countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Moderators: Project Willow, DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby MinM » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:16 am

Belligerent Savant wrote:.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magaz ... d=all&_r=0

Interesting article on Stone's "Untold History" series, but this particular passage is relevant here:

“JFK” was based on “On the Trail of the Assassins,” by Jim Garrison, a former Orleans Parish district attorney who, in 1969, unsuccessfully prosecuted Clay Shaw, a New Orleans businessman, for conspiring to kill the president. Kevin Costner played Garrison as an Atticus Finch type fighting an ingrained power structure, though Garrison is dismissed by many mainstream historians as a con man. In researching “JFK,” Stone also relied on L. Fletcher Prouty, a former Air Force colonel who, before becoming disillusioned with government, was chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy administration. Prouty never actually met Garrison except in Stone’s film, where he is Donald Sutherland’s Colonel X, who lays it all out for the D.A. in the shadow of the Washington Monument — how the military deliberately underprotected the president in Dallas, how defense contractors, big oil and bankers conspired with the military to make sure the president died because he didn’t intend to go to war in Vietnam. Costner is a kind of stand-in for Stone, soberly shaking his head as X says: “Does that sound like a bunch of coincidences to you, Mr. Garrison? Not for one moment.”

In advance of the film’s release, Stone pronounced “JFK” “a history lesson.” Prouty, however, who died in 2001, turned out to be extremely problematic. He had many theories in addition to his theories on Kennedy, including that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had foreknowledge of the Jonestown Massacre and that greedy oil barons invented the fiction that oil is made of decomposed fossils. And it was Prouty, Stone said, who turned him on to “The Report From Iron Mountain,” a 1967 document ostensibly written by a secret panel of military planners. The document is a favorite among conspiracy theorists, who, like Prouty, seem unaware that in 1972 the satirist Leonard Lewin admitted he wrote it. “I’ve acknowledged when I’ve made mistakes,” Stone said of the movie now. “There were a few mistakes, but nothing that changes the big story.”

It has been more than 20 years since Stone made “JFK,” a film that he now says should be looked at not as history but as a dramatized version of it — “the spirit of the truth.” “It’s called dramatic license,” Stone said about his approach in “JFK.”

The NYTimes is nothing if not consistent. Although they did have a nice obit for Gaeton Fonzi. This hit piece on Stone is another great example of the misinfo/disinfo leading up to the 50th anniversary.

For one thing when Oliver Stone has spoken of "dramatic license" he talks about using composite characters like Donald Sutherland's Colonel X...
Image
Solving for X, Zachary Sklar explains 25-minutes into this real audio clip, and the beginning of this one, that X is a composite character based on Nagell and Prouty. Specifically, an actual conversation that Jim Garrison had with Richard Case Nagell, while the rest of the character is fleshed out in the person of L. Fletcher Prouty.

Not, as the Times' piece implies, a complete work of fiction.

BTW in the thread that the Zachary Sklar information was originally posted there was a question about it's relevance. To me it's relevant and informative to know that when these shots are taken at Stone based on things like Colonel X... that some of the more contentious comments actually came from Richard Case Nagell...

Of course that's an inconvenient detail the NYTimes does not deal with. Since they are eager to ascribe some type of foreknowledge to Prouty in other areas. They would rather keep people in the dark about the actual foreknowledge that Richard Case Nagell demonstrated with regard to the plot to kill Kennedy.

viewtopic.php?p=351636#p351636

The Media and Oliver Stone's JFK
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby MinM » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:52 am

An even more provocative scene from a Stone film dealing with the Kennedy Assassination featured the late Larry Hagman in Nixon...

American Dream wrote:...LeMay wasn't Wallace's first choice; he wanted Kentucky governor and former baseball commissioner Happy Chandler. But Birchers like Griffin kicked up a fuss because Chandler had supported the Brooklyn Dodgers' hiring of Jackie Robinson. Major campaign contributor and Bircher Nelson Bunker Hunt demanded that Wallace make Ezra Taft Benson his running mate, but Wallace ignored him.

