-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
Former CIA director William Colby said that it was a "suitcase
nuke" and two weeks after to going to the BUTCHer of waco Janet Reno with
the information he was swimming with the fishes !!!! The other man privy to
these documents is Gordon Novel is so far back in the federal prison system
that they have to pump him air & water. There is a tape that gets played on
WWCR alot to back this up. It is tape # 828 from Newswatch magazine with
David J. Smith.
@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 10:52 PM
Subject: [CTRL] Ben Partin and Waco Suits for Waco Suckers
> -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
>
<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
