Dennis Berube

Pat, I agree with you about Amazon. Interesting take on the Stone documentary. But I would think of all Hollywood directors, Stone would know that making anything (never mind a documentary) about the JFK case in 2020 is not going to be a financial win like his 1991 movie may have been. Either way, I really hope we can watch it soon. With Jim being so central to the content, the potential is extremely high in my opinion.

Somehow missed this excellent thread... Sorry Ron, but I have a hard time believing "experts" from our intelligence agency revealing anything genuine about UFO's or even technology. As mentioned in this thread, the material Nitinol was invented almost 100 years ago. That is what they are "revealing" in 2021? I think the technology available to whomever controls this stuff, is so far beyond even flying discs, that the need to have some kind of cover is obvious. One question that does spring to mind for Larry (I just purchased your book, which currently says "under review" at amazon btw) is, is there any indication these advanced tech craft have been used offensively by any nation? Or has there been some kind of separation of technology for overt war? Sidenotes... the 1990's Phoenix Lights event was always interesting to me just due to the massive amount of witnesses. Anyone have any thoughts on that one? Does someone have warp drive technology? http://brainstormingbox.org/the-alcubierre-warp-drive-is-it-real-why-is-nasa-taking-it-seriously/

Since when do documentaries need to be fact checked to get on Netflix? There's more garbage on there and Amazon Prime then almost anywhere.I really don't see how the entire American media structure will be able to ignore this documentary if it goes to Cannes. Also, Oliver mentioned a documentary on energy. Does anyone know anything about this? Projected release? Talking points? Authors/researchers used? It will be interesting to see if Netflix shuts that down too.

This interview was an absolute mess. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Thoughts?

I do apologize for this response being off topic, but it is in direct relation to disparaging comments made in the thread and continually by most members of this forum on this sub-topic. Pat, most people who are called "anti-vaxxers" are not saying vaccines are a hoax or are even against vaccines as a concept. This is the "conspiracy theorist" label for vaccine safety advocates. The vaccine story is long and very complicated as you may well know. In order to slander anyone and everyone that talks about those things, you better know both sides of the argument. If you cannot describe at least the majority of the main talking points those people usually bring up, what are you doing? Your telling anyone who will listen that you are in fact the "expert" because of xyz knowledge you think you have. I've found most people get emotional over some of those topics and literally cannot discuss the information at all. They are unable. Online, typically these people will do a quick filtered google search to locate an MSM explanation for the thing they have never heard before and leave it at that. Imagine where the JFK case would be with that level of thinking/research? Above all else, honest, objective, dis-passionate discussion must take place on all issues, facts either stand up to scrutiny, or they do not. Censoring facts out of existence creates a fantasy world and should be universally rejected.

Interesting. Both of those items seem fairly important to the story. Hopefully, we will eventually know the names and positions of those people and exactly who told them to be there and why.

I agree with you Kirk, unfortunately, this is apparently not what we are getting from the Biden administration. In almost every major post, it seems Biden defers to some of the worst corporate actors in the world, like Monsanto for instance. We all surely know about the 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock the B&M Gates Foundation bought in 2010. Then there's Biden taking away funds for farmers. Call me crazy, but the WEF states very clearly that they do not want people to eat meat anymore due to the supposed climate effects. This is well known to be false, watch/read "The Sacred Cow" for instance. It makes me very nervous when Joe Biden has already consistently taken talking/action points from an unelected group of financial elite that say we will own nothing and be happy and that America will not be a superpower any longer in the future. Why has our media or valiant "left wing" not created an uproar over Vilsack? You literally could not pick a worse person for Ag secretary. It's as bad as a pick as Bolton was, maybe worse in the long run.

Sorry for the topic distraction. I will leave it at this for those interested. This study was published in October regarding the CDC changes and covers the topic fairly well. https://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/CDC-Illegal-COVID-Deaths.pdf Regarding the proper topic of which I am not up to date on, has there been any further information on the supposed walk through the day before? That struck me as amazing. It nearly implies either Trump had some incredibly sinister aspects to this operation, or that a covert group was operating in parallel in order to create a spectacle. Admittedly those are both speculative, but if the area was closed and security forces were (apparently) deliberately withheld the next day, I would say the implications are leaning towards one of those directions.

