Wednesday, April 23, 2014

James Norwood / Gary King

Operation Paperclip / New JFK Show #8

203 comments:

  1. http://fakeologist.com/2014/04/27/ep101-cluesforum-info-on-jfk/

    New show discussing the new analysis of the JFK imagery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listening to your link now.
      it would seem that the media as well as the controlled opposition aka disinfo sources dressed in conspiracy theorist clothing are used to polarize opinion along one divide and narrow the debate.
      Whenever one of these media hyped pseudo-events "occurs", our attention is directed to two versions - The MSM version which makes perfect sense to anyone not paying attention to details.
      And, the "whack job" version for people paying close enough attention to smell the bullshit.
      So, while we are running around arguing about logical explanations - we never thought to question whether something actually happened at all.
      No one watching "Dallas" on TV actually believed JR got shot.
      Yet we believe we are watching reality when the "soft core terror porn/drills/hoaxes/staged demonstrations" are presented as fact.
      My research has led me to believe that what passes as our government is really just an illusion created and supported by our media. Special interest groups and lobbyists write the bills that Congress never read but are told to sign. Our so called government is a hoax and exists to give us the illusion of choice while they sell us out to multinational corporations and banks. The reality is that the government we see is literally just a bunch of actors and the New World Disorder took control long ago.

      Delete
  2. Kudos for Gary King in calling out alternative media sites and questioning those narratives that would seemingly benefit the anti-statist point if view. That is true independent thinking; but since I did not catch on to this latest story right away. It may be premature to accuse every site running the story with complicity , but I do question sites that seem to have new overhauled websites like Intellihub, and it goes without saying that the mainstream-alternative media is a joke. We must also take into account that foreign governments or private consortiums could be behind certain actions, as the Soviets proved to be very active in during the Vietnam war in helping foment dissent among the alternative community then as well. My best guess, and with the looming constitutional convention on the horizon, there is a force that would like to Balkanize America, since it eliminates the most powerful preventative measures against curbing fascist tendencies (when run correctly). I would not be surprised if the banks have contingencies plans for the upcoming backwardization of gold and it could involve neutering civic powers. Most people think in black and white with deep state issues, not realizing the Masonic and other apparatus that are above him. We need litmus tests. That us why I trust Jim. I hope Putin is for real; but it is high time to put fear of god in technocrats and kingmakers by using what we do best: asymmetric warfare. Do you like just making radio shows? We need an organization that can be vetted, with strategy and tactics, all for righteous ends. I think what happened at the 50 th anniversary if JFK's death convinced me that we can no longer be so blatantly disrespected. If you are wise, you will realize it usb't about raiding an army, but strategic targeting. And a platform that can be adopted by everyone sooner or later. But the hub and beginnings must commence now. The military will back the people. A given. I can collate a list of great organizations to help get on board , but we also need a special branch for covert matters. Rings within rings. Reflect on it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why is the idea that JFKs murder was a hoax a taboo subject on Jim Fetzers radio show and gets short shrift on the comments section?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it really just a statistically improbable coincidence that so many so called "witnesses" to the JFK assassination look like prominent members of the Grand Ole Opry, the Country Music Hall of Fame, and/or The Rockabilly Hall of Fame?
      Is it really that hard to believe that false witnesses would be placed at the scene to implant the narrative as early as possible while the trauma of the "event" is fresh and people are most susceptible? Wouldn't you pick people who don't get stage fright when the camera is rolling? Remember the 911 Harley Guy and how his "Fire did it" narrative is still pushed?
      I'm not 100% convinced on JFK - but I do know that not being open to any possibility will eventually take you down a road to nowhere - no end and no gas stations.
      Realize that to debate JFK with this viewpoint circumvents one of the things that Jim excels at - retaining and recalling all the details, testimonies, and evidence that is verifiable - if you ignore the possibility that it's all contrived.
      Why would they create fraudulent details, testimoniies, and evidence that does not support the official narrative? Because faking all that to support the official lies is exactly what we would expect. And ultimately, they can expose any of it as faked anytime they want to divert us from the real question - "Did it even happen?" If it didn't, then how, why, who, when, where are immaterial. And all that "secret squirrel" crap from "official" investigations - that never took place because no crime was committed - gets locked away for 50 years...creating the illusion that it exists.
      I've been "screaming hoax" regarding these types of "incidents" every chance I get since the Gaby Giffords drill. And I took a lot of insults from many commenters - any of whom could have been paid to wear me down. After all, it's no secret that a law was passed making it legal to spend our taxes to do just that. And Cass Sunstein said they would.
      So, I never gave up and look where we are today? I know I opened at least three sets of eyes to this issue. And there are more people willing to discuss this now. Considering the likely source of the insults,and being the type of person who does not care what anyone says about me, I suffered nothing.
      My request to you is do not let anyone wear you down. The psyopers win when you give up - your silence is the only permission they need to continue with their agenda.

      Delete
    2. The probability of a conspiracy has been mathematically proven beyond any doubt. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/jfk-calc-questions-on-the-spreadsheet-analysis/

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/15vokd2I6Zd32OWUvkQ29furIWkOPWZ9Pwms3Wy4Sc6E/pub

      Delete
  4. Amanda, JFK was a hoax, The Warren Commission was a hoax, the autopsy was a hoax, the Z-film was a hoax, the MSM is still perpetrating the hoax every day, sometimes we are spared real death and gore, unfortunately the JFK hoax involved real death and gore. Yes, the President being assassinated was true...However, everything else after that WAS a hoax, you know... kinda like the 911 commission report copyright date WAS TRUE! but everything after that was not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary,
      I think you are right on point about the alt media. Let's name a few more Thom Hartman, Amy Goodman, Greg Palast, James Corbett, Dan Dicks, Luke Rudkowski, Paul Jay ...

      Delete
    2. Well said, Gary and not a Neo-LN midget, donkey or flying pig in sight.

      Delete
  5. Enjoyed your section on Fetzer. Have you got a website?
    If all the evidence has been faked, then how can we be sure the murder was not a hoax? The question was why is it such a taboo subject on the Fetzer show. Surely with such fakery going on today, it would do no harm to investigate the idea that the murder of JFK was also a hoax. Some people have been doing some interesting stuff on the theory and it would be good to have an expert on the subject like Jim debate them, though the subject seems to be taboo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amanda, No one who has studied the case has any doubt about it. Why not actually get serious and read my three books and some of my dozens of articles and watch many of my videos. Try "JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why", for example. The idea that he did not die is stupid beyond belief. That's why.

      Delete
    2. Get back in the box, Amanda!
      Hey, I don't know anything for sure but, that which I've seen, smelled, touched, scratched, and witness with my own 5 senses...in person.
      I'm not saying Jim's ability to vette info, retain and recall it is not flawless.
      I'm not endorsing the idea that Jimmy Carter is JFK.
      But, I'm not ruling out any possibility.
      If I ignore all the research done by someone because they seem to be presenting mostly worthless info - I risk missing something that may very well be related to some other research I'm doing.
      For instance, you cannot fully understand where we are and how we got to this point until you investigate the Holocaust...which leads you to the Soviets...their involvement...our government and the commies within......and it keeps going.
      I did not think I needed to investigate the Holocaust. My family is Jewish. A high percentage of my classmates were Jewish. I thought I knew the truth...because everyone repeated the same lies - created by many people with motives.
      Certainly, with all the years and all the great minds - like Jim's - that have been looking at JFK.....we still have little more than we had in the beginning...where most of the assumed to be accurate reports originated.
      I say - Get out of the box and discover something new.
      BTW - Are we always sure that someone actually died when the media tells us?
      As I see things now - Not anymore!
      I assume now that anything they say may be questionable.

      Delete
  6. The big name behind Paperclip...
    ROCKEFELLER!
    The Rockefellers are responsible for setting up our whole allopathic based medical system and the AMA fraud - where they profit from their involvement in Big Pharma....a continuation of snake oil.
    They are obviously in oil...and uranium mining. Control of media along with both Republican and Democratic Parties plus the Green and Libertarian political parties.
    Then there's the CFR and the UN....
    And their involvement with project Paperclip, the Zionazis, the Strongs, the Greenbergs and their whole clan of hoaxers responsible for everything from Columbine to Sandy Hook, Edward Snowden, Gabby Giffords, Pinocchi-Obama, Treyvon Martin....and on and on.
    It is how they control the masses. The elite have used all sorts of crap on us as far back as Ancient Greece with their use of dramatis personae - street theater used to engineer public opinion.
    A few years back they announce their economic cooperation with the Rothschilds...with whom they conspired with Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome at Rockefeller's Italian Villa to create the Man Made Global Warming Hoax and destroy the United States economically to bring us under a one world government - their stated goal. Which is why they are moving into China - who will be their new New World Police now that they've bankrupted the US while the American Citizens wake up to all the lies and hoaxes used to bring us into perpetual wars called "Humanitarian Aid."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Care to respond to this Fetzer?

    http://conspiracycritic7.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-co-op-black-op-psy-op/

    I really want to know what you think of Richard Hooke deeming Ralph Cinque "scum"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Professor Jim Fetzer will respond to your post after you explain why you liked a video called 'Would you have sex with a robot?' on YouTube.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The subject of the JFK assassination being a hoax isn't taboo, it's just too ludicrous and untenable to be worth discussing.

    While I am disgusted that Shack and his cronies have started doing their incompetent 'analysis' of JFK imagery without having any knowledg ofthe facts of the case, I am also delighted.

    Why delighted? Simple, it has exposed to anyone with half a brain that Shack is a lunatic, that he is utterly deluded and incompetent and any shreds of credibility he may ave had have now been totally severed.

    This is the end of Shack as far as any sensible, rational person is concerned, he has destroyed any credibility he may have had.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian Greenhalgh wrote:

      "While I am disgusted that Shack (...) I am also delighted." (...)"Why delighted? Simple, it has exposed to anyone with half a brain that Shack is a lunatic (...) This is the end of Shack (...)"

      Ian dear,

      Is there anything else in this world that bothers / preoccupies you - other than yours truly? You seem to have developed a pathological obsession about me - as the regulars of this blog must have noticed over the last six months or so. Almost none of your posts fails to mention my name - in ways that seem to imply that I am the greatest worry haunting your mind / and life. Perhaps you should take up some outdoor sports activities for your own well-being?

      Simon Shack

      Delete
    2. You're a lone nut shill, Shack. Perhaps you should stop kidding yourself with your bullshit photo analysis. You're certainly kidding nobody else. If you're searching for fake images, look in the mirror, Shack.

      You're the fake, Shack!

      Delete
    3. Listen Shack, you stuck your nose in here, you began an obsession with attacking Jim Fetzer, your cluesforum cronies polluted this blog, so you put yourself directly in my firing line, so don't surprised that I shoot at you.

      I have nothing but scorn and derision for anyone who goes about spreading lies and disinfo so in that way, you are no different to any other of the very many shills and disinfo agents. There's nothing special about you, you just happened to have positioned yourself in such a way that you fell into my sights.

      Delete
  10. I looked at Shack's JFK info and he did point out some new photo fakery and thus has added to the research legitimately but it is a giant leap to conclude the whole film is a CGI Hollywood production. They obviously cut, spliced and edited and performed artwork on the original film.

    I think it is a fair question though to theorize whether the murder was faked or not. It would involve just as big an operation to transfer power under the people's noses.Faking the death implies Kennedy went along with it and was just another willing player in the grand charade to move world events on to the next stage.

    Tippet could be the one buried in Kennedy's grave. Oswald is still a patsy but maybe he lived too? That was a very controlled and staged killing by Ruby for the cameras. Lets keep an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good to keep an open mind, however, I fail to see any meri in any of Shack's 'analysis', it is just so blatantly flawed, which shouldn't be surprising because the JFK case is very complex, there is a huge amount of data to study and absorb and Shack hasn't even scratched the surface, all he has done is looked at a handful of images and made some mistaken judgements that make it very clear he is totally uninformed about he important facts.

