text:
American Conspiracies & Cover-ups JFK, 9/11, the Fed, rigged elections, suppressed cancer cures and the greatest conspiracies of our time
Douglas Cirignano
In today's world, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and has a negative connotation. To many people, a conspiracy theory is an irrational, over-imaginative idea endorsed by people looking for attention and not supported by the mainstream media or government.
History shows, though, that there have been many times when governments or individuals have participated in conspiracies. It would be naïve to think that intelligence agencies, militaries, government officials, and politicians don't sometimes cooperate in covert, secretive ways. Following are five instances when it's been proven that the government engaged in a conspiracy.
THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION
On August 4, 1964, Captain John J. Herrick, the commander of the USS Maddox, a US Navy vessel that was on an intelligence-gathering mission in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported to the White House and Pentagon that North Vietnamese patrol boats had fired torpedoes at his ship, and, so, the Maddox had fired back.
Two days later, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara testified to the Congress that he was certain that the Maddox had been attacked. On August 7, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed, the Congressional act that allowed President Johnson free reign to commence war; Johnson immediately ordered air strikes on North Vietnam and the Vietnam War—which would eventually kill fifty-eight thousand Americans and two million Asians—was underway.
Since then, it has been shown and proven that no North Vietnamese boats ever fired on the Maddox, and that McNamara had been untruthful when he testified before Congress. According to the official publication of the Naval Institute,
…once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full US involvement in the Vietnam War."
In the weeks prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, South Vietnamese ships had been attacking posts in North Vietnam in conjunction with the CIA's Operation 34A. According to many inside sources, the Johnson administration wanted a full-scale war in Vietnam and through Operation 34A was trying to provoke North Vietnam into an attack that would give Johnson an excuse to go to war. But when McNamara was asked by the Congress on August 7 if these South Vietnam attacks had anything to do with the US military and CIA, McNamara lied and said no.
Within hours after reporting that the Maddox had been attacked, Captain Herrick was retracting his statements and reporting to the White House and Pentagon that "in all likelihood" an over-eager sonar man had been mistaken and that the sonar sounds and images that he originally thought were enemy torpedoes were actually just the beat of the Maddox's own propellers.
Herrick reported that there was a good probability that there had been no attack on the Maddox, and suggested "complete reevaluation before any action is taken."
McNamara saw these new, updated reports and discussed them with President Johnson early in the afternoon of August 4. Even though this was so, on the evening of August 4, President Johnson went on national television and announced to the American public that North Vietnam had engaged in "unprovoked aggression" and, so, the US military was retaliating.
A few days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Johnson remarked, "Hell, those damn stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish."
Recently, new documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident have been declassified and according to Robert Hanyok, a historian for the National Security Agency, these documents show that the NSA deliberately "distorted intelligence" andand "altered documents" to make it appear that an attack had occurred on August 4.
When President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented to the American public and said he knew that North Vietnam had attacked a US ship, and when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lied to the Congress and said he was sure that the Maddox had been attacked and that the CIA had nothing to do with South Vietnam aggression, and when NSA officials falsified information to make it appear that there had been an attack on the Maddox, that was a government conspiracy.
OPERATION NORTHWOODS
In 1962, the most powerful and highest ranking military officials of the US government, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt strongly that the communist leader Fidel Castro had to be removed from power and, so, came up with a plan to justify an American invasion of Cuba.
The plan, entitled Operations Northwoods, was presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, and was signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer.
Operations Northwoods was a proposal for a false flag operation, a plan in which a military organizes an attack against its own country and then frames and blames the attack on another country for the purpose of the purpose of initiating hostilities and declaring war on that country.
The proposal was originally labeled Top Secret but was made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. The complete Operation Northwoods paper was published online by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001, and this once-secret government document can now be read by anyone.
The actions that General Lemnitzer and the other chiefs wanted to d to take under Operations Northwoods are shocking. According to the plan, CIA and military personnel and hired provocateurs would commit various violent acts and these acts would be blamed on Castro to "create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility" and "put the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances."
One of the most ambitious plans of Operation Northwoods was to blow up a plane in midflight. The strategy was to fill a civilian airplane with CIA and military personnel who were registered under fake ID's; an exact duplicate plane—an empty military drone aircraft—would take off at the same exact time.
The plane of fake passengers would land at a military base but the empty drone plane would fly over Cuba and crash in the ocean, supposedly a victim of Cuban missiles. "Casualty lists in US newspapers" and conducting "fake funerals for mock-victims" would cause "a helpful wave of national indignation" in America.
The Operation Northwoods proposal also states: "We could blow up a US ship and blame Cuba." Whether the ship was to be empty or full of US soldiers is unclear. The document also says: "Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged."
Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods would have surely led to serious injuries and even deaths of Cuban and American civilians. The plan suggests:
We could sink a boatload of Cubans on route to Florida (real or simulated)."
We could foster attempts on lives of anti-Castro Cubans in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized…We could explode a few bombs in carefully chosen spots."
Lemnitzer and the chiefs wanted many of these staged terrorist attacks to be directed at the Guantanamo Bay United States Naval Base in Cuba. The plans were:
"Start riots near the entrance to the base"
"lob mortar shells from outside the base to inside the base"
"blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires"
"burn aircraft on airbase (sabotage)"
"sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—napalm."
When Secretary of Defense McNamara was presented with the Operation Northwoods plan, he either stopped and rejected the plan himself or passed it on to President Kennedy and JFK then rejected it. But if Kennedy and McNamara had agreed with the plan, then the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to begin enacting Operation Northwoods "right away, within a few months."
Even though Operation Northwoods was never initiated, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other highest-ranking military officials of the United States Government planned to organize violent attacks on Americans and anti-Castro Cuban citizens, knowing those attacks could severely injure and kill those citizens, and when they planned to blame those attacks on Cuba and then use that as an excuse to invade Cuba, that was a government conspiracy.
FBI AND THE MAFIA
In March 1965, the FBI had the house of New England organized crime boss Raymond Patriarca wiretapped and overheard two mobsters, Joseph Barboza and Vincent Flemmi, asking Patriarca for permission to kill another gangster, Edward Deegan. Two days later, Deegan's blood-soaked body was found dead in a Boston alley.
Within days, an official FBI report confirmed that Joseph Barboza and three other mobsters were the murderers. Instead of those men going to prison for murder, though, three years later a man named Joseph Salvati was brought to trial for the murder of Edward Deegan. At that trial Joseph Barboza testified and lied that Salvati was one of the murderers. On the basis of Barboza's testimony, Joseph Salvati was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
At that time, in the mid 1960s, the FBI was being pressured more and more to do something to stop organized crime. The bureau began using members of the mafia—criminals and murderers—to inform against fellow mafia members. Joseph Barboza was one of these FBI-protected, paid informants. The FBI didn't want Barboza to go to prison for the murder of Deegan because they wanted him to continue infiltrating the mafia and testifying against other mafia members.
The bureau, apparently, did want a conviction in the Deegan murder case, though, and, so, let Barboza lie under oath and let a man they knew to be innocent, Joseph Salvati, go to prison.
The Witness Protection Program was first created for Joseph Barboza, and Barboza was the first mafia informant to be protected under the program. After helping to convict a number of mobsters, Barboza was sent off to live in California. While under the Witness Protection Program, Barboza committed at least one more murder, and probably more.
On trial for a murder in California, FBI officials showed up for Joseph Barboza's trial and testified on his behalf, helping Barboza to get a light sentence.
Joseph Salvati ended up serving thirty years in prison for a murder that he was innocent of. During that thirty-year period, lawyers for Salvati requested documents from the FBI that would have proved Salvati's innocence, but the bureau refused to release them.
Finally, in 1997, other evidence came forth suggesting Salvati's innocence and the governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, granted Salvati's release. A few years later, the FBI was ordered to release all its reports on the case; hundreds of documents showed the FBI knew that Barboza was a murderer, that he had murdered Edward Deegan, and that Joseph Salvati had had nothing to do with the crime.
Salvati was exonerated in a court of law, and was eventually awarded millions of dollars in a civil lawsuit against the government. (Three other defendants were also exonerated. At the 1968 trial, Joseph Barboza had testified that three other men—men who were also not guilty—had participated in Deegan's murder. These three innocent men were, with Salvati, also sent to prison.)
Perhaps the most shocking thing that the FBI documents showed, though, was that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover himself knew Salvati was innocent and that Barboza had killed Deegan.
Hoover was working closely, almost daily, with the agents handling Joseph Barboza, and it was probably Hoover directing the operation. The congressional committee that investigated the case was the House Committee on Government Reform and Congressman Dan Burton was the chairman.
When asked by CBS's 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace "Did J. Edgar Hoover know all this?" Burton replied:
"Yes . . . It's one of the greatest failures in the history of American justice…J. Edgar Hoover knew Salvati was innocent. He knew it and his name should not be emblazoned on the FBI headquarters. We should change the name of that building."
Congressman Burton claimed there was evidence that there were more cases when the FBI did the same sorts of things they did in the Joseph Salvati case; when Burton and his committee requested the files on these cases, the Attorney General and the White House refused to release them.
When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and top FBI officials let a known murderer lie and perjure himself in a courtroom, when they let four men they knew to be innocent suffer in the hell of a prison cell for thirty years, and when they deliberately covered that up for decades, that was a government conspiracy.
In 1939, Albert Einstein and two other European physicists sent a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt informing Roosevelt that the German government was working on developing the science that could lead to the creation of a nuclear bomb. FDR immediately formed a committee to look into the idea of the US government making an atomic bomb.
In 1942, the Manhattan Project, the United States program to build a nuclear bomb, headed by General Leslie R. Groves of the US Army Corps of Engineers, was formed.
The program existed from 1942–1946, spent two billion dollars, had plants and factories in thirty cities, and employed 130,000 workers. But virtually no one knew about it. The Manhattan Project is considered the "Greatest Secret Ever Kept."
The US government wanted to keep the Project a secret lest Germany or one of America's other enemies found out about it and built—more quickly—a larger, better bomb. In the early 1940s, when American scientists began working on splitting atoms and nuclear fission, US government officials asked the scientists to not publish any reports on the work in scientific journals. The work was kept quiet.
In 1943, when newspapers began reporting on the large Manhattan Project construction going on in a few states, the newly formed United States Government Office of Censorship asked newspapers and broadcasters to avoid discussing "atom smashing, atomic energy, atomic fission . . . the use for military purposes of radium or radioactive materials" or anything else that could expose the project. The press kept mum. The government didn't talk about the Manhattan Project, the press didn't report on it, and the public knew nothing about it.
Not even the 130,000 Manhattan Project laborers knew they were building an atom bomb.
In 1945, a Life magazine article wrote that before Japan was attacked with a-bombs, "probably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved."
The workers were told they were doing an important job for the government, but weren't told what the job was, and didn't understand the full import of the mysterious, daily tasks they were doing. The laborers were warned that disclosing the Project's secrets was punishable by ten years in prison, and a hefty financial fine.
Whole towns and cities were built where thousands of Manhattan Project workers lived and worked but these thousands didn't know they were helping to build nuclear bombs.
