It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Attempt to smear Steven Jones by a CIA Fake

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
A little while ago I came across a website called "The CIA Fakes" which purported to expose disinfo planted by the CIA. Of course, I was very keen to take a look but was surprised when many of the supposedly fake sites turned out to be sources I know and have learned to trust.

I started this thread about it, The author of the website turned up to defend himself. You may judge for yourselves whether he made any kind of fist of it.

Anyway... it may have been there for a while but I've just noticed a link to this page in which Dunne claims to expose Stephen Jones as a CIA fake.

Here's the thing. There's never any actual information there, it's all innuendo. If anyone can scour the links I've given and come up with any actual evidence that might suggest Jones was a plant, I shall take my hat off to you. But the thesis is that Stven Jones was


Cold Fusion's CIA Mole


And that therefore anything he says has to be treated with suspicion.

However, when you look at the article, all that's there is the fact that Jones was interested in cold fusion at the same time as the two guys who went public with it, but didn't reproduce the results.

If there were any doubt that Dunne is CIA-backed, it's been dispelled completely as far as I'm concerned.




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Yeah, I remember that thread. And while some of his points and arguments were valid, some were mere speculation.

I agree that there are numerous sites that spread disinfo, thought whether or not they do so knowingly is a matter of debate. For example, I have always believed that some of the wilder 9/11 theories were specifically planted and disseminated by the government ops to muddy the waters and cast a pall of lunacy upon truth seeking. They succeeded, because a lot of the truth movement has been eating up these tidbits thrown and helping to foster and spread such things, many under the belief they are doing so to awaken truth.

However, in the case of Steven Jones, I haven't come across anything on the net that would suggest he is. I need more than innuendo to fully consider that one.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
They succeeded, because a lot of the truth movement has been eating up these tidbits thrown and helping to foster and spread such things, many under the belief they are doing so to awaken truth.


I'd put the NPT people under that heading. I think it's disinfo to divide the movement and make it look ludicrous. It's no surprise to find Dunne and Fetzer supporting the NPT.

Dunne, however, is adamant that the "shadow government" of the US had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the real culprit is the G8. There doesn't seem to be a lot of actual evidence for that, though, and his thing with the CIA fakes is to try to smear sources of actual evidence. And of course it diverts attention from the real perps in the US.


However, in the case of Steven Jones, I haven't come across anything on the net that would suggest he is. I need more than innuendo to fully consider that one.


I think Jones is a threat to TPTB because he's charming and articulate and his science adds up. That's why the smear. As I say I couldn't find even the tiniest tidbit of actual evidence against him. it's all smear.

And yes, there's nothing more than innuendo. It's crude smear tactics.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I'd put the NPT people under that heading. I think it's disinfo to divide the movement and make it look ludicrous. It's no surprise to find Dunne and Fetzer supporting the NPT.


I agree. In fact, the NPT was the main one I was referring too, as that's the biggest one, and perhaps the one that really derailed large scale acceptance of 9/11 truth efforts.


Dunne, however, is adamant that the "shadow government" of the US had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the real culprit is the G8. There doesn't seem to be a lot of actual evidence for that, though, and his thing with the CIA fakes is to try to smear sources of actual evidence. And of course it diverts attention from the real perps in the US.


I found his blaming of the G8 to be...nonsensically amusing. Where he pulled that one out, I have no idea. First off, a quick glance at the G8 members show countries that had absolutely nothing to gain from 9/11, and no real connections in the scheme of things. And all of the G8 countries have intelligence agencies that were giving warnings to the U.S.

My theory is that elements in the U.S., Israeli, Saudi Arabian, and Pakistani governments were the ones involved in different capacities and different purposes. Except for the U.S., none of the are G8 countries.



I think Jones is a threat to TPTB because he's charming and articulate and his science adds up. That's why the smear. As I say I couldn't find even the tiniest tidbit of actual evidence against him. it's all smear.

And yes, there's nothing more than innuendo. It's crude smear tactics.


True. Though I've found that there are individuals motivated by personal agenda, ego, or a lapsed grasp on reality also engage in smearing and disruptive tactics.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
My theory is that elements in the U.S., Israeli, Saudi Arabian, and Pakistani governments were the ones involved in different capacities and different purposes. Except for the U.S., none of the are G8 countries.


There is actual evidence linking each of these countries to 9/11. Dunne provides none at all for his insinuations other than innuendo.


True. Though I've found that there are individuals motivated by personal agenda, ego, or a lapsed grasp on reality also engage in smearing and disruptive tactics.


Indeed. Could Dunne be such an individual? It just seems a bit too coincidental that everyone he attacks has (it seems to me) either a good take on 9/11 or, more crucially, has important corroboration of highly inconvenient facts.

When you look closely at the mental gymnastics Dunne has to go through to try and make his smears work, it's difficult for me at least to believe he's sincere.