      His latest piece of 'analysis' concerning the direction of the shadows is absolutely laughable, he postulates that the shadows are not consistent with 12.30 in November in Dallas, but he fails totally for the simple reason that he has incorrectly identified north! If he was competent, he would have first identified the correct direction of north, but he has it out by a significant amount, rendering his 'analysis' completely incorrect.

      This latest example is typical of the quality of his work - it's all incompetent nonsense. In the past he has made similar errors such as this example where he failed to measure the with of a window correctly:

      http://worldaccordng.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/shacks-king-kong-man-debunked-in-recent.html

      There is fraud and fakery in the imagery of the JFK case, but this has been established long ago by real, serious and competent researchers, Jim Fetzer has written many articles on the subject and has edited and authored books that exhaustively cover the fakery.

      Delete
    2. Ian, can a flawed person never contribute something of value? And whatever the deep or superficial value of Shack's findings, he is looking for photo faking and thinking he finds all-fake every time he touches something, shall we say. This is a flaw but he is not wrong about all his findings. Grow up, yourself, about people's partly mistaken minds with partly excellent work, however much out of context some of it is.

      Delete
    3. Shack's work is totally incompetent, utter nonsense.

      In fact, I have to question that anyone can truly be so incompetent; maybe it is more likely that they are deliberately producing utter nonsense.

      If you can't see how bad Shack's work is, that suggests you are incompetent too.

      Delete
    4. Ian

      It's good to keep an open mind but in Clare's case her open mind has resulted in her brains falling out. Clare likes to see both sides of the argument. I am always highly suspicious of anyone who can see both sides of the argument. To see both sides of the argument is, in my opinion, a sign of cerebral cowardice and intellectual laziness combined with an inability to commit oneself.
      We don't need any namby pamby, ineffectual, rubber necking fence sitters on this blog. What we need on this blog is decisive and determined straight thinkers and doers. Let us have no more of Clare's eyewash and moonshine. In short, Clare should either shit or get off the pot.




      Delete
    5. An open mind I often a good thing, but it is also good to be able to come to a conclusion based on sound evidence.

      In the case of Shack, we have a very large body of evidence that he is incompetent and his work is nonsense, evidence to the contrary is non-existent; therefore, there is no room for keeping an open mind, it's time to come to a conclusion, which is simply that Shack and his work are lughable andludicrously untenable.

      The only area left open for debate is whether Shack is just an incompetent lunatic or if he is deliberately spreading untenable BS as part of a disinfo agenda.

      Delete
  11. The intended lesson from the JFK assassination, real or faked, was "This is what happens to any world leader who defies our agenda. If we can engineer the murder of an American president in public with a masonic signature,nobody is safe from us."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, they showed that they can take out anyone; it was a shockingly bold move and I have little doubt that every subsequent senior US politician with designs on the highest office took note of what happened to JFK.

      Delete
  12. Shack is a paid lone nut shill. Shack's so-called photographic analysis is laughable lone nut bullshit and disinfo. Not surprising since Shack is a bullshitter. If you want bullshit and disinfo then Shack has loads. We can safely ignore any photographic bullshit and disinfo analysis the shill Shack produces. The bullshitter Shack has nothing to add to research into the JFK assassination except lone nut bullshit, disinfo and lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, you hit the nail on the head.

      Bad move on Shack's part to take on the JFK case because those who are familiar with the case tend to be intelligent, discerning folks and can see straight though Shack.

      Delete
    2. No, Shack's work has many wonderful discoveries. He simply goes too far, as with many people.

      Delete
    3. I don't mean when he goes into areas where his already too-far lines of impression are even less suited, such as with the JFK case.

      Delete
    4. Shut up, Clare, you're making a fool of yourself by defending Shack.

      Delete
    5. I knew Clare Kuehn would show her hand eventually on this thread and she has now made her entrance with her usual and predictable wishy washy drivel and hogwash.
      This is typical of Clare Kuehn's agent provocateur behavior of giving support and succour to these lone nut liars. Why does Clare Kuehn give credence to the lone nut Shack and his minions who are engaged in their attack on Jim Fetzer's blog? Clare Kuehn is a lone nut sympathiser and should be viewed with the greatest suspicion. She should stick with her "Paul is dead" nonsense and leave serious research into the JFK assassination to more experienced and trustworthy individuals. Clare Kuehn is an intellectual weakling of limited intelligence and and a proven and confirmed appeaser. She is a cuckoo in Jim Fetzer's nest and her, Shack and the rest of the lone nut garbage should be thrown back into the trash can where they all came from and, indeed, belong.


      Delete
    6. I have to say Bill, I am in full agreement with you.

      My patience with all disinfo shills has run out.

      Delete
  13. Annie Jacobsen's book is propaganda for the holocaust. If you wish to understand how just watch her presentation on her Paperclip book on C-SPAN archives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I was basing my opinion of her book on my interview with James Norwood. I would be very surprised if he got it wrong. Not impossible, but highly improbable, in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. I read her book on Area 51, and while there is much valuable info to be gleaned therein, as I'm sure is the case with the O.P. book, I had to take some of her claims with a good deal of skepticism; particularly the idea that the Roswell crash was of a Russian experimental aircraft. Not that I think it was extraterrestrial, but isn't it always too convenient to blame it on the Russians?

      One correction -it was stated that Frank Olson died by suicide. This is not true. Hank Albarelli makes a solid case in his "A Terrible Mistake" that Olson was defenestrated by mob associates of George Hunter White. I highly recommend this work, as it is the most exhaustive history of the MK Ultra program to date.

      Delete
  14. Lavictoire said:
    "The intended lesson from the JFK assassination, real or faked, was "This is what happens to any world leader who defies our agenda....."

    The way to distinguish between real and faked events is to ask are they plausible.

    Assassinations are plausible events. Coup d'etats for regime change happen all the time. Usually, they happen in foreign countries when a leader nationalizes resources such as oil as Mossadegh did in Iran, or for some other reason that defies Western ambitions.

    After JFK was murdered, all of his policies were reversed. The CIA was allowed to continue to assassinate foreign leaders and keep its black budget and accountability to no one. Troop withdrawal in Vietnam stopped and all out war began.

    Airplanes knocking down 110-story skyscrapers is an implausible, improbable event. What is the likelihood of a plane demolishing to dust such buildings? Zero.

    What is the probability of a small "pressure cooker" bomb severing the legs of sixteen bystanders without them bleeding to death on the spot? What is the probability of someone making an "underwear bomb," or a "shoe bomb." taking it on a plane and forgetting the detonator? What is the probability of young men suddenly open firing in a school, a mall or an army base and committing mass murder for no apparent motive?

    Because we are getting close to solving 9/11 due to exposure of the fakery in the archived video footage and are noticing the increased usage of fake media events to pass legislation or plant the idea that giving up freedoms is necessary, should not cause us to lose all sense of rationality and perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. following the rule we get: school shootings are just as plausible as assassinations (probably more so); therefore, sandy hook was real.

      Delete
  15. A crash course in Operation Paperclip and other CIA hits:

    CIA greatest hits page

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/CIA_GreatestHits.html
    In order to survive, nations need strong intelligence services. But the idea that the CIA is primarily an intelligence-gathering operation is itself one of the agency's greatest propaganda triumphs.
    Despite its name, the Central Intelligence Agency's main purpose is, and has always been, carrying out covert operations involving economic warfare, rigged elections, assassinations and even genocide.
    The CIA is also expert at distorting intelligence to justify its own goals, and this "disinformation" leads to dangerous illusions among our policymakers. But covert operations are its life's blood.
    The litany of illegal, murderous CIA activity is enough to chill the bones of anyone who cares about liberty and justice.
    As long as the CIA exists, our government can break any law it chooses in the name of national security.
    Anyone for whom democracy is more than just a word should be working to abolish the CIA.
    Mark Zepezauer

    Operation Gladio
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Gladio_CIAHits.html

    MK-ULTRA
    Operation CHAOS
    Crooked Banks

    Drug Trafficking
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Drugs_CIAHits.html

    The Mighty Wurlitzer

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Gehlen Org from the book The CIAs Greatest Hits by Mark Zepezauer

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/GehlenOrg_CIAHits.html

    Mark goes rather easy on the Gehlen Org, aka Operation Paperclip:

    "For almost ten years, the Gehlen Org was virtually the CIA's only source of intelligence on Eastern Europe. Then, in 1955, it evolved into the BND (the German equivalent of the CIA) which, of course, continued to cooperate with the CIA.

    "Gehlen was far from the only Nazi war criminal employed by the CIA. Others included Klaus Barbie ("the Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked closely with Eichmann) and, SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a great favorite of Hitler's). There's even evidence that Martin Bormann, Hitler's second-in-command at the end of the war, faked his own death and escaped to Latin America, where he worked with CIA-linked groups.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Skorzeny was a liar, he had very little involvement with the CIA or anyone else in Western intelligence. He greatly exaggerated hi wartime exploits, such as claiming to have rescued Mussolini, when in fact he almost caused that mission to end in disaster. The raid on Grand Sasso was planned and executed by an elite Fallschirmjager unit and Skorzeny only managed to attach himself to the mission at the last minute, he then insisted on accompanying Mussolini in the Feisler Storch aircraft used to get him off the mountain. Skorzeny was a big man and there really wasn't room for a second passenger, so the plane plummeted off the mountain and escaped crashing by a very narrow margin. Skorzey told a lot of lies after the war, such as having murdered Nikola Tesla, he was a self-promoting fantasist.

    Bormann's case is more intriguing, he may well have been a British agent, certainly there was a British agent in Hitler's inner circle and we still don't know who it was due to Churchill sealing the papers and the British govt renewing the 50 year closure in 1995. Bormann was last seen alive with Artur Axman during the attempted breakout from the Fuhrer Bunker as the Red Army was closing in and Hitler had killed himself. In the 1990s they found Bormann's remains in the exact spot next to a bridge where he had last been seen alive. However, stuck to the bones was a red earth that is not found in Berlin but is found in South America, so some have speculated that he escaped to South America and was interred in Berlin after his death, to be found by construction workers years later.

    It is worth bearing in mind that all of the surviving senior Nazis with the exception of Hess were murdered after the war, Himmler was killed with poison by the British, Goering went to the gallows at Nuremberg, Hess was locked up in Spandau to be murdered decades later.

    People consider the Holocaust to be the great lie of the 20th Century, when actually, it is the true nature of the Nazis and the treatment of Germany in the postwar years 1945-50 that is the really big lie

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another important factor in fraudulent presentation of news events in the media is the anti-terrorist drill. Since 9/11, these drills have become more numerous and more sophisticated.

    There must be thousands of videos out there which used made up actors simulating injuries, scenes of people fleeing and shootings by swat teams. We cannot know anymore if what we see on tv is real. This material is all on film ready for any event. Thousands have participated and have been recorded acting out parts of being injured or poisoned by bio weapons.

    I think it is safe to rule out these actors for hire and drills in 1963 to have been used to "fake" the JFK assassination as Shack contends regarding what he sees as possible false testimony of witnesses.

    For the past several weeks, 24/7, CNN and FOX have carried the story of the Malaysian plane that "disappeared." I have watched with interest to see what would develop expecting it would be used
    as a premise for some military action. Instead, it just fizzled out. (Am I wrong?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me, it has been obvious since day one that MH370 was flown to Diego Garcia, I thought the pilot flew it as he had Diego Garcia loaded into his flight sim at home, which is suspicious for a civilian pilot, but it seems more likely that the plane was electronically hijacked and the pilots could do nothing.

      No country will speak out about the truth because it would mean no-one would want to fly once they knew it was so easy to hijack a plane remotely.

      The search of Australia for wreckage is a farce, the plane has never been missing, the Rolls Royce engines ping a satellite every 30 seconds and that cannot be turned off, so it's always been known where the plane was.

      The likely reasons for the hijack are several - firstly, there was some cargo on that plane that was very valuable, they removed a load of seats to fit in on board. The cargo had been on the MV Maersk Alabama under guard by two ex-seals; the day after it was offloaded, those two guys were found dead in their cabin with needles and heroin, clearly bumped off, certainly they were not drug users. The second reason is the people onboard, there were at least 80 Chinese computer specialists, someone such as the USA and/or Israel wanted to get hold of these people.

      It's a complex case, but this webpage lays out the key facts pretty well:

      http://jimstonefreelance.com/flight370condensed.html

      Delete
    2. How can you use information that they provide, like what the pilot had on his computer to base a theory on. Thats ridiculous. Do you think that if the plane had been hijacked and flew to diego garcia that they tell you that the pilots flight sim had the route to diego garcia on it. One thing your theory overlooked is that if the plane was electronically hijacked than why would they need a pilot who had been practicing flying routes to diego garcia. The theory your proposing sounds more like the plot of a harrison ford film, and not a very good one. I would suggest that this story is another hoax.

      Delete
    3. You're an idiot, hoax this hoax that, why don't you actually study the case before you pronounce it a hoax?

      There are many other pieces of evidence that point to the plane having flown to Diego Garcia,but if you took the time to inform yourself about the facts then you would know that.

      You really soul learn something about an event before calling 'hoax'.

      Delete
    4. And you believe the government would allow that info out if they hijacked it. Your a fool.

      Delete
  19. ? Mae Brussell -JFK Assassination: The Nine Most Important Books- (9-12-83) - YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MrjRWCriIk

    The 26 volumes of evidence and witness testimony did not support the conclusions of the 500 page Warren Report gave rise to private investigation by writers
    _____________________________________
    THE NINE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION ARE RECOMMENDED BY MAE BRUSSEL

    "Oswald, Assassin or Fallguy," by Joachim Joesten
    "Rush to Judgement" by Mark Lane
    "Forgive My Grief I, II, III and IV," by Penn Jones (4 separate books published in different years on homicides of witnesses.)
    "Document Addendum to Warren Report" by David Lifton
    "Farewell America", by James Hepburn,
    "Who's Who in the CIA." by Julius Mader
    "Torbitt Document"
    "Assassination: Coincidence or Conspiracy," by Bernard Fensterwald

    http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html
    JFK: Farewell America, by James Hepburn (pseudonym): French intelligence's Kennedy conspiracy theory: conspiracy president john

    This book is can be read online. It was once banned in the US. "Farewell America," Hepburn, Subjects such as Permindex. How and why assassinations take place, drug traffic, international corporations. Actions JFK was taking. Vietnam pull back

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rubbish, it's ludicrous to even suggest the JFK assassination was a hoax.

      Jim's right, it's stupid beyond belief.

      Delete
    2. How many books have you read about the case? How much study of it have you done?

      The clear answer is very little, if you had studied the case you would know it wasn't a hoax.

      If you have studied the case in-depth and still think it might be a hoax then you're stupid beyond belief...

      Delete
  21. Amanda, JFK was shot multiple times in broad daylight before hundreds of spectators.He was attended by scores of Parkland Hospital witnesses, as was his later autopsy (the results of which were a hoax). JFK was murdered; the investigation was a hoax. Over 100 material witnesses were murdered.I cannot believe I must tell you all this. YOU ARE WASTING EVRYONE'S TIME HERE AND ARE THE ULTIMATE DISIN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amanda is Shack's stooge.
      She(?) has obviously done very little if any serious research into the assassination of JFK as is evidenced by her cockamamie and infantile posts on this blog. Amanda is basically Shack's mouthpiece with one important difference - Amanda is talking out of her ass.

      Delete
    2. Well said guys, a stooge who is trying to waste our time.

      Delete
  22. Jim Fetzer said:
    No one who has studied the case has any doubt about it. Why not actually get serious and read my three books and some of my dozens of articles and watch many of my videos. Try "JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why", for example. The idea that he did not die is stupid beyond belief. That's why.


    Their are people who have studied the case who doubt it. I'm sure they would not claim to have done your level of study on the case, though they have certainly done some studying to come up with their theorys.

    I have read some of your articles, listened to loads of your shows on the issue and watched that video, I am well aware of the theory you are suggesting, I dont doubt your knowledge on the subject or the time you have spent studying it. Before Sandy hook, The Boston bombing and looking back on 9/11, I would never have believed that anything was fake or a hoax, now Its clear now that hoaxes definitely take place and as Gary King says on your show, It appears that hoaxes are almost taking place on a daily basis. Not just in the USA but right around the world.

    The holocaust shows us that hoaxes definitely predate the JFK murder. All the hoaxes show that the people who perpetrate these hoaxes are able to call on large amounts of actors who will play all sorts of roles, even the roles of parents who have lost children. They can fake photos and videos and the media will not question even the obvious fakery, because they are also in on the hoax. They can produce and release faked government documents that then get accepted as fact, and even call on real government employees to give fake press conferences and interviews.

    Your theorys on JFKs murder are based on witnesses, who could be actors. Government documents, which can be faked, The findings of government employees, who we know will tell lies and produce fake reports. Photos and videos, which can be faked and which you yourself believe are at the very least edited. If I have left out any evidence which you believe is beyond fakery then you can let me know.

    So with all that said it is certainly not stupid beyond belief to suggest that their is a possibility of the JFK murder being a hoax. Its your show and if you dont want to talk about it thats up to you, but any suggestion that it is not a possibility is false. Given what we know today, the idea is certainly possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is just rubbish and no-one who was at all familiar with the facts of the JFK case would entertain it for a moment.

      Delete
    2. Amanda, I am not trying to insult you. I personally know (or have known) some of those who were up-close-and-personal about these events, such as Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was in Trauma Room #1 with JFK and then, two days later, was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin in Room #2.

      I had more than 100 conversations with LBJ's mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown, who bore him a son, Steven, in 1950. I have diagrams from Charles Crenshaw in my books and my articles as well as diagrams and testimony of other physicians at Parkland. They were real physicians, not actors, which, alas, has now become the new standard. It's unbelievable.

      You seem to have no appreciation for how the evidence from the witnesses, the photos and films, the X-rays, the ballistics and the rest fit together once you separate the fabricated from the authentic evidence, which is what my books are all about. I am sorry, but the idea that JFK was not killed in Dallas is moronic.

      Delete
    3. Wayne Carver was a real coroner, real doctors were used at Boston and have been used in other hoaxes. So we know that it goes on. People who look at an event like Sandy Hook and don't accept the possibility that it could be a hoax, will never see the hoax. Accepting that something is possible is certainly not moronic.

      Delete
    4. In the case of JFK, it is as stupid as stupid gets. I can't abide this ridiculous blizzard of complete rubbish from SS and his deluded fans.

      Delete
  23. @Ian Greenhorn
    It is worth bearing in mind that all of the surviving senior Nazis with the exception of Hess were murdered after the war, Himmler was killed with poison by the British, Goering went to the gallows at Nuremberg, Hess was locked up in Spandau to be murdered decades later
    Himmlers death or rather dissapearance is still very much in question. Id say hoax.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you're an idiot then, he's dead, murdered by the British, they beat him up then crushed a cyanide capsule in his mouth to make it look like suicide.
      "After wandering the Flensburg area carrying false papers, Himmler was arrested by British troops on May 22, 1945. According to the official narrative, Himmler committed suicide late on May 23 by biting into a cyanide capsule which he had somehow managed to keep hidden inside his mouth for a whole day, despite eating a sandwich and being searched by his captors in the meantime. "

      http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Panton/Man0554.html

      http://www.whale.to/b/bellinger_h.html

      The convergence of available evidence from all released sources provide more than ample justification to conclude that Heinrich Himmler, and a number of other high level officials in the Nazi SS organisation, were indeed assassinated as part of a pre-determined plan advanced by Churchill’s cabinet.
      These facts have all been fully investigated and meticulously documented in my book, Himmlers Tod.
      In respect to the assassination of Heinrich Himmler, et. al., the evidence that did survive reveals that:
      1 Tentative plans were discussed and enthusiastically advocated by Churchill and his closest advisors to assassinate selected German and Italian officials within a few hours of capture.
      2 The autopsy report of Heinrich Himmler was falsified, incomplete, and evidence was fabricated.
      3 Material evidence relating to the homicide was removed at the site.
      4 The participants in the crime were instructed not to divulge any details [other than the officially released version] to the public or to researchers insofar as their role in the events was concerned and they were bound to the rule of official secrecy thereafter.
      5 Post-war accounts from the individuals in private diaries provided additional information supporting the conclusion that foul play was involved in the death of the German leader.
      6 At least two of the participants were later decorated with the MBE for their role in the affair.
      7 Material evidence relating to the crime was erased after the war at the express insistence of the War Office.
      8 The records surrounding the ‘official’ inquiry into the circumstances of Himmler’s death have been sealed until the end of the century.

      Delete
    2. British soldiers are putting british uniform on Himmler to whack him off in rage, then stick a pill in his mouth for decorum. Double bluff to lay blind paths. Textbook. He was buried in unmarked grave so nothing to find there ever was.

      If he wanted to get lost he would get lost. It should be obvious he was worth money alive, not dead.

      Delete
  24. Joan Edwards wrote:

    "There's even evidence that Martin Bormann, Hitler's second-in-command at the end of the war, faked his own death and escaped to Latin America, where he worked with CIA-linked groups."

    Dear Joan,

    let me first tell you how much I appreciate your consistently thoughtful and genuine-sounding comments - as opposed to the many curt, rabid and foulmouthed comments posted by other entities here.

    Now, let me also make it clear that I have no pretense to know precisely what happened to JFK. Yes, I am willing to entertain the idea that he may well have been actually killed somewhere on 11/22 1963 (although perhaps not by "six sharpshooters positioned around Dealey Plaza - with the limo grinding to a halt for 14 seconds - thanks to the limo driver Willy Greer's complicity with the plan" - as of Fetzer's conclusions).

    On the other hand, knowing now how much imagery of that event was counterfeited (or more likely and logically, entirely fabricated from scratch) - and that the media-promoted stories of "eyewitnesses" and "amateur photographers" such as Mary Moorman and Orville Nix are dubious (to say the least), I just cannot dismiss offhand the possibility that the event never took place in Dealey Plaza - as advertised.

    This, of course, raises the question: "did JFK fake his own death?" Now, I think you have commented - in another thread here - that this is a totally impossible option since the media, at that time, was not as corrupt and subservient to the "powers that be" as it is today. Please correct me if I am quoting your thoughts wrongly.

    Yet, as I understand it, you are willing to consider that Martin Bormann may have faked his own death. To be sure, Bormann was very much a public figure - (even though far less famous than JFK). So here's my question to you: do you believe that only marginally famous persons can fake their own deaths - whereas hugely famous persons cannot possibly do so?

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I don't believe that. However, there is too much about the death and the coverup is too sloppy. Your vision is wrong. You forget to compare with the lens of prima facie argument.

      (No, I don't mean raw prima facie, official story. I mean the prima facie nature of real coverup and how it works and compare that to the situation when there is an all-fake main event, such as the much more limited and tawdry event at Sandy Hook. The material for JFK is extensive and fits real event coverup, not faked event coverup.)

      Delete
  25. ' The material for JFK is extensive and fits real event coverup, not faked event coverup.'

    You have put it clearly, precisely and succintly, Clare. Perhaps now we can have no more nonsense from Pimon, seu bobo, Amanda Price and the rest of Shack's deluded and delusional morons.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here's a list of the 5 never-seen-before 'new entries' on this Fetzer blog - ALL of which mention yours truly in their comments - and express anger and disgust towards my work :

    - "Philip Smith"
    - "Bill Adams"
    - "Richard Charain"
    - "Harry Ruddy"
    - "Tam Brolin"

    Keep 'em coming, Fetzer !

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  27. Simon Shack wrote:
    "So here's my question to you: do you believe that only marginally famous persons can fake their own deaths - whereas hugely famous persons cannot possibly do so?"

