Infiltration of this forum

[Ron Ecker]

4 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

What about before 9/11? What about when Bush was just a candidate running for president?

The accepted, mainstream histories have Bush and crew studiously ignoring warnings of terrorist attack in 2001 - like the set-up for a punchline.  What do you see pre-9/11 other than the wish for vendetta on Iraq?  The PNAC papers?

When Bush was a candidate, I don't think anyone knew that the PNAC or neocons would take over the government when he became president, though I suppose the writing was on the wall when Dick Cheney appointed himself as the candidate for vice president. It was a virtual coup d'etat as soon as the dolt Bush took office.

 

[Paul Brancato]

'Leftist political agenda under the guise of JFK assassination research'

Lance - thanks for your direct and honest response on this thread. You helped clarify why I started it, and you have attempted to turn it on it's head. For most of the past 54 years JFK assassination research has been led by what you would call 'leftists' for the very obvious and clear reason that JFK was what you would call a leftist. I don't particularly like the left/right simplistic view of our political landscape, and it's increasingly lost any meaning it might have. I prefer to think of myself as humanist. I believe that government should be of, by, and for the people. As what you might call a leftist I have been pissed off since I was old enough to think for myself at what we call the military industrial congressional complex. I have been equally disappointed with a free press that has for the most part failed to tell the truth, and this particular beef I mostly aim at the so called liberal wing of the media, who failed when it mattered most when the best and brightest leaders we had were destroyed. And yes, I do wish for the world that the Kennedys and King envisioned, without apologies.

So, let me be clear why I started this post. I'll refer back to my statement that I/we continue to be angry at the forces that killed our leaders, and continue to seek justice. I made an assumption 54 years ago that JFK was killed because he was fighting against the MICC. There is more than enough proof for anyone with a clear eye and a willingness to read that JFK was at war with the Joint Chiefs and with the CIA and FBI. His actions and words prove it beyond a doubt. However, there are many people posting here now that apparently don't see that, haven't really looked at JFK's life or policies. To call the long history of JFK research, and of the authors that post here or have posted here in the past as having some kind of leftist agenda is laughable and worse. The question is what is the agenda of the posters here who don't view JFK RFK and MLK as heroes? Lance Payette, for one example, won't even consider reading one of the best researchers, John Newman, who Mr. DiEugenio rightly points out is a libertarian, because he doesn't like what Newman has to say about the historical Jesus. How can I possibly give two cents about Lance's contribution here if his mind is so closed? It's not a matter of whether someone voted for Trump. This post is not about Trump or his supporters, it's about why people are here reading and posting. It's not the decades of research by people that loved JFK and tried to figure out who killed him and why who have an agenda. Look in the mirror. 

If the newer posters here who agree with Lance in whole or part care, they might do us all a favor and read the well researched books by the few authors who are still posting here. You know who they are and what they have written. Or you could read any of dozens of other important books by people who cared enough to write them, and whose agenda was clearly to find the truth, not to further a leftist agenda. What crap Lance. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

It was a virtual coup d'etat as soon as the dolt Bush took office.

LOL, I never thought of it that way. A virtual coup d'etat indeed!

[James DiEugenio]

Nicely put Paul.

But let me add one more point.  It's not just that many good researchers were not liberals, or that Kennedy himself was liberal as he defined it. 

But also consider this.  As time goes on, and we get more declassified files and more recent books about him, Richard Nixon looks worse and worse. His foreign policy was simply dreadful in so many ways. Consider just these: Cambodia, Chile, the 300,00 person near genocide in Bangladesh carried out by Pakistan.

With all that in mind, I will be the first to tell you that Watergate was a devious, and masterfully disguised takedown of Nixon by the CIA.  And whatever the record says about how bad RMN was--and its pretty bad today--that should not have been allowed to happen.  Shadow governments should not be allowed to pick and choose the president. But that is what happened in Watergate.  And Probe Magazine devoted a whole issue to that subject where I made the comparison between the two removals, one by assassination, one by political subterfuge.  

