|
Post by auntym on Aug 6, 2013 14:51:40 GMT -6
Twinkies are back [/quote] YAY...YAY...YAY... i cheered when they brought the original coke back too...
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 6, 2013 14:53:01 GMT -6
I think the documentary is making the claim that Hickey "accidentally" fired his weapon because he wasn't familiar with it and that he accidentally hit ;ennedy in the head because that just happened to be the direction the gun was pointing at the time. In other words, a total freak accident...or a deliberate act made to look like a freak accident. Not that I'm defending the documentary or anything. I don't believe this conspiracy theory any more than I believe the one about the limo driver turning aroung and shooting Kennedy in the head with a hangun. Both of those scenarios would have been visible to hundreds of people, many of whom had video and/or still cameras. Things out in the open like that would be extremely risky (if done deliberately) and extremely difficult to hide. I'm still interested in seeing the documentary though. I like to hear new ideas about topics like this.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 14:56:59 GMT -6
I can see why some people would be interested in the latest conspiracy theory regarding one of the most profound tragedies in American culture, but some of us quite frankly are sick and tired of the endless parade of charlatans who profit from sowing seeds of uncertainty. They make a living spewing crap, and are empowered to do so by a public that doesn't know any better. To add salt to the wound, the truth about Kennedy's death has been accessible to the American public since September, 1964. One crazy theory after another has been spawned over the years...fortunes have been made from absolute falsehood. It's obscene.
Steve probably recalls that a persistent belief in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK didn't really take off until the early 1970s, in the wake of Watergate. In the immediate years following his death, less than 35% of Americans polled believed in a conspiracy to assassinate the president. In 1990, that number had increased exponentially to top 80%. What was to blame...new evidence? No, as a matter of fact, no new evidence beyond what the Warren Commission had access to has emerged. Distrust in the government, turbulent times in a decidedly anti-war America during the Vietnam years, and conspiracy theorists are the cause behind the persistent belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Unfortunately for conspiracy buffs, there is no evidence to support that belief.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 6, 2013 15:04:39 GMT -6
i don't buy hickey's story either...i can't see how his story is even possible... i believe JFK's murder was an inside job and there was more than one shooter and johnson knew about it... i was in the 10th grade when JFK was assassinated, and the 8th grade when he was elected... i helped answer phones in his election headquarters... i always believed Kennedy was one of the best and i still do... considering he was only in office for 3 yrs. i think he did a hell of a job... and let us all remember bewildered's opinion are his own and the author of whoever he happened to get his source from... we will never know what really happened... i believe the warren commission report lied...
|
|
niki
New Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by niki on Aug 6, 2013 15:19:02 GMT -6
I find anything that leads to a positive discussion, even if a bit heated, is interesting whether I put stock in it or not...I can always learn from it, which is my main reason for being here.
If a thread is of no interest to you, skip it. Making others feel small is bad karma ;-)
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 15:35:33 GMT -6
Fair enough, but if there isn't room for dissenting opinions, why bother posting anything at all? People foster opinions about things whether we like it or not, and it's an age-old occupation to attack opposing points of view. I imagine that the first lawyers made this exercise popular back in the day...whenever "the day" actually was. Personally I agree with you, Niki: discussion and civil debate is the catalyst for learning. When that is stifled, growth is impossible. There's an old legal aphorism that goes, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 16:34:08 GMT -6
Isn't that what Khrushchev did with a shoe?
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 16:43:57 GMT -6
Isn't that what Khrushchev did with a shoe? According to his grand-daughter and his interpreter, he did. The photo that was circulating about that incident was faked, however. The actual shoe-banging incident took place three weeks after the doctored photo was taken (the shot that was doctored was taken September 23, 1960; the actual incident happened much later).
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 6, 2013 17:53:11 GMT -6
Isn't that what Khrushchev did with a shoe? from what i remember (there is a video of this somewhere) he pounded his fist or shoe on the table and declared he would bury us... found it... Khruschev- We will bury you
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 6, 2013 18:07:06 GMT -6
Fair enough, but if there isn't room for dissenting opinions, why bother posting anything at all? People foster opinions about things whether we like it or not, and it's an age-old occupation to attack opposing points of view. I imagine that the first lawyers made this exercise popular back in the day...whenever "the day" actually was. Personally I agree with you, Niki: discussion and civil debate is the catalyst for learning. When that is stifled, growth is impossible. There's an old legal aphorism that goes, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." there is room for discussion ... i love discussion... but you always come across as the expert and last word on any discussion... and everyone else's opinion is wrong... i don't think that is fair... i try really hard not to get into these discussions with anyone, but, in this case i felt i had to say something bewildered you have always been and always will be one of my favorite posters... and i hate being on opposing sides with you... but, i guess that will happen from time to time...