Throughout the '60s, Griffin produced documentaries about how much Communism and capitalism suck. You'd think that would leave only socialism, but he hates that too. Like all Birchers, he also hates the UN.

In 1974 he wrote a promotional book about Laetrile as the cure for cancer, A World Without Cancer. Jason Bermas recommended it on yesterday's show. In the book, Griffin accused John D. Rockefeller of suppressing this "cure".

In the '90s Griffin became a champion of Ron Wyatt's and David Fasold's theory that Noah's Ark is at the Durupinar site in Turkey, throwing in some Velikovsky-style catastrophism about the Biblical Flood being caused by a large celestial body approaching Earth. I've never quite understood "arkeology". I won't get into the reality of the Flood right now, but there are practical issues to consider. For instance, why wouldn't Noah and fam cannibalize the ark for its wood? Even the Mayflower ended up as a barn, and the pilgrims weren't exactly reconstructing the whole world from scratch.

Anyway, Fasold's radar readings were never duplicated, and Fasold himself came to believe the site was merely a natural formation and "the oldest running hoax in history". Yet Griffin continued to champion the site.

None Dare Call it Bullsh**

In the very first minute of Alex Jones's very first documentary, America: Destroyed by Design, Jones praised Gary Allen's book 1974 book None Dare Call it Conspiracy and New American magazine.

The late Gary Allen, like G. Edward Griffin, was a longtime member of the John Birch Society. And New American is the society's publication.

Allen was also a speechwriter for George Wallace.

And he served as an advisor to the Wallace supporter mentioned earlier, Nelson Bunker Hunt. Bunker Hunt went on to lose his fortune trying to corner the world market in silver in the '80s. Prior to that, he contributed huge sums to The National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty, a fund-raising organization that was heavily implicated in the Iran-Contra affair. Somehow, he has managed to recoup most of his fortune in just 20 years.

I strongly suspect he was the primary inspiration for Larry Hagman's character in Nixon. No wonder Gary Allen wrote about "Cowboys" (oil tycoons) vs. "Indians" (Eastern Establishment politicos) in None Dare Call it Conspiracy...

viewtopic.php?p=448083#p448083

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... opic=19728
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby IanEye » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:48 pm


"through the looking glass you can see two people..."

@ 36:36 while discussing his early days with David Mamet as ping-pong hustlers, Jonathan Katz mentions that Mamet once oversaw the production of a children's theater performance of Alice in Wonderland.

in the 2nd part of a 3 part interview, @ 20:20 Nikolas Schreck states "we went down the, you know, Manson In Wonderland rabbit hole again…"
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4010
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:57 pm

Salandria's interesting surrender.

Notes on his meeting with Specter shortly before the latter's death. Implies he had him tacitly admitting the fraud, but apparently did all the talking. We should note he can't be much younger than Specter was. So maybe that's an excuse. Or maybe it was his Poirot moment? And what he says is interesting.


http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/11/1560/

Coalition on Political Assassinations

Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012

November 8, 2012
By admin

This thoughtful and provocative piece comes from an early and brilliant Warren Commission critic and lawyer Vincent Salandria, author of False Mystery. He has taken the position for years that the visible facts in the case were transparent from the start, without ever being officially confirmed. In his view, we already know who killed President Kennedy and why, but to admit that to ourselves would lead to an imperative for action with unknown consequences. He continues these themes in this recent piece sent to us for public consumption. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania passed away recently after a long battle with cancer and never recanted his conclusions about the single bullet theory he propounded for the Warren Commission to explain multiple wounds in President Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963.

Vincent Salandria wrote:
On January 4, 2012 at 11:25 a.m. I arrived at the Oyster House restaurant in Philadelphia for a meeting with former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter. He had called me a week or so earlier and suggested we have lunch.

We met, shook hands, and seated ourselves at a table. I thanked him for suggesting having lunch with me.

