Bang up job, folks...

[Benjamin Cole]

Op Mock has become a fleet of B-52s. We can blame ourselves, but Op Mock-B 52 has the resources. 

There was scant coverage of the Puppet-Dictator-in-Chief Biden's snuff job on the JFK Records Act, and zero on the reasons for the snuff job---what does that say when a sitting US president violates the law and common sense to deep-six records that belong to the public?

Who controls an executive branch that posits that 60-year-old records on what CIA'er Joannides was doing in New Orleans in 1963, if released, would do identifiable harm to US national security?  

BTW, while CV has his theory, I have mine: Gov. JBC is shot ~Z295 and JFK at Z313. That is about one second between shots. 

This lines up with the "bang....bang-bang" cadence recited by so many witnesses. 

JBC said he was pushed forward by the shot that struck him. That is ~Z295. You see it in the Z film.

The rest of JBC testimony also confirms---JBC heard the first shot, and made a 180-degree turn in his seat to look for JFK. He then began to turn forward and was shot. 

LN'ers and some CT'ers believe JBC made a volitional, deliberate, inquisitive 180-degree turn in his seat after being shot through the chest. Really? Is that plausible? 

Obviously, there had to be at least two gunman on 11/22, if one was armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

That is the fundamental truth the media has obscured for 60 years.  

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Interesting. I have to admit I was immediately turned off by the graphic. It creates the illusion Garrison was responsible for swaying public opinion when Garrison followed on the heels of Weisberg, Lane and Epstein, numerous magazine articles, and even Life Magazine. In fact, it's a safe bet that Life's article on Connally, where he disputed the single-bullet theory, did more to sway public opinion towards conspiracy than Garrison ever did. 

A limited modified hang out.  LIFE:

<quote on>

The evidence, particularly that given by Governor Connally and his interpretation of the Zapruder film, does not prove that Oswald had a co-conspirator.  Nor does it disprove it.  It does show that reasonable — and disturbing — doubt remains.

One conclusion is inescapable: the national interest deserves clear resolution of the doubts.

</q>

This is the birth of the modern JFKA Critical Community Parlor Game:  Answer the Question of Conspiracy!

In my book the fact of conspiracy is subtext, not the context of a thousand rabbit holes.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

BTW, while CV has his theory, I have mine: Gov. JBC is shot ~Z295 and JFK at Z313. That is about one second between shots. 

I haven’t weighed in on any of that.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This lines up with the "bang....bang-bang" cadence recited by so many witnesses. 

JBC said he was pushed forward by the shot that struck him. That is ~Z295. You see it in the Z film.

The rest of JBC testimony also confirms---JBC heard the first shot, and made a 180-degree turn in his seat to look for JFK. He then began to turn forward and was shot. 

LN'ers and some CT'ers believe JBC made a volitional, deliberate, inquisitive 180-degree turn in his seat after being shot through the chest. Really? Is that plausible? 

Obviously, there had to be at least two gunman on 11/22, if one was armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

That is the fundamental truth the media has obscured for 60 years.  

 

 

 

And down a rabbit hole he goes, another shill for a transiting bullet.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The drop in conspiracy believers could be due to old people dying. People who experienced the assassination, and then the killing of Oswald.

Not according to the 2017 poll.  No significant variation according to age.

 

That poll doesn't give enough information to make that conclusion. Here is what the poll shows:

Percentage who believe in a JFKA
conspiracy, by age group:

18 to 34:     60%

35 to 64:     62%

65 & Up:     60%

 

For all we know, the numbers could be something like these if the oldest hadn't died:

18 to 34:     60%

35 to 64:     62%

65 to 74:     58%

75 to 84:     65%

85 to 94:     80%

95 to 104:     85%

 

Those most likely to believe in a JFKA conspiracy have died. So they no longer contribute to the poll numbers.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I haven’t weighed in on any of that.

And down a rabbit hole he goes, another shill for a transiting bullet.

 

CV-

You sound like those young girls you are hanging out with. 

Try for a civil, collegial conversational tone. 

---30---

I do not know if a bullet transited JFK or not. The sectioning of the body was never done. 

No one, including you, seems to know the composition of the disintegrating bullets you propose.

You propose a bullet with enough integrity to be fired, hold together through 75 yards or more, have enough speed and mass to then cleanly pierce JFK's coat and shirt just like a metal bullet, and then penetrate one or two inches into JFK's body downward at a 60-degree angle leaving a hole the size of pinky finger, and then decompose into nothing. 

Is that plausible? What was the composition of such a bullet? 

Why use an exotic weapon, when the plan was to simply shoot JFK in the head? 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That poll doesn't give enough information to make that conclusion. Here is what the poll shows:

Percentage who believe in a JFKA
conspiracy, by age group:

18 to 34:     60%

35 to 64:     62%

65 & Up:     60%

 

For all we know, the numbers could be something like these if the oldest hadn't died:

18 to 34:     60%

35 to 64:     62%

65 to 74:     58%

75 to 84:     65%

85 to 94:     80%

95 to 104:     85%

 

Those most likely to believe in a JFKA conspiracy have died. So they no longer contribute to the poll numbers.

 

 

“For all we know?”  How do you state as a fact that “those most likely to believe in a JFK conspiracy have died” when the data doesn’t show it?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

You sound like those young girls you are hanging out with. 

Try for a civil, collegial conversational tone. 

I have a problem with your chronic misrepresentation of the evidence.

You say I have a “theory” when I state the following facts: the bullet holes in the clothes are too low for a transiting bullet; the night of the autopsy the doctors seriously considered the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech round.

Try for more informed views, Ben.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

“For all we know?”  How do you state as a fact that “those most likely to believe in a JFK conspiracy have died” when the data doesn’t show it?

 

There is no data either to support or dispute it. The data you presented doesn't include the opinion of anybody who died prior to the poll being conducted.

I'm using my common sense. Of course, those people who lived through it are more suspicious of it. Especially when they discovered that the government lies to them.

As time goes on, more and more people are becoming college graduates. And the data DOES show that they are less likely to believe in a conspiracy.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There is no data either to support or dispute it. The data you presented doesn't include the opinion of anybody who died prior to the poll being conducted.

I'm using my common sense. Of course, those people who lived through it are more suspicious of it. Especially when they discovered that the government lies to them.

As time goes on, more and more people are becoming college graduates. And the data DOES show that they are less likely to believe in a conspiracy.

 

Sure, when they go on-line to study the subject there are lots of rabbit holes and little clarity.

[Ron Bulman]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There is no data either to support or dispute it. The data you presented doesn't include the opinion of anybody who died prior to the poll being conducted.

I'm using my common sense. Of course, those people who lived through it are more suspicious of it. Especially when they discovered that the government lies to them.

As time goes on, more and more people are becoming college graduates. And the data DOES show that they are less likely to believe in a conspiracy.

 

In part because critical thinking is not encouraged.  Nor is discussion of the JFKA by younger upward bound professors.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Why use an exotic weapon, when the plan was to simply shoot JFK in the head?

The Fort Dertrick guys prepped the FBI to pin exotic weapons on the Commies.

[Cliff Varnell]

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

<quote on, emphasis added>

Senseney: And the only thing that I can say is, I just have to suppose that, having been told to maintain the sort of show and tell display of hardware that we had on sort of stockpile for them, these were not items that could be used. They were display items like you would see in a museum, and they used those to show to the agents as well as to the FBI, to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people. (pg 163)

Baker: ...There are about 60 agencies of Government that do either intelligence or law enforcement work.

Senseney: I am sure most all of those knew of what we were doing; yes...

...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country. </q

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not surprising actually. Studies have shown that college graduates have more faith in institutions than non-college grads. Because of a few isolated incidents, where students protested the Vietnam War, it was widely believed that students were the sector of the public most opposed to the Vietnam War. But this wasn't true. It was small town America, whose boys got sent off to fight. 

Posner, Buglioli, etc have convinced people they are rational, even when they are not, while men like Stone have convinced people they are irrational, even when they're not. I was somewhat gratified, however, when NBC went to Gary Aguilar for comment about Landis. I think that's a good sign. I think most people would side with Aguilar and Morley against Posner and his ilk any old day. 

Pat,

     I have conversed in recent years with several highly educated Boomers-- including a close relative who graduated summa cum laude from a prestigious college-- who have all repeated the same trope when I advised them to watch JFK Revisited.

    They said, in essence, that "Oliver Stone is a flake."

    It's exactly what I used to think, based on articles I had read over the years in "reputable" sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

    So, I think the anomalous 48% of Lone Nutters in the college graduate demographic is more likely to be a result of educated people trusting "reputable" Mockingbird sources like NYT, rather than trusting "institutions."

    After all, as you mentioned, we Boomers have distrusted institutions since Vietnam and Watergate.

    But how many educated Boomers truly understand Operation Mockingbird, even now?

[Benjamin Cole]

58 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

<quote on, emphasis added>

Senseney: And the only thing that I can say is, I just have to suppose that, having been told to maintain the sort of show and tell display of hardware that we had on sort of stockpile for them, these were not items that could be used. They were display items like you would see in a museum, and they used those to show to the agents as well as to the FBI, to acquaint them with possible ways that other people could attack our own people. (pg 163)

Baker: ...There are about 60 agencies of Government that do either intelligence or law enforcement work.

Senseney: I am sure most all of those knew of what we were doing; yes...

...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country. </q

CV-

Of course, there has been technological progress by leaps and bounds in the last 60 years, mostly in the private sector. 

On a Google search, I see no commercial offerings of dissipating bullets.

To your knowledge, has anyone in the private sector, in the last 60 years, perfected, or at least made somewhat practical, a quickly decomposing bullet that can be effective at 75 yards, with enough integrity to withstand the propulsion, and then penetrate through two layers of clothing, and then two inches of human flash, before quickly evaporating or otherwise disappearing? 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

Of course, there has been technological progress by leaps and bounds in the last 60 years, mostly in the private sector. 

On a Google search, I see no commercial offerings of dissipating bullets.

To your knowledge, has anyone in the private sector, in the last 60 years, perfected, or at least made somewhat practical, a quickly decomposing bullet that can be effective at 75 yards, with enough integrity to withstand the propulsion, and then penetrate through two layers of clothing, and then two inches of human flash, before quickly evaporating or otherwise disappearing? 

Jet Energy, Inc. of New Jersey held a patent on exactly that type of weapon until 2022.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6e/2c/f1/b7f57725cf38b1/US6705194.pdf

<q>

EXAMPLE 4

The fluid consists of the medicine to be injected into the tissue of the patient. The ice slug containing the exact amount of the medicine to be injected is expelled from the gun so it penetrates into the patent [sic?] body at a precisely controlled site and the medicine is delivered to a patient.

EXAMPLE 5

The invented device is used as a traceless gun, firing lethal or non-lethal bullets.  After impacting the surface of the substrate the ice bullet is melted and no traces of the bullet remains.

</q>