Jump to content
The Education Forum

Has This Research Made You Paranoid?


Nic Martin

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if anyone here has a bit more paranoia than they did before they began researching. I know I'm definitely more observant now, and more skeptical, but with the risk involved by getting too close - does it make you paranoid? Do you question the motives of ordinary people?

I've noticed that I pick up on liars more easily in real life, and my mind works better at puzzle solving, and I pick up on things that seem to be unimportant details.

Hi Nic,

I can relate a personal experience, albeit a minor one, about paranoia in this case. I emailed my brother a series of photos and explanations about certain parties I believe were involved, some of whom are still alive. He didn't respond. The next time I saw him, he said "don't email me that kind of stuff again". He was serious. Some members of my family think I'll be paid a visit by men in black someday.

There are those still alive today who strike fear into into others who even consider talking. It would be nice to ask Antonio Veciana and Alfredo Duran, and to have answered truthfully, who they still fear after all these years. I am sometimes reluctant to post certain names on forums(one in particular), and not for fear of lawsuits.

Bernardo De Torres

Now I've done it.

RJS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do question the motives of people a lot more, which is what caused me to start this topic.

People can certainly surprise you. This reminds me of the guy whose wife ran away with his best friend. He didn't know it was his best friend till his wife ran away with him.

Ron

Ron-

Your humor was not lost on me. That's funny B)

Greg

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can relate a personal experience, albeit a minor one, about paranoia in this case. I emailed my brother a series of photos and explanations about certain parties I believe were involved, some of whom are still alive. He didn't respond. The next time I saw him, he said "don't email me that kind of stuff again". He was serious. Some members of my family think I'll be paid a visit by men in black someday.

My friends and family take a similar view of my interest in the JFK assassination. They argue that: (1) there was no conspiracy and therefore I am wasting my time; or (2) there was a conspiracy and if I able to find out anything useful I will put myself in danger.

My defence is that (1) I am unlikely to find out conclusive evidence that indicates that a person or group was responsible for the assassination; or (2) if I did have any success in this the people concerned would now be dead or too old to do me any harm.

I also argue that as soon as I find out anything of importance I always post in straight away on my website and on the Forum. Therefore, by killing me they only draw attention to what I have discovered.

However, I do not point out to my wife and daughter there is a flaw in my argument. What happens if my speculations are wrong. If they then kill me, they put everybody on the wrong track. For example, was that the motive for killing Johnny Roselli?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Greetings Nic:  ;)

First of all, IMO, you are hardly a SILLY 17yo who reads too many books. I find you to be articulate, even elegant in your posting and quite capable of holding your own in any discussion on this forum. It is people like you that people like me are trying to reach out to with factual and accurate information about the JFK assassination. Such is what drives and motivates me as much as my actual research for it is you and those like you who are going to have to pick up the torch when I am no longer able to work for whatever reason.

  As for myself, Hell, if Al Carrier and Tosh are correct, which BTW, I think they are, I was not even supposed to survive Laos much less remain free to be a proverbial thorn in the side of the powers that be. I have been stabbed, shot, blown up, imprisoned, tortured, harrassed, and have been under constant attack ever since I GOT INVOLVED in the JFK affair. Am I paranoid? Hell no! Do I watch my back? You bet! If it wasn't for a certain kind of Insurance Policy I took out some time ago, and certain Markers I hold I doubt I would be on this forum at this point in time.

  Remember, IT'S NOT PARANOIA when they really are out to get you.  ;)

  Warmest Regards:

Well, thank you for the many compliments, I appreciate it. B)

The most I've gone through because of the JFK research is being ruthlessly teased by my peers, and thought of as insane by my family - the odd thing is, even if the government WAS out to get me ( hahah, imagine that ), they'd find that nobody off of this forum and two friends takes me seriously anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion kind of reminds me of the hypochondriac's tombstone in the Key West cemetery with the engraving:  "See, I told you I was sick."

Or how about the Garrison witness who insisted on fingerprinting his daughter to verify it was really her?

