Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks all.

As per William, Len has a CD for sale of the files Fletcher let him copy and the articles that were printed back in the seventies and eighties.  Which are really hard to get. I will never forget how, in one of them, Prouty described how the CIA could arrange to get rid of someone in the USA.  They would go ahead and have him poisoned, and then hire a doctor and lawyer to cover up the case from their cleared panels which they have in all major cities.  

And it later turned out through the ARRB, that the CIA did have a cleared attorneys panel in New Orleans.  This is how far Prouty was ahead of the curve.

Mike Willman purchased the extant Prouty files at the time of his death.   He used to be in LA, but i think he moved to somewhere in Arizona.  I really do hope he sets up a web site.  

Len O mentioned that some of Prouty's boxes contained information so secret sensitive he was afraid to risk taking them over the border. Is this ominous expose above one of those secrets?

He also mention Prouty's wife expressing concern, even death risks regards some of the things her late husband knew about?

If the MO you mentioned Jim Di regards the agency wanting to get rid of somebody here in the states with a poisoning then a coverup involving listing the cause of death other than poisoning is true...Dear God!

How diabolical.

What does that tell us about how out of oversight and abuse of power control they were?  Sounds like some organized crime outfit.

Also, by mentioning one of these death cause manipulation "panels" being in New Orleans...are you suggesting David Ferrie's death may have been one of these controlled killings?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Len O mentioned that some of Prouty's boxes contained information so secret he was afraid to risk taking them over the border. He also mention Prouty's wife expressing concern, even death risks regards some of the things her late husband knew about?

If the MO you mentioned Jim Di regards the agency wanting to get rid of somebody here in the states with a poisoning then a coverup involving listing the cause of death other than poisoning is true...Dear God!

What does that tell us about how out of oversight and abuse of power control they were?  Sounds like some organized crime outfit.

Also, by mentioning one of these death cause manipulation "panels" being in New Orleans...are you suggesting David Ferrie's death may have been one of these controlled killings?

You could probably draw parallels with the Cosa Nostra. Its just the CIA has legitimacy. 
 

A good parallel might be protection rackets, you pay the mob or they set fire to your business. If you are a Middle Eastern country you trade away your resources or the USA comes to regime change, in the name of freedom and democracy. 
 

Shake downs happen in every walk of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

       Creepy.   I hadn't heard that one.  It, certainly, seems relevant for accounts of many key JFK assassination witnesses who unexpectedly died after 11/22/63.

I'd bet it wouldn't have surprised Dr. Sidney Gottlieb or Dr. Jolly West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From my understanding, Spotify does censor some of Joe's podcasts.

Hopefully, if and when Oliver's documentary gets on the air he --and maybe me--can do that show.

He gets a colossal audience.

Spotify has deleted about 20 episodes of Joe Rogan's podcast.

His episode with Oliver Stone was great, and Joe was respectful to him.

However, Joe is a very mixed bag on all kinds of subjects. I've seen him buy into total baloney, and I've also seen him be unreasonably skeptical (ala Hoch) when it's not warranted, for no other reason than he seemed to want to emulate his frequent guest and friend Dr. Michael Shermer.

I think there is a good chance that Rogan would take a very skeptical position on JFK, but what's a bigger issue is that Rogan is not well versed in the subject or history in general so there would be a great deal of "explaining" required to fill in the background. It's basically out of his league.

Joe also has a very superficial understanding of history yet talks about things as if he's an expert. For example, on one show he said that JFK "bought the vote in Chicago" -- repeating the now-conventional MSM meme that JFK stole the election in 1960 and he'll tout that as if it's fact with no skepticism at all. I don't remember what particular episode this was but he talked about JFK for a minute or two and essentially regurgitated the Seymour Hersh stuff. 

However ... it would probably still be a great opportunity, and Joe might be interested if he watched Destiny Betrayed. That is, if any of us ever get to watch it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

Spotify has deleted about 20 episodes of Joe Rogan's podcast.

His episode with Oliver Stone was great, and Joe was respectful to him.

However, Joe is a very mixed bag on all kinds of subjects. I've seen him buy into total baloney, and I've also seen him be unreasonably skeptical (ala Hoch) when it's not warranted, for no other reason than he seemed to want to emulate his frequent guest and friend Dr. Michael Shermer.

I think there is a good chance that Rogan would take a very skeptical position on JFK, but what's a bigger issue is that Rogan is not well versed in the subject or history in general so there would be a great deal of "explaining" required to fill in the background. It's basically out of his league.

Joe also has a very superficial understanding of history yet talks about things as if he's an expert. For example, on one show he said that JFK "bought the vote in Chicago" -- repeating the now-conventional MSM meme that JFK stole the election in 1960 and he'll tout that as if it's fact with no skepticism at all. I don't remember what particular episode this was but he talked about JFK for a minute or two and essentially regurgitated the Seymour Hersh stuff. 

However ... it would probably still be a great opportunity, and Joe might be interested if he watched Destiny Betrayed. That is, if any of us ever get to watch it.

 

I think he has mentioned reading a few books on it, he is sort of ok with the magic bullet too (concerning). He definitely gave Jack Dorsey a pass and it transpired a Dorsey company was sponsoring the podcast, overall I think he is very open minded and seeking knowledge. He was very open to Tom O’Neill and his expose of the Manson stuff and Bugliosi. 
 

If Jim D went on, I’d expect Joe to challenge him, play devils advocate etc. Thats all the exposure the JFKA needs, a sceptic asking honest questions and someone knowledgable responding in front of millions of subscribers with coherent, logical answers. Its an opportunity,  

The Oliver Stone podcast was great, I bought his book on the back of it. Very interesting guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Rogan clip about the JFK assassination:

 

Rogan goes out of his way to defend the Single Bullet Theory and he also supports the Alvarez Jet Effect in laymen's terms. 

However, he does talk about CE399 and is pretty adamant that bullets that hit bone don't come out looking like CE399.

Shermer tries to go the 'factoid' route by saying "we're kind of getting into the reeds here" to which Rogan replies fairly "no, just the bullet."

 

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 4:10 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Go look on Wikipedia or read any of the mainstream books or websites or legitimate history textbooks. You will find the statement that LHO killed JFK alone.

Lol, I think we can close the thread with this beauty. I mean really, in 2021 this is a howler. It reminds me of an interview of an "ex-CIA" agent who got irate with the interviewer and screamed something like "There has never been a conspiracy in this country ever!" Humour is important.

 

What respectable person would invent a fake identity to go to a academic conference about a covert operation that killed a president? Well, I guess someone who agrees to link to CIA recruitment webpages and uses utterly stupid terms like "factoids" to deal with reality that didn't fit his paycheck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2021 at 3:56 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Drawn conclusions prior to investigation-no. I studied the case in general from about 1984 to 1995 before drawing a conclusion.

You spent about 15 hours a day wearing a shirt, right?  Times 365 days and 11 years. That's about 60,000 hours.

At any time during that period did you take 10 seconds out to objectively observe the movement of your shirt when you casually move around?

It's easy.  Turn your head to the right, glance down at the fabric on top of your right shoulder, raise your right arm and wave, then watch the fabric of your shirt indent.

Problem is, Tracy, your confirmation bias won't allow you to observe something that's literally under your nose.

On 4/22/2021 at 3:56 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As for the "First Day Evidence File" I think you should call it the Cliff Varnell First Day Evidence File since not everyone agrees with you.

Sorry Tracy, the First Day Evidence File is common knowledge.

There is nothing to disagree with.  You didn't study this evidence 30 years ago and you're sure not going to acknowledge it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 12:00 PM, W. Niederhut said:

So much information to process from that DiEugenio interview on Black Op Radio last night.

It was interesting to hear about Prouty's reticence at the HSCA hearings, after he saw George Johannides in the room.

Have any of the Fletcher Prouty files that Len Osanic declined to take to Vancouver been published anywhere?

Jim DiEugenio mentioned that they had been purchased by someone named (?) Wohlman who does not have a website.

The Prouty seeing Johannides part and walking out was new and confusing to me.  I thought I'd read in the last couple of weeks on here about Nagell doing the same, for the same reason.  Which I've never read of before either.

If either one of them did so that's important.  Confirmation that bringing him out of retirement would have that impact.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Lol, I think we can close the thread with this beauty. I mean really, in 2021 this is a howler.

Why is it a howler? are you disputing, for example, that Wikipedia says this? Let's take a look:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a former U.S. Marine who assassinated United States president John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

The majority of the media, historians, academia, scientists etc. say this. Even the HSCA, who theorists never tire of quoting regarding their "finding" of conspiracy, believed this.

So, you folks need to find something big that will get them to change their minds. That is my point. Or you can stay here in your sandbox and assure each other that you have solved the case and everyone would know this if it wasn't for the worldwide media conspiracy that covers it up. If you really cared, you would be doing something to change the verdict of history with the people that matter which should be very easy to do with all the "overwhelming" evidence you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If you really cared, you would be doing something to change the verdict of history with the people that matter which should be very easy to do with all the "overwhelming" evidence you have.

That's an interesting comment. Providing you had the evidence that proved there was a conspiracy, how exactly would you go about changing the verdict of history, with the people that matter? I'd be interested in a step by step. Thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

That's an interesting comment. Providing you had the evidence that proved there was a conspiracy, how exactly would you go about changing the verdict of history, with the people that matter? I'd be interested in a step by step. Thanks 

IMO, it all would start with a unified theory that the prominent members of the CT community could get behind. Such a theory would explain who orchestrated the conspiracy and (specifically) how and why they did it. The theory would also have to (specifically) explain how all of the evidence against LHO was faked and who did it. If you had this, there would be no way that the media (who would be the first entity you should contact) could ignore you. For example, Morley, as a former journalist, gets press all the time. But he has no unified theory, just a bunch of suspicions (Joannides or Phillips or Angleton must have been guilty).

Now, I have been saying this (which I do in all seriousness) for years and the CTs just laugh at me or ignore me. And most really don't want to do anything about it anyway. They just want to sit on forums like this one and communicate with others that share their belief. It is just a hobby.

Believe me, if I thought there really was a conspiracy, I would be the first in line to try and do something. But a specific unified theory is the key and that must be first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why it's a howler.  The Establishment is not called the establishment for nothing.

If you don't know how power works in this country then how can one ever understand the JFK case? 

Paul Bleau did not just say, geez why do these textbooks says this?  He went and asked the authors why. This is what happened.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-and-the-unforgivable-how-the-historians-version-of-the-jfk-assassination-dishonors-the-historical-record-part-1

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why it's a howler.  The Establishment is not called the establishment for nothing.

If you don't know how power works in this country then how can one ever understand the JFK case? 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-and-the-unforgivable-how-the-historians-version-of-the-jfk-assassination-dishonors-the-historical-record-part-1

That's the whole thing. First you have a theory of the assassination. Then you have to have a theory of the "establishment" cover-up to draw attention away from the fact that you have no unified theory. Develop a specific, provable theory that (for example) Jim D., Summers, Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Morley and several others agree on and there would be no way they could deny you. But looking at that list, right away I see Jim D. and Summers who disagree on Garrison. So, the problem is within the CT community itself, not some unseen media conspiracy or "deep state" power group holding you back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...