dvorak_0Last week, WhoWhatWhy’s Russ Baker deconstructed the widely reported assertion that muckraking journalist Michael Hastings’s remains were cremated without his family’s authorization after Hastings died June 18 in a puzzling one-car crash in Los Angeles.

Not true, the family said. They had, in fact, requested the cremation.

Baker tracked the error to Kimberly Dvorak, who has enjoyed a media star turn while reporting the Hastings story for a television station, San Diego 6. Dvorak didn’t want to talk about her goof, so Baker turned to her likely source, a family friend named Joe Biggs. He says Dvorak got the cremation anecdote all wrong—and that he’s still waiting for a correction.

The progressive journal Mother Jones, known to its admirers as Mojo, has now picked up WhoWhatWhy’s reporting thread in a mini-profile of Dvorak, a freelancer whom San Diego 6 identifies as an investigative journalist. Her primary gig seems to be as “national homeland security correspondent” for Examiner.com, the Denver-based web hodgepodge owned by the energy, media and entertainment mogul Philip Anschutz, a longtime funder of right-wing causes.

After noting that “veteran journalist Russ Baker dispelled the myth [of the unauthorized cremation] on his news site WhoWhatWhy,” Mojo’s Gavin Aronsen went on to write that much of Dvorak’s other reporting on the Hastings story has been “just as questionable.”

Her apparent sloppiness didn’t stop Dvorak from pontificating on the abysmal state of the media—presumably including herself in the critique. She implicitly poohpoohed the very process of vetting claims that is what reporting is all about, telling Aronsen, “Journalists are becoming so irrelevant right now.”

The irony seemed unintended.

[box]WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

GRAPHIC: http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_12/dvorak_0.png

91 responses to “Consider the Source: Mojo Cites ‘Questionable’ Reporting on Hastings Wreck”

  1. Frank von Winkhorst says:

    This is character assassination carried out by the intelligence services who murdered Hastings. Why WhoWhatWhy is helping to stoke the fire is beyond me.

  2. TRUTH says:

    This site is a cointellpro special folks. This woman has been INVALUABLE to this investigation and should be celebrated for her courage. I dont know who this Russ Baker-fake-investigator is but everything i’ve senn as an amateaur veteran investigator for the past 20 some years tells me this site is a gatekeeper. Meant to show us just how far we should go,but no further.

    The very fact that THIS is the subject of their “top” story should tell you something.

    This site is spook city.

    • SO says:

      Yep. Truth.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      He’s still alive isn’t he? No car bombs for this guy.

    • SO says:

      Hastings? I don’t know. I think he’s dead. But it could all be a charade. I’m assuming, now, that he really is dead, unless they just like playing with us to keep us busy. Maybe they just don’t want us to notice that it was they who gassed the Syrians, and not Assad. I’m assuming, now, that Syrians really were gassed.

    • SO says:

      O, you mean Russ Baker. Nevermind.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Sorry about the over use of pronouns. But yeah, Baker has nothing to worry about, as long as he toes the official alternate line.

  3. olballcoach says:

    Medical report was released today – what a surprise.

    • SO says:

      Right at the beginning they push the drug angle, saying family was in town to get him into detox. But, the toxicology report says trace of amphetamines and Marijuana metabolites, all other drugs negative, meaning that he wasn’t on drugs when he crashed. Some people who do stimulants will crash because they fall asleep for lack of drugs, but they probably won’t be driving at a high rate of speed if they are sleepy. Speeding would more likely occur while stimulated. The report also bears out the observation of the witness on the Alex Jones interview, that the head was burned, but not the arms, or at least one of the arms. The left side was burned more, supporting my idea of a fire bomb in the door, but also the left foot, which means fire was also below.

      I suppose it is plausible that the two brothers, the “family” who had come to town to get Hastings into detox, were acting without the wife’s knowledge, and that finding out about that is what caused her change in attitude.

    • SO says:

      The brother mentioned in the medical report says that he left Hastings at Hastings’ residence at 12:30 to 1:00 AM because Hastings had “passed out.” The term implies that he had been doing drugs before “passing out,” so the official story can have him whacked out at the time of the Biggs email, explaining his “paranoia” about the FBI.