I told him that I viewed his work on the Kennedy assassination as very likely having saved my life. I also wanted him to know that if I had been given his Warren Commission assignment, and if I knew then what I know now about power and politics in our society, I would have done what he did. Of course, as a pacifist peace activist with socialist leanings, such as I was and am, I would never have been selected for Specter’s job with the Warren Commission. Arlen Specter was neither a pacifist nor a peace activist. He was a lawyer. I believe that Specter did not know that after the assassination of President Kennedy he was no longer a citizen of a republic but rather was a subject of the globally most powerful banana republic.

But if I had been chosen for his assignment, i.e. to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy’s killer, I would have done what Specter did. As a lawyer I would have had been obligated to serve the best interests of my client, the U.S. government. My assignment would have been to cover up the state crime, the coup. I said that not to do that work and not to steer the society away from the ostensible pilot to kill President Kennedy, which plot had as its central theme a pro-Castro and pro-Soviet origin, would have resulted in terrible political consequences.

I told Specter that the American people could never have accepted my view of the assassination as a covert military-intelligence activity supported by the U.S. establishment – not then, and not now. They would have readily accepted as truth the leftist-plot script that the assassins employed. Even now, most Kennedy assassination critics will not accept my view of a U.S. national security state military-industrial killing. I explained that my very bright and rational wife could and would not completely accept my version of the meaning of the Kennedy assassination.

The U.S. national security state’s killing of Kennedy was cloaked in the Oswald myth. That myth included a supposed U.S. defector to the Soviet Union who headed up a Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and who before the assassination allegedly sought a Cuban passport. Therefore, the myth pointed an accusing finger at Fidel Castro and the Soviets.

If the U.S. public had been convinced that Castro and the Soviets were behind the killing of Kennedy, then the military would have considered the killing an act of war, and a military dictatorship in the U.S. would have probably resulted.

Oswald, a U.S. intelligence agent whose past had been molded by the C.I.A., could have been cast into whatever his intelligence masters chose. If the Oswald myth had completely unraveled and had exposed the joint chiefs to the U.S. public as the criminals behind the coup, they, the joint chiefs, would never have quietly surrendered their newly acquired power. I believe that instead, they would have sought to preserve and exploit their newly acquired status of possessing ultimate power over the U.S. arms budget and foreign policy. I believe that they would have proclaimed a national security emergency and imposed martial law. They would have declared a state of emergency, to a state of war, and would have designated the replacement for President Kennedy as a unitary president. We now have been made to understand that the unitary president is unhampered by constitutional separation of powers and the restraints of the bill of rights. In short, the unitary president is a euphemism for the correct political designation of a dictator.

Specter asked me what I thought was the reason for the assassination. In reply I asked whether he had read the correspondence between President Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. He had not. I explained that my reading of the correspondence convinced me that Kennedy and Khrushchev had grown very fond of one another. I saw them as seeking to end the Cold War in the area of military confrontation. They were in my judgment seeking to change the Cold War into a peaceful competition on an economic rather than military basis, testing the relative merits of a free market and command economy. I saw the U.S. military intelligence and its civilian allies as being opposed to ending the Cold War.

I told him that I concluded that there was also a conflict between Kennedy and our military on the issue of escalation in Vietnam. In order to deter the efforts of Kennedy and Khrushchev to accomplish a winding down of the Cold War, the C.I.A, with the approval of the U.S. military, killed Kennedy.

I said that I believed the assassination was committed at the behest of the highest levels of U.S. power. I said that I did not use sophisticated thinking to arrive at my very early conclusion of a U.S. national-security state assassination. I told him that I think like the Italian peasant stock from which I came. We use intuition.

I explained that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in the assassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that the assassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot.

Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot. We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth. In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth.

Specter uniformly maintained a courteous, serious and respectful demeanor, as did I. He asked me whether I had talked to Mark Lane frequently. I told him that I had spoken to him, and that I had spoken to essentially every assassination critic then active. I described meeting Mark Lane at a dinner in Philadelphia at a lawyer’s home. The dinner was in 1964. I could not recall the name of the lawyer host. I related that Spencer Coxe, the Executive leader of the Philadelphia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, was also present.

