The increasingly massive number of words produced in either defaming Ward Churchill as an academic fraud, fabricator, and plagiarist, or in rebutting these charges, alone makes an analysis of the case a complex challenge. Add to that the political positions and motivations of the various actors, the questions that continue to go without answer, the multiple layers of research misconduct of those who charge research misconduct, and complexity begins to look more like utter chaos. As Ward Churchill proceeds to the trial of the University of Colorado, there is as yet no single fact sheet that has been produced that directly, succinctly, and methodically answers all of the academic charges against Churchill — instead the information is spread across a large array of documents that I fear few will take the time to carefully consult (least of all, his critics, the many angry Little Eichmanns who continue to look for any opportunity for another public lynching). I do not proclaim that the following is the kind of fact sheet I was hoping for, but I hope it will be one step into ordering some of the documentary clutter as we proceed to follow the trial of the University of Colorado.
The case formallly advanced against Ward Churchill by the University of Colorado consists of seven allegations:
The 12-member Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, following a review in summer 2005 by its inquiry subcommittee, announced in September 2005 that seven of nine allegations related to Professor Ward Churchill warranted a full investigation.
The seven allegations of research misconduct referred for further investigation included alleged instances of plagiarism, misuse of others’ work, falsification and fabrication of authority.
Two allegations – regarding misrepresentation of ethnicity and copyright infringement – were not regarded as appropriate for further investigation under the definition of research misconduct.
Also not included in the investigative committee’s review were Churchill’s written and spoken remarks about 9-11 victims. Those written and spoken remarks were not included because those statements concerned Professor Churchill’s opinions concerning United States’ policies and global affairs and thus are constitutionally protected against government sanction by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Questions of Motivation
Before proceeding to some of the academic detail, let us ask ourselves some basic questions, and let us also keep in mind some of the politics of those who led the charge against Churchill:
- If the problem about Churchill’s work consists of questionable interpretations of historical evidence, and alleged fabrications, then why was it that his work passed scrutiny when he was awarded tenure?
- In fact, when did the allegations of research misconduct first surface, and why then and not before?
- How are the charges, if true, sufficient reason for firing a tenured professor with multiple awards for teaching, research, and service?
What it boils down to is that someone whose work contains 12,000 footnotes was being fired over the technical minutiae of select small passages of his work, and disputed for having the presumably “incorrect” view of the history of white racism and genocide. Moreover, Ward Churchill was an activist when he was hired by UC-Boulder, without a PhD, and has still proved himself to be a prolific scholar.
The timing of the investigation into Churchill’s work, and the political connections of some of the leading persons behind the investigation, raise extremely serious issues of conflict of interest and threats to constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
The investigation of Ward Churchill’s work came only after a media frenzy was created around an essay written by Churchill about the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. That essay was titled, ” ‘Some People Push Back:’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” Reporter Pamela White of the Boulder Weekly succinctly recounts how that controversy emerged:
“It started when a group of conservative students from Hamilton College in New York, hoping to block University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill’s scheduled talk at their school, protested an essay Churchill had written on Sept. 11, 2001. In the essay, titled “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” Churchill, an American Indian activist and scholar, framed the terrorists attacks as inevitable, the natural result of years of oppressive U.S. policies, which he outlined at length. He also compared the stockbrokers, lawyers and government employees who died in the attacks with Nazi “technocrat” Adolf Eichmann for their role in supporting U.S. actions abroad. The students’ protest caught the attention of the national corporate media, which pounced on Churchill and his controversial essay with rabid ferocity. The result was a national furor. For two weeks now [writing in February 2005], the corporate media has controlled the story, fanning the flames of anger and even questioning Churchill’s ethnicity. Paula Zahn interviewed Churchill – but barely let him speak. MSNBC, Fox and MTV carried the story. Denver talk radio couldn’t get enough of the topic, one radio host declaring Churchill’s essay treasonous and suggesting that Churchill be executed. Media attention prompted reactions from members of Congress, who contacted Gov. Bill Owens, demanding a response. Owens, in turn, condemned Churchill’s writings and called for university officials to fire him. The Colorado General Assembly then picked up the issue and passed a resolution renouncing Churchill’s point of view, and the CU Board of Regents held a special meeting and apologized to the nation for the essay. The regents are now investigating Churchill to determine whether he can be fired.”
Let us keep in mind the origin and trajectory of events: the investigation into Ward Churchill’s work followed after the State Governor and national media took umbrage with an essay that itself would not be the subject of the investigation. Instead, as Churchill outlines the events that followed, “with the help of the Rocky Mountain News, University officials spent months soliciting allegations. Even then, they only had some random allegations but still no actual complaints, so Interim Chancellor Distefano stepped in as ‘complainant,’ using the newspaper stories as the ‘complaints’.”
What are the political biases and motivations of those responsible for bringing the case into the university. Ward Churchill has clearly outlined these on his own site:
One of the main players has been the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). Oganized by Lynne Cheney [wife of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney], its goal is to quash the “obsession with diversity” and the “liberal bias” in education. ACTA is financed by rightwing foundations such as Castle Rock (Coors), Scaife, Olin and Bradley, and allied with powerful neoconservative groups such as the Federalist Society, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, and National Association of Scholars. ACTA furthers its agenda by enlisting trustees (regents), alumni, governors and legislators to bring political and financial pressure on universities.
Colorado is an ACTA stronghold: CU President Hank Brown: was a co-founder and a former CU-Boulder philosophy department chair [who] is now ACTA’s national Chairman. Regent Tom Lucero is a strong supporter, and former Gov. Bill Owens, a leader of ACTA’s Governors Project, hosted an ACTA conference for Colorado trustees.
ACTA published How Many Ward Churchills? in May 2006 to coincide with the release of CU’s Investigative Report. It concludes: “Ward Churchill is everywhere.” …
One of their unfounded concerns is that classrooms are being used as “sensitivity training” (apparently this is a bad thing in the U.S., no wonder so little sensitivity is shown), activism training, indoctrination, etc. Among the great many problems with this are:
- the notion that students are essentially idiots who cannot judge for themselves, that being young means being mentally handicapped;
- that the students, unlike other adults, have completely open minds, without biases and prejudices of their own;
- that the teachers themselves are superb teachers, able to get their message across, undiluted, memorable, and with all plausible alternatives vanquished;
- and, that the students were forced, against their will, to take these teachers’ courses. (I reflect here on the fact that none of my courses are required parts of the curriculum.)
