Thank goodness for Judyth Vary Baker's bravery. Brava, indeed! -- I still wonder why, if Lee was in Mexico at all, the big blond guy was used in the photo.
And here's an excellent interview about the Microwave equipment and targeted individuals, with an article about the general idea: http://www.examiner.com/article/microwaving-targeted-individuals-end-rights-abuses-barrett-tells-governmentThe actual video link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09mpvscHiKI#t=327
Yes--we have photos of two different men in Mexico CIty, one of whom is tall, robust and has a butch-cut, while the other is short, blond and gets red in the face when he is frustrated. Neither is Lee Oswald. This is one of the few points on which I tend to disagree with Judyth about the case. J. Edgar send out a memo to his Agents-in-Charge that someone was impersonating Lee in Mexico. If that were all you knew about the case, you would know enough to conclude that the assassination had been a conspiracy. Hailey Otis told me that the taller man is Walter Tabinski, "Bank Robbers and Serial Killers", but I have not been able to confirm it.
Jim, why not press the "reply" button to the actual comment, so your thoughts are linked to it no matter who else comments, too?Also: the point here is WHY WOULD THEY HAVE TO USE WRONG PHOTOS FOR LEE IF HE WAS THERE AT ALL?I doubt he was there. But if he was, maybe he was in the wrong places, with no photos of him.
In 1961 the fascistic Joint Chiefs of Staff passionately wanted to invade Cuba and humiliate Russia, even at the risk of WWIII, which they were "sure" was winnable. ("We might get our hair mussed, but...") When all previous attempts to enlist the uncooperative young President in their mad scheme failed (the Cuban Missle Crisis, Operation Northwoods, et. al.) they opted instead to lend their support to one of the several ongoing plots, swirling about the Washington underworld at the time, to assassinate him... and blame Castro for sponsoring the deed! Cooler (albeit still malevolent) heads prevailed (i.e. LBJ, Hoover, Warren, the intel spooks, etc.) and WWIII was providentially averted by their tightly controlling the subsequent "investigation" and assuring the public that Ozzie was NOT a "Castro agent" (despite all the planted evidence to that effect which then had to be discredited and discarded) but merely a "crazed lone nut". Deliberately circulating the photos (and wiretap recordings) of the "big blond guy" in Mexico was part of the counter-ploy to defuse the Ozzie-was-a-Castro-agent time bomb before it functioned as a casus belli for the lip-smacking, NorthWoodsy, war-mongering generals' faction (Lemnitzer, LeMay, Walker, et al.)JFK's multitudinous enemies (the Mob, Big Oil, the Fed Banksters, nuke-craving Israel, the Langley Boys, etc.) were all delighted to get a new Prez who had pledged to be far more permissive of their various evil agendas -- and even the generals and the arms merchants were quickly placated with the promise of a huge, protracted, proxy war in Southeast Asia, one that would not only enrich the merchants of violent death (via billions for fresh bombs, guns, planes and helicopters) but also secure the essential-to-the-money-laundering-banksters heroin trade from the Golden Triangle, for decades to come.
Great post, Andy.I have a question. Do you think the threat of nuclear war was real or part of the conspiracy and cover up? A means to keep everybody in line to follow the Lone Nut Oswald scenario? Was LBJ serious when he told Earl Warren about 40 million Americans dying in the first 24 hours or did LBJ know the nuclear war threat was bogus and merely a lever to cover up his and others CIA etc., etc. involvement in the conspiracy? Have you any idea when the specter of the threat of nuclear war first appeared?My own view is that NW threat was bogus and was part of the conspiracy and had been prepared and in place, ready to be used long before the assassination of JFK. How else can we explain why so many people went along with and co-operated in the cover up of the conspiracy that was behind the JFK assassination?
If you've been reading my responses to the "everything's a fake" crowd (those too-lazy investigators whom our delightfully insightful, albeit loquacious Clare calls "radical doubters") you know I that I pick and choose my own determinations of "fake" more carefully than many of them do.Apollo, Sandy Hook, Boston, and the 103-minute 9/11 TV-CGI spectacular: bogusThe infamous, war-enabling political assassinations of the 1960s: all too realAnd as for the genuine, versus exaggerated threat of nuclear war causing extinction-of-life-on-earth, I have long had my suspicions that the damage possibilities may have been grossly hyperbolised for political/occult purposes ("Now I have become death"... at the site of "Trinity") -- but that any direct war between the USSR and USA (using all the weapons in their arsenals that did work) would still have chalked up a carnage calculation previously unimagined in human history.Yes, I think the tear's in Justice Warren's eyes were real, not fake.
