{"id":78486,"date":"2026-08-28T18:38:44","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T22:38:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=78486"},"modified":"2026-08-28T18:42:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T22:42:34","slug":"a-cointelpro-jtrig-expanded-field-manual-for-the-bona-fide-researcher","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.info\/?p=78486","title":{"rendered":"

A COINTELPRO\/JTRIG Expanded Field Manual for the Bona Fide Researcher<\/b><\/h2>"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

First Installment of the Expanded Field Manual to be Posted in a Day or Two<\/strong><\/em><\/u><\/p>\n

J. KEVEN HOFELING, ESQ.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JFK ASSASSINATION RESEARCH \u00a0\u2022\u00a0 DISTRIBUTION LIST WORK PRODUCT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Salt Lake City, Utah \u00a0\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0j.keven.jd@jkhofelinglaw.org\u00a0\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0https:\/\/jkhofelinglaw.org\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A SPECTRE IS HAUNTING THE JFKA RESEARCH COMMUNITY<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2014 A RESPONSE IN THREE PARTS \u2014 PART III OF III<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ultimate Price, and a Field Manual<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gary Webb, the Agency\u2019s Own Account of His Destruction, and How to Recognize What Is Being Done to You<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

J. KEVEN HOFELING, ESQ. \u00a0\u2022\u00a0 AUGUST 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nTHIS SERIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Part I \u2014<\/b>\u00a0The Apparatus and Its Published Doctrine<\/p>\n

Part II \u2014<\/b>\u00a0My Own Account<\/p>\n

Part III \u2014<\/b>\u00a0The Ultimate Price, and a Field Manual\u00a0(this installment)<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

Each part stands alone; together they answer the whole question. The three installments are being circulated a day apart.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nCONTENTS OF PART III<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. Gary Webb: What It Costs When You Make It Accessible to the Masses<\/p>\n

II. The Human Toll, Closer to Home<\/p>\n

III. A Field Manual for the Bona Fide Researcher<\/p>\n

IV. Conclusion \u2014 The Spectre, and What to Do About It<\/p>\n

Sources for Part III (Hyperlinked)<\/p>\n

The Working Library \u2014 The Complete Series<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nWHERE WE ARE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Part I<\/strong>\u00a0set out the apparatus and its published doctrine \u2014 Dispatch 1035-960, the Church Committee\u2019s Book III, Sunstein and Vermeule\u2019s \u201ccognitive infiltration,\u201d DARPA\u2019s SMISC, and the GCHQ JTRIG deck \u2014 and made the point that the whole enterprise has been outsourced until it is perfectly deniable.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/educationforum.ipbhost.com\/topic\/32227-jfk-assassination-researchers-have-you-ever-been-spied-on-wiretapped-or-harassed-by-the-american-government-in-your-years-of-jfk-research\/page\/2\/#findComment-602240<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part II<\/strong>\u00a0was my own account measured against that doctrine: a recruitment approach at twenty-one, a corroborated CIA reporting relationship on the part of the man who made it, a keylogger and a legend-switching contact in 2016, and a documented destruction of ten years of work in 2025. All of it survivable.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/educationforum.ipbhost.com\/topic\/32227-jfk-assassination-researchers-have-you-ever-been-spied-on-wiretapped-or-harassed-by-the-american-government-in-your-years-of-jfk-research\/page\/2\/#findComment-602281<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This installment<\/strong>\u00a0is about the case that was not \u2014 and about what to do with what the first two parts have shown.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

I. Gary Webb: What It Costs When You Make It Accessible to the Masses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Everything in Parts I and II is survivable. I want to close with the case that is not \u2014 because it defines the outer boundary of this subject, and because no researcher should work in this field without having looked at it squarely.<\/p>\n

On August 18\u201320, 1996, the\u00a0San Jose Mercury News<\/i>\u00a0published\u00a0\u201cDark Alliance,\u201d<\/a><\/u>\u00a0a three-part series by\u00a0Gary Webb<\/b>\u00a0(b. August 31, 1955) reporting that a Bay Area drug ring had sold cocaine to Los Angeles street gangs and funnelled millions in profits to the CIA-backed Nicaraguan Contras. Webb was not a freelancer or an outsider. He had shared in the\u00a0Mercury News<\/i>\u00a0staff\u2019s\u00a01990 Pulitzer Prize for General News Reporting<\/a><\/u>. And the series did something no previous account of Contra-cocaine had done: because the\u00a0Mercury News<\/i>\u00a0put the underlying documents on the web, ordinary readers could check the reporting themselves. Webb had made it\u00a0accessible to the masses<\/i>. That, I am convinced, is what could not be permitted to stand.<\/p>\n