      All of this could be true, and he still could have been murdered. In fact, an ex-druggie could be lured back into the habit as part of a murder plan. Too bad we can’t question the witness, but that’s not the way it works.

    • same ass says:

      It’s been my experience that “meth addicts” seldom “pass out”. It’s easy to avoid, unless you are out of meth.
      Was Hastings “ADHD”?

    • olballcoach says:

      I know it’s only the medical report, but you have to admire the gall of the coroner to stick to the official narrative and allege that after climbing the median strip the vehicle hit the palm “head on” against obvious visual evidence to the contrary. Can’t wait to see how they explain the “immaculate ejection.” I wonder if we will be asked to suspend belief in the laws of phyisics and accept their findings on faith.

  4. N. Furthermore says:

    There are legitimate concerns about some of Dvorak’s reporting, but they should not distract from the larger point.

    There has been an obvious and disturbing trend of harassment, investigation, prosecution, and intimidation of journalists – freelancer Barrett Brown, the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, Sharyl Attkisson at CBS, James Rosen at Fox, James Risen at the NY Times, A USA Today editor and reporter smeared by an intelligence contractor, the AP phone records being monitored, the White House arranging to have a Yemeni journalist kept in jail for exposing the U.S. cover-up of a missile strike in 2009, etc.

    Given that context, Hastings’ death – whether innocent or not – is surrounded by enough reasonably suspicious aspects that it should be aggressively investigated by the mainstream press; yet that is not being done.

    The major news agencies with the assets to properly investigate the case seem to have no interest. Whether that is just laziness or incompetence or something darker, it’s disturbing – especially given the current police state inclinations of the government (domestic spying, drone strikes, militarization of police forces, etc.).

    You can view an archive of related articles if you search “FightGangStalking”

  5. SO says:

    I think Russ Baker should explain page 46 of “Family Of Secrets.” What’s wrong with thinking that? He edited a quotation from a Beschloss book, making it appear that LBJ was relating the story of how he blackmailed Earl Warren, when the original quotation makes it clear that he wasn’t saying that at all. Is this the guy we are supposed to trust to tell us what we don’t know? I’m sure there is an innocent explanation, and I think that we should hear it.

    • harris says:

      oh wow, is that right? im fascinated. having just finished ‘family of secrets’, i realize that page 46 is the only one i marked up, and have shown to others. please elaborate on the original quotation. thanks!

    • SO says:

      According to Baker’s notes, he is quoting Michael Beschloss’s book, “Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes: 1963-1964,” page 72. I don’t own the book, but I did check it out at the library, and what Beschloss wrote is what you can hear for yourself on the LBJ YouTube channel here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSKJBzdhY7k . LBJ starts telling the story at 16:37. It is absolutely clear that he is not saying what the Baker edit implies. If Russ Baker wrote his own book, it poses serious questions about his credibility. If he didn’t write his own book, well…It has to be intentional, but why? I don’t see that it serves any purpose but to slander LBJ very transparently. The only explanation I can come up with is that it is a poison pill planted in the book to poison Baker’s credibility, but I still don’t know why. And, Bill Moyers, who would certainly catch onto this, unless he’s senile, apparently wrote praise for the book. I’m befuddled and baffled and all the rest. It can only be a poison pill. How can that make sense?

    • harris says:

      yes, misleading edit. but still, what’s on about the incident in mexico city?!

    • SO says:

      That was Oswald’s supposed visit to the Cuban Consulate and Russian Embassy in Mexico City.

    • j says:

      What’s the evidence that the Mexico City reference is Oswald’s supposed
      visit there? I know he’s supposed to have gone to Mexico City but is
      there actually any evidence linking LBJ’s Mexico City reference to this
      or is it mere speculation because it’s the same name place? Likewize, is
      there any evidence that Hoover mentioned this to LBJ on the same day as
      LBJ seemingly admits to threatening Warren? If not then to me it reads
      much more like Warren got up to something nefarious down in Mexico City once upon
      a time and Hoover knew about it, possibility something sexual, although I admit
      that’s pure speculation. Thanks in advance for response.