At that dinner I informed Lane that I was interested in Oswald as a likely U.S. intelligence agent provocateur. Lane was not interested in the concept of Oswald as a possible U.S. intelligence asset. Specter asked me what Lane believed regarding the assassination. I said that at that time he believed there was a plot, but he did not name who the plotters were and did not discuss what he thought the reason was for the killing. I did say that later, Lane got a jury to decide for Lane’s client who had said that E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas on the date of the Kennedy assassination. Lane’s client had been sued for libel. He described the case in his 1991 book Plausible Denial.

In 1964, after his work with the Warren Commission was completed, Specter had been honored for this association at a meeting of the Philadelphia Bar Association. He asked me what I remembered about that event. I told him that I attended with my copy of the Warren Report and directed some questions at him regarding the shots, trajectories and wounds in the Kennedy assassination. After the meeting some of my colleagues at the bar asked me to write an article. That night I did so. I sent the article to Theodore Vorhees, the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, and asked him to have it published. He sent it back and asked me to tone it down. I did so. He got it published in The Legal Intelligencer.

Specter recalled that in our confrontation I had accused him of corruption. He said that he had asked me at that time whether I would change the charge to incompetency. I had refused. I told him that I could not change it to incompetency because I knew then from his public record, as I know now, that he was not incompetent. My charge was reiterated in the Legal Intelligencer article, which described the Warren Commission’s work as speculation conforming to none of the evidence. I said the Warren Report did not have the slightest credibility, committing errors of logic and being contrary to the laws of physics and geometry.

Specter, during our 2012 lunch, asked me whether I thought that the Warren Commission was a set up. I answered that probably not all of the Commissioners knew it was a set up, but that Dulles and Warren knew. I also told him that I thought that McGeorge Bundy was privy to the plot. Specter did not respond to this.

I explained that I did not discuss with friends my view of the assassination and my conception of how controlled our society is. I said that I did not discuss with my friends matters such as we were discussing because people are just not ready to accept my view of the assassination and the tight control over our society. I said that I had nothing to offer to people in terms of solutions to the mess we are in. I related how last year, when I had a blood condition and thought I was going to die, my big regret was the mess of a society we were bequeathing to our children.

Specter commented: “Washington is in chaos.” I told him that I was deeply concerned about whether we are going to bomb Iran. Specter said, “We are not going to bomb Iran.”

I offered an example of how out of control the society is. I pointed out that he had been against escalation in Afghanistan. While Obama was supposed to be meditating over whether or not to escalate the U.S. forces there, Generals McChrystal and Petraeus were speaking to the press telling the world that we were going to escalate. These statements by the generals were made while Vice President Biden was speaking publicly against escalation. I said that I thought McChrystal and Petraeus should have been court martialed for violating the chain of command. I then said that I don’t think Obama any longer has power over the military, despite the ostensible constitutional chain of command.

I told Specter that I knew there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy notwithstanding his single-bullet theory because the holes in the custom-made shirt and suit jacket of Kennedy could not have ridden up in such a fashion to explain how a shot from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, hitting Kennedy at a downward angle of roughly 17 degrees, and hitting no bone, could have exited from his necktie knot. I told him that Commission Exhibit 399 was a plant.

I admitted that I had coached Gaeton Fonzi before his interview with him on the questions that he should ask Specter. Specter asked me where Fonzi is. I told him that he lives in Florida, and that he is sick with Hodgkin’s disease. Specter said he was a good reporter. I told Specter that Fonzi was a great investigative reporter.

