Author Topic: 11/22/21  (Read 1406 times)

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2021, 08:33:30 PM »
58 years ago today.

What do we know with absolute certainty?


That the CIA could've told the truth but they've lied for 58 years now...

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2021, 08:51:22 PM »
One of many of the fundamental differences between the two sides is that the conspiracy side - those that believe there was a large scale government conspiracy behind the murder - think "the government" has nearly unlimited power and ability.

That's not true. There are limits to government power and abilities.

But what the US intelligence agencies have done well since the times of Allan Dulles is manipulate the Press and control the "narrative". The CIA has had many epic screwups over the last few decades but what they do best is control the news media narrative.

Look at the Benghazi incident for a recent example. The news media initially focused on the State Dept consulate and the ambassador being killed and only acknowledged the CIA employees who were killed and wounded that night at a Black Site in Benghazi after House Republicans blew the cover on the CIA's role.

Granted, I don't think the news media should always blow the cover on covert ops but the Press' willingness to help intelligence agencies manage "the narratives" is troubling to me. I prefer a Press that is adversarial towards the government, not one that helps the government keep secrets or lie.

Here's another example:

L.A. Times Disowns Reporter Outed as a CIA Collaborator

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/la-times-disowns-reporter_b_5770388

The reporter failed-up and now covers national security issues for NBC News.



We recognize the limits of the government, how human beings behave, how government bureaucracies work and don't.  The political scientist Hannah Arendt, she of the famous "banality of evil" line, put it best. She said, "Oligarchy is rule by the minority, democracy is rule by the majority; bureaucracy is rule by nobody." That someone thinks these bureaucracies can be controlled for half a century to pull off and cover up the assassination is astonishing. They just can't.

The compartmentalization of government bureaucracies makes them more prone to secrecy, corruption, and cover-ups, not less.

And with the CIA specifically, those who commit crimes and corruption in the name of covert ops are usually rewarded while national security Whistleblowers get prosecuted or sent into exile.

Gina Haspel, who played a role in the CIA's torture programs and helped destroy evidence continued to be promoted until she became CIA director under Trump.

The best way to keep bureaucracies in check is Sunlight or transparency. As of today, the CIA and Pentagon have very little accountability or reason to fear Congressional oversight.

Which is very dangerous for the future of democracy in the USA...
« Last Edit: November 22, 2021, 08:54:09 PM by Jon Banks »

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2021, 09:12:46 PM »
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.

All you will ever get from somebody like "Richard Smith" is erroneously being called a contrarian (which is really a person who rejects popular opinion, so the term does not apply here) and being told that the evidence against Oswald is beyond doubt. Other LNs will simply ignore hard questions being asked or come up with utterly stupid theories to "explain" obvious problems with the evidence.

It's circular logic for most on the LN side.

Online Dan DAlimonte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2021, 09:13:23 PM »
58 years ago today.

What do we know with absolute certainty?

1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.

Hey Paul.  If the above is so, wouldn't all the files have been released by now?  From what I gather there are some which are still under wraps, so to speak.  Why?  Also, maybe someone can answer this question.  Is it true, even President Biden (just recently) decided not to release the said documents?  Why?  If LHO was guilty and acted alone? 

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3155
  • Skeptic
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2021, 09:41:52 PM »
President Biden (just recently) decided not to release the said documents?  Why?  If LHO was guilty and acted alone?
Because Joe Biden was told not to release said documents...
... just as he is always told what to do or not to do.
Does he know what is in those documents? Doubtful.
 And doubtfully cares anyway.

Offline Robert Reeves

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2021, 09:50:39 PM »
Apparently Trump knows what's remaining in the JFK files, because he chickened out of releasing them.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2021, 11:27:20 PM »
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is a fairy tale, is the fact that no LN I have ever encountered is able and/or willing to defend the questionable claims made in the narrative with solid conclusive evidence and/or arguments.

All you will ever get from somebody like "Richard Smith" is erroneously being called a contrarian (which is really a person who rejects popular opinion, so the term does not apply here) and being told that the evidence against Oswald is beyond doubt. Other LNs will simply ignore hard questions being asked or come up with utterly stupid theories to "explain" obvious problems with the evidence.

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.  In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.  They are like Inspector Clouseau.  They suspect everyone, and they suspect no one.  Why?  Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.  Just claim any fact that you don't want to accept hasn't been proven to your impossible standard of proof.  Then deny that you are claiming, even by implication, that if the evidence under discussion is suspect for some unspecified reason that you are a conspiracy theorist.  How or why the evidence is suspect is forever left to our imagination.  It just is.  Then take every discussion down the rabbit hole.  Repeat endlessly...ZZZZ. 

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2021, 11:40:32 PM »
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.  In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.  They are like Inspector Clouseau.  They suspect everyone, and they suspect no one.  Why?  Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.  Just claim any fact that you don't want to accept hasn't been proven to your impossible standard of proof.  Then deny that you are claiming, even by implication, that if the evidence under discussion is suspect for some unspecified reason that you are a conspiracy theorist.  How or why the evidence is suspect is forever left to our imagination.  It just is.  Then take every discussion down the rabbit hole.  Repeat endlessly...ZZZZ.

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.

Trust "Richard" to actually confirm what I just said and come up with the biggest cop out of them all! Basically, he is saying here that he (the official narrative) is right unless a counter narrative proves him/it wrong. It's not a surprise, though. It's just about all "Richard" has to offer. In the real world, there is no need for a counter narrative. The official narrative either stands or doesn't when scrutinized. In this case it clearly doesn't, which is exactly why the LNs fail completely to defend it.

In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.

Have you ever considered the possibility that somebody can scrutinize the official narrative, to see if it will withstand closer examination, without having any kind of theory about the conspiracy that must have existed, if the official narrative turns out to be a fairytale? Of course you haven't! Calling people CT's and contrarians is just a defense mechanism for you, designed to help you avoid having to discuss the actual evidence and the case.

Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.

To be a contrarian you need to dismiss, or disagree with, a popular opinion. That's not the case here as there is no popular opinion that supports the official narrative. For the past 58 years there has never been a majority in support of the official story. But, hey, when you disagree with "Richard" you must be a contrarian, right?  :D

You sound like a very bad prosecutor who complains to the judge that the defense is asking too many good questions.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 12:50:11 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 635
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2021, 12:27:10 AM »
Hashtag #CIAKILLEDJFK is trending on Twitter today.



Russian Trolls?  8)

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3155
  • Skeptic
Re: 11/22/21
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2021, 12:38:05 AM »
One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened. 
A private citizen can't go out and start collaring snipers 58 years later...so this proves that Oswald was the assassin?

 

Mobile View