-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Click Here: <A HREF="http://www.steamshovelpress.com/fromeditor.html">The Spectre of Jim Keith by Kenn Thomas</A> ----- The Spectre of Jim Keith by Kenn Thomas Jim Keith's spectre haunts the recent Steamshovel web work. This new site developed shortly after I took over Jim's column at Nitro News when he died of a mysterious blood clot last September. Nitro News has since deep sixed, but my responsibilities as a columnist have shifted to this page. Recently, Jim's lingering presence led correspondent Geoff Steuart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to suggest that "At the end of the day, the only reason to believe [Jim Keith's article on Princess Diana] came from the pen of Jim Keith is the word of Kenn Thomas and Nitro News and Nitro News has been decidedly silent over the last few weeks... all the circumstantial evidence indicates that Jim Keith didn't write the article and Kenn Thomas did." The resulting exchange became quite funny and is reproduced below. It reminded me of how little has been accomplished in investigating Jim's death. Ideas I had to go to Reno to look for myself collapsed from lack of funding, although I was able to mention it on two national television programs. One show, the infotainment program Extra, even had footage of Keith--virtually twice as much as I have ever seen of Jim on the tube. The producer of that program says that the footage came from Jerry Smith, author of HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (a weapon, btw, that may have played a role in this recent Alaska Airlines crash outside of LA, near Point Mugu, where Brice Taylor says she and her children were brainwashed and molested.) Jerry, if you're out there, how about sending a dub of that entire Keith lecture? Heretofore, it's a problem trying just to get still photos of Jim. It also reminded me of some of the difference Jim and I had, since Mr. Steuart seemed to think that we shared all research and information and continually wrote things together. Jim and I were close, but not that close. In fact, I'm a little steamed that his new book, ($16.95 from IllumiNet Press, POB 2808, Lilburn, GA 30048) shovels an old story about Timothy Leary previously circulated by Walter Bowart, author of Operation Mind Control. Leary was kind to Bowart once and gave him some lurid details and tall tales about his connections to the intelligence world. Bowart rewarded that kindness with a trash obituary after Leary died and the false claim that Leary had been lobotomized in prison and thereafter became a tool of the spooks. I have written about this and condemned it many times; I have struggled with the FBI in a FOIA search to get the full picture of Leary's life in prison; and most importantly, I told Jim it was lie and asked him not to repeat it. So Jim Keith and I did not see eye to eye on everything. The Leary stuff in Mass Control calls into question the quality of the other information as well, of course. But the book calls into question a lot of what many people take for granted about mass psychology mind control and I think it is a very important book for that reason. I hope readers take another look at Uri Dowbenko's review of it at the Steamshovel site and seriously consider buying it. It serves a function that Arthur Koestler's books did in the 1950s by drawing attention to the subtle and not-so-subtle ways of brainwashing that occur daily in our world. Kenn Thomas Steamshovel Press Haha, Geoff! You caught me! I wrote the damn thing to set up Keith for a hit for the sake of publicity. > I have e-mailed Nitro News three times, without reply. Nitro News doesn't respond to anyone anymore. It's apparently out of the business. > What I can't understand, in your e-mail to Conspiracy Journal, you describe > yourself as 'a good friend' and we already know you were both literary > collaborators yet, Jim did not seek your advice or discuss the issue with > you. Your comments on his article had to be based on 'rumor'. What is > even more staggering, is that having heard the 'rumor', you don't seem to > have attempted to read a copy of the article before you commented on it. Huh? I read the article, when it appeared on Nitro. > When Nitro News overcame it's technical problems, you wrote a column COME > AND GET ME, OCTOPUS! KEITH CO-AUTHOR RESUMES COLUMN in which you corrected > your previous error. The name of the Sufi doctor was NOT contained in the > article. Yet only 6 days later aprox, Anjeanette Damon writing in the >RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL , published your erroneous remarks. Did you make any >effort to correct this story? Didn't know about this. I do remember responding to the Reno coroner's comments in the Gazette-Journal that this happens all of the time at Washoe Medical. > That's what 'dear friends' do too each other is it? You obviously have little familiarity with Keith, me or the conspiracy "underground". Jim used to rip me off with abandon--and then complained when David Icke did the same to him! I was honored to plagiarized by Big Jim. > Well, I find that quite strange Kenn. Nitro news was unavailable until >the 22nd September 99, according to Nitro columnist T. Winslow. He even >claimsthat he didn't find out about Jim's death until then! Yet a poster whom I > know to be called Laura, posted Jim's article to the > Alt.Conspiracy.Princess-Diana News group on the 14th Sept. Her post is > right there for anyone to see at Deja under the header 'Archive - Commentary > by Jim Keith'. Could this possibly mean that Winslow doesn't read ACPD? > So what you are saying, is that Kenn Thomas long-time and > 'dear friend', co-author of a book with Jim and heir to Jim's column at > Nitro, had no knowledge of one of the most controversial articles written > about the Diana business, whilst every other tom, dick and harry, had the > article right there in front of them. You're losing me here. I read Jim's column for the first time the day before Jim died, September 6. He did not routinely share with me everything he wrote. I did not read it before it appeared. Sorry if I gave another impression. > I don't really understand the term 'much earlier'? Jim Keith died on the > 7th Sept. This means whatever you wrote, must have happened between then > and the 9th Sept. But is this really the point. The whole issue comes down > to your apparent ignorance off Jim's article which according to Nitro, had > been published 48 hours before his death. This would be around 3rd > September. 