Anthony Thorne
-
Posts
819 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Anthony Thorne
-
-
Shenon has been an establishment guy favoured to write limited hang outs and non revealing revelations. The fact that his history of the 9/11 Commission was headlined 'the uncensored history' of that group was pretty funny.
Hopefully Newman and others can find some worthwhile things in the new docs today once the staffers have had their coffee and pressed the button to release them.
-
Dore has over a million subscribers to his channel, and Webb's first volume is now at #419 of all books on Amazon - a best seller. Not bad, hope Trine Day can keep it in print and make themselves some bucks.
-
Joe - just bought your Wilder and Coen Brothers books and read the latter in an evening. Really good. Will be getting some more of your others in January, should have most of them by Feb (doing a big book buy catch up). Always enjoy your insightful writing.
-
Z-Library has apparently been mirrored and should be accessible to folks who follow the procedure in the article. I've never used it and have too many books on my Kindle to read already.
-
7 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:
Hey Guys- I spoke with Phil numerous times about this article. the impetus was because he was offended
I'm not sure why Shenon cares one way or the other, but anyway -
7 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:I gave him the documents that were provided to me as a result of my lawsuit. He correctly quotes from them. The agencies were asserting and continue to assert that release will expose informants.
Yeah I gather that the agencies are asserting this, and asserting that.
Someone should clear up for me then why Shenon starts off mentioning what the agencies are 'asserting', as in
QuoteThe Archives correspondence reveals, for the first time, their detailed justifications, providing a rare window into reasoning inside the CIA and FBI. In many cases, it shows, the CIA and FBI pressed to keep documents secret because they contained the names and personal details of still-living intelligence and law-enforcement informants
and then he continues with a gee whiz recitation of what the agencies asserted, while providing zero truth that any of it is true, as in
QuoteMany of those sources — now elderly, if not close to death — are foreigners living outside the United States, which means it would be more difficult for the American government to protect them from threats.
Did the documents you gave Shenon list who all those endangered foreigners were, or did the documents just quote people from within the intelligence agencies saying that those folk existed, and that everyone should trust that they exist, and that the documents should be withheld for that reason?
Disclaimer - I generally view Shenon as the mainstream guy brought out every time anyone wants him to stand in front of something awkward so he can stand there with his arms stretched wide blocking the doorway saying "Nothing to see here folks!".
-
I think most of her writings have to do with hidden agendas of some sort. She also has some long articles on 9/11, the anthrax attacks of 2001, blackmail of US politicians and other topics.
RFK Jr's next book, out in the next couple of months, is a deep dive into the origins of Covid-19. and by the look of it he jointly implicates US officials and some of their witting counterparts at a facility in China. I have an ebook copy of his last book on Anthony Fauci - it's a very detailed read, heavily footnoted, but I've been too busy to absorb it entirely.
I think the general thesis of both Webb and RFK Jr. is that there was a lot of joint work over a certain number of years by government and. military officials to research and possibly create a new type of virus from old ones, and the debate then ranges between how much of what followed was between 'oops, that shouldn't have happened', or alternately 'gee, since this has happened, I guess all these other things we wanted to do can happen too', while various affiliated folks and companies made billions. But I haven't dived yet into the details.
Oliver Stone's praise for RFK Jr's earlier book is below, and the upcoming volume is linked under it.
Quote"RFK Jr.'s story of Fauci's failure as the government's AIDS coordinator is a highly disturbing prologue to his COVID mandate as head of NIAID. So, who is Dr. Fauci in the end? Has American medicine truly become a 'racket, ' as corrupt as a mafia organization? Does everything in our country turn on the size of the money involved? How can we begin to solve this? The Real Anthony Fauci is a fascinating starting point. RFK Jr. has written a strong, strong book."
--Oliver Stone, award-winning director, producer, and screenwriter -
JFK 11/22 WTF? would be another good one.
-
The books are also available as regular ebooks on the Apple App Store, same price, and having purchased the first and browsed through the dense text it's my preferred way of reading this. It's quite a chunky read, heavily footnoted, and feels easier to manage for me on my big iMac screen.
Webb did a long interview last week with - of all the people - radio host Glenn Beck, and the interview reinforces to a degree my thought that some of Beck's earlier Limbaugh-style persona was constructed for ratings. Anti-establishment discussion is certainly in vogue with the audiences that voted for Trump, and I wouldn't expect to see Beck interviewing every other researcher that we like - there's not a lot else on his channel of particular interest - but this is a decent discussion.
A couple of JFK assassination books are referenced in Webb's first volume, Peter Dale Scott's DEEP POLITICS being main among them.
-
The book is on Kindle and has used copies in both paperback and hardcover. The hardcover looks like a nice piece of work. Sad news and I respect the amount of work he put into his project.
https://www.amazon.com/ASSASSINATION-EYEWITNESSES-SPEAK-TOGETHER-SECOND/dp/B09XVGSZTT
-
Researcher Whitney Webb's two-volume series on the saga of crime, intelligence agencies and blackmail in the US has been released - ONE NATION UNDER BLACKMAIL, volumes 1 and 2. It'd be a stretch to call this directly JFK assassination related but there will likely be new things here that shed light on the overall picture.
I thought I'd post this today as there are signs the books are already going in and out of print, or through repeat printings, and I wouldn't want to make bets on how long they may be available. Possibly Kris Milligan is keeping up with demand and these will be perennials but it might be wise to grab them now if you're interested. Volume 1 and 2 are below, with links to the Trine Day bundle, Amazon, and Book Depository.
https://www.trineday.com/products/one-nation-under-blackmail-bundle
-
Barrie Zwicker - who once interviewed Chomsky for Canadian TV (watchable on Youtube) - had a long chapter on Chomsky in his book TOWERS OF DECEPTION. An excerpt is below -
QuoteThe Ostensible Mystery of Chomsky, JFK and 9/11
Like many on the Left, for years I lived in puzzlement as to why Chomsky could not or would not recognize the mountain of evidence that JFK could not have been killed by a lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. I had encountered many others on the Left who said they were "mystified" and "bewildered" as to his decades-long obstinacy and adamancy in the JFK assassination, especially because their belief was that Chomsky valued evidence above all.
Then a friend gave me a little-known book by E. Martin Schotz, History Will Not Absolve Us, 23 which contains evidence that Chomsky indeed was exposed to a coherent collection of evidence undermining the official Warren Report version of what happened to JFK. In one of the appendices was a first-person account by citizen investigator Ray Marcus, detailing his attempts to have Noam Chomsky seriously study evidence Marcus has assembled. In early 1969, Marcus met Chomsky with "a portfolio of evidence, primarily photographic, that I could present briefly but adequately in 30-60 minutes."
He believed this evidence "carried sufficient conviction to impress most intelligent and open-minded people." The one-hour meeting was extended to between three and four hours when Chomsky had his secretary cancel the rest of his appointments for that day. Chomsky showed "great interest in the material. We mutually agreed to a follow-up session later in the week." Marcus then met with Gar Alperovitz. At the end of their one-hour meeting Alperovitz said he "would take an active part in the effort if Chomsky would lead it." The "effort" would be an attempt to reopen questioning about the provenance of JFK's death. A long second meeting with Chomsky and a colleague, MIT philosophy professor Selwyn Bromberger, followed. After the meeting Bromberger said: "If they are strong enough to kill the president, and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly ... if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule."
Marcus provided further information to Chomsky, which Chomsky acknowledged. Chomsky then left on an extended trip abroad, saying in a final note, "I'm still open-minded (and I hope will remain so)." Marcus reports: "I never heard from his again. In recent years he has on a number of occasions gone on the record attacking the critics' position and supporting the Warren Report."