I told Specter that my very smart wife does not accept my political thinking regarding the nature of the power in control of the country and the world. Specter asked me about my wife. I told him that she is Jewish. She is a graduate of Swarthmore College. She studied at the University of Chicago and accomplished all but the dissertation in Russian Literature there. She owns and manages 41 apartments around Rittenhouse Square. Her father was a fellow traveler. He was subpoenaed before the House Un-American Activities Committee. He retained Abe Fortas as his lawyer. The hearing was cancelled. He was a philanthropist who financed the Youth Ruth Wing of the Jerusalem Museum and a college and high school in Israel.

I suggested to Specter that he was selected to perform the hardest assignment of the Warren Commission because he was a Jew. The government could have selected a right WASP lawyer for the job. I said that I had received less criticism for my work on the assassination than he had received for his work on the Commission and as Senator. He related how in Bucks County in a speaking engagement a man had risen and shouted at him that he should resign because he was too Jewish. I told him that I thought that he was a good Senator. He replied that being a Senator was a good and interesting job.

So how is it that Arlen Specter’s work on the Warren Commission saved my life? If I had been successful in arousing public opposition to the National Security State, whom I viewed at the President’s true killers, then the National Security State, possessing supreme power after its successful coup, would have liquidated any effective dissent. In 1966, after a public forum on the Warren Commission’s evidence, I was advised by Brandeis Professor Jacob Cohen that I would have to be killed. I viewed Professor Cohen as speaking for the assassins.

The Warren Report quieted the public. And as it developed, I was completely ineffective. There was no need to dispose of me. So, I consider my life was saved by the effectiveness of Arlen Specter’s work and the ineffectiveness of my own.

As we were leaving the Oyster House I gave Specter a copy of James W. Douglass’s book, JFK and the Unspeakable. I said it was the best book on the assassination, and that it was dedicated to a friend of mine and me.

Specter was smiling broadly as we left. I told him that he had a great smile, but that he did not sport it often in public. I asked him whether he was in good health. He said he was, and seemed optimistic about his well-being. I don’t know whether he was then aware of his illness. In dealing with his protracted struggle against very serious afflictions he displayed remarkable fight and courage.

Knowing what I know now, and being then, as now, committed to historical truth, I would have not changed my earliest statement that the Kennedy assassination was a crime of the U.S. warfare state. But I would not have endeavored to rally people to confront as I did the assassins. I know now that the U.S. public never did want to accept the U.S. warfare state as the criminal institutional structure that it is. I know now, that even if the U.S. public ever was ready to accept the true historical meaning of the Kennedy assassination, that there are and have been no institutional structures open to them with which they could hope to countervail successfully the Kennedy killers, the enormous power of the U.S. empire and its warfare state.

I know that my efforts to convince people to oppose Kennedy’s assassins were feckless. But was the effort of a small community of people to establish the historical truth of the Kennedy assassination valueless? I think not. I feel that historical truth is the polestar which guides humankind when we grope for an accurate diagnosis of a crisis. Without historical truth, an accurate diagnosis of the nature and cause of crisis, we would have no direction on how to move to solve societal disease.

Knowing what I know now, would I change my harsh criticisms of Arlen Specter? Yes, I would. Specter was a superior lawyer who enlisted his services to the U.S. government. The Warren Commission Report, through its lies, served to calm the U.S. public in a period of great crisis. If any serious domestic or foreign effort had been made to counter the coup, the weaponry commanded by the state criminals would have resulted in catastrophic loss of life. Therefore, in my judgment of Arlen Specter I defer to the wisdom of Sophocles, who said: “Truly, to tell lies is not honorable; but where truth entails tremendous ruin, to speak dishonorably is pardonable.”


3 Responses wrote:
Anita Thompson Monroe
November 26, 2012 at 10:47 am
You would probably be interested in what Michael Schweitzer published on FB on November 22. His articles are the result of more investigative reporting, similar to Gaeton Fonzi’s. You can see Parts ! & 2 on my own Timeline. Let me know what you think.

Regards, Anita T. Monroe

Kenn Thomas
November 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“If any serious domestic or foreign effort had been made to counter the coup, the weaponry commanded by the state criminals would have resulted in catastrophic loss of life.”
What about Vietnam?