The above is simply a response to ACTA — no charges of using the classroom for propaganda were made against Churchill by the investigating committee, rather, ACTA would like to exploit any opportunity to use a demonized Churchill as a weapon to intimidate all professors who may question the logic and morality of their own state. The only thing missing here is a Siberian prison camp.
Academic Allegations
Clearly the motivation to investigate Churchill was not academic in origin, and to focus exclusively or even primarily on the academic details is a serious error of judgment. One cannot decontextualize the situation, remove power from the equation, and obliterate chronology, and then claim to be producing a serious analysis. However, since some will continue to push the “academic misconduct” angle, even while basing themselves on arguments without academic merit (as I just explained), it is necessary to take a closer look. Thankfully, Ward Churchill furnishes a wide array of key documents, even if they lack a summary or integration into a single “fact sheet.” I have no problem in using Churchill’s site for this, since he clearly presents both the charges against him, in complete detail, and the counter charges.
(1) The Plagiarism Charges Against Churchill
Dr. Tom Mayer, a professor in sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has produced an excellent report on the charges against Churchill, and their necessary demystification. He tell us:
The research misconduct charges against Ward Churchill are of two general kinds: charges of faulty research and charges of plagiarism. The faulty research accusations have been largely discredited through the efforts of professors Eric Cheyfitz, Michael Yellow Bird, David Stannard, Huanani-Kay Trask, James Craven, Ruth Hsu, and others. These independent scholars, all of whom are intimately familiar with Native American history and culture, have shown that the Report of the Investigative Committee (henceforth called Report) finding Churchill guilty of research misconduct contains numerous errors of omission and commission. The Report improperly converts legitimate scholarly controversies into indictments of the positions taken by Professor Churchill.
Mayer argues that the plagiarism charges lack force. Moreover, in his words:
- “Significantly, all these charges pertain to Churchill’s work as an intellectual within the broad but fractured movement to emancipate indigenous people.”
- “None of the papers accused of plagiarism were written for the purpose of building an academic career. This is important because the norms of authorship within the social movement context differ substantially from those within the academic domain.”
All three of the plagiarism charges date back to work 14 years old or more, and were never previously aired as charges. Indeed, the University placed Churchill on numerous committees, had him as Chair of the Ethnic Studies Department, and also recognized his teaching with awards.
The source of all three of the plagiarism charges is the University of Colorado administration itself, rather than an academic complaining of their work having been plagiarized.
As Mayer explains, “The first plagiarism charge concerns a 1972 pamphlet by a Canadian environmental organization called Dam the Dams Campaign about a scheme to transfer water from northern Canada to the United States.” The Dam the Dams campaign is listed as the original author of the source material, and therefore there is no plagiarism. In another instance, Churchill co-authored a piece with the campaign in a Z Magazine article — the magazine itself deleted the co-authorship details, even while Churchill makes it clear throughout that the campaign provided him with the information. Churchill himself makes a point of never citing the article, given the violation committed by the editors of the magazine itself. In subsequent publications, more extensively footnoted (anyone who knows Churchill’s work knows that its footnoting can be massive, sometimes rivaling the length of the main text), Churchill always credited Dam the Dams for the information used, many times over.
“The second charge of plagiarism,” Mayer explains, “concerns a 1992 paper authored by Rebecca Robbins. Professor Churchill allegedly plagiarized this paper in three different chapters of his 1993 book Struggle for the Land. Rebecca Robbins, the purported victim of the plagiarization, did not originate this accusation. John LaVelle, a law professor now at the University of New Mexico who is fiercely hostile to Churchill, suggested he had a hand in writing the Robbins article but did not accuse him of plagiarism.” LaVelle has himself been exposed a biased and hostile source. Instead, the University itself, in the figure Provost Phillip DiStefano, acted as the source of the complaint.
This is a very interesting case: not only is Churchill not guilty of plagiarism, he is the actual original author of the text appearing under Robbins’ name, as Mayer tells us:
“After examining the three chapters in Struggle for the Land and hearing verbal testimony, the investigating committee dismisses this plagiarism charge because Professor Churchill claims to be, and actually is, the author of the paper attributed to Rebecca Robbins. Indeed, Churchill acknowledges that he occasionally publishes under other names, sometimes under the names of living people. When contacted through her attorney, Professor Robbins declined to speak with the investigating committee. It appears that she willingly put her name on the paper authored by Professor Churchill.”
Nonetheless, the investigating committee decided to concoct a charge of research misconduct, alleging that writing under someone else’s name, even with their permission, is misconduct. The University thereby effectively banned ghost-writing, which is an accepted practice in numerous fields, including the authorship of non-fiction books.
The additional charge was that Churchill quotes his own ghost-written work as a source of authority (not that self-referencing, prolific in academia, is a real problem), thereby creating an opportunity for fabricating sources. Instead, actual examination of the footnotes reveals that Churchill was not citing authority needed to defend a questionable hypothesis, but merely a means of avoiding extensive repetition.
Continuing on the journey into ever more obscure charges of plagiarism, Mayer informs us of the following:
“The third plagiarism charge concerns a 1991 paper on Native American fishing rights by Fay G. Cohen, a faculty member at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, that Ward Churchill allegedly misappropriated. Cohen’s paper was originally published in a book entitled Critical Issues in Native North America, Volume II that was edited by Churchill. Cohen’s paper was also slated for republication in a 1992 volume named The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance edited by M. Annette Jaimes, a former wife of and sometimes collaborator with Churchill. For reasons that remain uncertain, Professor Cohen decided to withdraw her paper from the Jaimes anthology. Nevertheless, an article named “In Usual and Accustomed Places” about Native American fishing rights and the struggles to secure them did appear in The State of Native America book. The title of this article refers to the locations where Native American fishing was permitted according to the text of the 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek. The Report finds this paper guilty of plagiarism and identifies Professor Churchill as the plagiarizer even though he is not listed as the author.”
