Vox Joins the Punked Crowd

[Benjamin Cole]

 

Vox digs deep into the famous backyard photos, and concludes they were not fake and so LHO shot JFK by himself. 

They assert LHO is JFK's killer, despite the fact LHO never faced trial.  

I have never been convinced the backyard photos were fake---my take is the BYPs were part of a biography build, and "real" although creating a "fake" person, and that is LHO as violent leftie-loner-loser. 

But again the question: Why now? Why is VOX  at this point undercutting the solid reasons for skepticism regarding the official story on the JFKA?  In fact, they never even mention the second official investigation into the JFKA, the HSCA, which concluded there was likely a conspiracy. 

I can tell you why I think VOX is running this clip now: VOX is punked, and the JFK Records Act is coming up. 

Anyone have a better reason? 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Good question, why is Vox doing this at this time?  Also, why did Abrams publish his book now and why did Woolsey publish his book now.

Plus, this is not a clinching argument.  They completely mischcharcterize it as such.

Points number two and three are dubious.

And we deal with another issue in our documentary that he does not mention.

Edited September 4, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Good question, why is Vox doing this at this time?  Also, why did Abrams publish his book now and why did Woolsey publish his book now.

Plus, this is not a clinching argument.  They completely mischcharcterize it as such.

Points number two and three are dubious.

And we deal with another issue in our documentary that he does not mention.

For a long time, I thought there would be nothing in the remaining docs. Scrubbed, stolen etc. 

But this wave of propaganda in the media...is making me wonder. 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

who is the reporter for the Vox piece?

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

who is the reporter for the Vox piece?

Good question. The voice over guy does not introduce himself. 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

who is the reporter for the Vox piece?

Not Jack White.

[Anthony Thorne]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Good question, why is Vox doing this at this time?  Also, why did Abrams publish his book now and why did Woolsey publish his book now.

 

Good question.

The narrator and director of the piece is Coleman Lowndes. He worked (2013-2015) for Media Matters for America, a non-profit org (funded by somebody) that specialised in attacking conservatives. Fair enough.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/colemanlowndes

Hany Farid, the 'Professor at University of California, Berkeley', is also a 'Senior Advisor' to the Counter Extremism Project. The CEO of that outfit, Bush appointee Mark Wallace, is also the CEO of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), which has Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo, and R. James Woolsey as members.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA13/20171025/106544/HHRG-115-FA13-Bio-WallaceM-20171025.pdf

Hany Farid is also an advisor to the Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity, which I'm sure means well for everyone. The Executive Director of that, Ann Cleaveland, was previously a director for the Climateworks Foundation, which has Nancy Lindborg on the board. Lindborg is CEO of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, set up by weapons profiteer and Team B funder David Packard, who spent a lot of the early 80's on boards and reports and commissions urging new weapons expenditures. R. James Woolsey was on a lot of those commissions alongside him.

So nice company Farid keeps. Without being able to pinpoint exactly who said what to Vox, or who asked Farid to give his expert opinion, I think the Vox piece is junk with an agenda, which everyone here guessed already.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Good question.

The narrator and director of the piece is Coleman Lowndes. He worked (2013-2015) for Media Matters for America, a non-profit org (funded by somebody) that specialised in attacking conservatives. Fair enough.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/colemanlowndes

Hany Farid, the 'Professor at University of California, Berkeley', is also a 'Senior Advisor' to the Counter Extremism Project. The CEO of that outfit, Bush appointee Mark Wallace, is also the CEO of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), which has Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo, and R. James Woolsey as members.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA13/20171025/106544/HHRG-115-FA13-Bio-WallaceM-20171025.pdf

Hany Farid is also an advisor to the Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity, which I'm sure means well for everyone. The Executive Director of that, Ann Cleaveland, was previously a director for the Climateworks Foundation, which has Nancy Lindborg on the board. Lindborg is CEO of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, set up by weapons profiteer and Team B funder David Packard, who spent a lot of the early 80's on boards and reports and commissions urging new weapons expenditures. R. James Woolsey was on a lot of those commissions alongside him.