The Manhattan Project finally became known to the public on August 6, 1945, when President Harry Truman announced that America had dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.
Truman, himself, had not been informed of the Manhattan Project until late April 1945.
When the government kept the purpose of the Manhattan Project a secret from the press, from the public, from America's enemies, from Harry Truman, and even from the 130,000 laborers who worked for the Manhattan Project, that was a government conspiracy.
THE CHURCH COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
In the early 1970s, after the Watergate affair and investigative reports by the New York Times, it became apparent that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies might be engaging in inappropriate and illegal activities. In 1975, the Church Committee, named after the Committee's chairman Senator Frank Church, was formed to investigate abuses by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS.
The Church Committee reports are said to constitute the most extensive investigations of intelligence activities ever made available to the public. Many disturbing facts were revealed. According to the final report of the Committee, US intelligence agencies had been engaging in "unlawful or improper conduct" and "intelligence excesses, at home and abroad" since the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt.
The report added that "intelligence agencies have undermined the Constitutional rights of citizens" and "checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure accountability have not been applied."
One of the most well-known revelations of the Committee was the CIA's so-called "Family Jewels," a report that detailed the CIA's misdeeds dating back to Dwight Eisenhower's presidency. The committee also reported on the NSA's SHAMROCK and MINARET programs; under these programs the NSA had been intercepting, opening, and reading the telegrams and mail of thousands of private citizens.
The Church Committee also discovered and exposed the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the bureau's program to covertly destroy and disrupt any groups or individuals that J. Edgar Hoover felt were bad for America. Some of the movements and groups that the FBI tried to discredit and destroy were the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr.
The most alarming thing that the Church Committee found, though, was that the CIA had an assassination program. It was revealed that the CIA assassinated or had tried to assassinate Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Raphael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, General Rene Schneider of Chile, Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, and other political leaders throughout the world.
The Committee learned about the different ways the CIA had developed to kill and assassinate people: inflicting cancer, inflicting heart attacks, making murders look like suicides, car accidents, boating accidents, and shootings. At one point, CIA Director William Colby presented to the Committee a special "heart attack gun" that the CIA had created. The gun was able to shoot a small poison-laden dart into its victim. The dart was so small as to be undetectable; the victim's death from the poison would appear to be a heart attack, so no foul play would be suspected.
In response to the Church Committee report, in 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11,905, which forbade employees of the US government from engaging in or conspiring to engage in political assassinations.
In that same year, the Senate approved Senate Resolution 400, which established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee responsible for providing vigilant oversight over the intelligence agencies.
Many former CIA employee-whistleblowers and other people, though, claim that US intelligence agencies are still acting in improper ways. In 2008, it was revealed that the CIA had hired Blackwater, a private company made up of ex-Navy Seals, to track down and assassinate suspected terrorists.
Later in the 2000s, when the Congress formed a committee to investigate if CIA waterboarding and other methods of interrogation constituted torture, congressmen complained that they couldn't get to the bottom of the matter because CIA officials and the CIA director were lying to the congressional committee.
Forty-five years after the revelations of the Church Committee, it seems US intelligence agencies are still engaging in covert and improper conduct.
When US intelligence agencies and the CIA plot to influence the affairs of foreign nations, when the CIA plots assassinations and assassinates foreign leaders and political dissidents, when the CIA develops new ways to kill and assassinate and interrogate and torture, and when the CIA keeps all that from Congress, the press, and the public, that's a government conspiracy.
If these five instances of government engaging in conspiracies have been proven to be true—and they have been—isn't it logical to assume that government agencies may have engaged in other conspiracies? It is the very nature of intelligence agencies and militaries to act in secretive, conspiratorial ways.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" shouldn't have a negative connotation. Politics always plays out with backroom handshakes. It is the suggestion of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups that government agencies and officials and the special interests that influence them are often engaging in conspiratorial actions, and that conspiracies have been behind some of the most iconic and important events of American history.
A conspiracy theorist was regaling a friend with one conspiracy theory after another. Finally, the friend interrupted and said, "I bet I know what would happen if God Himself appeared out of the sky right now, looked down at us, and said, 'There is no conspiracy.' I bet you would look up and say, 'So the conspiracy goes higher than we thought.'"
Perhaps if the Almighty appeared to inform us that politicians and governments and government officials don't act in secretive, covert, conspiratorial ways, then we could accept that.
But when the evidence indicates otherwise….
Theories questioning if multiple people might have shot at JFK, or if interior bombs brought down the World Trade Center, or if somebody was able to rig the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections can make for dramatic, sensational storytelling.
But it is not the purpose of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups to be sensational; the purpose of this book is to talk about "conspiracy realities" that can hopefully give us a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics.
If elements in the intelligence agencies participated in assassinating President Kennedy, then how can the intelligence agencies be better controlled? If elements in the government allowed or caused 9/11 to happen to give us an excuse to go to war in the Middle East, then how much of the War on Terror is disinformation and propaganda?
If presidential elections can be rigged, then how can we have fairer, uncorrupted elections? If secretive influences behind the scenes, a Deep State, are controlling our social, political, and financial systems for their own selfish purposes, then it would benefit us to expose who and what these secretive influences are.
American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups may give us a glimpse into the way that government and politics work.
Or don't work.
This is an extract from American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups, by Douglas Cirignano published by Simon&Schuster. It can be purchased in hard copy, digital and audio-book form through Amazon and other booksellers.
Filed under: 20th Century, Arts and Entertainment, book reviews, historical perspectives, latest
Tagged with: book extract, Church Committee, conspiracy theories, Cuba, Douglas Cirignano, Gulf of Tonkin, J. Edgar Hoover, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson, mafia, operation northwoods, Vietnam
A lot of the cowboy antics of the Deep State can be accounted for by pure self interest and careerism.
These parasitic bottom feeding spooks and snoops and dirty cops are quite content sucking on the taxpayer teat for ever.
$1,134 billion for the current military budget.
$85 billion for the Black Budget.
$100 billion for "Intelligence."
Nearly $1 trillion for "Homeland Security" since the 9/11 hoax.
Do anything that threatens to spoil their party and they react like a dog when its bone is taken away.
A comfy air conditioned job for life in a Washington office with zero accountability, no matter how badly you screw up, no matter how much money you waste and steal, no matter how many serious crimes you commit. A licence to "lie, cheat and steal." Followed by a gig as "resident scholar" on some Neocohen think tank, a lobbyist, or a talking head on CNN or MSNBC.
Who wouldn't fight like a rabid dog to keep that cushy number?
It is revelatory how the DS minions work here btl.
You are seen like rabbits in the lights you are.
Reply to Dungroanin
Yoyoyo, that's why they have names like 'Crispy', before we burn them to a crisp: and they just can't believe what they are seeing & reading: left dumbfounded & speechless,
every darn time 🙂 LouisP. needs back up from NormP. , coz' LouisP. has lost the plot & will to contest anything constructively & factually, simply because the DS suckers are ALL out of Ammo. It's great fun when all yer' ducks are in a row and all you have to do is pull the trigger. 😉
On a more constructive & positive note, regarding Assange & Flynn, i thought the X22 Report was not bad yesterday: at least he sees how the Deep State specifically operating within GCHQ & the CIA, desperately need Julian Assange entirely 'unavailable' for comment.
Now, all we have to do is re-educate Legally, the minds of the masses, who got wholly suckered by the Deep state controlled & censored MSM: because in courts of Law, we cannot lose in the longterm ! Just be patient and always remember to ridicule the sheeple that relied upon the WAPO & NYT, (like LouisP. did) and of course, do have extra good fun ridiculing The Guardian readers, above all else 🙂 We must change Media & Communications Law, more urgently than any thing else, FIRST ! But, High Tide has been and left 'hasbeens' exposed & lying on the beeches, naked, like driftwood, ready to burn … 😉
Reply to Tim Jenkins
I posted comment on this on the other DS article
https://www.oscr.org.uk/media/3771/2019-10-31-statecraft-s33-report-pdf.pdf
IoS / II busted as not charities.
TheThinker
Another of interest regarding JE And the MSM sitting on information
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1191716801178034180
Reply to TheThinker
Great link, Thinker, that exemplifies how the news was/is so staged & censored by the rich & powerful who still feel themselves to be untouchable. People like Amy Robach will not lie in court, subsequently …
Moreover, Communications & Media Law has long been so outdated, that radical change in ownership & editorial accountability is now demanded.
Sitting on info. is just the tip of the iceberg, as we know, moreover, failure to report by omission with conjecture, supposition, suggestion, 'appears to be allegedly' totally beyond the pale, with masses of evidence of same and there is no further need for any uncorrupted judge to allow people in positions of responsibility to get away with playing with words… and societal perceptions.
Hang 'em High, out to dry >>> Brainwash is DANGEROUS !
And in futures far brighter, prison sentences become mandatory.
' the purpose of this book is to talk about "conspiracy realities" that can hopefully give us a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics.'
Frankly, I don't want "a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics".
I want the criminal conspiracy realities to stop and for those guilty of carrying them out to be brought to justice.
Boomer Lady
The only way to stop such conspiracies is to identify the problem, that real conspiracies exist. For a long time, at least since JFK's assassination, conspiracies have been poked fun at by the powers that be to hopefully cause the public to think they're absurd. However, much of the public distrusts the government and are more than ready to assume they are guilty of some part in the incident.
Any time two or more people get together to commit a fraud on the people, a conspiracy exists.
US love all around
Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged.
"Encouraged?
Tha's lovely! and more lovely, this "Operations Northwoods" was planned by highest ranking military officials of the US government.
Martin Usher
I recently re-read a biography called "A Man Called Intrepid" about the life and work of a relatively low key Canadian, William Stephenson. This fellow pretty much wrote the book on the use of intelligence and dirty tricks in warfare. He worked closely with Churchill and Roosevelt, acting as a private go-between back before the US was involved in WW2 (and was heavily non-interventionist). He organized a huge black operation, an operation that was initially based in New York. The book is worth reading because once read it takes little interpolation to get from where they were in the 1940s to where we are today.
Stephenson didn't invent dirty tricks, of course, but he understood their value and the role of propaganda. His role is very much like Edison's in invention — Thomas Edison didn't so much invent machines as invent industrial scale research and development, he industrialized the process and so vastly increased its scope and power.
Japan Mil. Inc. was pretty early in the false flag incident business: 1931 with their Mukden incident; their start of their invasion of Manchuria, as North Eastern China was called than (wonder why?): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
Reply to Antonym
They didn't even damage their own railway track: more like the real deal compared to 9/11.
Petra Liverani
So 9/11 is still too recent to call out as an inside conspiracy, is it? Only 18 years old so it can't be called out.
So much less taboo to call it out though (except, of course, for the massively obstructive-to-truth-and-so-very-conveniently-relied-on taboos around death) when we recognise that 9/11 was essentially a massive Full-Scale Exercise involving a large number of drills pushed out as a real event where the only major reality of the day was the destruction of and damage to buildings.
