Paul Brancato Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: One of the lessons from the JFK case is the need to identify politicized intelligence, which has been a damaging feature of the American system for some time - i.e. Iraqi WMD, Team B in the 1970s, the various reports emanating from Mexico City regarding Oswald’s alleged meetings and public threat-making, etc. Russiagate, in my opinion, is a subsection of a broader “Russian threat” concept which really gained traction during the 2014 events in Ukraine - which, if analyzed objectively, demonstrates both provocation and extreme deceit on behalf of the NATO alliance. The purpose appears to be linked to justifying expensive arms programs, including a multi-trillion dollar nuclear weapon revamp. This threat enhancement was exactly the intent of Team B back in the 1970s. Most of the intelligence developed by Team B was later shown to be BS, but it helped justify the Reagan arms buildup. The old Roman adage comes into play here: who is guarding the guards? When a report is sold as the absolute judgment of the entire intelligence community and then through gradual quiet retractions revealed to be simply the opinions of “hand-picked” agents - even as the report is used to ignite a media firestorm and generate hostile diplomatic manoeuvres - then there is a distinct whiff of deliberate manipulation in the air. And, since at least 2002, the mainstream media is joined at the hip with these dark arts, and could well be said to be co-conspirators (just as they manipulated the public over the Warren Report). For example, consult the New York Times coverage of the release of the unclassified Russian meddling document I shared.The reporters aren’t stupid and presumably read it, but report the findings as “conclusions” and do not mention the critical page 13 qualifications at all. Just a few weeks ago the Times described Russian hacking/meddling as “objective reality”, linking to precisely that document as their proof. There have been no public admissions or confessions, and the intelligence from outside the country is less than it again seems. (Or may be compromised as well - remember that, if the CIA’s Mexico office had their way with their Oswald stories, it would all have been “corroborated” by Mexican authorities, and remember that lies from the Brits helped cement the WMD story in 2002). That said, I too prefer facts to unsubstantiated theories and feelings. Like a lifeboat in a xxxxstorm. Good post Jeff. The only thing I would add are some circumstantial points. The targets of all hacks supposedly initiated by Putin’s hackers were the Clintons and the DNC. The fake news, bots, and trolls on FB likewise. The result was throwing the election to the Republican candidate. One thing I am really sure of is that the Republicans in power now, Trump and his cabinet, and the Republicans in Congress, are the worst I’ve seen in my lifetime. Anti-science, pro billionaire, lying liars. They seem intent on keeping this Russia story under wraps, and in lieu of that making sure that we see Putin as the bad guy here. Well, I see no reason to look further than our own evil evil evil Republican Party as it currently exists. There has been a slow moving coup for decades, the purpose of which was to create rule by minority in perpetuity. Billions have been thrown at this effort. Voters are suppressed every which way, and there are, at long last, lawsuits aimed at combatting this undemocratic movement. The enemy sits in the White House, surrounded by fawning idiots, and Congress is full of fakes who were chosen to run and funded by American oligarchs. Russian hacking may be true, Putin may be evil incarnate, but the story does not stop there. Anyone look into Cambridge Analytica? Why isn’t that story all over the news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 8, 2018 Author Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: ... Quote Has anyone looked into Cambridge Analytica? Why isn’t that story all over the news? Paul, With all due respect, what would you like to know? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica Here's another one for you, Paul. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/mueller-fbi-cambridge-analytica-trump-russia#ampshare=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/mueller-fbi-cambridge-analytica-trump-russia -- Tommy Or would you prefer to get the straight skinny from RT? Edited February 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 8, 2018 Author Share Posted February 8, 2018 On 2/3/2018 at 3:21 PM, Thomas Graves said: James, With all due respect, would you please address these two questions? 1) What is your theory as to how we ended up with an anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-CIA, anti-FBI, Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able, expendable, "useful idiot" of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for President? 2) Do you agree with our intelligence services that Kremlin operatives Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, and Guccifer 2.0 (I should add Julian Assange, too, but I don't want to be overly "sarcastic") not only hacked DNC's and Podesta's and RNC's e-mails, but parceled out during the campaign only Hillary-damaging e-mails from DNC and Podesta? December 2016 CIA report (Wikipedia) On December 9, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community had concluded, in a consensus view, that Russia conducted operations to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency, stating that "individuals with connections to the Russian government", previously known to the intelligence community, had given WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and John Podesta.[117] The agencies further stated that Russia had hacked the RNC as well, but did not leak information obtained from there.[118] These assessments were based on evidence obtained before the election.