To be clear, Cohen’s work was indeed plagiarized in that article. The “author” of the article was an insititute to which Churchill belongs. Churchill claims to have done copy editing for the article. He continues to reject any kind of authorship. Mayer finds his explanation to be convincing. Nor is the paper authored in Churchill’s usual voice, nor is it integrated as Churchill’s other work. It appears to have been drafted by a committee.
Also, to be clear, neither Cohen nor Dalhousie University legal counsel accuse Churchill of plagiarism.
Mayer concludes, “the Report convicts Professor Churchill of plagiarism for a paper he did not sign, claims not to have written, which is published in a book he did not edit, and whose text clearly diverges from significant features of his published work. At the very least, this judgement violates the criminal court standard of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
(2) Contesting Historical Fact
The Report does more than just allege plagiarism, it faults Churchill for not being enough a historian (he is not a historian in fact), and for not delving far enough into what it considers the facts to be. Essentially, the University argued that Churchill got his interpretations wrong, and should be fired. That should sound a chilling warning to anyone who either makes a mistake, or has a different interpretation of events.
Churchill has explained the matter in the following ways in one of his documents submitted to the University:
- “The first two allegations addressed in the Investigative Report concern Professor Churchill’s summaries of the impact on native peoples of two federal laws, the Allotment Act and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. In its 20-page analysis, the Committee acknowledged that his conclusions may be correct, but criticized the nature of his citations and faulted him for having failed to publish a response to a particular critic. On the Allotment Act the Committee again acknowledged that Professor Churchill was essentially correct and his accuser generally incorrect. However, the Report accuses him of getting the details wrong, despite the fact that he wrote only a few paragraphs on the subject and, thus, did not address any details. For this he is charged with falsification.”
- “The third charge concerned Professor Churchill’s statement that there is ‘strong circumstantial evidence’ that John Smith introduced smallpox among the Wampanoags in the early 1600s. The committee took it upon itself to decide that this was an ‘implausible’ conclusion and that, therefore, he had not cited to enough circumstantial evidence. This is characterized as both falsification and fabrication.”
- “Professor Churchill’s two paragraph statement that in 1837 the army deliberately spread smallpox among the Mandans at Fort Clark generated 44 pages of analysis on the fourth allegation. While basically affirming his conclusions, the Committee expressed displeasure with the nature, thoroughness and, in some cases, the sources of his citations. Although numerous scholars have made the same general point without any citation, Professor Churchill was charged with falsification, fabrication, and deviation from accepted reporting practices.”
The investigating committee’s subject expertise has also been called into question, in addition to using ad hominem sources, and suppressing evidence that ran counter to their conclusions. Where they claimed Churchill had no support for his conclusions, and that he misrepresented the authors he quoted, others reading the same sources found otherwise (see here).
Conclusions
While it was not unanimous that Churchill be fired (some panelists argued for suspension without pay, or demotion), this is the core of what was advanced as a reason for firing Churchill:
(1) failed to provide evidence sufficient to convince them that
(a) the place from which smallpox blankets were obtained was an infirmary;
(b) an Army doctor or post surgeon was the one who told the Mandans to scatter; and
(c) 400,000, as opposed to possibly 300,000, people ultimately died as a result of the 1837 epidemic in question;
(2) cited material he has consistently acknowledged to have ghostwritten;
(3) published an article in Z Magazine in which the editors deleted his insertion of “Dam the Dams” as a co-author; and
(4) copy edited a piece (in a book edited by a third party) which, unbeknownst to him, plagiarized Fay Cohen. (source)
Nine University of Colorado professors, seven external ones, and two attorneys wrote to the University to protest its own egregiously improper acts in investigating and then punishing Churchill. The nine Colorado professors wrote in an open letter of 23 April 2007 that the authors of the Report against Churchill committed the following violations:
- relying on a biased and flawed source for major arguments;
- relying on the artificial exclusion of reputable independent sources that contradict the Report’s argument in order to support its argument;
- suppressing text from a cited source that contradicts the Report’s argument;
- distorting the weakness of the Report’s case;
- artificially limiting scholarly interpretation in violation of norms of scholarship.
In addition, as mentioned before, a group of seven external professors also wrote an open letter condemning the investigative committee of the University of Colorado for suppressing alternative evidence, distorting the words of witnesses writing on Churchill’s behalf, misrepresenting evidence, and seeking to act as an arbiter of truth. They note that the committee deliberately sought to tackle Churchill’s view of events as constituting racism and genocide, which betrays a further political motivation on its part, while denying Churchill academic freedom. In particular, they cite the five following cases of wrongdoing on the part of the investigative committee:
- The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning smallpox among the Wampanoags in New England, 1614-1618;
- The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning Smith and the deliberate infection of the Wampanoags;
- The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning the 1837 smallpox epidemic among the Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara and the withholding of vaccine;
- The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning the role of the military in the 1837 smallpox epidemic, and denied access to its sources; and,
- In asserting that Professor Churchill “disrespected” American Indian oral tradition, the Committee misrepresented, distorted, and suppressed evidence and exceeded its mandate to conduct a nonadversarial, fact-finding investigation.
The Report produced by the University of Colorado has placed that university in great jeopardy, legal or otherwise. It explicitly dismisses the assumption that the investigation was politically motivated, or about Churchill’s 9/11 essay, noting that is protected under his Constitutional Right to Free Speech and therefor not subject to its authority. However, it is clearly there that the process began, as a political inquisition, and the right to free speech comes back in, because it was particularly that free speech that so offended the leading players and led them to labour at producing anything suspicious out of Churchill’s 12,000 footnotes.
Moreover, members of the reporting committee included persons with a conflict of interest, persons who were negatively predisposed towards Churchill and had, via email to colleagues, already concluded he was guilty before even examining the facts. This is a lesson in proper academic conduct?
