Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
Am I not? Well, you are disguising your view of the world remarkably well in your 6,965 posts. Someone profiling you would be utterly baffled, I am sure.
You’ve read my 6,965 posts?
I’m flattered. But it’s just a sidelight, I made my bones in the music biz.
-
56 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
I get it, you can't accept there are strong counter arguments to almost every point you made to Benjamin Cole.
I haven’t seen *any* counter arguments, strong or otherwise. Benjamin didn’t challenge anything I wrote — he doubled down on China + The Big Mouse et al, which is fine with me.
QuoteJust try not to look at the world in shades of blue or red all he time, I am not American. 🙂
I don’t think you’re in a position to access how I view the world.
QuoteJust apply all of your logic to JFK's presidency and play devils advocate on that.
Yes sir!
The foreign policies that got JFK killed were the partition of Laos (spearheaded by Averell Harriman in ‘62) and the overthrow/murder of Diem and his brother Nhu in So. Vietnam (spearheaded by Harriman in ‘63).
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/laos-crisis
In all likelihood it was Harriman who spearheaded the murder of JFK, in my book.
-
22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
You're absolutely right, it's the one thing which regardless of your background and voting history, you can look at that 4 years and say; "No new wars overseas for the USA, that's pretty good".
Trump did his best to start a war with Iran.
22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:We've seen war in perpetuity since JFK. Trump said said something along the lines of; those guys at the military industrial complex want us to stay in Syria for 100 years. The context was just after Trump had pulled troops out.
But the troops were not pulled out of Syria.
22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:The remark seemed very instinctive as opposed to something contrived.
Not familiar with Trump, are you?
22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:PS I have a bunch of links to 9/11 which are compelling, links and references provided. Like JFK there have been plenty of eye witnesses speaking out. If you're interested. drop me a DM.
-
59 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Trump is no JFK, but what about Trump's foreign policy?
Like pulling out of the Iran nuke accord, slapping crippling sanctions on Iran, and assassinating their #2 leader.
Or selling advanced weaponry to the Saudis for their war against the Shia in Yemen.
Quadrupled civilian deaths by air strikes in Somalia.
Announced a pull out from Syria that never happened.
Attempted to extort the newly elected leader of Ukraine with the threat of withheld military aid unless the Ukrainians ginned up dirt on Biden.
Reversed Obama’s opening to Cuba.
Separated thousands of children from their parents on the southern border.
Pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord.
The tariffs on China required a US Government bail-out of farmers.
-
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:
Cliff, what is social media?
I don’t do social media myself, so I rely on Wikipedia:
Social media is interactive digitally-mediatedtechnologies that facilitate the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks.[1][2] While challenges to the definition of social media arise due to the broad variety of stand-alone and built-in social-media services currently available, there are some common features:[2]
- Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.[2][3]
- User-generated content—such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions—is the lifeblood of social media.[2][3]
- Users create service-specific profiles for the website or app that are designed and maintained by the social-media organization.[2][4]
- Social media facilitate the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups.[2][4]
Users usually access social media services via web-based apps on desktops and laptops, or downloadservices that offer social media functionality to their mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets). As users engage with these electronic services, they create highly interactive platforms through which individuals, communities, and organizations can share, co-create, discuss, participate, and modify user-generated content or self-curated content posted online.[1] Additionally, social media are used to document memories; learn about and explore things; advertise oneself; and form friendships along with the growth of ideas from the creation of blogs, podcasts, videos, and gaming sites.[5] This changing relationship between human and technology is the focus of the emerging field of technoself studies.
Some of the most popular social media websites, with over 100 million registered users, include Facebook (and its associated Facebook Messenger), TikTok, WeChat, Instagram, QZone, Weibo, Twitter, Tumblr, Baidu Tieba, and LinkedIn. Depending on interpretation, other popular platforms that are sometimes referred to as social media services include YouTube, QQ, Quora, Telegram, WhatsApp, LINE, Snapchat, Pinterest, Viber, Reddit, Discord, VK, Microsoft Teams, and more. Wikis are examples of collaborative content creation.
