Andrew Prutsok
-
Posts
661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Andrew Prutsok
-
-
On January 5, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Paul Brancato said:
Correction - Prescott Bush and Union Bank were never actually convicted.
Tell me more about Gisevius.
Were they ever even charged?
-
Kaplan, the rave reviewer, was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq War. I'm sure his analysis of Vietnam would be ever bit as insightful.
-
On January 6, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Bernie Laverick said:
And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled!
How is this any different than any political party anywhere operates? Did you hear any Republicans questioning the merits of the tax bill. Damned few anyway.
-
On August 30, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jason Ward said:
I hate to defend the Bushes, Felix Rodriguez, Ghorbanifar, Ledeen, and all the others who were busy with covert plots 1960-199?, but in retrospect the Iran-Contra scandal may have done some good. Iran has consistently refused to sponsor direct attacks on the US, although their money ends up with Hamas and assorted angry unemployed young men ready for a suicide attack on Israel. I've seen several ME experts argue that a kind of detente was established with the October surprise and Iran-Contra that lasts to present day.
So, maybe Kerry was partially selfish but also believed it was best for the country not to go nuclear with the scandal? Hoover and LBJ thought the same in 1963.
Jason
I'm sure Guatemala, Chile and Indonesia are all better off today as well for the CIA's dirty dealings.
-
I'm not sure a quality education is necessarily related to a person's honesty and truthfulness.
-
16 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:
Michael, in view of our reset relationship and withdrawal of hostilities maybe now would be a good time to give a brief reason why I think it is important to debunk and where possible disprove any theory we fear may be acting as a hindrance to further enlightenment. We quite happily come on here and tussle with LNs, not because it's fun, but because we believe that their narrative needs to be robustly countered. There is nothing wrong with that surely? Same with fringe theories that look seductive at first glance but fall to dust on closer inspection.
For example, I'm suspicious that there are gigantic gaping gaps in the story, like what became of 'Lee' after Nov 22nd 1963?
What became of his doppelganger mother?
Why was 'Lee' allowed, given this ultra top secret plot, to go out and buy trucks under his own name while 'Harvey' was in Russia?
How do we explain 'Lee's' known mastoid scar being found on 'Harvey' too?
When did it become apparent that the two unrelated boys looked almost identical? (So much so that much evidence for H&L is from witness testimony who say he looked like the man shot by Ruby)
Why are the H&L supporters confident that there isn't anything left to find about this story?
How can a plot that is so tightly sewn up with, according to Jim, nearly all evidence removed, destroyed, manipulated or tidied up, how could it include so many people in the know?
Why hasn't any H&L supporter seen fit to try and contact relatives or associates of the dozens of people who knew of H&L?
Why do they refuse to take this further than the JFK chat forums and not reach out to respectable alternative media, or anti establishment investigative journalists like John Pilger?
What new piece of information has emerged since the release of H&L that corroborates it in any way? This is the killer for me....
Wouldn't there be someone, somewhere, who went to school with 'Lee', or played in the same block, (someone OTHER than those named in the book) wouldn't they be even slightly interested in the JFK story? We come on here looking for answers, how strange that not one of the people who must have known 'Lee' has subsequently taken an interest in the JFK assassination and stumbled on this story. A story that they would be able to corroborate, thus boosting the credibility of H&L. As yet...no one! Think about it. How many must have known and interacted with the MO doppelganger. Of course, they wouldn't know she was the 'doppelganger' unless they subsequently developed an interest in the JFK story, which some of them would... surely? We have, why wouldn't they? Is it likely that everyone who know either 'Lee' or MO, that not one of them would eventually do some of their own digging and, just like us, more than likely find themselves on here. To which they would then go "EUREKA"! Twenty years after the publication and we are still waiting for just one person to come forward.
I'm suspicious that twenty years after the creation of a 1,000 page book with such excruciating detail that not one single jot of it has subsequently been seen to be wrong by those who promote it. How likely is it that such an intricate work doesn't contain even one single error (other than typos etc...)? I've asked many times where they think JA my have erred but get no answer. I ask if it's likely that EVERY witness sighting of a an 'inconvenient' Oswald is without a shadow of a doubt correct and thus confirms H&L? And that NONE are mistaken...?