In the meantime, Churchill’s strident critics, writing with a hostility that belies any supposed indignation over improper footnoting, find refuge in ever tinier corners of cyberspace. The first page of Google search results for Ward Churchill features sites that either support Churchill, or are relatively neutral, without exception. The results do not change if you place his name inside quotation marks. Pages of links that were critical of Churchill and claimed to provide resources unmasking his wrongdoing, are often now dead. On the Chronicle of Higher Education one finds dubious characters, like Thomas Brown who has published sarcastic, analytically shoddy pieces about Churchill’s alleged plagiarism, in an attempt to build a career by destroying someone else’s. There are those who want to contradict Churchill’s genocide thesis, and then betray their own ignorance of internationally accepted understandings of the term. Then there is “Snapple,” an anonymous blogger whose big claim to infamy is a psychotic conspiracy theory that Churchill is responsible for the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. Should “Snapple” ever be unmasked, a severe lawsuit on the grounds of libel awaits him/her — either that, or one long overdue appointment with a mental health institution. With opposition like this, one hopes that Churchill will have an easier day in court than we already expect.
_______
ZERO ANTHROPOLOGY 
Pingback: Misunderstanding and Misrepresenting the Charges Against Ward Churchill « OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY
Pingback: Revisiting the firing of Ward Churchill « The Ward Churchill Trial
Pingback: News from Day 4 of Ward Churchill’s Lawsuit against the University of Colorado « OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY
Snapple
The latest skuttlebutt is that Ward Churchill has been subpoenaed as a hostile witness to testify in the Anna Mae Aquash murder trial scheduled to begin May 12 in Rapid City, South Dakota. (See Pirate Ballerina)
Maximilian Forte
See Pirate Ballerina? If that is the kind of reference material you are using, a mixture of hogwash combined with lurid fantasy and libelous allegations, then you are in far deeper trouble than I initially imagined.
Snapple
Mr. Paine writes:
We expect CU defense attorney Patrick O’Rourke to call Snapple to the stand either today or tomorrow. Quite frankly, it would be one of his smarter moves.
He linked Snapple to this:
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/04/allusions-themes-symbols-diction-and.html
Maximilian Forte
Oh my goodness, the legendary Snapple is here, the one who I have most enjoyed quoting on his “Ward Churchill murdered JonBenet Ramsey” conspiracy theory. By the way, you really do get around — I don’t think there is a single story that allows comments, anywhere on the Internet, that you have not visited to post your legendofpineridge links. And to make matters even more hilarious/ridiculous, you quote both Paine and Pirate Ballerina. This is too funny!
Calling Snapple to the stand? I can only wish that comes true. Is there a petition anywhere that I can sign to help increase the pressure to get you on the stand?
By the way, isn’t your name also “Katya G”? And, are you not afraid that if Churchill wins his case, and wins any monetary compensation, that he might suddenly have both the time and resources to sue you for defamation? You know that you just make your shit up, as part of your pet personal crusade against Churchill, and that you have said anything and everything imaginable to try to assassinate his character. I hope you know that comes with consequences.
Lastly, have you ever considered this possibility: that when you become so obsessed with one person, you effectively become that person’s mental prisoner? Since Churchill fills your thoughts, and your days of typing, you essentially become his hostage. Where there is that degree of hatred and obsessive stalking, you know what’s around the corner? LOVE.
So welcome, Comrade Snapple.
Maximilian Forte
Mr. Paine is a fool of an extreme kind, however.
Do you fail to notice this because you obsessive stalking freaks enjoy each other’s company so much that you diminished your capacity to stop and think and realize when someone is saying utterly insipid rubbish that does not deserve your applause?
Bob Bateman
Max,
I’m guessing that even if “Snapple” was discovered, he’d probably be safe. Churchill deliberately made himself (long before all of this stuff) into something of a public figure. He (I’m assuming that about “Snapple”) could therefore use the “Public Figure” doctrineb and it would become Churchill’s burden to prove all allegations are false, that Snapple knew they were false, and that they were examples of Snapple asserting something as ‘fact’ (vice ‘opinion’). That’s a tough row to hoe.
Bob Bateman
Ben
Hey Snapple,
What’s your relation to Joseph Trimbach. Sister? Wife? Where you at, ma’am? And have you discussed your theory about Ward killing Jonbenet with him? I’d love to hear his reaction to that one.
Maximilian Forte
Joseph Trimbach? Interesting, I was thinking more along the lines of Joseph Mengele.
Seriously though, I worry that once s/he is discovered we will be in a state of shock and horror to discover that s/he was just a bottle of juice after all.
Snapple
i’m not related to Trimbach. I read about him in an Indian publication and went to one of his book talks. I also bought his book because it has a lot of testimony by Indian people who were eyewitnesses to AIM violence. Trimbach listens to Indian people and tells their story about the conspirators who killed Anna Mae. He tells how AIM criminals attacked Wounded Knee and burned it down, stole everything, and killed people.
http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=74
Mr. Forte,
Ward Churchill’s 9-11 essay is full of lies, distortions, ommissions and errors.
Here is what I wrote.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/01/ward-churchill-ties-his.html
Here is what Ward Churchill writes about children and about JonBenet.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-counted-number-of-books.html
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/02/ward-churchill-jokes-in-three-scholarly.html
Did you know that Ward Churchill “jokes” in THREE books that mothers should snuff their babies and kill themselves “to do the planet a real favor.”
I am a mother.
Ward Churchill really hates Madeleine Albright. Did you know he talks about the garrotted Jonbenet in the same paragraph as he talks about how Albright should be tried in the shadow of the gallows? This is in Perversions of Justice.
In “Some People Push Back” Churchill said we should “rise up” and hang Albright. HE can’t even spell Madeleine.
Do you think it is normal to joke that moms should kill their babies? Do you think it is normal to talk about a strangled baby in the same paragraph as talking about hanging someone?
Ward Churchill was against the sanctions, but he never even says these sanctions were imposed to keep Saddam from invading Kuwait.
Ward Churchill even says that Albright responded in 1996 to what he claims Denis halliday said in 1998 about “genocide.” Churchill can’t even spell Halliday.
Ward Churchill says that was in the NYT. I don’t see Halliday talking about “genocide in fall 1998 in mthe NYT. I looked.
Halliday was involved in the oil for food. He denied there was any corruption.
Saddam could sell oil for food, but he evaded the sanctions so he could buy other things.
People went hungry because Saddam didn’t buy food.
If you were a scholar, you would read what I have found out.
Mr. Forte,
Ward Churchill’s 9-11 essay is full of lies, distortions, ommissions and errors.
Here is what I wrote.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/01/ward-churchill-ties-his.html
Here is what Ward Churchill writes about children and about JonBenet.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-counted-number-of-books.html
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/02/ward-churchill-jokes-in-three-scholarly.html
Did you know that Ward Churchill “jokes” in THREE books that mothers should snuff their babies and kill themselves “to do the planet a real favor.”
I am a mother.
Ward Churchill really hates Madeleine Albright. Did you know he talks about the garrotted Jonbenet in the same paragraph as he talks about how Albright should be tried in the shadow of the gallows? This is in Perversions of Justice.
In “Some People Push Back” Churchill said we should “rise up” and hang Albright. HE can’t even spell Madeleine.
Do you think it is normal to joke that moms should kill their babies? Do you think it is normal to talk about a strangled baby in the same paragraph as talking about hanging someone?
Ward Churchill was against the sanctions, but he never even says these sanctions were imposed to keep Saddam from invading Kuwait.
Ward Churchill even says that Albright responded in 1996 to what he claims Denis halliday said in 1998 about “genocide.” Churchill can’t even spell Halliday.
Ward Churchill says that was in the NYT. I don’t see Halliday talking about “genocide in fall 1998 in mthe NYT. I looked.
Halliday was involved in the oil for food. He denied there was any corruption.
Saddam could sell oil for food, but he evaded the sanctions so he could buy other things.
People went hungry because Saddam didn’t buy food.
If you were a scholar, you would read what I have found out.
Mr. Forte,
Ward Churchill’s 9-11 essay is full of lies, distortions, ommissions and errors.
Here is what I wrote.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/01/ward-churchill-ties-his.html
Here is what Ward Churchill writes about children and about JonBenet.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-counted-number-of-books.html
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/02/ward-churchill-jokes-in-three-scholarly.html
Did you know that Ward Churchill “jokes” in THREE books that mothers should snuff their babies and kill themselves “to do the planet a real favor.”
I am a mother.
Ward Churchill really hates Madeleine Albright. Did you know he talks about the garrotted Jonbenet in the same paragraph as he talks about how Albright should be tried in the shadow of the gallows? This is in Perversions of Justice.
In “Some People Push Back” Churchill said we should “rise up” and hang Albright. HE can’t even spell Madeleine.
Do you think it is normal to joke that moms should kill their babies? Do you think it is normal to talk about a strangled baby in the same paragraph as talking about hanging someone?
Ward Churchill was against the sanctions, but he never even says these sanctions were imposed to keep Saddam from invading Kuwait.
Ward Churchill even says that Albright responded in 1996 to what he claims Denis halliday said in 1998 about “genocide.” Churchill can’t even spell Halliday.
Ward Churchill says that was in the NYT. I don’t see Halliday talking about “genocide in fall 1998 in mthe NYT. I looked.
Halliday was involved in the oil for food. He denied there was any corruption.
Saddam could sell oil for food, but he evaded the sanctions so he could buy other things.
People went hungry because Saddam didn’t buy food.
If you were a scholar, you would read what I have found out.
Mr. Forte,
I was writing about how the Osage murders seemed to be the subtext for AIM claims of FBI murders by about 2003.
Dr. LaVelle, a Sioux Indian law professor, noticed Churchill’s dishonest scholarship in 1996 and 1999.
I put it on a Jonbenet site. The JonBenet person knew all about AIM and claimed she was getting her information about the Jonbenet investigation from the AIM lawyer Lee Hill.
Lee Hill pulled a gun on his wife, almost rammed a cop car, and had weapons he was not allowed to have. He was going to trial for felonies when he vanished.
Maybe you should read what other people who know about AIM say, especially Indian eyewitnesses to AIM violence who are in the Trimbachs’ book.
D. LaVelle is an Indian scholar. Why do you just listen to some white KGB stooge?
Mr. Forte,
Ward Churchill’s 9-11 essay is full of lies, distortions, ommissions and errors.
Here is what I wrote.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/01/ward-churchill-ties-his.html
Here is what Ward Churchill writes about children and about JonBenet.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-counted-number-of-books.html
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/02/ward-churchill-jokes-in-three-scholarly.html
Did you know that Ward Churchill “jokes” in THREE books that mothers should snuff their babies and kill themselves “to do the planet a real favor.”
I am a mother.
Ward Churchill really hates Madeleine Albright. Did you know he talks about the garrotted Jonbenet in the same paragraph as he talks about how Albright should be tried in the shadow of the gallows? This is in Perversions of Justice.
In “Some People Push Back” Churchill said we should “rise up” and hang Albright. HE can’t even spell Madeleine.
Do you think it is normal to joke that moms should kill their babies? Do you think it is normal to talk about a strangled baby in the same paragraph as talking about hanging someone?
Ward Churchill was against the sanctions, but he never even says these sanctions were imposed to keep Saddam from invading Kuwait.
Ward Churchill even says that Albright responded in 1996 to what he claims Denis halliday said in 1998 about “genocide.” Churchill can’t even spell Halliday.
Ward Churchill says that was in the NYT. I don’t see Halliday talking about “genocide in fall 1998 in mthe NYT. I looked.
Halliday was involved in the oil for food. He denied there was any corruption.
Saddam could sell oil for food, but he evaded the sanctions so he could buy other things.
People went hungry because Saddam didn’t buy food.
If you were a scholar, you would read what I have found out.
I began to wonder about the ransom figure of 118,000.
I googled Ward Churchill 118,000
I came to a site by the Maoist MIM. A contributor had written that 118,000 Iraqi children were in danger of dying from the sanctions.
Here is the article I found.
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/sept112001/wardchurchill021705.html
I think this murder was some kind of revenge for Iraqi babies.
Did you know that Jonbenet probably died in the early hours of December 26. That is Mao’s birthday.
It is also Bill Ayers’ birthday. I know a lot about him, too. Probably he chose Mao as his hero because they had the same birthday.
As far as stock phrases in the ransom note, see this post and the links. The Free Republic link goes on for pages and has more commentary.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/04/allusions-themes-symbols-diction-and.html
The ransom note uses the conjunctive adverb “hence.” The note has a section that plagiarizes passages one of the notes in the Lindbergh kidnapping.