The counterattack came not from the government but from the profession. In early October 1996 the\u00a0Washington Post<\/i>\u00a0ran a front-page piece by Roberto Suro and Walter Pincus holding that the available information did not support the series. In mid-October Tim Golden in the\u00a0New York Times<\/i>\u00a0called the evidence \u201cthin.\u201d On October 20\u201322 the\u00a0Los Angeles Times<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 which had missed the story in its own city \u2014 published a three-part rebuttal researched by seventeen reporters. Within two months, the\u00a0Los Angeles Times<\/i>\u00a0alone devoted more words to dismantling the series than the series itself contained. Webb\u2019s own editor, Jerry Ceppos, published a partial retraction on May 11, 1997. Webb was transferred to a suburban bureau, given routine assignments and a long commute, and resigned in late 1997. He never worked at a daily newspaper again.<\/p>\n

The Agency\u2019s own account of it<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here is the part that ought to end the argument, and that most people in this field still do not know exists.<\/p>\n

The CIA\u2019s internal history of the episode was written by Agency staffer\u00a0Nicholas Dujmovic<\/b>\u00a0under the title\u00a0 \u00a0\u201cManaging a Nightmare: CIA Public Affairs and the Drug Conspiracy Story.\u201d<\/b>\u00a0It was declassified and released in 2014, and it sits today in the CIA\u2019s own reading room at\u00a0\u00a0https:\/\/www.cia.gov\/readingroom\/docs\/DOC_0001372115.pdf<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0The Intercept<\/i>\u2019s reporting on it, by Ryan Devereaux, is at\u00a0\u201cHow the CIA Watched Over the Destruction of Gary Webb\u201d<\/a><\/u>\u00a0(Sept. 25, 2014).<\/p>\n

In it, the Agency concedes that the story posed \u201ca genuine public relations crisis for the Agency,\u201d and then explains how the crisis was managed. Note that the mechanism it credits is not a denial, an operation, or a threat. It is a relationship:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\u201cA ground base of already productive relations with journalists and an effective response by the Director of Central Intelligence\u2019s Public Affairs Staff helped prevent this story from becoming an unmitigated disaster.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2014 CIA, \u201cManaging a Nightmare: CIA Public Affairs and the Drug Conspiracy Story\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\"\"
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

The document singles out the\u00a0Washington Post<\/i>\u2019s \u201cnational reputation\u201d as \u201cespecially useful,\u201d observing that its critical articles were picked up elsewhere and helped create what the Associated Press called a \u201cfirestorm of reaction\u201d against the\u00a0Mercury News<\/i>. And it closes with a line that should be carved above the door of every journalism school in the country:\u00a0\u201cIn the world of public relations, as in war, avoiding a rout in the face of hostile multitudes can be considered a success.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Now put that beside Part I. Read Dispatch 1035-960 from 1967 and \u201cManaging a Nightmare\u201d from 1996 side by side. They are the same document. Thirty years apart, in two different decades of American life, the Agency describes the identical mechanism \u2014 \u201cfriendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)\u201d in one; \u201ca ground base of already productive relations with journalists\u201d in the other \u2014 and it describes it, both times, as a public affairs function performed on behalf of the United States. This is the single most important pair of citations in this series.<\/p>\n

And then the record shifted under his critics<\/strong><\/p>\n

Between 1997 and 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz produced a two-volume investigation. The reports found no evidence that any CIA employee had direct dealings with the traffickers Webb wrote about \u2014 the finding that generated the headlines. But Hitz\u2019s testimony also conceded that \u201cthere were clearly allegations of \u2026 CIA [contacts] being involved with drugs\u201d; that there was \u201can inconsistency in guidelines given to the field to deal with drug allegations,\u201d and indeed \u201cno directorate of operations instruction about how to deal with drug allegations\u201d throughout the Contra period; and \u2014 the detail that matters most \u2014 that a 1982 memorandum of understanding between the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence had\u00a0omitted narcotics<\/i>\u00a0from the categories of crime the Agency was obliged to report to the Department of Justice.\u00a0See<\/em>\u00a0the summary of Hitz\u2019s findings and testimony at\u00a0PBS Frontline<\/a><\/u>.<\/p>\n

In other words: the Agency had a standing arrangement relieving it of the duty to report drug trafficking by its non-employee assets, and no instruction to the field on what to do with drug allegations when they arose. Webb\u2019s central charge \u2014 that the Agency looked away \u2014 was substantially conceded in the Agency\u2019s own inspection record, at the very moment the profession had finished agreeing that he was a fabulist.<\/p>\n

December 10, 2004<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gary Webb was found dead in his home in Carmichael, California on December 10, 2004. He was 49.\u00a0He had\u00a0two<\/strong>\u00a0gunshot wounds to the head.<\/em>\u00a0Sacramento County Coroner Robert Lyons ruled the death a suicide, and when asked about the second shot said: \u201cIt\u2019s unusual in a suicide case to have two shots, but it has been done in the past, and it is in fact a distinct possibility.\u201d A note was found. His ex-wife has said publicly that she believes it was suicide, citing his despair at being unable to get hired at a daily paper; he had sold his house the week before because he could not afford the mortgage.<\/p>\n

