Jump to content
The Education Forum

Has This Research Made You Paranoid?

Nic Martin

Recommended Posts


My defination of [RESEARCH] is exactly the same defination that is contained in my Websters 2nd Edition_ergo_1. Scholarly [OR] Scientific Investigation [OR] Inquiry._2. Close and Careful [sTUDY].


Are you suggesting that such does not occure on this forum?

Respectfully:  :rolleyes:

Hi again,

I am not suggesting that none of that goes on. Check the work of Jim Root and others on the string "Why Assassination Necesssary." But look at your definition again. Do you see a lot of scientific inquiry or closed and careful study going on? It seems to me the word that best applies to much of this site is not research, but axiom: a statement or premise accepted as true without proof.


PS: I mean no disrespect, but check your spelling. After all, if such obvious detail is wrong, what else may be in error?

Greetings Paul:

If you check out my own posting history on this and other forums as well as some of the other serious researchers, I submit that you will find a great deal of valid scientific research all of which tends to poke rather large holes in the technical aspects of the 26 volumes. However, I would council you to begin by reading and digesting Julian Hatcher's definitive work on Internal, External, and Terminal Ballistics as well as John Thomson's work and throw in a bit of Helson and Barnes. Afterwards, you may find we haven't so much to discuss after all since you may very well gain a clear understanding of the subject matter I am dealing with. Unless/Until you accomplish that, I must confess that I will have difficulties relating to you the more intricate details of my work and would kindly request that you, for the time being, accept or not as you choose, my nearly 40 years experience in this field.

With respect to your definition of [AXIOM], according to my Websters, that definition applies only to math & logic with the number 1 definition being, " A Self-Evident or Universally Recognized Truth; Established Rule, Principal or Law."

Finally, with respect to your remark about my spelling [Definition] as [Defination], it was so obvious that I would have been suprised that you hadn't caught that one. Simply put, it was a [Friendly] play on the typo "Whay" that you wrote in your comment in lieu of [What]. Hey Guy, ;) we all make typos on occasion but as long as the meaning remains clear it shouldn't be a big deal, whay_I mean What? :)

With All Dew Respect: B)

Hello John,

You have my utmost respect for your service in Nam and pulling duty during the Tet Offensive. Interestingly, we both were in the Army in '69. I was drafted, went to Fort Sill, had orders cut for Nam, but they kept me at Sill and made a Drill Sergeant out of me. I volunteered for Nam, helicopter flight, Airborne, the works, but my battery commander, Captain Tommy Franks (yep, the same) decided I was better off training guys rather than going myself. I made E-6 by the time I got out in '71. Trained guys that are on The Wall. Anyhow, a little bio.

So you really think there's something more to the Kennedy stuff, huh?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello Nic,

Paranoia in this case is a matter of fear of crossing the line and exposing elements that can retaliate and become detrimental to your well-being.

If one was to prove that one Edwin Wilson was instructing Covert Ops classes in the U.S. to American Military Personnel in '81, while he was running from indictment from the Federal Government, and show that the persons he trained were later actively involved in assassinations in Central America and controlled by an Intel Agent who would later make large sums of money selling ballistic vests to the government, and who was in direct connection to a drug runner who ran an illegal ranch and airstrip to support actions in violation of Boland I and II. And to tie these elements into a drug czar of the White House of the early seventies and show ties to some of them in the early sixties to military clandestine operations that could lead to the JFK Assassination...

Sometimes research goes beyond paranoia and deals with realistic issues that can only be overcome by maintaining an insurance policy of proof that keeps the wolves away...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh thats far too dark and doomy.

The Cray supercomputers xxxxx through this stuff, but no

analyst spends much time on this particular forum,

we are really just old crusty blowhards,

spouting back theories that thirty years of underground

and alternative journalism has spawned.

Even John with his exhaustive database, biographies on SPARTACUS

and Tosh, a minor participant, or James Richards, a

crusading photo historian,

I don't think all of us together rate a raised eyebrow.

We go on a list and nothing happens.

This is just what it is -- a speculative educational history forum

and the only reasons the great ECHELON and FT MEADE

computers pick us up is because it is all overseas.

We ain't spit on the windshield at the agencies, a remote pinprick of public criticism.


So well said Shanet.

I think this is interesting: Paul professes "no conspiracy", yet he comes back here regularily. Why? Is he trying to convince us or himself. Hard being a Bushie and believing any of this truth. It goes against the Rush like- conditioned mentality mindset, and boggles, instead.

At least you are wonderig, Paul.


Hi Dawn and Shanet:

As I have said in the other strings and often, this is supposed to be a debate. At least that's the title of this string in this "Education" forum. And what, pray tell, does Bush have to do with this discussion? Or is he involved too?


Keep reading Paul and you will discover that there is indeed much evidence of Bush senior's involvement. Then, go back a genereation to his dad. If you are interested in a debate, do the research. It's all out there. I can't give you names of threads here as I am running out the door to work, but just google "Bush crime family".

Not to say Jfk 's dad was not involved in terribly shady dealings, I would be the first to acknowledge same, but to answer your question re the Bush family I have read enough to believe Daddy Bush WAS involved.


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

  • Create New...