Joseph Cannon
December 5, 2012 at 11:52 am
Well, assassination researchers never change, even when they get old. Salandria gets one last chance to grill Specter — and what happens? Talk, talk, talk instead of listen, listen, listen. Lots of statements, no questions.
JFK researchers are a lot like fundamentalist Christians — constantly seeking opportunities to score a conversion. Don’t you guys GET it? You were never going to convert a guy like Arlen Specter. The best you can hope for is to get the other guy to feel relaxed and blabby. In the course of that blabbiness, he might slip out something revelatory.



Copyright © 2012 COPA. All Rights Reserved.

THREE great emotions bowled over him; understanding; a vast philanthropy; and finally as if the result of the others, an irrepressible, exquisite delight; [as if! i wish! thanks Virginia!]

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? flamewar & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby thatsmystory » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:26 am

Maybe Salandria didn't want to hear any more doublethink horseshit.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:38 am

thatsmystory wrote:Maybe Salandria didn't want to hear any more doublethink horseshit.


But why did Specter invite him, as he reports? Context would be nice.
THREE great emotions bowled over him; understanding; a vast philanthropy; and finally as if the result of the others, an irrepressible, exquisite delight; [as if! i wish! thanks Virginia!]

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? flamewar & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby thatsmystory » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:53 am

JackRiddler wrote:
thatsmystory wrote:Maybe Salandria didn't want to hear any more doublethink horseshit.


But why did Specter invite him, as he reports? Context would be nice.


This is true. It would have helped if Salandria had more thoroughly explained why he excused Specter in light of what he now knows about US power. Is that a deep seated belief or just weary resignation?

Well, assassination researchers never change, even when they get old. Salandria gets one last chance to grill Specter — and what happens? Talk, talk, talk instead of listen, listen, listen. Lots of statements, no questions.
JFK researchers are a lot like fundamentalist Christians — constantly seeking opportunities to score a conversion. Don’t you guys GET it? You were never going to convert a guy like Arlen Specter. The best you can hope for is to get the other guy to feel relaxed and blabby. In the course of that blabbiness, he might slip out something revelatory.


My post was really a reply to this.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby Forgetting2 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:39 am

JackRiddler wrote:Salandria's interesting surrender.

I know now that the U.S. public never did want to accept the U.S. warfare state as the criminal institutional structure that it is. I know now, that even if the U.S. public ever was ready to accept the true historical meaning of the Kennedy assassination, that there are and have been no institutional structures open to them with which they could hope to countervail successfully the Kennedy killers, the enormous power of the U.S. empire and its warfare state.


True of 9/11 and all the crap that goes with it, it seems. To attempt to defeat the empire is to sacrifice one's own life. Everyone knows there are no institutional structures of any support. To fight that fight one needs to know a large number of people are with them. And they aren't. There's no one with them.There's a few 'liberal' people here and there who, really, only care about themselves, via their own pet causes; their own self-rightousness.
You know what you finally say, what everybody finally says, no matter what? I'm hungry. I'm hungry, Rich. I'm fuckin' starved. -- Cutter's Way
User avatar
Forgetting2
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:20 pm

thatsmystory wrote:Maybe Salandria didn't want to hear any more doublethink horseshit.


I think he was delivering a J'accuse and a surrender in one. Again, though, what was Specter thinking inviting him to lunch? I agree it's frustrating not to have the context and not to have the chance of Specter answering beyond tacit assent at least per Salandria's notes.
THREE great emotions bowled over him; understanding; a vast philanthropy; and finally as if the result of the others, an irrepressible, exquisite delight; [as if! i wish! thanks Virginia!]

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? flamewar & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

realize that all is strange

Postby IanEye » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:56 pm

*



Image

@ 01:37:44 in some unfortunate holiday timing, Dana Gould has several children recite various theories about who had JFK assassinated.

*
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4010
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

look in my direction blog spot

Postby IanEye » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:28 am

.

