American Dream wrote:Those are very, very serious charges, D.D., and you are levelling them against people who have a significant place in the conspiracy research community.
I would say it is far, far easier to make a strong case that Gunderson and Riconosciuto are deeply dirty, and that itself has very important implications for this case.
A.D.? I don't know if you're still not responding to me, but I mean you no harm and wish you all blessings, fwiw.
That said: I don't think you understand wrongly, exactly. It
is easier to make the case that Gunderson and Riconosciuto (especially Gunderson) are deeply dirty than it is to make the case that while VM and KD consistently speak like allies of those who seek to expose the Octopus, they consistently act to obstruct its exposure.
But that's not because evidence for the latter case is dubious or unclear or meaningfully contradicted by any other evidence. It's primarily because the former case was first made some time ago and has since been made even more strongly by the people who came forward to add to it as a result. And consequently, the evidence for it is either already familiar to people who take an interest in the subject or not difficult to point them toward.
In fact, it's largely (if not solely) because the Ted Gunderson Data Dump at NMN is one of the main resources toward which one might point them that the latter case initially appears to be not only less easy to make, but fully pre-refuted on a prima facie basis. Sort of like: "That's ridiculous, come on. After all, they prominently condemn the black hats, don't they?"
The thing is: If that were a real question, the answer would be, "Yes. On the TG Data Dump. But only on the TG Data Dump. On the rest of the site, whatever opposition to the deep dirtiness of TG, MR and their various and sundry deeply dirty associates they may occasionally express is either (a) purely rhetorical; or (b) a way of discrediting, derailing or obstructing various lines of inquiry that have the potential to expose the Octopus by, in effect, suggesting that
actually they only look like lines of inquiry, when
really. due to the malicious influence and control of TG, MR, et al., they're disinformational dead-ends.
Which would be fine, if they set the evidentiary bar for making that suggestion high enough that it required some...well,
evidence that TG, MR, et al. were in fact influencing and controlling events. Because the fact that the inquirers asked deeply dirty people for information about the deeply dirty events that they were parties to or had some knowledge simply isn't a danger sign in itself. And there's no good reason to think it is, per se. In fact, assuming that it's a serious and thorough investigation, it's more like a basic and absolute necessity. As VM and KD must know, since they themselves use material from and/or have contact with those very same deeply dirty people when it's relevant. Despite which, they find it automatically and enduringly suspicious in others.
In short: The TG Data Dump functions as a screen for a site that basically specializes in loudly advocating for the defense whenever charges have been brought against deeply dirty men who are usually one or two or zero degrees of separation away from TG, MR, et al. Seriously. That's pretty much all they do. Look at the site. Please. You'll see I'm not lying.
And please correct me if I understand wrongly, but it is my impression that these differences have much to do with the rift which we must now confront.
I too don't understand how a difference of opinion about some reporters creates a rift among opponents of the Octopus. Jimmy Hughes is in custody for crimes in which he and others have previously implicated other operatives higher up in the chain of command. Those implications are a lot more likely to be explored in open court when someone who made them's on trial than not. And we all want them to be explored to the fullest extent possible, irrespective of exactly what we understand the editorial orientation of NMN to be. Don't we? So where's the rift?
