Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Yes, the perceived threat (by the Deep State) is that RFK Jr. will do what Trump only tried or promised to do.
But even Trump's occasional wanderings off the reservation---cancelling the annual joint US South Korea military drills, for example---were too much to tolerate.
Ergo the Russiagate hoax. See former CIA chief's Michael Morell's op-eds against Trump in 2016. HRC was the preferred lackey, and intel state didn't even try to hide it.
Which is why, in the last 11 days of the 2016 campaign, cable news (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) gave wall-to-wall coverage to the re-opened FBI investigation into Hillary’s e-mails.
When the same story totally dominates 11 consecutive cable news-cycles ahead of an election — that’s the Deep State working overtime.
Trump was thus chosen by the powers that be. They could have broadcast the Steele Dossier pee-tape, but they didn’t until January.
Why did they choose Trump? Tax cuts? Maybe. Or perhaps the Eugenicist wing of the ruling elite anticipated the appearance of a global pandemic and they wanted an idiot in charge?
-
8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
You cannot be serious. How can you say with a straight face that the chalk mark matches the location of the back wound seen in the autopsy photos? How? It is not even close.
Indeed. The Fox 5 “wound” is clearly above the shoulder blade.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
The location of the back wound in the photo is consistent with the location of the holes on the clothing.
So the top of your back is 4 inches below the bottom of your shirt collar?
No, Pat. Sorry. You’ve been pitching this hooey for 20 years.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:The LN crowd wants you to believe the back wound is at the base of the neck, but it is not.
T1 is just below the base of the neck.
How can you deny that?
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:Put a sticker on your back an inch to the right of midline and in line with the shoulder tip and look in the mirror. Now move your shoulder up and down. The sticker will move closer to your head, creating the illusion it is at the base of the neck. But it is not. It is on the back, as presented on the face sheet.
Gas lighting us again? The mark Jenkins made with pencil is several inches below the base of the neck.
The bullet holes in the clothes line up with T3, consistent with the witness testimony and the properly prepared medical evidence.
-
The bullet holes in the actual clothes are 4 inches below the bottoms of the collars.
Is that the top of your back, Pat?
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
A location marked by Specter in accordance with the autopsy photos.
Factually incorrect. The chalk mark is well below the location in ONE photo, Fox 5.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:The measurements made at autopsy reflect a wound as far below the lowest top of the skull as it was inward of the shoulder tip.
But those measurements were written pen — which means they were NOT taken at the autopsy. Jenkins filled out the face sheet in PENCIL as according to autopsy protocol.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:That is where it is shown on the face sheet and that is where it is shown in the autopsy photos.
Jenkins marked the back wound well below that.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:This location has been measured as T-1. This places it far too low to support the single-bullet theory.
So what? You’re obfuscating both the nature of Kennedy’s wounds and the elements of the cover-up.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:This has always been the case.
And it’s always been a big fat lie.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:The problem is that the doctors and supporters of the WC long claimed the Rydberg drawings showing a wound at the base of the neck were consistent with the autopsy measurements, when they were not, and far too many researchers fell for it. These researchers then claimed that the autopsy measurements were false or that the back wound photos were fake--when such claims are a total distraction.
No, such claims help establish the simple fact that autopsy material not prepared according to proper protocol is phony.
-
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Does the chalk mark reflect a wound at T-1 or T-3?
T2/T3.
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:If T-3, can you tell us why Specter would make a mark in that location?
Because he wanted to look like an idiot holding a pointer two inches above the chalk mark?
Are you sure there was no pressure from Hoover to put it in a location consistent with the Sibert-O’Neill report?
The Cover-Up put the back wound in various locations, a by-the-seat-of-their-pants operation with wound locations from C5/6 to T2/3 including a T1 and a T2 in the final autopsy report.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
This is two times in this thread you have posted a bizarre response to one of my posts. I am not arguing about the location of the back wound.
I dispute your characterization of Fox 5 as a photo that is “now” regarded as fake by some. I’m pointing out that it’s authenticity has long been problematic — not a recent development as you imply.
Pat, all you have to do is put the word “if” in front of your assertion of authenticity — “IF Fox 5 is authentic, THEN the Rydberg drawing is debunked.” But you insist on pushing misinformation which disregards the physical evidence, written contemporaneous accounts, properly prepared medical evidence, and consensus witness testimony.
JFK’s back wound was at T3, Fox 5 depicts it at T1. When you present Fox 5 as authentic you posit a T1 wound, do you not?
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
Actually, no. The SBT was proposed to account for the timing of the presumed responses of JFK and JBC in the Z-film. The 5-24-64 re-enactment was performed to see if it could be sold to the public. The chalk mark was placed on the jacket by Specter and SS agent Kelly AFTER they viewed the back wound photo some now claim is fake.