    • SO says:

      It was Oswald’s visit to Mexico City. If you don’t believe me, then do some research. That’s what it was. I don’t have to prove it. Anybody who knows anything about the JFK assassination knows that LBJ used the Oswald visit to push for a whitewash to avoid WW3 and “40 million Americans killed.” Look it up.

    • j says:

      Intriguing. Touched a nerve there. I merely asked, politely, for evidence. No demand to prove anything. “Look it up” doesn’t really suffice and is hardly helpful. I take it from your touchy response that you have no evidence linking LBJ’s telephone reference to Oswald’s visit to Mexico City? Shame, I was hoping to learn something, not get attacked for probing into what now seems clear is speculation masquerading as fact.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      There is actually a photograph of someone claiming to be Oswald from FBI surveillance of the Russian embassy of someone who is clearly not L H Oswald.

    • gogetem1 says:

      Yes, I’ve heard vaguely that Oswald maybe had a double, but I haven’t really looked into that angle yet.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      “Anybody who knows anything about the JFK assassination” knows that Oswald’s manufactured presence in Mexico City was supposed to have been the trigger for an American invasion of Cuba. It has become increasingly clear in the last few years that the Kennedy assassination was revision A of Operation Northwoods.

    • j says:

      I too was intrigued and amazed by this particular quote in Family of Secrets and showed it to others. When one person questioned its authenticity I looked it up. I think Russ should have included the full quote and then given us his take on it, which, if like mine, might be that it sounds like LBJ slips in a pretty clear message that he bribed Warren to head the commission, then, after quickly flashing his true colors, downplays it with a bit of softly softly patriotic speak despite his overall implied meaning being clear and still hanging in the air – a bit like someone threatening a person with discreet references to an “unfortunate accident” or “I do hope your family remain well,” then changing the subject to something cordial. Ostensibly and taken literally it’s all above board but the recipient knows full well what’s really being said. The comment about Mexico is the clear threat, the next bit is the understated downplay.

      Here is a rather nice and comical example:


    • SO says:

      I see what you are saying, and I suppose that if Baker did not know of Oswald’s Mexico trip and that Hoover had discussed this with LBJ on the phone earlier that day, that it might be plausible that he might have taken it that way, but if so, it is very shoddy work.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Hoover actually managed to figure out later on that Oswald was never in Mexico City. The man wasn’t a complete idiot.

    • harris says:

      that is HILARIOUS! so glad i watched until the end, as well. thanks for sharing the clip, and the reply….

    • gogetem1 says:

      I’ve got the quote from Family of Secrets right in front of me and I don’t believe it is taking what LBJ said out of context. The only line in Baker’s quote that I can see that LBJ didn’t say on the tape is: “Warren told me he wouldn’t do it under any circumstances…”. But this might have been a little paraphrasing of what Johnson is saying to Russell because that’s exacly what happened. Warren turned RFK down and originally turned Johnson down until he mentioned that “little incident in Mexico City” that Hoover had over Warren. So, it certainly looks like to me that Hoover, by way of Johnson, was blackmailing Warren into heading the Commission. Yes, the quote was edited but it doesn’t look like the context was altered: Johnson was just relaying the blackmailing story to Russell.

    • gogetem1 says:

      I don’t know if LBJ knew what role Oswald was playing, but if the “little incident in Mexico City” is about the defection of Oswald to the Soviet Union, then Johnson, at the very least, was persuading Warren to cover all of this up in the Commission.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      There’s really no solid evidence that Oswald was anywhere near Mexico City, and some pretty good evidence that he was somewhere that would have precluded him from getting there when he was supposed to have been there. Again, this has all been hashed out decades ago and the whole pretend revelations of Baker are just so much fake creme filling, the kind you find in donuts.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Am I missing something, or was the point of the original comment that Russ Baker makes mistakes too, and that this doesn’t necessarily destroy his credibility?

