Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Jason Ward said: If you're not willing to do better than that we can politely end our discussion with one another on this point. Evidence is witness testimony and documented with primary sources. There's 2million plus documents at Mary Ferrell, there's the Library of Congress online; evidence is available to anyone anywhere. Easily. It isn't hard to find. I ask you to provide evidence or agree that you to decline to do so and there is nothing more for us to discuss. regards Jason The Dallas right and racist elements if the south played a passive role, ignorant of the facts of the plot. They were to create noise and flood all channels, of rumors and expectations of the plot, such that it could not be detected, amidst the din of speculation, fear and indeed, hope of an assassination, and it would be difficult to uncover after the assassination due to a surfeit of leads. The Radical Right, like the the Young Americans For Freedom, E. H. Hunt and William Buckley Junior purveyed the approval and cover from the Northeast establishment and brought in their own CIA experience and expertise. Jason, you documents, the ones I've read, testify to what I just stated. The JBS, KKK and southern leadership councils, provided smoke and mirrors, and disposed of witnesses, journalists and evidence, after the fact. That is all. Edited October 18, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: e ignores the fact that the posters he is disagreeing with never said that this or that organization was responsibl Paul, this is not true. I don't make up strawmen. There is more than one post in this thread from those who believe as you who say that the CIA "left nothing to chance." May I ask that you limit the discussion to evidence and not me or Paul Trejo, please? Jason Edited October 18, 2017 by Jason Ward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: ... People don't want to look at the data. People don't even want to think about it. If somebody proposes it -- people will work for YEARS to try to shut them down. No matter how much strong data is offered. ... It just goes right over your head. It's clearly a case of "Psychological Denial." Regards, --Paul Trejo ^^^this^^^ I've looked at 4000+ documents newly released in 2017 spanning into the 10s of thousands of pages since August in my work for the MFF. I share some of the most interesting of it here and it has almost no effect whastoever; the thundering herd always reverts to "but so and so hated Kennedy, this means they killed Kennedy". There is no logic, only emotion and psychology. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: I wish for once that the two of them would acknowledge this distinction and cease and desist the false labeling. Paul B, I of course speak only for myself and not Paul T. If I saw any distinction whatsoever in what you are claiming, I would acknowledge it. But there is in fact no one I could name in the CIA, FBI, SS, military, or Big Business that you would deny conspiratorial involvement, or say "no - they had nothing to do with it." Anyone and everyone is a conspirator. The more the merrier, in fact. I don't see any distinction between the CIA, the hard right, big business, Hoover, the FBI, and so forth from what you've said here, nor from most of the others who subscribe to the mass-conspiracy-government-military-industrial-complex cast of 1000s narrative. The only thing required to unmask a conspirator is -apparently- a youtube video or even just a post on a forum. I see no distinctions. If they're accused, they're guilty. If you can pinpoint any distinctions in your ideas, I'd be happy to acknowledge it. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Jason Ward said: Paul B, I of course speak only for myself and not Paul T. If I saw any distinction whatsoever in what you are claiming, I would acknowledge it. But there is in fact no one I could name in the CIA, FBI, SS, military, or Big Business that you would deny conspiratorial involvement, or say "no - they had nothing to do with it." Anyone and everyone is a conspirator. The more the merrier, in fact. I don't see any distinction between the CIA, the hard right, big business, Hoover, the FBI, and so forth from what you've said here, nor from most of the others who subscribe to the mass-conspiracy-government-military-industrial-complex cast of 1000s narrative. The only thing required to unmask a conspirator is -apparently- a youtube video or even just a post on a forum. I see no distinctions. If they're accused, they're guilty. If you can pinpoint any distinctions in your ideas, I'd be happy to acknowledge it. Jason Jason, Mr. Brancato is correct You and Trejo incessantly rely on false claim about what others here think to distinguish yourselves. It has gotten very old, and you are relatively new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 17 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: The Dallas right and racist elements if the south played a passive role, ignorant of the facts of the plot. They were to create noise and flood all channels, of rumors and expectations of the plot, such that it could not be detected, amidst the din of speculation, fear and indeed, hope of an assassination, and it would be difficult to uncover after the assassination due to a surfeit of leads. The Radical Right, like the the Young Americans For Freedom, E. H. Hunt and William Buckley Junior purveyed the approval and cover from the Northeast establishment and brought in their own CIA experience and expertise. Jason, you documents, the ones I've read, testify to what I just stated. The JBS, KKK and southern leadership councils, provided smoke and mirrors, and disposed of witnesses, journalists and evidence, after the fact. That is all. Well, Michael, at least it seems we are somewhat in agreement. You acknowledge the documents I've posted; great, that's unusual. You see a role for Walker et al. in the radical right; and we disagree on the extent of the role and whether or not they were leaders or actors or followers. Fine. That's reasonable. I'm actually somewhat closer to your position that you might think. But, the problem is, I see no evidence of what you call "the Northeast establishment" with their "own CIA experience and expertise" in ANY aspect of the assassination whatsoever. Can you summarize your Northeast establishment connection and the CIA connection to 19 Nov 63? regards Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 16 minutes ago, Jason Ward said: Paul, this is not true. I don't make up strawmen. There is more than one post in this thread from those who believe as you who say that the CIA "left nothing to chance." May I ask that you limit the discussion to evidence and not me or Paul Trejo, please? Jason Jason, you seem to hold the exclusive contract in maintaining Paul's obscure claims. He never provides evidence or documents, only his opinion. Yet, you demand documents from everyone but your compadre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Jason Ward said: Well, Michael, at least it seems we are somewhat in agreement. You acknowledge the documents I've posted; great, that's unusual. You see a role for Walker et al. in the radical right; and we