[Paul Brancato]

Michael Clark - My apologies. It was Michael Walton who said 11/22 changed the course of history. 

I'm not entirely sure why you feel attacked. I've asked a larger question in recent posts about the idea that somehow people here have a leftist agenda. I explained why I think that having a leftist, if we must call it that, point of view is not surprising in the context of the history of the opposition to the government's findings. I still dont see anything particularly wrong with asking where someone is coming from. 

I am sorry that we ended up so polarized. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

[Guest]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:05 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Lance forgive me, but I think I'd like to go back and take something from what was for me your identifying thread. Wow Lance, isn't your talking here about your family's connections to United Fruit and the Dulles's kind of like going to a Black Heritage site, and bragging about the number of slaves  your Great Grand Daddy owned?   After telling us of his family connections, Lance said.

"Dang, you've figured me out.  well, my masters have not yet explained exactly how, and I'm a bit fuzzy myself as to exactly what my mission is, but I am confident they know what they are doing."

No Lance , you told us, you gave yourself up. I think maybe you're being used as a "dangle", but nobody here's sucking. The use of "masters" is curious spy talk.Though I could understand it could have been used as the only word to mean "boss" by laborers in  the UFC in say, Honduras

Hey counselor, maybe you should recuse yourself from this site. . heh heh----Just kidding man. I've got no problem with your Trump thing.(fiscal sanity?, are you sane!)  But your family affiliation to UFC and JF Dulles is funny.

 

I truly hope for your sake that your entire post was tongue-in-cheek.

Yes, my deep "family connection" to the UFC is that my father, who died in 1971, once made an offhand comment that my middle name, Baker, is in honor of Lorenzo Dow Baker, who brought the first bananas to America and was one of the founders of the UFC.  I am now trying to establish the precise connection on Ancestry.com, and it's proving damn difficult because half the family was born in Jamaica.  Oh, and I do eat the occasional banana, I must confess.  My deep "family connection" to the Dulles clan is that my maternal grandmother, who died in 1967, was, via marriage, Richer Than Anyone You Know, traveled in rarified social circles, and (I was told) on social-acquaintance terms with the Trumans, the Dulleses, and other luminaries.  If she was a CIA operative, the CIA must have had an inordinate interest in country club gossip.  I believe the term "master," that you apparently find suspicious, is Rather Common in occult literature, spy novels, and wherever loonies congregate; I used it precisely because it would resonate with the loonies here.

Yes, I can easily see how all this would cast dark suspicion on a small-town Arizona lawyer in 2017.  I may as well just confess:  I am indeed a "dangle," whatever the F a dangle is, and a very poorly compensated dangle at that.  The tentacles of the CIA are everywhere, I tell ya.  In fact, you're probably a dangle without even realizing it.  In fact, I'm now almost sure you're a dangle.  Your cleverly disguised post is what we in the trade refer to as reverse-dangling.  My post here, of course, is but an example of triple-dog-dare counter-dangling.

What you regard as my "identifying thread" and "giving myself up," I would submit, is actually evidence of the mindset of the tinfoil-hat conspiracy community that causes it to be regarded as pretty much insane by those with at least one foot in reality.

[Guest]

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 9:25 AM, Paul Brancato said:

'Leftist political agenda under the guise of JFK assassination research'

Lance - thanks for your direct and honest response on this thread. You helped clarify why I started it, and you have attempted to turn it on it's head. For most of the past 54 years JFK assassination research has been led by what you would call 'leftists' for the very obvious and clear reason that JFK was what you would call a leftist. I don't particularly like the left/right simplistic view of our political landscape, and it's increasingly lost any meaning it might have. I prefer to think of myself as humanist. I believe that government should be of, by, and for the people. As what you might call a leftist I have been pissed off since I was old enough to think for myself at what we call the military industrial congressional complex. I have been equally disappointed with a free press that has for the most part failed to tell the truth, and this particular beef I mostly aim at the so called liberal wing of the media, who failed when it mattered most when the best and brightest leaders we had were destroyed. And yes, I do wish for the world that the Kennedys and King envisioned, without apologies.

