-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Subject: Ben Partin and Waco Suits for Waco Suckers From: "Carol A. Valentine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:48:54 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I had a recent exchange with a person who read "Waco Suits for Waco Suckers" in the Burial Gallery of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum. The direct URL is: <http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/page/b_wsws.html> (See sections 4c, "the Fireball and the Hole" and 4d, "General Partin Goes Down in Flames.") This person responded to my treatment of Partin as follows: > Interesting reading, Carol. > > I think you're too harsh on Partin, however. *Something* made the hole > in the roof of the concrete room. It's probable that he hasn't seen the > autopsies, and so is only making a reasonable assumption that an explosion > on the roof of the room would subject the interior to a spray of concrete > rock shrapnel, killing anyone inside who might be alive. In any event, it > makes little sense to have him lie about Waco if he's telling the truth > about OKC. Here is my response: ==== Of course we know SOMETHING caused the hole in the roof of the concrete room. But there is a reason Ramsey Clark and Gordon Novel asked Partin to write an affidavit, and not you or me. Partin is a munitions expert. We are not. Partin was not asked for a "reasonable assumption." He was asked for expert opinion. In his affidavit, Partin gave his *expert* opinion about the hole in the roof of the concrete room and the fireball. As an *expert,* he said the fireball appeared over the roof and was part of the phenomenon that caused the hole. As an *expert* we might expect Partin to base his opinion on the evidence. But the evidence contradicts Partin. The fireball did not appear over the roof of the concrete room. Therefore the fireball was not part of the phenomenon that caused the hole in the roof as Partin inferred. Partin got the location of the fireball wrong, despite easy availability of photographic evidence and layouts of the Mt.Carmel Center. Partin also said the fireball was caused by a breaching charge. So Partin also got the cause of the fireball wrong. Are we supposed to believe Partin wrote and signed an affidavit on the fireball and the hole in the roof without looking at the photographic evidence and layout diagrams, and Partin pontificated about the deaths of the mothers and children without looking at the autopsies? What WAS Partin basing his analysis on, if not the evidence? Ian Goddard e-mails? Or does the same military intelligence unit write the scripts for Partin and Goddard? Twice during the last several years I have confronted Partin at public meetings and interrupted him as he was spooning out Waco disinformation--disinformation about the concrete room and the bodies of the women and children. The first confrontation occurred before dozens of people at the 1997 Surveillance Expo (organized by Jim Ross of Ross Engineering in N. Virginia). When I spoke up, Partin just tried to shut me up. On one occasion Partin addressed the critical issues I raised with these words: "Details, details, details." If details are beyond an explosives expert, I'd hate to be around when one of his bombs go off. They'd probably go off an hour early, in his back pocket. I had a second confrontation with Partin at a meeting of the Sarah McClendon Study Group in Washington DC. The results were pretty much the same. He just ignored my questions and went on with his script. On neither occasions did Partin seem to be even remotely embarrassed. After both events I approached Partin and spoke to him amicably. Because we have known each other slightly over a number of years and because we both live in the N. Virginia area, I invited Partin to my office to have a look at ALL the relevant evidence on my very own computer. Despite my repeated invitations and his knowledge of my phone number, Partin never called me to take me up on the offer. That is, he did not call me until the evening of January 5, 2000. Someone had faxed him a copy of "Waco Suits for Waco Suckers." What did Partin have to say about my representation of him? He had one correction: He told me he had never worked at McDill Air Force base! I told Partin that if he had any disagreement about my representation of him, he should put it in writing and send it to me. So far I have received nothing. If Partin was real, surely he would not hesitate to commit himself to writing and correct me. Have you ever noticed that fakes are so full of hubris they think no one notices their pants are on fire? Now to address your question: Why would Partin furnish what seems like a credible analysis of the OKC blast? Let me go back to my meeting with Partin at the Sarah McClendon Study Group some years ago. During question time someone asked who was behind the OKC bombing. Believe it or not, Partin said the *commies* were responsible. He was ready for the question. He handed out two type-written papers, both entitled "Deadly Failures in Intelligence Analysis and Defense Unpreparedness." One was dated 9-15-96 (9 pages long) and other 8-30-97 (9 1/2 pages long). They were all about the World Congress of Communists /Socialists Parties, etc., etc. The military/industrial complex grew to its enormous size due to the hyped threat of the "commies." Now Partin is hyping the threat again. What a coincidence that he is a military man. Here is the fundamental premise of psychological warfare in covert operations: "For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Whenever covert operations pulls off something like Waco or OKC (actions), they can count on someone from the public noticing and objecting (reactions). So covert operations designs the action, and they DESIGN THE REACTION, too. Before the action, they place and prepare their agents to lead the reaction. They set up phoney critics. That way the control both sides of the street. The phoney critics might put forward bogus cases. Examples of this? Think of Mike McNulty or C. Moore on Waco. Or the phoney critic might forward a real case. For the sake of argument, let's say this is Ben Partin on OKC. Covert operations gets a real analysis written and promoted by their own man, but they have their man neutralized. What better way to discredit Partin than have Partin say the commies pulled off OKC? Put another way, what better person to forward a realistic analysis of the OKC bombing than a quack John Birch Society type? With a "kill a commie for Christ" stooge on first base, you can bet vast numbers of Internet denizens would not give a minute's time to Partin's OKC theories. What an insurance policy for covert operations! Same goes for Vince Foster. With Reed Irvine on the case, you can bet the "left wing" will dismiss, out of hand, any rational discussion of Foster's death. "That's just right wing stuff," is the dismissive phrase. Didn't DC Dave recently talk about this strategy? "In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards." (Protocol 12, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the authorship of which is in dispute.) === Carol A. Valentine President, Public Action, Inc. Have you seen the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum? See what they did to the mothers and children-- http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum Study Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression: http://thebird.org/host/dcdave/article3/990810.html "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell -- Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression by DCDave Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party. 1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen. 2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit. 3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.") 4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. 5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. 6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not). 7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful. 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news." 9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. 10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. 11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak. 12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why? 13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions. 14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting. 15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source. 16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money. 17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