6 days elapsed from then until your e-mail to the Conspiracy > Journal, yet in none of that time did you actually look at Jim's article. > How strange indeed. What are you talking about, "ignorance of the article"? I simply said he named the doctor and he didn't really, but said that he could. It's only a shade of difference, not "ignorance of the article". > As I am sure you are aware, Jim was very active on the NG's. I have located > a number of his posts. One of his posts from alt.conspiracy, dated 27th > July, a matter of weeks before his death, was entitled "Request for > articles". Clearly, Jim was looking for new material for projects he was > interested in. No where in the post is there any mention of Diana. In > fact, there is no indication of any interest on Jim's part in the Diana > business. Did it have indication that he had interest in JFK Jr.? David Icke? Jim had wide interests, many possible projects going at once. I'm sure he didn't trumpet them all. > Further to this, whilst Jim was very active in NG's, he never posted to > ACPD. Neither have I. Never read it. > Whilst there is little if any evidence to indicate that Jim was interested > in this subject, there is plenty of evidence that Kenn Thomas and Nitro News > are interested. In one of your articles, you admitted that Steamshovel > Press, your own little baby Kenn, had a 'take' on the Diana business. You > have also written some extremely pro-Fayed articles yourself. And somebody > at Nitro, perhaps yourself, has been doing quite a bit of posting to ACPD, > advertising your wares. I know it does no good to deny it, but I wasn't really aware of ACPD. > At the end of the day, the only reason to believe this article came from the > pen of Jim Keith is the word of Kenn Thomas and Nitro News and Nitro News > has been decidedly silent over the last few weeks. So it's your word Kenn!! Nitro News is gone. Kaput. Permanently silent. > Sorry mate but all the circumstantial evidence (I agree, that's all it > is)indicates that Jim Keith didn't write the article and Kenn Thomas did. I deny it all and everything I deny is a lie. > So tell me Kenn, how does it feel to be the subject of a conspiracy theory?! Great, Geoff! Keep up the good work! > No Kenn, you wrote it because you think there is something to gain from > mixing it with this Diana business. You are, after all, 'America's > favourite conspiracy writer'. Haha! This is rich, Geoff! Do go on. (That "America's favorite" business was tag put on by Nitro, btw. It's obviously oxymoronic.) > I'll tell you how it looks to me. If you'd published that article under > your own by-line, then we would have another conspiracy article from Kenn > Thomas. With the death of Jim, we get two conspiracies for the price of > one. One associated with Diana, another with the death of Jim Keith. > Perfect! Are you accusing me of murdering Keith? Or did we hoax his death? I really love this. > Making Keith the author of this document rather than you, means there is > absolutely no possibility of corroborating the claims it makes. Jim is >dead after all. You sound like you have an axe to grind about Diana. What is it? I would be very happy to rummage through Keith's notes for his corrorboration. I tried to get one of my publishers to pay for a trip to Reno in part for that purpose, but it's hard enough getting a royalty check from the people I work with. > You say you read Jim's article on the 22nd September, when Nitro came back > on line. Yet you reference and quoted from Jim's article on the very same > day. This means that you digested Jim's article and then composed your own > then published at the web site, all in one day. Why? If you intended to > write the article, why didn't you contact Charles MacLaurin for a copy of > Jim's article? I told you I read it on the 6th, before Keith died. > You comment in your reply to me "You obviously have little familiarity >with Keith, me or the conspiracy "underground" You are right Kenn, I don't. >So why did I get to see the Jim's article before you Kenn? Why was Geoff >given access to the article on the 14th Sept, but Kenn Thomas, a 'dear friend' >of Jim's and intellectual collaborator, didn't see it until 22nd September?! What are you talking about? I read the article on the 6th. > Nobody would have been interested in my views on the subject but your views > Kenn?! You knew Jim, you worked with Jim, I didn't. But I knew the > contents of his final article and you didn't, an article that made a quite > extraordinary claim, which caused much discussion, but not enough to make > Kenn Thomas obtain a copy of the article and read it. OK, Geoff, let's get back to the "shade of difference" point. You are taking me to task for saying he named the physician instead of what he did say, that he COULD name the physician. This is not a question of me not reading the article. In any event, you have me writing the article in one sentence and not even reading it in another. > How many articles have you written Kenn on the Diana stuff now? How many > 'takes' do you have on the alleged conspiracy that ended the couples lives? > Yet you were not interested enough to obtain a copy of Jim's article? >This makes absolutely no sense and frankly, I don't believe a word of it. I haven't written a single article about Diana. I mentioned the Adnan Khashoggi connection--Casolaro was investigating Khashoggi, so it's a very real connection to the Octopus--in a paragraph on the web. > I think your comments hit the nail on the head. This is humor, my friend, not confession! I do believe there are serious things that need to be investigated about Jim Keith's death. We can not reasonably conclude or dismiss conspiracy in his death without investigation. His family and friends will tell you that his death was not hoaxed. If you are saying that I had Jim killed, please state so directly. You are wrong, but believe what you will. Make anything you want out of an off-hand comment, but the issue here for me is Keith--daring, irascible, brilliant and marvelously funny Jim Keith, not some dreary Diana theory of yours that might be contradicted by something he wrote. — Kenn Thomas Previous From the Editor Home | Order Steamshovel | Newsletter Signup | Link Tank | Contact Us The Latest Word | Offline Illumination | Things Are Gonna Slide! | Alt.M edia | Ferment ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright © 1999, 2000 Steamshovel Press. All Rights Reserved. ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <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