[119] See also --http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/Russia-Hacked-Republican-Committee-but-Kept-Data-10787385.php -- Tommy PS Please be advised that if you (or anyone else who may want to "contribute") don't respond directly to my two questions, above, I probably won't respond to any of your off-topic, rhetorical "but ... but ... but ... what about ... ?" rebuttals. Bumped for James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: Jeff, With all due respect, did you garner "the real scoop" from Putin's slick mouthpiece, RT? The Nation? Have you read this article, written in response to the latter? https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong%3famp#ampshare=http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong -- Tommy The Hill article engages in some of the micro-analysis tendencies critiqued by Cliff Varnell. A conclusion that hacking or uploading information at high rates of speed is “not impossible” does not in turn prove that hacking occurred in the first place. (this type of argument has often been employed in network JFK documentaries, as elements of the SBT or the rapid fire of the Mannlicher Carcano are analyzed, shown to be not impossible, so therefore Oswald did it). Just as the SBT is vitiated by the low back wound, the not impossible upload speed is beside the point as the verifiable trail of the alleged hack should be sitting with the NSA all this time but has not been produced. The upload speed is a secondary issue, and was introduced as a supporting argument. The Hill’s critique treats it as a foundational argument. The Hill article also supports its position by stating: “The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow…” This is a reference to the declassified document from January 2017, the one which consists of opinions from “handpicked agents” which cannot be factually established. This is how “received wisdom” is perpetuated from incomplete feedback loops. Cambridge Analytica demonstrates the urgent need for media literacy and critical thinking skills curricula in public education programs. The alleged links of the company to Russia are highly tenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 8, 2018 Author Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: The Hill article engages in some of the micro-analysis tendencies critiqued by Cliff Varnell. A conclusion that hacking or uploading information at high rates of speed is “not impossible” does not in turn prove that hacking occurred in the first place. (this type of argument has often been employed in network JFK documentaries, as elements of the SBT or the rapid fire of the Mannlicher Carcano are analyzed, shown to be not impossible, so therefore Oswald did it). Just as the SBT is vitiated by the low back wound, the not impossible upload speed is beside the point as the verifiable trail of the alleged hack should be sitting with the NSA all this time but has not been produced. The upload speed is a secondary issue, and was introduced as a supporting argument. The Hill’s critique treats it as a foundational argument. The Hill article also supports its position by stating: “The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow…” This is a reference to the declassified document from January 2017, the one which consists of opinions from “handpicked agents” which cannot be factually established. This is how “received wisdom” is perpetuated from incomplete feedback loops. Cambridge Analytica demonstrates the urgent need for media literacy and critical thinking skills curricula in public education programs. The alleged links of the company to Russia are highly tenuous. Jeff, With all due respect, do you always believe what Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange say? If so, why do you suppose that is? Because they're so anti-American, and it just "feels right" to you in a groovy kind of way? Regarding Cliff's critique of micro analysis, and your attempt to apply said critique to The Hill's article, all I can say is, "The Devil's in the details." Going from memory here, but if I recall correctly, one of the software programs used to hack into DNC's computers was first developed by the Ukrainian army, was was appropriated by the Ruskies, and used in cyber warfare attacks on one or two NATO countries. Ringing any bells? Shall I look it up? Here's something along those lines. (I'll keep looking.) https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/%3famp=1#ampshare=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/ Edited February 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: ... Paul, With all due respect, what would you like to know? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica Here's another one for you, Paul. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/mueller-fbi-cambridge-analytica-trump-russia#ampshare=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/mueller-fbi-cambridge-analytica-trump-russia -- Tommy Or would you prefer to get the straight skinny from RT? Like I don’t know? Why do you think I mentioned it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 8, 2018 Author Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Like I don’t know? Why do you think I mentioned it? Paul, Oh, I see. Well, what would you like to say about CA? Do you like the Wikipedia article? How about the other one? Why not? -- Tommy Edited February 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Good post Jeff. The only thing I would add are some circumstantial points. The targets of all hacks supposedly initiated by Putin’s hackers were the Clintons and the DNC. The fake news, bots, and trolls on FB likewise. The result was throwing the election to the Republican candidate. One thing I am really sure of is that the Republicans in power now, Trump and his cabinet, and the Republicans in Congress, are the worst I’ve seen in my lifetime. Anti-science, pro billionaire, lying liars. They seem intent on keeping this Russia story under wraps, and in lieu of that making sure that we see Putin as the bad guy here. Well, I see no reason to look further than our own evil evil evil Republican Party as it currently exists. There has been a slow moving coup for decades, the purpose of which was to create rule by minority in perpetuity. Billions have been thrown at this effort. Voters are suppressed every which way, and there are, at long last, lawsuits aimed at combatting this undemocratic movement. The enemy sits in the White House, surrounded by fawning idiots, and Congress is full of fakes who were chosen to run and funded by American oligarchs. Russian hacking may be true, Putin may be evil incarnate, but the story does not stop there. Anyone look into Cambridge Analytica? Why isn’t that story all over the news? Excellent post Paul! The policies of this group will actually affect your future life. And for the vast majority of us not well. The central point that you've brought up with Cambridge Analytica is not that we've proven anything illegal. It's the incredible power that FB for example and Murcer could potentially have or maybe do have to weaponize information and possibly consort with others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Hagger Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 On 2/3/2018 at 11:21 PM, Thomas Graves said: James, With all due respect, would you please address these two questions? 1) What is your theory as to how we ended up with an anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-CIA, anti-FBI, Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able, expendable, "useful idiot" of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for President? 2) Do you agree with our intelligence services that Kremlin operatives Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, and Guccifer 2.0 (I should add Julian Assange, too, but I don't want to be overly "sarcastic") not only hacked DNC's and Podesta's and RNC's e-mails, but parceled out during the campaign only Hillary-damaging e-mails from DNC and Podesta? December 2016 CIA report (Wikipedia) On December 9, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community had concluded, in a consensus view, that Russia conducted operations to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency, stating that "individuals with connections to the Russian government", previously known to the intelligence community, had given WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and John Podesta.[117] The agencies further stated that Russia had hacked the RNC as well, but did not leak information obtained from there.[118] These assessments were based on evidence obtained before the election.[119] See also --http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/Russia-Hacked-Republican-Committee-but-Kept-Data-10787385.php -- Tommy PS Please be advised that if you (or anyone else who may want to "contribute") don't respond directly to my two questions, above, I probably won't respond to any of your off-topic, rhetorical "but ... but ... but ... what about ... ?" rebuttals. Thomas. The trouble with this game called 'JFK' is that it is so all-encompassing that no one expects it to have any conclusion. Because in answer to your first point you only have to go back to the beginning of the JFK intervention with Macmillan in the Bahamas to understand that a US military manufacturing agenda was driving his political ideology. Even after the Bay of Pigs and his pretense at non-intervention of Cuba, his brother Bobby was engaged in just that. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a fabricated non-issue due to fumbling confusion resulting in a blind intelligence community that Bobby and others had factionalized for their own political purposes. Although the saying "follow the money" knows no father (its origin is unknown), it is still the best mantra to abide by with most research - including the JFK assassination. That is where you will also find answers to the other issues you raised in a fog of "stuff" that is so wooly as to be on a par with "have you stopped beating your wife?" On its own it is impossible to answer without so many caveats as to turn a simple answer into a long-winded and boring thesis that includes everything - including a kitchen sink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 9 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said: Thomas. The trouble with this game called 'JFK' is that it is so all-encompassing that no one expects it to have any conclusion. Because in answer to your first point you only have to go back to the beginning of the JFK intervention with Macmillan in the Bahamas to understand that a US military manufacturing agenda was driving his political ideology. Even after the Bay of Pigs and his pretense at non-intervention of Cuba, his brother Bobby was engaged in just that. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a fabricated non-issue due to fumbling confusion resulting in a blind intelligence community that Bobby and others had factionalized for their own political purposes. Although the saying "follow the money" knows no father (its origin is unknown), it is still the best mantra to abide by with most research - including the JFK assassination. That is where you will also find answers to the other issues you raised in a fog of "stuff" that is so wooly as to be on a par with "have you stopped beating your wife?" On its own it is impossible to answer without so many caveats as to turn a simple answer into a long-winded and boring thesis that includes everything - including a kitchen sink. "follow the money" couldn't agree more Mervyn... and this is where I see it pointing... A number of years ago I read an article that I found after reading in PROUTY's book that General Cabell, Earl's brother, was consulted on TEXTRON's interest in buying BELL by telling the key players about the plans for SE ASIA and the use of helicopters.... Mr. MILLER was made Chairman of the FED as well as Treasury Secretary under Jimmy Carter - Not only entering aerospace to limit its development, Textron continues its asset-stripping activities in all acquisitions. As one Textron manager explained in 1964, "Our program is based on an incentive-compensation program. Our people request only the capital equipment which really pays for itself. It made the general foreman try to operate on as low inventory as he can." In 1974, it appeared that Textron would gobble up the ailing and much "watergated" Lockheed Aircraft. Miller decided not to, but maybe it was already in the family. Lockheed was being run by Felix Rohatyn, of Lazard Freres, part of Rothschild ally Andre Meyer's London-based Lazard group. Rohatyn was the organizer of the Saratoga Springs Governor's Conference at which he and Miller laid out the Energy Corporation of the Northeast. What is George William Miller's next asset stripping operation? Probably wrecking U. S. commercial banks, the cornerstone of American industry. Early in his career, Mr. Miller helped build a moderate-size textile manufacturer into the giant aerospace conglomerate Textron, diversifying its reach from consumer goods to industrial equipment and aircraft, including Bell UH-1 helicopters, or Hueys, which were the workhorses of the Vietnam War. As chairman of the Federal Reserve from March 1978 to August 1979, Mr. Miller pushed interest rates, though not enough to satisfy many of his critics. He also called for a national policy to reduce consumption of foreign oil, recommended cuts in government spending and taxation, and urged labor and management to moderate wage demands and price increases. TEXTRON buys Bell Helicopter in 1960 when it's $100M down in sales from years previous and in the red... and they buy it for book value - $32M - with a $25M unsecured note from Prudential Insurance with a 6-year grace period on the start of repayment... not your typical Insurance company loan. The key players for TEXTRON in the 50's and 60's: Cravath, Swain and Moore McCloy - brought to West Germany a dozen Cravath Swain and Moore lawyers to run the Occupation. Roswell Gilpatrick - Cravath partner and Asst Sec of Defense Royal and Albert Little Sun Life of Canada and London - Alistar Campbell American Research and Development Corp - buys $260M share of DEC George William Miller General Cabell First Bank of Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) wrong thread Edited February 8, 2018 by David Josephs 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