That's it, folks! A massive Full-Scale Exercise pushed out as real – similar in type but generally much greater in size to many other staged events including Pearl Harbour, 1980 Bologna station bombing, 2002 Bali bombing (got it virtually from the horse's mouth – a Balinese man I met recently whose father worked next door who said when called to help the injured there were none to help), 2017 Mogadishu bombing and a number of other "terror" events. All bombings in an evacuated area. The FBI are not shy: the codename for their investigation was PENTTBOM (Pentagon, Twin Towers Bombing) – Oklahoma Bombing codename was OKBOMB (I've no doubt this was a bombing of an evacuated area too but haven't studied it).
What I'd like anyone who refutes my claim about 9/11 being completely staged to do is this:
— respond to my $5,000 Occam's Razor challenge on 9/11 death and injury (no one has responded so far despite the rules allowing the challenger to choose their own judge) https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html or
— explain why you think the dialogue below does not confirm that Brian Williams and David Restuccio were in on 9/11. If you think the dialogue does confirm they were in on it can you also confirm that you think they would have been AOK with the murder of 3,000 of their fellow countrymen (or 2,735 if you think the plane crashes were faked and thus the 265 alleged to have died in the plane crashes didn't or if you believe that the plane crashes weren't faked still think those 265 were killed some other way – see how convoluted it gets when you believe that 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 were injured as stated?) or
— refute my claim whichever way you like but ensure it is evidence-based. What doesn't count as evidence are "loved ones" of alleged dead people such as Bob McIlvaine because 1) disinformation agents are a recognised phenomenon so that without evidence that Bob isn't a disinformation agent the refutation doesn't work and 2) the photos shown of Bob and his son Bobby show signs of doctoring (the power elite always give us the signs when they're fooling us – a phenomenon referred to as "revelation of the method")
Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse (https://youtu.be/i5b719rVpds?t=224):
"Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
Reply to Petra Liverani
Just to add – I cannot help being mystified by why truthers are so attached to the idea that 3,000 people died on 9/11, notwithstanding the taboos around death. Sure, it took me 4 years of study to work it out even though I came across Simon Shack's work probably 2-3 years in (and also knew that other events were completely staged) but when I could see how the propaganda campaign was pitched at truthers to make us believe in death and injury to hamstring us into not being able to get the truth out because non-truthers, most correctly, would never accept that the US government would kill all those people in the buildings, my attachment to "3,000 deaths" was broken in an instant. In fact, I don't think I was ever really attached to the idea, I only believed it because of the propaganda.
The perps knew, of course, that truthers would stay attached to the 3,000 deaths even when pointed out by people such as Simon Shack and myself. They knew. They knew that truthers would go one or two levels into the truth (controlled demolition and fake plane crashes) and they also knew that truthers would PLATEAU and STAGNATE big time at that level. Big time. That was the plan. They knew that even if people worked out that the 3,000 figure couldn't possibly be correct because of faked plane crashes they would still believe in that figure. Isn't it funny? 3,000 people couldn't possibly have died because the plane crashes were faked so as soon as you know the figure isn't correct, shouldn't all antennae be on high alert to question deaths at all. But no. They factored all that in. They knew.
Please wake up to staged death and injury. When you comprehend that and the propaganda techniques used on truthers to perpetuate their belief in death and injury it gives you a much greater understanding of how they target us and the mind control techniques they use.
Warning! Deep State sponsored nutjob presents the official nutjob version of the event.
Reply to Boot Hill
Boot Hill, what we could classify your argument as – if we could call it that – falls into the logical fallacy, argument from incredulity. Because, at first sight, what I say seems preposterous you write it off as actually being preposterous. But it is only preposterous at first sight. When you look at the case I make for my argument it is perfectly sound. Argument from incredulity also applies to Rhisiart's form of argument but I won't persecute him with any more replies as he's indicated he doesn't want them.
One thing for readers of OffG to bear in mind is that while it may seem I'm a lone nutjob in some of my views I'm certainly not the only person to say the AE9/11Truth is controlled opposition and Bob McIlvaine is an actor. Other people on other sites also say it (as well as calling out many other alleged 9/11 loved ones as actors) – it was not my original thought although it wasn't their saying it that convinced me – it was when I realised that there was a truther-targeted propaganda campaign to make truthers believe in real death and injury to hamstring them into getting the truth out that I seriously looked at Bob McIlvaine.
The thinking on this site is, of course, beyond the 19-terrorists-armed-with-boxcutters story but it's not a whole lot further and I'd argue part of the reason is the effectiveness of the controlled opposition. When I started reading and commenting on OffG my thinking was at the same place as most people's on OffG's is now but it's moved on considerably. I'm not sure why virtually all OffG readers seem to have fossilised at controlled demolition and faked plane crashes (unfortunately not always in case of the latter). With the power elite you must be ready to turn on a dime constantly. They have so many tricks up their sleeve and have been fooling us for centuries if not millennia much of which fooling has still not been uncovered.
To be an effective analyst of hoaxery by the power elite you need to be able to turn on a dime in your thought and embrace what, at first sight, might seem extremely counterintuitive … and you certainly cannot have any respect for the taboos around death – you've got no hope if you respect those because the power elite certainly don't, they exploit them and if you respect those you're simply not approaching the material with the correct analytical equipment.
In these comments on a YouTube video pulled down, many commenters obviously believe that the 9/11 loved ones are actors
http://www.septclues.com/SIMON%20SHACK%20PICS/911%20ACTORS_comments%20-%20YouTube.pdf
Nobody died in a plane crash thus the 3,000 figure is false right from the start and there is zero evidence that doesn't fit the staged death and injury hypothesis that can be used to defend the real death and injury hypothesis.
They lied about the terrorists, they lied about the planes (including 265 dead in plane crashes), they lied about the building collapses … and yet you believe they didn't lie about the 2,735 who allegedly died in the buildings when they could so easily fake it as the evidence shows. Who's more a nutjob – me or you?
Rhisiart Gwilym
Have you considered seeing a shrink, Petra? I dare say Bob McIlvaine, for example, could recommend one, if you approached him personally. Find someone who specialises in web-surfing-triggered delusions. Lot of it about lately.
Reply to Rhisiart Gwilym
When "disinformation agent" who pretends to be a loved one is outside your paradigm of how the world works then I understand your thinking I'm crazy, Rhisiart. The best solution to this situation is for you to extend your knowledge of how the power elite operate and what techniques they employ. Obviously, I cannot unknow what I know to delude myself that Bob McIlvaine must be genuine because he presents himself that way. It's really up to you to up the sophistication of your knowledge – there's about 8,000 of them and 7 billion of us – they've got a few tricks up their sleeve.
No one has responded to my $5,000 Occam's Razor challenge to provide 10 points that favour "real" death and injury on 9/11 over "staged" while I have provided 10 points that favour "staged". Perhaps if you'd really like to prove how wrong I am you might like to respond, no? I'd be so interested in your 10 points favouring real over staged, I really would. I put my money where my mouth is while you simply repeat the same old assertions that I'm delusional. I'm afraid that believing that because someone presents themself as a loved one means they must be genuine does indicate a serious lack of knowledge of how the power elite operate. Please educate yourself and refrain from your accusations of delusional which simply come from a place of ignorance.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
P, I'm already confident that pretend-grievers are real. The 'Robbie Parker' incident was a dead giveaway. As a retired act0r, I'm a veteran when it comes to the signs of 'An Actor Prepares', and whoever was playing 'Robbie' was certainly behaving like an actor in the wings waiting for his cue to go on. Didn't realise that he was already being filmed, clearly. Quite unmistakable whispering-cheerily-in-the-wings behaviour. So, you see, I do agree that crisis-actors, including bereavement-actors are real. I'm quite at ease with that *fact*. Even without hard evidence of their existence, familiarity with the moral nadir to which the Angl0zionist empire has come by now would make me hypothesise their existence anyway. But as a long-time supporter of AE9/11Truth (I'm an amateur engineer as well as professional actor), I see the great cloud of signs that there were indeed multiple casualties from the 11/9 atrocities. Their surviving loved-ones aren't all crisis actors. That's simply not credible. Moreover, all the footage that I've watched of Bob Mc gives me absolutely zero whiff of a 'Robbie Parker' scammer. I can also recognise virtuoso acting when I see it, and can distinguish it from authentic emotion.
When dealing with the – obvious – reality of conspiracies of the powerful in the world, you have to do a rough triage, to conserve your energy – and your sanity: These cospithirries look to be possibly real; so concentrate on them; these look iffy; whilst these look fairly obviously lunatic. So shove the second and third groups to the back of the queue.
I have to add, apologetically, that I don't spend a lot of – what's left of – my time arguing pointlessly on angels and pinheads with people who seem to me to have a serious bee in their bonnet. So there's no point in trying to lure me into this discussion. And yes, I have seen your Occam website. Not sufficiently impressed to take up the challenge, I'm afraid.
Sorry P. You seem sincere, and pretty courteous in your postings; plus points, when compared to the slaggers and the obvious hasbarollocksers who visit OffG now and then. But my – admittedly roughandready – triage reckoning is that you have the misfortune to be caught in an idee fixe. Or possibly you're a disinformation water-muddier yourself, as I guesstimate Judy Woods to be. 🙂 Though that smells a touch less likely to me. Judgement reserved!
In these waters, we're constantly feeling our way; no signposts, no absolute gospel certainties, reason-wrecking reefs just below the surface. Tough, innit! If conclusive evidence emerges that you were right all along, I'll acknowledge that, and apologise to you publicly. If I'm still around; I and the real perps of 11/9 are all getting on a bit by now, after all…
Cheers P!
PS: Just one well-developed idee fixe doesn't make you completely crazy. I don't think that.
I can add to your knowledge a little here, Rhisiart, and this may help you understand that Bob McIlvaine is indeed an actor – he just does a much better job than Robbie Parker. The difference in their convincingness is not an accident, it's quite intentional.
They always give us the signs, known as "revelation of the method" – when I learnt this then I understood Robbie Parker. His big smile, the histrionic breathing, the 17-minute press conference where twice he mentioned a fundraising site already set up (this was just the day after) were all completely intentional – nothing accidental about it just as so many things obviously wrong with Sandy Hook were intentional (also in 9/11 such as the nose cone of the second plane popping out the other side of the South tower).
In the case of Bob McIlvaine he's different from all the other crisis actors in that he actually sheds tears – the only crisis actor to my knowledge who's done so. His acting is convincing (I certainly swallowed it for quite awhile) – but there's still the giveaway (as I say there's always giveaways) in the photos of him and Bobby and the other family members which show signs of doctoring. Simply arguing that he does a better job of acting than Robbie Parker is not enough, especially when you consider the very, very many other signs that death and injury were staged.
You must consider the evidence in its totality and determine from the TOTALITY of evidence which hypothesis fits best. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, while presenting excellent instruction in how the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, are, in fact, a government-sponsored organisation whose purpose is to focus everyone on controlled demolition and mix that truth with the key lie of real death and injury. Bob McIlvaine is one of their key players in that endeavour.
"Their surviving loved-ones aren't all crisis actors. That's simply not credible." But how many people are we talking here? They can easily employ a few hundred people for this task and I don't think we see even that many. Thousands of people would be connected to 9/11 in one way or another.
"I have seen your Occam website. Not sufficiently impressed to take up the challenge, I'm afraid."