No one could possibly have more disdain for the military-industrial complex than I do.  My biggest disappointment with Obama was that he immediately turned into Dubya Jr. insofar as the insane "military actions" favored by the MIC were concerned.  I was fool enough to think he might actually put an end to them.  The MIC does indeed control the country, if not the world.  Eisenhower's parting warning has come to fruition, in spades.  Neither Obama, nor Hillary, nor Bernie, nor The Donald could lay a glove on the MIC.  That's just the reality.  I simply accept it.  Obama, Hillary or Bernie might not have given the MIC everything it wanted, whereas The Donald will, but they did and would have played ball because they have no other alternative.  I'd like to think if I were President the military budget would be reduced to about $1.2 million, but that's just a fantasy on my part; I'd play ball too because I'd have no other alternative.  As everyone who is elected finds out, the President is almost as much a figurehead as the Queen.

It is unfortunate that "The Left" and "The Right" are now monolithic entities, each of which comprises a weird diversity of positions on economic, social, moral and religious issues.  I happen to be solidly in The Left in regard to issues such as the MIC and solidly in The Right - indeed, The Extreme Far Right - on certain other issues like abortion.  I and most people who voted for Trump did so because (1) to the maximum extent realistically possible, he is an egomaniacal political outsider who might at least attempt to buck some of the craziness of the current system, (2) he holds or at least supports positions that are the same as ours on social and religious issues, and (3) we believed that Hillary Clinton was, personally, a fraud, pretty much the personification of evil, and an unthinkable President.

I refuse to be pigeonholed, to allow The Left or The Right to define who I am.  You, if I may say so, seem to be a card-carrying lemming.  I revel in being equally irritating to The Left and The Right.

I am interested in following the JFK assassination only as far as the best evidence leads.  The MIC and a host of other agencies, organizations and individuals were unquestionably delighted by his assassination - but it doesn't mean they killed him.  The best evidence I have seen suggests LHO killed him for a combination of reasons unique to LHO, including the fact that he thought he would be a hero to at least some of the elements that were in fact delighted by the assassination.  I have no obligation to support wild conspiracy theories that invest the assassination with cosmic significance just because this is consistent with what The Left would prefer than I do to support Planned Parenthood because this is what The Left would prefer.  I do indeed see within the conspiracy community (as others have) a tendency to view the assassination through the lens of the current political situation - the election of someone like Trump "must have" its roots in the assassination, things "would have" been so much better today if the assassination had not occurred, the same Dark Forces that "must have been" responsible for the assassination "must be" in control today.  I do indeed believe that the forces Eisenhower warned against were and are in control - not necessarily in any concerted, conspiratorial way, but certainly not in a good way - but this does not mean there is some direct link to the assassination.  The best evidence suggests to me there is not.

[Cliff Varnell]

12 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

The Extreme Far Right - on certain other issues like abortion...

 

The best evidence I have seen suggests LHO killed him

 

So you're one of those "small government" guys who believe a woman's uterus is property of the State?

Lance, take a second to glance down upon your right shoulder-line then slowly raise your right arm and wave your right hand.  If you keep your eye on your shirt along your shoulder-line you'll observe it INDENT as you raise your arm.

That is a fact.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, a location too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

That is a fact.

The evidence of 2 shooters is literally right under your nose.

Lone Nutters and Trumpers have one thing in common -- a strict adherence to "alternative facts," i.e. lies.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Brancato]

Where's my 'like' button? Thanks Cliff.

Lance - what about the gutting of public education? How about the EPA? Like having Bannon in the White House?

I'm waiting for people like you who voted for Trump to admit they regret it.