The tears in Warren's eyes may have been real but was the threat of nuclear war real or simply a ruse to reduce Warren to tears and get him to do what LBJ wanted him to do i.e. to preside over the load of horseshit that was the Warren Commission? LBJ knew a lot about tears in eyes. He could turn on his own waterworks at the drop of a hat (Bobby Kennedy told of how Johnson burst into tears when Bobby went to see about the offer of the vice-presidency). Johnson was a master of deceit and mendacity and crying like a baby came second nature to him - when circumstances called for it).LBJ would have approved of GWB boohooing in the White House after 9/11. Way to go, George!! LBJ is quoted in his biography as having said: "Goddamn a man who can't have a good fucking sob once in a while."We are all aware of the effects of nuclear war. The question is:Was the threat of nuclear war, after the JFK assassination in 1963, real or bogus?I read somewhere that in The film of Bugliosi's book....I think it's called Crapland or something, a secret service man who went to Zapruder to get the Zapruder film from him told Zapruder that if he didn't get the film so that it could be analyzed to find out what really happened - nuclear war might break out!! Whether or not the SS man actually said that is debatable but how and why the hell is a secret service man talking, only hours after the JFK assassination, about nuclear war breaking out!!?? Where did this talk of nuclear war breaking out originate??
Andy: the philosophical term for disbelieving anything, in this case to the point of being unable to separate what is provably and likely fake in it, from what is overall prima facie likely real even after knowing of faking/lying in the case, is "radical philosophical doubt". It is not skepticism, though some skeptics seem to be okay with being sloppy and radically doubtful of a case no matter what is before them, and think they have debunked it without actually debunking it.Delightful me, thanks. Loquacious me, well, when putting together replies to people who cannot handle subtlety NOR handle simple statements (think Ian who thinks I'm rude if I state things as simple points which are self-evident), I end up trying to catch all info into my words. It is loquacity, sure, but it is necessary FOR THE RECORD.I would be happy to put the simplest things down once and be done with it.!!
Some careful lines of combined thinking there, Clare.How long will it be before you start spouting your PID ( Paul Is Dead) crap?Just curious.....
Sanity at last!! Back to JFK Assassination related podcasts from Professor James Fetzer's Real Deal!!!I just LURVE those Real Deal podcasts related to the JFK Assassination......I do......I really do........Thank you, Professor Fetzer!!!Yeee haaaaaw!!!!!
What even the best American free analysts do NOT know - and what we (well infromed, of course) who lived under Communist regimes know, is that the first jewish state is NOT Israel (1948), but it is the Soviet Union (since 1918). It became so since Jesuits and their bankers paid Jews to destroy the Russian tzarist state in a Bolshevik revolution and create jewish ruled-owned USSR. It is STILL that way today since Jews also made its dissolution in 1991 and created Russian federation, which is now also a Jewsih state as was the USSR. On the other hand (rather, the SAME hand!) USA and Europe is ruled by two factors united: Jews and Jesuits. I wrote in a bi-weekly magazine in my column GEOSTRATEGY about 15 years ago, that the Vatican is the last jewish ghetto in Europe. (¨All the roads lead to Rome¨ is one of the most true statements). As for the hundreds of churches-sects-sorry excuses for churches (thousands of them, actually?) of Protestant Christians in the USA and elsewhere, Jews and Jesuits are their true rulers-masters for at least 100 years or so (most likely more). Just for a peek, check out the Christian Zionist MADNESS in the USA and look no further... except, perhaps, in American veteran hospitals, for wounded American soldiers who suffer(ed) for them. So, Jews and Jesuits are true rulers of the USA;. I call them ¨J&J¨ or ¨J 'n J¨. You you are most welcome to use that term - it is closest to the Truth. Jesuits and Jews havve made MONKEYS out of Protestant Christians (look at YouTube presentation of Texe Marrs, he told you LIKE IT IS - Speaking in tongues episode is most telling and my fave), and fragmented them into thousands of chrurches-pieces, while twisting their Theology (Bible etc.) to the point of idiocy. That is the short reviews of THE RULERS - and also, that is the story of who killed JFK (it was ¨J 'n J¨). So that is how the infamous ¨Soviet connection¨ with Harvey Osvald is actually the jewish connection, as Jews, as I stated, ruled USSR than, and also rule Russian federation now, while Jesuits were on top of the situation in the USE (related to JFK and everything else). Have a nice day.