Great response Tim!

Or as George Castanza said on Seinfeld: It's not a lie if you believe it.

Paul Troglia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thank you for the many compliments, I appreciate it. ;)

The most I've gone through because of the JFK research is being ruthlessly teased by my peers, and thought of as insane by my family - the odd thing is, even if the government WAS out to get me ( hahah, imagine that ), they'd find that nobody off of this forum and two friends takes me seriously anyway.

Nic:

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

I think the ONLY reason we are not recieving more overt concideration by these LUNATICS is that since 9/11 they have bigger fish to fry as it were. However, with some 15 acres of Cray Supercomputers, and the situation as fluid as it is, it is only a matter of time that they will most certainly get around to everyone involved in this case in one respect or another.

There is no need to get paranoid over this, but is is also important not to become too complacent simply because you might think yourself relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

I would council you to be prepared for a certain amount of harassment which usually begins with denigration and escalates as you get closer to the raw nerve as it were. You will know when that happens by the [FUNNY] and [uNUSUAL] events that start to occure as you progress in your investigation.

Nic, if you have not figured it out yet and I think you may very well have; the JFK case represents the [NEXUS] around which the current world situation revolves, and since you represent the next generation of researchers, it is my belief that the powers that be will stop at nothing to prevent you and others like you from evolving into the kind of thinkers which may pose a threat to their agenda which is and has always been nothing short of [WORLD] domination, and the concept that people are more important than property; cooperation is superior to competition, and the highest state humans may aspire to is community, not empire, is antithema and deadly to that agenda.

[it Riles Them To Believe That You Percieve The Web They Weave, and Keep On Thinking Free.] The Moody Blues.

Respectfully:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thank you for the many compliments, I appreciate it. ;)

The most I've gone through because of the JFK research is being ruthlessly teased by my peers, and thought of as insane by my family - the odd thing is, even if the government WAS out to get me ( hahah, imagine that ), they'd find that nobody off of this forum and two friends takes me seriously anyway.

Nic:

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

I think the ONLY reason we are not recieving more overt concideration by these LUNATICS is that since 9/11 they have bigger fish to fry as it were. However, with some 15 acres of Cray Supercomputers, and the situation as fluid as it is, it is only a matter of time that they will most certainly get around to everyone involved in this case in one respect or another.

There is no need to get paranoid over this, but is is also important not to become too complacent simply because you might think yourself relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

I would council you to be prepared for a certain amount of harassment which usually begins with denigration and escalates as you get closer to the raw nerve as it were. You will know when that happens by the [FUNNY] and [uNUSUAL] events that start to occure as you progress in your investigation.

Nic, if you have not figured it out yet and I think you may very well have; the JFK case represents the [NEXUS] around which the current world situation revolves, and since you represent the next generation of researchers, it is my belief that the powers that be will stop at nothing to prevent you and others like you from evolving into the kind of thinkers which may pose a threat to their agenda which is and has always been nothing short of [WORLD] domination, and the concept that people are more important than property; cooperation is superior to competition, and the highest state humans may aspire to is community, not empire, is antithema and deadly to that agenda.

[it Riles Them To Believe That You Percieve The Web They Weave, and Keep On Thinking Free.] The Moody Blues.

Respectfully:

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

Might I inquire just whay you mean by "research?" So far, as I read much of the input on this site, "research" means watching assassination movies (JFK, Executive Action, Day of the Jackal. Line of Fire), listening to a lot of other speculators and hypothesizers, quoting rock bands, and generally spreading sanctimony and pretension. There is much available that has substance--contemporaneous interviews with witnesses, published in 26 volumes of testimony taken in 1964 plus information available under the Freedom of Information Act, but very few of you are any sort of "researcher." Too bad, considering the weight you give this event.

PT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh thats far too dark and doomy.

The Cray supercomputers xxxxx through this stuff, but no

analyst spends much time on this particular forum,

we are really just old crusty blowhards,

spouting back theories that thirty years of underground

and alternative journalism has spawned.