Is your definition of me as a 'lemming' referring to how I vote? Or do you view anyone who votes Democratic as a lemming leftist? Do you view anyone who has looked at the evidence, including the direct and simple example that Cliff bings up (every time he sees an opening) as lemmings? Quite seriously, no one who has studied the evidence believes that Oswald killed JFK. Unfortunately for you, once that is obvious there is no other place to go but conspiracy. As you say, the MIC were rewarded that day. If you see this, and you read the evidence of Oswald's innocence, which abounds, how can you weigh Oswald's supposed desire for fame against such a preponderance of evidence of conspiracy such as motive, means, and opportunity and come out in favor of the WC findings? Do yourself a favor, a big one, and read something. How about staring with Meagher's Accessories After the Fact? Try Talbot's the Devil's Chessboard and add it up. Alan Dulles, J Edgar Hoover - are they to be trusted to find the truth? 

What confuses me about you is your statements in favor of a similar political world view as many of us, which somehow gets waylaid by illogic combined with, or influenced by moralistic attitudes no doubt stemming from your religious beliefs.  I wouldn't bother to respond at all if I didn't sense some intelligence. But I also sense extreme rigidity. I don't believe you slowly came to a conclusion about Oswald. That's where your statements fail. It's a tell. No one looking honestly at the evidence can reasonably come to the conclusion you espouse slowly. Evidence against your point of view has mounted steadily for over 50 years. I don't believe you've read any of it. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

So you're one of those "small government" guys who believe a woman's uterus is property of the State?

No, I'm one of those "large God" guys who believes abortion is murder.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Where's my 'like' button?

Lance - what about the gutting of public education? How about the EPA? Like having Bannon in the White House?

The gutting of federal involvement in public education would delight me.  Cutting back the EPA to a level of sane environmental regulation would delight me.  Bannon in the White House at this point doesn't trouble me.  We'll see what the country looks like in two years.  If Trump does or at least tries to do what he said he would, it will delight me.  All I have to do to keep my perspective is remind myself, "The alternative was Hillary."

I'm waiting for people like you who voted for Trump to admit they regret it. Is your definition of me as a 'lemming' referring to how I vote? Or do you view anyone who votes Democratic as a lemming leftist?

If and when I regret it, I will cheerfully admit it.  You should have seen me cheerfully admitting I regretted voting for Obama, which I did almost daily.  What I am calling a lemming is one who adopts in knee-jerk fashion the entire political, economic, social and moral agenda of The Left or The Right as though qualifying as a card-carrying member of either one were more important than thinking about the individual issues.

Do you view anyone who has looked at the evidence, even the direct and simple one that Cliff bings up (every time he sees an opening) as lemmings? Quite seriously, no one who has studied the evidence believes that Oswald killed JFK.

Of course they do!  This is an old tactic:  "If you don't believe the same way I do, then by definition you have not studied the evidence."

Unfortunately for you, once that is obvious there is no other place to go but conspiracy. As you say, the MIC were rewarded that day. If you see this, and you read the evidence of Oswald's innocence, which abounds, how can you weigh Oswald's supposed desire for fame against such a preponderance of evidence of conspiracy such as motive, means, and opportunity and come out in favor of the WC findings? Do yourself a favor, a big one, and read something. How about staring with Meagher's Accessory After the Fact? Try Talbot's the Devil's Chessboard and add it up. Alan Dulles, J Edgar Hoover - are they to be trusted to find the truth?

I have read Meagher (and, I will remind folks for the umpteenth time, Walt Brown's entire Chronology, line by line.  How many here can say that?).  I don't think Dulles or Hoover could be trusted to tell the truth, even in regard to the JFK assassination.  But their reasons for not telling the truth do not inevitably equate to, "Oswald didn't act alone."  I think it is highly likely there was a cover-up "conspiracy" because (1) the lack of oversight of this former defector to the USSR who was involved in pro-Castro activities would revealed the intelligence community to be the asleep-at-the-wheel buffoons they were, and (2) there was some real concern about the consequences if the public believed LHO was acting on behalf of the USSR or Castro.