Social media outlets differ from traditional media(e.g., print magazines and newspapers, and TV and radio broadcasting) in many ways, including quality,[6] reach, frequency, usability, immediacy, and permanence.[7] Additionally, social media outlets operate in a dialogic transmission system (i.e., many sources to many receivers), while traditional media outlets operate under a monologictransmission model (one source to many receivers). For example, a newspaper is delivered to many subscribers and a radio station broadcasts the same programs to an entire city.[8]
Observers have noted a wide range of positive and negative impacts of social media use. Social media can help to improve an individual's sense of connectedness with real or online communities and can be an effective communication (or marketing) tool for corporations, entrepreneurs, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, political parties, and governments. </q>
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:By its name one assumes media and therefore not necessarily press but simply a medium for people to contribute her/his opinions on a matter. Assuming it is more like the press -which lacks the social media public input but is more output by the entity- this “media“ can be regulated to some extent by the government, i.e. newspapers, television, radio, magazines etc.
If it is not press, but more of a forum for discussion, it is more like a business and can be regulated by the government.
Okay, what government regulations should be brought to bear on social media?
If I develop a social media platform that becomes popular with members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, should the Government force me to carry any non-pornographic NAMBLA content in the name of free speech?
Should Instagram be forced to carry RFK Jr.’s anti-vax message?
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:It is odd that people are concerned with the government regulating -or nationalization as you call it- speech but fine with businesses regulating speech. Regulation of speech by any entity is still regulation.
A private citizen moderating the content on their privately owned entity isn’t the same as the US Government dictating internet content.
-
3 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:
Cliff, if you read my entire post I mentioned the exact post regarding Hank Aaron that IG used to remove him after they took him out of context and then apparently lied about information related to the case.
You didn’t answer my question: should the US Government bar Instagram from banning RFK Jr.?
QuoteWhat does Parler have to do with this?
It’s a popular, unmoderated social media site. It’s not as if RFK Jr doesn’t have options.
QuoteWe are in a situation that requires some logic and reasonable lawmaking, I hope we get it.
Like barring all forms of moderation on the internet because by definition any form of moderation is censorship?
QuoteJust about everyone under the age of 20 are on their phones constantly. In terms of information they are exposed to or are given, the majority of of them use private companies like YouTube, Twitter, and IG.
MySpace used to be a massively popular social media site. Tastes and trends change. People who resent moderation can find venues on the internet where there isn’t any.
QuoteThose are all censored media outlets.
They are moderated, if that’s what you call censorship. Should all forms of internet moderation be illegal?
QuotePrivate companies (some with heavy military complex ties) are now serving as public information services akin to the newspapers of old and should be regulated as such.
Which includes the criminalization of internet moderation since moderation is a form of censorship?
What government regulation of newspapers do you want applied to social media?
QuoteOne of the main ways many young people get involved in politics these days is through social media. We are allowing private citizens who answer to no one or someone unknown decide what people are allowed to discuss and think based on whatever interests they serve.
And these nefarious private citizens who decide what people are allowed to think and discuss should be replaced by government officials with the power to dictate social media content?
I’m sure glad I’m not on any social media, ‘cause I don’t want Zuckerberg or Dorsey dictating what I’m allowed to think! (Who knew they had soooo much power?!)
QuoteIf that isn't a concern to you, fine. I think its a recipe for disaster.
And the remedy for that disaster is the de facto nationalization of social media?
-
7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:
A podcast such as BOR is not the same thing as social media outlets such as Facebook or Twitter which solely host user-generated content rather than purposely publish content. You seem to be deliberately misrepresenting the issues by consistently comparing these entities to media which are not at all similar.
They are similar in the private ownership. Whether it’s BOR, Facebook, Twitter, the Ed Forum, the New York Times, or Fox — I don’t have a *right* to access any of these venues.
7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:Twitter or Facebook are not the same as and do not function like the NY Times or CNBC.
It’s privately owned, ain’t it?
7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:As to your prior inquiry - the internet features pages known as “search engines”.
Search engines! You didn’t say “search engines” you said “social media.”