Even John with his exhaustive database, biographies on SPARTACUS

and Tosh, a minor participant, or James Richards, a

crusading photo historian,

I don't think all of us together rate a raised eyebrow.

We go on a list and nothing happens.

This is just what it is -- a speculative educational history forum

and the only reasons the great ECHELON and FT MEADE

computers pick us up is because it is all overseas.

We ain't spit on the windshield at the agencies, a remote pinprick of public criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

Might I inquire just whay you mean by "research?" So far, as I read much of the input on this site, "research" means watching assassination movies (JFK, Executive Action, Day of the Jackal. Line of Fire), listening to a lot of other speculators and hypothesizers, quoting rock bands, and generally spreading sanctimony and pretension. There is much available that has substance--contemporaneous interviews with witnesses, published in 26 volumes of testimony taken in 1964 plus information available under the Freedom of Information Act, but very few of you are any sort of "researcher." Too bad, considering the weight you give this event.

PT

Greetings:

My defination of [RESEARCH] is exactly the same defination that is contained in my Websters 2nd Edition_ergo_1. Scholarly [OR] Scientific Investigation [OR] Inquiry._2. Close and Careful [sTUDY].

Question?

Are you suggesting that such does not occure on this forum?

Respectfully: ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I had a discussion about this a couple of months ago. I started to relate to her about some of the things that have happened to other people, and she already knew about the assassination witness death wish. She was all worried about how often I come to this site and to Lancer and how much I read on this subject. It took me quite a while to ease her mind. I have the same outlook on this that Nic does. I'm just reading and posting a few of my ideas that only the people on this site see, I'm not trying to publish a book or go on TV to spread the word about what we as a group think happened on 11-22-63. So I don't think the powers that be would be interested in a minor player like myself. They want the heavy hitters. The ones that file FOIA lawsuits and publish books and talk about this on radio and TV..... But I still watch my back. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

Might I inquire just whay you mean by "research?" So far, as I read much of the input on this site, "research" means watching assassination movies (JFK, Executive Action, Day of the Jackal. Line of Fire), listening to a lot of other speculators and hypothesizers, quoting rock bands, and generally spreading sanctimony and pretension. There is much available that has substance--contemporaneous interviews with witnesses, published in 26 volumes of testimony taken in 1964 plus information available under the Freedom of Information Act, but very few of you are any sort of "researcher." Too bad, considering the weight you give this event.

PT

Greetings:

My defination of [RESEARCH] is exactly the same defination that is contained in my Websters 2nd Edition_ergo_1. Scholarly [OR] Scientific Investigation [OR] Inquiry._2. Close and Careful [sTUDY].

Question?

Are you suggesting that such does not occure on this forum?

Respectfully: ;)

Hi again,

I am not suggesting that none of that goes on. Check the work of Jim Root and others on the string "Why Assassination Necesssary." But look at your definition again. Do you see a lot of scientific inquiry or closed and careful study going on? It seems to me the word that best applies to much of this site is not research, but axiom: a statement or premise accepted as true without proof.

Paul

PS: I mean no disrespect, but check your spelling. After all, if such obvious detail is wrong, what else may be in error?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh thats far too dark and doomy.

The Cray supercomputers xxxxx through this stuff, but no

analyst spends much time on this particular forum,

we are really just old crusty blowhards,

spouting back theories that thirty years of underground

and alternative journalism has spawned.

Even John with his exhaustive database, biographies on SPARTACUS

and Tosh, a minor participant, or James Richards, a

crusading photo historian,

I don't think all of us together rate a raised eyebrow.

We go on a list and nothing happens.

This is just what it is -- a speculative educational history forum

and the only reasons the great ECHELON and FT MEADE

computers pick us up is because it is all overseas.

We ain't spit on the windshield at the agencies, a remote pinprick of public criticism.

___________________________

So well said Shanet.

I think this is interesting: Paul professes "no conspiracy", yet he comes back here regularily. Why? Is he trying to convince us or himself. Hard being a Bushie and believing any of this truth. It goes against the Rush like- conditioned mentality mindset, and boggles, instead.

