COUP IN DALLAS

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/8/2022 at 11:52 AM, Allen Lowe said:

The thing to remember about this nonsense about election fraud is that it makes no sense, because if the Dems cooked the results in the presidential, why did they not do the same to make sure they had an impenetrable majority in the Senate? This is starting to sound like claims of Zapruder fakery, which ignore the basic logic that if they wanted to suppress the images they would have destroyed the film, not let it come out in ways which convinced the rest of the world that there was a conspiracy.

One, that would have aroused too much suspicion. Two, several Senate and House races do appear to have been won via fraud. Three, there were several cases where Republicans won solid majorities in the state legislature but somehow lost the U.S. Senate race(s) and the presidential race. For example, Republicans decimated Democrats in New Hampshire in the state legislature, actually flipping the legislature and achieving a large majority in both chambers, but we're supposed to believe that hundreds of thousands of those same voters voted for Biden and enabled him to win the state. Similarly, in Georgia, Republicans won strong majorities in the state legislature, but Biden narrowly won the state and Democrats narrowly won both U.S. Senate races, requiring us to again believe that hundreds of thousands of the same voters who gave the GOP large majorities in the state legislature turned around and voted for Biden-Harris.

Other evidence: An audit ordered by the Arizona Senate found evidence that 200,000 mail-in ballots had signature mismatches--i.e., the signature on the ballot did not match the signature on file. Biden "won" Arizona by just 11K votes. In Wisconsin, which Biden "won" by just 20K votes, a special counsel investigation found that 91 nursing homes had an astounding, unprecedented voter turnout rate of 95-100%. Investigators interviewed family members of many of the seniors in those nursing homes, and they repeatedly insisted that their loved ones were in no condition to vote and had not voted in years. 

Another fact to keep in mind: When Obama broke the record for number of votes received in 2008, he won 873 counties, but Biden won only 537 counties. So, we are supposed to believe that Biden shattered Obama's record by 12 million votes but won 336 **fewer** counties than Obama won. Never, ever in the history of U.S. elections has there been such a huge disparity between the number of counties won and the number of votes.

I take it you didn't bother to read any of the material on my election fraud website. You might start with the dissent in the Wisconsin supreme court's 4-3 decision on Trump's election fraud lawsuit in the state. The dissent was written by the chief justice of the court. She notes, among other things, that the majority simply refused to address any of the evidence of election fraud presented in the lawsuit, and then she discusses some of that evidence. The dissenting opinion is on my election fraud website.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Chuck Schwartz]

Paul B., perhaps I misread "Coup in Dallas", but I thought Lafitte looked to "T" for approval to move on the operation and "T" was Tracy Barnes.

[Allen Lowe]

19 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

One, that would have aroused too much suspicion. Two, several Senate and House races do appear to have been won via fraud. Three, there were several cases where Republicans won solid majorities in the state legislature but somehow lost the U.S. Senate race(s) and the presidential race. For example, Republicans decimated Democrats in New Hampshire in the state legislature, actually flipping the legislature and achieving a large majority in both chambers, but we're supposed to believe that hundreds of thousands of those same voters voted for Biden and enabled him to win the state. Similarly, in Georgia, Republicans won strong majorities in the state legislature, but Biden narrowly won the state and Democrats narrowly won both U.S. Senate races, requiring us to again believe that hundreds of thousands of the same voters who gave the GOP large majorities in the state legislature turned around and voted for Biden-Harris.

Other evidence: An audit ordered by the Arizona Senate found evidence that 200,000 mail-in ballots had signature mismatches--i.e., the signature on the ballot did not match the signature on file. Biden "won" Arizona by just 11K votes. In Wisconsin, which Biden "won" by just 20K votes, a special counsel investigation found that 91 nursing homes had an astounding, unprecedented voter turnout rate of 95-100%. Investigators interviewed family members of many of the seniors in those nursing homes, and they repeatedly insisted that their loved ones were in no condition to vote and had not voted in years. 

Another fact to keep in mind: When Obama broke the record for number of votes received in 2008, he won 873 counties, but Biden won only 537 counties. So, we are supposed to believe that Biden shattered Obama's record by 12 million votes but won 336 **fewer** counties than Obama won. Never, ever in the history of U.S. elections has there been such a huge disparity between the number of counties won and the number of votes.

I take it you didn't bother to read any of the material on my election fraud website. You might start with the dissent in the Wisconsin supreme court's 4-3 decision on Trump's election fraud lawsuit in the state. The dissent was written by the chief justice of the court. She notes, among other things, that the majority simply refused to address any of the evidence of election fraud presented in the lawsuit, and then she discusses some of that evidence. The dissenting opinion is on my election fraud website.