  6. Cecil Mills says:

    Uh oh. Having been away from here awhile I now see that this site too has begun de-evolving into just another middling stop on the hijacking of discourse known as The Internet. Too bad, Russ once held some promise to smash the paradigm. It was fun while it lasted though.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      I suspect that he simply doesn’t comprehend the extent of the corruption that has overtaken the U.S. in recent years. I am reminded of Elon Musk’s surprise that the automobile dealers assoc. of Texas would ram thru a bill preventing him from selling cars in shopping malls.

  7. SO says:

    “In Stephen King’s 1980 novel Firestarter, the protagonist chooses Rolling Stone as an unbiased independent media source, through which she can expose the government agency hunting her. However, in the film adaptation, the protagonist chooses The New York Times.”
    Some of the media sources involved in this story seem to hover in a grey area of cultural authoritativeness. They are not the New York Times. The original story that got things started was in Rolling Stone, which is MSM cool, and certainly something that the general public need not take too seriously. Dvorak seems to be a lightweight, easily discredited, as this story proves. And Russ Baker has his own issues. There’s a whole lotta plausible deniability swirling around the Hastings saga, on all sides.

    • SO says:

      There’s a lovely blurb on the back cover of My copy of “Family Of Secrets.”

      “Russ Baker’s work stands out for it’s fierce independence, fact-based reporting, and concern for what matters most to our democracy…A lot of us look to Russ to tell us what we didn’t know.”

      Bill Moyers said that, apparently. Among other things, Bill Moyers worked as LBJ’s press secretary from 1965 to 1967. One might suppose that Moyers knows a thing or two about LBJ, and that Moyers had read page 46 before he wrote his pean. One might expect that Moyers must have noticed that. Was Russ just telling Bill something he didn’t know? Was it fact-based? Funny, I don’t see any quotations from Michael Beschloss on the back cover.

  8. notalent says:

    Maybe Biggs wasn’t her source. She’s a stoolie for Fuhrers Favorite Natio…er, that is “National Homeland Security Correspondent”, right? She gets fed some lie from the machine which she repeats from out of nowhere…it’s almost perfect disinformation. It’s vaguely plausible and it distracts everyone who was interested in any deeper stories. Or it could just be lazy “journalism” and the nitwits at the broadcast affiliate just hire simpleton lackwits to correspond with DHS.

  9. SO says:

    Assuming Biggs is accurate, then Dvorak deserves this spanking…but, let’s not pretend that this means anything more than it does. Dvorak is not the story. The fact that she is sloppy and wreckless, if this is a fact, does not mean that Michael Hastings was running red lights at 80 mph and accidentally smashing up his car. Especially if Biggs is accurate.

    • olballcoach says:

      Sorry if I wasnt clear enough – “whats her name” is not the story – but what the comments on MOJO clearly shout from the roof tops is that there is little if any real investigative journalism going on regarding Hastings – even if she is the only game in town – and its suspect – at least it is going on. The rest of the MSM seems to focusing on all of us nutballs who want to know our government isnt taking journalists on a whim.
      Given what is breaking in the larger scheme of things – we better be making damn sure our government is not silencing its’ critics in the fourth estate – otherwise – just how close to another staged terrorist attack are we from a complete police state?

    • SO says:

      Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I wasn’t disagreeing with you. It seems to me that a story here about the “fact” in error, fully suffices and that devoting a WhoWhatWhy story to Dvorak’s shortcomings is somewhat disproportional to it’s importance, considering the format. The psychological effect of magnifying Dvorak’s shortcomings is to discredit the idea that Hastings was murdered; “it’s just the tinfoil hat crowd again believing everything they want to believe.” If Baker is a shill, then that is the sort of thing he would do. But, he might be merely imperfect and sincere, too.

    • Carol says:

      Maybe you just are intolerant of authentic inquiry, preferring when people confirm your own biases. Have you considered that? You sure do post a lot!

    • SO says:

      Intolerant? I think not. I enjoy expressing my opinions. Don’t you? Maybe it is you who are intolerant of my opinions.

    • sgtdoom says:

      And thank the gods SO does post a lot, and trollbots like you post, unfortunately, even more…..