You don't have to be impressed, however, I have put 10 points forward favouring staged while no one else has put a single one forward favouring real death and injury. That is a simple fact that has a significance no matter what you think of my site because I know people have tried to respond to the challenge and failed. If someone were saying that death and injury were staged and I really believed they were real I would feel motivated to present my points.
Use the blockquote (b-quote) function when quoting please! Your posts are virtually indecipherable if you don't
Just to add – I take exception to "well-developed idee fixe". I'm not a person of fixed ideas – what I'm always doing is asking the questions:
— Does ALL the evidence fit my hypothesis and none contradict it?
— Is there any other hypothesis that might fit the evidence?
It took me quite awhile to accept Simon Shack's hypothesis that death was staged because all the seeming evidence didn't fit his hypothesis. Finally, I realised that what I thought was evidence, eg, Bob McIlvaine, the Jersey Widows and a number of other things was not, in fact, evidence at all but fakery that formed part of the truther-targeted propaganda campaign to keep the idea firmly planted in our minds that death and injury were real in order to hamstring us in getting out the truth because non-truthers, most correctly on their part, would simply not accept the notion that the US government would kill all those people in the buildings.
Whatever, P. I told you, I'm not getting sucked into this.
PS: Thanks for one actual laugh-out-loud: AE is gov. sponsored! Sic! Priceless!
Really P: think about a shrink.
And now: goodbye to this topic – from me, anyway.
Rhisiart, do you think I just pluck these ideas from thin air? It took me a long time to come to the realisation that AE was government sponsored – quite a long time after I had initial doubts. What you have to do is look at the reasoning and evidence I provide for it. And when I say that it's government-sponsored I don't mean necessarily that all members are in on it – not at all. I think there are probably lots of genuine members – they like to mix it up.
The reasoning is simple:
They have us all focused on controlled demolition and mix that truth with the lie of 3,000 dead/6,000 injured which in turn stagnates the truth because non-truthers, perfectly correctly, will not accept that the US government killed all those people in the buildings. Seriously, Rhisiart, do you not get how utterly insane that would be – for the US government to cold-bloodedly and callously kill all those people when they absolutely did not have to at all, when they could so easily fake it as the evidence shows they, in fact, did – and they even let us KNOW that they faked it with doctored photos of people with their loved ones and obviously faked dead bodies.
What supports my hypothesis
— Prominent AE members put out that "we cannot know if planes crashed or not" or make out there is some kind of evidence of planes crashing. This is nonsense. Newtonian physics applies as much to the horizontal as it does to the vertical. They want to keep doubt about plane crashes going so we don't focus on the planes. All we have to do is point out the fakery of the plane crashes and hey presto! – no need to investigate the buildings. A dearth of material results which makes it harder to spin out the 9/11 nonsense for decades to come. They don't want simplicity, OK. No no no no no. They don't want the simplicity of 9/11 simply being a massive Full-Scale Exercise coming out where the only major realities of the day were destruction of and damage to the buildings. They don't want that, understandably, do they?
— The contrast in dynamism of three websites:
https://www.ae911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/
For "real" we have to ask why is the AE website so dynamic while the pilots and firefighters websites are virtually defunct? Why do we have so very, very many different types of AE experts (architects, engineers, metallurgists, controlled demolition experts, fire engineers, physicists, chemists, etc) but not a SINGLE aircraft accident investigator as far as I'm aware in on the 9/11 investigation? Why aren't there more prominent video experts calling out the fakery of the planes?
As 343 firefighters are alleged to have died why aren't they jumping up and down? How many architects and engineers were killed? Why are they so very, very interested and yet firefighters who were present at the time and would surely be one of the first groups to wake up to controlled demolition so very quiet? Firefighters don't care about the alleged deaths of their 343 colleagues?
Rhisiart, I am an evidence-based thinker. When I make a claim I always try to ensure that the evidence supports it. Obviously, I can be as fooled as everyone else and I believed in Bob McIlvaine, the Jersey widows, April Gallop and others. But then I woke up.
Please don't make the convincing actor of Bob McIlvaine the stumbling block to truth. All the pieces of the puzzle must fit together and they all fit PERFECTLY for staged death and injury while they absolutely do not for real death and injury.
Just to add, Rhisiart, while you accuse me of craziness and needing a shrink what you don't have in the slightest is a case for real death and injury. The convincing appearance of Bob McIlvaine as a genuine loved one (even if we forget about the doctored photos) doesn't make a case for real, does it? He could be an actor and shed tears regardless of the contrast with Robbie Parker. Bob McIlvaine is not a case for real death and injury. Don't you want to feel you have a case for it rather than simply an isolated piece of alleged evidence that on its own could go either way. Where is your case?
I have a presented a case that includes:
— Anomalies in the Social Security Death Index and in the memorial discrepancies
— Issues with evidence for 3 of the alleged dead people provided by another analyst
— Logic and reason for the power elite not killing people for real
— Incommensurate number of loved ones kicking up a fuss
— Bob McIlvaine photo-doctoring and anomalies in William Rodriguez's story – pointed out by someone defending the official story interestingly
— No convincing signs of injury of any of the alleged 6,000 injured
— Indications of fakery in the jumpers
— Unbelievable survivor stories (this is them telling us)
— Lack of protest from firefighters about the alleged deaths of 343 of their colleagues
— Lawyer looking after victim fund not convincing
Plus the fact that no one has responded to my challenge.
Do a little work to get a case going before you start accusing people of delusion.
P, I'm really not getting sucked into your obsession. Look at all the chop-logic stuff you churn out about it with a colder eye. And see a shrink! You're not 'crazy', but – it seems to me – you are nurturing a delusion that needs assistance to get resolved.
Off-G keep reminding me by email when you post yet another screed trying to suck me in. Any more that come will be deleted unread, sorry. No discourtesy intended, but I'm really not going to take part in your delusions. (I sound like a lamestream mediawhore such as Jon Snow or Kath Viner, fending off a persistent citz-journalist who's asking awkward questions, don't I? 🙂 You can reassure yourself that I'm just the same kind of headinthesander as them, if it's a comfort. But you'll have to face the shrink option eventually, if you want to get straightened out.)
This is really my last reply; sorry P; good luck, give my love to William of O; and… 'Byeee!
That's your prerogative, of course, Rhisiart, but you provide no refutative argument, simply a constant repetition of assertions that I'm delusional, need a shrink, etc. I simply don't understand how you believe that making assertions and not actually dealing with my actual content has any value.
As controlled opposition, Petra/ Flaxgirl, you really should be dealing with my accusations and FACTUAL Content, discussing Bill Binney and "PARALLEL PLATFORMS" !!!
I simply don't understand how you believe that making assertions and not actually dealing with my (F) actual content has any value. ! ? Petra, when will you respond, finally ?
Must try harder 😉
YOU PETRA / FLAXGIRL have still never responded to my question of whether you understand finally what a "Parallel Platform" is ? Why is this ? Bill Binney has told you very clearly about the existence of same and FFS Flaxgirl, are you not even the slightest bit interested in where all the missing D.o.D $$$TRILLIONS$$$ of Bucks disappeared down the rabbit hole / worm hole >>> Gawd n' Bennet, Flaxgirl, we start our constructive take down of the deep state and D.o.D Fascists with Corporate Governors, in Law & the Science of same, first with the impossible State Declarations from NIST on WTC 7.
Get your fucking ducks in a row, legally speaking !
Please educate yourself on the contents of WTC 7 !!!
After you have studied "Parallel Platforms" !
(don't bother replying to me)
Quote from Carl Sagan that can apply to truthers bamboozled by the 3,000 dead/6,000 injured propaganda as well as it can apply to non-truthers bamboozled by the 19-terrorists-with-boxcutters propaganda –
One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the Truth. The bamboozle has captured us.
It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken.
Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
9/11 will never be called out as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Can you imagine the effect if they did? The entire edifice of "The West" would collapse and the Islamic world would explode in deservedly righteous fury. The case is similar, though on a much smaller scale, with that of Tony Blair. He was exposed as a liar and should have been tried as a war criminal. But there was no way that was going to happen since it would necessarily lead to the Western governments throwing up their hands and admitting that they were conscienceless manipulative bastards. In short, the game would be up. On the one hand, 9/11 and Blair's bullshit serve the ruling class interests and, on the other hand – and more importantly – the abandonment of 9/11 and Blair would mean the wrecking of the whole scam. (I am aware that Blair is much more expendable than the official narrative of 9/11 so it is feasible that he will "go down" later but not until sufficient distance is established between him and the powers that be).
When they can't do anything else, they'll offer up Shady Wahabia as a convenient whipping boy, to divert attention from Kosherstan. This is their fall back position. Offer up the Shadies as the Lee Harvey Oswald of the operation.
Châteaurati Lafite Rothschild. Well spotted.
I thought I was doing well to steer clear of the Camelot Conspiracy Theory – and the resultant hagiography of the Dead Kennedy's. In the Curtin/Douglass/Talbot alternative reality version of history: a lot is made of the Northwoods document. In this contrafactual conspiracy virtual historiography: some really, really, bad men – called the JCOS, the CIA, or the 'Unspeakable' – try and dupe our rational, morally probate heroes – determined on peace and Catholic sanctification – into committing acts of war on Cuba that no ethically responsible POTUS could even contemplate. So he got rid of Lemnitzer and Dulles: and tried to make peace with Castro …after having saved the world from some really horrible Commies who were trying to blow up the planet.
If Operation Mongoose is admitted into this fantasy at all: it was the nasty CIA going behind our glorious heroes backs. As far as I am aware: in the Douglass pulp fiction novella – Operation Mongoose is not even even mentioned. This I have always found fascinating. Because Douglass relies on the work of Sheldon M Stern – one of the few who has reviewed the full EXCOMM tapes JFK kept in secret (the other was Phillip D Zelikow – yes, that Zelikow). The EXCOMM tapes mention Operation Mongoose many times – which implicates both Kennedy's. A question I have asked many times before is: "How can this be an omission"? It can't. It is a deliberately crafted rewriting of history that the Camelot Crew swallow uncritically hook, line, and sinker. And viciously defend at every turn.
In the current context: how do you solve a conspiracy theory by writing your own conspiracy theory? Answers on a postcard to Curtin/Douglass/Talbot and anyone else who has pushed this bullshit for the Empire of Lies.
Operation Mongoose is key to understanding the Cuban Missile Crisis. The fact that Castro thought he was going to be invaded was a key driver in reaching out to Khrushchev. So it is historically crucial to know exactly who was behind Mongoose – an 'Unspeakably' errant and covert JCOS and CIA – or the Kennedy's? The answer is incontrovertibly the Kennedy's. Operation Mongoose was a covert plan to engineer the excuse for a full US invasion of Cuba. Northwoods was the end of Phase 1 – the "quiet phase". The entire operation was a Presidential "command operation": with higher authorisation than the CIA. It was the "highest priority" of the Kennedy regime. For which Special Group (Augmented) (SG (A)) was in control: with RFK as Chairman. Lansdale was in operational command: but he answered to Bobby: who was a Cuba hawk and pressurised for more and more action. He pushed for invasion until the final day of the Missile Crisis.
