Jefferson Morley's Latest Embarrassment

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Morley posts this:

"This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.

Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?
It’s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it’s a
necessary question."

Right.

Of course, the MKULTRA program was, from what I've read, exposed as, well,
a fraud. There is no such ability as mind control and the CIA certainly
didn't have the ability to "manipulat[e] Ruby mentally before or after he
killed Oswald."

Again: the CIA manipulated Ruby "after he killed Oswald". Mr. Morley
thinks this is a "necessary question."

I have a question: At this point who considers Morley a credible
journalist?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/13/2016 8:02 AM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Morley posts this:
>
> "This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.
>
> Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?

> It???s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it???s a

> necessary question."
>
> Right.
>
> Of course, the MKULTRA program was, from what I've read, exposed as, well,
> a fraud. There is no such ability as mind control and the CIA certainly
> didn't have the ability to "manipulat[e] Ruby mentally before or after he
> killed Oswald."
>

You don't know anything about MK/ULTRA. It was an umbrella project with
many varied subprojects. Some of them worked, but most did not. Jack Ruby
was never a subject.

> Again: the CIA manipulated Ruby "after he killed Oswald". Mr. Morley
> thinks this is a "necessary question."
>
> I have a question: At this point who considers Morley a credible
> journalist?
>

Moi. You would have said the same thing about Jack Anderson, and Woodward
and Bernstein for daring to expose the government's crimes. That's your
MO.

And by attacking Jeff Morley so openly here you are only kookbaiting to
see who will step up to defend him and then you can label them fellow
travelers. Nothing new about your tactics.

[BOZ]

Morley is an unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow,
simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse,
doltish ASSHOLE.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

With all due respect, your post is an opinion stated as fact. You don't
seem to believe mind control is possible. He does. You have not posted
any support for your position. He did.

Guess who I think is credible?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Maybe the CIA is creating sociopathic liars who then are sent to
assassination forums/newgroups to discredit the conspiracy movement with
their bullying and lying?

That might be the explanation for the prevalence of the sociopaths we come
across?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

No he's not. He's a very smart guy.

He's been disappointingly willing to allow the fringe conspiracy people to
essentially take over the site. And he's gone along with it. Requiring
John to state he's not working for the CIA? That's silly.

I don't know why. Does he actually think this stuff is plausible? That
McAdams is working for the CIA? Or does he just go with it for the hits
and visits?

[John McAdams]

On 15 Nov 2016 00:06:54 -0500, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:57:22 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:02:29 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Morley posts this:
>> >
>> > "This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.
>> >
>> > Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?
>> > It’s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it’s a
>> > necessary question."
>> >
>> > Right.
>> >
>> > Of course, the MKULTRA program was, from what I've read, exposed as, well,
>> > a fraud. There is no such ability as mind control and the CIA certainly
>> > didn't have the ability to "manipulat[e] Ruby mentally before or after he
>> > killed Oswald."
>> >
>> > Again: the CIA manipulated Ruby "after he killed Oswald". Mr. Morley
>> > thinks this is a "necessary question."
>> >
>> > I have a question: At this point who considers Morley a credible
>> > journalist?
>>
>> Morley is an unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow,
>> simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse,
>> doltish ASSHOLE.
>
>No he's not. He's a very smart guy.
>
>He's been disappointingly willing to allow the fringe conspiracy people to
>essentially take over the site. And he's gone along with it. Requiring
>John to state he's not working for the CIA? That's silly.
>

When did he do that?

I know he won't let me post. Has he come up with that as an excuse?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

On 11/14/2016 11:08 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2016 00:06:54 -0500, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:57:22 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:02:29 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Morley posts this:
>>>>
>>>> "This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.
>>>>
>>>> Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?

>>>> It?s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it?s a

>>>> necessary question."
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the MKULTRA program was, from what I've read, exposed as, well,
>>>> a fraud. There is no such ability as mind control and the CIA certainly
>>>> didn't have the ability to "manipulat[e] Ruby mentally before or after he
>>>> killed Oswald."
>>>>
>>>> Again: the CIA manipulated Ruby "after he killed Oswald". Mr. Morley
>>>> thinks this is a "necessary question."
>>>>
>>>> I have a question: At this point who considers Morley a credible
>>>> journalist?
>>>
>>> Morley is an unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow,
>>> simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse,
>>> doltish ASSHOLE.
>>
>> No he's not. He's a very smart guy.
>>
>> He's been disappointingly willing to allow the fringe conspiracy people to
>> essentially take over the site. And he's gone along with it. Requiring
>> John to state he's not working for the CIA? That's silly.
>>
>
> When did he do that?
>
> I know he won't let me post. Has he come up with that as an excuse?

He recently implied that you *are* allowed to post there, in his
November 10 post here:

http://jfkfacts.org/best-jfk-web-sites/



Jean

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

John: My error in mischaracterizing what Morley did. In an email to you
that you mentioned here he asked you this:

"So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or
future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting?"

That's far different than saying you work for the CIA and I was wrong to
describe it that way.