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      The problem is, it’s irrelevant what Baker really “is,” even if we ignore Alfred Korzybski’s realization that the word “is,” used in this particular manner, has no meaning. Like the man said, “Whatever this is, it isn’t a ‘chair’.” We need to look, not at what Baker “is,” but at what he is doing. Ask yourself, is he furthering the cause of finding the truth, or is he shooting down others who are making an, admittedly flawed, attempt at finding the truth?

    • gogetem1 says:

      The trouble is, for me, I have yet to be convinced that Dvorak is someone that is attempting to find the truth. For all I know she may be just another disinformation agent. I would be slightly wary of anyone exposing legitimate information on a Corporate affiliate.

    • sgtdoom says:

      I’m not castigating all those who have written for Mother Jones (Nomi Prins and Prof. James Galbraith come immediately to mind as honorable sources of articles) but they have run planted stories in that mag from time to time, and this certainly sounds like one of them. By attacking Dvorak, they are attacking the entire story, which raises a number of important questions, especially during these times when so many investigative journalists the world over have been jailed, brutally murdered, and questionably “suicided.” (The rightwing-financed reporter sullies the story, and Mother Jones once again accuses everything of being false.)

      Wasn’t it Mother Jones where fraudster Chris Hayes (yeah, I realize all the unthinking, unquestioning, “Obey Authority” ObamaBots believe Hayes to be a “liberal” — or God forbid, an actual “progressive”) wrote the story claiming that the Transnational Highway, for purposes of circumventing the Longshore Union and the Teamsters, to be a myth? And didn’t President Obama undue the great legislative work by Rep. Pete DeFazio and then allow in those Mexican truckers (who deliver stuff from the deepwater port built by China off their coast)?

      The story still stands, regardless of any misleading data on his cremation!

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      All the liberals were murdered in the 60s. The folks who remain are those who are afraid enough of the powers that be that they always toe the line and keep within the boundaries of the official alternative theory, as, for example, with the mob/Cuban exile explanation of the Kennedy assassination.

  10. olballcoach says:

    For a good hoot – ya’ll should check out the comments section for this article at MJ. Yikes – old Mother got turned over in her grave and spanked a plenty. And I have to agree. While most of us suspect “whats her name” is rather lame – ya don’t go castings stones unless you have something new to say, which is what this reporter did. Now why on earth would RB need to reprint this fish wrap?

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Maybe he doesn’t eat fish, though I must admit there is something with more than a faint whiff of indole exuded by this article. ;-)

  11. Westcoastdeplorable says:

    I’ll give Ms Dvorak an “A” for effort in trying to keep the story alive on exactly what happened to Hastings. I don’t see anyone else doing so.

    • Tom Martin says:

      not sure you keep a story “alive” by kiling it with serious people who might otherwise take a serious look–by making stuff up about it!

  12. Frank von Winkhorst says:

    Well, it’s becoming painfully obvious. Russ Baker is just another CIA stooge.

    • soularddave says:

      Did you get that from reading the book? How did you put that together?

    • SO says:

      I’ve read “Family Of Secrets” and watched videos of Baker, and of course, Chomsky. Baker, in many videos, pumps his documentation and footnotes, yet I noticed him making claims in the book, which I can’t cite now without doing research, which seemed to cry out for documentation which he did not provide. And, there’s the misleading edit of LBJ’s phone call on page 46, which has survived in my memory as the Russ Baker problem paradigm. He says lots of stuff about Bush that seems incriminating and is probably true, but it is stuff that probably you or I could find out, too, if we had the time and money to spend. I don’t think he’s ever taken his tape recorder on a bus ride with drunken insiders. I don’t think he has a Deep Throat. I did find his book to be valuable, too, but I am not very well-read on many of these issues. Perhaps what seems like revelation to me is old news in other quarters, for example, Baker’s angle on Watergate.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Chomsky is regularly attacked at Black Op Radio, the source of more real information on the Kennedy assassination than Russ Baker ever dreamed of providing, for his contention that Kennedy was a cold warrior and that he was not about to pull out of Vietnam when he was murdered, whereas the evidence is fairly conclusive that the missile crisis changed his mind on a lot of things, including the sanity and trustworthiness of his generals. The evidence seems fairly conclusive that Chomsky is, as he has often been portrayed, a liberal gatekeeper.