I am a lawyer, and I will not tell you I know what happened in that room. I will tell you three things I do know, and let each researcher weigh them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.<\/td>\nThe official ruling is suicide, and the people closest to him have accepted it.<\/b>\u00a0Anyone who asserts otherwise as fact is going beyond the evidence, and this field has done enough of that.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
2.<\/td>\nThe despair that the ruling rests on was manufactured.<\/b>\u00a0If Webb killed himself because he could not get work, then the question is who made him unemployable \u2014 and we now have the Agency\u2019s own memorandum describing, with some satisfaction, how the press was worked to that end. A man does not have to be shot to be killed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
3.<\/td>\n\u201cSuicide\u201d is the most efficient verdict a state can be handed.<\/b>\u00a0It closes the file, it discredits the deceased retroactively, and it makes everyone who asks a further question into a ghoul. That is not an argument that Webb was murdered. It is an argument about incentives, and it is why the finding deserves the same evidentiary scrutiny we would give any other official conclusion in this field \u2014 no more, and no less.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

And here is why I set down that 2016 email at the end of Part II, and why I have never been able to read Webb\u2019s file without a particular chill. Eight years after Gary Webb died of two gunshot wounds to the head, a middle-aged lawyer in Utah who had done nothing more dangerous than post statutes to a Facebook group sat down and wrote privately to one friend that if something happened to him,\u00a0he did not want it to look like a suicide<\/i>. I did not write that because I had read about Gary Webb. I wrote it because that is what the situation produces in a person\u2019s mind \u2014 and the fact that an ordinary researcher\u2019s mind goes there, unprompted, is itself a measure of what has been done to this country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CASE EXHIBIT H<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gary Webb (1955\u20132004) \u2014 \u201cDark Alliance,\u201d and the Agency\u2019s account of its management<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.cia.gov\/readingroom\/document\/0001372115<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/theintercept.com\/2014\/09\/25\/managing-nightmare-cia-media-destruction-gary-webb\/<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.britannica.com\/biography\/Gary-Webb<\/a>\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0https:\/\/spartacus-educational.com\/JFKwebbG.htm<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.democracynow.org\/2014\/10\/6\/inside_the_dark_alliance_gary_webb<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Webb is not an anomaly in the literature of this field; he is the most recent, best-documented instance of a pattern this community has catalogd for sixty years. Mr. Simkin has assembled the earlier chapters of it on the Education Forum (Topic 32198<\/a><\/u>)\u00a0— Bill Hunter, shot dead in a Long Beach police pressroom in April 1964, five months after searching Jack Ruby\u2019s apartment; Jim Koethe, killed in his Dallas apartment in September 1964 while writing a book on the assassination; Dorothy Kilgallen, who interviewed Ruby, told friends she could \u201cbreak the case wide open,\u201d and was found dead in November 1965. Mr. Simkin is a careful historian and is rightly sceptical of the inflated mysterious-death lists that have circulated in this field. He is right to be. Gary Webb requires no list. His destruction is documented by the institution that carried it out. (Also\u00a0see<\/em>\u00a0Intelligence Service Murdering Americans<\/a><\/u>.)<\/u><\/p>\n

II. The Human Toll, Closer to Home<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

I do not want to leave this as a catalog of documents, because the thing itself is not a document. There is an immense human toll \u2014 what it does to us as individuals, and what it has done to the country. Consider Doug Horne, who did as much serious work on the medical evidence as anyone alive. On\u00a0May 20, 2025<\/b>\u00a0he was still at it, submitting\u00a0written testimony<\/a><\/u>\u00a0to and giving testimony before the House Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets. Nine months later he was gone. On\u00a0February 8, 2026<\/b>\u00a0he wrote to a dozen colleagues under the subject line\u00a0\u201cNow Retired from All JFK Assassination Public (and Private) Activity,\u201d<\/i>\u00a0and I reproduce the heart of it because no summary of mine would be as good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\u201cI\u2019m declaring myself retired. Again. This time I mean it. So please remove me from all emails related to the JFK assassination.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cI have found out, to my dismay, that it is not possible to be \u2018mostly\u2019 retired, or only \u2018partially\u2019 retired. I simply do not have the time or energy to keep responding to the new \u2018findings\u2019 or interpretations or speculations of others.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cRemaining \u2018just a little bit involved\u2019 means constant bombardment with emails and stimuli from others. This, in turn requires huge amounts of time, to decide whether these stimuli are worth responding to, and\/or what my response should be.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t want to do this anymore. I can\u2019t let this subject eat up the rest of my life. The arguments and new interpretations and (yes, outrageous) new speculations will go on, and on, and on. They will never stop.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cI value the friendships and partnerships I have had with many in the research community more than you can know. But it is time for me to step away from the never-ending-battle over what to believe, or not to believe\u2026 I\u2019m done, spent, and am exiting by choice.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2014 Douglas P. Horne, February 8, 2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Twenty days later, when a distribution of mine reached him, he replied twice in a single afternoon:\u00a0\u201cPlease remove me from all of your JFK email communications. I have retired from all public JFK activity,\u201d<\/i>\u00a0and then, a few minutes later,\u00a0\u201cStop sending me emails. I am retired from all this now.\u201d<\/i>\u00a0I removed him, and I have not written to him since.<\/p>\n