disagree on the extent of the role and whether or not they were leaders or actors or followers. Fine. That's reasonable. I'm actually somewhat closer to your position that you might think. But, the problem is, I see no evidence of what you call "the Northeast establishment" with their "own CIA experience and expertise" in ANY aspect of the assassination whatsoever. Can you summarize your Northeast establishment connection and the CIA connection to 19 Nov 63? regards Jason Jason, Paul holds a number of these people as culpable, like E H Hunt, Morales and Phillips, he just calls them rogues, so he can be in denial of involvement of intelligence agencies and the fact of a coup de ta. I'm not sure how close you are to Trejo with that but you could clarify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Clark said: Jason, Mr. Brancato is correct You and Trejo incessantly rely on false claim about what others here think to distinguish yourselves. It has gotten very old, and you are relatively new here. If it's old, then ignore it. You aren't forced to participate on this thread or with me. Plenty of other people are around who will agree with anything cospiratorial without a shred of evidence. What you say is not true - you haven't read the entire thread here. Several people have said the CIA left nothing to chance. I responded to that and now that we've shown that 100 things were left to chance, these same people are backing off their 'nothing to left to chance' claim that in their mind proves CIA involvement. It's really a symptom of the whole CIA-FBI-Military Industrial complex-SS-Dulles-plus 1000 others narrative - first they will say "it was so perfect, it could only be the CIA/FBI..." but then they are easily able to recount dozens of mistakes, sloppiness, and even ridiculous incompetence that shows this was a crime that failed and was the work of amateurs. It's a logical snafu they can't ever reconcile - they say we know the CIA/FBI/ etc. did it because it was so perfect and all encompassing, yet in early 64 Mark Lane and Joachim Joesten had 90% of the truth already out there and the eff-ups are everywhere. In this thread only Paul Trejo has a consistent theory. Most everyone else includes whoever they feel like at any given time as a conspirator - because, hey, why not just add everyone to the conspiracy? Jason Edited October 18, 2017 by Jason Ward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, Jason Ward said: But, the problem is, I see no evidence of what you call "the Northeast establishment" with their "own CIA experience and expertise" in ANY aspect of the assassination whatsoever. Can you summarize your Northeast establishment connection and the CIA connection to 19 Nov 63? regards Jason I agree that Hunt, Morales, as well as the Radical Right YAF were involved. That is the Northeast Establishment connection. Hunt,, Morales and Buckley were CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Jason Ward said: If it's old, then ignore it. You aren't forced to participate on this thread or with me. Jason Likewise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Jason, you seem to hold the exclusive contract in maintaining Paul's obscure claims. He never provides evidence or documents, only his opinion. Yet, you demand documents from everyone but your compadre. Indeed. Paul is 90% backed up by documents I've seen. His "obscure" claims are only about 10% connecting the dots/speculation. There are times in this thread and elsewhere that I disagree with Paul, btw, and I call him out on it. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jason Ward said: If it's old, then ignore it. You aren't forced to participate on this thread or with me. Plenty of other people are around who will agree with anything cospiratorial without a shred of evidence. What you say is not true - you haven't read the entire thread here. Several people have said the CIA left nothing to chance. I responded to that and now that we've shown that 100 things were left to chance, these same people are backing off their 'nothing to left to chance' claim that in their mind proves CIA involvement. It's really a symptom of the whole CIA-FBI-Military Industrial complex-SS-Dulles-plus 1000 others narrative - first they will say "it was so perfect, it could only be the CIA/FBI..." but then they are easily able to recount dozens of mistakes, sloppiness, and even ridiculous incompetence that shows this was a crime that failed and was the work of amateurs. It's a logical snafu they can't ever reconcile - they say we know the CIA/FBI/ etc. did it because it was so perfect and all encompassing, yet in early 64 Mark Lane and Joachim Joesten had 90% of the truth already out there and the eff-ups are everywhere. In this thread only Paul Trejo has a consistent theory. Most everyone else includes whoever they feel like at any given time - because, hey, why not just add everyone to the conspiracy? Jason Just more of the same. Everyone else, besides you and Paul are a bunch of commie pinkos. It's old, worn out and ridiculous. You use lots of "they" "them" and make vague references to what "everyone but you and Paul" are claiming. It's pretty sad and pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Ward Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Jason, Paul holds a number of these people as culpable, like E H Hunt, Morales and Phillips, he just calls them rogues, so he can be in denial of involvement of intelligence agencies and the fact of a coup de ta. I'm not sure how close you are to Trejo with that but you could clarify that. Fine. I don't speak for Paul T and I hope you will not either. What I have to say to him, I say to him - I don't make a habit of speaking about others in the third person. I see no evidence of E H Hunt's involvement in the assassination except for the death-bed testimony of an aged man - as recorded by his lazy, manipulative son. St John Hunt would make up anything and everything, including implicating his own dad in the murder of Kennedy, if it meant he didn't have to work for a living. So me and Paul disagree about that. Morales and Phillips - eh, I don't think me and Paul are far off on their roles. Whatever they may have done was IMO not essential and in no case were they working for the CIA in their efforts. Jason Edited October 18, 2017 by Jason Ward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Jason Ward said: Fine. I don't speak for Paul T and I don't you are claiming to either. What I have to say to him, I say to him - I don't make a habit of speaking about others in the third person. I see no evidence of E H Hunt's involvement in the assassination except for the death-bed testimony of an aged man - as recorded by his lazy, manipulative son. St John Hunt would make up anything and everything, including implicating his own dad in the murder of Kennedy, if it meant he didn't have to work for a living. So me and Paul disagree about that. Morales and Phillips - eh, I don't think me and Paul are far off on their roles. Whatever they may have done was IMO not essential and in no case were they working for the CIA in their efforts. Jason That's just a bunch of convenient talk, speculation and denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now