      As for the Bush family’s role in the assassination, you might want to check out John Hankey’s Dark Legacy on DVD. Though folks like Jim DiEugenio seem to have a problem with Hankey, he presents a well developed argument that George H W was affiliated with the CIA long before he magically became its director and that many of the players in Watergate were the same folks involved in the assassination.

    • SO says:

      You might be right. Much of what he has said over the past few years seems to build his credibility, but little of it was truly groundbreaking. I don’t think he’s reported anything from insiders, a la Michael Hastings. Does a milk toast tin foil hatter really do them any harm? I think that Noam Chomsky has already answered that question. Noam is getting on in years, now. Perhaps Baker is being groomed as his ineffectual intellectual successor. It’s a good job. You get to speak a lot of truth and be worshiped as holy and wise, and yet, you will never be nailed to the cross because you work for them. It’s a dream job!

    • sgtdoom says:

      Sadly, about the only groundbreaking thing RB has written is about Obama’s avoidance of declassifying ancient documents, and mentioning that Gen. McChrystal was at the Jackson Institute with buddy John Negroponte.

      Quite a number of people have attacked me over the years for attacking the credibility of MIT professor-for-life, Chomsky, but had Chomsky ever posed any actual threat to their status quo, he would have been fired long ago, like academics such as Ward Churchill and Michael Parenti, et al.

      Back in the 1980s, while working in the D.C. area, and doing a considerably amount of voluntary (unpaid) political activism, a fellow activist brought a photo to our group that he had serendipitously taken in mid-Virgina (outside of the CIA facility there) and was excited because he recognized two of the three people in the photo pictured at a diner right outside that facility: Henry Kissinger and Robert Gates.

      Another activist pointed out to him the third person was none other than…..Noam Chomsky!

      Now why do you (warning of approaching rhetorical question) suppose Chomsky was lunching at a diner outside the CIA training facility with Kissinger and Gates?

    • SO says:

      I’ve never heard of Chomsky dining with such company, and you are talking about things I know nothing about here. What nailed Chomsky for me was his comment on the JFK assassination that there was “no credible evidence” of it being an inside job. No credible evidence. He laso dismissed it as, “Who cares?” The assumption, of course, was since we have eliminated the possibility of an inside job, it really isn’t that important whether a “jealous lover” or whoever killed him. Yikes! This guy is a genius with anti-US government credibility, and he says there is no credible evidence of the JFK assassination being an inside job. That sealed for me. Chomsky is a shill. I think it is his job to point out the US’s crimes against humanity in order to build credibility just to torpedo the JFK assassination. They know the US public doesn’t care what happens to Nicaraguans or Vietnamese or Iraqis or Afghanis. Tell them all about that crap to gain credibility with the intellectuals, and then tell the intellectuals to dismiss the JFK assassination out of hand. And yes, he wouldn’t have kept his MIT position if he was real.

  13. Eric_Saunders says:

    Mother Jones is awful. They hired David Corn who is so CIA friendly that he quite likely is on their payroll.

    • Strawman says:

      David Corn? CIA-friendly? Citation, please.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      We have come to a point in the history of this country when the fool sceptics like you are the ones who need to start citing some documentation. As far as I and a whole lot of other Americans are concerned, these government bastards are guilty until proven innocent.


    • Strawman says:

      Okay, now I get it: anyone who doesn’t fall into line with your pet, tinfoil-hat 9/11 conspiracy theories is a CIA stooge.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    • sgtdoom says:

      Your assignment, bubbaloo, is to read Lance DeHaven-Smith’s Conspiracy Theory in America; next you will research the backgrounds of present Obama appointee, Cass Sunstein, and his wife (whom Obama is appointing to the UN Ambassador), Samantha Powers, then you will research the background of Hillary Clinton appointees, Marc Grossman and Victoria Nuland (wifey of Robert Kagan). Next you will research why Mother Jones, whenever they mentioned David Gribbin III in their articles during the Bush administration, refused to ever mention that he was the Godson of Dick Cheney!