I want to be careful about what that letter does and does not establish, because the discipline I am about to recommend in \u00a7 III forbids me from being careless here.<\/p>\n

It does not establish that Doug Horne was driven out by anyone.<\/b>\u00a0He does not say that. He alleges no harassment, names no antagonist, and states plainly that he is\u00a0exiting by choice<\/i>. Anyone who quotes his letter as proof of a campaign against him is doing the very thing this series argues against (though it should also be noted that Doug has, over the years, wrote of circumstances and individuals suggesting covert ops directed at him).<\/p>\n

What it establishes is something I find more useful, and more disturbing. Horne describes, in the first person and without attributing it to anybody,\u00a0precisely the outcome that the published doctrine names as its objective.<\/b>\u00a0The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory\u2019s\u00a02011 report on JTRIG<\/a><\/u>\u00a0describes the unit\u2019s work in terms of techniques to\u00a0discredit, disrupt, delay, deny, degrade, and deter<\/i>. Nowhere in that vocabulary is the word\u00a0refute<\/b>.<\/p>\n

\"czCALNH.gif\"<\/a><\/p>\n

You do not have to disprove a man\u2019s findings if you can make the cost of maintaining them exceed what he has left to spend. Horne\u2019s letter is a description of that cost being reached \u2014 \u201chuge amounts of time, to decide whether these stimuli are worth responding to\u201d \u2014 written by one of the most consequential researchers this field has produced.<\/p>\n

Whether any part of the bombardment he describes was caused by inauthentic actors, I do not know and cannot show, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.\u00a0That is the whole reason for the field manual that follows.<\/b>\u00a0The identity question is unanswerable. The effect is documented, dated, and in his own words. And the effect is what the doctrine is for.<\/p>\n

Then consider how much further the investigations of political assassinations and of other high-level government crimes would have progressed by now had the COINTELPRO programs targeting researchers and activists never existed \u2014 which is, of course, precisely the objective of those programs.<\/p>\n

In May of this year a JFKA scholar whose name I will not use wrote to me privately, in words I have kept:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\u201cThe people on these forums who remain \u2018fringe critics out of self-importance\u2019 will never buy into your logical and reasoned replies. It was never about the logic behind the arguments \u2026 it was about arguing.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cI think you\u2019re wasting your time on the EF \u2026 I just don\u2019t think you can fathom the level of close-mindedness and pure folly \u2026 I think your posts are just pouring gasoline on a dumpster fire.\u201d<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

He may well be right about the tactics. He is wrong, I think, about the audience. I am not writing for the xxxxx. I am writing for the reader who has not yet decided, and for the record.<\/p>\n

I should also state plainly what I am not able to state here. If it were not against the rules of the Education Forum, I could list many, many experiences I have had on it \u2014 patterns of coordinated procedural attack, of administrative complaint deployed in place of evidentiary rebuttal, of the same handful of charactors arriving in rotation whenever a particular body of forensic evidence is put on the table \u2014 that I strongly suspect are attributable to the apparatus described in Part I. I abide by those rules and I will not name anyone. But I ask every member reading this to do one thing: the next time a substantive evidentiary post is answered not on the evidence but with a procedural objection, note the date, note the sequence, and keep the record. The pattern is only visible longitudinally, which is precisely why it works.<\/p>\n

III. A Field Manual for the\u00a0Bona Fide<\/em>\u00a0Researcher<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

I promised at the end of Part II that this installment would close with the one diagnostic that has never failed me. I am going to keep that promise, and then I am going to qualify it in a way I would not have thought necessary a month ago, because the qualification is what makes it usable by anybody other than me.<\/p>\n

The diagnostic, stated honestly<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here is the thing that took me longest to accept and that I still regard as the most useful single observation I have.\u00a0Ordinary people \u2014 including ordinary people who are badly wrong, stubborn, vain, or hostile \u2014 can be moved.<\/b>\u00a0Present a genuine person with sustained, documented, probative evidence over a long enough period and something happens. A concession. A narrowing. A change of subject. An exit. Not agreement, necessarily; but\u00a0movement<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Total intransigence across years, in the face of accumulating evidence, with no concession of any kind ever \u2014 that is a different thing, and in my experience it is very rare among people who are simply mistaken.<\/p>\n

Now the qualification, which I have put first in the extended edition of this manual and which I want on the record here.\u00a0This observation identifies a pattern of conduct. It does not identify an employer, and it cannot.<\/b>\u00a0A person whose identity has fused with a position produces exactly the same output as an assigned operative, and no amount of watching will separate them. Treat the observation as what it actually is:\u00a0a signal about how to spend your own time<\/b>, not a finding about someone else\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nWHY I WILL NOT TELL YOU TO GO LOOKING FOR AGENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Take a forum of two thousand people. Assume \u2014 far more generously than any documented figure \u2014 that two percent are running some form of operation. Give yourself a screen that catches eighty percent of them and wrongly flags only one ordinary member in ten. Run it, and\u00a0eighty-six percent of the people you accuse will be innocent.<\/b>\u00a0At one percent prevalence it is better than ninety percent wrong.<\/p>\n