Image

@ 01:47:26 Kyle Dunnigan channels Sir McCartney by declaring, "y,know, fall from the sky. land on the back of a turtle, y,know…"

Image

@ 53:35 Marc Maron acknowledges a willingness to bootleg some clandestine Hollywood product, then segues into his appearances at the Wilbur in Boston.

Image

@00:06 Paul Gilmartin describes the reality of 8 years of Reagan/Bush drug policy in America.

Image

.
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4010
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby MinM » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:14 pm

A pretty good summation of where the narrative for the 50th seems to be headed...
Lee Farley wrote:Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:37 PM

I mentioned on another thread that the first reply to the Dallas Morning News blog Jim D linked to recently was placed there by Jim Fetzer. I'm informed that Judyth Baker Vary has now also entered the mix and that her story is being supported by Jesse Ventura. Her story by the way having more and more absurdities added to it including exciting new revelations about Oswald's shirt (yawn).

Every news item I seem to come across that bears any sort of relationship to the assassination of JFK quickly has Fetzer crawling all over it linking to his Veteran's Today articles. I can't help but suspect that there is a campaign at work and it is made up of several levels.

I long ago came to the conclusion that James Fetzer was purposely trying to undermine all of the hard work that has been completed by very tireless and dedicated researchers over the past four decades. Similar to the way in which he has systematically helped destroy the reputation and credibility of the nine-eleven truth movement.

It will be Fetzer who will be appearing on CNN and FOX News come the anniversary and he will be accompanied by the poisoned chimp, Ralph Cinque. I'm surprised by Jesse Ventura giving creedence to Baker's story and the whole thing seems to be getting completely out of hand.

I don't really hold out much hope that the more sensible voices, such as Jim DiEugenio's, will be heard in November, and even though RFK Jr. has come out with his claims, I don't see it having the impact we need.

Do I sound pessimistic?

Lee

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... ntry265198

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... 9859&st=15

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... opic=19867

viewtopic.php?p=488655#p488655

viewtopic.php?p=483778#p483778
Image @JFKLancer: Fort Worth Opera to Present JFK Assassination Opera, 2016 - BWWOperaWorld

https://twitter.com/JFKLancer/status/289943566451630080
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

blind sight is 50/50

Postby IanEye » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:11 pm

i was talking with a friend of mine who is a big Stephen King fan about the "11/22/63" novel and how King goes out of his way to split the difference between he and his spouse Tabitha in regards to how JFK was assassinated. Mr. King believes Oswald acted alone, while Mrs. King believes there was a conspiracy. The main point seems to be that it is alright to just shrug and say, "who knows?" and go on with your lives.

I think the main goal for the 50th anniversary is to achieve a 50/50 split in public polling in America. At the 25th anniversary, far more people believed there was some sort of conspiracy, people just differed on who the players were.

50/50 is a much more desirable outcome for some. As we have seen from the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings it is very beneficial to have a significant amount of the populace remain very paranoid about the government. So, it doesn't make sense to have all belief in a government controlled conspiracy go away, but getting the stats down to 50/50 brings a sense of entropy to the whole affair.

*



*


as i type this i feel like i have already said all this on this thread before...
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4010
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:15 pm

It's not going to be 50/50. It's going to be 30/30, with the other 40 answering that they thought JFK was an airport.

1963? When was that?
THREE great emotions bowled over him; understanding; a vast philanthropy; and finally as if the result of the others, an irrepressible, exquisite delight; [as if! i wish! thanks Virginia!]

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? flamewar & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: countdown to 11/22/13: JFK disinfo in multi-media

Postby Forgetting2 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:02 pm

Does anyone know of a JFK poll which frames the question not as "was there more than one shooter," which could include Oswald?
You know what you finally say, what everybody finally says, no matter what? I'm hungry. I'm hungry, Rich. I'm fuckin' starved. -- Cutter's Way
User avatar
Forgetting2
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gnosticheresy_2 and 8 guests