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      I’m not sure what the use of the term “tinfoil hat” is supposed to indicate beyond a fact-less, reference-less attack on anyone who doesn’t accept the consensus reality that Santy Claus lives at the North Pole with his eight tiny reindeer. In fact, I used to work in a defense plant, and the walls in certain areas contained what are sometimes called Faraday cages, which are basically a wire mesh grounded to earth whose function is to block the transmission of electromagnetic radiation, you know, like radio waves, Dude?

      So even on a practical technical level, there is nothing particularly weird about the use of such devices. There is even evidence that the human brain can intercept electromagnetic transmissions. So kindly find yourself another term to use to try to discredit those of us who have adopted the new paradign that has the earth revolving about the sun and not the other way around.

    • Eric_Saunders says:

      Just Google: David Corn CIA. You can find a number of articles and blog posts, etc. Of course, if you like to enforce orthodox views of the Establishment by accusing people of wearing “tinfoil-hats,” you are probably not really open-minded on the subject. But then, why are you at WhoWhatWhy?

    • sgtdoom says:

      Why do clueless wonders, always outside the loop, pester everyone for citations when we have linked this stuff again and again and again and again — a trollbait or psy op to waste everyone’s time.

      You’d probably ask the same for David Ignatius and George Will, two birds of a feather, a most soiled feather at that!

    • Strawman says:

      I don’t know why “clueless wonders” do it, but I asked because in my past reading of David Corn I’ve never seen any sign of his “friendliness” with any government entity.

      As far as I knew, he is primarily a muckraking investigative journalist, so I was merely asking.

      Allow me, though, to express my gratitude for your psychoanalysis of my doubtful character.

    • sgtdoom says:

      “..I asked because in my past reading of David Corn I’ve never seen any sign of his “friendliness” with any government entity.

      Clueless. . . exactly!

      Corn is no muckraking journalist, dood!

    • Strawman says:

      Thank you for your gracious and respectful response.

      “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
      ~Bertrand Russell

    • Eric_Saunders says:

      Bertrand Russel wrote a very interesting piece on the JFK assassination years ago:


    • sgtdoom says:

      Yo, straw stuff, you might wish to thoroughly research the background of Bertrand Russell before you toss around his name.

      Oopsy, I forgot, still wallowing in ignorance, are we?

    • Eric_Saunders says:

      When one starts to wander off the mainstream and faux-alternative media (e.g. Mother Jones) reservation, it can be difficult to know what is credible. If you are at WWW, I will assume that you are sincere and give you the benefit of the doubt more than sgtdoom has.

      David Corn is suppossed to be this lefty guy, but he is always trotted out to preach the no-conspiracy gospel to the left. He attacked Gary Webb. He attacked the work of Danny Cosalaro. He wrote a very dishonest and obscurantist biography of Ted Shackley. He attacked 9/11 critics. He told his Nation readers not to attend anti-Iraq War protests because they were organized by Communists. In sum, he is a sinister, spooky propagandist disguised as a liberal.

      It’s like years ago when Frank Zappa described CNN’s Crossfire as the Left half of the CIA debating the Right half: Corn is the Left half.

    • Strawman says:

      Thank you (no sarcasm). I might’ve had him conflated with another writer.

      I know, check it out myself before asking. (Believe, I will next time.)

    • sgtdoom says:

      Amen to your comment, Brother Saunders, amen!

  14. “Journalists are becoming so irrelevant right now.”

    Conditioning tactic: Devaluation.

    Decoded: “Don’t listen to truth-revealing, M.Hastings-like journalists because we need you to believe the lies from ‘our’ propagandists.”

  15. Carine Clary says:

    She’s on TeeVee guys! That’s all she cares about. Disseminating inaccurate information never hurt anybody’s career since the citizens of Idiocracy have the attention spans of nursing home residents. (See Judith Miller for supporting documentation).

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      It seems to me that Kimberly Dvorak is doing more to uncover this staged suicide than Russ Baker will ever dream of doing. It’s fairly obvious to anyone who is actually still awake in this country that Dvorak is being targeted by the intelligence services because she has had the nerve to look at their nefarious activities. Unlike Ol’ Russie who thinks that making a telephone call to some anonymous “family member” who told him what he wanted to hear constitutes serious investigative journalism. Sad.