7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:Search engines can be useful tools in uncovering information.
A little condescending for a guy who confused search engines for social media.
7 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:Simply typing queries - such as “antiwar political groups removal social media” - can provide a wealth of information based on the terms of the query. Recently, however, some search engines have changed their algorithms to highlight some information at the expense of other information. So some patience and diligence may be required. Good luck out there.
I agree, Google has ef’ed over a lot of us.
Boycott Google!
-
The only way to break out of Conspiracy Theory City is adopt the techniques of modern public relations — simplicity and repetition.
This is the tightest, hardest case for conspiracy:
The root fact of this demonstration is JFK’s T3 back wound.
-
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:
The deliberate “manufacturing of consent” for this process has been led by people who should know better, as they have adopted reactionary positions while maintaining they remain enlightened.
I can’t think of a position more reactionary than 2020 Voter Fraud Conspiracy.
Neo-Jim Crow.
-
58 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:
What is plain to see is the concept of “conspiracy theories” as a social negative is not what is really driving the efforts to impose censorship, fact-checking, and vetted approval of information. The powers-that-be are entirely willing and capable of disseminating conspiracy theories of their own should it assist policy directives, just as the legacy media is content to publish the same.
Why the right wing has a massive advantage on Facebook
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/facebook-conservatives-2020-421146 -
Jeff, do I have a *right* to go on Black Op Radio to bitch about how lame JFKA experts are in regard to JFK’s T-3 back wound?
Since when does the right to free speech include a right to access someone else’s media venue?
-
8 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:
So, along with crazy “conspiracy theories”, legitimate political groups, antiwar activists, and representatives of designated foreign adversaries, for example, are being removed from social media.
What legitimate political groups or anti war activists have been kicked off social media?
-
33 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:
RFK Jr's social media accounts were recently deleted and permanently removed. He had roughly 800k followers.
He was kicked off Instagram for promoting anti-vax.
Parler is back up.
Dennis, do you think the US Government should bar Instagram from banning RFK jr?
-
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:
The current mania directed against “conspiracy theories” has been led by establishment liberals, beginning in late 2016, and at its root the disdain fingers the JFK research community as somewhat responsible for the state of affairs.
Trump’s 30,000 lies and the constant right-wing demonization of fair voting processes — which has disenfranchised many millions of mostly Democratic voters — had nothing to do with the current situation?
Facebook and Twitter kicked a bunch of lying-ass Voter Fraud Conspiracy fools off their privately owned platforms?
Good on them. Screw l - i - a - r - s.
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:The law to which he refers is currently being considered in Congress, sponsored by Warner. Rarely, in the dissertations supporting control over speech and opinion, is it acknowledged that the most disastrous and consequential “fake news” of this young century was widely published and disseminated by the US legacy media and endorsed by the US Congress - Iraqi WMD.
Factually incorrect. The most disastrous and consequential “fake news” are the bogus rationales for Voter ID laws and voter roll purge programs like the one in Florida in 2000 that gave the Presidency to Bush.
There would have been no WMD lies — or Donald Trump — without all-out Republican voter suppression lies.
-
40 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
Too far-fetched, nothing in documents showing operational use of such.
Factually incorrect.
From the Church Committee testimony of CIA Director Colby:
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1975.
Testimony of William E. Colby, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee met at 10 A.M. in the Russell Building.
Present: Senators Church, Tower, Mondale, Huddleston, Morgan, Hart of Colorado Baker, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director, Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, chief counsel, Curtis Smothers and Paul Michel, Committee staff members.
Chairman Church:
The particular case under examination today involves the illegal possession of deadly biological poisons which were retained within the CIA for five years after their destruction was ordered by the President. . . . The main questions before the Committee are why the poisons were developed in such quantities in the first place: why the Presidential order was disobeyed; and why such a serious act of insubordination could remain undetected for so many years.
William Colby:
The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various chemicals and drugs. . . . Information provided by him [a CIA officer not directly associated with the project] and by two other officers aware of the project indicated that the project at Fort Detrick involved the development of bacteriological warfare agents--some lethal--and
associated delivery systems suitable for clandestine use
[emphasis added]. The CIA relationship with the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick was formally established in May 1952.
