John deCamp

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Free » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:44 pm

Project Willow wrote:
So, Jackie and others, then why did DeCamp write his Franklin book?


An idea: FAKE OPPOSITION


Quote:

-- For every action, there is an opposite and equal
reaction. This is also true in warfare.

An invading force can plan on meeting opposition. How much better its
for the invading force to control that opposition.

An invading force plans an invasion. In advance, invaders covertly set
up channels of opposition in the target population. We can call these
channels "designated" opposition, or fake opposition. When the invasion
occurs, the fake opposition is already in place, well-funded and able to
reach vast numbers of would-be resisters.


The fake opposition is given publicity by the invaders' propaganda
machine. The would-be resisters listen to the fake opposition, and real
opposition is suffocated... " Qatar-USA, Politics, 11/24/1998
User avatar
Free
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:32 am

Free wrote:Project Willow wrote:
So, Jackie and others, then why did DeCamp write his Franklin book?


An idea: FAKE OPPOSITION


Quote:

-- For every action, there is an opposite and equal
reaction. This is also true in warfare.

An invading force can plan on meeting opposition. How much better its
for the invading force to control that opposition.

An invading force plans an invasion. In advance, invaders covertly set
up channels of opposition in the target population. We can call these
channels "designated" opposition, or fake opposition. When the invasion
occurs, the fake opposition is already in place, well-funded and able to
reach vast numbers of would-be resisters.


The fake opposition is given publicity by the invaders' propaganda
machine. The would-be resisters listen to the fake opposition, and real
opposition is suffocated... " Qatar-USA, Politics, 11/24/1998



Damage control, he didnt really get any justice for the victims in a case that seemed pretty clear cut that this shit did take place, he may have taken just as far as he needed to and then stepped back before anything shattering could be revealed.

READ THE FORWARD of DeCamps book about he and COLBYS conversation,, it is a little eye opening IMO.

Also, people write books to make money usually.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Free » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:08 am

Percival, you'd know about this - doesn't DeCamp speak at a lot of conspiracy conferences? I know he did in the '90's and a friend of mine heard him at one 3 or 4 years ago.

Why do people speak at these events? Because they're true believers on a crusade or are they paid well or what?
User avatar
Free
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JM » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:53 am

[quote="Percival"]Been going back and doing a lot of rereading about DeCamp and Franklin the last few days and there is something I am missing thats likely right in front of me that I am not seeing or have forgotten as it happens at my age.

Schmit was in charge of the Nebraska State Legislature Committee to investigate this and Caradoni was their chosen lead investigator, so what was DECAMPS role in all of this,

I wondered since DeCamp was not included in the Committee he got involved by writing that memo to the Herald and also establishing the Nebraska Leadership Conference-which does not seen to be very well known.

when did he get involved and who picked him to become involved. I see in the FOREWORD of his book that COLBY and his wife, who herself was a Carter admin insider, were doing everything they could to get him to WALK AWAY and leave it alone, telling him that sometimes these things are so big and run so deep there just isnt anything that can be done about it no matter how evil it is and that at somepoint it will expose itself and that according to Colby Decamp should walk away.

SO how did Decamp become involved and what was his capacity as such?

WAS HIS FIRST PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN IT his MEMO and who was he acting and working for when he came out with the Memo naming those involved?

So, from what I read, heard and observed tlg and JDC became involved with each other around 1990. JDC must have been following i
the case to write the book-or put his name on LaRouche's book. It was published by LaRouche.
tlg was tight with LaRouche in 1990. The first big project was the EIR Special magazine on Satanism, $100 per copy, which was written with my help, but I didn't like the organization. They assigned me a personal investigator, Ted Andromeda.
So LaRouche investigated Franklin from very early on (?when?)and tlg introduced

Unless they were tricking me for some reason, this is what I know to be true


Then, finally when did TG come in to this?

I'd say late 1990 or 1991.
JM
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:02 am

With all due respect, may I ask what may be an obvious question?

Why is is that, upon publication of a new and deadly serious, very well-researched book about the Franklin Scandal, all this attention is being focused on the potential dark side of DeCamp? Because, well, duh. Even if DeCamp is a big fat LaRouchie or just a creep, another investigator with impeccable pedigree has just done 7 years worth of his own original research and interviews and validated DeCamp's own story?

I find it particularly disheartening to see that RI is exhibiting a similar reaction to Bryant's book as the Franklin page over at WP. Suddenly in the past two weeks there has been a flurry of activity trying to portray the whole investigation as a LaRouche conspiracy. That same spirit is alive and well in this thread too.
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:45 am

lightningBugout wrote:Why is is that, upon publication of a new and deadly serious, very well-researched book about the Franklin Scandal, all this attention is being focused on the potential dark side of DeCamp?


