Dr. William Pepper: CNN spreads Disinformation about the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination

Dr. William Pepper comments about CNN's reporting on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination.

It is one matter to distort the truth of how this great American prophet was taken from us, but quite another to have mainstream media perpetuate disinformation on matters of such public importance to the citizens of the Republic. An expert witness, at the King family civil trial, William Schapp, set out the historical use of government disinformation through mainstream media, dating back to the 1920’s.

Disinformation is the promotion of deliberately misleading information for the purpose of giving false impressions of reality. Pepper lists these examples of disinformation by CNN, stating that, "In the second half of the program, the disinformation ran rampant":

...[The] program notably failed to provide a motive as to why this escaped convict [James Earl Ray, King's alleged killer] would even consider [killing King]...

Pepper alleges CNN gave a false portrayal of James Earl Ray's background:

...[It] was hinted at by a reference of his refusal to go to a work farm attached to the Missouri prison because of the number of blacks in that facility. In fact, James was afraid of becoming tied into drug activity which was going on there and having his term extended. He would regularly roll dice with black co-workers when he worked in a shoe factory.

CNN misleadingly alleged that James Earl Ray was a bank robber, according to Pepper:

I don’t know the former detective they brought on camera, but closer to the time, 1978, I spoke with the president of the bank and the Chief of Police, and both told me that the Ray brothers had never been suspects, and in fact they believed that they knew who did the robbery, but did not have enough proof to charge them. Further, they confirmed that despite mainstream published reports they had never been interviewed by the Congressional investigators, the FBI or the reporting media’s investigative reporter.

CNN ignored the fact that ballistics proved the gun was not fired by James Earl Ray:

The failure to match the throw down rifle to the death slug became “inconclusive”. What does that mean? There was no ballistics match. The gun was not and could not be regarded as the murder weapon, and introduced into evidence as such. Yet it remains mounted in the Civil Rights Museum as precisely that; now with CNN’s blessing.

CNN ignored eyewitness testimony and other evidence:

We had four witnesses who saw figures in the bushes (one New York Times reporter, Earl Caldwell), two observed the shooter coming down over the wall, another (Reverend James Orange) saw smoke kicked up and rising from the bushes, and another who saw the owner of the Grill which backed on to the Lorraine Motel, rush, from the bushes, past her into his kitchen still carrying the smoking gun he took from the shooter. CNN converted all of this evidence into one “unreliable” witness. The next morning that crime scene was cut down and cleaned. The CNN report supported the official story that the shot came from the bathroom window. It was well known that we had a reliable witness who saw the bathroom door open, with the light on, minutes before the shooting, and no one inside. It was empty, of course, because the shot came from the bushes. A clip from a CBS interview with a roomer who saw someone running down the hall was cut off just before the reporter showed him a photo of James, and he said that was not the man he saw. The man carrying the throw down bundle of items James was told to leave in the room (which also contained the throw down gun) dropped them in a doorway and got into the second Mustang and drove away. We had a witness who identified that Mustang as having Arkansas plates. It was parked south of James’s Mustang.

CNN even ignored evidence that James Earl Ray was not at the crime scene:

We had two witnesses (one from the Corps of Engineers) and signed statements, evidencing that James drove away from the rooming house about 20 minutes before the shooting. All of this was known and put under oath, and ignored by CNN.

CNN even pretended that one of the witnesses was "dead" when Pepper mentioned him. He was not:

It gets worse. When, I suggested to the CNN reporter that they interview the Captain, he said he was dead. They obviously did not want me to speak with him.

The pattern of misleading statements and facts by CNN show a stunning example of disinformation; an attempt to deliberately misinform the public about the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Fahrenheit 9/11: Government Agent Infiltrates Peace Group

Jon Gold Interviewed At The NE 9/11 Truth Symposium - 5/17/2008

Emergency Official Witnessed Dead Bodies In WTC 7 on 9/11

From Prison Planet.com:

Exclusive video of emergency official Barry Jennings discussing explosions inside WTC 7 before either of the twin towers had collapsed and having to step over dead bodies of victims as he attempted to vacate the building has been released for the first time... what Jennings witnessed completely contradicts the official story of what happened to Building 7. On the morning of 9/11 in his capacity as Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority, Jennings and Michael Hess, who is a founding Partner and Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC, visited the Office of Emergency Management inside Building 7 only to find it had been abandoned...