Still, I think him asking that you prove you're not "compensated in any
way" by "any party" for commenting no the assassination is frankly silly.

[John McAdams]

On 15 Nov 2016 16:10:48 -0500, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't read that post that way. He seems to be talking about my
website.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten that.

>That's far different than saying you work for the CIA and I was wrong to
>describe it that way.
>
>Still, I think him asking that you prove you're not "compensated in any
>way" by "any party" for commenting no the assassination is frankly silly.

I might offer to answer that question if he will answer a question for
me: "Jeff, have you ever had sex with animals? You answer that, and
I'll answer your question."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:35:41 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 7:02:29 AM UTC-6, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Morley posts this:
> >
> > "This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.
> >
> > Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?
> > It’s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it’s a
> > necessary question."
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > Of course, the MKULTRA program was, from what I've read, exposed as, well,
> > a fraud. There is no such ability as mind control and the CIA certainly
> > didn't have the ability to "manipulat[e] Ruby mentally before or after he
> > killed Oswald."
> >
> > Again: the CIA manipulated Ruby "after he killed Oswald". Mr. Morley
> > thinks this is a "necessary question."
> >
> > I have a question: At this point who considers Morley a credible
> > journalist?
>
> With all due respect, your post is an opinion stated as fact.

It is an idea formed as a question. Does these things Morley said
preclude him from being considered a credible journalist. It`s a difficult
question, because it is hard to find a credible journalist these days.

I`d say the things that Morley says precludes him from being taken
seriously.

> You don't
> seem to believe mind control is possible. He does. You have not posted
> any support for your position. He did.
>
> Guess who I think is credible?

The idea that Ruby was mind-controlled is an extraordinary claim. Do you
think Morley produced the kind of evidence necessary to support such a
claim?

[BOZ]

Morley is not a smart guy. He's a smartass. I don't care what university
he went to. What university did Thomas Edison attend?

[Anthony Marsh]

When did he tell you that? Did you try to post there?
Or are you just reciting rumors from your Alt Right buddies?

[Anthony Marsh]

It is not true that the CIA trolls sent to attack conspiracy believers
are sociopathic liars. They are just paid to act that way.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/15/2016 4:11 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 12:08:19 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 15 Nov 2016 00:06:54 -0500, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:57:22 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:02:29 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Morley posts this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?

>>>>> It???s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it???s a

>>>>> necessary question."
>>>>>
>>>>> Right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the MKULTRA program was, from what I've read, exposed as, well,
>>>>> a fraud. There is no such ability as mind control and the CIA certainly
>>>>> didn't have the ability to "manipulat[e] Ruby mentally before or after he
>>>>> killed Oswald."
>>>>>
>>>>> Again: the CIA manipulated Ruby "after he killed Oswald". Mr. Morley
>>>>> thinks this is a "necessary question."
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a question: At this point who considers Morley a credible
>>>>> journalist?
>>>>
>>>> Morley is an unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow,
>>>> simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse,
>>>> doltish ASSHOLE.
>>>
>>> No he's not. He's a very smart guy.
>>>
>>> He's been disappointingly willing to allow the fringe conspiracy people to
>>> essentially take over the site. And he's gone along with it. Requiring
>>> John to state he's not working for the CIA? That's silly.
>>>
>>
>> When did he do that?
>>
>> I know he won't let me post. Has he come up with that as an excuse?
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> John: My error in mischaracterizing what Morley did. In an email to you
> that you mentioned here he asked you this:
>

You are forgiven, my son. Say 2 Hail Mary's and go to confession.

> "So are you compensated in any way ( by remuneration, considerationi or
> future reward) by any party for your JFK commenting?"
>
> That's far different than saying you work for the CIA and I was wrong to
> describe it that way.
>

But you were not wrong to THINK of it. Lots of conspiracy believers have
charge for years that McAdams is part of the CIA disinformation program.
But that does not make him a CIA agent. Not even an asset.

The worse you can claim is conduit or what they call an elite contact.

> Still, I think him asking that you prove you're not "compensated in any
> way" by "any party" for commenting no the assassination is frankly silly.

It's a standard tactic. But many people work for the CIA for no pay.
My father worked for $1 a year.

[BOZ]

Your jokes are weak. Try to study Richard Pryor or Donald Trump. Love
their humour. FINAL WARNING.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/15/2016 8:52 PM, BOZ wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 1:06:55 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:57:22 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:02:29 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Morley posts this:
>>>>
>>>> "This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.
>>>>
>>>> Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?

>>>> It???s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it???s a

>>>> necessary question."
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the MKULTRA program was, from what I've read, exposed as, well,
>>>> a fraud. There is no such ability as mind control and the CIA certainly
>>>> didn't have the ability to "manipulat[e] Ruby mentally before or after he
>>>> killed Oswald."
>>>>
>>>> Again: the CIA manipulated Ruby "after he killed Oswald". Mr. Morley
>>>> thinks this is a "necessary question."
>>>>
>>>> I have a question: At this point who considers Morley a credible
>>>> journalist?
>>>
>>> Morley is an unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow,
>>> simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse,
>>> doltish ASSHOLE.
>>
>> No he's not. He's a very smart guy.
>>
>> He's been disappointingly willing to allow the fringe conspiracy people to
>> essentially take over the site. And he's gone along with it. Requiring
>> John to state he's not working for the CIA? That's silly.
>>
>> I don't know why. Does he actually think this stuff is plausible? That
>> McAdams is working for the CIA? Or does he just go with it for the hits
>> and visits?
>
> Morley is not a smart guy. He's a smartass. I don't care what university
> he went to. What university did Thomas Edison attend?
>

I forget what that trick is called. Maybe they hadn't yet invented it in
Cicero's time.
Appeal to non-authorities

Fallacious arguments from authority can also be the result of citing a
non-authority as an authority.[15] These arguments assume that a person
without status or authority is inherently reliable. The appeal to poverty
for example is the fallacy of thinking a conclusion is more likely to be
correct because the one who holds or is presenting it is poor.[16] When an
argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because
the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious
appeal to the common man.[17] A common example of the fallacy is appealing
to an authority in one subject to pontificate on another ??? for example
citing Albert Einstein as an authority on religion when his expertise was
in physics.[15] The attributed authority might not even welcome that
authority, as with the "More Doctors Smoke Camels" ad campaign. [18]

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU don't have to answer any questions. You're in charge of the
cover-up, not just one of the minions.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, so now your only way out is to call Trump a professional comedian?
You mean all his bad jokes from The Apprentice? They were probably
written for him.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Il Duce was funny, too……. just saw Brecht's play re:
Arturo Ui (in french) near Paris. How prophetic.

Got brownshirts?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/17/2016 10:51 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:17:13 PM UTC+1, BOZ wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:25:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2016 12:08 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 15 Nov 2016 00:06:54 -0500, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:57:22 AM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:02:29 AM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Morley posts this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This incredible story of MKULTRA and Jack Ruby is, alas, well-documented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was the CIA manipulating Ruby mentally before or after he killed Oswald?

>>>>>>> It???s not a crazy question. Given what we now know, it???s a

> Il Duce was funny, too??????. just saw Brecht's play re:

> Arturo Ui (in french) near Paris. How prophetic.
>
> Got brownshirts?
>

Yes, Trump has them.


Comments

The sad and twisted tale of Donald Trump???s rise has taken an even darker
turn. After Trump supporters provoked a conflict with Sanders protesters
and got a rally shut down in Chicago, his rabid followers took to Twitter
to begin organizing a ???militia??? ??? the Lion???s Guard ??? to defend
Trump supporters and rallies against ???leftist agitators.??? Calling
themselves the ???red caps??? (in reference to Trump???s iconic Make
America Hate Great Again red hats), the parallels to Adolf Hitler???s
Stormtroopers (Sturmabteilung or SA or ???Brownshirts???), which was
created to protect Nazi rallies from protesters, are too many to ignore.

Just take, for instance, this description of Hitler???s second recruitment
rally:

Some 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler???s military
friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators ???flew down the
stairs with gashed heads.???

Sound familiar?


GOP Delegate Calls Trump Supporters ???Brownshirts??? Who ???Act Like
Fascists??? by Sam Reisman | 5:11 pm, July 18th, 2016

Video


HumphreyGOP delegate Gordon Humphrey said that Trump supporters at the
RNC reflected the behavior of their candidate, describing them as
???brownshirts??? who ???act like fascists.???

Speaking to MSNBC???s Jacob Soboroff on the floor of the RNC in Cleveland
Monday afternoon, Humphrey, a former U.S. Senator from New Hampshire,
said that when he tried to raise a point of parliamentary inquiry he was
???immediately drowned out by people I would refer to as brownshirts
around ??? in my surroundings.???
Please enable Javascript to watch.

???I???ve seen a lot. This is not a meeting of the Republican National
Committee. This is a meeting of brownshirts,??? he continued. He added
that he meant the term ???brownshirts??? to refer to ???People who act like
fascists. They might not be fascists, but they act like fascists. They
have the manners or the lack of manners of fascists. And in this respect
they are only too reflective of Donald Trump himself.???

Asked if he had a message for the presumptive nominee, Humphrey
responded simply, ???Never Trump.???

Humphrey had last week referred to Trump as a ???sick sociopath??? who has
???no conscience.???

[BOZ]

DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE SHOW? TRUMP RAISED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR
CHARITIES. DO YOU THINK RAIsING MONEY FOR CHARITIES IS A GOOD THING?

[BOZ]

COMMUNIST BOVINE EXCREMENT.

[Anthony Marsh]

Humphrey is not a Communist. He's a Republican.
You seem to be confused by politics. Republicans are not Communists.

[Anthony Marsh]

Fake. I used to work for one of those fake charities. 90% of the money
raised goes to the fundraisers and only 10% goes to the charity.