    • Eric von Apfelputz says:

      At least Russ Baker is a real person. Click on “von Winkhorst”‘s bio, then go visit him in Strudelplatz….LOL:


      Frank von Winkhorst

      Prominent German phrenologist and proponent of the Theory of Mixed Metaphors. Currently holds the Brunonian Chair of Astronomy at the University of Strudelplatz.


    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Last time I had a real bio on Disqus, some idiot threatened to sue me for calling his heroes “liberal gatekeepers.” I intend to remain anonymous whether you like it or not, Bunky. As for the name Winkhorst, you may want to try and figure out who my avatar is. I’ll give you a hint. His literary character is a technician with the Lazarus Pharmaceutical Company.

  16. harris says:

    i dont get why yall seem to be on the warpath against this woman. she’s trying to keep this story alive, which is far more than most media outlets are doing….

    • same ass says:

      Kim Dvorak is the black sheep of a much larger propaganda herd. She was purposefully given bad information so her credibility could be destroyed later on. either that, or she has knowingly played her devious role from the start.

      New crime, same old tried and true cover up strategy. It’s entertaining to watch the pieces of the puzzle connect, too bad the untimely death of a journalist is the ultimate source creating this mess.
      Keep performing for us…PLEASE!

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Your name says it all.

    • same ass says:

      That’s your point Frank?
      I will take it into consideration, thanks for stopping by.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Just stating the obvious. What, you want a footnote to Skeptipedia documenting the meaning of the word “ass”?

    • Eric_Saunders says:

      Or she could just be sloppy. The cremation thing isn’t so important even if true. We know that such a scenario happened with Danny Cosalaro and it didn’t bring us any closer to getting to the bottom of his murder.

    • same ass says:

      Sloppy as in “She was purposefully given bad information so her credibility could be destroyed later on.”, and she didn’t take the time to confirm it’s accuracy.
      I doubt she is knowingly involved, and seriously hope she is not.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      Fools and stooges. And a number of paid CIA operatives. Which may or may not include our fearless leader. The jury is still out on that last one, but the quality of his “revelations,” and his support of idiots like Gavin Aronsen at Motha Jones are becoming more than a little disturbing.

      These are the same “liberal gatekeepers” who said not a word when John and Robert Kennedy were murdered.

    • soularddave says:

      How old were they at the time? Everyone these days doesn’t “feel” the
      deaths of the Kennedys in the same manner as we did. Half of the kids in
      college these days couldn’t name the three brothers, much less identify
      the political offices they held.

      We’re in a new age. Speaking of new ages, Journalism operates in a vastly different manner now, and we’re not all being “conditioned” similarly any more. We’re HERE for a reason and for a purpose. (and now we must support our own journalists with donations to the aggregators).

    • sgtdoom says:

      We’re in a new age.”

      We are? That’s news to many of the commenters here, bub!

      Back around fifty years ago, Chase National was the largest bank around — today it’s called JPMorgan Chase or just Chase — same situation, bub!

      AT&T was “officially” reconstituted thanks to Bill Clinton’s signing of that Telecommunications Act of 1996, bigger and stronger and richer than ever. Now who do you suppose the majority owner of AT&T is, bub?

      The banksters ruled for decades before we were born, and they still rule.

      You are one of those types who believes in the Easter Bunny and Forbes list of the richest billionaires — both fairy tales.

    • Frank von Winkhorst says:

      The sad fact is, if the JFK assassination had been properly investigated, Robert Kennedy would never have been murdered, Martin King would never have been murdered, Hunt wouldn’t have removed Nixon from office with his fake break in at the Watergate Hotel, and most likely 9/11 would have remained a hypothetical attack pictured on the cover of a Pentagon briefing book.

      This “New Age” began on November 22, 1963, and it won’t end until the government controlled media stops acting like a bunch of stooges.

    • sgtdoom says:


Subscribe to the Daily WhoWhatWhy

Relevant, in-depth journalism delivered to you.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.