No, it was the HSCA who first singled the Fox 5 photo out as problematic — “more confusing than informative.”
-
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:
Cliff, there are two main reasons why this ice bullet idea seems not right, apart from nobody ever heard of ice bullets being used in assassinations before.
The CIA knew. The civilians working for the US Army within the CIA project MKNAOMI knew. One of those civilians briefed the FBI as to the existence of this technology and the possibility of its use in a foreign attack.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf
<quote on, emphasis added>
Senseney: And the only thing that I can say is, I just have to suppose that, having been told to maintain the sort of show and tell display of hardware that we had on sort of stockpile for them, these were not items that could be used. They were display items like you would see in a museum, and they used those to show to the agents as well as to the FBI, to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people. (pg 163)
Baker: ...There are about 60 agencies of Government that do either intelligence or law enforcement work.
Senseney: I am sure most all of those knew of what we were doing; yes...
...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country. </q>
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:First, wasn't the whole point of blood-soluble, ice bullets, etc. to conceal that a person had been shot in the first place, a sort of stealth assassination disguising the cause of death?
It was ‘t meant to be disguised. It was meant to pin on the Soviets while the US bombed Cuba back into the Stone Age.
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:But there is no conceivable argument that the assassins of JFK were attempting to conceal that they shot at him. Hence no motive or reason to use an ice bullet.
Textbook false flag attack.
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:And second, while an ice bullet would in theory account for the autopsists' lack of recovery of a missile inside JFK's body (because the ice melted), it does not account for the shallowness of the wound in the back. How in your ice bullet theory is the wound so shallow, and did not go into the lung?
It’s not my ice bullet theory. The wound was shallow. Conventional firearms don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.
-
4 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:
Specter's magic bullet theory came along later I seem to recall. Did they just forget about this reenactment at that point? Who were they trying to fool?
The SBT was conceived the night of the autopsy. The autopsists saw two wounds in soft tissue with no exits and no bullets. They flashed back to their youths in 1936 — a Dick Tracy strip in The Funnies which featured an “ice bullet” dissolving in the victim’s body.
Humes asked Sibert and O’Neill if such technology existed. Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out. “We have the bullet—“ FBI SA Chuck Killion told Sibert, who told Humes.
That bullet had to account for both wounds. That was the cover-up assignment.
This was an ad hoc cover-up with different bites at the apple — the Rydberg drawing, Fox 5 autopsy photo, the FBI re-enactment with two different back locations and the final autopsy report with two different back wound locations.
Ironically, it was the FBI who marked the wound in the correct T3 location.
-
My bad! I stand corrected. A thousand apologies Pat!
It’s this episode at 3:08 for which you need to apologize.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
Blowing smoke as usual, Cliff. The back wound isn't even mentioned in that video.
You didn’t show Fox 5 in your BlackOp presentation?
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
In fact, much of what is discussed today along these lines comes from the 50 Reasons for 50 years video Jeff and I put together for Len in 2013.
A travesty which put the back wound at T1.
Ahistorical nonsense.
-
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:
Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, Cliff, US foreign policy hasn’t essentially changed in recent years.
Curtailing the drone strike program was a major shift. So was the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:For example, during Obama’s regime from 2011 to 2017 there was US instigated regime change in Honduras, Libya, and Ukraine and attempted regime change in Syria.
Biden opposed the operation in Libya.
Timber Sycamore in Syria was a pathetic waste. Obama was condemned for not supporting it sufficiently.
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-mccain-obama-syria-speech-response-096615
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:Last year there was US instigated regime change in Pakistan.
Shame on the Biden administration for interfering in Pakistani politics. All attempts at regime change must be condemned.
Shame on the Trump Administration for pulling out of the Iran nuke deal and whacking Iran’s #2 leader.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:During his visit to Poland last year, Biden inadvertently (apparently?) alluded to the desirability of regime change in Russia.
Hardly egregious.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:In February 2022, Biden, like his henchwoman Victoria Nuland, also made it clear that the Nord Stream gas pipeline which supplied western Europe with gas from Russia would be destroyed if Russia invaded Ukraine.
A terrible decision , if true.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:Apart from the fact that we know the US was subsequently involved in the actual destruction of Nord Stream, what business is it of the US to threaten carry out such an act of economic and ecological terrorism?
This James Bamford article casts doubt on that conclusion.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/nord-stream-pipeline-explosions/
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:Such a public threat in itself is proof of the US’s criminality and its presumed – and indeed actual in many ways – omnipotence and unaccountability in respect of its aggressive activities far beyond its borders.
Omnipotence?? More than a slight exaggeration.
So the sordid history of US regime change policies justifies Putin’s regime change policies?