Hey Sven.Time was, back in the late 20th Century, that you could find a fine assortment of evangelist Texe Marrs' books in most Christian (Protestant) bookstores -- which used to populate shopping malls and business strips from coast to coast (before most bookstores of all flavours were drowned in the Amazon tidal wave).His early writings were never very complimentary towards the Vatican, but boy, when he began to focus on the evils of Zionism... "ZAP!" all his early books were quickly pulled from the inventory and NONE of his later works had ANY chance of being displayed on the shelves.Now, as to the 1918-1989 existence of the Soviet Union as a "Jewish state," the record IS pretty clear for the early years. But in the 1930s Uncle Joe turned against large numbers of his Khazarian, pseudo-semite comrades, in a purge-trial orgy of imprisonment and death so as to rid his top ranks of the very same troublesome ethnic group whose covert hierarchy Furher Adolph was secretly cooperating with -- to drive their recalcitrant mass membership out of Europe and "back" (?) to their "promised land".Well, as we know it took several ultra-bloody years of privation and war to accomplish the Zionist dream of wholesale migration and land-theft in Palestine, but the scheme did succeed in 1948.But what about the USSR? Would you still call it a "Jewish state" after Stalin's kangaroo-court pogroms de-Jewed the Commnist upper ranks?Of course the Russian faction of "The Chosen" did get their revenge via his "medical murder" in 1953, but let's not forget how the Zionist criminal empire in the West (bankers, gangsters, warmongers, etc.) spurred Russia's former WWII allies into decades of expensive proxy wars and arms-race escalations that finally greased the skids for the "fall of Communism" in 1989-1991. And what came next? Why the desperate "privatisation" of all Soviet-state assets and a very brief "sharing" of them by the citizens, but only until they were "Ruble-strangled" by the "money power" and Jewish speculators-turned-"oligarchs" scooped up nearly everything of value.So, from the early 1990s to the rise of Putin wealthy Jews DID "regain the reins of the troika," but Russian events of more recent vintage paint a more murky iconography. After Putin's (no doubt deserved) railroading (incarceration or exile) of the biggest, most odious "oligarchs," he seems to have made an uneasy "truce" with the remainder. And on the international stage, his own despotic regime exerts much more effort these days to impede the current objectives of the evil Zionists (Iran, Syria, etc.) than to facilitate them.In other words, Sven, it ain't so simple.
Just a moment: I wrote only five short paragraphs - not a book (which would decrease the simplicity factor in my comment, rather considerably, but it would actually take SEVERAL boos, ooops). Aa for your other comments, clearly you are a well informed and clear thinking person, no doubt if this sample is the sole piece on which I would judge your competence. Yes, there is a moot point about Stalin, but that is the topic where I would need to write a long comment, which is not neccesssary and appropriate here on this fine page of our kind and very well informed, clever host. If we skip the debate about Stalin, we would come back to his poisoning and continuation of jewish khazar rule starting with Nikita Kruschov and all the way to the PRESENT DAY. I have seen more than 200 movies (fiction and non-fiction), of course in Russian language all of them, this fall/winter pondering some questions, and all the time I came back to the conclusions that I voiced in my previous, first, comment. To cut the long story short, Putin is from the same Cabal, no doubt about it, and also his side-kicks (begining with Medvedev et al). Russian Orthodox Christian Church seems to be rather comfortable (?) with that situation - while all prominent intelectuals who have been assasinated in the past 10-15 years, were the ones who call for PRE-CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGIC SLAVIC ¨ARYAN¨ ANCESTRY of the Russian people (the White race). Hmmmm .... Have a nice day. And, yes, I agree, it iain't so simple - but it can be simplified when very well informed and intelligent people make presentation and discuss these matters.