So how did Curtin/Douglass/Talbot get it so wrong and come up with their own CIA conspiracy theory? I do not know. Only they can answer that. The evidence has been available for years. Douglass even selectively read Stern and cherrypicked what to include and what not to include. There can be no doubt that he is lying: not if you check the references. Which no one does. The lies have snowballed and regularly get repeated on OffG. I got tired of trying to counter the false narrative construction. Opinions are sacred: historical facticity is not.
If there was any doubt: the Digital National Security Archive (DNSA) dispelled them with their 'Cuba Project'. Which went to show just how close the world came to the 'final failure' over Cuba. The Sorenson/RFK 'Thirteen Days' semi-auto-hagiography version of history needs to be pulped. Douglass and Talbot too. The Kennedy's knew all about Operation Mongoose: they ran it. JFK sat in on a March 16 meeting of the SG (A). Bobby ran them regularly as his brother's eyes and ears. In this document Bobby listens to proposals of chemical and biological warfare without demur. Who were the Unspeakable? That they never actually carried this out is of little compensation.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=6434721-National-Security-Archive-Doc-15B-NSC-Memorandum
[NB: this would be a follow up to the Northwoods proposals: Nothing much has changed.]
The DNSA has just published a more extensive archive on Operation Mongoose. Will Curtin/Douglass/Talbot retract? Will their uncritical sycophants let fact be sacred: and give up insubstantial opinion vigorously defended by bluff?
For the record: I've still got Lemnitzer as my chief suspect for JFK's assasination. What I do not have is an elaborate and deliberately fabricated conspiracy faery tale of two men that were 'Teshuva' – turning to peace – and going against the Deep State who killed them to prevent peace. This simply never happened. It is a made up conspiracy theory crafted from fact, fiction, and lies by omission. Making it up makes us nothing but gullible. Douglass needs to recant and fess up to the lies he has spun. The Kennedy's ran Operation Mongoose as a 'command operation' as the highest priority of their regime. This, in itself, nearly precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis ending in a nuclear exchange. Will we take history seriously now? Or will we make heroes for Empires that never were? The evidence is clear: Douglass is lying. I cannot imagine how he could not know this.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba/2019-10-03/kennedy-cuba-operation-mongoose
[It's bullshit about the Manhattan Project. That Truman never knew. Everyone knew. I can't be bothered to check: but there were at least a thousand minor breaches of secrecy. The big ones included the Rosenberg spy ring. The Soviets got – not one – but two blueprints from the bomb from Fuchs and Hall. Has no one heard of the Cambridge Five? It was Maclean that informed the Soviets. All confirmed by the VENONA transcripts. Even Openheimmer himself was implicated: and never regained his security clearance. Ironically; JFK was set to pardon him …but Jackie had to do it instead …for obvious reasons. I'm not sure where the bullshit version came from: but even David Ray Griffin has repeated it.]
George Cornell
BigB, this is not the first time you have scribbled uncharitably about the Kennedys and you provide less documentation for this than Curtin et al. provide for their point of view. "Catholic sanctification"? "Camelot conspiracy"? Sounds very objective.
For someone who rails vs racial or religious stereotyping I am surprised. So Lemnitzer gives Kennedy a raving lunatic proposal and weeks later Lemnitzer is gone. Your point about mad dog Lemnitzer hardly needs any Catholic conspiracy innuendo. And you seem to grudgingly acknowledge dots to be connected? And soon after Kennedy is assassinated, Lemnitzer resurfaces in NATO inter alia. So Kennedy likely stood on principle on Northwoods, something in very short supply in US foreign policy, resisted nuking Cuba or anyone else and enjoyed remarkable public popularity. Yet you can't resist slagging him off yet again and are unable to give him any credit. Why?
Reply to George Cornell
Read the documentation. Then re-appraise what you just said in light of the fact that the Kennedy's ran Operation Mongoose. A fact long denied by those who prefer opinion over fact.
My rhetoric is deliberately escalated by the long time championing of fact over constructed fiction: for which I have received unfavourable criticism from above and below the line. Opinions are sacred: facts are not. I prefer fact: which after all is what this site is supposed to be about.
I initially believed the Douglass version. But not content with uncritical absorption: I checked the references. This led me to read Stern and other sources. The contradictions between the two cannot be easily resolved. Douglass has created an abstract interpretation of the historical record to create a mythology. This is most clear in his version of the Cuban Missile Crisis – which is a modified 'Thirteen Days' historiography. It simply did not happen that way. It is all on tape. RFK was the biggest invasion hawk for the whole period. This alone destroys the Douglass fantasy version.
I deliberately highlighted a document from after the Northwoods document that shows RFK in a meeting where biological and chemical crop sabotage was discussed. He said nothing. He did not storm out or register any kind of shock: as Douglass or Talbot would have it. Who were the Unspeakable?
The thing is: there is and always has been an easy way to settle this – read the documentary text. If someone maintains that JFK/RFK did not know of Operation Mongoose – which was then carried out covertly by the CIA – and the documents show JFK sitting in on a meeting …or RFK chairing the SG (A) process – the veracity of narrative can be quickly established. Douglass is lying and creating a contra-factual narrative construction. His own CIA conspiracy theory that does not fit the facts.
What gets my goat is the abject denialism in the face of fact and documentary evidence. These are inconvenient facts that oppose the narrative constructivism: for which alternative facts must be created. This is dishonest virtual myth-making: nothing more. The Kennedy's ran Mongoose long after Northwoods was rejected. I posted the evidence. It is unequivocal. Yet you question the authenticity of the historical record in order to maintain an opinion based on fabrication. Clear fabrication I have shown time after time.
I tried to do it the right way: dialogically. I even offered to go through the bibliography that Douglass cherrypicks in order to show the contra-factual nature of his hermeneutic constructivism. To no avail. I even tried to appeal to the better humanist nature of opinionated Camelotists.
What really gets my goat is the Catholic holocaust, ethnic cleansing, and Buddhist represion the Kennedy's supported with their illegal intervention in Vietnam. To be frank: no one gives a fuck about murdered Vietnamese. They prefer contra-factual opinion and narrative constructivism that Unpeoples a repressed and murdered people in favour of a story. An Empire of Lies.
It's just lies, George. It's just lies. How could JFK have been duped over Cuba when he gave the orders – it was a command operation – in which RFK ran the SG (A)? They were not going against the Unspeakable: they were running it. The proof is there. It has been available for years – even though the DNSA release was only this month. Stern published before Douglass: which allowed Douglass to selectively misrepresent Stern. But you have to read Stern to know this. Which no one wants to take responsibility for doing. And so the lies continue. The murdered Buddhists are damned in memory as well as being murdered and poisoned by Agent Orange in life. All for the heroification of the Empire of Lies and its false prophets like the Kennedy's.
They did nothing but repress humanity in life. Their opinionated narrative addicts continue to repress and oppress the Unpeople in death. And no one will ever change from opinion to fact: because they would have to confront the lies we tell to maintain a semblance of humanity. The Kennedy's weren't humanists. They were not even pseudo-humanists. The only thing that portrays them that way is the tissue of constructivism that Curtin/Douglass/Talbot create contra-factually. Read the DNSA documents and Stern and you can clearly see the fabrication. Do not read them and defend your opinion based on clear fabrication.
It's really down to you and your intellectual honesty and conscience. And how about we get rid of this post-modern ad hom crap? I posted documentation. Produce a counter-argument. Defend Douglass on a point by point basis – drawing on all documentation – not just the selectively presented bibliography. What is an *argumentum ad bibliography* anyway – "My bibliography is bigger than yours". That is a childish argument prone to logical fallacy. Which can only be exposed by actually cross-referencing the cited sources. I did that and found Douglass wanting. I can only assume deliberately as he must have read Stern to cherrypick from him. Produce some substance: not an argument from a false consensus. That is what I have been trying to break down with fact. But no one lets fact inform opinion. And so reality is distorted by perception bias informed by unsubstantiated opinion.
I did butt out due to the impasse of being unable to meet anyone on a level ground. That is: being informed by Douglass and Stern. I seem to be in a small minority of those who have read both. Which exposes the Unspeakable narrative as Unspeakable narrative constructivism. Is no one actually bothered by this? Because it can quickly be shown where the truth lies. Did you even study the DNSA: or any of their other documentation? Are we denying its existence and veracity to protect a fabricated story? Is that how poet-modern history is constructed: by everyones favourite subjective narrative? Coercivelly defended and obfuscated by post-modern subjective ad hom criticism that ignores the documentary text. Of which the reading alleviates any need for agumentation. No wonder we live in a post-truth world if no one will actually read the documents.
Operation Mongoose had its roots in the Eisenhower admin. starting more than 18 months before Kennedy in Nov 1961. It was ineffective and caused little mayhem, coming to a halt just a year after Kennedy took over. RFK was trying to broker a deal where US Jupiters would be removed from Turkey in exchange for removing Soviet missiles from Cuba.
They did not invade and backed off because other countries including Trudeau's Canada opposed the mad dog invasion ideas, which simmered and found voice in numerous other nations, all without a Kennedy. At the time, with Russian missiles 90 miles away, I can see how hawkish ethos would thrive. Indeed invasion seemed plausibly supportable.
The most disgusting thing the Americans did there among many, was the embargo, which at its worst caused starvation to the point thousands of Cubans developing nutritional blindness.
Neither was this Kennedy's fault.
RFK said there would be no 'quid pro quo' to Dobrynin and heavily implied that if the Soviets did not remove the missiles – they – the US miltary – would. As in: "there would be drastic consequences". Which meant invasion. It is all on record. Corroborated by the ExComm tapes (see Stern's quote posted below).
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111553.pdf?v=68796a468e2ca4ba537e49353bc97721
Dobrynin had a different, less threatening recollection. So who knows what was actually said? History is seldom black and white. Nor does it easily fulfill binary simplification.
However: on November 16 – nearly a month on from the Crisis – the US instigated a full scale rehearsal of the Cuban invasion. With six marine battalions; four assault ships and two helicopter carriers. JFK had 100,000 troops; 40,000 marines; 14,500 paratroops; 550 combat aircraft and 180 ships at the ready. All the time he was bluffing Khrushchev about 'non-invasion': he was in full readiness to invade. The military proclamation of martial law had even been drawn up:
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4110032-Document-1-CINCLANT-message-to-Joint-Chiefs-of
The real stand down was not until November 21: when Khrushchev agreed to get rid of the offending 12 year old IL-28 bombers. You and I both know the Jupiters and the IL-28s were an obsolete piece of shit: and not worth risking a world war for. Another myth of the CMC is that no non-invasion assurance was actually given. JFK hedged his bets and risk world war.
[In fact: the real standown never happened. Krushchev left a battalion behind that caused flare ups into the 80s.]
Mongoose was phased out in late January 1963: but anti-Castro missions continued until LBJ phased them out. It is all on record. What was not known until the '90s was that the Soviets and Cubans had infiltrated the Mongoose operations. The threat of invasion was serious enough to precipitate the Crisis. It was not a trivial operation.
