Well you know, I consider dealing with disinfo agents like picking up gold nuggets in a minefield. It can be very safe and quite profitable as long as you stay alert, and 80% of success is just being aware you're in a minefield.
Here's a perfect example: take a look at these papers by a researcher named Miles Mathis:
Incredibly eye-opening, but here's the thing: Mathis is a disinfo agent (which is too long a story to go into).
On the flip side, here's his paper on JFK (one of his earliest): THE HIDDEN KING(S) (87-page PDF).
He ends up concluding that the assassination was faked. Tons of solid info in it, but that conclusion is wrong. How would I know?
I studied the thesis that Jackie did it and concluded that was correct. Then when I was reading Mathis' paper, I was able to examine it very closely and see where he was subtly steering the reader away from Jackie. I thought he was simply mistaken.
Later when I figured out that Mathis was disinfo, I thought back to the JFK paper and said to myself, "Well, now it makes sense that an extremely astute researcher didn't just happen to make a big mistake."
Damn!! That is interesting, not sure what to think, I've been pro Rockwell for a while but could be possible.
Well you know, I consider dealing with disinfo agents like picking up gold nuggets in a minefield. It can be very safe and quite profitable as long as you stay alert, and 80% of success is just being aware you're in a minefield.
Here's a perfect example: take a look at these papers by a researcher named Miles Mathis:
Martin Luther King (21-page PDF)
The ASSASSINATION of MALCOLM X WAS STAGED (12-page PDF)
Incredibly eye-opening, but here's the thing: Mathis is a disinfo agent (which is too long a story to go into).
On the flip side, here's his paper on JFK (one of his earliest): THE HIDDEN KING(S) (87-page PDF).
He ends up concluding that the assassination was faked. Tons of solid info in it, but that conclusion is wrong. How would I know?
I studied the thesis that Jackie did it and concluded that was correct. Then when I was reading Mathis' paper, I was able to examine it very closely and see where he was subtly steering the reader away from Jackie. I thought he was simply mistaken.
Later when I figured out that Mathis was disinfo, I thought back to the JFK paper and said to myself, "Well, now it makes sense that an extremely astute researcher didn't just happen to make a big mistake."