Judyth Vary Baker... can't buy it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Many people DO buy it, Roget; and some others have such unbearable congnitive-dissonance pangs that they simply have to attack the messenger, like you (quite understandably) do.But how about the PWIA (Paul Was Impossibly Altered) theory as a less painful substitute for the dour PID claim?As Clare masterfully points out, there are so many obvious alterations in the public imagery of the earlier and later McCartney, that neither analog distortion nor plastic surgery can successflly explain all of them.Simply ignoring these plentiful anomalies and viciously trashing the messenger (just as with the Apollo, Sandy Hook, Tucson, Boston, 9/11 fakeries) does NOT make them go away.Maybe YOU should, until you can come up with some more reasoned and temperate responses. Clare doesn't deserve such abuse.
I was just removing the comment in order to ask her properly if she meant she "doesn't buy" that JVB was for real, or if she meant about LHO's going to Mexico.However, I was on an unrefreshed page and didn't see the subsequent comments, so I will re-post my comment here, so it is on the record, to keep the clarity going as regards the replies to it:"& You buy that all the Beatles were replaced or that Paul didn't die when the replacement is formally provable? Dear me.Judyth's story is detailed, consistent, emotionally insistent, idiosyncratic, has some corroborative items (a woman who knew her and Lee together, JVB's coffee company paystubs, information which clears up why certain things happened and was surprisingly fitting, and specific personal feeling for the main people in New Orleans' monkey virus and assassination circles).So ... let's see. Hm."
Thanks, Andy.What "DuCon" (?! a con?) missed is that Allison buys a heck of a lot more weird stuff -- though unprovable, in that case -- than PID.Oh well.And I was pointing that out, not re-arguing PID anyway ...because if Allison "doesn't buy" JVB's testimony, which is detailed and personal and consistent and in some aspects externally supportable, and Allison should be able to tell that JVB is serious, while her position that all the Beatles were a "psy op" and "possibly all replaced from time to time but not Paul specifically or dead Paul" is untenable.Where do people get off not understanding JVB but avoiding PID with hoping that a psy-op of "Featles" nonsense can be true to them -- but it's a deflection! What a backward, Alice in Wonderland world, indeed.
Judith Vary Baker doesn't need you to fight her corner and you should stop using Allison's reservations about Judith Vary Baker as an excuse to foist more of your PID bullshit on this blog.You despicable bitch. Leave Judith Vary Baker alone and leave Allison alone. Nobody gives a fuck about your PID cock and bull nonsense. Stop equating your PID baloney with Judith Vary Baker's excellent JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald research.
LOL Can we agree the Beatles and Judyth Vary Baker are separate issues? If you attack someone because of her opinion on an unrelated subject, isn't that a variation of an ad hominem attack? Let's keep it clean, Clare.In court, juries are allowed to disregard the complete testimony of a witness, if said witness was found to have changed their testimony. And the change of testimony only need happen one time. To put it mildly, Judyth Vary Baker has changed her story a few more than once. I believe there are documents which prove she worked at the New Orleans Coffee distributer at the same time as Oswald. It goes down hill from there.
Of course, Allison, the cases are separate. I was commenting on your being uncareful in other instances. Ignoring this Roget DuCon's vile language and deeply misguided understanding of valuation of ideas and language of me and now of Andy and even a typo (from Andy Tyme):I have asked Jim to comment to you about JVB to you about the changes in JVB's story. I hope he will.
I think it was in a conversation with Senator Russell that LBJ said: "Khrushchev had nothing to do with this." So that's the Soviets off the hook. LBJ then reduces Earl Warren with his sob inducing story of a nuclear war in which millions would die. If the Soviets were out of the frame, who exactly was going to start this nuclear war? The USA? Against whom? The Soviets? But hold on...The Soviets had nothing to do with it (the assassination of JFK). So why the hell would the USA start a nuclear war with the Soviets?This so-called threat of nuclear war was nothing more than a cynical ploy to cover up the JFK assassination conspiracy. LBJ's sole aim was to scare the shit out of everybody because he knew it was the best way to keep the lid on the conspiracy. From the autopsy doctors to the members of the WC including those who didn't buy the Oswald-did-it-alone bullshit to Earl Warren himself. LBJ knew there was no and never had been any chance of nuclear war starting after JFK's assassination. The nonexistent threat of nuclear war was a fraud and a lie that ensured the conspiracy behind the JFK assassination was covered up.