What also remained unknown until the Havana series of conferences was that the Soviets had received the warheads: and the SRBM 'Atlas' tactical cruise missiles were armed. The IRBMs never were: but it would not have taken much time for them to become operational – had history taken a different course. What also emerged was that the local commanders were authorised to fire had the invasion gone ahead.
The Kennedy's brought the world to the brink to save face over some obsolete pieces of shit that were superannuated by Polaris submarines. For which they – particularly RFK incessantly pushing for invasion – can take the lion's share of the blame for that. For pushing covert operations on Cuba risking the Final Failure because of their Cold Warrior anti-communist obsession.
I do not know where you got your alternative facts from? Mine come from Stern and the NSA's Cuban Missile Crisis document reader. Which has the timeline and relevant documents for ease of reference. You might want to buy a copy?
Small point and forgive the pedantry, but plurals DON'T carry apostrophes. Only possessives do. The plural of hat is hats not hat's. The plural of Kennedy is Kennedys not Kennedy's.
Except for plurals that are also possessives.
The Kennedys brought the world to the brink? Don't you think placing the missiles on Cuba had something to do with it? I think the Americans did the right thing, for once, and it was a win win or near to. Missiles gone, no invasion. Then they blew it by starving the Cuban people for decades, and increasingly becoming a plague on mankind.
I hope you don't mind me saying but given all the American atrocities subsequently, this is very small beer. I am reminded of the old joke. Why do Southern Baptists prohibit sex before marriage? Answ: They are afraid it might lead to dancing. Aren't you worrying about the dancing? Excuse me for using it but this joke is a contemporary of the Cuban crisis.
Apologies, George: I went off the deep end. Much of what I said was better directed at the comments below yours. My ardour got the better of me. The ad homs actually came from elsewhere. Ignore the last bit or read it as a more general statement to Gary below. It was not personally directed. I do not like being accused of trolling for posting facts.
No worries BigB. I admire your thoroughness, attendance to detail and passion. We do disagree on this one.
Unless you hear the voices of the brothers in any of the data you refer to, BigB, I wouldn't necessarily believe it. I would put no limits on the extent of fakery (including alleged transcripts) except faking their voices. Zelikow? Being part of 9/11 I'd believe nothing from him unless there was clear evidence.
They must have faked the $1 billion quote for the asbestos abatement in the Twin Towers to make truthers believe the perps were capable of anything. As if they'd allow the whole city to be covered in asbestos fibres that couldn't possibly avoid people in on the operation apart from any other reason. A huge number of people would be affected and they wouldn't be lying low about it, that's for sure – yes we've got the token few disinformation agents pretending injury (or suffering real injury but not from twin tower asbestos) but this is vastly incommensurate with the number who would be affected. Either there never was any asbestos or it was removed before demolition but how to tell what the truth is – they push out multiple stories to distract and confuse.
I know far too little to make any kind of authoritative comment on the Kennedys. I'll only say that I think it's possible that the completely corrupt people around them resented them (I say possible because I don't know that they weren't also corrupt, it's really just an impression).
The other night I watched a documentary about Vietnam and was astounded to see JFK say about the decision to aid the coup of the president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, that it was a mistake. I'm not sure I've ever heard any politician, certainly not a leader, say they made a political mistake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup
Oops! There are freely available audio tapes so I retract what I say in my earlier comment.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170124152832/https://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/presidentialrecordings/kennedy/1962/10_1962
Gary Weglarz
Right on time with your CIA talking points Big B. Very nice. I'll just say it again as it bears repeating, you are a master of the ("The 4 D's: Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive") Big B. And you are predictable as they come. You manage to attack the credibility of Ed Curtain, James Douglas, David Talbot and David Ray Griffin all in one post. Truly impressive work.
Why you would think anyone would find your evidence-free nonsensical attacks on those scholars who devote their lives to doing actual independent investigative research on topics such as the assassinations of America's progressive leadership during the 1960's, 9/11 as a false-flag, the CIA's decades of illegal mayhem, etc. – I truly have no idea.
However, I must say you've absolutely made your case clear that those who dare call out the mayhem and criminality of Western empire are your chosen targets for critique. Fascinating. Whether you are a troll or are simply someone managing a rather unhealthy level of grandiosity and narcissism is irrelevant to me – as the fact of the matter is that in either case you continue to essentially do the work of the trolls. The 4 D's: Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive. You're "4 for 4" today. I for one am deeply impressed.
Reply to Gary Weglarz
This is your second evidence-free accusation of trolling. I actually try to steer clear of this nonsensical riposte to legitimate and factual criticism. It literally says: I have no counterargument …so I will resort to the level of dark intellectualism and post-modern anti-argumentation and make troll accusations. You seem to want to have your own truth-hypothesis protected from scrutiny? Which means, *a fortiori*, it can only be a very weak truth-claim, tenaciously defended.
I made a long-standing claim – that Douglass and Talbot (see quotes below) – fabricated their versions of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I make very specific references that show this to be true (again, see below and the DNSA documents above). These negate the fabricated versions on the basis that RFK was the chief Cuba hawk. NOT as Talbot and Douglass claim: that they stood alone against the Unspeakable …as Douglass chose to reframe it. This can only be a deliberate fabrication: as Douglass used the same sources as me. I got them from Douglass, in fact.
To repeat my claim: when I cross referenced the sources – I found discrepancies that I have documented with fact. Stern's claim is that the ExComm tapes are as close to verbatim history in the making as you can get. And they contradict both the Douglass and Talbot accounts (see specific refutation below).
So: my claims stand backed by evidence. Which you deny by accusations of trolling. Counter-accusations of trolling are pointless: so why will you not engage with my claims? There is nothing false about them. I do not make the generalisations from them you claim I make. I claim: let's stick to the facts. The facts that are clear when you deconstruct the Unspeakable contra-factual mythology.
I went off on one before. Wrongly directed at George. So why can we not just stick to the facts: rather than try to render our opinions uncensorable? Only weak opinion: strongly defended needs censorship of the facts. At least provide a counter-argument rather than reach defensively to appeals to authority? That is weak – if not non-existent – argumentation and a weak appeal to logical fallacy. I strongly refute your pathetic claims of trolling as weak automatic defensiveness of a position you seemingly cannot defend. Which is what I have had to contend with for years since I began to point out that Douglass did not write a sacred text – he made a demonstrably false mythology …particularly around the Cuban Missile Crisis. As the ExComm tapes show. That is if you read the transcripts (excerpted below) rather than *a priori* censor them. That is petty-authoritarianism that basically says I am right and the only counter is ad hom. Which is rather weak and pathetic, if you do not mind me saying so? The claims stand and the evidence is clear.
@All in this thread – try to avoid accusations of trolling unless there is considerable evidence – beyond mere differences of opinion.
Admin – To be clear, I've never accused BigB of "being a troll, " just pointing out that he is routinely – "posting like one." Anyone who has followed this site for as long as I have is certainly aware of this state of affairs. It is nothing new.
I find BigB's demeaning and/or bullying tactics directed toward those who disagree with him (be they authors or fellow commenters) to be quite in line with the trolling manual Ed Snowden released. ("The 4 D's: Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive.") Some of us, I at least, have grown tired of such nonsense.
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Personally I could care less whether BigB is a troll or not, I just think in the name of basic human decency that he should stop posting like one.
Everything I posted here is factual. Most of it copied verbatim from the primary record; with links where necessary. If you want to respond: respond directly. The primary record is not the Holy Grail. It needs contextualising: which can be discussed.
I have never tried to shut down the conversation: merely expand it. Douglass' and Talbot's version of the 'the Brothers versus the Rest' – the Unspeakable – does not match the historic record. For which I have provided more than adequate references.
The article above claims that Northwoods was never implemented. Insofar as it stands: that is true. It is not the whole truth though: as Operation Mongoose did proceed and was instrumental in precipitating the CMC (see comment to George above).
I showed that the brothers – far from being deceived – where instrumental in the planning of Operation Mongoose from start to finish. This is made clear in the primary record. The 'Thirteen Days' version of the CMC is not only highly innacurate: it is actually a dangerous distortion of the truth. For reasons stated above: had RFK had his way and the invasion gone ahead – there would have been a nuclear exchange.
You can believe what you want. All I have been trying to establish is a re-appraisal of the CMC without the falsifications of the Thirteen Days narrative construction (it was edited by a speech writer FFS!) Once this has gone: we can assess the facts as they stand.
Rather than engage: you seem to want to close any discussion down and keep your cognitive biases intact. What is wrong with fact, Gary? And why can you not handle it? Who in fact is resorting to Deny; Disrupt; Degrade Deceive?
The facts speak for themselves. If they are allowed. This ad hom or pseudo ad hom is not the way to get to the fact. They still need interpreting in the light of current knowledge. Much of which did not come to light until 1992 or later. What is wrong with re-appraising history? It is not re-writing it: it is keeping it current. Presumably you prefer the Douglass/Talbot 'Thirteen Days' revision? You certainly do not want it subjected to factual analysis. Where does that get us?
For the last time: I'm really tired of this post-modern vilification technique. If you can't dispute the fact: dispute the character of the person who relies on the fact. It's bullshit. I have adequately referenced everything I have posted here. It is all a matter of public record. Public record you have equal access to. There should be no disputation of fact. We can dispute its contextual interpretation: but not the fact.
The real issue here is why do you choose alternative facts? And then attempt to '4D' disrupt? You have not engaged with a single reference I have made. You dispute my motives: that is all. Why will you not engage with the facts referenced? The truth of the matters of Operation Mongoose precipitating the CMC has been well established by the DNSA archives and face-to-face meetings between the surviving protagonists. As was stated at the Havana Conference: the world came "this close" during the CMC (imagine my thumb and forefinger pressed tightly together). Thirteen Days is a dangerous deceit compared to the truth. Are we not even going to discuss this? Apparently not. To even mention it is '4D' deception. Actually, it is fact. But what the hell? Opinions are sacred: facts a mere inconvenience. There are always alternative facts to rely on.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/conference.htm
Not to disagree, but would it not be fair to say tho that you interpret the facts in line with your own preconceptions, as indeed do those who oppose you?
The data is ambiguous. Often capable of many readings. To say you cite the sources is not the same as claiming the sources prove your certitude?
Perhaps some give or take on both sides is needed.
Admin please close this entire fucking mad house down as it's literally infested by mad people!
No wonder you lot got thrown off Comment is free, you're all flipped in the head
Take my advice go seek medical help, and stop your self harming anger and rage!
I'm out, thought I'd give this site the benefit of dought, but no just another mad conspiracy place for nutters
Please ban me, so that i know there's no point in ever coming back, just in case I'm ever tempted
Reply to crispy
Thanks for the advice. You spelled 'doubt' wrong.
Sorry but we don't ban people – even when they ask us to.
Hohoho, I knew it wouldn't take long to get rid of 'Crispy' no-name, no-brain and not a single fucking constructive intelligent or intellectual thing to say, whilst trolling. On yer' bike crispy no-name, no brain > you'll be back in some other disguise, I'm sure, but it won't be in your own name, unlike Dilyana Gaytandzhieva & Myself ! Because you are a fucking huge coward that cannot face or refute FACTS !!! You tosspot with wee wimpy big mouth and no TESTICLES.