The Lindbergh murder was solved by Norman Schwarzkopf ‘s father. You may recall that Schwarzkopf expelled Saddam from Kuwait.
This is another hint that the murder of JonBenet may have been motivated by the UN sanctions that went into effect after Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.
On TV I saw Churchill in court talking about killing babies. I didn’t make that up.
I saw Churchill “joke” in THREE books that moms should snuff their babies and kill themselves to do the planet a real favor. I didn’t make that up.
I saw Churchill complain in “Perversions of Justice” that 24 books were published about Jonbenet. He counted the number of Jonbenet books. I didn’t make that up.
I saw Churchill write in “Perversions of Justice” about the garrotted JonBenet in the same paragraph as he wrote about Albright deserving the gallows! I didn’t make that up.
Those are Ward Churchill’s own books that he has stacked up in court.
I also see that the Boulder police is having a “pow-wow” (in the chief’s words) about the Ramsey murder.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/02/investigators-plan-two-day-pow-wow-to.html
I read the documentation about the KGB connections to the Covert Action Information Bulletin. Churchill wrote in that KGB mouthpiece that the FBI backed death squads that killed 342 Indians.
I didn’t make that up. The Wardo did.
His lie about the smallpox is just like the lie the KGB told about the AIDS. They said the US Army invented AIDS to kill black people just like Wardo said the US Army deliberately gave the Mandan smallpox-infected blankets.
Ward Churchill didn’t know that smallpox is rarely spread by fomites because he is not a scientific person. He is like those Medeival people who said that the Jews gave the Christians plague. that’s where the KGB gets their propaganda tactics–from warmed-over anti-Semitic canards. The Czarist propaganda was the same. They were involved in the famous hoax called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The KGB chief Primakov admitted they made up that AIDS lie and circulated it through their media mouthpieces.
However, Russians were dying from AIDS, so this lie sounded really stupid to scientific Russians. Their scientists wanted to work with the Americans on a cure for AIDS. The Soviet Academy of Sciences denounced the AIDS lie back in 1987.
The book by the Stearns that Churchill “cites” even explains:
Mischief makers tried to provoke the Indians against the whites by telling them that they were to be exterminated by smallpox, introduced in clothing sent to them. [ The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian (1945) by E. Wagner Stearn, Ph.D. and Allen E. Stearn, Ph.D. (102)]
Ward Churchill is a modern-day mischief maker who circulates fabricated canards about the U.S. Army using biological warfare against the Mandan.
Churchill calls some Indian people NAZI stooges—“Vichy Indians” and “puppets” with “Quisling impulses.”
But Ward Churchill is a stooge who writes for the KGB. I didn’t make that up.
You can read some of the information that was in the KGB files in the book “Sword and Shield” by Mitrokhin and Christopher Andrew. He was head of the History Department at Cambridge University.
The KGB/communist lawyers made trouble for the Indians because they were trying to hurt the FBI. The terrorist AIM burned down Wounded Knee and killed people. They killed Anna Mae after she was raped. Soon she will hopefully get justice.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/03/lawyers-who-victimized-pine-ridge.html
Here is my first account of the Osage Indian murders and its relation to the Ramsey murder. Be sure also to read the linked update.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/02/osage-indian-murders-and-legend-of.html
The FBI caught the killers. One was named John Ramsey.
Here is what happened at Wounded Knee according to Agnes Gildersleeve, an Indian who lived there.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/01/grandma-gildersleeves-words-rise-from.html
“[AIM] took complete control of the telephone service and local residents were not permitted to answer any of the phones. When my phone would ring, an armed guard would immediately answer the phone and direct the call over to the trailer house where Banks, Means, and Bellecourt were located…” Agnes Gildersleeve (See Trimbach p. 88)
Read how Churchill describes the terrorist take-over of an American Indian town and then compare his whitewash with Mrs. Gildersleeve’s eyewitness testimony of her ordeal at the hands of the AIMsters.
Ward Churchill, who claims he defends fellow Indians, describes AIM’s reign of terror on the night of February 27, 1973 as if it were a slumber party:
“They [AIM] settled in for the night in a local church and the trading post of Clive and Agnes Gildersleeve (government chartered white traders who had long been accused of ‘ripping off’ reservation Oglalas)” (Joseph H. Trimbach. American Indian Mafia, p. 374. Citing Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall’s 2002 edition of Agents of Repression, p. 143).
The former Special Agent in Charge of the Minneapolis FBI, Joseph H. Trimbach, writes that although Ward Churchill claims that the Trading Post was “government chartered,” the AIMsters who destroyed it justified their actions by claiming that the store operated without a government license (375).
According to the statement that Agnes Gildersleeve gave to the FBI on March 8, 1973, AIMsters knocked on their door late at night and said, “You are to consider yourself a political prisoner and hostage” (Trimbach p. 87). The terrorists put guards on her house and moved into her kitchen.
On the third day, the Gildersleeves were taken from their house and held captive in the basement of the church. The day before they were moved to the church, an AIM woman came to the house and told Agnes’ captors, “You have orders to shoot all hostages” (Trimbach p. 87).
While Gildersleeves were held captive in the basement of the church, AIMsters searched their home looking for guns and stole their property. The so-called Indian activists even took Mrs. Gildersleeve’s diamond wedding ring set and Indian jewelry (Trimbach p. 87).
AIMster Russell Means, who would later achieve international reknown as the voice of Powhatan in the Disney cartoon Pocahontas, took over the trailer home of a man confined to a wheelchair named Wilber Reigert. The terrorists pushed Wilber out of his home and made this disabled man’s home the terrorists’ headquarters (Trimbach p. 87).
They rummaged through Wilber Reigert’s documents and stole his Indian antiques. AIMsters stole or or vandalized the people’s art and private property.
People should form their opinions after reading the Trimbachs’ book. He has testimony from Indian people, not from a KGB stooge who claims to be an Indian.
Here is information about the AIM crimes and information about the book.
http://www.americanindianmafia.com/
You can even get the e-book for only 5 dollars.
http://outskirtspress.com/webpage.php?ISBN=9780979585500
Ward Churchill just had Crow Dog at CU to support him.
Leonard Crow Dog knows what happened to Perry Ray Robinson and the others who were “disappeared” in 1973 during the violent AIM occupation of Wounded Knee.
