Activism Change

WEN as Disinfo Artist, disected

Question:

Nice Post, Sweeney.  I find it ironic that you accuse me of using your "24 Points of Disinformation" in an attempt to discredit you and the rest of the frauds.  You did the same thing as you accused me of.  That’s funny. You need to work on your research skills and get a life. Nick W.E. Nichols    "This is an era when nonsense has become acceptable

Response:

Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nice Post, Sweeney.  I find it ironic that you accuse me of using your "24 Points of Disinformation" in an attempt to discredit you and the rest of the frauds.  You did the same thing as you accused me of.  That’s funny. You need to work on your research skills and get a life. Nick W.E. Nichols    "This is an era when nonsense has become acceptable

Response:

The original intent of this post was to illustrate beyond a shadow of whatever that WEN IS DISINFO.  But for those of you who might fall asleep with the many repeat demonstrations of that offered here, I suggest you consider suffering through the rest of it.  For this work will also include what, at least as of the last time a few days ago I had time to read the NGs, may be new flight 800 information to many here, some of it remarkable material from a major newspaper with large circulation: 1)  That we do now have information on the entrance wound of the missile. 2)  There is residue evidence which matches that expected of a solid fuel rocket, and it is exactly at where it would be expected 3)  There is a news article with condemning evidence of a cover up, specifically that Navy lied twice about missile firings in the area. 4)  Demonstration that you CAN keep a ship full of GI’s from talking about an accidental shoot down of an airliner. 5)  Pointer to information on the he P-3 having its transponder off (that may be old news, I never studied this stuff until WEN insulted my intelligence by his lack of use of the stuff himself).  This also indicates a submarine was in the area (I would like to see more investigation into the notion of a sub-launched SAM test being conducted) 6)  Pointer to information which indicates NORMADY DID FIRE SAM and a second shore-line launch of what may have been a target drone.   Below please find an annotated copy of W.E. Nichols (WEN) "refute" of Ian Goddard’s friendly fire postulation, Part I.  Annotations by myself will be indicated with "HMS:" prior to comment.  The purpose of the comments is to illustrate WEN as disinfo at its best. In fairness to WEN, it should be pointed out that in any examination of this sort, it is easy to wax towards the extreme in finding criticism — as he has abundantly demonstrated in his own critique of Ian. Therefore, please feel free to evaluate for yourselves by comparing what WEN has said/done/implied vs. the 25 known methods of truth suppression and 7 indicators as cited in a prior post this day.  For your convenience, a brief summary of these is provided here at document end, along with the number of times WEN has used them in just this one post. Please do not make the mistake of judgment based on the summary descriptions themselves.  Rather,  please stop NOW if you have have not already read the full descriptions, and go back and do that little thing — takes about ten minutes, and you might want to print it out and follow along.    In fact, you might prefer to download this rather long piece and read it off line.  I’ll stop typing here, and wait for you. Thanks for doing that…  it will be more fun.  Trust me.  So here we go… To the extent that any given presenter in a particular forum exhibits evidence of using multiple disinfo rules (tools) and fits multiple traits, we might reasonably assume this person to be a useless source of information and a true source of disinformation.  Let us examine WEN against this criteria and take a look at the final scorecard. Incidentally, as the job of the disinfo artist is to find creative ways to avoid discussing issues, WEN does this with EVERY comment.  Thus, I do not bother to list that trait (trait number 1) each time.   Post begins: Newsgroups:   alt.disasters.aviation,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.journalism,alt.polit ics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.fbi [More Headers]