Rick, I think you WANT to believe there never was ANY danger of nuclear war because the "weapons" themselves were FAKE.Perhaps... perhaps. Those atomic-scientist "alchemists" of the (heavily Jewish) Mahnattan Project and its (nevertheless Nazi-fied) descendants were (and are) such a spooky AND occultish bunch that such assertions of fakery (or wild exaggeration) do have SOME plausibility. But the historical record (as much of it as we have access to, anyway) makes it clear that serious doubts about what "the Bomb" could do were mighty rare during the Cold War, even among the high and mighty.
Andy, there are far too many testimonials and a general case about nukes to deny them properly, even if one wished. There was plenty of utopian/dystopian "magic(k)" dreaming among some of the creators, but let's not argue the weapons here.What Watsen was suggesting was that the threat of nuclear war -- yes, assuming such things can happen -- was not considered a real threat of action from the USSR in the JFK death, but was specifically given as a deflectionary cause in that coverup to briefly suggest the "Reds" were behind the assassination and there was a need for coverup. This got Warren to back the Commission AS A COVERUP already. But it turned out what they ended up covering up was more about LBJ's involvement and others' involvement than anything about Reds. The Commission did complex work spread out over many people, and Warren was not aware of all of its work anyway, so as things developed, he probably took some time to really realize what he was helping cover up. Jim probably knows more details about what Warren likely ultimately thought happened. But there were lawyers in the Commission, whom Lifton talks about in his book, "Best Evidence", who thought they'd uncover USA conspiracy if there had been some, yet who had blindness to what to look for if there had been -- hence his title. So anyway, people within a Commission (even Warren) can be confused.
Clare, there are far too many testimonials and a general case against PID to accept it properly, even if one wished. But lets not argue this PID here.
El Buggo: there ARE PLENTY of testimonials to the reality, of which you are unaware; some are subtle, as would be expected, some are not but were taken as jokes, also to be expected. There is also a general case FOR the death and replacement and a DIRECT CASE for replacement. This is a simple reply only, for, as you said, let's not argue this PID here.
" Rick, I think you WANT to believe there never was ANY danger of nuclear war because the "weapons" themselves were FAKE."Are you on medication, Andy?
No, he doesn't have to be on medication just because he questioned if nukes are fiction.There is a huge problem with the photos and films in these Hiroshima reports - the far most famous nuke story of all times. You will not find any evidence or indication of 1 huge blast there - absolutely nothing. No crater, no epicenter, no Ground Zero. All we have are these testimonials and reports from the same controlled source. If you study the evidence of the reported nuke blast in Hiroshima, you will see that the historical films and photos of the event are clearly consistent with firebombing, like Tokyo and Yokohama. Clean streets, no damage to the waterfront, chimneys still standing, all bridges intact, and the flat roof of the Bank of Japan building right below the reported epicenter was also intact, etc.But since everybody knows that Hiroshima was nuked it shouldn't be so hard for you to point out Ground Zero for us in any of the published films or photos. What do you think that could imply if even you are unable to show us this really simple end expected and obvious observation? Don't expect Jim to tell you more on this nuke revisionism, he is too deeply engaged in nuclear neutron demolition these days.
El Buggo is a disinfo shill touting a completely moronic position that nukes don't exist. If anyone wants to find the Ground Zero at Hiroshima go to my blog and then watch the 2nd 24 Hours After Hiroshima YouTube clip (1:55 - 3:30). Vector forces show the A bomb missed the target T shaped bridge by only 550 feet. All of El Buggo's Hiroshima BS is completely refuted in my blog post.
Hi Don,The Hiroshima bomb was dropped early in the morning. The smoke plume you presented has the sun high in the sky. Much higher then expected in the morning.Where did all that material in the smoke plume come from? Hard to located that area in this panorama photo (much better than that close up of some rubble you provided):http://tinyurl.com/oduk3kuAlso notice the perfectly fine flat roof of Gelbi bank building to the right there. Built to keep rainwater out, but survived the reported nuke blast and epicenter just 1000 feet away. No debris on the roof - looks absolutely perfect and undisturbed.Streets also perfectly clean - no debris or rubble there. Also a high rise chimney standing in the middle of the image.That YouTube clip that should prove or show Ground Zero is just some silly reports by the Pentagon propaganda team that was engage to prove a nuke exploded there. Quit shocking that you can believe anything like this. The Youtube video you referred to is just some really silly emotional soap propaganda stuff - rally terrible.BTW Don, you put up the smoke plume from the reported Nagasaki bomb.
