment of China. Curiously, they also whitewash the war in many other ways. Again, what we are seeing is damage control, not a real leak. We can tell this just from the mode of publication. It is the New York Times that broke the Pentagon Papers, along with Ben Bradlee at the Washington Post. Since we learned from the Church Committee hearings that the CIA “owned” both papers, we should immediately be suspicious of the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg. Remember, Ellsberg was a spook himself, with “an extremely high security clearance.” He worked for years for the RAND corporation, which is a major arm of military intelligence. And yet he was spun as a hero of the anti-war movement. How naïve do you have to be to take Ellsberg as a hero of the anti-war movement? The anti-war movement has always been far too trusting, which was its downfall. It was infiltrated over and over by obvious Intelligence people like Ellsberg, and they were never strongly outed. Ellsberg is still being sold as an anti-war guy and is still infiltrating anti-government movements.

      “For more proof of this, we find all charges against Ellsberg being dropped in 1973, after the government claimed it had lost its records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Right. The proceedings against Ellsberg are not believable in the least, since if what we were told about Ellsberg leaking information were true, he would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and beyond. When the government really wants to prosecute someone, they don’t let technicalities get in their way. If some evidence gets lost, they just re-create it. If the truth isn’t enough to convict, they lie. If they didn’t convict Ellsberg, it is because they didn’t want to convict. He was their own guy, following orders.
      He was part of opposition control. As I said, the war should have immediately ended in January of 1971, but because of opposition control, the front-page news was diverted to the Pentagon Papers and then Watergate. While everyone was discussing those things, the war dragged on another four years. Congress was still authorizing a billion a year to South Vietnam in 1974, and that money wasn’t going for rebuilding infrastructure. Most of it was coming back to the US in the form of defense contracts.”

  9. “Rupert…was an early 9/11 researcher–although he insisted that the official story was correct.”

    This assertion by Patrick is the precise contrary of the reality-based truth. Rupert was one of the earliest opponents of the official story, leading to his book in 2004, CROSSING THE RUBICON. I suspect Patrick knew that, since Rupert was one the original giants deconstructing the official 9/11story.

    The major concern in this blog is the deconstruction of the Official Stories put out by the powerful, which is repeated by the media as true.
    However, there are also cranks and charlatans who have no respect for evidenced truth who also help to derange the consciousness of the American people. Power can point to them to discredit the honest truthers of these false flags.

    Whether or not they are financed Cognitive Infiltrators, and I don’t think Patrick is, his Lewis Carroll approach to reality, allied with possibly deliberate untruth, hinders the spread of a reasonable truth consensus.
    In my opinion, this untruth is based on perverted racist, sexist, national, and religious values which requires untruth in their defense.

    1. I agree with you, Mark. Mike Ruppert was my first exposure to many of the inconsistencies riddling the official version of 9/11. He hardly embraced the official story.

    2. This is from letter 69:

      Many in that community have harshly denounced those intrepid souls who have questioned the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, just as they have cast aspersions on those who question whether it was really a commercial airliner that struck the Pentagon. From the Wilderness set the tone very early on with a post that was up barely 48 hours after the towers hit the ground:

      Credible Evidence, Expert Witness Testimony Convincing: No Explosives Hidden in WTC
      Sept 13, 2001 — 1500 PDT
      FTW – Based upon a detailed review of an interview with a NY architect who is expert on high rise construction and upon today’s BBC story which I have linked at the bottom of this page, I am now virtually certain that there were no explosives placed within the WTC buildings. The motive for such a move would have been unclear in light of the drama and the security risks for “pre-event” compromise posed by dual efforts that would have accomplished the same ends.

      Discovery of the explosives before the hijacking would have emptied the buildings and placed the nation on alert before the hijackings could have been carried out. The WTC towers would have been evacuated and that would have reduced the impact of the crashes.

      Gravity would have taken all of the unburned fuel down central shafts of the building and the physics in this story are consistent with both witness statements and other expert interviews I have read.

      In addition, my ex-wife Mary lives a block away and witnessed both the second crash and the collapse of both towers from a close distance. Neither she, nor any other person she knows, heard any explosions or believe that secondary charges were a factor in of the collapses.

      I will be posting a more detailed bulletin for my subscribers on this shortly.

      Mike Ruppert

      The phantom New York architect was never identified. The alleged “expert interviews” never actually existed. The BBC report was shown to be littered with errors. And the “more detailed bulletin” never surfaced. Instead, Ruppert allowed his hastily assembled initial post to stand for over two years as his only commentary on the collapse of the towers. The dust from the World Trade Center hadn’t even settled yet and already the 9-11 gatekeeper position had been established, courtesy of Mike Ruppert and the BBC.

      1. I just did it again. Google: memoryholeblog dinophile dave MGowan

        Just one page, all this year entries.

        And you say “I’m not wrong about any of it.” As I say, amusing.

        I provided the MHB link to the article where Peter brought up his doubts about the abiotic oil theory, so you need not search for that one.

        You can’t find anything nasty I ever said to you, because not such incidents exist. Your only recourse evidently is to accuse James Tracy of doctoring the record–presumably to protect me? Ridiculous.

        I have no idea why you have cultivated an impression of me as a hostile attacker of myself. It is your imagination. I am a harmless, lovable little fuzzball to quote a famous voice on the radio. I have always been kind to you, and respected the contribution you make here, and am frankly mystified by your systematic, entirely false memories of our interactions.

    3. Ruppert’s book unveils the fact that many drills were being conducted that day, and he contends that the reason for that is so air traffic control and anyone else with the responsibility to keep track of planes in the sky would be confused, not knowing what’s real and what’s not. It was, in his opinion, a way to run interference for hijackers to fly planes into the building.

      He believed that, presumably, just as he contended that the official story–that heat from jet fuel fires produced a pancake collapse–is true.

      Of course, 9/11 had nothing to do with Arabs, or hijacked planes, and the buildings didn’t “collapse.”

      As I said, he quickly started refusing even to talk about it–even when he was invited to do so at 9/11 conferences. He was a fraud. In all probably an Intelligence asset. This description of Mark’s fits him pretty well: “However, there are also cranks and charlatans who have no respect for evidenced truth who also help to derange the consciousness of the American people.” Why else did he push the stupid “peak oil” lie with all of his energy?

      1. Maybe he “suicided” himself from embarrassment because peak oil was debunked. I think he firmly believed it.

        Indeed, I would say most people STILL believe it, as did you yourself, Patrick, until I set forth on this blog Thomas Gold’s competing theory of the abiogenic origin of oil and coal. I made the same comment via email to several correspondents much earlier, in 2010, when I received a recommendation to read Ruppert’s book “Peak Oil,” which I know were widely circulated (because I saw my exact language quoted back at me from another source I can’t remember now).

        I didn’t remember Ruppert deciding early on that there was no controlled demolition at the Twin Towers. We have more information now to deal with his arguments why that could not have been the case (e.g., that the people who set the charges would have been seen, etc.) Ruppert broke ground with many other issues, however, and I read his site avidly until it was taken down. One I remember was his listing all the past chiefs of the CIA and showing their previous employments at banks. He had persuasive links detailing the put options on United and American airlines and showing that Buzzy Krongard, the executive director of the CIA and former head of the investment bank Alex Brown & Sons, would likely have been the insider who could have been behind those.

      2. “as did you yourself, Patrick, until I set forth on this blog Thomas Gold’s competing theory of the abiogenic origin of oil and coal.”

        You misremember, dino. The conversation was very active, and central to it was the same Peter Grafström who mentioned Ruppert above; I was a great defender in those comments of Black Gold Stranglehold, the book by Jerome Corsi that popularized Gold’s work. Peter didn’t regard Corsi as the unimpeachable investigator I do–if that recalls the situation to your mind.

        Of course, you are correct that most people believe the “peak oil” propaganda because very few people are even aware that there is a theory that says the Earth continuously manufactures oil very quickly. Guess why? The same reason Johnny Can’t Read: no one taught him. There’s a media blackout on the subject, and cranks like Ruppert are sent out to intensify the meme, creating panic and urgency, reinforcing the idea in the public mind.

        Ruppert was genuinely outraged by Dave McGowan’s existence, demonstrating the emptiness of his contentions at every turn. His explosive temper was constantly in evidence, as we clearly see in Dave’s newsletters. Why did this enrage him so thoroughly? Because that wasn’t supposed to happen. He was hired to bend the 9/11 captive audience toward “peak oil” panic, and here was a terrific researcher laughing at his stupidity. He was probably getting pressure from above. They invested heavily into making him a 9/11 research celebrity, and they did not like him blowing it so badly. But I am only speculating, trying to comprehend the bizarre fellow’s behavior.

        The examples you give of his reporting certain truths about the events surrounding that day only strengthen my argument: he tossed useless bones to 9/11 skeptics, while adhering to the core official story. His hilariously named web site title, cop-versus-via is part of the schtick. He always talked about how Intelligence tried to honey-trap him, and he loved to confront Federal Flacks about CIA drug running, making the hapless assembled masses cheer his courage. This is called sheep-dipping. Building a legacy. Nothing he confessed to, nothing he “exposed,” had any impact at all, except to waste the time of people like you (and me–I was also taken in by him at first, hearing him numerous times on Dr. Stan, visiting his web site, watching his annoying, pompous Youtube performances, etc).

        As for his suicide, it’s entirely understandable. His whole mission failed, whatever he expected to accomplish in “exile” was a complete bust, his return to America was a non event. He used to always rattle on about how he was a reformed drunk, in his stage performances, as if that bolstered his credibility–we must listen to this very wise, seasoned by life, intrepid, fearless digger after THE TRUTH. I always thought it pathetic.

        He was a failure in pretty much everything. As I said, his life was sad for a very long time.

        There was not reason for Intelligence to kill him, in any event. He wasn’t a whistle blower. By the end, he was barely remembered. Just a depressed man, looking back on a sad life of misfires.

        1. Whoa, is that an example of revisionism. You knew nothing about Thomas Gold or his theory, Patrick, until I posted on this blog about it. To the contrary, you insisted then that “everyone knows” that the source of all energy on earth, as well as fossil fuels, is sunlight. You were quite condescending. I had to set you straight.

          I also am the person who first referred readers of this site to Dave McGowan’s work, by the way. You didn’t know about him before I posted that referral! Hmmph!

          I join tammie, I guess it was, in admitting to being turned off by your moniker “patrickchatsamiably.” Your comments to me about the source of energy on earth had such a superior air, even though you were dead wrong, your knowledge of science basically stuck at the 6th grade level (as it existed in about 1966!). That contact left a bad taste in my mouth. I regard “patrickchatsamiably” as somewhat passive-aggressive. I am used to it now; but it made my skin crawl when I first saw it, especially after those early, and wholly undeserved, put-downs.

      3. Oops! Mike’s web site was copvcia. I mistyped when emphasizing the v-for-versus. He claimed to be a politzai battling the dark forces embodied by CIA. He couldn’t really pull it off, though, and faded from the stage.

      4. Odd, that. Here is my first comment on the subject (http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/02/24/truth-jihad-no-lies-radio-feb-21-2014/) This appears perhaps two thirds the way down. Many comments follow:

        Patrick says:
        FEBRUARY 27, 2014 AT 3:38 PM
        Certainly, Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, by Jerome Corsi is an excellent book on the subject. It is in many ways an updated study of the seminal work of Thomas Gold, whose Wiki entry is a very good summary.

        The Russians mastered this work many decades ago, extracting oil in places no western oil companies (or academic geologists–oil company shills) would accept that oil can exist. Russia is laughing at our blinkered perspective. I laugh along with them.


        Your first comment comes days later (MARCH 2, 2014 AT 4:11 PM), after much discussion with many commenters.

        As for the name I use, I have explained it before: when I set up my own WordPress site, they wouldn’t let me use “Patrick.” I came up with something on the spot, pressed for time. If it sounds pompous, or arrogant, or false, perhaps my imagination betrayed me at that moment. It sounded true to me at the time, and I think it still does.

      5. Oops, there was a slightly earlier mention:

        Peter Grafström says:
        FEBRUARY 27, 2014 AT 9:02 AM
        Anne B
        I also esteem William Engdahl and recommend his books. But beware of his relatively latecoming adherence to the abiotic oil theory. I think he has been lead astray in that case. On the other hand I also wondered whether he took that position because he felt that peak oil makes the imperialists more eager to rush to war. Like a white lie.

        Patrick says:
        FEBRUARY 27, 2014 AT 9:09 AM
        Why do you doubt the abiotic theory. I have devoted considerable time studying the matter, and it is quite compelling. I am definitely persuaded.

        1. This is definitely not how I remember what transpired, especially your comments directed towards me, which you have not recited.

          I do not have time to go back through old posts right now, but may do so later.

          I would remind you of your claim that a larva inside a cocoon is a “worm” surrounded by a “mess,” which therefore totally contravened the theory of evolution…sheee.

      6. Oh, and as for your idea that you introduced me to Dave, that’s false, too. It was an article at the Daily Bail that mentioned him, long before I discovered MHB. I searched for memoryholeblog dinophile, and only one page of google results–all from this year.

        Me, here’s one from last year, testifying to that fact:

        Patrick says:
        DECEMBER 16, 2013 AT 12:26 PM
        I can’t remember how I found the link that I gave you, to prove your point. It probably started with an article from the Daily Bell arguing that the Beatles were an MI5 (MI6?) thin end of the wedge. The article mentioned Dave McGowan. I had never heard of him. He became one of my favorites; if you don’t know about his Inside the LC series (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com) you are too late, in a sense, because he’s blocked access to most of the articles. The good news is the reason why: it will soon be a book.

        The series would be right up your ally. The entire Hippy Generation, and all the bands that embodied it, are part of the military/intelligence complex. Weird, but altogether true.

        If you google it, lots of web sites reproduced the articles Dave now blocks as they were coming out, so if you are really thirsty I’ll bet you can get most of it before the publication date, if you try.

        However I came to that website proving the story of Faul, I turned a friend of mine, a professional photographer, onto it. He’s a guy who rarely listens to facts about conspiracies. This one convinced him. There was no photoshop in those days, he told me.

        But here is an even earlier one, very soon after I started contributing here:

        Patrick says:
        MAY 30, 2013 AT 6:40 AM
        “We can speculate as to how the actors are muzzled but they may never have gone into it thinking it was anything but routine.”

        Has anyone around here been reading Dave McGowan’s fantastic series on Boston? (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com)

        Six installments so far, all great (and hilarious) in pointing out the obvious fraud the whole thing is. But it’s number six that musings reminds me of. It is dedicated to quotes from all the doctors and nurses who claimed to be helping the “wounded”, and how almost everything they say contradicts other things they said previously, and especially what others say. And the photographic evidence proves everything they say to be a lie.

        Here’s how he concludes number 6:

        “Everyone who has had a microphone stuck in their face has, virtually without exception, lied about what they saw, what they experienced and what they did. And these have not been random lies, but rather lies specifically crafted to describe a scene far more horrifying that what actually existed – bodies piled up in bloody heaps, disembodied legs littering the scene, the stench of burning flesh, bodies being pulled out from beneath the rubble of buildings, gushing wounds spurting blood everywhere, etc. Not one of these people though can point to a single photograph that actually depicts what they claim to have witnessed.

        “But they don’t have to because the entire media establishment is happily playing along and no one is going to call them on their bullshit. And people like me? Well, we’re just fucking crazy … right?”


        You ARE a lawyer, right?

      7. You were also calling yourself “Sunny” in those days, I believe, and when you take the time to review the conversation you will find that I did not reply to ANY of your comments–probably because everything you said when you joined in were perfectly congruent with mine. There was nothing to add or to complain about.

        As for my referring to the caterpillar as a “worm,” it was an offhand rhetorical usage–as I assumed you’d recognize–exemplifying the profound difference between what built the cocoon and what came out of it. A “worm” wraps itself in silk, dissolves itself into a slurry of amino acids and who knows what else, and emerges a thing that can flutter around in the air, eating a completely different diet. Evolution has no theory to explain it, much less a proposed step-by-step series of mutations that could possibly eventuate in that process. And how about the Monarchs’ built-in knowledge of where to migrate to, thousands of miles away? Thus, evolutionists completely ignore the whole set of problems. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Evolution is really a funny joke, when you look closely at it.

        1. No, they don’t, and I’ve already gone into all that. “Slurry of amino acids,” indeed. Do a search on “juvenile growth hormone.” As for the navigational ability of Monarch butterflies, the best explanation so far is that it is genetic:


          Many behaviors are the result not simply of an organism’s DNA, but of epigenetics, too, which is modifications of the DNA that come about for different reasons, such as maternal mRNA and proteins deposited in the egg along with the embryo.

          I used “Sunny,” which is my real nickname, during that period because my posts as “dinophile” were evaporating all the time. The interference appears to have stopped now.

      8. My point in bringing up your “Sunny” moniker is that you appeared in that exchange under both pseudonyms, having joined late in both guises, after I had launched the subject of abiotic oil. And I replied to you not once.

        So are you going to apologize for your completely false memory of the non-exchange? I don’t know why you hold resentment about me about this thing I did not do. That is your problem, not mine. But an apology would be nice. I did not do whatever it is you think I did, and I proved it.

        I also proved, from the MHB record (although, tragically, it has languished in moderation for some hours now) that you had nothing to do with introducing me to Dave McGowan’s work. I don’t care if you apologize about that one.

        Oh, and, about the step-by-step series of mutations that created that slurification process that transforms the worm into the fluttering tissue. I’d like that. The steps, and how the being survived each one; how many years between these random mutations (theory is important in specificity); how long it took for evolution to accomplish the whole process (hundreds of millions of years?); and how many attempts evolution had to try because the slurry simply wouldn’t reassemble itself properly, one time after another, into a butterfly. A link to the journal articles that lay this out in detail would be just peachy.

        Finally, I never say anything here I can’t prove, or I apologize. I don’t know why you and Mark have taken such umbrage in my deflating your admiration of Mike Ruppert. Why the unnecessary hostility? He’s just a chump that lots of people were tricked into believing. I’m just the messenger. Let it go. I’m not the bad guy here.

        1. I know I am not misremembering things, because we “had it out” to an extent. As I said, though, I am not ready to plow through lots of old posts in many different subject areas looking for those.

          As to the “slurification process,” I have referred you to two good places to start: the terms “imaginal disc” and “juvenile hormone.” The adult structures of the butterfly are there in the larval caterpillar, basically compressed in a disc. They expand when under the influence of the appropriate hormones. That is what metamorphosis is. Do you doubt that breasts form on an adolescent human female? She was born without them, you know.

          And I can’t give you a genetics course in a blog post. Mutations in DNA are common. Most are neutral, so they are just carried along in the population. Those that are harmful will probably lead to death, so will not be carried along in the population. Those that are beneficial and cause the organism to be more fit will multiply within the population rapidly. There are educational programs that can illustrate this very well. “EvoBeaker” is good.

          Also, if you take a particular butterfly species, put the Latin name into google with the word “phylogeny,” you will bring up a family tree. You can follow it back to the ancestor it has in common with closely related species, follow that branch back to ITS common ancestor, etc., etc.,, and see what new structures developed which differentiate them all. You can, in some cases which have been the focus of most research, even trace physiological features and biochemical pathways to specific genes. This is all still new: the tools have not been around that long and the genome even of the smallest plant, animal, or fungus is huge.

      9. “I know I am not misremembering things, because we “had it out” to an extent.”

        This is simply not true. We have always been cordial together–as I ante been with almost everyone here. I have always admired you and congratulated you on your comments. You are confusing me with someone else. (In the instances you have mentioned today, I have proven this, beyond doubt. You must apologize for this false statement, because lots of people are watching. I defend my honor.)

        “As I said, though, I am not ready to plow through lots of old posts in many different subject areas looking for those.”

        Well, as I demonstrated, a simple google search makes that task a question of seconds. No heavy lifting. In any case, you can’t prove it, because it never happened. We have always gotten along swimmingly. Your negative impression of me can only be a mix-up with someone else.

        “As to the “slurification process,” I have referred you to two good places to start: the terms “imaginal disc” and “juvenile hormone.” ”

        Yes, you did do that. It is nothing to do with what I’m driving at.

        “The adult structures of the butterfly are there in the larval caterpillar, basically compressed in a disc. They expand when under the influence of the appropriate hormones. That is what metamorphosis is. Do you doubt that breasts form on an adolescent human female? She was born without them, you know.”

        This is entirely false. The caterpillar is completely dissolved into a slurry, inside the cocoon, with no recognizable elements of the worm it used to be. The question is, how did “evolution” step-by-step inspire such a process? A worm eats leaves. (And what number of millions of years caused that worm to start producing silk, much less encapsulating itself inside a sarcophagus made of it.) Then, it dissolves into a liquid, inside a package it created out of its own body. then that liquid reassembles into a completely different kind of animal. That is what happens.

        “And I can’t give you a genetics course in a blog post.”

        Of course you can’t. And I haven’t asked you to.

        “Mutations in DNA are common.”

        Mutations are the central mechanism of evolutionary logic.

        “Most are neutral, so they are just carried along in the population. Those that are harmful will probably lead to death, so will not be carried along in the population.”

        So what.

        “Those that are beneficial and cause the organism to be more fit will multiply within the population rapidly.”

        This makes you sound like a loon. It is ridiculous. It is moronic. Do you think about what you are saying? One organism’s mistake cannot be shared by any other organism, unless it is passed down through reproduction. But usually, perhaps almost always, the mate must have–miraculously–acquired the same mutation. This must continue over and over again, in the same line, always lucky mutations and always lucky mates, for gazillions of years. They can’t transmit these lucky DNA changes to friends and acquaintances, by happy thoughts.

        And only the one line can be the one that survives. THAT is genetics in a nutshell.

        “There are educational programs that can illustrate this very well. “EvoBeaker” is good.”

        Not really.

        “Also, if you take a particular butterfly species, put the Latin name into google with the word “phylogeny,” you will bring up a family tree. You can follow it back to the ancestor”

        Well, that would be a real trick. No one could do it in fact. No one was around how many millions of years ago it might be, writing down the ancestry of these creatures, so anyone who contends they have these genealogies is a crank, a lunatic, like the guy who says his brother is Napoleon Bonaparte. My advice is just smile, and back away, when people talk like this.

        “it has in common with closely related species, follow that branch back to ITS common ancestor, etc., etc.,, and see what new structures developed which differentiate them all. You can, in some cases which have been the focus of most research, even trace physiological features and biochemical pathways to specific genes.”

        Uh, what?

        “This is all still new: the tools have not been around that long and the genome even of the smallest plant, animal, or fungus is huge.”

        Right. Glad to get that out of the way.

        And, apology for the calumny awaited.

        1. Wow, are you threatened. And you really need to take that college biology course I recommended some time ago, as well as genetics, because you don’t understand any of the biological topics you are writing about.

          Here’s an answer to just one. You say, “One organism’s mistake cannot be shared by any other organism, unless it is passed down through reproduction. But usually, perhaps almost always, the mate must have–miraculously–acquired the same mutation.” No, this is not true. An easy example is Down Syndrome, in which there are three Chromosome 21’s in every cell. Those people who have this condition are alive, with definite physical characteristics. They can mate with both normal humans (who have only the normal two Chromosome 21’s per cell), as well as with other Down Syndrome humans, and sometimes produce fertile offspring. The Down Syndrome example provides the complete refutation to your claim.

          You are lumping every kind of difference between a parent and offspring into the term “mutation,” apparently thinking that means a single nucleotide substitution, but the term refers to many possible types of alterations, in DNA sequence, number of chromosomes, and epigenetics. Defects can occur during meiosis and the forming of the tetrad, for instance. With the two parental chromosomes, for example, during meiosis genes on one chromosome are exchanged for genes on another. This is “recombination.” We don’t know the extent to which chemical similarities on one chromosome can be recognized, and recombined with, those on another, although we know a lot about this process. Recombination happens not only chromosome to chromosome, but also via transformation, when a piece of bacterial chromosome is picked up from the environment and integrated into the host chromosome. I earlier talked about the translocation and inversion of the tip of one chromosome, fusing it to the tip of another, as being one of the key differences between chimps and humans. There are others, but I remember being impressed by this major, easily explained difference. Its occurrence is apparently not that rare, but even if it were, if it had no propensity to cause disease it could be carried through the population indefinitely.

      10. You were completely wrong when you said I did not know what I was talking about when I said Mike Ruppert supported the official story of 9/11. All you could say in response that that’s not how you remember it. Then, I proved it. You didn’t acknowledge your stridency being, well, misplaced.

        You were completely wrong when you said that I knew nothing about the abiotic oil theory until you introduced it to me. Then, I proved it. You had nothing to say in reply.

        You were completely wrong when you said that I insisted here at MHB that the conventional “fossil fuel” model is correct, and that the energy in oil comes from the Sun. Then I proved it. You had nothing to say in reply.