 

Most of that, if any, is not evidence. Half of it is guesswork, as in “Gee if that happened here it shoulda happened elsewhere.” People split tickets and have for years and years. You know that’s nonsense to cite as proof of fraud. As for the mismatched signatures, I honestly do not believe it. The Trumpies lie about everything, reflexively. Show me the money, show me one signature that doesn’t match.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[Paul Brancato]

11 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Most of that, if any, is not evidence. Half of it is guesswork, as in “Gee if that happened here it shoulda happened elsewhere.” People split tickets and have for years and years. You know that’s nonsense to cite as proof of fraud. As for the mismatched signatures, I honestly do not believe it. The Trumpies lie about everything, reflexively. Show me the money, show me one signature that doesn’t match.

Indeed - agree with you Allen.

 

[James DiEugenio]

31 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Indeed - agree with you Allen.

 

If you have not seen the January 6th hearings, you should.

Herschmann, Cipollone and Barr, plus the top level of the DOJ, looked at several instances of this alleged vote fraud and had agents investigate it.  None of it held up and they talk about why.  Its also not true that each and every court challenge was thrown out before any of the evidence was looked at.  In about half the cases, it was looked at.  In Georgia, they did three recounts for example.

As for the Arizona audit by Cyber Ninjas. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cyber-ninjas-company-led-arizona-gop-election-audit-shutting-down-n1287145

Edited August 13, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you have not seen the January 6th hearings, you should.

Herschmann, Cipollone and Barr, plus the top level of the DOJ, looked at several instances of this alleged vote fraud and had agents investigate it.  None of it held up and they talk about why.  Its also not true that each and every court challenge was thrown out before any of the evidence was looked at.  In about half the cases, it was looked at.  In Georgia, they did three recounts for example.

As for the Arizona audit by Cyber Ninjas. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cyber-ninjas-company-led-arizona-gop-election-audit-shutting-down-n1287145

 

This will be my last reply on election fraud in this thread. Your arguments indicate that you have only read one side of the story. It is surprising to see JFK conspiracy theorists taking the news media's word on this. Have you read the other side of the story on the GA recounts? Have you read the AZ audit and the qualifications of those who did it. And I notice you didn't mention the Wisconsin election fraud evidence. 

So you are giving a blanket endorsement of the January 6 committee? Wow, and yet you condemn the Warren Commission. I agree that the January 6 committee has uncovered disturbing evidence that Trump purposely delayed calling on his supporters to stand down after the riot started, and I agree that his delay was wrong and inexcusable. But, good grief, you can't see the selective, biased nature of the committee's proceedings and arguments? Have you read the other side of the story on the committee and its case? Are you aware of the evidence that has surfaced, which the committee and the media have buried, that Trump tried to ensure that extra security was provided for the Capitol, and that Pelosi opposed his efforts? Are you aware of the video proof that before the riot, Trump publicly called on his supporters to engage in peaceful protest? Are you aware that some of the January 6 rioters were not Trump supporters but were far-left agitators? You might read the articles that Just the News has published about the January 6 committee and the riot.

Regarding Barr's so-called "investigation," it was nothing of the kind, and it is surprising to see you endorsing it. The scope and nature of the evidence that Barr's people ignored is shocking. They never interviewed the hundreds of election workers and election observers who reported observing election fraud (my wife was one of them, as chance would have it). They never explained the cold, hard video evidence of election fraud in PA, and MI, and at the State Farm Center in GA. They never explained the amazingly low rejection rate of mail-in ballots, which ranged from two to 10 times lower than in any previous election, even though there was a massive increase in the number of such ballots.

Barr's people never explained the district-court-authorized forensic audit of the Dominion voting system in Antrim County, MI, which found a huge and suspicious error rate that favored Biden. If a county clerk had not noticed the suspicious results and intervened, that strongly Republican county would have gone to Biden. Crucially, Dominion destroyed the server security logs for November 2, 3, and 4 for Antrim County. Server security logs are crucial for any forensic audit because they contain, among other things, user logins, network connections to file servers, file accesses, authentication records, data transfers, and domain controls. But when the forensic auditors contacted Dominion to obtain the server security logs for November 2-4, they were advised that the logs had gone "missing." Server security logs don't just go "missing." Revealingly, Dominion was forced to admit that they had all the other logs for those days, just not the server security logs. Humm, what a coincidence.

Barr's people offered no rational explanation for how Biden could have shattered Obama's vote record by 12 million votes while winning 37% fewer counties. Biden won 324 fewer counties than Obama did. Obama won 875 counties, while Biden won 551 counties. "People move" and "turnout" don't even come close to explaining this historic disparity. Those phenomena might be a plausible explanation if Biden had won, say, 50 or 60 fewer counties, but not for a difference of 324 counties. Biden's alleged numbers are the most gigantic disparity between vote total and counties won in the history of U.S. elections. No other election even comes close.