Im assuming your referring to the covid death count. If the CDC hadn't changed the epidemiology of how we counted viral deaths since 2003 in April 2020, we would be talking about 15,000-20,000 deaths from Covid, not 400k+. A "normal" flu season has sometimes up to 75,000 deaths counted the "old" way, amazingly, the flu has been historically low this past year. In terms of cases, the PCR test has been manipulated to create many false positives. Just ask the next person who says they have covid, how many cycles did they test you at? I bet they have no clue what your talking about. 15% of all "flu" historically has been a coronavirus variant, considering covid has never been purified, how do you know what your detecting!? There is much more to the story obviously, but my point is blaming Trump for 400k deaths is an MSM wet dream and pure propaganda, it sure worked on the left. The censorship/propaganda is unprecedented imo. Dictators do not get censored.

Completely agree with this. Although some of the Constitutionally damaging events under the last 60 years deserve special weight in my opinion. The Patriot Act for instance, pushes W way down for me because it has far reaching implications compared to the Teapot Dome scandal. I am aware that Congress sailed it through, but a real POTUS should have defended the thing he swore an oath to. Or how about LBJ? Considering he's charged (at least on this forum) with not only covering up the JFK coup, but having a prime role in the killing of millions of people in Southeast Asia essentially justified by a lie, how can he be ranked above anyone? Healthcare and civil rights are great, but it seems to me that death counts, especially foreign, are rarely considered in the "Presidents" ranking industry.

The great reset is about much more than big international corporations profiting from various policy changes. They have mentioned several times how we will have to have a central bank controlled digital currency. Mastercard has already been testing a "digital certification" payment system that will basically equal modern day slavery if achieved (if you don't get a vaccine, you can't spend your money, etc...). The "times" are trending this way because too many people are content being told what to think and are not being educated about larger issues at play, like the future of the dollar and how that might affect geopolitics. But far and away the most censored, most propaganda driven narrative of the past year is the BigPharma story. It is anathema to even talk about the PCR story or the death certificate changes, or the criminal suppression (and firing of doctors who don't agree) of 60+ year old treatments that have been used on thousands with high efficacy, and even when you do, people have no clue of the gravity of what those stories mean. They are completely unable to realize that what they are constantly pounded with is actually not their own thoughts and rather a result of the largest lobbying and propaganda campaign in modern history. In my opinion, those who are compelled to relate everything to Trump, emotionally dismiss anything that may shift any possible blame away from the "Trump killed x number of people!" belief. As a result of this emotionally tendency on the left, very few are able to objectively analyze the "covid" operation. On the other hand, right wingers tend to over emphasize the relation covid has to Trump as some kind of mechanism solely designed to remove him from power. That may have been how it was partly used, but again, its bigger than Trump. The only way any type of unity between these two extremes we have today may occur is to rally around the Constitution. Particularly in regards to control of credit and freedom of speech. I do not think we can sustain whats left of America without addressing those two issues at least. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Biden is too concerned with those issues, the never-Trumpers won't care. As far as January 6th, why did Twitter remove Trumps tweet telling the rioters to go home and support the capitol police? It seems to me that it may have helped the situation if people noticed their leader was not backing any violence at the capitol. Also, there are videos of police waving "protesters" through areas they should not have and several security people who said they were told to stay home and not work the shifts they anticipated. I am not saying that Trump didn't mismanage the whole situation, I believe he did. But there is a huge gap between thinking that everyone who supported Trump is a domestic terrorist who is threatening America and 75 million law abiding Americans who voted for the guy.

That Federal Open Market Committee aspect of the Federal Reserve was signed into law by FDR in the 1935 Banking Act, one of the biggest mistakes he ever made imo. It ceded far too much monetary control to the Federal Reserve, he should have nationalized it instead, but I guess the Morgan types had already tried to overthrow and/or kill him once or twice already at that point. With Dillon, it seems JFK really underestimated the forces against him. Some of his "unity" choices really ended up badly. Lodge might have been the worst, although I guess Dulles would take the cake in that conversation. Regardless, I know he had his reasons for making appointing/keeping those people but you have to wonder if it would have made a difference if he hadn't. It kind of reminds of me of pondering the Wallace/Truman in 1944 question in a way.

Thanks Jim, good read. To me, articles like this are worth far more than entire books on the "how" question like the autopsy. When was the last President who challenged the orbit of the Federal Reserve in any serious way like this? As far as I know it was JFK, very telling. It really is amazing that no President has ever directly challenged the main point of the Federal Reserve's power and tried to re institute Article 1 Section 8 regarding government's right to control the money supply. This Saxon/JFK effort appears to be a way of attacking from the side, something FDR kind of did in WWII by demanding low interest rates for the war and production, but not a direct assault. From the Fed's website: In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board—and the Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committee—about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.

You guys make me laugh sometimes, thank you. Let us be careful not to infringe on the forum policies however. Every conspiracy is mind boggling when you first hear about it, perceptions... Instead of me supplying you with "factoids" which some of our members would undoubtedly recoil to the safety of various MSM articles in order to reacquaint their beliefs, I recommend looking for yourself. I've posted various places where this information is available several times. The general "plan" is well known and talked about openly, its overtly called the great reset. The political reaction to covid has been designed to assist that plan. Regarding your prescriptions... yes he is probably shortening your life, although not intentionally. The story of nutrition and pharmaceutical drugs since 1950 or so is very interesting. Two good books to start with the pharmaceutical side are "Bottle of Lies" and "Deadly Medicine and Organized Crime". With nutrition, start with anything by Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz's "Big Fat Surprise".

The "rumors" are much worse and much more dire than that, although that is obviously happening. Unfortunately, the majority of the population apparently believes the mainstream corporate narrative despite having been burned by them time and time again. There's a reason sleepy Joe keeps saying that the worst is yet to come.

White house tapes I believe it was.

It wasnt nixon, it was john dean. The book by Cutler, if you can find it, would be a good starting point on this case.

I highly doubt it will ever be possible to know who the first person to suggest killing JFK was and what they represented, but it seems likely that many in Israel viewed having nuclear capability as critical for survival as their later efforts appear to demonstrate. With Angleton being the liaison with Mossad (if memory serves), it would hardly be a shock if there was Israeli influence. LBJs response to the Liberty attack does nothing to quiet JFK concerns either. Beyond that, I do not recall any solid evidence that Piper presented (read it many years ago now) which indicated it was an Israeli job top to bottom, and most of the modern evidence tends to point to Dulles and a coterie around him, imo. It kind of reminds me of Stinnets book on Pearl Harbor, motive is only 1 piece of evidence and not conclusive by itself. If I am remembering correctly, Piper makes a big deal out of figures like Sturgis, Ruby and the mob having Israeli ties and generally being more involved than they seem to have been. He also intimated that a group who financed Garrison was somehow trying to protect Israeli interests I believe. I do not remember thinking that there was much in it.

Thank you Van/Eric. I applaud Dylan for his Murder Most Foul, but this certainly took more courage to produce, as the censorship proves.

Is this you admitting you were wrong Sandy? Apology accepted. Let's also watch as Biden likely ignores one of the better genuinely Democratic proposals that Tulsi has introduced. The excess profits bill. This is exactly the type of thing that will show what has happened to the Democratic party. I hope I'm wrong and millions of well informed Democrats will call their congressman and tell them to support this, but more likely is another bill that would bring us one step closer to New Deal type Democratic action goes unnoticed. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/18/tulsi-gabbard-redirect-profits-from-corporations-allowed-to-remain-open-to-small-businesses-forced-to-close/ Jeff has already posted regarding Tulsi's Patriot Act repeal bill. Putting these two bills together exposes Joe Biden in my view, unless I'm wrong and he suddenly champions them. Only immense pressure from a badly misguided mainstream left could push these bills through all of the corrupt pressure that Biden likely has little intention of challenging like Gabbard would have. Not to mention, Gabbard would have definitely pulled us out of Syria, her DNC star fell because of her statements after having actually gone over there and investigated the situation.