Before you depart, FYI, you fucking dumb arrogant cheeky cnut, I was a Transport Manger on the Isle of Wight, in the early 80's AND I'm was so far ahead of David Icke, from Ryde, way back then, whilst he was still keeping Goal and kicking balls around for fools like you, crispy, who was probably not even born back then, still sperm in yer' father's underwear. It was then, watching my seafront apartment go up in flames, with my vinyl collection inside, due to another nutty Englander similar to yourself, that I decided that the average Englishman & GCHQ employee, like you, is so fucking dumb & poorly educated, with disinformation & brainwash built into your education system & MSM, that I may as well go and spy on the rest of the World in due course, standing on Ventnor sea-wall, in a place now named, 'The Spy-Glass Inn' 🙂 ironically 😉 . However, after being head-hunted to work for B.P. , I could not resist investigating & building my knowledge of the scientific connectivity between corporations & the Deep State History Of The National Security State, before my UK departure at the end of 1990 >>> coz', I already knew (unlike Trump who landed in Chapter 11) what Soros was gonna' do to the pound and what HAARP potential could do !
You are so thick & cheeky, your only future is with your ass held higher than your brain, head in sand, being fucked over as slave to the MIC and their version of "The History of the National Security State", not gore Vidal's or Julian Assange's. And very soon in courts of Law, you will find yourself on the …WRONG SIDE of HISTORY, you dumbfuk >>>
on yer' bike & get peddling!!!
I know i shouldn't and i did promise i wouldn't but its just to irresistible
I claim my £10,you are Walter Mitty,😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 😅😅😅😅😅😤😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Sorry Admin for that, but its like walking past a slightly open door and a glimpse of something so mad and insane is in sight that you just can't resist it was
I'm sure " Tim" gets it!
There is plenty of dought here as in doughty.
Apologies for the rough treatment of the both illiterate & very very young lad, George: it just seemed pointless allowing 'him' to continuously spout crap and trying to turn this site into the 'Beano': his methods were obvious to all from the outset. Clearly he got the message that he was out of his depth, discussing things beyond his knowledge, like…
Lieutenant Pigeon (brain) – Mouldy old Dough, springs to mind 🙂
You perfectly summed it as the Beano,well done Walter,wink,wink😉😉
Queenie, she's a big fucking green lizard, oh but let s has evidence of trolling, you're having a joke ain't ya!
you don't even know who Dilyana Gaytandzhieva is and you also don't have the courage that she or I have, let alone our combined knowledge, that will always transcend wankers like you, because we are meticulous in the detail of our vocational experience, scientifically and journalistically speaking, ALL way above your head & TCHÜSS 🙂
Sounds like a Russian porn star
Sounds like a fuming angry red faced spoilt little ignorant brat boy fascist troll from the 77th Brigade kiddies dept. is desperately butthurt & insulted by the reality of being called out for what he truly really is >>>
A COMPLETE COWARD,
that has never seen a dead body, let alone witnessed the actions or aftermath of Genocide or any war, for that matter, on the frontline. You'd be shot in an instant, were we at war together and nobody would ever give a damn that your life was terminated and with zero sense of guilt, likely even your mother would be relieved: only the eternal shame of your treasonous behaviours would be the remains of the day. Treasonous to the Science of Humanity, you will always remain a no-name, no -brain, so to say, a real 'thicky' and no loss to anybody, not even your section medic, mother or commander. Thick is thick, so do carry on shaming yourself, your mother and your nation, with your ridiculous lies & childish words that conform wholly with NTO1's analysis, ticking every box . . .
1) Ignorant
2) Gullible
3) Naïve
4) Indoctrinated
5) Brainwashed
6) Programmed
7) Manipulated
8) Insouciant
9) Clueless
10) Fascist
& I don't say the word FASCIST, lightly, because I've seen & faced up to fascism real close and a couple of genocides, in my life and I REALLY know what I'm talking about, unlike YOU Your mother must have been a right bitch to you, I'm sure, but that is no excuse !
Just a curious after thought, seriously: I was wondering if you happened to have grown up without a father, but with your mother, who loathed & resented you from a very early age, as she did your father ? This would explain your shameful childish behavioural patterns and your lack of care or attention to detail,
beyond any 'dought', a love drought !
Your shtick is old and stale BigB. I've watched your tired routine too long to have any further patience with your nonsense. Andre Vltchek posts regarding the observable differences between Western/American imperialism and the actions of China & Russia in the world – and you of course attack Vltchek, China & Russia ignoring global reality in the process. Renee Parsons posts on the efforts by the American political class, MSM, Hillary 'the rot' Clinton (face of the CIA) – to exclude Tulsi Gabbard's open public challenge to the U.S. war machine, and you of course attack Tulsi Gabbard – a candidate anyone with the slightest clue knows has no chance of winning the nomination, but one who offers the only public exposure most Americans will ever get to hearing some basic reality regarding our support for jihadists, our illegal immoral regime-change wars, and our support for the war in Yemen.
Predictable as can be you consistently take the very same counter-narrative CIA approved positions favored by the MSM talking heads, only under your arrogant "uber-woke" persona, as if repeating endless CIA talking points can be hidden from others with such nonsense. "Lemnitzer" the murderer of JFK, somehow orchestrating the Warren Commission and coverup? Please! Absolutely hysterical, oh, but I'm sure you "cross-referenced" it – no?
Yet evidence free you soldier on with such fact-free nonsense. But hey, by all means feel free to post some more gibberish and tell us how you and your opinions should be taken seriously, while respected researchers and independent journalists who use their own names should not.
I have now referenced three archives of facts: plus the primary archive of the ExComm tapes. You can stick your fact-free wherever you want. Where are your facts? The DNSA Cuba and Mongoose archives negate the Thirteen Days Sorenson bullshit that Talbot and Douglass rely on. Where are their facts? Anyone can look at what I have posted and appraise them for themselves. What links can they follow to establish your ad-hom analysis?
Let me see if I get this. You are referencing U.S. government archives to defend U.S. government criminality? The Warren Commission (for example) and it's associated massive file of "archives") defend a "magic bullet" while distorting the associated historical record beyond all recognition. Government archives are your "factual record?" Thanks. That clarifies things completely.
Here is a little followup on the "official record" and "facts" paradigm you seem to be so very loyal to BigB. C.J. Hopkin's just posted this. It is worth the read as it is an example of how when all is said and done "the record" is simply what is convenient to those who wield power, and doesn't necessarily bear the slightest resemblance to "reality" no matter how "official" said record may be. The notion that you are creating your very own "reality" out of some sincere examination of U.S. government records is frightening in itself, but that is your business.
https://consentfactory.org/2019/11/05/the-ministry-of-wiki-truth/
Distressing to see this starting to spiral out of control between two admirable and thought-provoking contributors, ones who surely share more attitudes than is evident on this thread.
BigB. Your naïveté is almost touching: you claim archives as truth, despite all that we know about the CIA deliberately creating false archives. Just as Orwell said: Who controls the present controls the past, controls the future. Watergate burglar Hunt admitted under oath that he had altered records to show that JFK had ordered the assassination of Diem: he did so so as to tarnish his reputation amongst Catholics. I also recall that your beloved scholar Zelikow was taken to task for doing much the same thing in the JFK archives.
Your logic is bizarre: you think Lemnitzer was part of the assassination plot. But if that were so, then how did he get away with it? Might it not require huge swathes of the military, CIA and State departments and the entire MSM to be complicit.
Iy would seem that you are flogging a dead horse on this website where we esteem the principled scholarship of decent men like Douglass, Talbot, Curtin and many many more. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour. Try and think more logically/ Which part of Eisenhower's Valedictory did you not understand?
I know I am flogging a dead horse: which is why I gave up. The DNSA archive revived my interest. You and I could have sorted this years ago with a comparative reading of Stern and Douglass side by side. The offer is still open.
The CIA did not fabricate the ExComm tapes. Let us make that perfectly clear. That is a non-argument. They probably did not even know about them. They were never meant to be made public. That RKF was the chief hawk for Cuban invasion is clear and negates the narrative construction that they were against the Unspeakable. They were part of it. End of.
This allows me to reach exactly the same conclusion that Lemnitzer and Dulles were involved. Without the whole fabricated 'turning to peace' constructivism and an overlay about the Unspeakable. There is hardly anything that distinguishes the Unspeakable in my eyes. Apart from rhetorical speech-acts and narrative constructivism. The facts posted and Stern's books speak for themselves. You do not even address the fact that Stern is selectively mis-presented. You cannot read about the ExComm version then come up with another alternative version without critical scrutiny. Not without serious criticism of the narrative made. To repeat: if RFK was the chief hawk and not the JCOS – so who were the Unspeakable.
"The [ExComm] tapes, however, contradict the book [Thirteen Days] in several fundamental ways and tell a very different story—one that is much more complex, interesting, and subtle. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the tapes actually expose Thirteen Days as not just selective or slanted history, which is the common affliction of personal diaries and memoirs, but rather as the capstone of an effort to embellish, if not manipulate, the history of the missile crisis to Robert Kennedy's perceived advantage."
"As noted earlier, Robert Kennedy was one of the most unwaveringly hawkish participants in the ExComm meetings. On October 16, the first day of the meetings, RFK suggested using the American naval base at Guantánamo to stage an incident that would justify military intervention: "You know, sink the Maine again or something."[14] He also suggested that "we should just get into it [attack Cuba] and get it over with and take our losses." On the final day of crisis meetings, October 27, RFK strenuously opposed any linkage between the Soviet missiles in Cuba and the U.S. missiles in Turkey"
" It's not just television "documentaries" that perpetuate this kind of fiction. Just this year, David Talbot, author of Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, declared that President Kennedy's "only key support [for a non-military solution] in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara."[22] Talbot claimed that RFK "matured from a knee-jerk hawk to a wise and restrained diplomat" during the ExComm meetings.[23] In fact, Robert Kennedy, along with McNamara, consistently opposed any terms involving the U.S. missiles in Turkey well into the final hours of "Black Saturday," so-called because if a deal failed to materialize, a superpower clash seemed imminent and unavoidable. Talbot's account attempts to legitimize the myths in Thirteen Days."
"Of course, Kennedy never abandoned his commitment, even after the missile crisis, to undermine the Cuban regime and get rid of Fidel Castro."
That is enough to substantiate my claim that Douglass and Talbot based their accounts on fabrication. Curtin merely repeats these claims. But I am flogging a dead horse if people will not re-appraise their metaphysicla truth-claims in the light of hard evidence. Believe what you want. Don't let facts get in the way.
https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2007/10/cmc-45th.html
Hugh O'Neill
Your take on events might be accurate but you rather miss the point; the original article simply contends that JFK was murdered by the state in a coup d'etat, which is still denied to this day. Whether he deserved to die (presumably you think so) is immaterial. By my simple logic, he couldn't have been all bad if the really really bad guys murdered him. Furthermore, such logic is also consistent with JFK's political views before his Presidency e.g. his support for post colonial leaders like Lumumba, Sukarno etc. and his views on peace e.g. "war will continue until that distant day when the conscientious objector is revered as the warrior is today. Blessed are the peace makers. May you find some in your tortured illogical mind.