You may choose to accept Jim's explanations Michael, and you may think that the above doesn't detract from the theory, and that is your right. But I hope you would accept it is also my right to keep on pushing those questions. It isn't bloody-mindedness and it isn't trolling. I simply don't believe that H&L holds any water and it tires me that it seems to permeate every angle of the JFK assassination but without telling us anything about what may have happened. I think that is a legitimate position to take. I would rather the atmosphere was more cordial. But EVERYONE who criticises H&L no matter how friendly WILL end up being abused, bullied and insulted. That some of us return fire is to our detriment, but the nastiness always originates from those aggressively pushing this diversion, because that's what I believe it is.
So Michael, it is not pig headedness on my part and I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate.
Best regards, Bernie
Are you really suggesting "someone would have talked?"
-
15 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
Lol,
Paul, no offense, but I am reading this with a very neutral point of view.
I do not mind if someone has a different view than I do on this event- the other night one of my good friends and I briefly discussed the subject and he has taught on the the assassination and he is a W.C. supporter and an ex. Secret Service agent.
So, if I was sitting here as a judge listening to the arguments between you and the other writers, there is one thing I keep noticing.
Respectfully, you present your view-without any citation to proof-and then attack others views by demanding they provide proof.
Reading a book is not proof.
Have you directly interviewed individuals and recorded their thoughts?
Have you obtained documentary evidence that directly shows Walker was in on a plot or is this just your theory based on your speculation?
Do you have direct evidence, not books written by authors, that support your conclusions which trump others?
If not, respectfully, you have a theory not fact.
I have had very well known individuals tell me fascinating things about this event-which I would never repeat out of respect for them and their position. To me this is first hand proof which I use for my theory formation.
However, for you to attack others on this site and demand they show proof, I must sustain any objection to your argument.
Proof, where is your proof Walker was involved. Not speculation or books, proof. Receipts, testimony, checks, documents of any kind, stating he was involved.
If not, I understand the exhaustion many are expressing about your posts.
Thanks.
Jeez. He said he believes his testimony. What more proof is required?
-
The "Pilot" was David Ferrie, I guess?
It's kind of cool that King would be so forthcoming about his own character flaws.
-
8 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:
Curious about the meaning of this:
" ...posted on Facebook, having been proven to be the fodder of all things liberal..."
-
Just started reading the free version of the Armstrong book. It seems like some people in this thread may have been among those attending the JFK class described in the opening.
-
5 hours ago, John Butler said:
I am not an old forum hand. I’ve been on this site only this year. It seems to me that the topic Oswald Leaving TSBD? is the longest and most debated of topics.
228 pages of comments and discussion is too much for me to read. I tried scanning through some of the discussion looking for any mention of the John Martin film and some of the frames that show the Prayer Man. I didn’t find what I was looking for. If I missed something like what I am going to say next then just dismiss what I am saying.
It seems that most folks agree that the Prayer Man is Oswald. The Weigman film shows Prayer Man in the doorway of the TSBD after the assassination. Fine. But, the point should be where was he during the assassination?
The John Martin film has the answer. There are several frames in the film that show the Prayer Man on Elm Street west of the TSBD doorway and on the curb with a camera (or an object in his hands held like a camera). The presidential limousine is just coming into the picture. Oswald was on Elm Street filming the President and not up in the Sniper’s Nest shooting the President.
For a better accounting of this go to my website jfkrunningthegauntlet.com and read the article The Prayer Man and John Martin.
Marrion Baker is a xxxx. That is just plain and simple. All you have to do is read his statement of 11-22-63 statement given on the day of the assassination when his memory was the freshest.
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLASBEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared M. L. Baker, Patrolman Dallas Police Department who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
s/ M. L. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Does this sound at all like the Baker/Oswald confrontation in the 2nd floor break room?
It's worth the read.
-
Thanks Mr. Caddy, Hardway was the Attorney I contacted you about recently, who was from W.Va. His office is in Cowen, a 500-population mountain town, 25 miles from where I grew up in Bumphuk.
-
I used to read Zero Hedge; I’ve since come to the conclusion it is a Russian propaganda site masquerading as libertarian; they back the Kremlin line on everything.
-
Not really defending Stone, but Twitter is largely a cesspool. Their banning Stone makes no sense in light of everything else going on there. Rumors have been going around that Mueller looking into social media execs as part of Russia probe. I would imagine Twitter would be at the top of his list.
-
2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
Well, still waiting. Will this be the big joke?
Will records only point to Russia and Cuba or will something be found on Oswald?
Will photos of Oswald and Garrison having a drink at Napoleons be in there?
Either way, will the MSM please put someone with credibility on to discuss the records?
I wonder if Hillary would have released everything, assuming President Trump does. I doubt it, so... if President Trump does, kudos Mr. President.
She would not have. I dare say nobody detests Trump and his presidency more than I, but if he follows through, he certainly deserves some kudos.
-
Heard Robert Dallek on NPR this morning saying nothing would come of this — worst case being something embarrassing to CIA or FBI for bungling case. It was funny the interviewer introduced him as someone who is certain Oswald acted alone. I thought, of course he does. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be invited on NPR.
-
13 hours ago, Dan Doyle said:
Is this science, "psychological sets", or wu-wu? I think the jury is out
If Dinkin was able to accurately predict the date of the assassination from the psychological sets he cited, I would rule out wu-wu.
-
Didn't WC, Posner, Bugliosi, Hanks prove conclusively all witnesses were wrong?
-
Ineresting reveiw by Australian Journalist John Pilger, "The Killing of History."...and he mentions Lansdale.
There was no good faith. The faith was rotten and cancerous. For me - as it must be for many Americans -- it is difficult to watch the film’s jumble of “red peril” maps, unexplained interviewees, ineptly cut archive and maudlin American battlefield sequences.
-
Walter Jones has come a long way since Freedom Fries. And Charles Grassley...who knew? I wish them luck.
Two senior Capitol Hill Republicans plan to introduce a congressional resolution calling for full disclosure of U.S. government records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) will introduce their JFK resolution before the end of the month, according to Jones.
http://www.alternet.org/two-top-republicans-call-full-jfk-disclosure-charles-grassley-walter-jones
-
Caught part of it -- for lack of a compelling college football game on Tv -- tonight. Had not heard of it previously but figured it would be more of the same LN affirming tripe, so I was not disappointed.
I especially liked when they used their "military grade" sonar equipment and divers to search the swamps north of New Orleans after "discovering" the possibility, via the "newly-released" documents, that there may have been camps there used to train anti-Castro Cubans.
i think I "discovered" that by watching JFK 25 years ago.
-
On 9/14/2017 at 3:24 PM, Joe Bauer said:
I've seen the Josiah Thompson "Umbrella Man" video several times.
I don't know if the version posted here is an abbreviated one from a longer one.
However, in contemplating what I think is Thompson's message that the Umbrella Man and his umbrella act and his position right at the "exact" motorcade route spot and time when JFK's head was blown apart is of no more importance beyond weird coincidence, I sense and see other things in this scene that suggest to me otherwise.
Thompson recounts the Umbrella Man's stated motivation for his umbrella act ( Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler ) and chuckles that it is so singularly out-there and ridiculous ... it must be true!
But there are other things going on with the Umbrella Man ( including his shared post shooting closeness to the Dark Complexion man ) that deserve some thought.
Okay, so Umbrella Man's position on Elm Street is at the exact spot where JFK is getting shot twice. His umbrella is the only one present along the entire motorcade route. And it isn't enough to just open the black umbrella. The man has to pump this up and down for more effect.
But add on these other suspicious actions.
In the seconds following the slaughter, as everyone around the Umbrella Man and the Dark Complexion Man remaing standing in shock and/or running to and fro ( with half a dozen falling to the ground out of personal safety fear ) The DC man and Umbrella Man get close together and both decide at the same time that the most rational thing for them to do was to sit down on the curb and grass beneath them at the same exact time two feet apart?
Something not "one" of the hundreds of other Dealey Plaza gathered crowd people did.
They stay there for awhile in the midst of all the running chaos. They eventually get up and walk their separate ways.
No one ever approaches them for questioning even though they are as close to the shooting as anyone.
What kind of explanation does Thompson give to these two men's mutually shared and uniquely different actions at this super high energy, emotion and chaotic time?
Just more of the laughable weird coincidences that happen all around us all the time that have no mysteriously important explanation other than random chance?
We see what looks like a walkie-talkie in the DC man's back pocket when he does start walking away and while he is sitting, perhaps a larger than normal looking bulge in the lower right back of his coat. In one photo of the DC man, when he first walks away from his curb sitting, we see him clearly moving his left arm and hand directly to his left buttock pocket area.
Now what innocuous reason could anyone ( including Josiah Thompson) come up with to explain that specifically unusual physical action by DC man?
If I did that it would be to scratch an itch.
Now, maybe sitting on the curb caused an itch or perhaps DC man's bottom got wet ( it did rain the night before ) and he was unconsciously reaching down to feel and verify this? Maybe he was checking to see if his wallet was still in his back pocket? But, even considering these explanations it is still a suspicious action if for any reason other than it's timing.
Notice also that the Umbrella Man wore a hat? As soon as JFK was hit and right after, he took off his hat. He placed it at his feet while he sat on the curb. Photos show this clearly AND a later photo after the DC man and the Umbrella man left the scene, the Umbrella Man's hat has been left on the sidewalk next to where the Umbrella Man had been sitting on the curb. He left his hat.
Of course the whole scene was so shocking one could forget a discarded item not directly on their person.
Jean Hill saw a puppy in the back seat with JFK and Jackie.
None-the-less it is the closeness of the black man and the Umbrella man ( an odd pairing, especially in a racially conscious place like Dallas ) and their mutually shared and uniquely different actions just before, during and right after JFK was hit within feet of them that begs logical suspicion beyond mere weird coincidences that just happen ... IMO.
I don't agree. Leaving the hat behind obviously was another Chamberlain reference. Here he is at his press conference upon his return from Munich. No hat. Obviously he left it behind.
-
On 11/18/2016 at 7:31 PM, Chris Newton said:
Tommy,
Where is this "underworld of conspiracy theorist sub-culture" that one can descend into? Is there an annual membership required or can anyone get tickets? Is there an elevator or do I have to climb down a ladder (just want to dress appropriately, don't want you looking up my kilt)?
I think this is it:
-
On 9/6/2017 at 3:52 PM, Douglas Caddy said:
Those of us who founded the modern Conservative Movement in the 1950s had no idea that in doing so we were awakening an evil sleeping giant who in the best interests of mankind should be left alone to slumber undisturbed. I often wonder what William F. Buckley would be saying today. Just before he died I visited with Marvin Liebman who foresaw what was happening and bitterly remarked that “Lenin was right.” I know my college friend, David Franke, with whom I founded the National Student Committee for the Loyalty Oath in 1959, has serious misgivings about the way things turned out. In my legal file above I make clear my own viewpoint with the three following sentences:
“So Black and Manafort and Stone, sad to say, are ethically challenged by-products of the modern conservative movement which decades ago was taken over by opportunists and sociopaths.”
“I left Washington, D.C. in 1979 and moved to Texas once I recognized the bizarre and dangerous direction that the conservative movement was coming to embrace.”
“Liberals rejoiced with Nixon being forced to resign the presidency but the immediate result was the rise of the radical right with Black, Manafort and Stone being formed as a lobbying/PR firm and the extreme right-wing oligarch Joseph Coors founding the Heritage Foundation, headed by Edwin Feulner, and the Committee for a Free Congress, headed by Paul Weyrich.”
If Nixon were alive today, he most likely would be a card carrying member of the ACLU as am I. He might even be a Democrat. His removal from office in a coup that at its center was conceived and controlled by the CIA and Military Intelligence left a vacuum into which the radical right and the white supremacists stepped in.
I wonder if the liberals in driving Nixon from office realized that in doing so they were opening the door for the radical right to take total control of one of our two major political parties with the end result being the disaster that we face today?
Thanks for the reply, Mr. Caddy. I admire your courage and the work you do. My post was more in jest than anything else.
A UNIVERSAL TIMELINE OF EVENTS
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The weird part is each of those theories you are ridiculing is at least as plausible as the Warren Commission report.