        You were completely wrong when you said that I was contentious with you about these (untrue) things, and I proved that I never replied to any of your comments in the thread, and that far from introducing Gold’s work to me, you joined the conversation days after I recommended Peter read Gold’s Wiki entry. Cat got your tongue about that one, too.

        You were completely wrong when you said that you introduced me to Dave McGowan’s work, and I proved it. Again, you have not acknowledged that fact.

        You insisted every step of the way that you have an excellent memory of these things. But you were precisely wrong about each and every one of these past events.

        I point all this out, and request that you retract the calumny that I was openly hostile to you in this forum. All you have to say is “Wow, are you threatened.” This is a very strange response.

        You have been completely wrong about every thing, and now you tell me that I know nothing of the theory of the rise of new species via mutation.

        One can only be amused by this.

        1. I’m not wrong about any of it, but as to your insistence that I do a search, I did look some time ago, and google didn’t bring up any of my posts which have “dinophile” on them. It did for you?

          Anyway, evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles over time. That’s all it is. This can occur through a number of different mechanisms. Look up “genetic bottleneck” and “genetic drift” to understand a few more than I’ve mentioned so far.

      11. Although I still have not attempted to do that search, I did just remember that I had gone back at some point, looking for earlier posts I’d made, and did not find them. I concluded they had been removed after the fact. I even had a discussion with “violeta” about this, by email.

      12. I clicked the wrong “reply” button, dinophile, when I posted the comment I corrected. To read it, go one comment above the top of this thread (I mistakenly clicked the “reply” above the “reply that brings you here).

    4. “Patrick is, his Lewis Carroll approach to reality, allied with possibly deliberate untruth, hinders the spread of a reasonable truth consensus.
      In my opinion, this untruth is based on perverted racist, sexist, national, and religious values which requires untruth in their defense.”

    5. “Patrick is, his Lewis Carroll approach to reality, allied with possibly deliberate untruth, hinders the spread of a reasonable truth consensus.
      In my opinion, this untruth is based on perverted racist, sexist, national, and religious values which requires untruth in their defense.”

      So I’m a liar, now, eh, Mark? I provided a long list of proofs, from Dave McGowan’s newsletter. And no longer am a simply a racist–your favorite schoolyard taunt. Now I’ve been elevated to the status of “perverted racist”–the rare and awesome DOUBLE-DOG DARE! The kids gathered around are shocked!

      Oh, and perhaps for the first time, you’ve called me a sexist. I had no idea Mike was a girl. That’s news to me.

      And although I don’t quite grasp what you mean by “national…values”, I suspect it’s just as bad.

      Of course, my feelings are deeply hurt. I’m preparing to shed a tear, in fact.

      1. I’m mystified! Racist? “National Values”? How did a discussion of Mike Ruppert’s misguided beliefs on “peak oil” develop into this? For that matter, Gary Webb’s “cause of death” hardly contains even a tangential relationship with race or sexism.

        As to “national values”, what “nation” are we discussing. None of them exist (for that matter), but, even if they did, I don’t think it would be wise to garner one’s opinion from any national consensus.

        I keep going back to my statements on “heroes”. We shouldn’t have any. Picking a guru to follow is a surefire recipe for disappointment. Besides, if I were only interested in what a “hero” thought, I wouldn’t need to visit a website to hear what others thought.

        Just when progress begins political correctness rears its ugly head. For my money Patrick, you can be stubborn and dogmatic, but those can be endearing qualities brought on by conviction. I can’t recall anything you’ve said that smacks of “racism” or “sexism”. I’ve heard from a mutual friend that you’re prone to torture insects with a magnifying glass, but I have no personal knowledge of this.

        1. He recently used the word “Jooz,” lophatt, which I had never seen before–and found offensive.

  10. Thank you Gary Webb for giving us the perfect response to those accusing us of being that dirty word the CIA came up with to shut us up.

    ’I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I believe in conspiracies.’

  11. In revealing false flags and dirty operations, there have been a number of truthers who have heroically put their asses on the line to tell the opposition truth. Ruppert, Ellsberg, Manning, Hastings, Assange, Snowden, are among them; they are truth heroes. I would put James among this group, although I strongly disagree with some of what he says, just as I do with the others. But you have to take the hide with the fur. Truth heroes tend to be strong minded people, and when they are wrong, they will be wrong in a strong minded way.

