W. Niederhut

New Documents Shed Light on CIA's Connection to Lee Harvey Oswald (newsweek.com)

Bob, For the record, I agree with your comments about the staying on topic here. Just to clarify, I didn't bring up the topic of the Shroud. I merely responded to scientifically inaccurate comments about the Shroud by Pat Speer and Miles Massicotte. I studied the scientific and historic data on the Shroud in considerable detail about 30 years ago, and even met with Air Force Academy physicist John Jackson at the time, who led the 1978 Shroud of Turin University Research Project (STURP.). Jackson is sort of the James DiEugenio of Shroud research-- a scientist and walking encyclopedia. I probably should have said nothing, but I deplore ignorance and public misperceptions.

Miles, Your post is bunk. You, obviously, need to do some remedial reading on the subject of the remarkable scientific phenomenology of the Shroud of Turin. Nor do you understand the perceptual impact of your own positivistic assumptions. I should know. I've been there and done that in my younger years. What's interesting about your profound ignorance on this subject is that, in modern culture, we tend to believe that confirmation biases only obtain in the case of religious believers. The truth is that atheists and agnostics have their own positivistic a priori beliefs and confirmation biases that may impair their ability to accurately perceive the scientific data. You cannot accurately perceive the scientific phenomenology of Shroud because you begin with the assumption that it is bunk-- i.e. that such a radiographic image could not possibly have been imprinted on a Hebrew burial shroud. Your perceptual problem is what St. Augustine was getting at when he wrote, in the 4th century, that "sometimes we need to believe in order to see." In terms of modern cognitive psychological theory, Augustine was correct. As for the 1988 carbon-dating, do you know anything about the fabric sample that was used? (It's not that the C14/C12 ratio wasn't measured accurately in the lab, it's that the sample used for the dating was part of the fabric used during the 16th century repair of the burned Shroud.) If the Shroud originated in the 13th century, how could the facial blood stains precisely match those on the Sudarium of Oviedo, brought to Spain in the early 7th century? Explain your "logic." And explain how the anatomically exact, reverse, 3-D image was imprinted on the cloth-- including microscopic details that are invisible to the naked eye. Back up your bunk. I'm all ears.

Well, Pat, I shouldn't hijack this thread to discuss the scientific phenomenology of the Shroud of Turin, but there is far, far more to the scientific story than you imagine-- including the issue of the carbon-dating, which has been widely misinterpreted by the mainstream media and the general public. There are a number of significant problems with the carbon-dating of the Shroud, including the fact that the Shroud was burned in a 16th century fire, and patched with fabric at the time. More significantly, people who have studied physics and human anatomy will recognize that the image on the Shroud is an exact micro- and macro-anatomical reverse, 3-D, radiographic image of a crucified man. No artist could have rendered such anatomic exactitude in a reverse, 3-D image. Nor could any artist have "forged" the micro-anatomical details that are scarcely visible to the naked eye-- including the back wounds from a three-pronged Roman flagrum. It was not painted, but "burned" onto the 1st century herring-bone fabric, causing a uniform discoloration of the micro-fibrils of the cloth. Forensic pollen analysis has shown pollen from the Jerusalem area, Syria, and Eastern Mediterranean, consistent with the history of the Shroud being stolen by Frankish Crusaders from the Blachernae Church at the Phanar during the sack of Constantinople in 1204 A.D. Facial blood stains on the Shroud are also an exact match with the facial blood stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has been enshrined in a reliquary in Oviedo Spain since the early 7th century. So, no, the Shroud is not a "forgery" of any kind, not is it Medieval in origin. Former Air Force Academy physicist John Jackson has demonstrated quite convincingly that the anatomic image on the Shroud could only have been imprinted on the cloth by some unusual type of radiation emanating from the body of a crucified man. (PDF) John P. Jackson and the Shroud of Turin Research Project | Joe Marino - Academia.edu New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ (usatoday.com) New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ (usatoday.com)

Yes, Pat Speer's scientific ignorance is on full display here, Mathew. Did you ever visit physicist John Jackson at his Shroud of Turin Research Center in Colorado Springs? Interesting man. Most people know very little about the remarkable scientific phenomenology of the Shroud. Jackson led the STURP group of scientists who first analyzed the Shroud in 1978.

Yes, now we know why that lady who co-starred in the Elvis movie was hitting on Joe back in the day.

But, Jim, my impression is that the M$M in the U.S. largely blacked out coverage of JFK Revisited, while publishing a few ridiculous hit pieces, like the Alecia P. Long article in WaPo. To me, it is proof that CIA Operation Mockingbird is alive and well in the 21st century. They're still trying to suppress the truth about the JFK assassination in the U.S. mainstream media. Will we ever see a headline in the NYT or WaPo acknowledging that the CIA was involved in a conspiracy to murder JFK? I doubt it. This has also been obvious in the case of M$M coverage of the 9/11 evidence. How many Americans know, even in 2022, that the World Trade Center skyscrapers (WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7) were demolished by pre-planted explosives? How many Americans know that five Mossad agents got caught, and arrested, for filming and celebrating the WTC demolitions on 9/11? Not many. Russ Baker just published a piece about the long-suppressed George W. Bush 9/11 Commission interview.* But even Baker doesn't dare to broach the subject of possible Bush/Cheney administration complicity in a PNAC/CIA/Mossad/Saudi black op on 9/11. He approaches the Bush interview as a putative cover up of an intelligence failure. * Revealed: What Bush Said About 9/11 Behind Closed Doors - WhoWhatWhy

Geez...more of Chris's typically ludicrous ad hominem nonsense, and pseudo-psychological misdiagnoses of forum members. Does it never cease? I was responding to Chris's silly, inaccurate comment (above) implying that members of the Education Forum have been in the dark about Operation Mockingbird and its 21st century manifestations-- enlightened only by the heroic posts of Ben and Chris on the subject... 🤥 No, Chris, I don't believe "conspiracy theories" are monolithic, and I do believe that the CIA and U.S. military are selective in their use of the M$M to conceal military and intelligence black ops. Now, please, spare us the ad hominem misdiagnoses, and let's stay on topic.

Huh? Reality check, Chris. Speaking of illusions... I've been posting about Operation Mockingbird and its modern permutations for several years here-- including references to the work of the late Udo Ulfkotte on the subject. In contrast, Ben expressed skepticism about whether Mockingbird was still operational when I raised the subject during the premier of JFK Revisited at Cannes. As I suggested at the time, the coverage of JFK Revisited by the M$M would be a kind of acid test for the continued existence of Operation Mockingbird in the U.S. And what did we observe? NYT largely blacked out coverage of the film, and WaPo published a completely erroneous review/hit piece by What's-Her-Face, Fred Littwin's favorite Professor from Louisiana State University, Alecia P. Long. That summer, we also witnessed similar Mockingbird censorship of Spike Lee's documentary interviews of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. So, yes, CIA Operation Mockingbird is alive and well in the U.S. mainstream media.

John, As a fellow musician, (guitarist and violinist) I'm truly surprised to hear you endorsing Mathew Koch's disparaging nonsense about the highly original, creative guitar compositions of David Evans (aka the Edge.) His guitar compositions during the past 40 years speak for themselves, including my original U2 favorite* (below.) Where did you ever hear a guitar played like this before 1983? De gustibus non est disputandum. 🤥 I'm responding in red to your other recent post (below.) William, You haven’t identified any flaw in my reasoning. Rather have you exposed flaws in yours. You, Bono and his U2 colleagues profess to be Christians. Yet you reject the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas and other Church Fathers on the question of wealth, and instead subscribe to the thinking of Adam Smith, which is based on greed, one of the seven deadly sins of Christianity. Not entirely accurate. I was referencing Adam Smith only in the context of pointing out that commercial wealth isn't necessarily a zero sum game-- i.e., one man's earnings don't necessarily result in another's poverty. At the same time I, certainly, agree with St. John Chrysostom and the Church Fathers on the subject of wealth and poverty. Who doesn’t advocate peace? As I said, motherhood and apple pie. The sad reality is that the peace process in Northern Ireland, by definition, only happened as a result of the IRA’s anti-imperialist guerrilla warfare – which campaign, by the way, contrary to what you suggested, was not sectarian. Obviously sectarian atrocities were committed by both sides during “The Troubles”, but those atrocities were not approved by the IRA leadership and had nothing to do with the IRA’s anti-imperialist campaign. Just like freedom for southern Ireland came only after the blood sacrifice by a brave minority in 1916. The majority of the Irish – like the majority in any society – were (and are) authoritarian lickspittles who kowtow to their overlords whoever they are. It was only after the British executed the 1916 leaders that the Irish War of Independence began, and it was only after that that Ireland won some degree of independence (now being frittered away, thanks to the likes of Bono). I'll defer to your knowledge on the subject of Irish history. My understanding is that Bono and U2 were mainly opposed to violence against civilians in Ireland. Unfortunately, imperialists understand only one language, the language of physical force. How did the USA win its independence from Britain? That’s why John Lennon was right and Bono was wrong. Not entirely in agreement. The United States was rooted in rebellion against authority from the beginning. That phenomenon was always a mixed bag-- even linked to "anti-intellectualism" in American history, as described by historian Richard Hofstadter. It's one reason Canadians are more civilized than Americans, and not plagued by America's epidemic of gun homicides. American cowboys insist on "independence" and associated gun-slinging. As for John Lennon, he has been lionized by atheists, but was always a disturbed character, IMO-- the kind of sacrilegious guy who used to piss on nuns' hats from his balcony in Hamburg. Bono’s ostentatious “standing with” Ukraine in its purported armed resistance to Russian imperialism contrasts starkly with his condemnation of the IRA in its armed resistance to British imperialism. It's one thing to fight the Brits for independence. It's another thing to bomb Irish (or British) civilians, isn't it? In any case, I prefer Gandhi and Martin Luther King's non-violent approach to freedom. What he’s really standing with (at a safe distance of course – like a succession of Hollywood celebrity clowns such as Sean Penn) is the current unipolar world order – the establishment that has made him rich, the establishment that’s maintained by violence, the violence of Anglo-American/Nato militarism. So much for peace. U2 has long been implicitly critical of American imperialism and the U.S. military-industrial complex. They have also been critical of militant Russian imperialism. I see no contradiction in that. As for economic inequality, as I’ve said repeatedly, there is only one logical and fair solution – economic equality or as close to it as possible. Philanthropy and charity only mask and reinforce the fundamental problem of inequality. As the African saying goes, the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives. IMO, the ideal political system is social democracy with free market economies that are properly regulated in the public interest-- Denmark and the Scandinavian countries are the model. That's why I support Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the progressive Democrats. Republicans in the U.S. want nothing of the kind. They have systematically fought against progressive policies in the U.S. that would regulate plutocratic profiteering, and reduce wealth inequality-- the graduated income tax, government subsidized healthcare, education, and housing for the poor. In the U.S., Republicans are the party of plutocracy and wealth inequality. *

George Clooney, Gladys Knight, U2 among Kennedy Center honorees Performers such as Gladys Knight or the Irish band U2 usually would be headlining a concert for thousands George Clooney, Gladys Knight among Kennedy Center honorees - ABC News (go.com) December 4, 2022 Excerpt Sometimes the Kennedy Center honors not just individuals but groups. This year it's the band U2. The group's strong connection to America goes back decades. They performed in Washington during their first trip to America in 1980. In a statement the band — made up of Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, and Larry Mullen Jr. — said they originally came to America with big dreams “fueled in part by the commonly held belief at home that America smiles on Ireland.” “And it turned out to be true, yet again,” read the statement. “It has been a four-decade love affair with the country and its people, its artists, and culture.” U2 has sold 170 million albums and been honored with 22 Grammys. The band’s epic singles include “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For,” “Pride (In the Name of Love)” and “Sunday Bloody Sunday.” Lead singer Bono has also become known for his philanthropic work to eradicate poverty and to raise awareness about AIDS.

Mathew, This is complete garbage, like most of your posts here. Edge (David Evans) is actually a very talented, original artist. And I say that as a musician and life long guitarist. He has had many imitators after 40 years, but few role models. Your claims about U2 corruption also sound like bunk to me, based on what I know about Bono and his band. What is the source for your latest skullduggery about U2? Tucker Carlson?

John, I was referring to your argument that, "U2 is part of the problem we need to fix," presumably because they have been commercially successful, and commercial wealth causes of poverty. But doesn't that imply that commercial wealth is a zero sum game? Adam Smith disagreed. Also, isn't Bono's advocacy of debt relief for Third World nations part of the solution for world poverty? Wasn't his advocacy of peace part of the solution for Ireland? From what I know about America, U2's criticism of our military-industrial complex, latent racism, and nascent fascism is part of the solution. It's what Americans need to hear in stadiums in the age of Trump and the military jet flyovers at football games.

John, It's true that U2 has been commercially successful, but I'm puzzled by your perspective on their philanthropic work relating to international AIDs relief and debt relief for Africa and the Third World. They were also early advocates for ending South African apartheid. And they are inherently critical of fascism and the U.S. military-industrial complex. God bless them. In this crazy country we have military jet fly overs at football games! With their music, U2 has also championed Kennedy-esque causes in the U.S. like the Civil Rights movement-- not universally popular with white guys in the U.S., as we have seen in the case of the Black Lives Matter movement. Their song, Pride-- In the Name of Love, (from the marvelous Unforgettable Fire album) has become a stadium rock tribute to Martin Luther King. When Love Comes to Town, recorded with B.B. King during the Rattle and Hum tour, is another erstwhile Civil Rights anthem. As for the sectarian violence in Ireland, my impression is that Bono and the band were mainly interested in helping to end the carnage. Bono, himself, narrowly missed being killed in a Dublin bomb attack when he was a teenager, as he describes in his memoir. Honestly, my main interest in U2's music during the past 40 years has been musical, but I have also appreciated Bono's lyricism and use of the Psalms. The man is a sincere Christian, in the best sense of the word-- someone who cares about humanity and social justice. Liberal Christians are a vanishing species. I consider myself one of them. Reading Surrender, I learned that Bono, the Edge, and Larry Mullen actually pray together before every concert that their music may be useful to humanity! It's also damned good stuff.

Elon Musk is a disgrace, and so is Matt Taibbi. The Hunter Biden laptop October Surprise was always another Republican dirty trick, orchestrated by the fraudster Rudy Giuliani. It was an attempt to replay the 2016 Anthony Weiner laptop October Surprise. Do Mathew Koch and the Trumplicons remember when Fox News suppressed the Stormy Daniels story in October of 2016? Were the similarly indignant? The obvious difference between the sex scandals is that Joe Biden is not Hunter Biden, while Donald Trump is, unfortunately, Donald Trump.

Ron, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the spirit of John and Bobby Kennedy lives on in the music of U2-- a deep concern about the plight of suffering humanity, and the quest for social justice and peace on earth. The band was disillusioned and on the verge of breaking up when Bono and the Edge wrote, "Sunday, Bloody Sunday." (Larry Mullen's snare was "the hook" for the song-- adapted from Larry's experiences in an Irish military drum corps.) They wanted to be more than rock musicians. They wanted their music to make the world a better place. At the time, IRA leader Gerry Adams made scatological references to Bono, because the band was urging Americans to stop donating to the IRA. (Adams later shook Bono's hand, following the peace accords in Ireland.)

Non sequitur alert... I'm posting this for our rock historian, Cliff Varnell, our Irishman John Cotter, and any U2 fans on the forum. I've been a U2 fan for almost 40 years, after I first saw and heard their New Year's Day video at a punk club in Greenwich Village in (?) '83, and bought a copy of the War album in Harvard Square. So, I've been reading Bono's new memoir, Surrender, and learning a lot about Bono's childhood and teen years in Dublin. His dad was Catholic and his mother, Protestant. Well written and from the heart, as we would expect from this great man. Bono has been on the talk show circuit recently-- Colbert, NPR-- but this is the best interview I've seen. He talks about U2 in relation to punk rock beginning around 9:20 here. In the book he tells a funny story about the band playing at a hardcore London punk venue before they became famous, and a local Brit yelling, "You need more punk in that monkey!" 🤥

Good grief. Dr. Crenshaw said that he saw definitive evidence that JFK was shot in the head from the front. He was, obviously, referring to the visible bullet hole/entry wound in JFK's forehead. If Bill Brown and Pat Speer believe otherwise, by all means, let's hear the Brown/Speer Hypothesis about the definitive evidence Dr. Crenshaw saw. Hopefully, it will be more accurate than the ludicrous Brown/Speer Hypothesis about the backward momentum of JFK's head following the fateful head shot.

John, In cases of paranoid schizophrenia, as you probably know, the age of onset is usually late teens or early 20s, but there are some psychotic disorders with earlier ages of onset. Childhood trauma, understandably, worsens the course of any life, as does later life trauma.

John, If people take the time to talk to some of these homeless people who sleep under bridges in the U.S., they will learn that many of them are hearing voices and experiencing paranoid delusions. Their paranoia often makes it difficult for them to trust anyone, and most have also experienced a lifetime of abandonment, rejection, and even violence from social contacts. Sad but true.

Geez... I quoted directly from what Crenshaw said. He said that, after viewing JFK before he was put in the coffin, he had no doubt that he was shot in the head from the front. Newsflash. Doctors are trained to carefully observe patients. I noticed the bullet hole/entry wound in JFK's forehead the first time I ever saw the photo (above.) I'll leave it at that, and bid you adieu.

Jean, Dr. Crenshaw said that he looked carefully at JFK before he was put in the coffin, and had no doubt that he was shot in the head from the front. To me, that doesn't imply a mere deduction from the posterior exit wound. I've seen a dead man with a bullet hole in his forehead before, and I recognized the entry wound in JFK's upper right forehead the first time I ever saw the photo. Crenshaw was afraid of Murder, Inc. A lot of JFK witnesses were afraid to talk for years. Wayne January comes to mind.

Sometimes I have to laugh at myself. Recently, there has been a lot of local press warning about a looming triple-demic-- RSV + COVID + flu. So, I went out and got a flu shot and COVID/Omicron booster yesterday, partly in response to my wife badgering me about the triple-demic. Woke up this morning feeling lousy and, when I read the Denver Post, one of the lead stories was an article saying that the triple-demic may not turn out to be as severe as predicted.

Bill B., IMO, you're not debating this evidence in good faith. Not sure what your agenda is here. Mine is to get at the truth about JFK's murder. I posted the references to Dr. Crenshaw's commentaries TWICE for you, and you're still being disingenuous about what Dr. Crenshaw said. He said that he took at last look at JFK's corpse before it was placed in the coffin, and had no doubt that JFK was shot in the head from the front. In other words, he clearly saw an entry wound on the front of JFK's head, as the cadaver photo shows.