A former member of the AIM has told the retired FBI Special Agent Joseph H. Trimbach that Leonard Crow Dog claims to have information about where a number of unknown people murdered by the AIM are buried.
According to Trimbachs:
“Leonard Crow Dog, warned that at least seven spirits haunt the village ruins. He urged a land purchase of the area in order to prevent a gastly discovery. To illustrate, Crow Dog drew lines in the sand and a map while explaining to this Indian, ‘there’s a Mexican, an Italian, a black man, three white women…’the deaths remain shrouded in secrecy. The history books consider them all, even Robinson, unworthy of mention.
Recent events, however, offer renewed help for the victims’ families. On August 20, 2008, Russell Means’ former bodyguard, Richard Marshall, was indicted for aiding and abetting the murder of Anna Mae Aquash. Because Anna Mae was at Wounded Knee when Robinson was shot, some believe that her death is connected to the Robinson murder. She apparently knew more than just the truth about Leonard Peltier’s crimes. Soon the wheels of justice may come to a stop at a very green area near Wounded Knee Creek, not far from the village ruins.” [American Indian Mafia, 323-324.]
I think the trial of John Graham and Russell Means’ former bodyguard Richard Marshall starts in late May.
They were very young men when they alegedly killed Anna Mae. Other people put them up to this.
“Justice will only be served when those in AIM leadership/security roles are brought to justice for the manipulation and orders they gave others to do their dirty work”–Paul DeMain, Editor of News from Indian Country
The Lakota journalist Tim Giago explains:
“The mainstream media made heroes of the occupiers of Wounded Knee. They became legends in their own minds. Even today there is still talk among the Lakota people of Pine Ridge that some terrible things took place within the AIM camp at Wounded Knee. There were rumors of other murders within the confines of the encampment. There was talk of the rape of young white and Indian women at the camp. One Lakota elder, fluent in the Lakota language, said during the occupation, “All they do is smoke dope and make the women take their pants down.” There is a strong suspicion among some Pine Ridge residents that there are other bodies buried in secret graves at Wounded Knee including the body of an African American man named Perry Ray Robinson who apparently entered the camp at Wounded Knee in 1973 and has not be seen or heard from since.”
Ward Churchill admits he assaulted his young Indian wife Leah Kelly. I often write about Leah on my blog.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/02/assault-on-leah-kelly.html
Churchill is on his fourth wife, Natsu Saito. Her former husband made a lot of trouble during the Atlanta Child killings.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/search?q=jenga
Ben Whitmer “Indian advocate” trashed Leah’s sister Rhonda as a loony.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/surprise-benjamin-whitmer-uncritically.html
Churchill writes:
“I broke and slammed [my wife] back against our bedroom wall, telling her that if she kept it up, she’d be apt to land in a hospital.”
He says she was attacking him. She later was run over by a car and killed late at night.
Reports say she was lying unconscous in the road and the driver didn’t see her.
Leah was a Canadian Indian like Anna Mae. Her tribe wrote a resolution against Churchill in 2004.
Ward Churchill and his friends try to make it seem like the “persecution” of the “Indian” Ward Churchill is something the “right wing media” cooked up. This is nothing but sleight-of-hand designed to take the focus off who really complained about Ward Churchill for years–Indians.
CU didn’t listen to Indian people because they were fooled into listening to Churchill who claimed he spoke for Indians.
Here is what Leah’s tribe wrote about the book Churchill published after his wife died.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/05/canadian-ojibways-support-family-of.html
I think a lot of Indian people are rising up against Ward Churchill. That’s why he is screaming about FOX News, ACTA, etc.
Have you read my blog about Leah Kelly? That was Churchill’s Indian wife. She was run over by a car. I write about this young woman a lot.
Have you read about Natsu Saito’s former husband? He made a lot of trouble during the Atlanta child killings.
Search “Jenga” on my blog.
Here is a link to two articles about what Natsu Saito’s former husband did during the Atlanta child killings.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/search?q=jenga
I have a lot about leah Kelly on my blog. Her entire tribe complained about how her family and tribe were misrepresented by Churchill.
Indians complained about Churchill, but CU didn’t hear them because Churchill had a big mouth and claimed to be an Indian.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/05/canadian-ojibways-support-family-of.html
“The Trimbachs claim that much of what [ex-professor Ward Churchill] writes about AIM [American Indian Movement] is intended to insulate his friend [Russell Means] from being implicated in serious crime, such as the 1975 pre-mediated murder of AIM member Anna Mae Aquash. As stated in the Trimbachs’ book [American Indian Mafia], Means was involved in the cover-up, if not the planning and execution of the crime itself. ‘Aquash’s death was ordered by AIM leaders because they thought she was one of our informants,’ said the former FBI SAC. Churchill has claimed that the FBI was responsible for the murder. Said the younger Trimbach, ‘This charge from Churchill shows that not only is he a liar, he is also a party to covering up a murder involving his associate. Why would any University want to have someone like that on their payroll?'”
The rest:
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=26155
AIM kills people and then blames the FBI.
They killed Anna Mae Aquash and then blamed the FBI, but two more AIM people are going on trial in May. Hopefully they will tell who put them up to this murder.
Churchill wrote in a KGB mouthpiece that the FBI backed death squads that killed 342 Indians. Churchill calls some Indian people NAZI stooges but he is a KGB stooge.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-craven-puppet-with.html
I think Churchill got his idea for his claims about Pine Ridge from the Osage Murders because he wrote about uninvestigated murders and a “reign of terror.” That’s exactly how the Osage described the 1920s murders which were staged as car accidents and alcohol-related deaths. Sometimes the criminals poisoned people.
However, the Osage and the FBI worked together to catch the killers. One of the hit-men was named John Ramsey.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/01/osage-indian-murders.html
This incident in the Osage murders is a lot like what happened to Anna Mae:
“Found: In May 1921, the badly decomposed body of Anna Brown—an Osage Native American—in a remote ravine in northern Oklahoma. The undertaker later discovered a bullet hole in the back of her head. Anna had no known enemies, and the case went unsolved …”–the FBI (1-26-05)
You can read the official FBI files about the Osage murders here.