What confuses me about you is your statements in favor of a similar political world view as many of us, which somehow gets waylaid by illogic combined with, or influenced by moralistic attitudes no doubt stemming from your religious beliefs.  I wouldn't bother to respond at all if I didn't sense some intelligence. But I also sense extreme rigidity. I don't believe you slowly came to a conclusion about Oswald. That's where your statements fail. It's a tell. No one looking honestly at the evidence can reasonably come to the conclusion you espouse slowly. Evidence against your point of view has mounted steadily for over 50 years. I don't believe you've read any of it.

Oh, but I did come slowly.  I was a rabid conspiracy theorist when Lifton's and Groden's (and others') works first came out.  I lapped them up.  35 years as a lawyer, dealing with evidence and logical argumentation, not to mention 35 years of involvement in other areas of Weirdness where conspiracy thinking abounds, gradually led me to the point of believing (not with the level of fanaticism we typically see here, I'll admit) that there is about an 85% chance the WC was basically correct and perhaps a 15% chance a limited conspiracy of the sort Larry Hancock postulates is correct.  It is only quite recently that I would have placed such a high percentage on the Lone Nut theory, but I find the evidence and logic simply too compelling to ignore.  I would say I am extremely familiar with the evidence and theories - certainly more so than 99.9% of Americans.  Moreover, the evidence and theories with which I am most familiar are the conspiracy evidence and theories.  It is only fairly recently that I have really dived into the Lone Nut literature.

Again, to say that no one can study the evidence "honestly" and come to a Lone Nut conclusion is just nonsense.  By your rules, you get to define what constitutes "evidence," who has studied it "adequately," who has studied it "honestly," and who has reasoned "logically" - all beginning with the convenient axiom that "If you accept the Lone Nut theory, then by definition you cannot have studied the evidence adequately or honestly or reasoned logically."  I'm not playing Lawyer One-Upsmanship here, but I have made my living for 35 years trashing other lawyers' evidence and arguments with a damn good batting average, so you really need to find a different approach as to why my perspective on the assassination is faulty.

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Very lawyerly Lance, as you so state. I'd love for you to defend the resurrection of Jesus in a court of law. Obviously you are willing to make a leap of faith without evidence. You do believe that faith trumps good works? Wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. I'm disappointed that someone with your obvious intelligence could support Trump's appointments, or the single bullet theory.

You have no idea whether I'm a lemming, by your definition. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

No, I'm one of those "large God" guys who believes abortion is murder.

What part of "separation of Church and State" eludes you?

If you want to live in a country governed by a State Religion you should move out of this one.

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 1/31/2017 at 5:13 AM, Lance Payette said:

How does one "infiltrate" a public forum?  In other weirdness forums on which I participate, the prevailing mode of paranoia is to suspect those who disagree with our pet theories of being "disinformation agents" planted by the Government, the Illuminati or whatever other real or imaginary group feeds our fantasies.  If I were inclined toward paranoia, this would be my suspicion within the JFK research community as well.  Some of the theories that seem to be taken seriously are so laughably, demonstrably preposterous that it would be very easy to suspect they exist only to sow confusion.  Since I am increasingly convinced the Lone Nut theory is correct or at least substantially correct, however, it's hard for me to see what purpose would be served by a disinformation agent promoting wild and crazy conspiracy theories.  Ergo, my conclusion is that what I see here - can I say this, so long as I don't point any fingers or name any names? - is (1) a fair degree of genuine mental illness on the part of some, and (2) the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many.  I enjoy the occasional thread that slides off into some side topic like UFOs simply because most of the conspiracy threads are boring and silly, and the political threads are so predictably leftist they serve no purpose except to reinforce the prevailing paranoia.