Well, for me at least, it's because Bryant's book shows up the false opposition of the patriot/LaRouche camp, which has owned the Franklin scandal since the beginning thanks to DeCamp/Gunderson. That needs to be discussed, and I think these threads have been very beneficial for that.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

I thought

Postby sw » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:33 am

I read somewhere days ago that DeCamp came into the picture at the request of Mgsr. Hupp. Now, that was DeCamp telling that piece of info. Maybe he contacted Hupp?

Nick Bryant can go further if he has a team around him of decent folks. In football that is called something but I don't watch football to know what the term is. I think they called it "plowing the road" in the movie Independence Day.
sw
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:28 am

Actually, my problems with DeCamp started when I read his book. He's just a troubling source.

Granted, the larger case remains insanely disturbing. Granted, we're playing into the cover-up dynamic by discussing the messenger instead of the message.

But there's a lot of threads about this lately. I see nothing wrong with digging into DeCamp. RI is a big diverse stream and we're not coherent enough for a witch hunt...or even a consensus.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Cordelia » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:29 am

Quote from JM: "SO how did Decamp become involved and what was his capacity as such?"

I started DeCamp's book years ago but found it too disturbing, triggering, and difficult to read so I didn't finish it and don't remember how he said he became involved. As I understand it, a United States Senator is elected to represent the whole state and deals with federal issues and laws. A State Senator (DeCamp) represents a geographical district and deals with State issues (does that mean the whole state or just a jurisdiction?). Maybe DeCamp's initial interest began as following the mandate of his office

Earlier Quote:

"To quote his exact words, "This case is so much bigger than you think. It goes to the very highest levels; we have to keep pulling the strings."

Quote from JM: "I see in the FOREWORD of his book that COLBY and his wife, who herself was a Carter admin insider, were doing everything they could to get him to WALK AWAY and leave it alone, telling him that sometimes these things are so big and run so deep there just isn't anything that can be done about it no matter how evil it is and that at somepoint it will expose itself and that according to Colby Decamp should walk away."

What if the Colbys meant that this isn't just about the Franklin players, but involves many states' corrupt money brokers and politicians, is business as usual (including the business of blackmail) at Washington's after party parties, involves both parties and all three branches of government. Maybe Franklin is just a tip of the iceberg. (Sorry but I haven't read the new book yet--does it make any references to these kinds of 'scandals' in previous administrations?)
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:33 am

Free wrote:Percival, you'd know about this - doesn't DeCamp speak at a lot of conspiracy conferences? I know he did in the '90's and a friend of mine heard him at one 3 or 4 years ago.

Why do people speak at these events? Because they're true believers on a crusade or are they paid well or what?


Yes he makes the rounds of the conspiracy conferences although I have never attended one that he was at.

IMO most of them attend these events to sell their books or DVDs or whatever, as much as I hate sweeping indictments, that is the feeling I get from it. It is a cottage industry and there is money to be made. Most of them are not making a lot of money but I think they are able to live without punching time cards for someone else.

There are of course many who do believe in what they write, lecture about etc, and are indeed sincere, but I cant say that for many of them. Thats only my perception though.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:40 am

lightningBugout wrote:With all due respect, may I ask what may be an obvious question?

Why is is that, upon publication of a new and deadly serious, very well-researched book about the Franklin Scandal, all this attention is being focused on the potential dark side of DeCamp? Because, well, duh. Even if DeCamp is a big fat LaRouchie or just a creep, another investigator with impeccable pedigree has just done 7 years worth of his own original research and interviews and validated DeCamp's own story?

I find it particularly disheartening to see that RI is exhibiting a similar reaction to Bryant's book as the Franklin page over at WP. Suddenly in the past two weeks there has been a flurry of activity trying to portray the whole investigation as a LaRouche conspiracy. That same spirit is alive and well in this thread too.


For me it is simple, similar to what Jeff said above and it summed up as:

'Fruit of a poison tree.'
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:43 am

Cordelia wrote:Quote from JM: "SO how did Decamp become involved and what was his capacity as such?"

I started DeCamp's book years ago but found it too disturbing, triggering, and difficult to read so I didn't finish it and don't remember how he said he became involved. As I understand it, a United States Senator is elected to represent the whole state and deals with federal issues and laws. A State Senator (DeCamp) represents a geographical district and deals with State issues (does that mean the whole state or just a jurisdiction?). Maybe DeCamp's initial interest began as following the mandate of his office

Earlier Quote:

"To quote his exact words, "This case is so much bigger than you think. It goes to the very highest levels; we have to keep pulling the strings."