That is not an argument that operators do not exist. Part I of this series documents that they do, in their own words. It is an argument that\u00a0a practice aimed at identifying individuals will overwhelmingly accuse some of the\u00a0wrong people<\/b>\u00a0\u2014 and the Church Committee record tells you what a community full of manufactured mutual suspicion is worth to the people who built the programs. They do not have to infiltrate a forum that has decided to hunt for infiltrators.\u00a0We would be doing the work for them, for free.<\/b><\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

What to do instead: document conduct, and measure effects<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two moves replace agent-hunting, and both are things you can actually do.<\/p>\n

Document conduct.<\/b>\u00a0Whether an exhibit was addressed is a fact. Whether the same question went unanswered four times across three months is a fact. Whether a rebuttal was replaced by a moderation complaint is a fact. These are checkable by anyone, they cannot be defamatory because they describe the public record, and \u2014 this is the part that surprised me \u2014\u00a0they are more damaging to the person they describe than any accusation would be.<\/b>\u00a0The lower claim is the stronger claim.<\/p>\n

Measure effects.<\/b>\u00a0In March 2011 the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory produced\u00a0a behavioural-science report for JTRIG<\/a><\/u>\u00a0whose \u00a7 2.11 sets out how the unit proposed to measure whether an online operation was working. Invert that list and you have a diagnostic that requires no accusation at all. You do not need to know who anyone is to notice that a productive researcher has stopped posting, that a thread which used to argue about evidence now argues about procedure, or that a body of work is now discussed exclusively through a characterization of its author.\u00a0Those effects are the thing the doctrine says the work is for, and they are visible to everybody.<\/b><\/p>\n

The doctrine: engage, but for the audience, and on a clock<\/strong><\/p>\n

I do not accept the counsel of silence, and I want to say why in terms that do not depend on my temperament.<\/p>\n

The mechanism I am relying on has a name and a research literature. It is\u00a0inoculation<\/b>, running from William McGuire\u2019s experiments in the early 1960s to the current work on\u00a0prebunking<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 and its central modern finding is that inoculating an audience against a\u00a0technique<\/b>\u00a0transfers to material the audience has never seen, in a way that correcting individual falsehoods does not. A\u00a0field study on Instagram published in January 2026<\/a><\/u>\u00a0found that a nineteen-second video left treated users twenty-one percentage points better at spotting manipulation in a headline, and that the effect was still measurable\u00a0five months later<\/b>. And the twenty-two authors of\u00a0The Debunking Handbook 2020<\/u><\/a>\u2014 several of whom created the original worry \u2014 concluded that \u201crecent evidence provides no reason to avoid debunking for fear of a backfire effect.\u201d<\/p>\n

That is why the demonstration is worth staging. Not to move the person in front of you.\u00a0To inoculate the people reading silently, against the move rather than against the man.<\/b>\u00a0And it is why the rule is\u00a0name the move, never the man<\/i>: I cannot tell you who anyone is, the forum rules rightly forbid me from trying, and the evidence says the technique-level demonstration is the one that generalizes anyway.<\/p>\n

But it has to be done on a clock, because the adversary\u2019s stated objective \u2014 in his own doctrine \u2014 is attrition, and a researcher too exhausted to publish has been defeated without ever being refuted. So:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.<\/td>\nMove\u00a0one \u2014 answer on the merits.<\/b>\u00a0State the proposition, link the primary document, say what it does and does not establish. This is the reply the silent reader will actually read.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
2.<\/td>\nMove two \u2014 identify the non-response.<\/b>\u00a0Quote what stands in place of an answer, restate the unresolved question in one sentence, ask for a specific contrary source. Do not re-argue.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
3.<\/td>\nMove three \u2014 summarize and leave.<\/b>\u00a0State the exhibit, state that it was provided\u00a0three times, state what came back instead. Then stop. The record now contains an unanswered exhibit and three documented non-answers, and it will still contain them in five years.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The only thing that resets the count is\u00a0materially new evidence<\/b>. If your opponent produces a document or a fact you did not have, engage it gratefully and in public. That is not a loophole; it is the whole reason the practice is honest. A researcher who will not update is committing the offense he accuses others of.<\/p>\n

TABLE 5 \u2014 NAME THE MOVE, NOT THE MAN: A VOCABULARY WITH PROVENANCE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The move<\/th>\nWhat it looks like<\/th>\nWhere the name comes from<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Sealioning<\/b><\/td>\nRelentless, superficially courteous demands for evidence, indefinitely repeated, calibrated to exhaust rather than to learn<\/td>\nDavid Malki,\u00a0Wondermark<\/i>\u00a0#1062 (2014); analysed in Amy Johnson, \u201cThe Multiple Harms of Sea Lions,\u201d\u00a0Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online<\/i>\u00a0(Berkman Klein Center, 2017)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gish gallop<\/b><\/td>\nA rapid volley of many weak assertions, too numerous to answer in the time available \u2014 the volume\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0the argument<\/td>\nNamed by Eugenie C. Scott for the debater Duane Gish; National Center for Science Education<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Motte-and-bailey<\/b><\/td>\nAn exciting claim is advanced; when challenged, the arguer retreats to a modest one nobody disputes, then re-advances the first once you leave<\/td>\nNicholas Shackel,\u00a0Metaphilosophy<\/i>\u00a036(3) (2005) \u2014 \u201ca central core of defensible but not terribly interesting\u2026 doctrines surrounded by a region of exciting but only lightly defensible doctrines\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The procedural objection<\/b><\/td>\nA moderation complaint, a rules citation, or a demand for sanction, offered\u00a0in place of<\/i>\u00a0a rebuttal<\/td>\nMy own term for a pattern documented in the forum record of 2025\u201326<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Brandolini\u2019s asymmetry<\/b><\/td>\nNot a move but the structural fact underneath all of them: refuting nonsense costs an order of magnitude more than producing it<\/td>\nAlberto Brandolini (2013) \u2014 an aphorism, not a study. The case for correcting anyway: Phil Williamson,\u00a0Nature<\/i>\u00a0540, 171 (2016)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A caution that matters more than the table. \u201cThat is a straw man\u201d is fair comment on an argument. \u201cThat is a straw man, and it is technique four on the JTRIG slide\u201d is an allegation of state sponsorship against a named person, delivered with deniability \u2014 which is worse than saying it outright, because it cannot be answered. Name the move. Cite the doctrine separately, in general terms. Do not weld the two together over an identifiable human being.<\/p>\n

The three habits that matter more than any of it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022<\/td>\nKeep contemporaneous records.<\/b>\u00a0I would have nothing to show you today but a story if I had not written that email in 2016. Capture, hash, mirror to a third-party archive, and log it \u2014 and write the innocent explanation down next to the suspicious one, because a log without that column will be destroyed on cross-examination and will deserve to be.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\u2022<\/td>\nPut every exhibit you have had to produce twice on a permanent page you control.<\/b>\u00a0Brandolini\u2019s asymmetry is unbeatable in an argument and trivially beatable with a link. Pay the cost once. The seventh time you are asked, your reply is a URL, not an evening.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\u2022<\/td>\nRead the primary documents rather than the summaries of them \u2014 including mine.<\/b>\u00a0Every claim in these three installments is linked. If one of them does not say what I have said it says, I would rather you found it than that a hostile reader did.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nTHE EXTENDED EDITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

What you have just read is the compressed version. The full\u00a0Bona Fide<\/em>\u00a0Researcher\u2019s Field Manual \u2014 Extended Edition<\/b>\u00a0runs to three further installments and takes up what there is no room for here: the attribution ladder and what each tier actually requires; the indicator table with the innocent explanation attached to every row; the thread-displacement scale; preservation to the standard of the UN\u2019s Berkeley Protocol and Federal Rules of Evidence 902(13)\u2013(14); the legal remedies assessed honestly, including the several that do not work and the two cases that do the work people wrongly ask\u00a0Murthy<\/i>\u00a0to do; and six things worth asking of any forum that hosts serious research.<\/p>\n

I will circulate it over the coming days, in the same three-part form, in its own dedicated thread, and if Robert Morrow explicitly authorizes it, to this thread as well.\u00a0It is a working document rather than an argument, and I would welcome correction of any part of it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

IV. Conclusion \u2014 The Spectre, and What to Do About It<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

So: has the government spied on me or harassed me?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I cannot prove a wiretap and I will not claim one. What I can say is that at twenty-one I was approached by a man who opened with the philosophy of an organization I had just founded, who volunteered a five-hour biography establishing his CIA\u00a0bona fides<\/em>\u00a0and his victimhood at the Agency\u2019s hands, who offered within hours a paid trip to Washington and an introduction to his lonely young wife, whose business card said\u00a0family therapist<\/i>, and who \u2014 his childhood friends independently told me years later \u2014 was in a regular reporting relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency. I can say that in 2016 my machine was keylogged and I was worked by a Facebook account that switched legends under questioning and volunteered that man\u2019s name. And I can say that thirty-odd years after the pool hall, a decade of research archive and eight communities of five thousand people were erased by three button-presses inside a three-minute window; that I invoked the federal statute written for exactly that abuse, in writing, as a lawyer, with citations; and that nothing whatsoever happened in response.<\/p>\n

To Mr. Simkin\u2019s supposition \u2014 that perhaps the ruling elite do not think our work important enough to discredit us \u2014 I would answer with the Agency\u2019s own two sentences, thirty years apart. In 1967 it instructed its stations to work \u201cfriendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors).\u201d In its internal history of 1996 it credited \u201ca ground base of already productive relations with journalists\u201d with preventing a reporter\u2019s story from becoming an unmitigated disaster for the Agency. It has never at any point regarded this work as unimportant. It has simply found cheaper ways to handle it than kicking in doors \u2014\u00a0and the cheapest of all is to persuade the people doing the work that no one is watching them.<\/em><\/p>\n

That is the spectre. Not a man in a raincoat. A settled, comfortable, professionally reinforced conviction, held by serious researchers, that clandestine political operations are a thing that happens in films. Every hour that conviction survives is an hour the apparatus does not have to spend.<\/p>\n

So my ask of this community is small and concrete. Keep contemporaneous records \u2014 I would have nothing to show you today but a story if I had not written that email in 2016. Read the primary documents linked across these three installments rather than the summaries of them, including mine. Learn the intransigence test and apply it patiently and in public. Assume you are interesting; the assumption costs you nothing and it is very probably correct. And do not let the word \u201cparanoid\u201d do work that evidence should be doing \u2014 that usage has a documented origin, and the origin is a 1967 CIA dispatch.<\/p>\n

The apparatus has not gone away. It has been outsourced, automated, and made deniable. It no longer needs to break into your house. It needs only to make sure that what you found there is never read by anyone.<\/p>\n

Which is, in the end, why I keep writing at this length, and why I am grateful to Robert for asking the question.<\/p>\n

A note on method: every external source cited across these three installments was retrieved and checked on August 26, 2026. Where I have relied on my own contemporaneous records, I have said so and dated them. Where I have drawn an inference rather than stated a fact, I have marked it as an inference. Nothing in this series names any member of the Education Forum as an agent of any service, and nothing in it is intended to.<\/p>\n

First Installment of the Expanded Field Manual to be Posted in a Day or Two,<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Keven<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

J. Keven Hofeling, Esq. \u00a0\u2022\u00a0 Wednesday, August 26, 2026 \u00a0\u2022\u00a0 Salt Lake City, Utah \u00a0\u2022\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/www.jkhofelinglaw.org\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