So nice company Farid keeps. Without being able to pinpoint exactly who said what to Vox, or who asked Farid to give his expert opinion, I think the Vox piece is junk with an agenda, which everyone here guessed already.

Great research on Hany Farid. 

Hoo boy, how about this:

 

V. Sehgal, A. Peshin, S. Afroz, and H. Farid. Mutual Hyperlinking Among Misinformation Peddlers.

 

I am sure there is such a thing as misinformation.

But who do we appoint to make sure misinformation is ground out, and by whose standards?

Then there are points of view that the globalist-security blobs disagrees with. And then there is corporate-government misinformation.

So Hany Farid, part of the national security state, thinks JFKA research is misinformation. Oh, I am so surprised. 

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

Ben,

     Should this thread be re-titled, "Vox Joins the Paid Crowd?"   🤥

[Kirk Gallaway]

Like Ben, not being a photo expert. I've been rather agnostic about the fakery of  the BYP, and that could easily fall within the biography build of Oswald..  The shadows argument I was never sure of, but I didn't think was as clear cut as the photo skeptics alleged.  I always thought it curious that they would insert an Oswald head leaving the old  chin. Why not just import Oswald's whole head and let the shadows below  on the neck play to your obvious advantage? Yes it seems to me the  chin could look different. but that kind of variation exists within photos that have been taken of ourselves. The posturing angle, that Oswald was so so off balance never impressed me much. The scope missing in the retouching of the photo and the being casually passed off would appear to me to be the the strongest point for fakery and resembles Gerald Ford's admission of altering the location of the JFK  neck wound, and in any mind should arouse some suspicion.. 

I'm not making an argument against the fakery. I'm an agnostic. But nobody yet has given a substantive critique of the fakery critique. The closest Jim alludes to  about points 2 and 3. Though he doesn't get specific. As usual the next thing is to a attack the messenger. Having said that, I think Anthony's background check of Farid is valuable, and well worth mentioning but not conclusive of any conspiracy to debunk the photo. I think the guy probably sincerely believes it's bunk.

Isn't a big point made for the BYP fakery about  Buddy White, or what's his face?? I don't want to look up his name, but the cop who died and left the doctored  BYP photos and his son claims was involved in the JFKA. Those stories will always be hard to dissuade to  people who believe them. I'm a bit of an agnostic as well on that.

. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Matt Allison]

If there was a "legend" being built for Oswald, seemingly with his cooperation, then it wouldn't be strange in the least for the photos to be taken.

I always believed them to be real, but never really cared either way.

[Benjamin Cole]

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     Should this thread be re-titled, "Vox Joins the Paid Crowd?"   🤥

Man, who knows?  

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Man, who knows?  

Ben,

   I was thinking of that statement by William Colby back in the 1970s.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

   I was thinking of that statement by William Colby back in the 1970s.

Getting off topic a bit, but here goes: How is it 70,000 Taliban can defeat a nation of 40 million? A nation that had an Army of 300,000, and US intel, equipment and so on? 

I guess the answer is most people in Afghanistan, perhaps even a large majority, did not consider the Taliban to be the enemy. 

You never read that answer in the US media.  Even now.  

But what other answer makes sense? 

The answer does not fit with either the left or right wings of the US establishment, that must believe US interventionism is always good. 

The Taliban is not my cup of tea. But evidently, the people of Afghanistan have a different point of view.  The US media plays up the 100,000 or so people desperate to get out of Afghanistan, and that is a human tragedy, for sure. But what is 100,000 in a nation of 40 million?  Even if 1 million want to get out, that is a small sliver of the total population. 

US media is owned, but it even goes deeper than that. The whole DC bubble has a globalist perspective. What happens in Baltimore is less important than what happens in Baghdad. 

 

Well, that is my thought for the day.