Reply to Hugh O'Neill
The original article claims Northwoods was never implemented: which is only partially true. It was rejected because it was overt. Covert operations – Operation Mongoose – where carried out until 1963. They were run by the Kennedy regime as the highest priority. As I have now provided several archives to back up.
We can easily establish the facts without resort to comments about my tortured illogical mind. The actual Kennedy's have nothing to do with this. It is the invented Kennedy's that are constructions of the imagination in comtemporary minds. That is illogical, Hugh. For everything anyone contends about the imaginary Kennedy's – there is a primary historic record – that prevents the invention.
It still needs contextualising: but out and out fabrications – such as Douglass and Talbot put forward are easily refuted. Or not. The legend lives on and the facts do not. Not on this site anyway.
Quite an effort to blame the Kennedy brothers over the other power brothers, not even mentioned: John Foster Dulles US secretary of State and Allan Dulles boss and co-creator of the CIA. They had already organized coups in Iran and Guatemala, so the intent and experience were there: no need for newbie JFK. This "Cuban project" was commissioned in March 1960; JFK only became president in January 1961.
The fact that Castro thought he was going to be invaded was a key driver in reaching out to Khrushchev.
The Bay of Pigs "Invasion" happened on 17 April 1961: the Kennedy brothers would have had 3 months to prepare that as compared to the Dulles brothers over 10 years. New presidents need time to settle in…
JFK had that taping system installed only in the spring of 1962, way before the Bay of Pigs. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/white-house-tape-recordings
before = after
Brian Steere
There are terms which become used and accepted as a currency of abuse and therefore are devalued from serving any other use.
While the rational mind can engage in the showing the irrational nature of the term – that has no effect on its usage – as a polarising of identity rather than opening communication.
So regard the use of such terms as a block to communication – masking AS a communication. Telling people they are wrong does not make us any more right. Evasion and deflection of culpability seeks to push its wrongness away from itself onto others so as to regain a relative self-righteousness.
How much is nature and how much is nurture?
Self-interest can react in ways that escapes a sense of threat and thus finds ways to deflect or divert unwanted attention – while such conditioning may not be our original nature it runs upon it as an acquired nature of self-survival and adaptation to a world of loveless fear and threat.
As human beings become more self-conscious, we have learned to manufacture or engineer manipulative and manipulated behaviours, masking presentations or identities of defence that pre-emptively attack, deny or judge as the 'best defence'. In many ways the identity as a weapon and a proxy of the manipulator is another example of cat and mouse evolution of stratagems and tactics – which themselves have only a short period of usage before being mapped out and countered.
Perpetual war or subjection and control is the logical outcome of a dissociated mind set as defence against feared and therefore hated and denied truths. While the global expression of this is unthinkable in its re-enactment or recycle of guilt, hate, blame and penalty, we all have and are our own microcosm of our own versions or patterns of self-protection that stretch back to events beyond conscious memory that also acquire or inherit from family trauma, denials and exclusions. I say none of this to justify loveless behaviours but to point to a directly understandable participance in which we may meet a sense of powerlessness when our 'stuff' is triggered unexpectedly or by manipulative intent – but are in fact now in a position to notice and own and thus become able to change our part in a relational system or 'Field' that then must change – because the parts only exist 'apart' as a relational breakdown of communication.
I write in the direction of awakening self-responsibility for our consciousness of our experiencing our world rather than flagging our sense of denial, depression or despair to powers outside our control.
Yes there are differences in the US as the 'enforcement arm' of a global subjugation by all and every means – such as to leave no vector of actual opposition. The substitutions for love can seem to be many things in their passing moment but none of them are ever 'enough'. Lies multiply in seeking their own defence and must maintain darkness as the basis for their seeming sustainability – and this must demand sacrificing the light of awareness for limitation in conflict and fear or pain of loss.
Sustainability of a thought system is regarded as survival against extinction – and in rebelling against such a feared threat is given power to override all else.
Curiously I was reading an ancient Assyrian myth in which Marduk claimed this power (to override all else) from the gods as the necessary means to defeat and replace the 'Father of the gods' (Saturn as Apsu). Under many names this is an inner archetype for events that modernity cant make sense of, * and yet we re-enact the mythic archetypes beneath whatever trappings because they are the basis of narrative identity as the development of human consciousness.
* Developments in plasma physics and cosmology open perspectives that bring a new light on the mythological era – along with physics of a self-organising energy structuring at all scales of expression.
This sounds droll until you realise that the friend is automatically assuming that God would say "There is no conspiracy" i.e. the friend is automatically assuming there is no conspiracy.
Sorry – I meant to put a block quote round the first bit.
"[…] intelligence agencies, militaries, government officials, and politicians don't sometimes cooperate in covert, secretive ways."
…sometimes?
lundiel
Back here there are so many conspiracies, I can't even remember some of them and I'm sure I don't even know about many. What immediately popped into my mind was the 18 years given to Carl Beech. I don't know whether he was guilty or innocent of the charges levelled at him. I do know, however, there was a group of paedophiles connected to the Elm Guest House and there was at one time evidence which might have convicted people but too much time has passed and too many people who might have given evidence have died.
I certainly believe that there is nothing our security services like more than a paedo.
SharonM
Thank you for the book recommendation:)
Last night, I watched "The Panama Deception"(1992). It's an incredible documentary unveiling a horrible conspiracy. Here it is:
The current conspiracy against their president (jfk & Carter being the previous ones) is gloriously falling to pieces by the day. This one can not be denied or from a long time ago.
The 'whistleblower' of the Ukrainian phonecall turns out to be a CIA operative, worked with Biden and conspired with Schiff to make the anonymous allegation that would lead to impeachment and stop Trump standing for the second term.
That whistleblower, his name is public now as is his continued CIA employment, is now NOT going to testify to the Impeachment c'tee, nor is the second one; the ones who have are found to be Ukrainian quislings dressed up as US patriots.
The blowback means – Biden is the one who will have to withdraw. It means the democrat leadership and their DS wonks are fucked as well as the msm stooges who have been shoving anti – trump, russia gate crap down peoples throats from the NYT to Comedy Central.
The blowback is whooshing over the pond all the way to the top of our DS spooksters and their political minions – the tory government and Bullingdon boy.
Just in time, for us to decisively, vote them out. Even as they plan to steal the election by ballot box stuffing – a conspiracy that has been developed and deployed over the decade.
"Vote them out", good luck with that. Both of the two corporate and billionaire/trillionaire sponsored national political parties serve the same masters, and they are not the mass of individual voters. Those two parties have exclusive Media presence.
US Presidential elections are always a false binary choice. Every US President has been related to an elite, ultra wealthy, intertwined group of families. Even Barack Obama is related, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was related to Lord Stanley and the Dunham family.
Checks and Balances are a ruse. The Supreme Court only reviews an Act of Congress, signed into Law by the US President, if someone litigates a challenge through the US Court system, and even if the case gets to the Supreme Court level, then the Supreme Court is not required to review every case. The Justices, being human, can make a bad decision on bad law.
The US Constitution was crafted by the same group of people that produce the Presidents. Hardly a group of people seeking empower those below their stature.
Reply to Igor
The US can go for the indy candidate if they want.
The support being one third each.
The indy third being the target for all the billions spent in US elections.
Here in the UK there has been capture of the main opposition party by the 'ancients' for at least 50 years. Through overt and covert infiltration, by the CIA controlled Atlantists and the CIA controlled extreme 'leftists'. Causing the takeover of the Labour party by the neoliberal neocon global forces.
They are the 5+1 eyed empire.
But the British electorate have finally got the chance to make the same choice their grandparents did in 1945 (by good fortune of the hubristic NuLabInc 2015 leadership election).
1945 saw the great 'Winnie' dumped and a Atlee government elected by a massive majority that set up the NHS and other socialist policies.
2019 should see the 'Mini Winnie' being dumped a 'Modern Atlee' government being elected to SAVE the NHS and socialist democracy.
That is why the throwback aristos have engineered the December plebiscite- to minimise turnout and so increase the chances of the criminal ballot box stuffing – which worked so well in the referenda but are not so efficient in the fptp systems – except in marginals.
A grand conspiracy right now right here.
Are we as brave as that wartime generation? For the sake of our grandkids?
We will soon see.
nottheonly1
If I would be a comedian, I would probably say "Church Committee My Ass". Since I am not a comedian – at least not one I know of – I will simply state that "Only a moronic fool could think that these terror agencies stopped what they were paid for".
Now, to back that up a bit, I like to refer to this article on Global Research that – coincidentally appeared today – shines a light on the activities of these fascist agencies: "The CIA's Greatest Hits".
It will not come as a surprise that I will call anybody that still refuses to accept that the U.S. is a fascist corporate dictatorship that continues to carry the torch for Nazism one or more of the following:
And to proclaim that the U.S. has not always been a fascist nation speaks also of a deep sitting delusion. The truth however is, that with the help of some brain washing experts, the U.S. was transformed from a Plutocracy in its beginning, to a fascist dictatorship after absorbing Nazi Germany's most rabid specialists for murder, torture, assassinations, propaganda, eugenics, mind control, rocket science, structural violence dressed as bureaucracy, concentration camp design, Hitler Youth like summer camps, Autobahn, Riefenstahl like entertainment and Sauerkraut.
In other words, the U.S. has been a fascist shithole even before they dropped the two nukes on the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has only gotten worse since and to defend any of its ongoing crimes against humanity, war crimes, payrolling of terror organizations is so deranged, that one can only but conclude that, whoever is defending fascist U.S. must be a fascist him/herself.
No person with a shred of integrity, the most basic of humanity and intelligence would support this rogue and cancerous regime.
Just ponder about the fact that the American population celebrates its war criminals, allows them to run for POTUS and takes entertaining selfies with ex-POTUS war criminals.
Hell is too nice of a place for this scum of humanity. (That excludes of course those who do everything in their might to bring about change and work on dismantling the fascist wanna-be empire.)
The Epstein case deserves Being an addendum to this documentary. The forces promoting the preposterous official story must be as powerful as can be. Andrew, Clinton, et al. This is one which can be replayed before anyone forgets. And Sandy Berger stashing secret documents implicating Clinton under a construction hut? Clinton came out with a jovial explanation about Berger's absent-mindedness. So all of you absent-minded professors who have misplaced something. Look under your nearest construction hut. But not if you live in Washington. There may be no more room.
Interesting to find Berger's name pop up in Epsteins black book and his name on the manifest of the Lolita Express. He died a few years ago, claimed to be from cancer, not before Tel Aviv University gave him an honorary degree. Now what exactly would the National Security Advisor have done for Israel in the interests of the American people?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html Makes for fascinating reading.
It is not enough to know that we are vindicated because of the conspiracies that turned out to be true events , how can the system be fixed when the conspirators are actually in control .Corruption breeds more corruption and here we are ,living in such a quagmire of lies and deception .The exposé of the 9/11 event will go a long way to correct the state of affairs of the criminal acts by our own governments. Bring it on and let the fallout begin.
Reply to Guy
The only way to achieve change is for the people to act in a way that they are not directed to do.
Storm the Bastille.
Repeat 1945.
And of course there's those old chestnuts.
Belief in a God or lots of money will make you happy.