Sources for Part III (Hyperlinked)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Item<\/th>\nURL (spelled out)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Dhami,\u00a0Behavioural Science Support for JTRIG\u2019s Effects and Online HUMINT Operations<\/i>, DSTL (10 Mar. 2011)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/nsarchive.gwu.edu\/document\/22372-document-07-mandeep-k-dhami-defence-science-and<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
van der Linden et al., \u201cPrebunking misinformation techniques in social media feeds,\u201d\u00a0HKS Misinformation Review<\/i>\u00a07(1) (2026)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.37016\/mr-2020-193<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Roozenbeek, van der Linden et al., \u201cPsychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media,\u201d\u00a0Science Advances<\/i>\u00a08 (2022)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/sciadv.abo6254<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Traberg, Roozenbeek & van der Linden, \u201cPsychological Inoculation against Misinformation,\u201d\u00a0ANNALS of the AAPSS<\/i>\u00a0700(1) (2022)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full\/10.1177\/00027162221087936<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lewandowsky, Cook, Ecker et al.,\u00a0The Debunking Handbook 2020<\/i><\/td>\nhttps:\/\/sks.to\/db2020<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Amy Johnson, \u201cThe Multiple Harms of Sea Lions,\u201d in\u00a0Perspectives on Harmful Speech Online<\/i>\u00a0(Berkman Klein Center, 2017)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/cyber.harvard.edu\/publications\/2017\/08\/harmfulspeech<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nicholas Shackel, \u201cThe Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology,\u201d\u00a0Metaphilosophy<\/i>\u00a036(3) (2005)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/j.1467-9973.2005.00370.x<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Phil Williamson, \u201cTake the time and effort to correct misinformation,\u201d\u00a0Nature<\/i>\u00a0540, 171 (2016)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/540171a<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CIA, \u201cManaging a Nightmare: CIA Public Affairs and the Drug Conspiracy Story\u201d (Dujmovic) \u2014 CIA Reading Room<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/www.cia.gov\/readingroom\/docs\/DOC_0001372115.pdf<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ryan Devereaux, \u201cHow the CIA Watched Over the Destruction of Gary Webb,\u201d The Intercept (Sept. 25, 2014)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/theintercept.com\/2014\/09\/25\/managing-nightmare-cia-media-destruction-gary-webb\/<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gary Webb \u2014 biography, Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/www.britannica.com\/biography\/Gary-Webb<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gary Webb \u2014 biographical entry, Spartacus Educational<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/spartacus-educational.com\/JFKwebbG.htm<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cInside the Dark Alliance: Gary Webb on the CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion,\u201d Democracy Now! (Oct. 6, 2014)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/www.democracynow.org\/2014\/10\/6\/inside_the_dark_alliance_gary_webb<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1990 Pulitzer Prize for General News Reporting \u2014 San Jose Mercury News staff<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/www.pulitzer.org\/winners\/staff-26<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz \u2014 findings and testimony (PBS Frontline)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/pages\/frontline\/shows\/drugs\/special\/hitz.html<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
John Simkin on the deaths of journalists and witnesses \u2014 Education Forum, Topic 32198<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/educationforum.ipbhost.com\/topic\/32198-the-jfk-assassination-and-the-link-with-other-political-conspiracies-1963-2026\/page\/3\/#findComment-601651<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
H. Michael Sweeney, \u201cTwenty-Five Rules of Disinformation\u201d \/ \u201cEight Traits of the Disinformationalist\u201d (archived)<\/td>\nhttps:\/\/blog.cyberwar.nl\/2019\/06\/twenty-five-ways-to-suppress-truth-the-rules-of-disinformation-h-michael-sweeney-1997-2001\/<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nTHE WORKING LIBRARY \u2014 THE COMPLETE SERIES, IN ONE PLACE<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0CIA Dispatch 1035-960 (1967)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.history-matters.com\/archive\/jfk\/cia\/russholmes\/104-10406\/104-10406-10110\/html\/104-10406-10110_0002a.htm<\/a>\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/CIADOC1035960<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Church Committee, Final Report, Book III (1976)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.intelligence.senate.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/94755_III.pdf<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Carl Bernstein, \u201cThe CIA and the Media\u201d (1977)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/goodtimesweb.org\/industry-govt-agents\/rs-bernstein-cia-media-oct-20-1977.html<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Project MK-ULTRA, Joint Senate Hearing (Aug. 3, 1977)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.intelligence.senate.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/sites-default-files-hearings-95mkultra.pdf<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Sunstein & Vermeule, \u201cConspiracy Theories\u201d (2008)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/chicagounbound.uchicago.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=law_and_economics<\/a><\/u>\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0https:\/\/chicagounbound.uchicago.edu\/law_and_economics\/119\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0DARPA, Social Media in Strategic Communication (2011)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.darpa.mil\/research\/programs\/social-media-in-strategic-communication<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Greenwald, \u201cHow Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet \u2026\u201d (2014)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2014\/02\/24\/jtrig-manipulation\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0GCHQ\/JTRIG, \u201cThe Art of Deception\u201d<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/theintercept.com\/document\/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations\/<\/a><\/u>\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/documents\/art-deception-training-online-covert-operations<\/a><\/u>\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/1021430-the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0\u201cOnline Government Trolls Have Infiltrated the Internet\u201d (video)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6ztjoy-online-government-trolls-have-infiltrated-the-internet.html<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Priest & Arkin, \u201cTop Secret America\u201d<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/secure.afa.org\/edOp\/2010\/Washington_Post_Intelligence_Series.pdf<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0CIA, \u201cManaging a Nightmare\u201d (Dujmovic)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.cia.gov\/readingroom\/docs\/DOC_0001372115.pdf<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Devereaux, \u201cHow the CIA Watched Over the Destruction of Gary Webb\u201d<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2014\/09\/25\/managing-nightmare-cia-media-destruction-gary-webb\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0CIA IG Hitz \u2014 findings and testimony<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/pages\/frontline\/shows\/drugs\/special\/hitz.html<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Gary Webb \u2014 biography<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/biography\/Gary-Webb<\/a><\/u>\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0https:\/\/spartacus-educational.com\/JFKwebbG.htm<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a01990 Pulitzer Prize, General News Reporting<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.pulitzer.org\/winners\/staff-26<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43 (2024)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/603\/23-411\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a017 U.S.C. \u00a7512<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/17\/512<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Gary Mack \u2014 biography<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/spartacus-educational.com\/JFKmack.htm<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Business Plot \/ Paul Comly French<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Business_Plot<\/a><\/u>\u00a0\u00b7\u00a0https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Paul_Comly_French<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Glaspie\u2013Hussein transcript (July 25, 1990)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/www.rapeutation.com\/transcr.meeting.htm<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Rep. Howard C. Nielson (R-Utah)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Howard_C._Nielson<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Morrow thread (EF Topic 32227)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/educationforum.ipbhost.com\/topic\/32227-jfk-assassination-researchers-have-you-ever-been-spied-on-wiretapped-or-harassed-by-the-american-government-in-your-years-of-jfk-research\/<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Simkin on the deaths of journalists (EF Topic 32198)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/educationforum.ipbhost.com\/topic\/32198-the-jfk-assassination-and-the-link-with-other-political-conspiracies-1963-2026\/page\/3\/#findComment-601651<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u2022\u00a0Sweeney, \u201cTwenty-Five Rules of Disinformation\u201d (archived)<\/b>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0https:\/\/blog.cyberwar.nl\/2019\/06\/twenty-five-ways-to-suppress-truth-the-rules-of-disinformation-h-michael-sweeney-1997-2001\/<\/a><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
PART III OF III \u00a0\u2022\u00a0 \u201cA SPECTRE IS HAUNTING THE JFKA RESEARCH COMMUNITY\u201d \u00a0\u2022\u00a0 END OF THE SERIES<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

—<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

https:<\/a><\/span><\/b>\/\/jkho<\/a><\/span><\/u><\/b>felin<\/a><\/span><\/u><\/b>gla<\/a><\/span><\/u><\/b>w.org\/<\/a><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"AIorK4we-cLTeFGz2w5k2RRZvx-BZ2FBOt9R22wN5QOHQgjD8P409ceOiqDHpRLAME9a2uyM7C2oXi6ioGdW\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Edited\u00a0

\n