Johnny Gosch update

[chiggerbit]

Franklin, keep track of the "Info on Italy's CIA-backed Dual State - P2, Gelli, Gladio" thread for info on Colby, who had a role in the Franklin conspiracy. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 9/12/06 12:25 am<br></i>

[rain]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Meanwhile, Colby is in the thing<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Conspiracy Theories about Colby's Death<br>Conservative reporter Christopher Ruddy (as part of the Arkansas Project) has claimed that President Clinton had Colby murdered because Colby was going to write about a conspiracy between Clinton and Vincent Foster (see [5]).<br><br>Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp authored The Franklin Coverup and on June 29, 1989, the headline of the Washington Times was Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I found the 'conspiracy theories ...' just a little weird.<br>sort of just tacked on the end there ....<br>no connecting details...<br><br>but, my,my, it's a small world, afterall.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Foster could have also been a CIA "Gladio-type" hit, to throw suspicion on Clinton. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 9/12/06 12:39 am<br></i>

[chiggerbit]

Seems to me, if a Gladio-type organization were to want to kill/cause harm to any person in opposition to the Gladio-type organizaation, it would be during an opponent's administration:<br><br><br>William Colby died April 29, 1996<br><br>Vince Foster, July 24, 1998<br><br>Stansfield Turner's air crash, which killed his wife, 15 January 2000. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 9/12/06 1:24 am<br></i>

[blanc]

dutroux case links in to arms dealing by-passing congress and parliament, using unwitting smallish companies as front. hence the measure of 'conspiracy', the need for cover up, the involvement of big shots. don't have time to spell it out, but, there it is.<br>Roy just trots out same old lie basically, the lie that survivors make unbelievable claims, that memories are planted. I'm sorry Roy, if you read this, maybe you have sincerely swallowed that line and are re-gurgitating it. In dutroux case the uncomfortable fact that a credible witness (one of the x's) with an exemplary career as civilian police empoyee, named same banker as Louf, same locations, same modus op. was covered up by 1. slurring investigating police (disproved after investigation, but by then public had swallowed the lie) 2. slurring therapists, never bothered to prove a connection between them to justify the slur or proceed against them for the unprof. conduct which the slur attributed to them - just trotted out that therapist a. knew therapist b. therefore they must, for reasons beyond anyone's ken, have collaborated in implanting same detailed memories ie bullshit <p></p><i></i>

[Avalon]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>In her groundbreaking book Trauma and Recovery, Judith Herman says "People who have survived atrocities often tell their stories in a highly emotional, contradictory, and fragmented manner which undermines their credibility and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>thereby gains serves</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> the twin imperatives of truth-telling and secrecy."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Biaothanatoi, is this a transcription error, or is she really being less than coherent here?<br><br>I can't see how recounting their stories in a "highly emotional, contradictory, and fragmented manner" aids either truthtelling or secrecy. Whose imperatives are implied in this passage? <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[biaothanatoi]

Transcription error - should be "thereby serves". The "twin imperative" she's referring to is what she calls the dialectic of trauma - the simultaneous desire to deny a horrible event, and to proclaim them aloud.<br><br><br>Susan Polk is a good example - she's clearly trying to communicate something, but she's doing it in a fashion that nobody finds credible. I think this applies to RA more generally - we've constructed it in such a hysterical, emotional way that we can rant about it as much as we want, but nobody is going to listen to us. <br><br>We can't discount that many survivors and advocates may unconciously desire not to be believed, for a whole range of reasons. <p></p><i></i>

[sw]

edit

[sw]

edit

[sw]

edit

[Roy Harrold]

One more attempt at explaining this, then I leave it be for now.<br><br>Some people (not accusing anyone here) have gone out of their way to ensure that anytime missing child Johnny Gosch's name comes up - people's attention will immediately be re-directed to other things that have no PROVEN connection to this boy. There is no evidence that Larry King was involved in Gosch's KIDNAPPING, there is no evidence that Citron was involved, or Baer...<br><br>There has been an effort to forever link the name of a missing child to completely unrelated issues - IranContra, William Colby, George Bush, satanic cults, mind control, the Illuminati, Zionism, and on & on. <br><br>We were sitting in a pub when we first heard about the Gosch=Gannon thing. Its a working-class place, very ordinary people - not "debunkers", not "disinformation agents", not ruling elites. <br><br>There is an internet terminal in the pub, and this guy was reading things from a Gosch=Gannon thread on some site, out loud. "Listen to this, you won't believe this!" sort of thing.<br>He would read out a posting and there would be angry roars of "WHAT? WHAT?" from the crowd of people sitting around. If the people there could have gotten their hands on the authors of the postings there would have been lynchings. <br><br>More than anything, they were upset that anyone would exploit the tragedy of a missing child to promote something other than the tragedy of missing children. <br><br>When the name Johnny Gosch comes up, people should think about the fact that a 12 year boy is missing - not all this other stuff. I don't know how to make the outrage expressed in the pub that day more understandable than that.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There is an internet terminal in the pub, and this guy was reading things from a Gosch=Gannon thread on some site, out loud. "Listen to this, you won't believe this!" sort of thing.<br>He would read out a posting and there would be angry roars of "WHAT? WHAT?" from the crowd of people sitting around. If the people there could have gotten their hands on the authors of the postings there would have been lynchings.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>I call complete and utter BULLSHIT. <p></p><i></i>

[Roy Harrold]

"I call complete and utter BULLSHIT"<br><br>Whatever. <br><br>Keep telling yourself that theories of conspiracy are kept out of the mainstream press by a co-ordinated truth-suppression agency of some kind, rather than that people who aren't part of your subculture get turned off and disgusted by the very obvious exploitation of issues like missing kids to promote other agendas, and any serious concerns you might have will remain trapped in obscurity.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[godzorphan]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>One more attempt at explaining this, then I leave it be for now.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>And yet, you don't. Every post wasted responding to you takes away from legitimate discussion. Don't they have a False Memory Syndrome group you'd get a better response at? <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>rather than that people who aren't part of your subculture get turned off and disgusted by the very obvious exploitation of issues like missing kids to promote other agendas, and any serious concerns you might have will remain trapped in obscurity.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And what subculture would that be? The subculture of blue collar women married for 25 years to blue collar men, with 2 kids, 2 grandkids, a steady job, and many close friends and family? It may surprise you to know, since you obviously don't, that "ordinary" people are not particularly surprised to learn that the gov't and media engage in suppressing conspiracies, including among them organized elite pedo rings. <br><br>Go out and visit a real pub and you might learn a thing or two. Since my mother worked as a bartender while raising her girls, I happen to know a thing or two about people who frequent pubs, so don't come here and try to peddle your phoney stories about how people react to these kinds of stories- I can assure you that the messengers are not the people they want to throttle. <p></p><i></i>