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/osageind.htm
On June 26, 1975, AIM also killed two FBI agents who were on Pine Ridge looking for a criminal. Churchill blamed the FBI for what happened.
Churchill denigrated the FBI agents and said they died “Custer-like—in their “self-made trap.” It’s what Churchill always does, say an innocent victim deserved what he got.
The facts show that the FBI agents were outgunned before they started shooting; never-the-less, Ward Churchill concocts a fantastic account of this shooting in his book “Agents of Repression.” Churchill characterizes his account as “reality” and claims that the FBI agents were to blame for their own deaths. Churchill suggests that the FBI agents initiated the shooting:
“The reality, of course, was that Coler and Williams were vastly outgunned from the moment they commenced firing, although it is doubtful they realized it at the outset. Further, AIM [ie American Indian Movement] and its supporters had sufficient firepower available to turn back the initial attempts at reinforcement, sealing the two agents — Custer-like — in their self-made trap.” [page 241]
In “Agents of Repression,” Churchill even claims he was driving across the reservation right after this murder happened:
“Author Churchill experienced one of these sweeps firsthand when, while driving across Pine Ridge on June 27, 1975, he stopped to urinate alongside the road, about five miles south of Porcupine. Over the ridge came an APC, accompanied by some 20 FBI and BIA police personnel, moving “on line,” carrying M-16s, and dressed in Vietnam-style jungle fatigues, boots and bush hats. Most of the group were also wearing military-issue flack-jackets. Needless to say, the whole scene afforded a sense of deja vu to the viewer, given that he had spent a year in Southeast Asia in combat.” [page 438, footnote #49]
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/03/custer-like-military-defeat-or-cold.html
Snapple
Mr. Forte,
You write: “Oh my goodness, the legendary Snapple is here, the one who I have most enjoyed quoting on his “Ward Churchill murdered JonBenet Ramsey” conspiracy theory.”
I think you should read my blog yourself and see what I say.
As for getting sued, Churchill claims FBI backed death squads that killed 342 Indians.
AIM does kill a lot of people. They killed Anna Mae and blamed the FBI.
I do think this murder was something to do with AIM because AIM lawyer Lee Hill was blaming her murder on a ring of pedophiles that were protected by the government.
Lee Hill had a fake witness just like AIM had that fake witness Mr. X.
I read that Ward Churchill’s house was used for the Mr. X scene in the movie.
Also, Churchill’s story about the “reign of terror” at Pine Ridge is a lot like the story of the Osage murders. White criminals killed about 20 wealthy Osage for their oil head rights. They made the deaths look like accidents. The FBI caught the killers. One was named John Ramsey.
My dad was part Indian and from Arkansas not too far from the Osage reservation. He told me about that crime.
Here is what happened at Jonestown.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/01/mark-lane-aimster-attorney.html
The old AIM lawyer MARK LANE was there.
He is the one in the KGB files Mitrokhin brought out.
There is a book about this called “Sword and Shield” by Christopher Andrew and Mitrokhin.
MARK LANE is in that book.
MARK LANE also brought sanitary napkins to Pine Ridge. The FBI took a lot of them away because they knew AIM was using them for wicks in molotov cocktails.
I thought is pathetic that David Lane blames Churchill’s problem on FOX NEWS.
Really, Churchill’s problem is that he got his start writing for KGB propaganda. They try to show the CIA, FBI, Army in a bad light.
But when they got POLIO and AIDS, they wanted us to help them. Seems AIDS doesn’t just kill black people. Now Russian and American scientist work on AIDS together.
Russian and Americans also worked together to cure the smallpox.
I wrote a name wrong. The old AIM lawyer was Mark Lane, not David Lane.
The lawyer in the KGB files is Mark Lane.
David Lane is Churchill’s lawyer.
Sorry.
I do wonder if David Lane is the son of Mark Lane.
Maximilian Forte
Well, it’s wondering like that makes for great conspiracy theories.
So let me help you along. David Lane is not only the son of Mark Lane, he may be his brother at the same time, and the leader of a Satanic sect that drinks babies’ blood, then fills the baby carcasses with candies and sells them in Mexico for underground piñata parties that radical Voodoo Maoists like to enjoy.
In return, they receive a set number of kilos of Angel’s Dust that they have poured into Denver’s drinking water system…hence the likely outcome of this trial.
The reason David Lane has eluded justice so far is that he is a shape shifter and can make himself go invisible by blinking three times and holding his hat in front of his chest.
Maximilian Forte
No, seriously Snapple, you are quite precious. I am grateful that you posted these things here, in one easy to locate and condensed set of pieces.
This is what I think:
That the “Ward Churchill killed JonBenet Ramsey” conspiracy theory is officially in my top three of Internet-based conspiracy theories. It is a well crafted conspiracy theory that clearly took some time and cleverness to put together — if I am not mistaken, you forgot to mention where you found that the writing in the note found with JonBenet’s body resembles much of the writing by Churchill, with some of his stock phrases. If you could post that link to your blog, it would be appreciated because I am having a hard time finding it.
I had wanted to write a short post about my favourite Internet-based conspiracy theories, so let me get a head start, and here they are in order of preference:
1. That 9/11 was an “inside job”;
2. The Joker Wild/”Dark Knight” theory, resembling the movie “The Ring” in its outcomes — everything and everyone attached to that film has been cursed, including everyone who saw the film, and all sorts of actions, from an accident suffered by Morgan Freeman, to the death of the actor who played The Joker, to Christian Bale’s violent outbursts against his family members, to the Chinese-Canadian man who beheaded and cannibalized a fellow passenger on a Greyhound Bus in Canada (the victim played as a clown at a Carnival, and had Joker tattoos all over his back), all connected by this one Batman film;
3. That Ward Churchill killed JonBenet Ramsey (I would have added that he also drank her blood);
4. Chemtrails/Contrails — how passenger jets and military aircraft are spraying the skies with long trails of mind control chemicals; and,
5. That Dr. Doom, Dr. Rat, and Mister Mayhem have never been seen in a room together, which suggests that they may all be the same person — OK, I made this one up, but this is conspiracy theory, so I get to do that.
Pingback: Ward Churchill’s Victory is Our Victory « OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY