Mark Stevens

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark, this is pseudo-scientific bunk.

If you know anything about Newtonian physics, you will recognize that steel skyscrapers cannot collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration unless the resistance to gravitational acceleration is zero.

So what abruptly eliminated the resistance to free fall collapse of the steel skyscrapers -- i.e., what abruptly demolished the lower steel substructures?

The steel substructures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were expertly demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11.

In fact, we can clearly see (and hear) the serial explosions on the video and audio recordings of 9/11.

This is one of the few subjects where I actually agree with Donald Trump-- and it's a subject that Donald Trump understands very well, because of his experience as a New York real estate developer.

[video removed from reply]

It's really not though.

If somewhere around 99% of scientists, architects, and engineers agree on the science which says the WTC fell according to the official story, then it's whatever is said by the other 1% that is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk." If somewhere around 99% of scientists agree on climate change, whatever is said by the other 1% is what is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk."

At least on this subject, due to scientific consensus, you are the one spreading propaganda, you are the one spreading lies and false advertising. You are in exactly the same camp as climate change deniers. There's really no way around it. Science is not on the side of climate change deniers and science is not on the side of 9/11 truthers. 

But, your beef isn't with me....it's with the scientific community. I'm pretty removed from 9/11 debate, and it would take me some time to refamiliarize myself with these topics if I am going to speak intelligently about them (at least in providing my own opinions). I'm just saying what the scientific community says and what science as a whole says. If the science is wrong, then prove it. Saying things like "c'mon that's just now how it works" isn't really physics, and doesn't do much to negate what the science they are using to back their points says.

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Those are no brainers, Mark.

The bona fide JFKA and 9/11 Truth research is predicated on science-- as in the case of the thousands of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, whose research has been completely blacklisted in the mainstream U.S. media.

Conversely, the oil industry propaganda denying climate change is based on the denial of science.

I agree with you about the difficulty regarding who the censors are.

But, wouldn't you agree that false advertising, in general, needs to be censored?

If industry propaganda leads to the destruction of the planet, and the human race, should it not be regulated by sensible laws?

Anyone who still believes that unregulated, laissez faire capitalism invariably optimizes the public good has simply not studied history.

There is no "invisible hand" protecting the public from unscrupulous profiteers, including media moguls like Rupert Murdoch.

 

It's just not that simple though.

If it were predicated on science, at least science which is accepted by the scientific community at large, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be discussing the hangings for treason that we seen over the last few years.

The fact is that peer reviewed and scientific community accepted science says that there is nothing to what Gage and A&E have to say.

One example being:

Quote

Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical model, with one and the same set of parameters, is shown capable of matching all of the observations, including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers, (2) the seismic records for both towers, (3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete, (4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred, (5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower, (6) the loud booms heard during collapse, (7) the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse, and (8) the dust content of cloud implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered.

These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00 WTC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

Based on this acceptance by the scientific community, or lackthereof, the arguments put forth by Gage and the like would not be considered bonafide science, but instead pseudoscience worthy of scorn, ridicule, and censorship. It would seem like 9/11 truth is built on the denial of science, much like you say climate change denial is. How would they both not be equally censored?

Comparing 9/11 truth to climate change...for every scientist that states climate change is nothing, there are 1000 who say they are wrong and climate change is a real concern brought on by all the things claimed to bring it on. Similarly, for every scientist (or architect or engineer) who states the WTC was brought down by a CD, there are 1000 others saying it wasn't and it was a natural occurence of being struck by a plane and burning.

If the logic says that based on scientific consensus we should censor climate change denial, then based on scientific consensus we should ban and censor 9/11 truth. 

(disclaimer: While I do not generally adhere to the claims of Gage or A&E 9/11 movement, I do believe 9/11 was part of a larger conspiracy.)

21 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

3.  It is bizarre that the initial reports stated that a policeman was killed inside the Texas Theatre by Oswald, and that later reports amplified this by claiming Tippit was shot in the theater.

Here is a snippet of a related article I have...

Another...

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Let me bring up another example of an issue where I believe some degree of "censorship" may be necessary and ethical in the U.S. -- in the public interest.

I have already mentioned false advertising, stochastic terrorism, sedition, and public health matters.

What about disinformation denying climate change?

Fossil fuel industry moguls (Exxon, Koch Industries, Marathon et.al.) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars during the past 20 years on U.S. propaganda denying climate change.

It's the main reason that many Americans still deny the scientific consensus about climate change and the role of fossil fuels in accelerating the catastrophe.

In a sense, it's false advertising writ large, and should be censored, in the public interest.

I couldn't disagree more.

Censorship is a very slippery slope, especially with vague "in the public interest" rationality.

Why wouldn't censoring 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories be in the public interest? For many people, especially based on a "scientific consensus," those conspiracy theorists are spreading lies, false advertising, and eroded trust in government based on outlandish and thorougly debunked claims. How is it not in the public interest to stop that?

What exactly is the definition of "public interest?"

Who decides what that definition is?

Who makes up the "public?"

Who decides that population?

In the end, if we start censoring one idea it sets precedent that can be built upon which allows other ideas to be censored. Before long, if you speak against a party, a politician, a government program, you are a criminal. There are literally hundreds of government programs either live, or only on paper that we all have some kind of interest in and in which we speak out against, when is that speech censored? When is this forum shut down?

So much more I want to say, but I'll leave it at...slippery slope indeed...

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

The chin contour is distorted by a background shadow, as I said (?) two weeks ago.

And the angle of the tilted head is slightly different in the two photos (from '62 and Dealey Plaza.)  

In any case, this is my last post on the subject of the two photos of GHWB and George W. Bush in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and the ancillary evidence of GHWB's dubious alibis -- i.e., the FBI phone call about James Parrott and Barbara Bush's awkwardly contrived letter.  I've said what I had to say too many times.

Kirk Gallaway was correct last week.  This debate about the photos of Bush and Lansdale has been unnecessarily drawn out by a continuous series of redundant claims that completely ignored the posted rebuttals.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a subset of members on this forum who seem to be more focused on disrupting honest debates about JFKA evidence, and engaging in repeated ad hominem slurs, than discerning the truth?

As an example, why have Rob Clark, Cory Santos, Steve Roe, and others persistently refused to comment on Russ Baker's damning analysis of the dubious GHWB alibis, while insisting that the TSBD photo has been "debunked?"

We could call it Lance Payette-ism.

The irony of whining about ad hominem attacks while basically attacking others isn't missed on me.

That aside, you seem to suffer from an association fallacy. "Bush (allegedly) lied about his whereabouts on 11/22/63, therefore this grainy picture of a guy with a marginal resemblence is absolutely Bush." Bush's alibi can be bogus, and that can not be him in the photo. The two items are not mutually exclusive. You seem to draw correlations and associations that don't actually exist except in your mind.

You also seem to forget that at least a few of the names you have mentioned do infact think Bush's alibi deserves scrutiny and have hardly "refused to comment" on the topic.

1 hour ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

It doesn't prove it is he in the photo but it certainly proves him to be a serial xxxx and spook who denied up until the time he took charge of the CIA that he was every involved with it. The Hoover "Bush" memo proves that. 

 

In 57 years nobody has come forward to claim they saw Lee Oswald firing shots from the 6th floor window either. So obviously he did not.

It actually doesn't though. Considering the Hoover "Bush" memo hasn't actually been "proven" to be directed to this Bush. Again, don't get me wrong...I do believe it is likely this Bush who the memo is referring to, but again it has not been proven.

The difference between your Oswald comparison is that a person who can be atleast marginally identified as Oswald was not photographed in the window multiple times standing next to multiple people. Your comparison isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and "c'mon man really, that's the best you got?"

I'm not aware of any photo which shows any one in the window, much less one with features that in any way resemble Oswald. I'm not aware of any photo which shows anyone standing around with a person who resembles Oswald. So again, your comparison, while a good shot a "haha Mark I zinged you," sems to have missed the mark.

This "Bush" person on the other hand is photographed multiple times standing next to multiple people, where are they at now? Where are the "I saw Bush in DP" stories?

Probably right next to the "I saw Roselli take a shot from the storm drain" stories.

38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Indeed.  Some people are, obviously, quite invested in denying GHWB's history with the Company.

I haven't seen anyone "deny GHWB's history with the Company." I have seen people deny this grainy photo is him, I didn't realize that by doing one you were doing the other. If you deny the photo, you deny association to the CIA, check.

40 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

If it is true that GHWB was in the CIA even before the BOP and this fact has been purposely blocked from disclosure despite much public inquiry doesn't this prove or at least suggest that there is much more to GHWB that our entire society has been kept ignorant of?

The true secret life of GHWB?

And because this man held some of the most powerful positions of leadership in our society for decades (including the presidency itself!) and exerted so much influence over major policies and events during this time, who wouldn't see the importance of wanting to know the "full truth" about this man and what he was all about?

As I mentioned earler, GHWB was perfect recruit material into the intel world. His being born of wealthy and high political position family, Yale grad, war service and hero status, ambitious political and business drive, etc.

Whether GHWB was in Dealey Plaza that day or not, his odd calling into the FBI with a suspect report, the Hoover memo to a George Bush of the CIA ( come on, we know this was him ) and so many other incidents of intrigue during the sixties and throughout his entire career tell us the man and his life were immersed in secrecy.

And because GHWB was in the highest political rungs of American power for so long and whose actions seriously effected all of our daily lives during that time, anyone wanting to know the truth about anything beyond their own small bubble of individual existence is forced to consider and perhaps acknowledge this secret life of GHWB and how and why it matters to know this truth.

I always wondered whether GHWB knew the truth about the JFK event, guessing he did.

And when Oswald acquaintance George De Mohrenschildt writes a personal letter of deep stress and concern regards his very life to Bush while Bush was head of the CIA and actually gets a "Dear George" personal response back, this opens up just another realm of intrigue regarding Bush and someone directly involved with the alleged killer of JFK. 

The whole Bush family thing is a weird and heavy hodge podge of secrets.

Interesting quirky side story about "Poppy" Bush. Came across a video on YouTube where a person helping set up an interview of him and working with another set up person who had pinned a small mic on Bush which wasn't supposed to be turned on until the interview began. However, it accidently was. The mic man overheard Poppy asking a person close by about "little green men" ( Ebens ) and saying he ( Bush ) had seen one and that it was real.

???

Joe, we probably agree on most basic aspects. I do agree that the Bush family is a "weird and heavy hodge podge of secrets." I though am not sold on "involvement" in the JFKA but I can believe he soon knew who was responsible, as I believe most did most in that circle. I don't for one second believe he was in DP on 11/22 nor is he the person photographed.

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Cory, I agree. I do have evidence of GHWB in Tyler at the Kiwanis luncheon (held every Friday) in the Blackstone Hotel (downtown Tyler). Mr. Niederhut has made up his mind, or convinced himself it was GHWB standing in front of the TSBD. There are obvious doubts to this, of course. GHWB declared his candidacy for Texas Republican Senate back in September 1963. Tyler was just one of his campaign stops at luncheons, civic groups, etc. He had stayed in Dallas at the Sheraton, giving a speech at the API the night before. He then travelled onto Tyler, about 100 miles away to attend the Kiwanis Club meeting. The photo of the "Bush look-alike" standing in front of the TSBD was taken by Willie Allen, who worked for the Dallas Times Herald. The photo was taken sometime before 1:15, as you can see DPD patrolman Maurice "Nick" McDonald standing there as well. The front entrance was sealed off of course, but somehow according to Mr. Niederhut, George Bush managed to get past the cops and stand there. Really? And for what reason? I could go on, but as you say, it's not worth the time and effort to argue the ridiculous. I do have a photo of Bush, in Tyler, speaking at the Kiwanis club. I obtained it from the Bush Presidential Library in College Station. I will not share it here. 

I think you touched on one aspect these guys just continue to gloss over, hundreds of witnesses would have seen Bush in Dealey Plaza and would be able to attest to his identity, yet not a single witness has come forward (I guess they were got to). In this and the other purported Bush photo, he is clearly standing around and seemingly engaging with others. Not just those who appear to be officers or detectives, but witnesses and "looky-loos" as well.

The reason no one has come forward and stated that "yes that is Bush in the photo because they saw him there," is that it wasn't Bush. That doesn't matter though to these guys, the grainy photo looks something like him. So even though he is verfied at another location, and not a single person who engaged with "Bush" has verified his identity...the grainy photo just proves it's him.

Don't get me wrong, I follow the general logic and subscribe to the idea that Bush has been involved with the CIA since pre-BoP. That doesn't mean this is him though and mentioning this so called "fact", or the Hoover "Bush" memo doesn't strengthen the argument but shows how many straws you all are willing to grasp at in a feeble attempt to make your point.

27 minutes ago, Dan Rice said:

I think Cory means the picture of Oswald getting shot.  I do recall somebody (possibly Cinque) online claiming that it wasn't Ruby that shot Oswald.

Wait, so yall are telling me the guy below isn't the shooter? Everything matches from the back... It's not going to be easy explaining this away, it's obviously him from the back... 

Bob Hoskins obviously shot Oswald, anyone can see its the same person.

7 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Josh, is there a validated, authenticated source that you can point me to regarding the composition of the Suite 8F Group?

Might be of some help...

https://books.google.com/books?id=tywEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://houstonhistorymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/8F-HH-1.2-optimized.pdf

9 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

It's not classified. It has never been; for any election, ever.

You are so far behind.

You need to ponder some more.

Yes it has, and always has been.

What site can I download the file that shows me what candidate Robert Wheeler voted for in every election?

You keep dodging all my questions while trying to make zingers that don't stick. Maybe you could address the points instead of constantly deflecting.

19 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

When you rely on Doug Caddy to spoon feed you the "news" from Raw Story, you tend to miss a lot of important stuff.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/acting-defense-secretary-orders-top-special-ops-civilian-to-report-directly-to-him-1.652557

 

 

Sorry for the massive multi-quote...

I'm not sure what your beef with Caddy or with whatever he posts is, but maybe you should take that up with him.

In the meantime, it might help you to be familiar with what you're posting. For instance from your link...

Quote

 

The move on Wednesday aligns the Pentagon with the congressional intent for the top special operations civilian. In the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers ordered the Pentagon to raise the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict to a service secretary-like job and report directly to the defense secretary “for issues impacting the readiness and organization of special operations forces, special operations-peculiar resources and equipment, and civilian personnel management.”

Congress urged the Pentagon to speed up the elevation of the position in its fiscal year 2020 NDAA, the annual law that sets Pentagon policy and spending priorities. Esper told Congress last year that the Defense Department was making progress on the ordered changes.

 

So this isn't some shakeup of the establishment, this is a Congressionally ordered mandate which he...followed. Ah man, he zung it to the Deep State by following their wishes..hyuck..he shore did.

13 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

While you guys were postIng old memes, because that’s all you got, this kid is filtering all the votes in Pennsylvania for ballots that were mailed out and mailed back the same day. 
 

This is what people do when they don’t rely on the media to tell them what to think.

 

Could you share with any of us where we can get classified voter information to "sift" through?

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

One of the other things I learned last night while watching Dark Journalist on Youtube was that the Actor Woody Harrelson's mother's maiden name was Oswald. (Woody's father Charles Voyde Harrelson killed the judge and is on the possible JFK hit man list. Most of you know the story, I'm sure better than me.) Anyway, Diane Lou Oswald was married to Charles Charles 1959 to 1964 according to Wikipedia.

Charles Harrelson was mentioned by DJ in reference to Sydney Powell.

According to DJ, Sydney Powell, (Gen. Flynn's lawyer and the lawyer leading the gathering of evidence to prove the Election Cheating) was the Prosecutor on the Charles Harrelson case. (DJ wasn't exactly clear of the particulars. The entire show is worth a listen.) 

Finally, in another weird "coincidence", Vice President Pence was Woody Harrelson's roommate in college.

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Really?

You managed to to write all of that but you don't know who Sydney Powell is?

The absolute irony of not knowing who Powell is, then saying I don't know who she is....

I'm quite familiar with who she is. What I'm not familiar with is what puts her in a position to actually have any of the knowledge or information to make the claims she has. She doesn't is the point, she's just making crap up and saying whatever and you don't care because it fits your views, regardless of validity, truth, or reason.

She joined the "team" after the election and came on immediately saying fraud, theft, blah blah blah. She never had time to gather information or conduct any legitimate investigation. She came on spouting her preconcieved conspiracy theories and you lot sucked it up without question because....Apparently the inept Democrats pulled off the greatest caper in history...

The evidence is all right here....

Quote

 

 

16 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Sidney Powell HAS CONFIRMED the US military seized Scytl servers in Germany.

If you don't know what a Scytl server is, do a search on duckduckgo. Contemplate what Biden might say in his concession speech, and then stare out your feet as you ponder why you don't know anything.

Well first...lmao.

Who is this person to "confirm" anything? How would she ever have verifiable first hand knowledge?

Second, what the person said was she "heard" servers were confiscated. Hardly a "confirmation."

Considering the company has no servers in Germany and the fact the Army has said it is bullshit is just....the reach of the Deep State?

You thinking Biden will ever give a concession speech or will not be the 46th President is fairly textbook...

https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder#1

Quote

 

Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a psychotic disorder. People who have it can’t tell what’s real from what is imagined.

Delusions are the main symptom of delusional disorder. They’re unshakable beliefs in something that isn’t true or based on reality. But that doesn’t mean they’re completely unrealistic. Delusional disorder involves delusions that aren’t bizarre, having to do with situations that could happen in real life, like being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve mistaken perceptions or experiences. But in reality, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.

 

I might stare at my feet, but it will be to watch them move forward, progress, and move on. You'll continue to run in place and throw your tantrums and tell us we are the losers who can't get over it.

14 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The SEALS are now under the direct control of the Sec Def, rather than the Navy and/or Alphabet Agency. Just what JFK was trying to do.

So, no.

 

Why do you keep saying this?

Wyman Howard is the commander. I guess this is probably stupid of me because you never post evidence for any of your other paranoid delusions, but do you have anything to back this up? 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

     IMO, Trump never does anything "for the sake of others."  It's not in his nature.

      He's a sociopath whose modus operandi is to manipulate others for his own benefit-- for financial gain, power, adulation , sex, etc.

       One of the most disturbing things about Trumpism, for me, has been the inability of so many Americans to recognize and understand the nature and characteristics of Trump's sociopathy-- even in 2020!

     Tom Nichols said it well in his recent Atlantic essay entitled, "A Large Portion of the Electorate Voted for the Sociopath."

      To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Trump is a fraud, inside of a swindle, wrapped in a scam."

 

I don't really disagree.

I do believe though that in this instance he really is doing it for "the sake of others." Not so much for them, but at the end of the day Trump is tied to his base. If they give up on him, he's done. He has to do actions like this which on the surface are "for the sake of others" but are really cons meant to bolster his own stature. By fighting "for them" it raises his stature in their eyes. It also drives home the stolen election idea (Trump's stabbed in the back myth) and allows him to cultivate this crop of lunacy for eventual harvest in 2024.

Just like chants of "build the wall" (do you think Trump gave 2 xxxxs about a wall?), which his followers very much cared about and believed in. He championed that idea, and they championed him. If he champions this idea and "fights for them" then they very much will continue to champion him and fight for him. At the end of the day it's not for them, it's truly for him but the guise has to exist.

We're basically saying the same thing, he's manipulating others for his benefit. The others have to believe the manipulation though, they have to believe he is fighting for them (and they do).

I read an article earlier, no link sorry, but it stated Trump knows he lost and will not be re-elected, but is putting up the fight for the sake of his supporters.

I think this ties well into what I stated earlier and with Stewart's observations. Unlike most politicians, Trump listens to his base and gives them what they want.

ETA:

I believe this tactic will work quite well from Trump and allow him to run again in 2024 and use this as a rallying point for his supporters. It will be his own "poopoo stabbed in the back myth."

Additional ETA:

lmao @ "poopoo" Seriously, we can't abbreviate National Socialists German Workers Party without censorship? I can understand not wanting to call people a name, but not even being allowed to say it in proper context?

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

This election more than past presidential ones has piqued my interest in and awareness of the complexities of voter demographics including gender, ethnicity, age, income, education, religion, urban versus rural residency, geographical residency, feelings regards candidate morality, race, the economy etc.

Seeing and contemplating the actual factual demographic numbers in this election presents an American political mind set reality that is quite different than even I thought I understood.

Just one demographic aspect ( I will add more to this post later ) that has startled me in my perception of Trump's base of support was the recent list posted here showing the breakdown of the voting numbers based on gender ethnicity.

White women in this country favored Trump over Biden by 12 percentage points!

55% to 43%.

I am still shocked at this reality.

Of course white males favored Trump equally.

This dual female, male white vote fact reveals that if white Americans only had the singular power to elect our President, Donald Trump would be elected in a landslide and probably given more than two terms.

It also means that a significant majority of white Americans believe that Trump has done a good job!

And his moral character, obsessive lying, encouraging extremist right wing and racist view groups and/or his reported dealings with corrupt others throughout most of his adult life are not issues of concern for them.

This is a head shaking, wake up call realization for me. 

I am trying to understand what this majority white America Trump support mind set is based on? How has it been shaped and so deeply imbedded. What is it born of?

I have always felt that 50 years of 50 million listener audience right wing radio talk programming ( brainwashing ) with a dozen personalities promoting the angry white mind set 24/7 on the radio airways versus hardly any left wing influence has helped shape this deep left hating and fearing sentiment.

Rush Limbaugh has spent the last 40 years demonizing the liberal mind set and linking the Democratic party to this boogie man fear mongering.

Limbaugh has always loved to share his cynical comedic takes on this boogie man/left wing threat.

He's always been a wanna be stand up comedian/ funny disc jockey at heart.

Incessantly using scary and derogatory and humorously insulting words, labels and phrases in his anectodal tirades.

Black welfare queens, commie sympathizers, California queer liberalism, unpatriotic flag burners, commie minded college professors brainwasing their students into hating America, illegal immigrant take overs, and on and on.

I still think this massive 50 year long national radio right wing promoting, left wing demonizing brainwashing propaganda campaign has a lot to do with white American's left and liberal hating and fearing mind set.

However, this election I honestly thought white female Americans had actually seen the disliking and disgusted light regards Trump especially in his insulting and demeaning sexual aggressiveness, attitude, comments ( "grab em by the pu$$y" ) and even predatory history towards women as documented by many victims ( E. Jean Carroll rape charge, Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, twenty others in the book "All The President's Women - The Making Of A Sexual Predator"  ) who were actually brave enough to put their real names in widely published accounts of Trump's abhorrent behavior in this way.

Topped by Trump's recent public pronouncement of sympathy towards jailed Jeffrey Epstein child sex predator victim procuror Ghislaine Maxwell.

Apparently all this sexual immoral behavior history on Trump's part means nothing to the majority of white American women!

What issue could be more important to white American women in shaping their favorable versus unfavorable views on Donald Trump than his well documented history of sexual predator behavior toward women ( them ?)

The economy? Race? Illegal immigration? Anti-abortion? What?

What do these Trump favoring white American women tell their daughters and granddaughters who may ask them -  Mom (grandma) why would you support a proven sexual predator as our president?

Again, the actual factual demographic numbers of this election have blown away my false logic perception in this realm of Trump support understanding.

White American women love this guy more than hate or even dislike him!

Roseanne Barr is truly and sadly the ideological Trump loving poster person of our white women majority!

What a reality wake up call! Personally a very disturbing one imo.

I'm honestly a little more disturbed that people just don't seem to get it or see it until afterwards. Just like the first election when a good portion of people sat around scratching their heads wondering how this could have happened when all the polls said something different....When general sentiment said something different...When logic, common sense and the basic human decency we all expect most others to have said something different...America still elected Donald Trump as President. 

While, without the exception of some extraordinary events, he will not go on to be President again, the same head scratching and general confusion over his support still exists this time around.

I'm surprised that he lost. I expected him to win again and while I did think it would be closer than the last election I did expect him to win.

I've mentioned it before, but I work in a large manufacturing plant and I live in the South (maybe being in the South creates a different perspective). On a daily basis I come into contact with literally hundreds of Trump supporters. I have heard literally every last one of these talking points and I literally hear at least one of your quoted items below mentioned on a daily basis. (I'm only emphasizing these words to drive home the point that I am not exaggerating or embellishing.)

Quote

Black welfare queens, commie sympathizers, California queer liberalism, unpatriotic flag burners, commie minded college professors brainwasing their students into hating America, illegal immigrant take overs, and on and on.

The Trump supporters I've encountered truly believe Trump is sent by god to save America from ____(fill in the blank with one/all of your items above). Anything said about Trump by the godless left is just a product of the Deep State sent to attack Trump because he is shaking up their institutions, draining the swamp, and saving our children.

Again, the above is not just some putdown, or colloquial talking point, this is literally what these people believe. They aren't explaining why they supported a sexual abuser to their children because he didn't do it, it's all lies invented by the left and the Deep State. Look at Trump's wives, look at his money. Do you really think he'd have to assault women for it? 

Jon Stewart best summarized why Trump was elected years ago and the exact sentiment holds true today...

Quote

 

I don't necessarily believe that a full-court press on his "untruthedness" would necessarily change it. I mean...he was voted for, but I do think he is generally the conclusion to years of...he makes sense if you view it through the prism of talk radio. I like to drive, and...so I listen to talk radio and it is 24-7 of "your country is being taken away from you." As far as I can tell the conservative side or on the right side, they feel an ownership over America. They are the stewards of America....Republicans, conservatives love America, they just hate like 50% of the people living in it.....

...In some ways it's a natural reaction to fear. Now, if you have that fear stoked on a daily basis and at an incredibly high pitch...and this is not "we really need to do something about this country, we're facing some difficult problems." This is "you are run by a tyrant, he is going to take away your rights, we are falling, there are rapists and murderers at the border coming to kill you." If that's what you've been fed and that's what you're buying into Donald Trump makes more sense than anybody else out there because he's going "great, let's build a wall...the Visigoths are at the gate let's build a xxxxing wall and not let..." It makes total sense. What wouldn't make sense, are the general Republican leadership going "there are Visigoths at the wall, they are here to kill you...let's try and not pass a new budget resolution." Their rhetoric has never matched their action. Donald Trump is saying "oh, that's your rhetoric? Then yeah, let's build a wall." 

 

While I waited to get the text from Stewart above, I saw an article titled "White People Will Believe Anything...Except Facts."

It had a few nuggets...

Quote

The idiotic belief that tens of thousands of poll workers got on a Zoom call and came up with a plan that outsmarted all the disparate elections systems software programmers, poll workers, vote counters, legislative bodies and voters is just the latest asinine assumption of white people.

Quote

They refused to accept that Barack Obama was born in the United States even when they saw his birth certificate but—with no proof whatsoever—insist that Donald Trump actually pays taxes. They believe Obama was only elected because he was Black but Trump’s election had nothing to do with whiteness—it was “economic anxiety.”

Quote

There is only one thing that explains why white folks figure the news is fake; the coronavirus is the flu; the CDC is composed of science fiction writers and Donald Trump is a good, honest Christian man who overcame a hardscrabble life as a multimillionaire son to reach the presidency through hard work, intelligence with no help from Russia:

White people are dumb.

To be fair, there is one other possible explanation.

Perhaps—and I know this will sound like a crazy conspiracy theory—they refuse to acknowledge the existence of math, science, facts and truth because it suits their goals. What if their collective, selective ignorance was all a ruse that allows them to align with white supremacy without openly admitting it?

What if white people are just racist?

Nah...

Only an idiot would believe that.

https://www.theroot.com/white-people-will-believe-anything-except-facts-1845635274

I said who's gonna tell the youth about the drugs about the drugs, mugs, bugs, and the police thugs about the rotten stinkin' rackets and the fantasies around the nation, around the nations....

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

"I think the facts are going to overtake any political dialogue very quickly".

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/gottlieb-predicts-thanksgiving-will-be-inflection-point-for-winter-coronavirus-surge/ar-BB1aAKqS?li=BBnb7Kz

Is Scott Gottlieb related to Sidney Gottlieb?

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/commissioner-of-the-food-and-drug-administration-who-is-scott-gottlieb-170424?news=860154

Quote

Gottlieb is from New Jersey. He grew up in East Brunswick, son of Stanley, a psychiatrist, and Marsha Gottlieb. Gottlieb attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut, where he was editor of the school paper, and graduated with a B.A. in economics in 1994. He worked for a year as an investment banking analyst at Alex Brown and Sons before going to medical school. Gottlieb attended Mount Sinai School of Medicine at NYU, earning his M.D. in 1999 and finishing his residency in internal medicine there in 2002.

37 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Kathy story is already busted. The authors sources are from other non-attributable sources. Another circle jerk of establishment narrative nonsense, like how Carter Pages FISAs were obtained.

So you're saying the below is not true then, the Aspen person does exist, does live in Switzerland and did work for the firm which was claimed. That firm is lying, as is Christopher Balding?

Quote

 

The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.

One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.

 

49 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said:

Sorry to hear that and good luck with your recovery. Any idea how you may have picked up the virus?

Thanks!

I was exposed to a co-worker. He flew down and could have gotten on the flight, or in the hotel he was staying in. We were both pretty diligent about mask wearing and only removed them when we went out to lunch. I'm not sure what his diligence was like after-hours though.

He worked closely with me and two others, neither of those have developed any symptoms. One had a test last week and was negative.

On 10/24/2020 at 12:05 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Mark and Rob,

       I owe both of you guys an apology for my somewhat hostile comments on this thread.  I can't delete them, so I must simply apologize for them.

      Your criticisms of Col. Prouty kind of hit a nerve for me. 

      Thinking it over, I realize now that I have put the Colonel on a pedestal of sorts.  

      The first book about the JFK assassination that I ever read (just a few years ago) was Prouty's, JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.  It shook me up.

      I discovered the book on Amazon, after watching the movie JFK, and learning that Donald Sutherland's character, Mr. X, was largely based on Prouty. 

      Regarding Prouty's motives for speaking out about JFK's murder, my impression is that money and notoriety had nothing to do with it.  For one thing, he was a bank president and a retired colonel.

      I think the guy was a good man and a true patriot who was deeply troubled about what he perceived as a rogue "Secret Team" operating beyond the purview of our elected government officials.

      It bothered me a few years ago when I read some crap on-line (at McAdams.edu, I think) impugning Prouty's reputation by claiming that he was only a pilot/"chauffeur" who was making stuff up about the CIA, etc.  That stuff wasn't consistent at all with his detailed descriptions of his career.

You definitely don't owe me an apology, but appreciated nonetheless.

I do believe that with Prouty many have indeed put him on a pedestal (I actually wrote that in an earlier reply and deleted it) and as such do not question his statements as thoroughly as they have others.

My sentiments regarding Prouty are best summarized by the ARRB and his position is best described by them...

(any emphasis is mine)

Quote

Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from 1955-1964. His position can be documented. Beyond documents verifying his position, however, the ARRB is unlikely to find anything to add to the record by following Prouty’s allegations or statements. His statements, coming from someone who was verifiably in a position to know, sound plausible, and would appear to carry the credibility of an insider’s knowledge.

Under more careful analysis, it becomes clear that: 

a.) Prouty has no first hand knowledge of any activities involving Lee Harvey Oswald, a plot to assassinate the president, or any evidence of such a plot.

b.) Prouty’s allegations, while sounding authoritative, are based primarily on his interpretations of events. Furthermore, upon questioning, it seems clear that many of Prouty’s allegations are not based on interpretations of actual events, but merely his feelings or general beliefs. Any follow-up action on his allegations would be an ineffectual use of ARRB time and resources.

c.) Prouty, in his published work, makes allegations which point clearly to a high level conspiracy. Given the opportunity to document these allegations or in some other fashion uncover the truth, however, Prouty declined to do so, and often retreated from or contradicted his published claims.

Two things should be emphasized: that this rejection of Prouty does not reflect a rejection or confirmation of any other conspiracy theories; and that the ARRB did not seek out Prouty for the purpose of discrediting him or theories. We had intended on hearing his story and trying to obtain suggestions from Prouty as to where we could find documents to add to the collection. In the face of numerous contradictions, unsupportable allegations, and assertions which we know to be incorrect, we have no choice but to conclude that there is nothing to be gained or added to the record from following up on anything he told us. No evidence was offered to substantiate any of the allegations Prouty has either published in the past or raised during the interview.

I agree with Prouty on many things, but we diverge on the details.

For instance I also believe in a high level cabal, but unlike Prouty I do not believe it is controlled or ran by Israel or "jews."

In other coronavirus news...

I had a positive test today. I have had mild symptoms at best, but I lost my taste and smell and felt that was something to check on.

So far I haven't felt bad other than a headache.

Here's to hoping the next 10 days pass without any real excitement.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Read the book.

Prouty's accurate claims about JFK's assassination are innumerable, and very detailed.

IMO, Prouty is one of the main heroes of the JFKA Truth movement-- along with Garrison and Oliver Stone.  (From what I have read, I would also put James DiEugenio in that same category.)

Now, tell us what "disinformation" you think Prouty propagated.

If his accurate claims are so innumerable, you should have no problem listing at least a few. Again, I'm aware of the claims Prouty has made and I'm aware of the claims in this book.

I'm asking again for you to explain what JFKA specific claims he has made which were in fact truthful?

You've asked me a lot of questions and I have faithfully answered all of them (whether you agree with them or not).

Could you answer this one for me? I don't feel like I'm asking much. It shouldn't be hard for you to state what you feel he has stated that was accurate or otherwise factual.

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

What "disinformation" do you imagine Prouty was disseminating?  Do tell.

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I wondered about this myself.  Prouty implicated the CIA.  Are Rob and Mark saying he lied covering for the military, as he was military?  I have a hard time believing he was in it for the $$$ as you allude to Rob.

Well, could either of you tell me which JFKA specific claims Prouty made which were in fact true?

9 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Third time I'm asking...what is the citation for Lansdale personally sending Prouty to Antarctica? Other than Prouty said so? Any documents or corraboration backing this claim up?

Did Prouty state this? If I understand it all correctly, the orders would have come from Rear Adm. James Reedy.

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

If Prouty made this all up...why would he do so?

The man had a stellar, high achievement, high rank, high assignment ( liason to the White House?)  full career with so many commendations.

Why would he risk his entire outstanding military career legacy to do something like you are suggesting ... making up parts of his JFK conspiracy story?

IMO someone would have to be suffering from brain damage to do something so antithetical to their entire life's achievments and mental, moral and professional ethics.

And if Prouty did commit such an irresponsible and even unpatriotic act of making his claims up, why would someone of equally high military career stature like General Victor Krulak stand by Prouty until his own passing?

Today, we see many top former military generals and admirals as well as former highest position intelligence and state and foreign service members doing something unprecedented in expressing their concern for the country in condemning Donald Trump in the most public way. Television news show interviews, signing their names to official group proclamation letters, writing op-ed pieces published in newspapers and magazines. 

I believe Prouty sensed with all his being, that JFK was taken out by others in high positions of power. And he risked his entire military career standing to asking questions in interviews and books and assisting researchers, presenting incongruous actions he saw happen before and up to JFK in Dallas, and even going so far as to suspect some involvement by the super aggressive planner of government overthrows Lansdale.

A commitment and sacrifice very similar to Jim Garrison.

Even though they both knew some parts of their theories might be wrong in certain aspects imo.

This is an impossible question to answer. I can't tell you why he lied, but the fact that he did lie, or at the best mislead through his statements is evident.

Why did Files lie? Why did Rachel Dolezal pretend to be black? Why do people tell all the lies they do? There is no answer for those questions (actually their often are...money..mental illness..etc) but just because we can't fathom the "why" someone would do something doesn't mean they actually didn't do it. Maybe the psychiatrist can help us understand what motivates a person to lie or to embellish stories with facts that aren't....factual.

40 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well said, Joe.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone who has carefully studied his work would impugn L. Fletcher Prouty's integrity.  He was a gem, and a rare, perceptive witness of important Deep State events during JFK's presidency who spilled the beans. 

He mentioned in one of his books, possibly The Secret Team, that he was one person involved in CIA Special Ops who never had to sign one of Allen Dulles's Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Two questions that I have for Mark and Rob.

1)  Have you read JFK-- The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy?

2)  If Prouty was not concerned about being targeted by the CIA, why was he so careful about concealing his contact with Jim Garrison during the Garrison investigation?

I'm surprised that more people do not view Prouty with suspicion and question his motivations for speaking to Garrison (as well as his subsequent claims) and why many don't wonder if he was part of an elaborate scheme to disinform.

I have read one Prouty book, but it was some time ago and I can't recall which it was. I think it was Secret Team. Reading a book he wrote in 1992 doesn't change the fact the he erased this book with his ARRB testimony.

Why do you keep referencing this book as if it is the end all be all? The value of the book is negated by his subsequent statements. What are you not understanding about this? 

As far as being targeted by the CIA, I guess it depends on how you look at it, which could be at least two different ways.

Scenario 1...he is being truthful...He would likely want to conceal his identity because he was still actively employed by the U.S. Government. I believe almost the second he retired he began speaking out against the CIA, Vietnam, JFK and other issues. I don't know off hand when he first made the "JFK" claims, but he did not wait 30 years to do so. He almost immediately began making the statements he made throughout his life as soon as he retired.

Scenario 2...he is part of a disinfo op...Him hiding his identity and being all "cloak and dagger" with Garrison...doesn't that make it all sweeter? The mystery? The flair? The danger? The bullxxxx?

Like I've said and shown to be true, he was not in fear of being targeted by the CIA for his statements because he immediately started saying those things when he retired. He repeated those claims in print and in tv and radio until 1996 when he backtracked, downplayed, and pretended he didn't understand why people like you were making "much ado about nothing."

Anyone who believes in Garrison believes he was sabotaged and infiltrated from the start. How would this not fit right into that? How much of Garrison's focus became tied to the claims of Prout...I mean Col. "X"?