There's a great deal of supporting evidence in History Will Not Absolve Us from author Schotz, from Vincent Salandria, from Ray Marcus and from legendary investigative reporter Fred Cook that, following JFK's assassination, Chomsky and other leading lights of the Left simply would not acknowledge the evidence that interests opposed to Kennedy's stands for peace, rapprochement with the USSR, normalization of relations with Cuba and other progressive policies had the means, motive and opportunity to kill him. If these leaders of the Left were overcome with fear, then I for one cannot continue to honour them for bravery. But I shoved my disappointment and puzzlement off to one side and returned to my state of denial.
Chomsky can be Illogical and Unfair
Then someone recommended Chomsky's book Rethinking Camelot. There I found abundant proof that Chomsky could be Illogical, contradictory and unfair in ways I could not previously have imagined. I was attempting to resolve for myself (no one in my circle could explain it) the mystery of why Chomsky would dismiss the now even larger mountain of evidence that JFK was executed by elements of the state. But in Rethinking Camelot Chomsky, 30 years after JFK's assassination, takes great pains to study documents concerning Vietnam policy circa 1963, rather than rethinking the central event. His conclusions smack of a mind made up and a certain meanness. "The belief that JFK might have responded differently ... is an act of faith, based on nothing but the belief that the President had some spiritual quality absent in everyone around him, leaving no detectable trace," he says. "The extensive record of newly-released documents ... undermine much further the already implausible contention that [JFK's assassination] caused dramatic changes in policy (or indeed, had any effects)."
He thus dismissed the trajectory of Kennedy's policies condensed well by Michael Parenti in his book Dirty Tricks.29 "JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his no-invasion guarantee to Khrushchev on Cuba, and his overtures for a rapprochement with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for a re-examination of US cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with US steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency, his warm reception at labour conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right."
Yet Chomsky claims to this day that US policy on Vietnam would have been no different had Kennedy lived. This claim is flawed for four reasons. First, no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt such a thing one way or another, so at best he is no better than those he criticizes for claiming the opposite. Second, on the balance of probabilities, everything we know about JFK (see above passage) suggests that he was already following and would have continued to follow the more peaceful and sane directions he had established for himself, which could hardly exclude Vietnam. Third, his general trajectory was away from escalation of the war. The Pentagon Papers document Kennedy's intent to withdraw. They refer to the Accelerated Model Plan ... for a rapid phase out of the bulk of US military personnel" and note the administration was "serious about limiting the US commitment ..." But "all the planning for phase-out ... was either ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January 19 to March 1964." Parenti notes that this "new thinking" was the reversion to a war course that came "after JFK was killed and Lyndon B. Johnson became president."
On page after page of Rethinking Camelot, Chomsky inserts assertions where examination of evidence is called for. He states on page 38, that those who reject the lone assassin thesis of JFK's death "have recognised that credible direct evidence is lacking..." This is a priori rejection of large amounts of evidence, including direct, such as the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat, to name just one example. A good deal of this evidence is even found in the appendices to the Warren Commission's Report. Chomsky's usual diligence in finding obscure contradictory information fails him on the Kennedy assassination. But even after making scores of admittedly angry marginal notes in Rethinking Camelot, I reverted to a stance of total respect for Chomsky's work. I see now that I was deep denial, no different from that of someone who adulates George Bush and dismisses successively all reasons to fault him.
It took 9/11 to shake me out of my denial. Even then, I see retrospectively, the process was painfully slow. Finally Chomsky's sustained rejection of evidence, his sustained use of the term "conspiracy theory" to describe the work of those seeking the truth about JFK's assassination (and the other assassinations of the 1960s), and 9/11, and his diminishment of the role of leaders such as JFK and his brother, and of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., became a pattern I could no longer ignore. Writing this book opened my eyes further.
-
11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
I sure would like to hang out at a smoky bar late at night in quiet corner and find out what the CIA guy really thinks.
I wonder if he has a reason to suspect CIA assets or actual personnel were involved...a reason he picked up while employed at the CIA. Scuttlebutt, or something to that effect.
I was about to write a long post about this but will keep it short and just say that Rolf Mowatt-Larssen's position at the Belfer School at the Kennedy School of Government has kept him in close proximity for years to an extremely interesting group of people intimately connected to the Pentagon, the various Joint Chiefs and advisors that were on duty during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the scandal-prone side of the CIA.
-
17 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Many suspect there were JFKA plots in Miami and Chicago to shoot JFK. That would suggest more catch-as-catch-can quality on actual ops.
They might have planned Miami and Chicaco and Dallas together all in advance, with the notion that if one f*cked up, the next one a few weeks later would give them another shot.
-
Agree.
At the very least, it would be hard to argue that it wasn't on their minds.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:
I seriously doubt that any of them wanted a war in Vietnam merely to make money and did not care if South Vietnam fell to the Communists. That sounds far-fetched and out of character for Cold War hawks.
Go follow the activities of the Defense Science Board from the 1960's to the present day - the premiere advisory body in government for defense acquisition, with military leaders repeatedly touting their reports in congress - and then have a look at how many members of it ended up working for defense contractors, or (in one instance) moving from being the Secretary of the Army to becoming the head of Lockheed Martin.
The rationale is greater than just making money. Some of them viewed the maintenance of the defense technology base - the trickle down effect of military spending into all other aspects of the economy - as a national security issue. If it waned, so did their lead in other economic areas. If it was boosted, the military spending would enable the entire broad church of American business and industry to reap the profits of innovation and technological investment. And if this helped companies two years down the line come up with a better weapon when required, the investment would be worth it. If they fell behind, how to anticipate what crisis they would fall short of being able to meet in the near to mid term future?
That has remained a preoccupation of some members of the Pentagon - and their advisory bodies - for decades. The profits of sitting on a company board that procures weapons are just a pat on the head for ensuring the system is maintained. And the system as described above is fed more fuel for investment, and research, and spending through a long war, rather than a short one.
-
Thanks. That's an excerpt from what was originally a much longer piece, something like 40 or 50 minutes or so, and the long clip went down when Dawson's main channel was booted. I'm not a fan of seeing anyone's interviews deleted, it will be nice if the full piece resurfaces.
-
Ryan Dawson includes some 'Israel did it' moments in his recent documentary NUMEC-HOW ISRAEL STOLE THE BOMB. It's a reasonably well made documentary, unlike some of his prior stuff, but I found the JFK bits unconvincing as he doesn't detail them, just notes the timing of various initiatives JFK was about to move on prior to his death re Israel's nuke program. Dawson has said many times that he has a much longer thesis on how Israel, Angleton and others fit into the JFK assassination, but he hasn't made it public (although he apparently did a long interview for a regional channel of VICE where he discussed it for an hour, and the broadcaster either lost or wiped the tape). The documentary is below, you'll need to skip past the initial ramble to around six minutes in for the start of it, and Dawson's general unhappiness with everything the Israelis have been up to nearly gives it that same Michael Collins Piper tone from the outset, so people's mileage will vary.
https://rumble.com/v1ijipl-numec-how-israel-stole-the-bomb-watch-party.html
Dawson interviewed DiEugenio a couple of years ago. The long interview was on Youtube until that site dumped most of Dawson's stuff. Dawson can be decent on the occasional things here and there (pick your topic) that Israel was involved in, but stumbles when he chucks them in to things that they likely weren't.
With Tim Tok being the big thing I expect lots more short and snappy videos appearing from various influencers telling everyone why the conspiracy theorists are off base. Easiest way to start fighting back against it, open a Tik Tok channel, film your favourite 30 second clip from a conspiracy documentary in vertical format with your phone, and upload it. Better than nothing.
-
-
Another CIA murder occurred just a couple of week's after Paisley's - largely overlooked, during the HSCA hearings, and of a Latin American specialist. I keep meaning to write it up here. Will try over the coming week or so.
-
In his most recent JFK book Summers said something like, "So, was there a conspiracy? Maybe, maybe not." I think Jim even pointed this out in his review at the time.
Summers is dragged out for TV interviews and articles more than many other researchers. Is saying "Oswald did it." a more lucrative gig? I think it is.
-
A very good, thoughtful article.
-
For anyone wishing to chime in with additional posts about contemporary politics, please move it to another thread, otherwise anyone reading this thread to discuss COUP IN DALLAS will eventually be hit with a growing number of pages that are focused on other stuff. Thanks.
-
Thanks for the detailed response Pat, I appreciate hearing your thoughts in response to my own ramble above.
-
Yeah I would say Ferrell being a spook who somehow controlled the research community and derailed real research for decades would be a big reach. I didn't mention anything about that in my comment though.
And it's great to know that 'having the occasional chat with someone in government who wanted to know what's going on' isn't the crime that she's normally accused of. But I don't care about what crimes she's normally being accused of, largely as I'm not the one making those accusations. I'm simply asking if anyone in intel might have wanted to keep tabs on the research community, and also whether Ferrell could have been a suitable candidate to do such a task. Because as noted, she did keep tabs on the research community. So the responses I've had back are basically, yeah she did, but she couldn't have had an alternate motive in doing so as she was such a warm and helpful person, or, yeah she might have chatted to people in government, but you should see what other people have accused her of, it's really nuts.
You then eventually get to my point in the PS part of your message - "If anyone in the CIA or NSA or PSA wanted to know the status of the research community, they wouldn't need to have someone on the inside. The latest research has been routinely presented in newsletters and at conferences." I'll simply note, (a.) would 'having someone on the inside' tell them anything more about the research community? I'm assuming it would. - (b.) is there ever any research done in the field that doesn't get presented in a newsletter or at a conference? I'm assuming there is. - (c.) Do those conferences happen monthly, biannually, or just every November, so would intel be sitting around going, don't worry guys, we know it's six months away but that researcher we've heard about will probably be in Dallas in November, unless he pops up in a newsletter first, and (d.) I know Ferrell (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't write a lot of articles, but I know she sometimes popped up at conferences because she spoke at one at least once, so hearing that she couldn't have been an insider keeping tabs because she attended conferences and helped others organise them, doesn't really strike me as evidence that she couldn't have been an insider keeping tabs.
There's been talk a couple of times in this thread that Ferrell has been weirdly accused of being in control of the research community, and / or derailed the work of researchers. I would have figured simply keeping an eye on what was happening would have been a perfectly welcome goal for intel in its own right, and she could have been asked to do it without necessarily having been a super spook who flew back over to Langley every other week likes James Bond. Joe made points about her background, and points about her behaviour when he met her. I'm yet to see them really refuted, other than comments saying jeez, do you really think she was a super spook, or isn't it funny how these crazy accusations get thrown at her. she was such a helpful lady, etc etc. The truth could have been quite mundane. She helped out, and kept an eye out, for decades because she was asked to, and the people asking her to do it didn't need her to do anything more than that. I'm not sure if this is any more astonishing or ludicrous a suggestion than a JFK author (Epstein) later becoming an establishment spokesperson for the neoconservatives, or having a Brandeis academic (Jacob Cohen) come out of the blue when Salandria was offering debates, and then go on to devote most of a 50 year career to attacking JFK conspiracies and the research community. Wondering if Ferrell had been gently asked to assist matters from another angle doesn't strike me as being particularly beyond the pale. Are there many other members of the research community who didn't bother to do much research of their own, but were always around to corral the work of others? Just wondering.
They're out!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
So some of these docs are still redacted. Page two, name or group censored.
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/198-10007-10008.pdf