I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected.  I am 67, highly educated, financially secure, and stupid enough to have voted for Kerry once and Obama twice.  To repeat, I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected.  Waking up in the morning to learn he had been elected, after an entire night of truly strange dreams that he had been elected, is one of the genuinely unforgettable moments of my life - really far more stunning to me than the JFK assassination, although I remember the moment I learned of it as well.  I applaud every step Trump has taken in his effort to restore our country to moral and fiscal sanity.  If Hillary had been elected (as I fully anticipated), however, I would have simply shrugged and said "Well, the inmates have spoken.  Four more years of sliding into the cesspool, but I'll just have to lay low and deal with it."  But now we see how the amalgamation of extreme special interests that constitutes the left reacts when things don't go their way; the country is bitterly divided, and perhaps on the brink of a genuine civil war, but the bitterness is almost entirely on the part of the losers who have seen their fantasies evaporate via the elective process and can't deal with it.  Good Lord, people, get over your childish fantasies of what might have been achieved if JFK had lived and your equally childish fantasies that the Dark Forces responsible for his assassination have reached their zenith in the election of Trump.  Hillary Clinton is about as much in the tradition of JFK as Pee-wee Herman (is he still around?).  JFK is no more relevant today than Warren Harding.  The Donald is the new sheriff in town.  Deal with it or go "infiltrate" Canada or France.

Lance, Whew! I'm going to leave the JFK assassination and your view of the past and current political realities out. In your response to Paul, I don't find any of your political views intolerable. (of course to you, I'm a murderer for advocating a woman's choice)

 

The "left wing agenda" as you put it, at the time, was confined to one thread that was critical of the election and Trump, largely made up of Doug Caddy's links until Paul put out a second thread. People are free to go to whatever threads here they please. Some topics can be of interest to some, and there might be theories here I  find hogwash.  Generally the  outrageous theories are held up to some scrutiny.

I probably wouldn't have used Paul's words "infiltrator", Because I have noticed contributing members to this site who are conservatives and Republicans. Yet still with your charge of " left wing agenda" and my joke at your expense, no number of people flocked to your defense. The reason for that is not political. But it is the prevailing snippy tone, you seem to have no choice about offering. Just in these last posts.

(1)" a fair degree of genuine mental illness on the part of some," and

(2)"simply because most of the conspiracy threads are boring and silly, and the political threads are so predictably leftist they serve no purpose except to reinforce the prevailing paranoia."

3)"childish fantasies that the Dark Forces responsible for his assassination have reached their zenith in the election of Trump."

And then I read

"In other weirdness forums on which I participate," it's sounds like you're a groupie participant in "weirdness" forums. Why would you do that? My first thought is that you're bored and would derive satisfaction from trolling sites and  starting arguments with weird,incapable people in a debate you'd be confident you could win. But that's just  my guess based on my limited experiences with you. I recently saw you over in "JFK F facts". What's your game here, Lance? What do you want from this forum?

 

It would appear  you're hoping to get a following through condescending behavior.  If they could only see you now back at the old Jesuit Seminary or Theological School (was it one of those?)at 67, Trolling sites of people you obviously think are inferior to get in snarky little exchanges to satisfy your ego, bloviating endlessly about yourself and your opinions and establishing right at the onset your feeling of superiority and demeaning the members of this forum. I'm confused Lance, despite your Christian self righteousness, why should we see you as anything other than a self absorbed, garden variety bully?

 

[Paul Brancato]

Lance -.when you said gutting of public education and diminishing the EPA ( like allowing coal companies to dump their waste in rivers, and open up drilling and mining on 30 national parks) were ok by you, and Steve Bannon in the WH doesn't worry you, you lost me completely. Using the word lemming to describe me bothers me much less, especially as it makes your view of the so called left as being willing to follow their leaders off a cliff (lemmings) patently absurd. All of this makes your views on the JFK assassination worthless to me. I will not be engaging with you any longer here.

Cliff - don't you love it when the right accuses the left of intolerance? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are out the window in the face of religious fundamentalism. And since their beliefs are based on Faith, there is no arguing. 

Kirk - you were writing your response at the same time as I was. I agree with your central question - I'll paraphrase - What's your game Lance? Why are you here?

Edited February 10, 2017 by Paul Brancato