Thank you for the morning chuckle Cliff. Obama's "Successful liberal policies" and no, I do not need to see you re post your arguments thereof it is ok that we disagree. It's easy to attack liberalism when it doesn't exist in a historically recognizable form. Today, it apparently means, corporatism with a touch of tokenism. Also, it seemingly can mean anything other than serious economic reform and regulation (and disagreement with CIA/CFR on all foreign policy matters). If your not attacking that then what are you doing for Wallace's Common man?

Sandy, if you re-read that list I rather hastily concocted, Jefferson was on there and LBJ was not. Jim nicely explained why Truman shouldn't be near the top 10 and T Roosevelt is another president that garners far more favorable views by these establishment historians than deserved in my opinion. Garfield was a bit of a joke because I believe most of these best presidents lists are always tilted towards modern history, not sure why, perhaps because the 1800's are boring to most modern readers? Although the slave ownership issue is perhaps not ideal, I do not view Washington owning slaves as a reason he shouldn't be viewed positively in historical context. I mean, if Washington isn't there, we likely do not have a country and who knows how long Britain would have kept slavery in its US colony. Using India as an example, today there are an estimated 18.3 million living in what qualifies as modern day slavery even though they made the slave trade illegal before the US I think. Additionally, some of those high ranking slave owners actively promoted slavery, some didn't. Jefferson signed that bill prohibiting importation of slaves for instance. A small step, but necessary. Through the 2020 lens, I understand that doesn't matter, but I do not agree with analyzing historical actions through a modern viewpoint. If history somehow turns positive, imagine a year 2220 review of presidents and the simple critique that almost all post WWII presidents advocated (or at least failed to stop) constant interventions, typically based on largely false propaganda, in foreign countries that tended to result in a lighter form of modern day slavery (or worse, Indonesia,Vietnam,Chile?) for the people of those countries. I believe any analysis of the Constitutional era should find that any attempt to make slavery illegal at that time would have resulted in a disaster and would have effectively been a step backwards. Jackson's destruction of the 2nd US bank made a non-slavery based South next to impossible and led to 1861.

As I feel you were trying to prove a point with this, here you go, it'd be something close to this list. This ranking of presidents questions is bizarre to me and I don't find it very useful. The only agreement ever found on this question is the first 3 as a group, not even the order. 1.) Lincoln 2.) Washington 3.) FDR 4.) Monroe 5.) Madison 6.) Jefferson 7.) JQA 8.) JFK 9.) Arthur 10.) Garfield

I believe you may have missed Robert's important point. Most of the US combat deaths in WWII were between the ages of 18-35. They would have otherwise lived much longer if they were not in a war. With Covid-19, the average person who died had 2.6 severe health issues before covid, like cancer, diabetes, etc.... That is from the CDC. 60% of all deaths attributed to Covid-19 were people 75 and older (most over 85!) who had 2-3 major health issues. The average life expectancy between all states is 78.5. When you add in the fact that the CDC ordered a change in death certificate accounting earlier this year to make Covid listed in the all important Part A regardless of whether or not it killed them, you can begin to see what had happened. Then there's the PCR "tests".... Comparing US WWII combat deaths to the official Covid-19 number is not instructive of any useful historical analysis in my opinion.

Great article. Apparently, despite all of that, the majority of the Democratic party views the Obama time as at least "decent". It's obvious that is far from the case. It amazes me that anyone thinks Biden represents something substantively different from that. As a recent Washington Post headline proclaimed, “Washington’s aristocracy hopes a Biden presidency will make schmoozing great again.” (The Post quickly changed its initial headline to “Washington’s Establishment” but “aristocracy” remained in the body of the article.)