It is high time that this jerk is exposed as the fraud that he is, but purports to be some kind of expert.  I would strongly suggest that the only thing he is an "expert of" is fear mongering. HMS:  Here WEN sets the stage early by use of rule 3, 5,7,8, and 18: Rumor mongers (fear monger is essentially the same for the purpose), sidetrack opponent with name calling and ridicule, question motives, invoke authority, emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents.  WEN has not demonstrated herein, or earlier to my knowledge, that anything in his opening statement has any basis whatsoever.  If you disagree with Ian, WEN, why do you insist in disinfo tactics instead of dealing with the issues?  Saying you have when you haven’t does not make it so. Where are actual counter arguments?  You asked me to search out your postings and after finding thousands of posts and bothering, undaunted, to actually check many dozens, I found NOT ONE.  Would you care to piont them out, or is that another challenge you are not up to? +   TWA 800 CRASH DAMAGE ANALYSIS + The following report presents overwhelming evidence that TWA 800 was destroyed by a missile,  and that the missile — as determined previously by TWA 800 researcher Marshall Houston and Brigadier General Benton K. Partin — was a radio-frequency guided continuous-rod warhead missile. + IF a missile struck TWA 800,  THEN an object would have been  seen racing toward TWA 800  moments before it exploded. Quite a profound statement.  I certainly wouldn’t be racing away from the ac. HMS:  Here, again, is a pure number 5 and 9 — sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule, and play dumb.  Anything to avoid discussing issues.  WEN is just being an insulting donkey cavity here for no good purpose.  In this act, he insults the reader’s intelligence and his own more than Ian. WEN, what is the purpose in this statement?  What objective or factual basis do you present here?  You act as if you haven’t read the whole presentation before deeming to comment on it, and don’t even realize yet what follows.  Your very tone seeks to negate the value of what follows as if you’ve already made up your mind and don’t want to be bothered with the facts.  Please discuss issues instead of offering unproductive rhetoric designed to sway people based on trickery. + FACT 1: An object was seen  racing toward TWA 800. Who saw it and what is the person’s credentials? HMS:  Here WEN relies upon rules 9 and 16 – invoke authority and vanish witnesses and evidence. WEN, why do you refuse to discuss issues and keep insisting there can be no witnesses?  The facts have been well established from the beginning and well reported and well cited.  You set yourself up as the only authority as to whom might be "qualified" to be a witness.  Show us please, where it states that witnesses must be qualified, and state what qualifications they must have, in order to tell what they saw.  If you cannot deal with the issue, please don’t resort to trickery to invalidate the evidence in the mind of others. Others have done a very nice job of specifically attacking individual witnesses, though attacked with counterarguments from those opposed to them, but you won’t even attempt it.  You just wave your hand and they all go away. + EXHIBIT A: According to the Associated Press [1] "Radar detected a blip merging with the jet shortly before the explosion." The AP is the primary news source for anything concerning this accident. And each time it is always the FBI when it comes to questionable data. HMS:  Here WEN resorts to rules 4 and 17, but, in fairness to WEN, seems to be attempting to make a potentially valid commentary.  Rule 4 is to use a straw man, and rule 17 is to change the subject from radar. WEN, please don’t change the subject if you cannot deal with the issue.  If you have something against the AP as a source, please demonstrate it for us.  If you are trying to illustrate that you feel we "conspiracy buffs" have a dual standard in criticizing the FBI on one hand and then quoting the AP interviews of FBI on the other hand, come out and say it well enough that we can understand.  But if you do, be certain to offer PROOF by QUOTING what WE have said which demonstrates your point.  Then we can show you why you are WRONG, or appologize and acceed to your wisdom. But this implication crap is pure disinfo hit and run using a straw man.   Stick to the issues or kindly shut up. + EXHIBIT B: According to the Times of London [2], spy satellite images showed "an object racing up to the TWA jet…and smashing into it." About the spy satellite over the area, the Boston Globe [3] stated that "the satellite was probably the CIA’s Satellite Data System II…equipped with a long- range, high-resolution TV camera with a sensor, known as the Heritage, that detects objects by the heat they emit." If these exist, the public has not seen them.  Hog wash. HMS:  Again, WEN uses rule 4, the straw man, and also rule 5, 16, 18, and 19 as well: Sidetrack with ridicule, vanish evidence, antagonize and goad, and ignore proof presented/demand impossible proofs. WEN, you again fail to deal with issues by trickery.  You KNOW full well that the public will NEVER see these photos (potential cover up aside) because of National Security.  CIA will not release images which would reveal our full capabilities or limitations in spy technologies.  YOU KNOW THIS, yet you imply that we have not seen them because they do not exist, in full deliberate ignorance that a credible news source has been cited. Why do you use such an obvious straw man — did you hope to get caught in this lie (trait number 7)? + EXHIBIT C: At that same time, according to FBI investigators, "More than 150 ‘credible’ witnesses — including several scientists…saw a missile" flying toward TWA 800 [4]. Of all these "150 Credible Witnesses" no one has ever qualified their credentials.  There were "150 People Who Saw the Incident"  Period. HMS:  This is a total repeat of his similar attempt to vanish witnesses above. WEN,  Please cite any courtroom case where witnesses were disallowed because they merely saw what happened.  Please cite any instance where a witness testimony has been … read more »

Response:

Filed under: Activism Politics

Related Posts

• WITH A "FRIEND" LIKE ISRAEL?
• Senate is Throm's nursing home!
• Farrakhan Raps Clinton Crime Credit
• Organizations PRO and AGAINST abortions???
• Alt.activism? HA!
• THE CURRENT INJUSTICE IN MONTANA
• URGENT: need letters to PBS (nuclear civil war)
• Unions are outdated and evil
• RIP - HUNTER THOMPSON
• Personal Battles V: Living out the Vision