The need for such capabilities was tied to earlier Office of Strategic Services World War II experience, which included the development of two different types of agent suicide pills to be used in the event of capture and a successful operation using biological warfare materials to incapacitate a poopoo leader temporarily.
The primary Agency interest was in the development of dissemination devices to be used with standard chemicals off the shelf. Various dissemination devices such as a fountain pen dart launcher appeared to be peculiarly suited for clandestine use. . . . A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could take retaliatory action. [Or to prevent guard dogs from barking.]
One such operation involved the penetration of a facility abroad for intelligence collection. The compound was guarded by watchdogs which made entry difficult even when it was empty. Darts were delivered for the operation, but were not used.
Church:
Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?
Colby:
We have indeed.
Church:
Does this pistol fire the dart?
Colby:
Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.]
Church:
So that when it fires, it fires silently?
Colby:
Almost silently; yes.
Church:
What range does it have?
Colby:
One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters.
Church:
About 100 meters range?
Colby:
Yes.
Church:
And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?
Colby:
That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.
Church:
Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?
Colby:
Well there was an attempt--
Church:
Or the dart?
Colby:
Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.QuoteThat the autopsists speculated it is irrelevant, just as if the autopsists speculated divine intervention that would be irrelevant.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
-
8 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:
Extreme action also seems to work but I'm missing any indication of factual or historical gatekeeping - that used to occur but does it really happen now? If the answer is "not much" then that would suggest there is something really special about why Stone's work is being rejected - or is it because it is actually too factional and not extreme or sensational enough to meet their contemporary viewership goals?
I fear JFKA and 9/11 research have been ghettoized in Conspiracy Theory City along with cannibal Democrats, fake moon landings, Holocaust denial, 2020 voter fraud and the rest of the Trump-cult lies.
The whole field is toxic now.
-
26 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
I had thought a modified Sibert and O'Neill interpretation was called for instead of the WC through-bullet from back entrance to throat exit of JFK. But I could not find a satisfactory solution to a basic question: how could a bullet possibly hit JFK in the back and only penetrate flesh ca. 2 inches without going through? What conceivable explanation is there for that? If the shot was underpowered it would have fallen short and not hit JFK's back in the first place. I have searched for a credible possible explanation for that and found no explanation.
The autopsists on the night of the autopsy speculated JFK was hit with a hi-tech round that dissolved.
It’s a mystery to me why folks can’t wrap their heads around that one.
-
19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
No, I do not think a former President should be censored by corporate-owned media, or anybody for that matter.
I prefer to err on the side of freedom of speech.
Don’t the owners of media companies surrender *their* speech rights if the government dictates the content on *their* platforms?
If I develop a popular social media company it’s automatically nationalized and subject to strict government regulation?
QuoteSure, it may "feel good" when it is Trump being censored...but where does this end? Who decides?
The owners of the private companies decide. The right to free speech does not grant anyone the right to access a venue they do not own.
QuoteA future US President who tries to curtail the US military-foreign policy complex and thus is run out of office and then erased?
Erased? Facebook and Twitter are the new Murder Inc.?
QuoteAnd sheesh, the 300 whackos who occupied the Capitol for a few hours....this was or is a threat? To who? To what?
The people they went to hang.
QuoteSadly, the rioters who occupied the Capital looked like the marginalized, the unhappy, the unemployable, the disoriented, the unorganized----yes, uncharitably, "the rabble." Hey, I have been unemployed, I know how it feels. I spent a life shopping at 99-cent stores. No boo-hoo, but stresses can build up. Save for a lucky break here or there---who knows, maybe I would join the rabble.
But 300 rabble do not pose a threat to the US, despite what you see on CNN.
There were a lot more than 300, and they made their murderous intent apparent.
Quotehttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/brian-stelter-cennsorship-harm-reduction
And I ask again---is Brian Sicknick the new Pat Tillman?
Again, please be a tad less cryptic...