I've been listening to his broadcast on Steven Jones. It's difficult as I find even Dunne's voice repellent and oleaginous, and the rehtorical tricks he uses are transparent and nauseating. There's one he uses quite a lot, in which he states as fact something we might want to verify independently, and then in a very (ahem) conspiratiorial tone he';; say, "well you know and I know that... did the man in the street know that? Of course not..."

(Nod, wink... we know about this stuff because we're clever. How nice... makes you feel like a real insider.

And for someone who claims to understand the mechanism of cold fusion (which, from my passing acquaintance of the subject, would put him well ahead of any of the actual scientists working in the field) he makes some very elementary mistakes: for instance at one point he says, "deuterium... which is heavy water", which is pretty inexcusable.

He also characterises all the research into "hot" fusion as a deliberate waste of time because TPTB knew about cold fusion since the twenties. Naturally no real evidence is given for this.

The sum total of his "evidence" is that Jones was working in a much more conventional arena than Fleischman and Pons, didn't produce enough energy from his experiments to make commercial applications worthwhile, and had the temerity to say as much.

EVERYTHING else is innuendo.

Crucially, Dunne never even mentions the possibility that Jones might have been put into position without his knowledge. No, he MUST have been a CIA mole who knew exactly what he was doing. By not even considering other possibilities Dunne marks himself out either as being inexcusably sloppy or disingenuous. I'm going with disingenuous.

And of course he ignores the sheer number of different laboratories that tried to replicate the Fleischman/Pons results and couldn't. They would all have had to be controlled and that's looking pretty unlikely, to me at any rate.

Now I've been looking for evidence that there's been interference in the cold fusion field, which actually I'd expect to find as I'm one of those people who definitely thinks there are suppressed technologies. I'm having trouble finding any evidence at all. There are people who theorise about it, naturally, but the closer I look it just seems like a normal scientific debate running its course. God knows that can be rancorous enough...

But it turns out that research has been continuing anyway, and here's the thing that makes me doubt the possibility of a USG-led campaign to discredit it:


... Now Pamela Mosier-Boss and colleagues at the Space and Naval warfare Systems Command in San Diego, California, are claiming to have found "significant" evidence of cold fustion.


Sorry I can't link the source, the article doesn't seem to be online (although you can find correspondence about it): but it's from an article called "Many Happy Returns For Cold Fusion" from New Scientist, 28 March 2009.

But what we have here is scientists from a cutting-edge government laboratory saying they've basically reproduced Fleischman and Pons' work, to some extent.

If the USG were really interested in debunking CF, that work would never have gone ahead and the report would never have seen the light of day. If you think the effort to suppress CF is real, then the publication of this report... well, it's as if Groom Lake scientists suddenly went public about antigravity.

No, to me the agenda is clear: Jones is making real headway with the Thermite thing now, and even at the time Dunne put this little smear in place, was emerging as a rather more plausible face of 9/11 truth than Dunne's choleric mate Fetzer.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Just noticed this...


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yeah, I remember that thread. And while some of his points and arguments were valid, some were mere speculation.


Look, it's really unfair to ask so long after the event but can you tell me which points he raised that you thought were valid?

Successful disinfo, as I'm sure you know, has to have some truth mixed in, of course.

I have to admit, I dislike this guy with an intensity that's verging on the irrational, so I don't want to be blinding myself to sensible comment just because he's making it.

But perhaps because my parents were Irish (I was born and brought up in the UK) I find his voice really, really annoying. I'm kind of appalled that an Irishman should be doing this kind of dirty work. And he's trashing the reputations of people whose shoes he's not fit to lick, many of whom I happen to admire for some combination of courage and intellectual integrity, neither of which qualities he possesses in any significant measure. Grrrr.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


In regards to the points that were valid, I was simply referring to his statements that the CIA/FBI do engage in truth obscuring through deliberate disinformation and ridiculous theories being seeded, and infiltration of 9/11 conspiracy speculation with deliberate red herrings. That was pretty much it.

never listened to his recording, just read the crap on his site. Like alot of others who enjoy making a buttload of noise and pushing far out theories and bash anyone who disagrees, my guess is that he is a sad little man who wants to be special and look important, stand out.

there is alot of that in the truth movement, which is one reason I decided to not really associate myself with any one group.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
There is actual evidence linking each of these countries to 9/11. Dunne provides none at all for his insinuations other than innuendo.


100% agreement here on all fronts. Insinuation and innuendo don't cut it for me.


Indeed. Could Dunne be such an individual? It just seems a bit too coincidental that everyone he attacks has (it seems to me) either a good take on 9/11 or, more crucially, has important corroboration of highly inconvenient facts.


Yes, I think it very possible. As I said before, there are a lot of conspiracists who like to make alot of noise and bash any credible, verifiable research on 9/11 because it makes them feel smart and superior. Little men with big mouths that spew little more than hot air.


When you look closely at the mental gymnastics Dunne has to go through to try and make his smears work, it's difficult for me at least to believe he's sincere.


Either that, or he's bordering on some major mental illness.