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 6, 2013 21:22:21 GMT -6
I like hearing Bewildered's ideas even if I don't agree with all of them. It's nice being able to have an in-depth discussion like we've been having on this topic. I'm not necessarily saying that he's wrong either. I used to be just as vocal an opponant to the JFK conspiracy theories as he is now. I still believe Oswald was the assassin too. The only questions I have are whether there were other shooters or if there were other people aiding him. I have seen enough evidence to suggest that either of those theories is a possibility. Other people have too which is why these conspiracy theories persist and continue to grow and multiply. Back in the 60s it was a different time and a different place. The people had not yet learned to distrust the government the way they do now and the reason they do now is because the government lies about everything. It's become routine for them to lie and that is one of the main reasons why I do not accept the official story. They lie about everything else...why would they be honest about this? Especially if those same people who are telling the lies had something to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 22:55:32 GMT -6
I'm not really sure it's accurate to characterize us as possessing "opposing" viewpoints; I think the difference in our opinions lies primarily in how we formulate our views, and if any conflict exists, we likely add it in ourselves afterward. I harbor a similar distrust of the government, sky - the very evidence I wish to use to formulate my opinions convicts the government of lying its butt off time and again. There is plenty empirical evidence of that: the COINTELPRO treason of the FBI, the MKULTRA human rights abuses of the CIA, the horrors of the Tuskeegee Experiment, Operation Paperclip (smuggling Nazi criminals into the US for "scientific research"), and so on. The Pentagon Papers, whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and even Snowden...they all allow us to see just how deep the lies go. I draw the line at the evidence, however. I need evidence in order to believe something. I try my best to keep my personal bias from interfering with an objective analysis. I'm not always successful at it, but I do try. This personality quirk is why I'm a science major.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 23:39:14 GMT -6
We'll never know, Niki, since his murderer never had the opportunity to reveal his motives. And, what truly was the motives of the guy who shot Oswald?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 13:00:39 GMT -6
I've made a couple of posts that didn't materialize..one was for Auntie. Auntie I always look forward to the rare times you join in and share your opinion. It doesn't matter who you oppose or that you oppose but that you want to also be heard and your opinion is as important as ANY here. Remember...when it comes to conspiracies...UFO's...big feet...or most paranormal stuff all that any of us have is either educated guess or psychic guess or plain old opinion. No one has the inside track no matter how they may believe so. We have bits and pieces and parts but no one has the whole and I'm sure that is for a reason. So...don't hold back...I love it when you join in.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 7, 2013 14:27:37 GMT -6
We'll never know, Niki, since his murderer never had the opportunity to reveal his motives. And, what truly was the motives of the guy who shot Oswald? Ruby was both investigated by and testified before the Warren Commission. The commission couldn't find evidence indicating that Ruby was "connected" to organized crime - his association was minimal at best, which makes sense since he owned businesses in the Dallas area (he was actually closer to some Dallas Police officers than he was with so-called mobsters). The testimony of associates indicate that after the assassination, he became distraught and his behavior was increasingly erratic. It's possible to suspect a conspiracy in virtually anything you look at. Contrary to the allegations of critics, the Warren Commission did indeed include the possibility of a conspiracy in their investigative process, but beyond Oswald's sick mind, they found insufficient evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president. If by stating the results of an exhaustive investigation conducted by qualified experts and sharing that I can find no evidence to dispute their findings I am seen as "opposing" the opinions of others, then so be it. As I've stated earlier in this thread, I'm always open to evidence. Suspicions, personal opinions, and strongly-held beliefs don't constitute evidence, however. This will likely fall upon deaf ears, but imagine, if you will, that the police departments and courts in this country operated with a burden of proof similar to those who just "know" something without providing evidence for it. Is that justice?
|
|
|
Post by lois on Aug 7, 2013 21:43:15 GMT -6
I was in New York during the Cuban crisis . My husband could not leave ship. I was in a strange place alone... and scared. I'm glad Kennedy was in office and his brother by his side. To see those ships turn around and go home was a blessing. I was three months pregnant at the time. No TV. I would go to my neighbors across the hall to find out what was happening every hour..
|
|
|
Post by lois on Aug 7, 2013 21:54:47 GMT -6
And yes I know all about Joseph Kennedy and how he got his money. It was never an important factor to me. He was not the President .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 9:31:43 GMT -6
The forum is for opinions. We all have them...and when it comes to things controversial there are roads less traveled and the ones we are presented with. Do we believe the government that has shown itself to be less than forthcoming on so many incidents? Do we not? Do we believe the reports that a single shooter couldn't have done the damage to the presidents body that was found..or do we believe all we are told? That is what makes us individuals..we have choices. We have opinions and it's always interesting hearing someones even if it differs from my own. I think..stating an opinion can be managed without making others feel small or stupid because a handy way with words can do just that..much ado about very little. Because we believe something does not mean it's any more 'right' that the opinion of another. Granted..someone can come on here and say..I'm sick to death of all this conspiracy krap...but then why read it in the first place or ruin the enjoyment of others who are 'into' it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 9:57:36 GMT -6
. . . . .but imagine, if you will, that the police departments and courts in this country operated with a burden of proof similar to those who just "know" something without providing evidence for it. Is that justice? No, thank you, . (I left out the statement of "deaf ears"; judgemental? redundant? More than likely, depending on whose ears, but hurtful to hear, none-the-less ?) But in this Great Country (yes, I'd rather live here than any where else ) we can have a trial by jury, feel "vindicated" by a juries' decision, and then hear personal opinions from the jurors after the trial. (Sorry, talking about the recent Zimmerman case, which has nothing to do with Kennedy, but I am referencing Bewildered's comment about the burden of proof, and the human/spiritual feelings of just "knowing"). Investigation or not, I have always left room in my heart for Mr. Ruby to be emotionally distraught. I'm sure there were (many) people who condoned and applauded what he did. One of the things that happens after someone dies, whether it be a Kennedy, a Monroe, or an Oswald, is. . . . you know, their "image" now belongs to the public. ********************************************************************************** I'll tell you all, in referencing the Kennedy case on this thread, and the other thread here on TEOR, I was appalled with the speculation ( outside of TEOR), that Kennedy's murder had anything to do with UFO disclosure/or lack of it. Why was I appalled? Why, someone could come forward and say that Oswald was instructed to do it, by aliens or mind control, and maybe that would be a total lie, but that idea would be planted in the minds of the public. And that, folks, somehow becomes part of 'our' " knowing". Sounds a little insane, doesn't it? ********************************************************************************** I even LIKE Steve's outburst against all of us about the stupidity of this thread . (He may not like my memory) But I recall a similar outburst when people were discussing the United States' ability to cause an earthquake on the ocean floor. Good ol' Steve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 10:25:30 GMT -6
And yes I know all about Joseph Kennedy and how he got his money. It was never an important factor to me. He was not the President . It's important to Me, to know where I come from, who clothed me, gave me sustenance, who helped mold my opinions of the world, and where this clothing and sustenance came from. Many daddys preach "Do As I Say, But Not As I Do". The choice is mine. All these kids, growing up without knowing their daddy (or momma), can have the cavalier attitude that it is never an important factor. That is their right. What, if anything, did this generation learn, from the obsessive search for Obama's birth certificate? I'll shut up now (and hide).
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 8, 2013 10:41:25 GMT -6
I'm not really sure it's accurate to characterize us as possessing "opposing" viewpoints; really... i'd say its exactly that way... you believe the warren commission report and i don't...
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 8, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -6
I've made a couple of posts that didn't materialize..one was for Auntie. Auntie I always look forward to the rare times you join in and share your opinion. It doesn't matter who you oppose or that you oppose but that you want to also be heard and your opinion is as important as ANY here. Remember...when it comes to conspiracies...UFO's...big feet...or most paranormal stuff all that any of us have is either educated guess or psychic guess or plain old opinion. No one has the inside track no matter how they may believe so. We have bits and pieces and parts but no one has the whole and I'm sure that is for a reason. So...don't hold back...I love it when you join in. thanks jo...
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 8, 2013 12:42:45 GMT -6
jcurio: Excellent commentary! You made what I consider to be astute observations, and referencing the Zimmerman case is very relevant to this thread, I think. The public knows a great deal more about the circumstances and facts surrounding Kennedy's tragic murder than what transpired in the death of Trayvon Martin, and despite this difference, public opinion weighs heavily in similar directions when it comes to both of them. My e-mail inbox was flooded with "Justice for Trayvon" messages in the weeks following the verdict in the Zimmerman trial. After reading a handful of them, I started sending them to the trash since they all seemed to follow the same pattern: we know Zimmerman is guilty, injustice was done, petition Washington on behalf of Trayvon and his family, etc. I don't know the first thing about the evidence in the Zimmerman case...do they? All I have to go by are popular media reports, and I've been digging around town long enough to understand just how terrible the popular media's "honesty record" truly is. The "truth" is meaningless to a media that only cares about advertising money, which they make by attracting the most readers/viewers/listeners. The more effective the headline, the better; the more emotions that are stirred, the better. They don't care *how* people react, they just want them to react. It's vulgar. I don't care for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law as I feel it leaves far too much room for abuse, but my opinion about it doesn't affect how I think about the Zimmerman case. Since I haven't had the opportunity to review the evidence that was presented at the trial, I suspend any judgment. I will say that for a jury to find Zimmerman innocent in the face of a media firestorm that convicted him long before he went to trial, the evidence that the prosecution presented must not have established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The "deaf ears" statement relates to how people will form their beliefs regardless of the fact that they know little to nothing about what they are forming a belief about. When what they are doing is pointed out, they become angry and defensive instead of pausing to consider their own behavior. For a person to emphatically state someone is lying when there is actually no evidence they are lying is exactly the same as convicting someone of guilt before they set foot in a courtroom. Sorry that you don't like it, jcurio, but America is infamous for the Court of Public Opinion. Little things like evidence and investigation are unimportant when the opinion-maker isn't personally affected...yet if you were to put that same person in cuffs, they would be thankful for a system that holds to high standards of proof, one that considers them innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 8, 2013 17:05:16 GMT -6
We're not trying to convict somebody in a court of law here. We are just trying to find out the truth and in order to do that we must first form an opinion to determine whether or not the truth is worth pursuing. If people believe what the government or the news media says than they won't look any further and the truth, whatever it may be will stay hidden forever. The news media or the government isn't going to reveal it. They both have their own agendas they are trying to promote so their version of the truth will be whatever they want people to think the truth is. I looked at some of the evidence in the Martin/Zimmerman case...enough that I was able to form my own opinion about it but not enough to say with 100% certainty that it is correct. The same thing could probably be said about what I now about the Kennedy assassination. I know enough to form an opinion...but not enough to conclusively prove it one way or another...and that's after 50 years of people investigating, doing research, dissecting the videos and analyzing the photos and other evidence. After all of that people still don't agree on what happened and that was a case where the entire incident was captured on film! Will the Zimmerman case turn out the same way? Will people still be arguing about it fifty years from now? Since the news media did such a pathetic job of reporting the facts I would guess it probably will be.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 8, 2013 19:10:26 GMT -6
Since this thread was originally about whether or not Agent George Hickey may have shot the president I decided to do a little bit of research and hare some info here. Here is a description of the incident written by Agent Hickey in his official report. www.jfk-online.com/hickey.htmlJust prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by 679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again. Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last.
At the end of the last report I reached to the bottom of the car and picked up the AR 15 rifle, cocked and loaded it, and turned to the rear. At this point the cars were passing under the over-pass and as a result we had left the scene of the shooting. I kept the AR 15 rifle ready as we proceeded at a high rate of speed to the hospital.
From Hickey's description it sounds like he didn't pick up the AR 15until after Kennedy had already been killed and the cars were on their way under the railroad overpass. Here is a photo of the follow-up car with the agents riding in it. Hickey was seated in the left rear seat... Supposedly there are photos showing that Hickey is still seated while Kennedy is being shot which would disprove the documentary's theory but I have not yet been able to find any on this stupid internet.
|
|
|
Post by lois on Aug 8, 2013 21:57:56 GMT -6
Oh gawd. Not again. The ballistics in this future documentary proposes in you post alone is totally absurd if your description is accurate about the program. How could Hickey fire at Oswald who was proven to be located behind the entire motorcade positioned in the Dallas School book depository building several floors up? Hickey according to your description would have been between Oswald and Kennedy. Kennedy in a car in front and Oswald far behind the whole motorcade! Kennedy and Oswald in relation to Hickey were approximately 180 degrees out!!!!!! Was the secret Service man holding his gun backwards too? LOL. I hope if there is any justice....Hickey's surviving family sues the hell out of the producers as a good public service! Based on your description, this documentary is already *bleep* and has no basis in reality. Why doesn't this *bleep* 'retired Australian detective' (why is he retired?) just say I killed Kennedy (sic), that claim would just as plausible. The fact that I was in California in Mrs Brinks third grade class at the time when it was announced over the school PA system sure would be of no consequence to the conspiracy makers. How sick. I will never forget that day and the days that followed. The only other time I felt the same was when Challenger blew up. The discussions about the Kennedy admin. is interesting, but this new documentary? I thought you all were smarter than this please. That's all I want to say about that. Steve Thanks Steve. It was my first thoughts when I read the thread. He was behind Kennedy's car and he would of had to turn back behind himself to fire at Oswald
|
|
|
Post by lois on Aug 8, 2013 22:18:10 GMT -6
There was just too many witnesses to the fact that a shot was fired from the grassy knolls . I believed them at the time and I still do today. When Jackie crawled upon the car to pick up part of her husbands head. That shot we not fired from behind. People on the opposite side of the street seen the flame from the gun being fired. There was just too many witnesses standing there watching the entire assassination. People who lived ordinary lives. You cannot make me believe they were all lair's. One man a witness even said he heard the shot behind him and actually heard the bullet pass next to his ear. Chalk him up as a lair also. I would believe these folks more than any government investigation. Also the way Kennedy's head was throne back could never of come from Oswald gun..His bullet came out of Kennedy's throat. If he fired more rounds like it was suppose of happen I do not believe they hit Kennedy. My opinion only I know but a hundred people near the grassy knoll would say this is how it happen. They are probably all dead by now.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 9, 2013 1:48:40 GMT -6
We're not trying to convict somebody in a court of law here. We are just trying to find out the truth and in order to do that we must first form an opinion to determine whether or not the truth is worth pursuing. If people believe what the government or the news media says than they won't look any further and the truth, whatever it may be will stay hidden forever. The news media or the government isn't going to reveal it. They both have their own agendas they are trying to promote so their version of the truth will be whatever they want people to think the truth is. I looked at some of the evidence in the Martin/Zimmerman case...enough that I was able to form my own opinion about it but not enough to say with 100% certainty that it is correct. The same thing could probably be said about what I now about the Kennedy assassination. I know enough to form an opinion...but not enough to conclusively prove it one way or another...and that's after 50 years of people investigating, doing research, dissecting the videos and analyzing the photos and other evidence. After all of that people still don't agree on what happened and that was a case where the entire incident was captured on film! Will the Zimmerman case turn out the same way? Will people still be arguing about it fifty years from now? Since the news media did such a pathetic job of reporting the facts I would guess it probably will be. By painting mistrust with a broad brush, sky, you sabotage any effort you wish to make in regard to piecing together the truth about anything...whether it's how you misplaced your phone, who robbed a bank, or what happened in a presidential assassination. Bias is what I'm referring to, and it works both ways: blind trust or stubborn suspicion both achieve the same result. Each and every incident must be judged by its own merits, not cast into a mold so that it resembles everything else. There's no question people working within the government have lied to the public, but when you refer to the "government," understand that you're not referring to a singular entity with one mind or purpose. The "government" is comprised of scores of individuals organized into separate bureaucracies, each with its own budget, goals, and people in charge. Some are elected to office, others are appointed by those who are elected, and many, many more are hired through a traditional application/interview/selection process. As someone who worked within the "government" on both the state and federal levels at one time or another during my adult life, I can tell you that it's not as monolithic nor as nefarious as you seem to think it is. I don't have the space nor the time to launch into a dissertation here, but I think the following statement is enough: there's good and there's not so good with plenty of gray areas in-between. Just like life itself, in fact. I've worked with a Medicare fraud investigator who was passionate about her job...and I've taken part in the fight we had to wage against a Legislative Budget Board just to keep enough cash flow to allow the investigations and prosecutions to continue. There are people who have to work days every week - in agencies like DMVs and Health Departments - without pay just to continue providing essential services to the public. The people who work in those agencies are overworked, the agencies themselves are understaffed, and while their agency budget is being slashed by those in both state and the national legislative bodies, it is funneled to line the pockets of the ones who are making bombs and killing the sons and daughters of not just America, but countless other countries across the globe. I mention these things because there is a human element to the "government," something that is often overlooked when people make statements like "the government did this" or "the government did that." I've done my share of legwork to help build legal cases against some very unsavory individuals, so I'm familiar with general investigative protocol as it applies to evidence. Through picking the brains of friends in law enforcement and working alongside attorneys, I've come to appreciate solid investigative process and procedure. There's a reason why hearsay isn't submissible as evidence - it is neither reliable nor verifiable. If you develop a hypothesis without utilizing a null hypothesis, then you will always achieve a biased and therefore unverifiable result: the same result cannot be achieved by someone who does not share your particular bias. If you feel that some of the allegations of conspiracy theorists have merit, who am I to say that you're wrong? It's rather unfortunate that I have yet to see a shred of evidence that supports the dozens of conspiracy theories I have encountered over time. I don't share the same bias. I neither trust nor distrust "the government," because the government is very large and is not really one entity. I tend to be more suspicious of the military and paramilitary parts of the government (DoD, DHS, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc), because information security is a vital part of how they operate (called "enterprise" in federal jargon). Misinformation is part of their tactics and toolbox. Official DoD statements rarely, if ever, share accurate information freely. This extends to the Office of the President as well, since the prez is the "boss" of every alphabet agency I mentioned earlier save one: the CIA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 9:48:48 GMT -6
I think we all understand that 'the government' refers to the public face of the government that we all are subject to. The government that hides the truth from the public..the government that 'speaks' for the public often without a clue of what the public wants or disregarding it completely. Since..individuals are so pesky to name..'the government' in this case is an understood metaphor for all of the blooming idiots who run the country with much collateral damage and little real information. You know what he means Bewildered We all do. Conspiracies are intriguing. It's already been pretty much accepted that there was more than one gunman. And anyone from the Vice President to disorganized mobsters to the CIA could have engineered Kennedy's death for some oblique agenda. Watch the documentary..and see what the guy has to say. Since he has been investigating this for quite awhile..it's worth a look see. I still find it intriguing that the very guy he's talking about was a replacement just before Dallas when another agent died suddenly. And I don't even like conspiracies. ) AND apparently there are people who still enjoy beating this around the bush as...here we are. The aliens must have done it.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 9, 2013 18:25:30 GMT -6
I think we all understand that 'the government' refers to the public face of the government that we all are subject to. The government that hides the truth from the public..the government that 'speaks' for the public often without a clue of what the public wants or disregarding it completely. Since..individuals are so pesky to name..'the government' in this case is an understood metaphor for all of the blooming idiots who run the country with much collateral damage and little real information. You know what he means Bewildered We all do. Conspiracies are intriguing. It's already been pretty much accepted that there was more than one gunman. And anyone from the Vice President to disorganized mobsters to the CIA could have engineered Kennedy's death for some oblique agenda. Watch the documentary..and see what the guy has to say. Since he has been investigating this for quite awhile..it's worth a look see. I still find it intriguing that the very guy he's talking about was a replacement just before Dallas when another agent died suddenly. And I don't even like conspiracies. ) AND apparently there are people who still enjoy beating this around the bush as...here we are. The aliens must have done it. Out of the three branches of the American government, two are most certainly involved in deception on a regular basis. The Executive Branch is a behemoth, a massive, convoluted web of bureaucracies within bureaucracies. Within the President's direct control are the entire law enforcement arm of the federal government, as well as the military and intelligence-gathering apparatus. The Executive bureaucracy exists symbiotically with the Congress, and there's no better example of that than the Department of Defense, arguably the most powerful and influential Cabinet department. The Congress is a bad joke, nothing more than an organized crime club of parasites, leeches, and proxies for wealthy power-brokers. I find it ironic that most of what goes on in the halls of power is out in the open for all to see, jo. They have little reason to hide what they do, because the American public accepts it as normal and necessary. Few Americans question why we spend more on bombs than thirty other nations combined, or why fifteen million homes sit vacant while over four million Americans are homeless. The biggest and most disturbing problems are literally under our noses... I understand the appeal of conspiracies, but I rarely find any that actually have evidence to support their claims. The irony of it all? The worst things are happening in plain sight.
|
|