-
Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party activist base — they’ve selected every Democratic Presidential candidate since Clinton.
Not big consumers of right wing media.
-
THE MYSTERIOUS CASE OF JOE BIDEN AND THE FUTURE OF DRONE WARS
https://theintercept.com/2021/12/15/drone-strikes-joe-biden-pentagon-kabul/
Dec. 15, 2021
<q>
OVER THE PAST YEAR, the number of reported U.S. drone strikes has plummeted. President Joe Biden did not authorize a single known strike for the first six months of his presidency before breaking his streak with a series of drone attacks against al-Shabab in Somalia in July. Despite the notable reduction, at least two of the strikes conducted under Biden have killed civilians, including the now-infamous August 29 attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed 10 civilians, seven of them children. While Biden’s drone strike dataset is tiny, the outcome of his known strikes presents a ghastly civilian death rate. In the case of the Afghanistan hit, 100 percent of the victims were civilians.
So what is happening? Why has Biden apparently decided to pump the brakes on a tool of war that he and President Barack Obama embraced so enthusiastically? For nearly a year, the Biden administration has been engaged in a comprehensive review of the use of drone strikes as part of a broader evaluation of “counterterrorism” policy that is expected to be completed later this year or at some point in early 2022. “I think the White House is appropriately wary about drone strikes,” said Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official who worked for the Pentagon as counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2011. “My sense is that they’re serious about the review and are trying to minimize drone strikes at least until there is complete clarity on internal policies.” </q>
Biden finalizes new rules for US drone strikes
Biden had quietly put in place many of the limitations that the new policy now formalizes when he took office. The policy now officially reverses a loosening of Obama-era rules under then-President Donald Trump, which had pushed authority for approving lethal strikes down the chain of command. </q>
Trump Ramped Up Drone Strikes in America’s Shadow Wars
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ramped-up-drone-strikes-in-americas-shadow-wars
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.
So did Biden.
Not the first one. He voted no in ‘91.
And Biden opposed the Libya bombing.
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:The Neocons philosophy governs both parties, the GOP is a little worse.
I’ve mentioned this many times and all we get is deer-in-the-headlight eyes:
The Neo-cons were outraged by: the Obama-Putin deal over Syrian chemical weapons; the Iran nuke deal; Obama’s visit to Cuba; Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:Obama was passing gas when he said he was not going into Syria.
TImber Sycamore was one of the biggest CIA covert operations ever.
Against a secularist Middle East country.
And who can forget the Obama Red Line?
Obama vowed to militarily retaliate against Assad if chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime. A chemical attack was subsequently reported. The Neo-cons were anxious for Obama to follow thru. Instead he kicked it to Congress — who didn’t want it. Then Putin worked out a deal with Obama to remove and destroy Assad’s chem stockpiles. The Neo-cons bitched about this for years after.
-
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:
Cliff,
The core tenet of US foreign policy for most of the past century is global domination.
And the price the American people have paid in blood and treasure is incalculable.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:It was on that basis, for example, that the US dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki mainly to show the Russians how dangerous and ruthless it was. It was also on that basis that the US fought and won the Cold War.
I think I’ve outlined this effectively.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:Domination is never absolute.
And now not popular. The Neo-cons have been conned out of their natural home in the Republican Party.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:As Michael Polanyi wrote in his book Personal Knowledge (p 225), “Even men like Hitler and Stalin, who had perfected to the utmost the machinery of naked power, have never ceased to supplement it by a flow of public self-justification”.
The fact that the US failed to achieve absolute dominance
This fact proves the Neo-con quest for world military domination is bankrupt.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:and sometimes used “soft power” rather than brute force to achieve its ends doesn’t negate the fact of its global dominance.
This “soft power” was wielded by Obama in his second term and Biden in Afghanistan. The Neo-con regime change policies are out of favor.
2 hours ago, John Cotter said:The question of which faction within the US government apparatus is chiefly responsible for the US’s aggressive foreign policy is a red herring.
And this is your justification for denying Eastern Europeans the Human Right of self-determination?
Where was this “aggressive foreign policy” in Syria ‘14, Iran ‘15, Cuba ‘16 and Afghanistan ‘21? Regime change policies are in disfavor because of their disastrous consequences.
Putin pursued regime change in Ukraine and ended up with 800 miles of NATO on the Finnish border.
-
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:
Cliff could you clear something up? Would it be possible for a frangible bullet hitting one side of a rib bone to explain the shallow back wound?
It didn’t show up on x-ray.
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:The thought experiment: from that O'Neill quote you cite: "“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK."
I am no expert on ballistics, but from what I read frangible bullets (which vary in how they can be made) will remain intact through flesh until hitting something solid like bone or metal, then they "explode" into tiny pieces or dust in the immediate area.
Wouldn’t that show up on x-ray?
-
1 hour ago, John Cotter said:
Please don't misrepresent what I said.
The question I asked was:
"Do you agree with the statement that the core tenet of US foreign policy is global domination?"
You left out the phrase "US foreign policy". You're persisting in ignoring the difference between policy and the successful implementation of that policy, despite my pointing it out.
Again:
You’re referring to the core tenet of Neo-cons, one faction among many within the American national security state.
No, I don’t agree with the statement. The Neo-cons do not currently run American foreign policy — as I’ve pointed out earlier.
1 hour ago, John Cotter said:Your strawmanning in that regard indicates that you're unable to rebut my actual argument.
Your actual argument is wrong. The peaceful negotiations with Syria, Iran, Cuba and Afghanistan were opposed by Neo-cons.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly.
-
1 hour ago, John Cotter said:
There's a difference between having a policy of global domination and the successful implementation of that policy.
John, you said NATO was an “instrument” of the American “core tenet” of world domination. Add up the repeated failures of American regime change policies — and the instances of peaceful American negotiations in Syria, Iran, Cuba and Afghanistan — and clearly America does not exercise hegemonic/monolithic world domination.
That’s your weak tea justification for denying the peoples of the former Soviet Bloc the Human Right of self-determination.
-
11 hours ago, John Cotter said:
You seem to have a hysteria problem. Perhaps you should consult Dr Niederhut.
Oh, so you *do* want to engage.
Fine. You contend the Eastern expansion of NATO was a function of hegemonic/monolithic American world domination.
I asked you to reconcile that view with: Cuba kicking the US out in ‘59, Vietnam in ‘75, Nicaragua and Iran in ‘79, Lebanon in ‘82, Iraq in ‘11, Afghanistan in ‘21. (Those last two wars cost 8 trillion dollars and a million deaths and left Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban and Iraq closer to Iran than the US.)
Also: the 2014 Obama-Putin negotiated destruction of Syrian chemical weapon stockpiles; the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal; the 2016 opening to Cuba; the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.
-
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
Good point. I always come up against what I think is a straw man argument when someone says none of this justifies Putin’s invasion. I never hear any of these facts - nukes on the border, bio labs, Azov militia, agent provocateurs shooting during the Maidan protests, used as justification. Its wrong to ignore history, to call promises made to Gorbachev meaningless because they were not formalized,
Promises between NATO and Russia — formalized or not — were meaningless because the peoples of the former Soviet Bloc have a Human Right to determine their own economic and security alliances.
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:weapons systems on Russia’s border
Negotiations were ongoing as late as January 2022.
https://time.com/6138916/ukraine-russia-nuclear-missile-treaty/
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:or bio labs next door
The labs have been there 30 years. Any evidence that these labs presented a new and existential threat to Russia in 2022 has yet to surface.
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:trifles because NATO and or the US are peaceful and would never attack,
Mutually Assured Destruction prevents such an attack.
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:diminish the role and history of far right Ukrainian Nationalist militias.
Who garnered around 5% in the previous election. What is the argument that Azov presented an existential threat to Russia in 2022?
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:Or on the other hand to justify any of this by pointing out Putin’s flaws.
Yes! We point out Putin’s flaws. Just like we call out American Presidents for war crimes.
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:What’s the expression - remove the mote from your own eye first?
So we need to re-litigate American post-WW2 foreign policy on the backs of Eastern Europeans?
“Sorry Nikola, you can’t join NATO because it’ll make bad actor America happy.”
21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:War is a racket, period. Not enough was done to avoid this one. Empathy is lacking on all sides.
If Putin withdraws tomorrow it’s over.
-
1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:
If they were producing biological weapons - on the sly - would it have been written up in the public agreement, or would it be left out of the public agreement?
Of course.
1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:Equally, I'm not sure why you're asking me personally to produce evidence that the US was doing those things at the labs, as I've never asserted there was definite proof that they were doing so.
Just asking.
1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:But so far we have the public agreement, and some journalists writing up their reassuring tour of the facilities, presented as evidence that they weren't. Go figure.
I’m accessing the actual alarm Putin may have felt over these labs, and the degree — if any — their existence justifies the invasion of Ukraine.
The Kennedys v The Deep State
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Cliff Varnell
And you think these op-eds reached more people than Fox/CNN/MSNBC combined for 11 straight days??
Can you identify any CIA leaks of the Steele Dossier prior to January ‘17? Not a peep on TV.
Because you paid no attention to the 24/7 coverage of Hillay’s e-mails heading into the 2016 election, Ben, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
11 straight days of Hillary bashing on cable news happened.
I like the way you ignore anything and everything that doesn’t fit your theories. You’re very consistent in this regard.