I've been listening to his broadcast on Steven Jones. It's difficult as I find even Dunne's voice repellent and oleaginous, and the rehtorical tricks he uses are transparent and nauseating. There's one he uses quite a lot, in which he states as fact something we might want to verify independently, and then in a very (ahem) conspiratiorial tone he';; say, "well you know and I know that... did the man in the street know that? Of course not..."

(Nod, wink... we know about this stuff because we're clever. How nice... makes you feel like a real insider.


Actually, it doesn't surprise me. After spending the past 6 years exploring and examining a lot of 9/11 data and various theories/websites, I find that this tone/tactic is almost always used by the most fanatical, yet dubious, of 9/11 "truth" sites. A good site presents evidence, points out contradictions, anomalies, and suspicious data from CREDIBLE, verifiable sources, offers up possibilities why it makes no sense, but ultimately, leaves the question for the reader open, to do their own digging and form their own opinion.


And for someone who claims to understand the mechanism of cold fusion (which, from my passing acquaintance of the subject, would put him well ahead of any of the actual scientists working in the field) he makes some very elementary mistakes: for instance at one point he says, "deuterium... which is heavy water", which is pretty inexcusable.


he said THAT? Someone needs to send this idiot a copy of the periodic table....


He also characterises all the research into "hot" fusion as a deliberate waste of time because TPTB knew about cold fusion since the twenties. Naturally no real evidence is given for this.


The twenties? Scientists back then were still wracking their brains in an effort to harness FISSION, a much cruder process. Hot Fusion didn't even become an explorable possibility until the 40's. Sounds like this guy doesn't just wear a tinfoil hat, he sleeps in a tinfoil lined hyperbolic chamber.


The sum total of his "evidence" is that Jones was working in a much more conventional arena than Fleischman and Pons, didn't produce enough energy from his experiments to make commercial applications worthwhile, and had the temerity to say as much.

EVERYTHING else is innuendo.


***shakes head in dismay*** I never read that far, because the frontpage BS was simply too much. That's his reasoning? Because Jones did not find a workable, feasible solution for cold fusion, so he's really a CIA plant?


Crucially, Dunne never even mentions the possibility that Jones might have been put into position without his knowledge. No, he MUST have been a CIA mole who knew exactly what he was doing. By not even considering other possibilities Dunne marks himself out either as being inexcusably sloppy or disingenuous. I'm going with disingenuous.


I say he's a combination of both. And possibly a sad little nutter.


And of course he ignores the sheer number of different laboratories that tried to replicate the Fleischman/Pons results and couldn't. They would all have had to be controlled and that's looking pretty unlikely, to me at any rate.


To you and me and anyone with common sense and a healthy grip on reality, yes. But remember, there are people who believe 9/11 was all holograms and bombs, and that the entire world's media and the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers and folks in DC were all government plants.


Now I've been looking for evidence that there's been interference in the cold fusion field, which actually I'd expect to find as I'm one of those people who definitely thinks there are suppressed technologies. I'm having trouble finding any evidence at all. There are people who theorise about it, naturally, but the closer I look it just seems like a normal scientific debate running its course. God knows that can be rancorous enough...


I believe there are suppressed technologies as well. But cold fusion, I believe it's a case of a technology too far advanced for us to totally make it functional now, but one that could become reality as time and scientific knowledge/mastery progress.


But it turns out that research has been continuing anyway, and here's the thing that makes me doubt the possibility of a USG-led campaign to discredit it:


I personally think that cold fusion research is continuing in earnest in top secret research centers. They might not be anywhere near actually making it successful, but I think they are certainly very interested in it.



... Now Pamela Mosier-Boss and colleagues at the Space and Naval warfare Systems Command in San Diego, California, are claiming to have found "significant" evidence of cold fustion.


Sorry I can't link the source, the article doesn't seem to be online (although you can find correspondence about it): but it's from an article called "Many Happy Returns For Cold Fusion" from New Scientist, 28 March 2009.

But what we have here is scientists from a cutting-edge government laboratory saying they've basically reproduced Fleischman and Pons' work, to some extent.


Possibly. And yet the government isn't trying to suppress it. Maybe they found a solution that Jones overlooked. It's possible.


If the USG were really interested in debunking CF, that work would never have gone ahead and the report would never have seen the light of day. If you think the effort to suppress CF is real, then the publication of this report... well, it's as if Groom Lake scientists suddenly went public about antigravity.

No, to me the agenda is clear: Jones is making real headway with the Thermite thing now, and even at the time Dunne put this little smear in place, was emerging as a rather more plausible face of 9/11 truth than Dunne's choleric mate Fetzer.


Argh. Fetzer. It's a real shame. Jones is one of the few coherent, credible voices for 9/11 suspicion, yet clowns like Fetzer and Huffschmidt make more noise.

the thermite thing is becoming more and more difficult to ignore. Jones is being vindicated by several scientists, such as the Danish fellow, who are finding proof and backing up his own findings. Little men can't handle things like that, they want to feel SPESHUL. Methinks that's Dunne's problem. maybe his mom didn't spend enough time potty training him.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join