    One of the function of media presstitutes is to smear and stigmatize these truth heroes to preserve the media deceit. This is done as well by a few commenters who claim to refute the mendacity of American power. They serve the same function as the pressitutes but are often more effective, since the claim is “I’m on your side.” This is a standard form of police provocation.

    Some of the smearing of truth heroes is done by paid Cognitive Infiltrators, some by charlatans and cranks. The latter are often more effective because they are sincere, just as a motivated soldier is often more effective than a mercenary. It is therefore necessary to distinguish those who effectively serve the false flag truth movement from those who, for whatever reason, are subverting it. There is no need to get frantic about this, because they will be replaced by others, this provocation being a standard tactic of power historically.

    The only effective way of determining who is who is to evaluate the truth, or untruth, of a truther on the basis of the available evidence, and the possible values that motivate it. Since we are all wrong to a greater or lesser extent on occasion, there must be a pattern or tendency that indicates which side a truther is on; on the side of truth or favoring the untruth of power.

    Although this is necessary to do, it must be understood that there will ALWAYS be an element of untruthers in a movement, either put there by power, or by the reactionary historical pressure on the souls of cranks which pervert their values. Sometimes something can be done. Often you just have to live with it. But the smearing of truth heroes should set the alarm bells ringing. They will be wrong in certain ways, and may well capitulate later, but the initial achievement is real, and invaluable. Smearing it, if only by indirection, (which is often more effective) should arouse concern.

    1. I wasn’t going to reply to this snide nastiness, but then it struck me.

      Elevating Ruppert, when he doesn’t deserve it, and then denouncing those who point it out as liars, is, well, not a good thing to do.

      Once again, Mark, you identified Mike very well when you talked about “charlatans and cranks.” I have proof that Mike Ruppert was a fraud. You have nothing to justify your smears against me–except that you disagree with my opinions and interpretation of history. You should be ashamed of the things you say about me. You know perfectly well that I am no racist, and whatever a “perverted racist” is, I leave to your own twisted imagination.

      I did not lie about the poor, pathetic, loser whom the Intelligence community tried to use so ignominiously to bend the 9/11 research world to the ridiculous panic over “peak oil.” It is clear in his life record.

      Oh, and about that tear I thought I was preparing to shed over how deeply you hurt my feelings. Many hours later, it has still not appeared. I’ve heard about the “shy kidney”; maybe I have a shy tear-duct. Nevertheless, believe me when I tell you that your calumnies against me truly cause me sorrow and angst. Hold on…maybe that tear is about to form….

      1. Geez! It sounds like some simply don’t appreciate you for the likable curmudgeon that you are. I’ve been told that it is always wise to avoid talking about politics, religion and “St. Ruppert of Langley”.

        Somehow, there is a connection between the rather self-satisfied ex-cop and Evolution! Who’d a thunk? Apparently, like many proponents of the “scientific” explanation, we’re all just “accidental”. Simply the product of chemical failures leading to incredible lifeforms.

        I don’t know, my friend. It seems that you knocked over someone’s baggage cart. This is reminiscent of the “nuke” discussion. Who would have believed there could be so much emotion in demolition? Who would have thought that people had formed “teams” to root for?

        For my sake, Patrick, keep it up. I understand what you’re saying.

  12. I’m truly sorry to cause you grief, Patrick. I like your sensibility. But the simple truth of the matter is that you identify with evil. You don’t like people. You identify with Divine and earthly power against the powerless. And this is not at all necessary because of any identification with religion.

    I once sat on a long plane ride with a Jesuit priest who told me of the worker priests of France, and how the liberation theology of Latin America was destroyed by the hierarchy. They made one of the hierarchy, who supported the death squads of the military, the pope.

    Not all ideologies are the same, and the Proclaimed truth and values often differs from the operative truth and values. As is the case with the American powerful. It is difficult, but possible, to actually promote the Proclaimed against the operative, as truth heroes do.

    In some cases this involves undergoing a gestalt conceptual transformation that changes one’s world-view of reality.. One must lose one’s life in order to regain it. Most people do not have the strength for this severe form of self-repudiation. But you never know. Life sometimes, for a change, offers a glorifying surprise. And I am by nature of an childish optimistic view, or perhaps childlike. I hope you can learn to love.

Comments are closed.