Quote from JM: "I see in the FOREWORD of his book that COLBY and his wife, who herself was a Carter admin insider, were doing everything they could to get him to WALK AWAY and leave it alone, telling him that sometimes these things are so big and run so deep there just isn't anything that can be done about it no matter how evil it is and that at somepoint it will expose itself and that according to Colby Decamp should walk away."

What if the Colbys meant that this isn't just about the Franklin players, but involves many states' corrupt money brokers and politicians, is business as usual (including the business of blackmail) at Washington's after party parties, involves both parties and all three branches of government. Maybe Franklin is just a tip of the iceberg. (Sorry but I haven't read the new book yet--does it make any references to these kinds of 'scandals' in previous administrations?)


If it is all true then I have no doubt that it involves both parties and all 3 branches and many others. But I dont get the feeling that Colby was trying to imply that, it seemed he wanted DeCamp to leave it be. But then later, as Jeff pointed out, wasnt it Colby who said that DeCamp needed to keep pulling strings?

Its all rather confusing.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JM » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:33 pm

Isn't that the usual question? Who knew what and when did they know it.
I honestly think ted and decamp did not get formally involved until 1990. ted never mentioned DeCamp to me, and he tried to impress me with everyone that had a title he knew... he could have been lying the whole time, but he was definitely on a quest to learn about child abuse as it related to his paranoiac satanist are after me and you delusions.
Nichols told me several times, "Just realize that things are not as they seem."
Weird if ted was involved the whole time and never let on.
But, hmmmm.. Interesting--ted intentionally wore a Nebraska cap the entire time he was at the Archaeological Investigation--in front of the ever present and numerous media.
JM
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Project Willow » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:14 pm

Jeff wrote:Well, for me at least, it's because Bryant's book shows up the false opposition of the patriot/LaRouche camp, which has owned the Franklin scandal since the beginning thanks to DeCamp/Gunderson. That needs to be discussed, and I think these threads have been very beneficial for that.


I would argue that the patriot/LaRouche connection wasn't immediately obvious or well known until exercises like these. As it stands now, from an outsider's point of view, the discourse props the perception that, as Lbo said, Franklin is a LaRouche conspiracy. I hope a new Bryant thread or two will pop up soon and serve as counter balance.

Percival, it's never as simple as "fruit of a poison tree", not in the pedo network/mc arena. It may be comforting to make sweeping generalizations, or to assign actors into very defined roles. There is too much gray, too many hidden under paintings, and few to no broad brushes on the palette. See what you did? I dun gone metaphor crazy!
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4793
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:32 pm

Project Willow wrote:
Jeff wrote:Well, for me at least, it's because Bryant's book shows up the false opposition of the patriot/LaRouche camp, which has owned the Franklin scandal since the beginning thanks to DeCamp/Gunderson. That needs to be discussed, and I think these threads have been very beneficial for that.


I would argue that the patriot/LaRouche connection wasn't immediately obvious or well known until exercises like these. As it stands now, from an outsider's point of view, the discourse props the perception that, as Lbo said, Franklin is a LaRouche conspiracy. I hope a new Bryant thread or two will pop up soon and serve as counter balance.

Percival, it's never as simple as "fruit of a poison tree", not in the pedo network/mc arena. It may be comforting to make sweeping generalizations, or to assign actors into very defined roles. There is too much gray, too many hidden under paintings, and few to no broad brushes on the palette. See what you did? I dun gone metaphor crazy!


PW, I was thinking in painting terms too - we use the phrase "connect the dots" but what if there are ONLY dots - like a pointillist painting?
Going into too much detail may actually be less illuminating than stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.

I was surprised to see the deCamp / Larouche connection, 2 minutes on Google shows that decamp paid $2000 to the Larouche 2004 presidential campaign.

My take of the interviews I have seen with decamp is that he is pretty congruent in what he is saying. There are a couple of instances where his body language changed dramatically - one in particular was around the area of Johnny Gosch's father. That is worth checking out much more than the Larouche involvement.(*)

I agree with what lbo said - as well as information gathering, I'm wondering what the purpose of this information gathering is?

For example, is that THE Larry King at BMW Sterling? If so, shouldn't Paul Bonacci be notified to claim the $1,000,000 owed to him?






(*)I was surprised to see the deCamp / Larouche connection, 2 minutes on Google shows that decamp paid $2000 to the Larouche 2004 presidential campaign.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Franklin Scandal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests