Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Great video, Fred. Too bad Pearcy turned out to be just another conspiracy kook.
2
Let's pick out a good one (so many to choose from): Dr. Pearcy says "The Sixth Floor Museum" is a "false flag operation". A false flag? That makes no sense to me unless by "false flag" he simply means a covert operation or program. An operation run and directed by who? My understanding is that a "false flag" is an act done by one party or group in disguise that is intended to implicate a second party in the act. So a group of soldiers in disguise commit an act - massacre civilians - in order to make it look like another group of soldiers committed the crime. That is a deception, a ruse involving an act or acts. So how does this definition apply to the Museum? The Museum is pretending to be who? To blame who for what?

Okay, so the museum is simply a covert operation; forget the "false flag" nonsense. That means people like Gary Mack and others who work(ed) in the museum are or were willingly (I assume?) part of a covert operation? Agents acting on behalf of the CIA? They are lying to the public, engaged in deception. For decades. And right now. Today. As you read this. Whew.

What is his evidence for this claim? It's a pretty serious allegation. Dr. Pearcy is not simply some guy on the internet (like me; and you reading this). He's an accomplished person making public statements. Again, he's accusing the people at the Museum of being frauds, of lying about who they are. And lying about murder. Of the President. Of the United States. And his evidence is?

This is the same Dr. Pearcy who is upset that Fred posted a picture of him with his dog but is fine with accusing all sorts of people of lying for the murder of the President. Does he not see the problem here?

3
The majority of internet posters represent an impairing of conspiracy evidence rather than promotion...

Larsen's photo analysis was very good...It showed the distinct plaid pattern close up and matched it perfectly with its black and white stripes...So good, in fact, that when Larsen realized he had proven the timing for when Frazier was looking at Stanton he went back and deleted it with no protest from the members of The Education Forum...This, apparently, was OK with James Gordon's pinned "Site Behaviour" rules...Calling Larsen out on it was not...Even though that was Gordon's job...The new rules make it simpler: "Thread is now closed to replies"...

    If You are gonna name drop, present the bona fides of said individual(s). You guys from the "Nut House" just do Not understand how to present a solid position. We require Evidence here. Not  BS:
4
Dear Stormtrooper Storing,

You have a disconcerting habit of believing any eyewitness statement, no matter how implausible, that seems to suggest that the Zapruder film was altered.

Why is that?

-- Tom

   There are eyewitnesses and then there are eyewitnesses. Dan Rather assumed the Walter Cronkite CBS National Prime Time NEWS Anchor position. I'd say that is an extremely strong eyewitness. And, Rather's World Wide eyewitness descriptions of the Zapruder Film were done the very day he viewed the film. Nothing "disconcerting" here.
5
An snippet about Maxwell Taylor and JFK and Vietnam (taken from Maxwell Taylor’s Cold War: From Berlin to Vietnam by Ingo Trauschweizer)



I don't see how JFK could campaign on defending South Vietnam, make public speeches about the importance for the US that the South not fall, endorse the overthrow of Diem and, among other things, deepen US moral commitment; and then after the election turn around and simply leave, walk away? How is that possible? Moreover as we know once the South fell all of the region then followed. JFK told Cronkite right before the assassination that he believed in the "domino theory." So Saigon falls, Laos falls, Cambodia falls. And JFK acts, as Taylor says, a "voluntary loser"?
6
Dear Stormtrooper Storing,

The strap goes almost straight down because Euins was quite short.

You can see a shiny spot (not the really bright spot which is the sunlight shining through) on the camera's leather case which is lying semi-suspended behind him on the pedestal.

The thing in his lap may very well be his "pork pie" hat.

-- Tom

        There are far better/clearer copies of this image. But, you obviously have Not searched them out. What new? There are also images of Euins holding his hat. It is NOT a Pork Pie Hat.  Which ALL goes back to what I frequently mention in connection to Yourself. Your JFK Assassination Foundational Knowledge is extremely limited. You have a computer, but consistently refuse to put in the time to expand your JFK Assassination foundation. In short, You Are Lazy.     
7
...the authorities avoided identifying the cop who stopped Oswald in the Lobby...

They "avoided" it because they knew it never happened. No cop ever "stopped Oswald in the Lobby" of the Depository. Oswald was stopped only one time in the TSBD by a policeman on 11/22, and that was by Marrion Baker, of course, and that occurred in the second-floor lunchroom. That fact was verified for all time by Roy Truly (and by Baker too).

More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html#DMN-11-23-63
8
I don't doubt you can find disciples within the kook-sphere. You are preaching to the choir. Nobody outside that realm is ever going to take you seriously. Why the hell would they?

Because I left David Von Pein unable to answer why the authorities allowed Lovelady to not answer why he never told the original 1963 investigation he saw Oswald leave through the front door?...The HSCA stayed miles away from that lest they provoke investigation in to it that asked why the authorities avoided identifying the cop who stopped Oswald in the Lobby...You can tell when you've scored good points when the opposition changes the subject from the material and the evidence to yourself and reduces the thread to name-calling...

When Bart Kamp was let back on The Education Forum he did not open with his claim to fame the Prayer Man theory...If the Prayer Man theory were valid it would break the back of the Warren Commission and solve the assassination...So you would think the researcher whose name was connected to it the most would stand behind such an important discovery on his return to the forum...The reason Kamp posted Oswald In Finland as his return to The Education Forum is because he doesn't believe in the Prayer Man theory...He knows I've proven it is BS...This is what the clique does...Under "Replies are closed to further comments" Andrew Iler the membership stays quiet and helps Kamp along with his shedding of the Prayer Man snake skin and using Oswald In Finland as a distraction from Kamp's now infamous self-destruction with a garbage theory...Kamp has the personal servants Iler and DiEugenio to help him along and the membership stays quiet lest it also be punished for challenging these site-dominating bullies...This is how they roll...They quietly drop their embarrassing bogus theory while keeping the vicious censorship and banning of the guy who disproved it...They have warm memories of James Gordon and his intellectual assassination of those who disproved them...
9

I posted a couple times at EF-JFKA how JFK authorized the anti-Diem coup, despite being told it would likely result in the Diems' assassinations, and the complete lack of Kennedy Administration efforts to extract the Diems. Indeed, CIA inquiries about extracting the Diems were ignored---Lodge appeared to not want a government-in-exile situation, preferring the Diems dead.

There is a recorded conversation between Ambassador Lodge and JFK, in which Lodge lays this out, and many other warnings.

JFK responds, in part, by calling Madame Nhu a "bitch" and a lesbian (she appears to have been heterosexual).

The tapes and documentation indicate that while the Kennedy administration did not explicitly order an execution, Washington officials and JFK were well aware that a military coup could result in the assassination of Diệm and his brother.

There were different standards at play in 1963, and JFK tried to have Castro assassinated several times, and  authorized the Diems' assassinations. That is part of the historical record.

People forget that JFK was deeply instrumental to the founding of South Vietnam, and he committed 16,000 military personnel to SV to help it survive against communist terrorism---and JFK himself called it terrorism. Cardinal Spellman was an influential figure as well, and close to the Kennedy family.

JFK may have wanted to modestly reduce US presence in SV in late 1963, but he was not going to abandon SV.

To be fair, the record shows that JFK did not want Diem killed, and that he was stunned and dismayed when he learned of Diem's murder.

JFK's authorization of the coup was one of the worst mistakes of his presidency and proved to be disastrous for the war effort, which had been going well from mid-1962 until the day the coup was launched (as we know from released North Vietnamese sources). The North Vietnamese could not believe that the Americans had been so foolish as to allow Diem to be overthrown. The Communists rightly viewed Diem's removal as a huge gift to the Communist cause in South Vietnam. 

As bad as JFK's decision to authorize the anti-Diem coup was, his decision to approve Averell Harriman's ridiculous, fatally flawed "neutrality" deal for a coalition government in Laos in 1962 was arguably even worse. Eisenhower correctly warned JFK that Laos was the most crucial battleground in Southeast Asia. Eisenhower even told JFK he should deploy U.S. troops to secure Laos, since Laos was the key gateway for Communist supplies going into South Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese ignored Harriman's deal from the get-go and never withdrew their troops from Laos, just as Ambassador Nolting and General Harkins warned Harriman would happen. Thanks to Harriman's pathetic deal, the North Vietnamese were able to expand the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos, enabling them to increase the flow of supplies to the Viet Cong in South Vietnam (and later to North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam). In fact, U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam began referring to the Ho Chi Minh Trail as the Averell Harriman Memorial Highway.     




10
Professor Pearcy's Bad History Lesson

Professor Thomas Pearcy is the supposed CIA whistleblower who allegedly saw CIA documents which indicated the agency fooled G. Robert Blakey of the HSCA. He gave a speech last week in Indiana and here is an analysis of his speech -- and a full transcript. He didn't sound like a professor of history -- he just sounded like a JFK conspiracy theorist. Why would anybody take him seriously?

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/professor-pearcy-s-bad-history-lesson

"JFK conspiracy theorist" is a much kinder word than my preferred term which is "kook", but you're much more polite than I am, Fred.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10