-
13 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:
Finally, there is the possibility as mentioned by Cliff and Ron earlier that the wounds are simply not related to the same shot, and that maybe two or three shots fired from different directions are responsible. While very tempting, this also has the problem regarding exit wounds which I don't really see in the autopsy photos. I have heard about the idea of the back wound only being a shallow wound, but for this to have happened the bullet must have been travelling incredibly slowly which doesn't seem likely unless there was some kind of strange misfire.
The night of the autopsy, with the body in front of them, the autopsists speculated JFK was hit with a hi-tech round that didn’t leave a trace.
That would explain the shallow rounds.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
My view is the Facebooks, Googles, Twitters, YouTubes etc. have to make a decision:
1. Are the Facebooks, et al like the phone company, and thus not liable for what is said over the wires. I can plan and execute a violent bank robbery over the phone wires, or have the fringiest political view imaginable, and no one says the phone company should cut off my service. I can hold a conference call and hurl homophobic, racial and sexist slurs, and no one says my phone service should be cut off.
I boycott Facebook. Tried it a couple of times, didn’t take. Are you sure people get kicked off merely for making offensive comments?
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:2. Or are the Facebooks et al like media companies, responsible for content, and they will and must curtail content as they see fit, but will also accept liability?
Could Facebook or Twitter survive a highly litigious business environment?
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:Right now, the Facebooks et al are happily straddling the fence, censoring as they see fit and not liable for content. Very comfy.
I don’t have a problem with that at all.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:My own take is the Facebooks et at have become de facto Town Squares, and thus should not censor anything, other than overt hate speech intended to incite violence.
How about a former President who incessantly lies about his electoral defeat and inspires thousands of his followers to violence?
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:If the Central American Association of Hermaphrodites Against IntraPersonal Rape have a website and following, so be it.
That ain’t in the same league as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which appeared to be the front for criminal activity.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:What is spooky is the number of establishment "news" organizations, especially in the US cable business, gung ho for repressing alternative news sites. (Well, the alt-news sites are bleeding off ad dollars too.)
Add on: Is Brian Sickman a replay of Pat Tillman?
More specific...?
-
38 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
I agree with the sentiments expressed above by Jeff Carter, that the US is entering a heightened era of censorship and disinformation. Corporate censorship combined with government disinformation.
I’m just curious, Benjamin, do you think new government regulations should force private media companies like Facebook and Twitter to carry content known to be dis-information, like the claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?
If Facebook bans the North American Man -Boy Love Association, is that corporate censorship?
-
1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:
With what we know now fact checking should be a weapon, not a weakness.
Larry, this is why I feel like I’m studying a different case.
In the case I’m studying the victim suffered a shallow wound in the soft tissue between his Third Thoracic Vertebra (T3) and the upper margin of his right scapula; and a wound of entrance in his throat which left a hairline fracture of his right T1 transverse process.
There were no exits for these soft tissue wounds.
There were no rounds found in the body.
These are the root facts of the case I study.
-
2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:
Just to be a bit contrarian, I'm personally not adverse to a bit of "fact checking" these days, throw stones if you like but the consequences of making up your own versions of either historical or contemporary reality are pretty obvious.
Stone said “It makes the case harder, tighter... It’s about real facts that are shocking to people.”
That’s a high bar. I can’t imagine the case for conspiracy getting any tighter than the 35th second of this:
-
7 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:
Ball mimicked the language of conspiracy theory when she called an alliance of the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce — a “cabal.”
It’s a joke. AFL-CIO. Chamber of Commerce. Cabal. Get it?
No?
If you don’t get the joke then the joke’s on you.
RAND's "Firehose of Falsehoods" Model of Propaganda --Implications for JFKA Truth
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I find the war Clinton got into in his second term interesting. Bombed the hell out of the Serbs in Kosovo, allied with NATO and the ethnic Albanian Kosovars.
Who runs the heroin trade in Europe?
Heroin Heroes
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/01/heroin-heroes/
Albania’s Deep-Rooted Drug Problem Touches All Of Europe
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_12311366