At least you are wonderig, Paul.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Greetings:

My defination of [RESEARCH] is exactly the same defination that is contained in my Websters 2nd Edition_ergo_1. Scholarly [OR] Scientific Investigation [OR] Inquiry._2. Close and Careful [sTUDY].

Question?

Are you suggesting that such does not occure on this forum?

Respectfully:  :rolleyes:

Hi again,

I am not suggesting that none of that goes on. Check the work of Jim Root and others on the string "Why Assassination Necesssary." But look at your definition again. Do you see a lot of scientific inquiry or closed and careful study going on? It seems to me the word that best applies to much of this site is not research, but axiom: a statement or premise accepted as true without proof.

Paul

PS: I mean no disrespect, but check your spelling. After all, if such obvious detail is wrong, what else may be in error?

Greetings Paul:

If you check out my own posting history on this and other forums as well as some of the other serious researchers, I submit that you will find a great deal of valid scientific research all of which tends to poke rather large holes in the technical aspects of the 26 volumes. However, I would council you to begin by reading and digesting Julian Hatcher's definitive work on Internal, External, and Terminal Ballistics as well as John Thomson's work and throw in a bit of Helson and Barnes. Afterwards, you may find we haven't so much to discuss after all since you may very well gain a clear understanding of the subject matter I am dealing with. Unless/Until you accomplish that, I must confess that I will have difficulties relating to you the more intricate details of my work and would kindly request that you, for the time being, accept or not as you choose, my nearly 40 years experience in this field.

With respect to your definition of [AXIOM], according to my Websters, that definition applies only to math & logic with the number 1 definition being, " A Self-Evident or Universally Recognized Truth; Established Rule, Principal or Law."

Finally, with respect to your remark about my spelling [Definition] as [Defination], it was so obvious that I would have been suprised that you hadn't caught that one. Simply put, it was a [Friendly] play on the typo "Whay" that you wrote in your comment in lieu of [What]. Hey Guy, ;) we all make typos on occasion but as long as the meaning remains clear it shouldn't be a big deal, whay_I mean What? :)

With All Dew Respect: B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are those still alive today who strike fear into into others who even consider talking. It would be nice to ask Antonio Veciana and Alfredo Duran, and to have answered truthfully, who they still fear after all these years. I am sometimes reluctant to post certain names on forums(one in particular), and not for fear of lawsuits.

Bernardo De Torres

Now I've done it. (Richard J. Smith)

Hi Richard,

Researchers in the past have refused to name De Torres and in one publication actually gave him an alias. De Torres and his minions do monitor forums and the like where I'm sure in some twisted way enjoy their notoriety. So, I'm with you in writing his name below -

BERNARDO DE TORRES

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh thats far too dark and doomy.

The Cray supercomputers xxxxx through this stuff, but no

analyst spends much time on this particular forum,

we are really just old crusty blowhards,

spouting back theories that thirty years of underground

and alternative journalism has spawned.

Even John with his exhaustive database, biographies on SPARTACUS

and Tosh, a minor participant, or James Richards, a

crusading photo historian,

I don't think all of us together rate a raised eyebrow.

We go on a list and nothing happens.

This is just what it is -- a speculative educational history forum

and the only reasons the great ECHELON and FT MEADE

computers pick us up is because it is all overseas.

We ain't spit on the windshield at the agencies, a remote pinprick of public criticism.

___________________________

So well said Shanet.

I think this is interesting: Paul professes "no conspiracy", yet he comes back here regularily. Why? Is he trying to convince us or himself. Hard being a Bushie and believing any of this truth. It goes against the Rush like- conditioned mentality mindset, and boggles, instead.

At least you are wonderig, Paul.

Dawn

Hi Dawn and Shanet:

As I have said in the other strings and often, this is supposed to be a debate. At least that's the title of this string in this "Education" forum. And what, pray tell, does Bush have to do with this discussion? Or is he involved too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...