Finally, I just have to say that it is surprising to me to see that so many JFK conspiracy theorists are vocally anti-Trump, while at the same time they condemn the Deep State. Well, the Deep State despised Trump. The Deep State did all they could to sabotage his first campaign, his presidency, and his reelection campaign. Yet, we have so many JFK conspiracy theorists who proclaim their fierce opposition to the Deep State but who voice the most outrageous attacks on Trump. 

[Richard Price]

19 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Finally, I just have to say that it is surprising to me to see that so many JFK conspiracy theorists are vocally anti-Trump

Michael, this is all very far off the topic title, so I will comment only on the quoted section above.  I believe that most on the forum are, like me, truth seekers.  We have various political leanings and personal opinions on many things, but overall we seek truth by assessing ourselves of all available information and then digest it.  We then try to the best of our abilities to sort out the mis-truths, half truths and garbage to find the underlying truth or as close as we can to it.  I am afraid you have drank the kool-ade and it is you who is believing only one slant.  Just remember, a good mathematician can make numbers say anything they want.  It is all in the data set and how it is parsed.  It is like the old question for which there is no correct answer other than silence:  When did you stop beating your wife?  Best of luck with your quandary.  Don't be surprised when truth seekers reject a man who has no peers in non-truths and lies.

[Michael Griffith]

Coup in Dallas is an unfortunate example of the attitude that so many JFK conspiracy theorists exhibit. They act like you cannot really regret JFK's death, cannot sincerely recognize the good things he did as president, and cannot genuinely believe he was killed by a conspiracy unless you also believe that the Vietnam War was wrong, that Ronald Reagan was a bad president, that Trump was a racist and a fascist, that opposing illegal immigration is racist and xenophobic, that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are heroes, that the PATRIOT Act was tyrannical, that using drones to kill terrorists is wrong, etc., etc.

This counter-productive attitude is found in far too many pro-conspiracy books and documentaries, such as Coup in Dallas and Oliver Stone's recent four-hour documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. (Thankfully, most of the liberal preaching is omitted in the two-hour version of the documentary.) 

I wonder how many conspiracy theorists know that Jim Marrs was a huge Trump supporter. Marrs supported Trump because he recognized that Trump was very anti-Deep State. If you don't believe this, go watch the presentation that Marrs gave at the 2016 JFK conference in Dallas, which was held shortly after the 2016 election--it's on YouTube. 

 

 

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

16 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Michael, this is all very far off the topic title, so I will comment only on the quoted section above.  I believe that most on the forum are, like me, truth seekers.  We have various political leanings and personal opinions on many things, but overall we seek truth by assessing ourselves of all available information and then digest it.  We then try to the best of our abilities to sort out the mis-truths, half truths and garbage to find the underlying truth or as close as we can to it.  I am afraid you have drank the kool-ade and it is you who is believing only one slant.  Just remember, a good mathematician can make numbers say anything they want.  It is all in the data set and how it is parsed.  It is like the old question for which there is no correct answer other than silence:  When did you stop beating your wife?  Best of luck with your quandary.  Don't be surprised when truth seekers reject a man who has no peers in non-truths and lies.

Well expressed. 

My sentiments exactly.

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Coup in Dallas is an unfortunate example of the attitude that so many JFK conspiracy theorists exhibit. They act like you cannot really regret JFK's death, cannot sincerely recognize the good things he did as president, and cannot genuinely believe he was killed by a conspiracy unless you also believe that the Vietnam War was wrong, that Ronald Reagan was a bad president, that Trump was a racist and a fascist, that opposing illegal immigration is racist and xenophobic, that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are heroes, that the PATRIOT Act was tyrannical, that using drones to kill terrorists is wrong, etc., etc.

This counter-productive attitude is found in far too many pro-conspiracy books and documentaries, such as Coup in Dallas and Oliver Stone's recent four-hour documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. (Thankfully, most of the liberal preaching is omitted in the two-hour version of the documentary.) 

I wonder how many conspiracy theorists know that Jim Marrs was a huge Trump supporter. Marrs supported Trump because he recognized that Trump was very anti-Deep State. If you don't believe this, go watch the presentation that Marrs gave at the 2016 JFK conference in Dallas, which was held shortly after the 2016 election--it's on YouTube. 

 

 

 

 

I truly believe that if Jim Marrs had lived longer than just the first 8 months of Trump's presidency he would have totally reversed himself regards his professed admiration of Trump in 2016.

Marrs would have been one of my top 10 people I wish I could have spent some down home, barbeque, fireside, nature hike chats with. 

As funny and witty as Mark Twain. As wide interest informed as any modern writer and commentator. I've never watched and listened to him in video and audio presentations and been anything less than totally entertained.

Amazing that his N.Y. Times best seller JFK assassination "Crossfire" book was turned down by 25 of our largest publishing houses before one finally accepted it.