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I believe anyone can fake his or her own death, famous or not. The question is how probable is it?

    In the case of high ranking Nazi officials like Bormann facing certain torture and death, it's highly probable that they would fake death especially when helped and given cover by the US CIA

    On the other hand, what was John Kennedy facing in the future that he would want to fake his own death? Assassination maybe? Was this his way of getting out of being assassinated?

    I say given all the policy changes he was planning, he would want to have been in office to carry them out. Would he really have chickened out and allowed LBJ, whom he hated, to change all his policies?


    ReplyDelete
  28. If it doesn't make sense, it's not true........Judge Judy

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joan Edwards wrote:

    "On the other hand, what was John Kennedy facing in the future that he would want to fake his own death? (...) Would he really have chickened out and allowed LBJ, whom he hated, to change all his policies?"

    Dear Joan,

    I think that you may possibly still be (just like I was - for the better part of my life) firmly convinced that JFK was a 'good guy', a rare and heroic individual who was somehow allowed to be elected as president of the United States of America. As it happens (and I have no problem admitting this) I also firmly believed this was the case - for years on end.

    Today however, I have many reasons to doubt my previous assumptions. One of these reasons are JFK's vigorous promotion of the space race - and the now totally exposed farce of NASA's six moon landing hoaxes (between 1969 and 1972). Do you really think that JFK had NO inside knowledge of this massive skulduggery being concocted to fool this entire planet's population?

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  30. " Today however, I have many reasons to doubt my previous assumptions...... Do you really think that JFK had NO inside knowledge of this massive skulduggery being concocted to fool this entire planet's population? "

    So JFK fakes his own death? LOL
    You got to be kidding! LOL Is that the kind of crazy "analysis" you base your ridiculous bullshit on? Get lost, Shack! You are clearly mentally disturbed.
    You are a lunatic!!


    ReplyDelete
  31. Update:

    Here's a list of the 7 never-seen-before 'new entries' on this Fetzer blog - ALL of which mention yours truly in their comments - and express anger and disgust towards my work :

    - "Philip Smith"
    - "Bill Adams"
    - "Richard Charain"
    - "Harry Ruddy"
    - "Tam Brolin"
    - "Pierre Malrou"
    - "Jim Revell"

    Keep 'em coming, Fetzer !

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're a lunatic, an incompetent, deluded and hopelessly arrogant lunatic.

      Of course there are many who express anger and disgust at your work - such nonsensical, untenable rubbish is bound to stir such emotions in sane, rational people, you'd have to be a lunatic to think otherwise.

      Delete
    2. Simon Shack, Thanks for mentioning me. I need more links to my blog. Here are 20 questions which explain my JFK Calc model math proof of a conspiracy. Read it. You need it. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/jfk-calc-questions-on-the-spreadsheet-analysis/

      Delete
    3. You're welcome, Richard. I read your blog and found it most interesting - and so is your bio.

      "My first job was a numerical control engineer/programmer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation, a major defense/aerospace manufacturer (lunar module)."

      As someone who has contributed to expose the the NASA moon landing hoaxes - along with scores of other critical thinkers over the years - I am very curious about your own take on this subject matter. However, this is not the right venue to discuss this (as we would unduly derail this thread). So, if you can bother sharing your views regarding NASA's space programs with me - here's my e-mail address :

      simonshack(at)libero.it

      Kind regards

      Simon Shack

      Delete
    4. More lies from Shack, he hasn't contributed to exposing the Apollo hoax, that's another bandwagon he jumped on long after others had done the real work. Shack's so-called 'contribution' was just worthless 'analysis' of images, and as usual, he displayed all of the analytical skills of a retarded monkey.

      If you really want to read some good work on the moon conspiracy, check out 'Wagging the Moondoggie' by Dave McGowan.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Indeed, I also highly recommend Dave Mc Gowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie" - it's a brilliant piece of writing. As it is, the Moon Hoax was such a disaster that it was first exposed by Bill Kaysing - only a couple of years after the end of the Apollo "space program".

      The thing is, most people still believe that shortly thereafter, NASA suddenly / somehow and rather miraculously turned into a serious scientific space enterprise - as they rolled out their wondrous "Space Shuttle" (aka "The Flying brick").

      It turns out that the "Flying brick" was every bit as bogus as the Apollo program. And yes, unlike my humble contributions to confirm the Apollo program hoax, I do take some credit for my longstanding work exposing the phoniness of what I like to call the "Disney Shuttle" :

      "ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts":
      http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935&start=60

      Enjoy the read! :-)

      Simon Shack

      Delete
    7. Simon,

      I personally saw the launch of Atlantis in a nighttime launch around November 1985. It was spectacular and looked terrific! My uncle, who lives in Orlando, prepared a picnic with a lovely salad with shrimp boiled in beer, which I remember to this day. The shuttle was real.

      Delete
    8. Of course the shuttle was real, NASA's work is not all fakery, satellites and other payloads that were launched into earth orbit do not need to be faked as they are perfectly possible. It is leaving earth orbit with a manned craft that is the difficult and perhaps impossible (with existing technology) and that is the largest reason for faking Apollo - it wasn't possible.

      Delete
    9. Frankly Speaking wrote:

      "The shuttle was real."


      As real as this, frankly speaking?
      http://www.septclues.com/SPACE%20SHUTTLE/endeavourbolt1_h_GIFSoup.com.gif

      Whatever your sense of reality means to you, dear Frankly, I'd say that it's quite different from mine. Could it be that those shrimp boiled in beer had some hallucinating side-effects?

      Or that - perhaps - what you saw was a mock-up, empty fibre-glass Shuttle attached to a tank and a pair of rocket boosters?

      Simon Shack

      Delete
  32. Oops - it's Richard Charnin - not Charain.

    Anyway, if you right-click on Richard Charnin's name, you can read his bio here:

    "Upon graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, Richard Charnin (“TruthIsAll”) began his career as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer. In 1976, he moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for three major investment banks. When personal computers became available in 1982, he converted many of these application programs to spreadsheets. As a software consultant, he has specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. He has an MS in applied mathematics (Adelphi University, 1969) and an MS in Operations Research (Polytechnic Institute of NY, 1973). Charnin never imagined that years later he would become a prolific Internet poster."

    Just the sort of person that you'd expect to defend the monstrous lies of the "powers that be". Isn't it fascinating?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crude ungentelmenly people, no manners no fucking savoir vivre. El Honcho doesnt feel the need to groom his flock a tad. But see what he is feeding them with. I wouldnt wish such murderous brew on anyone.

      Delete
    2. Simon, you are lying about me. Now I know just who YOU are. If you bothered to read my website/ blog, you would know that I have been exposing Election Fraud and the JFK coverup for the past 10 years. But you don't read; you are just another bloviator looking to make a name for himself with outlandish theories. I KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

      Delete
    3. Simon Pimon

      What's a donkey-jumping redneck like you using French words for? "savoir vivre"?! You can't even spell the word 'ungentlemanly' right!

      Y'all talkin' funny there, boy!

      Hee haw!! Hee haw!! Hee haw!!

      Delete
  33. norwegianwrote:

    I think that you may possibly still be (just like I was - for the better part of my life) firmly convinced that JFK was a 'good guy', a rare and heroic individual who was somehow allowed to be elected as president of the United States of America.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    But you are wrong, Simon. JFK was NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ELECTED PRESIDENT. NIXON WAS. Back in those days, they had honest elections--not electronic voting machines--and this one was very close. It is often said Chicago's Irish mayor Daley got the vote out for Kennedy. Among the voters were the usual dead people somehow never removed from the voter registration roles.

    Also, unexpectedly, the television debates won for Kennedy, showing that charm and poise were appealing to voters. Nixon, with his shifty eyes and five-o-clock shadow lost on tv, but won on radio.

    The WASP media did not approve of Kennedy as president because he was catholic. There was much debate about the pope running the country if JFK were elected. It was truly a miracle he won the election and it was the last time, IMO, the Power Elite made that mistake again as to control the US, one need only control the presidency. (See: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ The Taking of America, 1,2,3.)

    I don't think I or anyone else thought that Kennedy was a rare or heroic individual until long after his death. We had no idea he signed so many favorable executive orders and how they were later reversed by LBJ.

    As to the space race, would he really have known you cannot put men on the moon? The engineers I worked with seemed to think they could. Anyway wouldn't this have helped him in the corporate world whereas most of his other plans hurt the corporations?

    So, that leaves us with motive. I can't find any.

    What we've always been arguing is the who dunnit and Oswald as the lone assassin. Conspiracy or lone nut? This case ushered in a new term, "conspiracy theorist"--a pejorative. What shocks me is that idiots like Vincent Bugliosi are still writing tomes on Oswald as the lone assassin.

    Simon, why don't you lay out your case for the JFK fakery beliefs more completely so we can follow your logic without misunderstandings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shack hasn't got a case to lay out, just some nonsense tat doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. His latest piece of rubbish is to claim the angles of the shadows visible in the Zapruder film and Altgens 6 are inconsistent with 12.30 in November in Dallas. Well, it took me all of a few seconds to figure out what was wrong with that claim - he had incorrectly identified the direction of north! I checked and the shadows are exactly consistent with the time and place, so yet again, Shack's 'analysis' is utterly incompetent and his point absolutely untenable.

      Delete
    2. Kennedy would have known the secret government would be on the moon with Paperclip saucers and would have wanted them to release the technology.

      Delete
    3. There is a theory that Eisenhower met with Aliens in 1956 and that JFK was going to release the info that aliens exited and we were n contact with them, but I've never put much stock into any ideas involving aliens. It would be another reason to get rid of JFK though - to continue to keep secret any contacts with aliens and their technology.

      What we do know is that 10 days before he was killed, JFK sent a memo to the CIA demanding all their files on UFOs, he also sent one to NASA telling them he wanted to co-operate with the Russians on outer space exploration:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378284/Secret-memo-shows-JFK-demanded-UFO-files-10-days-assassination.html

      There is also this speech JFK made about secret societies, conspiracies and disclosure:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEtfGbdqwQA

      Some say that he was going to make a follow-up speech in Dallas on the day he died that would have disclosed something to do with UFOs/Aliens.

      Delete
    4. Ian,

      Regarding aliens, please check out www.majesticdocuments.com. Click on the left side and read through the documents and the authentication. Also check out www.disclosureproject.org and listen to whistleblower testimony.

      Delete
    5. Cheers, I'll take a look sometime. The main reason for my skepticism on the issue is that I firmly believe that the majority of 'UFO researchers' are either disinfo agents (Stanton Friedman for instance) or self-publicists doing it for fame and fortune. Too many have been exposed as liars but I remain open-minded.

      Delete
    6. Ian,

      Don't forget JFK's American University Commencement Address of June 10 1963. Possibly the best speech he ever made and on a par with Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and the speech that tragically sealed his fate and was probably the last bullet in the rifle chambers as far as JFK and the Military Industrial Complex were concerned. After JFK made that "What-kind-of -peace-do-we-seek?" speech he was a walking dead man and the guns of Dallas were being oiled and readied to deliver their lethal message. JFK was always concerned that he would be assassinated and that he had a rendezvous with death. And yet... he was not afraid and went on...into the annals of glory and history.....JFK gave his all. JFK gave his life. And for that, we will always remember him.
      We cannot and we will not forget
      you, Mr President. Your name has been seared deep by the burning branding iron of history into the hearts of all free men and free women.......forever, JFK.

      " He is not dead...He is sleeping."


      JFK R.I.P



      Delete
  34. P.S. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/

    The book, The Taking of America, 1,2,3., by Sprague, is online in its entirety. It explains the assassination and why the Kennedys had to be eliminated. The Power Elite found that they would win every election they ran for. Therefore, they had to get rid of RFK after his announcement in '68. They tried to kill next in line, Edward, in a plane crash but failed so they set him up at Chappaquiddick with a false murder charge. E. Howard Hunt was seen there wearing a red wig. (How gross is that?) They succeeded in killing JFK Jr in 1999, his wife and unborn son. That's not in the book which was written in 1985.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent post-JFK/RFK death points you make there, Joan.

      Delete
    2. so they kill two of teddy's brothers and they try to stick him with a murder rap; but ol' ted is content with his senatorial gig and apparently doesn't rock the boat when they kill off his most famous nephew and his family. either he's a coward or something is amiss with the story. i wonder what teddy thought of the carter "assassination attempt" in los angeles. my guess is that he wasn't a coward and he had a good laugh at the work of those cheeky script writers. raymond lee harvey and osvaldo espinoza ortiz-- give me a feckin break.

      Delete
    3. U miss how different people get affected. Some are offed, some shut up after an attempt or someone else is offed, but do what they can for as many things they believe in for a while.

      Delete
    4. "n'est pas" clare kuehn strikes again.

      Delete
    5. seu bobo

      FECKING WANKER!


      We KNOW you!

      Delete
    6. seu bobo

      FECKING WANKER!


      We KNOW you!

      Delete
  35. I hope, Joan, you don't think that JFK had to be perfect to be actually also doing the first things since FDR which were strongly for the benefit of the people? He was.

    He moved on nationalizing the bank (The Fed) for credit to production by starting to change the currency to actual federal notes;

    He spoke of and acted on economic rights for people;

    He tried to reduce the spy ring cabals;

    He stood up against capitalism (the big stuff with cabals) in the oil depletion allowance end so that smaller and realer profits and fairness could triumph;

    He recognized that bigotry against Russia would end the world;

    He stood against creating a real land war in Asia's Vietnam (for the British cabals and their warmongering and red-hating and opium-etc. black market plans in the USA);

    He wanted the formal organization of the ADL to be considered Mossad agents and expelled;

    He would not support nuclear warheads for Israel;

    and he moved on the mob, Italian and Jewish, through Bobby;

    as well, he stood in general for dreams of hope and honesty in our lives, which scared the dark elements.

    As such, he was a good guy and was eliminated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well said, Clare.

      Here are JFK's views on the role of the President of the United States

      " I am delighted to have a chance to say a few words about this administration's policy which has been the subject of a good deal of discussion, acrimony and controversy on wages, prices and profits. Now, I know there are some people who say this isn't any business of the President of the United States and what.....and who believe that the President of the United States should be the honorary chairman of a great fraternal organization and should confine himself to ceremonial functions.
      That isn't what the Constitution says
      and I did not run for President of the United States to fulfil that office......in that way. Harry Truman once said there are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests and that the interests of the great mass of the other people....
      ...the 150 or 160 million are the responsibilty of the President of the United States and I propose to fulfil it. And, then, I believe it is the business of the President of the United States to concern himself with the general welfare and the public interest and if the people feel that it is not, then they should procure the services of a new President of the United States. "

      Transcribed from History Of Revision 2 available on YouTube

      Delete
    2. Evidence Of Revision - Part 2 - 2 of 9

      Delete
  36. seu bobo said:

    "so they kill two of teddy's brothers and they try to stick him with a murder rap; but ol' ted is content with his senatorial gig and apparently doesn't rock the boat when they kill off his most famous nephew and his family. either he's a coward or something is amiss with the story."

    Ted sold out after being almost killed twice. The entire family was threatened. At least he had the guts to remain in public office as Massachusetts senator. I think that is braver than most men we know. Don't forget the embarrassing trial he was involved in which accused his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, with rape. I don't think the harassment of Ted ever stopped. He had to endure every anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's death being hyped by the press. Not an easy life living under a microscope. (It was rumored Ted might have had some blackmail evidence from the JFK autopsy secreted away.)

    'i wonder what teddy thought of the carter "assassination attempt" in los angeles."

    Oh yeah, I forgot the rest of the SC thesis. JFK became or was morphed into Jimmy Carter. I noticed the resemblance back in 1976 when Carter ran. Interesting that Carter is making Israel supporters uncomfortable with his comparison of the Palestinian situation with Apartheid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are right. ol' ted sure was boston strong. if it wasn't for ted ( as the story goes, and i know how you guys love stories) carlos arrendondo wouldn't have been able to save jeff bauman. dude wasn't legal until teddy took up his cause. 'tis a bit fishy in my opinion. not as fishy as his big bro and the mercury missions though, right?

      as far as the jfk to carter morph goes, that's more dallas gold bug candy than clues forum research. you do know the gold bug, right? he got his start in the jfk conspiracy circle jerk with robert groden. shit, fetzer even interviewed the clown.

      i only mentioned the carter hoax b/c of the silly names they gave us. raymond lee harvey and his co-conspirator osvaldo espinoza ortiz. say what you want, but you can't deny that the nutwork has a sense of humor.

      Delete
    2. Joan Edwards wrote:

      "Oh yeah, I forgot the rest of the SC thesis. JFK became or was morphed into Jimmy Carter."

      *Sigh*, Joan ... that was very, very disappointing to read from your otherwise intelligent pen. No, the SC research has never said JFK morphed into Carter. Such inanities are being disseminated by Dallas Goldbug and similar clownish entities specifically designed to infiltrate "fakery research circles" (for lack of a better term) and discredit them by association, one of the oldest tricks in the counter-information book.

      Alas, such crass, age-old tactics seem to be still pretty effective, seeing that even seemingly sharp and 'awake' individuals like yourself get tricked / mislead by them. I can only hope that you will observe, in the future, a higher level of caution / discernment when quoting any of our SC research or, for that matter, any other research. See, it doesn't say much for your own general awareness-level when you are able to mix up material published by our direct antagonists - with our own.

      Lest it be picked up and diffused by others, I will now kindly ask you to retract this unfortunate statement of yours : "Oh yeah, I forgot the rest of the SC thesis. JFK became or was morphed into Jimmy Carter."

      Thanks Joan - and sorry for 'sounding angry'! :-)

      Simon Shack

      ps: I promise to clarify some more - as you have asked - my (humble / personal) views on the JFK case in the not-too-distant future. It is still a work in progress, though...

      Delete
  37. Jim Revell said:

    "Very well said, Clare."

    Yes, Clare. That was beautiful. I had almost forgotten how really great JFK was with all this conspiracy and fakery talk.

    "Here are JFK's views on the role of the President of the United States."

    Excellent speech, Jim! I've never even heard of it.

    Thanks to both for reminding us we once had a president who really cared about us. Contrast that with what we've got today. Ugh

    ReplyDelete
  38. Where did the two morons
    seeu bobo(ring) and Simon Pissmon learn English?
    ......and why are these two swamp donkeys, seeu bobo(ring) and Simon Pissmon, both writing in bad English and French?
    Are these two clowns some kind of forum comedy double act?
    Also, I heard on the grapevine (don't quote me on this) that Simon Shmuck Shack is not a real person but is actually a glove puppet. Can this be true....? Does anybody know?

    C'est très étrange. N'est-ce pas?

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  40. Greenhalgh said:"Shack hasn't got a case to lay out, just some nonsense tat doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. His latest piece of rubbish is to claim the angles of the shadows visible in the Zapruder film and Altgens 6 are inconsistent with 12.30 in November in Dallas. Well, it took me all of a few seconds to figure out what was wrong with that claim - he had incorrectly identified the direction of north!"

    Except that Simon's estimate of true North is almost identical to Fetzer's, [and Google's] you worthless, loudmouthed, know-it-all, dumbfuck! :

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=60#p2390047

    Besides which, WTF difference does it make where true North was/is?

    The shadows are 55% of the height of the cops on bikes in the press photo, and 120% of civilians in the Z. footage :
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=45#p2389991

    No regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you actually have a brain? How can you possibly ask what difference it makes where true north was? The main point of Shack's 'analysis' was to claim that the shadows were pointing in the wrong direction to have been at 12.30 and were actually consistent with 2.30pm. Shack misidentified the correct direction of north, which rendered his analysis wrong.

      Shack's estimate of north is 14 degrees off, which is proven by Google Maps; in his update which includes my map, he has again, made an error in identifying north. In actuality, the map I sent him, Jim Fetzer's map and Google Maps are all in agreement of where north is, but Shack has incorrectly interpreted them.

      I shall correct Shack for a second time, then people can really see who are the dumbasses.

      Delete
  41. Greenhalgh said : "The main point of Shack's 'analysis' was to claim that the shadows were pointing in the wrong direction to have been at 12.30 and were actually consistent with 2.30pm. "

    Can you even read? Do you have a brain?The main point of Shack's analysis is that _regardless_ of where true North really was/is, the length of the shadows in the various pics/movies is _entirely_ inconsistent.

    As I stated previously: "Besides which, WTF difference does it make where true North was/is?

    The shadows are 55% of the height of the cops on bikes in the press photo, and 120% of civilians in the Z. footage :
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=45#p2389991 "

    The entire "where is true North" issue is entirely secondary, you frickin' jerk!

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear,you really are stupid.

      Bobby Hargis, sat on his Harley would have been about 4ft tall. Mary Moorman was 5ft1in but she was standing on the grass verge which is higher than the roadway - Dealey Plaza is not flat like a billiard table.

      Therefore, you have Hargis' shadow falling onto a flat surface (the roadway) and Moorman's shadow falling onto a slope. If you know anything about trigonometry, you will be able to figure out that this means Moorman's shadow is going to be longer than Hargis's.

      Furthermore, the comprison between these two shadows is not a valid one as the angle at which they are being viewed is very different. Moorman's shadow is being viewed from directly in front of her, whereas Hargis's is being viewed from a completely different angle, more than 90 degrees different.

      There is nothing secondary about where is true north, it is the first, and most elementary step in doing any analysis of the shadows. If Shack can't get this first step right then what value can we place on the rest of his analysis? Zero. Nada. Zilch. For the simple reason that failure to identify true north undermines and invalidates everything else.

      Delete
  42. Dear obf,

    You know, Ian Greenhalgh is the resident photo-expert here at Fetzer's place. Why, he even expertly debunked and destroyed beyond appeal my "KING KONG MAN" analysis - on his appropriately-named blogspot... remember? :-p

    "The WORLD ACCORDING TO ME":
    http://worldaccordng.blogspot.it/2014_02_01_archive.html

    And yes, he still proudly keeps it up - for all to view!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely the most arrogant, conceited and incompetent entity I have ever come across. You've been given a chance to correct a glaring flaw in your 'analysis' and responded with mockery.
      You can't even identify north after it's shown to you and can't even figure out if different maps are showing north to be in the same direction. The only conclusion we can therefore make is that you are a complete idiot with an ego so large as to be impossible to deal with, your incompetence is plain for all to see and is of such a fundamental nature that anything you present has to be considered as nonsense.

      As for King Kong Man, anyone with eyes can clearly see how you couldn't even measure the width of a window correctly and therefore presented absolute nonsense.

      Unbelievable, just shocking arrogance and incompetence displayed by Shack...

      Delete
  43. Oh, I forgot - here's my "King Kong Man"::
    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389381#p2389381

    ReplyDelete
  44. Greenhalgh said :"There is nothing secondary about where is true north, it is the first, and most elementary step in doing any analysis of the shadows. If Shack can't get this first step right then what value can we place on the rest of his analysis? Zero. Nada. Zilch. "

    Listen up, you bloviating, pontificating, arrogant, self-important little half-wit, I DON'T CARE what you believe is the most important step in photo analysis, your opinion is both subjective, and irrelevant .

    If you spent a lot less time jacking off to fantasies of Adolf, or to fantasies of your own imagined greatness and infallibility, and more time actually reading what Shack has observed/posted in his brief 4 page forum analysis to date, it would be obvious to anyone with half a brain that he has quite clearly emphasized/drawn attention to :

    1] the internal inconsistency of the length of the shadows seen in the Zapruder film:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=45#p2388358

    and 2]: the _external_ inconsistency of either of the 2 [internally inconsistent] Zapruder examples he brought to our attention with photos/films by other individuals, e.g.:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=15#p2364258

    and:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=45#p2389991

    And lets not forget this obviously fraudulent still shot, apparently widely published at the time:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&start=30#p2367392

    No regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
  45. Norwegian said : "Dear obf,You know, Ian Greenhalgh is the resident photo-expert here at Fetzer's place. Why, he even expertly debunked and destroyed beyond appeal my "KING KONG MAN" analysis - on his appropriately-named blogspot... remember? :-p"

    What a guy ! :-)

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What an idiot. I have never professed to be an expert, I leave such self-labelling to egomaniacs like yourself and Shack.

      I conpletely destroyed Shack's King Kong bullshit and the work remains there for everyone to see.

      Delete
  46. @Norwegian:

    Simon , one thing that has puzzled me about the whole JFK affair is the apparent lack of presence of both local TV networks, and national TV networks on that day.

    Yes, I'm probably making assumptions I should not make about TV coverage in the 60's, but... I guess I'll never know unless I ask around.

    Any ideas/knowledge?

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Simon, I do apologize for the remark about Carter. I am honestly in the dark on who's really who on the board and what their loyalties are. It was not personal.

    From what I can tell, you are basing everything on the visual imagery in saying JFK was a hoax. You cite the incongruous shadows as evidence. I've been studying the Z film and it does seems that all the shadows are much too long for that time of day, half past twelve. Could it be that time of year, near the solstice, with the sun lower in the northern sky, that the shadows would be longer? At any rate, I see your point and agree these films have been changed, time of day may be off and even the backgrounds look different. I hadn't noticed this before.

    I've not seen the other photos (stills, polaroids, etc.) these past fifty years. Also, the Z film was not shown on public TV until the seventies. Magazines did show stills from the movies.

    What was discussed heatedly was the single bullet theory, dreamt up by counsel to the Warren Commission, Arlen Specter, and Oswald as the lone assassin. The most popular theory was the "mob" did it. Carlos Marcello was the favorite fall guy in the hundreds of books written. I wasted a lot of time on what you might call "fake" books, most of them ordered by the CIA, we now know. There are very few trustworthy writers on JFK.

    The imagery consisted of the autopsy photos, the diagrams of the wounds. There was a lot of discussion about the throat wound having come from the front and from a small caliber bullet. Some theorized it was a dart which came from the Umbrella Man's special umbrella.

    Mark Lane and Jim Garrison appeared on many talk shows defending LHO and said openly the assassination was carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency. Now, this is very taboo to say on national television--that the government is lying to us.

    Naturally, Lane and Garrison were discredited and vilified by the national media which at that time had not yet been consolidated into a monopoly ownership of about 5 companies. We still had the Fairness Doctrine which gave injured parties equal time to rebut unfair. slanderous charges. (See Garrison's rebuttal to NBC.)

    Unlike 9/11, images and videos did not exist in abundance and were not used as propaganda or as evidence of a crime. Garrison repeated over and over there was no evidence that proved LHO had killed anyone. So did Lane.

    Unlike 9/11, witnesses had their photos confiscated and were intimidated by agents with SS IDs. (See Mark Lane interview of witnesses. It's on You Tube I think under "Rush to Judgement.") The Warren Report often ignored unfavorable testimony and even changed it.

    IMO, the "fakery" that occurred was journalistic, unlike 9/11 which totally relied on images.

    ReplyDelete
  48. A full length interview with Mark Lane about his latest book, "Last Word, My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDaw35LPEvI

    _________________________________
    RUSH TO JUDGMENT" (1967) (MARK LANE FILM)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzpDZDnvNY

    _________________________________
    All you need to know about the JFK assassination is in "Rush to Judgement" (link above) which is the defense of LHO by Mark Lane in 1967. You don't even have to read the book as it is on You Tube.

    Unlike the 9/11 Commission, the Warren Commission used real witness sworn testimony. In their report, much witness testimony was either disregarded or contradicted.

    We now know that many of the witnesses to
    9/11 were really actors and/or relatives of television personnel. The report reads like a novel as opposed to a legal document. It is unclear what the testimony of the witnesses was and whether it was taken under oath

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark Lane IS CIA!

      Jim Jones ran a CIA MK-ULTRA mind control centre at Jonestown, Mark Lane was his CIA handler. Lane was, as far as the public was concerned, Jones' lawyer. When the mass murder occurred, Lane was present but miraculously escaped unharmed.

      Lane is a Zionist Jew and was in U.S. Army intelligence in post-war Germany in 1945-47. This is the branch that became the C.I.A. after the war.

      Therefore, anything Lane has to say about JFK has to be viewed as part of the gatekeeping operation to prevent disclosure of the real truth.

      http://www.whale.to/b/mark_lane.html

      Mark Lane gained control of the AFP after they lost the court case brought against them by the ADL. The AFP employs disinfo agents like Mark Glenn and Michael Collins Piper.

      “Mark Lane took over the assets of the Liberty Lobby in or around 1993, when the lobby was on the verge of bankruptcy. This information came directly from L.T. Patterson, the publisher of Criminal Politics, who was sued by Lane in 1994 for some $10 million. Patterson was able to fend off Lane, a Zionist wolf in sheep’s clothing, and learned that Lane owned the lobby during the legal process. When I asked Willis A. Carto if this was true, he swore at me on the phone and slammed down the receiver. Since my office at the lobby/newspaper was connected to Willis Carto’s (from the summer of 2000) and having seen Lane, Carto, and Piper together on many occasions, I don’t doubt for a minute that Patterson’s information is true. I have never seen anything that would contradict it. This would mean that the so-called right-wing patriotic and anti-Semitic publications of the Liberty Lobby, such as the Spotlight and American Free Press, are actually controlled-opposition outfits controlled by the Zionist Jew, Mark Lane.”

      Delete
    2. http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/connect-the-dots-mark-lane-a-cialawyer-is-with-jim-jones-at-jonestown/

      “A lawyer working for Jones in Jonestown named Mark Lane postured himself as a left-winger and someone who believed in Jones’ version of Apostolic Socialism. He also wrote a book about Jonestown called The Strongest Poison. Was Mark Lane an opportunist lawyer whose book stretched the truth and omitted important information? That is what the reviewers say. I am not saying that. Could he be an actual tool of the CIA as he makes his living appearing to attack them? I am not saying that Mark Lane is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. However I will tell you this: Mark Lane walked out of Jonestown that fateful day and later became the lawyer for the very same people in charge of killing the Jonestown survivors – Bo Gritz and the Liberty Lobby and Company. Gritz is an avowed right-winger who postures himself to be against big government, military profiteering, CIA involvement with drugs and other left-wing issues. Gritz and the Liberty Lobby are both anti-Jew pro-Hitler advocates of revisionist attempts to rewrite history and say that the Holocaust was not so bad or maybe did not really occur at all. It is a great irony that Mark Lane himself is Jewish. This subject matter is not short on ironies. Gritz, possibly envious of the Jonestown he was partly in charge of destroying, later started a community of right-wing survivalists he named “Almost Heaven.”

      “During the summer of 1978, Jones hired JFK assassination conspiracy theorists Mark Lane and Donald Freed to help make the case of a “grand conspiracy” by intelligence agencies against the Peoples Temple. Jones told Lane he wanted to “pull an Eldridge Cleaver”, referring to a fugitive Black Panther who was able to return to the United States after repairing his reputation. In September 1978, Lane spoke to the residents of Jonestown, providing support for Jones’ theories and drawing parallels between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jim Jones. Lane then held press conferences stating that “none of the charges” against the Temple “are accurate or true” and that there was a “massive conspiracy” against the Temple by “intelligence organizations,” naming the CIA, FBI, FCC and even the U.S. Post Office. Though Lane represented himself as disinterested, Jones was actually paying him $6,000 per month to generate such theories.“

      Eustace Mullins has spoken out about Mark Lane and his Zionist gatekeeping:

      http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviews_Mullins3.html

      "How could AFP and TBR possibly be as incompetent as they appear?

      Face reality! These people are deliberately trying to control the investigation of Zionism, and they may also be collecting the names, addresses, and money of people who oppose Zionism. "

      Delete
  49. ARTHUR KROCK OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
    COUP D'ETAT WILL COME FROM THE CIA

    “The C.I.A.’s growth was ‘likened to a malignancy’ which the ‘very high official was not sure even the White House could control … any longer.’ ‘If the United States ever experiences [a coup to overthrow the government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.’ The agency ‘represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.’”

    From an Op-ed by Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Arthur Krock, published Oct. 3, 1963. Krock was quoting a piece by Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard news service, which described the internecine struggle between the CIA and the State Dept. in carrying out US policy in Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete
  50. But there already WAS a coup, that is precisely what the assassination of JFK was.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Joan Edwards said: " Thanks to both for reminding us we once had a president who really cared about us."

    Yeah, right. JFK was a good guy come to save the US and the world from the evil...er, whatever [you name it.] .

    To my mind, the single most notable general "feature" [if you will] of almost the entire conspiracy theory/alternative history community, [including just about every frequent poster at this blog ], is the ongoing and apparently unshakeable infatuation and ongoing worship of the very entity that most abuses them all on a day to day, year in, year out basis; namely, THE STATE.

    If this was not so worryingly naive it might be funny.

    After all what is the single, most "big picture", common- to- both, known fact for the JFK incident and 9/11, to select just two events from a very,very long line of erm....."incidents" ?

    Simply this:

    that since those events allegedly occurred [9/11, JFK, etc.] , the government has consistently, repeatedly, and entirely without shame/remorse, LIED about EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of those alleged events, from start to finish, inside out, back to front, upside down, North to South, East to West etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum [ or should it be: "ad nauseum"?:-)

    And yet to this day, the full-on, unavoidable conclusion to be gleaned from that one single, glaring, in-your face "big picture" fact about these types of alleged events, is, to this day, inexplicably widely avoided/ignored/dismissed within almost the entire conspiracy theory/alternative history community [including just about every frequent poster at this blog, as well as J. Fetzer himself] .

    That conclusion is simply this:

    that the state is nothing more than a 100% criminal institution, and that therefor, _none_ of its depts. , data, individual "employees" or stated motives should _ever_ be trusted by any intelligent, rational individual.

    A simple, obvious conclusion to reach, you'd think, but no.

    And so these threads are mostly chock full of persons who, with a straight face , day in day out, continue to defend/justify/promote the very "creature" that, day in day out, totally abuses them and lies to one and all,that never quits, but instead just grows bigger via its lies and takes away more of their freedoms.

    And so we have naive comments approximating :

    "JFK was a good guy who was going to make everything better", or:

    " Yeah, I know the government lies about stuff all the time, but I think they are telling the truth concerning traces of nuclear fission being found at "Ground Zero" " , or whatever.

    And at least one person on these threads, from what I can tell,is busy fantasizing a "full on" fascist state as "the solution" to America's woes. [ My advice: get help. Seriously. Although I do help people with this type of problem myself, I don't do it here, and I don't do it for free: email:onebornfreeatyahoodotcom ].

    To me, it's like a super large real-life conformation of what has been called "Stockholm Syndrome".

    Are all you conspiracy-minded statists simply naive, psychologically addicted to the state, or just seriously dedicated masochists?

    "Enquiring minds want to know" ! :-)

    "Slavery or Freedom?- The State Is A Criminal Enterprise!" :
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2014/02/slavery-or-freedom-state-is-criminal.html

    Regardless of your unceasing naivete, addiction, or masochism, I would suggest that obviously, "the Matrix" [still] "has you".

    "16 Signs That You’re a Slave to the Matrix":
    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/04/16-signs-that-youre-slave-to-matrix.html

    Regards, obf,

    ReplyDelete
  54. Attention Amanda Price, Ian Greenhalgh, Solfeggio, seu bobo... You have challenged us to a debate, we accept. Let it be known that Jim Fetzer nor Myself have ever backed down for a debate. You say JFK faked his death or the entire event was an elaborate media hoax. Contact me at my personal email sirgaryking@gmail.com and we will arrange a debate between us that allows you to present your case and any and all evidence and we will respond to your evidence and allow for a rebuttal. Let's get off the comment page and onto the airwaves and we will archive your evidence indefinitely, Gary King

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Gary but in my case you're mistaken, I'm very much in agreement with yourself and Dr Fetzer on the JFK case, It's Simon Shack and his cronies that are pushing the JFK hoax idea, not me.

      Delete
  55. Gary King wrote:

    "Attention Amanda Price, Ian Greenhalgh, Solfeggio, seu bobo... You have challenged us to a debate, we accept. Let it be known that Jim Fetzer nor Myself have ever backed down for a debate. You say JFK faked his death or the entire event was an elaborate media hoax."

    This is getting interesting! I'm eagerly (not) looking forward to this umpteenth bamboozling episode of the JFK-case gatekeeping circus. "Fascinating!" - as Fetzer would say.

    Happy debates, folks. But hey : mind your minds!

    *grabbing popcorn *

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  56. Gary King said : "Attention Amanda Price, Ian Greenhalgh, Solfeggio, seu bobo... You have challenged us to a debate, we accept. Let it be known that Jim Fetzer nor Myself have ever backed down for a debate. You say JFK faked his death or the entire event was an elaborate media hoax. Contact me at my personal email sirgaryking@gmail.com and we will arrange a debate between us that allows you to present your case and any and all evidence and we will respond to your evidence and allow for a rebuttal. Let's get off the comment page and onto the airwaves and we will archive your evidence indefinitely, Gary King"

    Good idea Gary. I hope it happens.

    Here's another good idea: in order to have a fair debate, both parties need a moderator who is as unbiased as possible towards either side, that is, _not_ yourself or J.Fetzer, _nor_ any of the other persons on your list :-) .

    You [or J. Fetzer] might like to contact John Friend to serve as an unbiased moderator. If he's up for it- he did a pretty good job moderating myself v Don Fox, I thought.

    Just a thought.

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking about giving each person 15 min to lay out their case, give Jim 15min respond give the guest a 5min rebuttal and a final re-rebuttal. I would record each person here in my studio. That way we can avoid yelling, ad- homs, name calling ect. Trust me OBF, No one is more aware of media hoaxes than I am. I am more than willing to give them there say, Hey if every researcher in the history of JFK has been grossly duped, then so be it, Admit it..... we all have been duped to a certain degree.

      Delete
    2. I look forward to it, should be very interesting. Would the person not need a bit longer than 15 minutes to lay out their theory?

      Delete
    3. Amanda, we will give every opportunity to make your points, we may have to make part of it a youtube video. Don't forget that we have multiple guests...

      Delete
  57. Thanks, Ian, for reposting your nutcase sources from AFP on Mark Lane. Here is your beloved A. J.McDonald arguing the authenticity of the Boston Marathon. Another winner, ian. LOL. (Lots of laughs. Keep it up, Ian.)

    https://americanfreepress.net/?p=16872
    AFP RADIO: Boston Marathon Bombing Live Debate Jim Fetzer vs. A.J. McDonald, Jr. | American Free Press

    A. J. MacDonald, Jr. (54) is a thinker, writer, author, blogger, and social/political activist. A.J.’s a former soldier, warehouse worker/manager, delivery driver, construction laborer, and professional tractor-trailer driver (25+ years off-and-on) and has authored five books since 2009 and been a full time writer and researcher since 2011. A.J. currently lives in Pennsylvania.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the hell are you talking about? Are you deliberately being stupid?

      I have not used McDonald as a source, I merely used quoes by other sources that McDonald repeated on his blog. If you bothered to read the material properly you would see that the sources of the information I quoted were David Parker Wise and Christopher Bollyn, NOT McDonald.

      And you are deliberately ignoring the other sources I quoted from such as Eustace Mullins and The Chicago Tribune.

      Instead of making false claimsabout my sources, why don't you address the important facts such as Lane's background in Army Intelligence, his involvement in the Jonestown massacre and his ownership of the AFP which has been exposed as a disinfo organisation closely tied to thee ADL?

      Delete
  58. "Delivery driver, trailer-tractor driver, construction laborer, soldier"? Ian, do you think A.J. McDonald is an intellectual match for debating DOCTOR FETZER?

    ReplyDelete
  59. I would reccomend a double header. First debate on abirato radio, Simons stamping ground, and rematch in Jimbos cave to the drums of the Beattles. No need for moderators or donkeys. Simon is just starting out here while Jim has been obscuring JFK for years so it may take a whille for it I would say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. don't see why Jim should lower himself to Shack's level of inane absurdity and incompetence. Shack hasn't built a case of produced one single valid piece of evidence to support his viewpoint.

      I mean, the idiot can't even identify true north and has absolutely no ability to analyse a photograph correctly. All he does is declare something to be fake without being able to build a proper case as to why it is fake. He's an utterly incompetent egomaniac and not worth giving the time of day to let alone valuable airtime.

      Delete
    2. The shadows dont match with one another so the case of mismatched sun angle comes secondary. Even Zeus apparently agrees the videos were doctored, but keeps hacking it back and forth without forwarding any conclusions on the matter.

      Delete
    3. In order to determine if the shadows match or not, then proper analysis must be done, something which Shack has demonstrated he is incapable of. Furthermore, even if the shadows don't match, then that doesn't point to the event being a hoax, it just identifies another element of fakery within the images. Shack couldn't even figure out if the direction of the shadows was correct or not so there is no chance of him being able to do the more complex analysis of the shadow length.

      Delete
    4. You have two films and a photo of pivotal moment where all photographers photo one another. Possible but unlikely in reality to coincide all important photographic evidence with each other within the brackets of the decisive snapshot in an event as big league as this. Neat but dumb. So, we are again dealing here with hollywood project in in its entirety.

      Delete
    5. Nonsense. There are several movies and over a dozen photographs, some show other photographers, some don't, some capture one of the headshots, some don't.

      If you educate yourself about the facts of the case you will soon learn that it is all not only plausible but actually happened.

      As Jim said, this hoax business is beyond moronic.

      Delete
  60. Light On Conspiracies with Ole Dammegard - learn the truth about the JFK-assassination, Operation 40, the Olof Palme-murder etc
    http://www.lightonconspiracies.com/

    Dear Friends, my name is ole: dammegård, I'm a prize winning author, investigator, former journalist, etc. For some 30 years I have worked hard on exposing some of the biggest conspiracies around the globe, something that has turned out to be a very dangerous task.

    I humbly believe that I've managed to more or less solve the assassination of the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, one of the world's greatest murder mysteries.

    This extensive investigation has revealed incredible links to other big political 'events' like the killing of JFK, John Lennon, Robert Kennedy, Che Guevara, and Salvador Allende as well as the cold-blooded sinking of m/s Estonia, which has caused an international tidal wave of interest.

    My goal is to prevent the Global Elite from turning this beautiful world into a controlled and horrible place and I am totally dedicated to revealing their agenda, including False Flag-operations all over the world

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ole had been a guest on the show more than once. His thesis revolves around a group of assassins that are all linked to Operation 40 and Cuba.

      Delete
  61. Joan Edwards said : ""Delivery driver, trailer-tractor driver, construction laborer, soldier"? Ian, do you think A.J. McDonald is an intellectual match for debating DOCTOR FETZER? "

    Without even knowing who this McDonald character is, on the strength of his resume, I'd say that he sounds like _more_than a match for Fetzer- he probably displays a good deal more common sense, for one thing. :-)

    Joan, you are coming off as an intellectual snob here.

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Simon Pimon said :" Simon is just starting out here while Jim has been obscuring JFK for years "

    What's the saying? "A new broom sweeps clean"?

    It seems that many here resent fresh eyes [ e.g. S.Shack, Culto et.] taking a cold hard look at the JFK case.

    What's up with that ?

    I guess they do not like having their "rock solid" assumptions questioned, for various psychological reasons.

    "Very interesting, but stooooopid" :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qf6Sv3A9zs

    Regards, obf



    Regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim has already stated that he welcomes new research IF it is valid.

      However, the 'work' of Shack and Culto is nothing more than incompetent nonsense, so bad it's laughable, so bad it's utterly worthless and a complete waste of our time to even bother reviewing it.

      Shack has made an utter fool of himself with his JFK 'analysis' and made it clear for everyone other than his gang of stooges that the man is a totally incompetent, self-aggrandising egomaniacal idiot.

      Delete
  63. Since this is a JFK thread and since Jim has highly recommended my JFK-related film, Water Time, I figure it's ok to mention here that the film is now available for viewing, free of charge. Jon Rappoport kick started things with this blog entry a few days ago:


    http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=d1f80774-f478-440b-a673-34db0fdecea8&c=3f706ac0-92fd-11e3-a300-d4ae52a2cb52&ch=40b6f480-92fd-11e3-a34a-d4ae52a2cb52

    Sorry for the length. Hope it will work. Anyway, you go to banditobooks.com and the rest is obvious. Feedback most welcome...


    ReplyDelete
  64. Greenhalgh said: "Jim has already stated that he welcomes new research IF it is valid."

    Well, I'm sorry to burst yours and Fetzer's enormous ego bubbles, but neither yourself , nor Fetzer, get to play the final arbiters of truth, and what is, or is not, "valid" research, on _anything_, _anywhere_.

    Perhaps its time for you to grow up/stop deluding yourself, little boy.

    On the other hand- keep right on pontificating, it sure is entertaining, and at the same time serves the admirable purpose of destroying yours, and by association, Fetzer's, credibility.

    So I take it all back, _don't_ grow up :-)

    Love and kisses, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PMSL, the only people who are destroying their credibility are the morons like Shack and Culto who keep displaying a total incompetence and inability to present a tenable case.

      Delete
    2. Onebornfree

      " On the other hand- keep right on pontificating, it sure is entertaining, and at the same time serves the admirable purpose of destroying yours, and by association, Fetzer's, credibility."

      Aha!! So this is what your and your kindergarten sandbox buddy Simon Pimon's maniacal rantings and ravings are all about!! Your "agenda"
      and ' "admirable" purpose ' are to destroy Professor Jim Fetzer's credibility!! Well, I got to tell you and your Brokeback Mountain partner, Simon Pimon, that it's not going to happen. Professor Fetzer's credibility is rock solid and no amount of bullshit from you or your pal, Simon Pimon is going to change that. By the way, as far as credibility goes - isn't it time that you and Simon Pimon got some? Meanwhile, you and Simon Pimon can mosey back on down to that kindergarten sandbox. Now, that sure would be admirable, wouldn't it?!

      Yup? Yep!




      Delete
    3. Everybody knows that simon pimon is just a character that Ian uses to argue with himself. I would not be surprised if sparkie was not another of his creations. He does like to use exclamation marks and sparkie is also a fan. Is that you Ian?

      Delete
    4. What a load of nonsense, but par for the course for you.

      Delete
    5. Everybody knows that Amanda Price is just Simon Shack's little pecker.

      Delete
    6. @Sarah Young
      Ian as it is, he is one big exclamation mark.

      Delete
    7. @cutop I was like thinking she was cutof's tight ass.

      Delete
  65. Simon Pimon said :"You have two films and a photo of pivotal moment where all photographers photo one another. Possible but unlikely in reality to coincide all important photographic evidence with each other within the brackets of the decisive snapshot in an event as big league as this."

    I agree with that, it seems enormously coincidental.

    Further more, [to anybody out there] why no local or national TV coverage at that time?

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You keep exposing your total ignorance of the events of that day by asking stupid questions that anyone who has studied the JFK case knows the answer to.

      There should have been a flat back lorry with local press and TV in front of the motorcade but it was ordered not to join in at the last minute and remained behind at Love Field. This alteration of the motorcade participants is one of the many indicators of Secret Service involvement in the conspiracy.

      Delete
    2. i don't know. wasn't in the screenplay i suppose.
      another question-- why no cops or ss at the rfk "assassination"? just rosey feckin greer, et al.

      Delete
  66. Ian,

    Don't waste your time
    with the congenital and psychopathic
    misfit, liar and loser obf. He's just an embittered little twister and time waster. He has no credibility and never had any to start with. Professor Jim Fetzer's take on Onebornfree was correct; obf is mentally ill. The guy is not playing with a full deck of cards.
    Ignore obf. He's a creep.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sherlock: "By Jove, Watson - I have solved the JFK murder case!"
    Watson: "Jolly good news, Sir! So who did it?"
    Sherlock: "The Secret Service".
    Watson: "Fascinating! How did you reach that conclusion, Holmes?"
    Sherlock: "Elementary, my dear Watson: the News Media captured no TV imagery of the event, therefore the Secret Service must have ordered a media blackout."
    Watson:"With all due respect, Sir - but ... could this not also indicate that the News Media were complicit ?"
    Sherlock: "Preposterous, Watson! The News Media would never betray their audience - if not coerced to do so by the SS!"
    Watson: "By Jove, Sir - you're right! Your mastery of the fine art of logical reasoning always leaves me speechless!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever happened to Simon Pimon's donkey? Has the donkey no role to play and nothing to say in your drama? A few lines would have been nice. Even a silent walk on part from the donkey would help.
      Here are a few words for the donkey:

      " Shut the fuck up Sherlock and that goes for you too, Watson!"

      Exit donkey stage right.

      Delete
  68. Enter donkey stage
    and cutop is obviously a Fetzass, not saying a tight one. That would be preposterous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Pimon

      You're a fuckass, donkey!

      No two ways about it!

      Delete
    2. Your so pathetic Ian. Your just clogging the thread up with nonsense. I suppose thats your intention.

      Delete
    3. Amanda Price
      May 3, 2014 at 1:06 P.M.

      "Your so pathetic Ian. Your just clogging the thread up with nonsense."

      It's "you're"! Please learn to spell!
      Why do you continue to make this same mistake in all your posts using your many aliases?
      We are trying to have an intelligent and informed discussion in this forum and you're lowering the tone with your silly spelling errors. I am seriously considering asking Professor Fetzer to block you for your stupidity.


      Delete
  69. Ian said: "Ole had been a guest on the show more than once. His thesis revolves around a group of assassins that are all linked to Operation 40 and Cuba."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Ole would be a better match to debate Shack's JFK fakery theory because of his thesis of the teams of shooters positioned in a triangulation pattern which Shack has a hard time accepting.

    Both Shack and Ole are familiar with Sweden and it would be nice to hear Shack's take on the Olaf Palme assassination. What did Palme do to anger the establishment?

    I'd like to hear Shack debunk operation 40 and the FACT that the same assassins keep turning up at every event, or not.

    So, stop teasing us, Shack and OBF. it's time to put your cards on the table and make your case

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joan Edwards wrote:

      "So, stop teasing us, Shack and OBF. it's time to put your cards on the table and make your case."

      Dear Joan,

      Well, I can't speak for obf - although I much respect his views - but I can assure you that neither of us is in the business of 'teasing'.

      I will humbly admit that my knowledge of the Palme case is poor. At this time, I am concentrating on the very old and weary JFK case. You may wish to read this post of mine concerning the JFK case - and so (hopefully) appreciate the gist of my thinking processes:

      http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2390095#p2390095

      kind regards

      Simon Shack

      Delete
  70. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Onebornfree said: "Joan Edwards said : ""Delivery driver, trailer-tractor driver, construction laborer, soldier"? Ian, do you think A.J. McDonald is an intellectual match for debating DOCTOR FETZER? "

    Without even knowing who this McDonald character is, on the strength of his resume, I'd say that he sounds like _more_than a match for Fetzer- he probably displays a good deal more common sense, for one thing. :-)

    Joan, you are coming off as an intellectual snob here"
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Here's who this McDonald character is, OBF. and BTW, that "intellectual snob" remark was uncalled for. This is not a humble guy but an arrogant one.

    McDonald believes the Boston Marathon was a real event--no fakery in the photos--all genuine. Clueless Ian thinks McDonald supports his idol, Fetzer.

    https://americanfreepress.net/?p=16872
    AFP RADIO: Boston Marathon Bombing Live Debate Jim Fetzer vs. A.J. McDonald, Jr. | American Free Press

    ReplyDelete
  72. Joan Edwards said :" that "intellectual snob" remark was uncalled for. This is not a humble guy but an arrogant one."

    Maybe, but his arrogance and lack of logical thinking ability has nothing to do with his past employment experience, which is what you appear to be saying.

    By that standard J.Fetzer must think logically simply because he went to University,has a lot of letters after his name and has written books, when you and I both know [or should], from past performances that he can be just as illogical as you claim this McDonald guy is [e.g. Fetzers "the 9/11 imagery all hangs together, therefor its all genuine" routine he puts out :-) .]

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  73. onebornfree said : "By that standard J.Fetzer must think logically simply because he went to University,has a lot of letters after his name and has written books, when you and I both know [or should], from past performances that he can be just as illogical as you claim this McDonald guy is [e.g. Fetzers "the 9/11 imagery all hangs together, therefor its all genuine" routine he puts out :-) .] "

    And don't forget, Fetzer's arrogance knows no bounds. Sounds like they are a good match for a verbal brawl [aka "debate" ] to me :-) .

    Regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dear god, watching obf and Joan argue is like watching two retarded children have a strop, the pair of you are pathetic.obf deliberately misrepresents Jim's arguments in order to make his own untenable points and Joan blatantly ignores the true source of the info I posted in order to go off on some stupid tangent about McDonald and make a straw man argument. I have to question whether the pair of you are actually as stupid as you seem or if you're willfully acting out a role in order to disrupt Jim's work and waste our time.

    ReplyDelete
  75. ian, i saw your comment in the other thread about feinberg.

    i've heard of ken feinberg. he was the pay czar, right? he made sure those pesky bankers didn't get too much bonus money; that is, after they strong-armed our congressional acting troupe for 700 billion. 700, ha.

    besides his pay czar role,ken is also the hoaxer's bagman. he ran the bp fund, the hokie fund, the penn state settlement, the batman fund, the boston bombing fund, the sandy hook fund. he also helped to determine the market value of the zapruder fake film. in addition to some holohoax litigation. that is one busy fraudster, no?

    the above is common knowledge, however what i find pertinent to this site is feinberg's bio. ian, did you know that kenny feinberg is a kennedy protege. raised in brockton, went to umass-amherst, and was teddy's chief-of-staff?

    the dupery runs deep, my friends; don't drown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. seu bobo wrote:

      "...what i find pertinent to this site is feinberg's bio. ian, did you know that kenny feinberg is a kennedy protege. raised in brockton, went to umass-amherst, and was teddy's chief-of-staff?"

      Interesting. Very interesting.

      Delete
    2. i'm sure it is just a coincidence, simon; we wouldn't want to sully the kennedys' good name. they are a heroic clan.

      Delete
    3. ted and ken at the jfk library. yes. the same jfk library from the boston bombings.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWk92y_hEew

      Delete
    4. looks like Kennedies in myriad of ways display fondness of the monkey business.

      Delete
    5. Simon Pimon

      You like a chunk of rubber for your donkey? A nice dildo for your ass?

      Delete
  76. Greenhalgh said : "...and waste _our_ time." [emphasis mine]

    One of your most prominent and laughably false assumptions [delusions actually] , is that you can speak not only for yourself, but also for various mysterious others here.

    Why is that Greenhalgh?

    Why have you deluded yourself into believing that you are capable of speaking for others here [and presumably elsewhere too]?

    My guess, to put it in "scientific" terms, is that you are an "F.H.", i.e. a frickin' halfwit. :-)

    love and kisses, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ian Greenhalgh wrote (about the JFK-event imagery):

    "Nonsense. There are several movies and over a dozen photographs, some show other photographers, some don't, some capture one of the headshots, some don't."

    Exactly, Ian - exactly. There are scores of JFK "money shots". Much like on 9/11 - when over 50 supposed "amateur cameramen" expertly focused, panned and captured that 'incoming, 550mph "FLIGHT 175" on film :

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2390095#p2390095

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's a pretty ludicrous idea, but if you do the research properly, and I mean properly, unlike the usual horseshit you put out, it will take months of hard work. You need to analyse the characters who took the images, in order to ascertain who they were,why they were there and if they worked for an agency that placed them there deliberately. This has already been done so it's a case of reading and cross-checking a huge volume of books and research papers.
      Secondly, you need to look at the rest of the route through Dallas, to compare how many people in total and how many with cameras were lining the route, that would tell you if there was anything unusual about the numbers in Dealey Plaza. You also should look at other other motorcades JFK took part in, such as when he visited Berlin and when he visited Hawaii, see how many people with cameras were present at those events.

      You're already off to a bad start with the diagram in your website, you've got the positions of several people wrong, Nix and Muchmore for instance, are in completely wrong positions.

      Considering you're 0-2 so far in your JFK 'research' having made a fool of yourself over the Moorman Polaroid and the Altgens/Zapruder shadows, I have little doubt you'll do a piss-poor laughable job of this third attempt.

      Delete
  78. Ian,
    You have thoroughly, conclusively and systematically dismantled single-handedly the charlatan and delusionist Shack's specious jiggery pokery and nonsense. You have routed totally the imbecile Shack and his moronic fellow travelers. Your enemies are now beaten, scattered and in total disarray. You can now raise the flag of victory and leave the battlefield. You have won. The day is yours.

    Your work here is done.

    Vae victis!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish it were that simple, I really do. Shack isn't going to quit so I can't either, I care too much about the truth to let these morons spread their lies.

      Delete
    2. You're right, Ian. The truth is the only answer to Shack and his ilk.
      Keep up the good work.
      The truth will out!

      Delete
    3. @Ian They are cranking you up pal

      Delete
    4. @Ian

      Simon Pimon is Amanda Price

      Delete
    5. and Jim Revell is Midnight Blond

      Delete
  79. All these characters are so obviously controlled by Ian Greenhalgh. It is pathetic behavior by someone who claims to be an educated man. It is ruining any discussion real people are trying to have on the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
    John F. Kennedy

    ]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JFK may well have snapped the leash he was held by when starting the job. In three years he did politics uncalled for in the shadows and offered more. It would have been tough to scrap his politics without cancelling the man. He was offered a way out and coerced by the clan to comply eventually did so. Nixon was laid off by way of less entertaining script ten years later. The script written for Kennedy was perhaps not the best in hindsight but that's what they came up with.

      The myth itself that was planted after his disappearance is clear as a bell and nothing short of truth in the way that Kennedy didn't intend to play a pawn as per contract. The stories upon stories that later sprang were profusely built on this myth and most people fell for it. It was true so why not. It happens that the myth was central to why Kennedy was removed from office and central also to 50 years of disinformation to cover up total media fakery, a staged event.

      Delete
    2. Utter bullshit.

      Zero evidence to support the theory of JFK's assassination being a hoax.

      I find it hard to believe people can be so moronic to actually believe such rubbish therefore I have to strongly suspect the people pushing this JFK death was a hoax are nothing more than disinfo agents.

      Delete
    3. Simon Pimon (Amanda Price)

      What you need is a chunk of rubber on your computer mouse. You cheapo!

      Delete
  81. Greenhalgh said : " Shack isn't going to quit so I can't either, I care too much about the truth to let these morons spread their lies."

    Kryst! Wot a HERO! [sob], I think [sob] I'm goin 2 cri. [sob]. Keep up [sob] the grate [sob] wurk Greeny, pleeze don't quit [sob], U are a troo lite in all this [sob] darkness -we [sob[ depend on you and your infallible [sob] arguments to sow us all the way.

    I for one wood not no how to karry on wivout u here fiting the grate fite 4 trooth az u C it [sob.]

    Love and kisses, obf.

    p.s. pleeeeze don't quit :-)
    p.p.s. pleeze don't quit.

    ReplyDelete