"When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor," said Jennings. "The explosion was beneath me....so when the explosion happened it blew us back....both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing," he added. "I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I'm hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I'm hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in "total ruins". "For me to see what I saw was unbelievable," said Jennings... The firefighters kept saying to Jennings "do not look down" because, according to Jennings, "we were stepping over people and you can tell when you're stepping over people."

... Jennings' eyewitness report of explosions inside WTC 7 before the towers had collapsed as well as dead bodies inside the building completely contradicts the official story, which maintains that there were no fatalities inside Building 7.

Video: Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel Endorses NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative on Democracy Now - June 17, 2008

NYC 911 Ballot Initiative

Truth Revolution Radio, August 1, 2007: Truthmove, the General Strike, and Disinformation

Truth Revolution Radio, August 1, 2007: Truthmove, the General Strike, and Disinformation

Synopsis: "Julian and Max from truthmove.org are the guests and we discuss the upcoming General Strike on 9/11/2007, outreach to first responders and disinfo in the truth movement."

Listen: Mp3

Final segment on the topic of 9/11 disinformation
Transcript by Arabesque

Cosmos of Truthaction.org:

We've been talking with Julian and Max from truthmove.org... one thing that I've seen you guys have jumped head first into is the topic of disinformation of the truth movement. You guy guys have a pretty cool page on truthmove.org summarizing your thoughts on this. This is something that--I won't say it drives me crazy--it certainly can be infuriating. I know that they would like to drive all of us crazy with these disinfo shenanigans. Would you like to say any words on the topic of disinformation?

Max and Julian of Truthmove.org:

I think that people should definitely recognize the clear distinction between the rational critique that we offer one another, [which is] an engine for our own growth, and the kind of seething and derogatory rhetoric that we find from people who make it clear that they don't really have the same educational, positive priorities. The reason I say that is because I feel like people do make that mistake unfortunately; which is to say that the honest and logically based critique that we're going to offer ourselves in a movement in which facts, truth, and debate are very important factors--we shouldn't feel that's the same thing as identifying people who have very different priorities than the rest of us.

We have a summary page like all our pages on our site [where] we try to boil things down into the essential elements. We thought it was time to release a page on disinformation, trying to sum up the whole issue [as] concisely as possible. Some things we see as misinformation where [false information] is spread unintentionally and people genuinely believe it, and they're not trying to damage the movement--and other things may be disinformation, and that's where it's intentional. It's a divisive topic, but you really see within the reasonable core of the movement, there's not that much controversy over the 'whacko' stuff. And the speculation--is this going to be a movement about speculation, or facts?

Cosmos of Truthaction.org:

There's almost complete 100% consensus on certain areas and then there's this phenomenon that I'm just dying to talk about. You guys start you page on disinformation saying, 'This is a very sensitive topic' and indeed it is, because that is pretty much the whole point of intentional disinformation: to cause division, to exploit differences... It can be a very tricky thing to deal with.

Max and Julian of Truthmove.org:

You have to get back to your basic, fundamental priorities. There are certain things in this movement as you said that we can all agree on. When we focus on the things that we can agree on--certain basic priorities [and] facts, we find that we are able to work together. That should be a very important priority for us. But, when we find that people are promoting things that are outright fallacies--first of all we have to be willing to question it, but secondly, we have to be willing to ask these people, 'Do you have the same priorities as me? Why are you representing this information?' Because to me, that says that you are going after a different goal here. As Max said a second ago, speculation is an important part of our research community. Absolutely essential. When it comes to street activism and promoting the best that we have to offer, some of the things that end up on the cutting room floor don't weigh in with as much strength and we need to be willing to look at that candidly and we need to be able to ask one another, 'Why are you promoting this information?' I really feel like people need to recognize that if their position doesn't stand up to some degree of scrutiny that it may not be that strong. This is a debaters movement in some ways. We have to be willing to ask each other strong questions and be willing to make strong answers.

This is an issue that kind of strains your fortitude. Once you get into 9/11 you find out that there's sources you can't trust and you start doubting everything, and you think everyone's an agent... it's something that you really have to dedicate yourself to facing and to trust your instincts in some ways. People have called us disinformation, or people have called us agents [like] 'Killtown'. People say that we're promoting lies on our site because we're not into 'no planes' [theories] or because we promote environmental issues. It's really up to people and we think it's clear that you can tell who is genuine about this and who is trying to manipulate you, [and] who is genuinely interested in a unified social quest for the truth.

Cosmos of Truthaction.org:

Indeed. The idea that's really interesting me right now... I'll try to do this without naming names--but the idea of the 'sane moderate'; the person inserted perhaps to keep those who have been kind of further and further to the fringe of the movement because people recognize that what they are promoting is flat out bollocks, trash, [and] discredited information--but they are kind of kept in the picture by certain people who don't promote these ideas that much on the surface, but keep these other characters involved. And then there comes a time when this supposedly 'sane moderate' flips and reveals that they too are really promoting these [discredited] ideas. I'm just bringing it up because it pisses me the hell off--I'm just sick of seeing it.

Max and Julian of Truthmove.org:

We're dealing with a really sophisticated campaign here. We [should] expect nothing less from these people. I'm sure they know how to insert an agent that we cannot pick out easily that doesn't promote the crazy stuff [and] seems just as authentic as a real 'truther'. But, you gotta wonder in the way people forward the movement or the way they sabotage it. Sometimes those [editor: possibly posing as] crazy people promoting the towers were hit by holograms could just be a distraction from the more subtle agent[s].

Cosmos of Truthaction.org:

Indeed. People will say at certain times, 'The topic of disinformation is a distraction'--I'm afraid it's not because the whole issue that we're dealing with; 9/11 and the promotion of the lie, the mythology of 9/11 is at heart disinformation. The whole thing really is like a huge COINTELPRO operation writ large. So it really is the tactics, the methods at the heart of this myth [about 9/11] really are disinformation. So it kind of goes hand in hand.

Max and Julian of Truthmove.org:

Shouldn't we expect that these people who you are suggesting have perpetrated this incredible disinformation campaign [about 9/11] would not have anticipated the aftermath of 9/11 in our culture and community?

Cosmos of Truthaction.org:

It seems that they did, and it seems that they inserted key people right in there from the beginning.

Relevant links:
Truthmove.org
Truthaction.org

Truthmove.org Disinformation Page
Truthmove: 2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
Truthaction: Mission Statement and Guiding Principles

JFK, Noam Chomsky, and the Straw-man debate about Vietnam Withdrawl

Noam Chomsky has often been criticized for some of his positions regarding the JFK assassination and 9/11. I came across this interesting critique by Michael Morrissey in an open letter addressed to Chomsky and others.

"It might interest you to know that I tried, in the course of a long and intensive correspondence with Chomsky (before Rethinking Camelot came out), to get him to state his position [about US policy towards Vietnam after the JFK assassination] as follows: JFK's withdrawal plan was reversed, after the assassination, because the assessment of the military situation was reversed (also after the assassination). This is in fact his position, but you will see that in his book, as in his letters to me, he refuses to put it this way because he is so determined to make the truly specious argument that "there was no withdrawal policy." The reason is obvious to me, and I told him so: Once you admit that there was a radical policy change immediately after the assassination (exactly when doesn't matter), you must deal with the question of the possible relation between the two events... That means you are automatically involved in "conspiracy theory," which is anathema to Chomsky (and others like Alexander Cockburn and the late I.F. Stone) for I suppose ideological or psychological reasons. The other alternative is to admit the withdrawal policy reversal but deny any relation to the assassination, as Arthur Schlesinger does. This is naive and irrational, as Schlesinger's hysterical condemnation of the Stone film amply demonstrates. Chomsky does not want to appear naive and irrational, so he has manufactured a tortuous and false argument that there was never a withdrawal policy ("without victory") in the first place.

Chomsky's argument is false because Newman's thesis (that JFK was secretly
planning to withdraw regardless of the military situation) is 1) speculative, as
Chomsky correctly says, and 2) unnecessary to establish the fact that
the policy was reversed after the assassination, as Chomsky fails to
realize. This is why I say it is a false debate–because it is about 1), not 2). The irony is that Chomsky's clear presentation of the facts regarding 2), as opposed to Newman's, supports a conspiracy view of the assassination. It is enough to say that two days after the assassination the CIA and other intelligence agencies began to reverse their assessment of the military situation–retrospectively, dating the deterioration from July–and hence to reverse the withdrawal policy. Chomsky says this (without using the term "withdrawal policy," which he refuses to use the way everyone else uses it)–not Newman. We do not need any secret intentions of JFK to pose the question of the relation between the assassination and Vietnam policy. All we need to do is establish what actually happened, according to the documentary record. What happened is that JFK was killed, and two days later the CIA et al. suddenly realized they had been losing the war for the past five months, and the appropriate policy change was made. This may have been pure coincidence (as Chomsky and Schlesinger both assume, Chomsky tacitly and Schlesinger explicitly), but once the facts are stated clearly, they reek of conspiracy."

In a letter to Chomsky, Morrissey makes the point that:

The false debate is about what was going on in Kennedy's head before it exploded on that fateful day in Dallas. It is about what he might or might not have secretly intended to do in Vietnam, and what he might or might not have done if he had lived. There is no answer to these questions, and there never will be, no matter how many additional documents are declassified or memoirs are written... Once you admit that there was a radical policy change in the months following the assassination, whether that change was a reaction to a (presumed) change in conditions or not, you must ask if the change was related to the assassination, unless you are a fool. Then, like it or not, you are into conspiracy theory… ["Chomsky on JFK and Vietnam"]

This is the real debate, the one I was trying in vain to engage Chomsky in. Forget policy. There was a change. A radical change. A reversal of something, whether you want to call it policy, tactics, or assessment. What was the connection, if any, between that change, that immediate and radical change, and the assassination?

This is the question which, I submit, Chomsky and everyone else have been avoiding for the past 15 years.

In Noam Chomsky's words, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

William Pepper on the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative and 9/11 Lawsuits in the works

Source: 911blogger

Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson Honors Blair Gadsby & Brings 9/11 Truth to the Arizona State Senate - June 10, 2008

From Reprehensor on 911 blogger:

"...in particular, I would like to introduce to you a very courageous man named Blair Gadsby. I'm going to ask the folks with Blair to help him stand, as I tell you just a little bit about him. Blair is very weak, because he has been fasting for more than two weeks to try to bring attention to the cause of 9/11 Truth. This is the 16th day that Blair has gone without food, and spent his day outside the office of U.S. Senator John McCain, pleading with the Senator to take a look at new evidence of the 9/11 crimes.

We have one man here, who is sacrificing his own personal needs and desires, to stand boldly, pleading for the world to take notice, to question, to research, and not place their lives in the hands of media sound bites. To think for themselves, consciously and critically.

Blair is an educator, and to me this is what great educators do. Thousands of people all over the country, and actually, around the world have been watching on the internet as this hunger strike progresses here in Phoenix. I want Blair to know that I am one of his biggest fans, and that good people everywhere admire him for his courage and determination. Please give a warm welcome to Blair Gadsby and the 9/11 Truth movement."

- Senator Karen Johnson, June 10, 2008.

Michael Parenti: Conspiracy Phobia on the Left

From an article by Michael Parenti: THE JFK ASSASSINATION II: CONSPIRACY PHOBIA ON THE LEFT

It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for
any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in
your approach to politics or a "conspiracist" who reduces historical
developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us
to lose sight of the larger systemic forces. As Chomsky notes: "However
unpleasant and difficult it may be, there is no escape from the need to confront
the reality of institutions and the policies and actions they largely shape." (Z
Magazine, 10/92).

I trust that one of the institutions he has in mind is
the CIA. In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a
conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of
the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the
same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security
state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.

... Left publications have given much attention to conspiracies
such as Watergate, the FBI Cointelpro, Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, CIA
drugs-for-guns trade, BCCI, and savings-and-loans scandals. It is never
explained why these conspiracies are important while the FJK assassination is
not. Chip Berlet repeatedly denounces conspiracy investigations while himself
spending a good deal of time investigating Lyndon LaRouche's fraudulent
financial dealings, conspiracies for which LaRouche went to
prison. Berlet never explains why the LaRouche conspiracy is a subject
worthy of investigation but not the JFK conspiracy.

G. William Domhoff points out: "If 'conspiracy' means that these [ruling class] men are aware of their interests, know each other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate and react to events and issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in CFR [the Council for Foreign Relations], not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency." After providing this useful description of institutional conspiracy, Domhoff then conjures up a caricature that often clouds the issue: "We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there's some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world." Conspiracy theories "encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world."

To this simplistic notion Peter Dale Scott responds: "I believe that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed." In sum, national security state conspiracies are components of our political structure, not deviations from it.