If any of those 25 publishing houses turned down Marrs text based on their belief his book wouldn't be a money making seller... what does that tell you about the book potential talent spotting skills of so many of these publishing companies?

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

18 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Barr's people offered no rational explanation for how Biden could have shattered Obama's vote record by 12 million votes while winning 37% fewer counties. Biden won 324 fewer counties than Obama did. Obama won 875 counties, while Biden won 551 counties. "People move" and "turnout" don't even come close to explaining this historic disparity. Those phenomena might be a plausible explanation if Biden had won, say, 50 or 60 fewer counties, but not for a difference of 324 counties. Biden's alleged numbers are the most gigantic disparity between vote total and counties won in the history of U.S. elections. No other election even comes close.

You've actually repeated this sloppy argument Michael. You're obviously not a math major, so let me clue you. The Democrats score more heavily in urban, more populated districts so making supposed revelatory statements about the "number of counties" is a useless argument. The Republicans also hold  the majority of states  26 to 24 I believe, and yet have won one Presidential election in popular vote in the last 8 elections. This despite the fact we have an antiquated electoral college system that ties one hand behind the Democrats back, and you're actually astonished that Trump could possibly lose an election?!  Try having a party that doesn't have a long term plan to take away people's Social Security and Medicare, deny life saving insulin and is so in bed with the pharmaceutical companies they've resisted collective bargaining on drug prices for the last 50 years!

Rather than fearmongering and trying to tear the nation apart with your election steal, to save your party. Maybe you for once, could show some semblance of the grace that was afforded you in 2000 and 2016, and not just accept it as some deserved entitlement, and show some mettle, and for once put up and shut up, stop your whining  and try  if you want, to get some election reform in the future and good luck.

You probably haven't heard but Steve Banon is on tape foretelling that Trump was going to contest the election if he lost. So the rest of you are just blindly unquestioningly following his lead. If he hadn't have commanded you, it would never have been an issue. In all my years, I've never seen such a slavish, spineless political party as the present day Republican Party.

There are means Michael, for taking up election disputes, and that's through the courts, And you did, and you lost 60 of 61 court cases. So maybe you can give me the top down word from on high, just what extra legal means can we look forward to in the future?

[Richard Price]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Well expressed. 

My sentiments exactly.

Thank you, Joe.

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

It pains me to write the following since I like your stuff on the JFK case.  It is  well reasoned, evidence backed, thorough and comprehensive. But I beg to disagree on this.

The value of the January 6th committee is that it features Trump's own Republican employees showing how they did investigate reported instances of vote rigging in Georgia and in Pennsylvania and in Michigan, for example.  And none of them panned out. They were specific about this.

What makes them even more credible is they worked at either the Trump WH or DOJ: Herschmann, Cipallone, Barr, Donoghue, Engel, and when Barr resigned, his replacement, Rosen. (Make no mistake, Barr resigned because he resisted the siren song of vote rigging, and this is also why Krebs was fired.)  After investigating several cases they were all convinced that this was a manufactured scandal. Then Trump really got desperate and, on the advice of Scott Perry, he was going to appoint another AG.  But he was warned that if that occurred, there would be mass resignations inside the department.

Your argument about how many votes were tallied  in 2000 is, to me, irrelevant.  Every pollster I know of predicted a month in advance that this would be the highest turnout election in a century.  I chalk that up to the anti Trump feeling that was raging in the country.  Things like his tax giveaway, and separating families at the border.  Rep. Tim Ryan told Trump that the latter issue was going to lose for many  Republicans. Those recordings of caged kids screaming for their parents was not very attractive.

When everyone in the White House of any credibility told Trump he had lost fair and square he turned to what Katrina Pierson called, the crazies: Rudy G, Sydney Powell, Mr. Overstock and Eastman. Then Trump unleashed  the December 19th tweet about January 6th via the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Stone, Jones and Ali. 

And the Insurrection was on. Nine people ended up dying. Via Trump the demagogue.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Chuck Schwartz]

Yes, Jim, I couldn't say it better myself.  Now, can we get back to discussing the JFKA?

[Michael Griffith]

I think one of the reasons that the conspiracy view has not gained wider acceptance in academic circles and among the wealthy is that so many conspiracy theorists have insisted on injecting large doses of their ultra-liberal political views into their books and documentaries. It turns off a lot of people when you make it appear that if you believe there was a JFK assassination conspiracy you must also accept a wide range of ultra-liberal political positions, most of which have nothing to do with the assassination, and some of which JFK himself did not accept. 

When you do this, you also give people the false impression that JFK was an ultra-liberal, when in fact JFK was conservative or moderate on a number of issues, including taxes, the budget, law and order, monetary policy, immigration, trade, and the evils of communism.