Again, more rubbish from Buggo.The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a one-off design, never used again. It was the first design of A-bomb devised and was an expedient design that was guaranteed to work rather than be efficient. The bomb used a mixture of 50% enriched U235 and 89% enriched U235 in order to be ready in time, ideally, it should have used only 89% enriched U235 but insufficient supplies were avialable. The yield of the device was not known prior to detonation, they had to guess what altitude to explode it so compromised due to not knowing the yield. The optimum altitude to detonate an A-bomb is that which will maximise the area which will experience a 5pst overpressure, which is enough to break a human ear drum but not enough to destroy a hardened concrete structure, hence the survival of concrete buildings like the Bank of Japan.Little Boy was detonated at an altitude of somewhere 1850-1900 feet which is optimum for a 5 kiloton weapon, but too low for the 11kt that the device actually yielded, so the damage on the ground was considerably less than might have been. The Americans were conservative in setting the detonation altitude as too low was less of an error than too high, the result was that the explosion was less damaging than it might have been, not quite a dud or flash in the sky, but also not the level of damage an 11kt device is capable of if deployed optimally.Buggo should study the facts rather than spout BS based on looking at some pictures.
Thanks for your comment, Ian.I can maybe accept that part of the story on the several million men who worked for five years, in total secret, and created that that devise you described.But a completely other question is whether that devise worked, and was dropped on Hiroshima and destroyed the city. That is the official story of course, even if it was more predictable and simpler to just throw down some old fashion firebombs and blame the damages on a new monster weapon.Re: optimum for a 5 kiloton weapon, but too low for the 11kt that the device actually yieldedI'm confused here. So the damages after the reported nuke was lower than it should have been because it was detonated in a too low altitude? Well, that should at least have been helpful for you guys, when you should locate Ground Zero for us in any of the published films or photos of the event.You state 11kt. Truman stated 20kt, and Los Alamos Laboratories stated 15kt plus minus 20% (http://tinyurl.com/qjpfave). I understand your need now to underplay the Hiroshima bomb performance - you are very consistent there I have noticed.Around here we had a 0.15kt bomb that went off in the harbor during WWll. About 150 killed, 5000 homeless and about 5000 wounded. Basically wounded by exploding window glass. No (or very few) such report from H&N. Same goes for the reports on ear drum breaks.The evidence for Ground Zero in Hiroshima presented by Don here from 1:55 to 3:30 is ridiculous: http://youtu.be/AjPm9Vo_pYU?t=1m55sHe picked some reports by Pentagons Propaganda Team that was engaged to collect and manufacture evidence for a nuke blast. If this is the best you have, you have nothing.The significance of photos: If you have attended a wedding some time, you can be sure that the photos from that event will be supported by the stories. Even though not all stories from the wedding can be supported by photos. So if they showed you a photo of the bride, dancing with King Kong, you know that the photo is doctored or it was from some other event than the wedding you attended.Same goes for Hiroshima; the photos must be supported by the stories, and cannot or should not contradict the story. If no photos or films support any traces of 1 huge explosion in Hiroshima, the photos don't support the story we have been told.Gelbi bank building at Hiroshima was 380 meters sideways from, and about 600 meters below the alleged nuke explosion and blast/heat wave center. The flat roof survived there too - completely undisturbed as far as I can tell. And how about all the standing chimneys Ian? Re: more rubbish from Buggo.What is your comet for Don who put up the reported smoke plume from Nagasaki when he was talking about Hiroshima?. Embarrassing for a Nuclear Demolition Analyst to not know the difference, Ian?
You just haven't got a clue what your talking about, you spout nonsense like millions of people working for 5 years and expect people to listen to you? Clearly you know nothing about the Manhattan project which didn't start until late 1942 and didn't employ millions of people at all. Little Boy yielded 11kt, Fat Man/Gadget was somewhat bigger, around 20kt.The Gelbi bank building was subjected to a blast force of only 5psi which is barely enough to break a human ear drum. Yet you repeatedly say why was it left standing? Same for the chimneys, the wood and paper buildings were burnt by the fireball but the blast wave wasn't great enough in size nor pressure to destroy the brick chimneys.There is nothing at all suspicious about Hiroshima, and a proper study of the facts proves this. Quite clearly you haven't studied the facts, either that or you are deliberately being misleading, as Don suggests.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, that "millions of men" was partly a joke of course, or an obvious exaggeration.Your numbers aren't very consistent. According to Truman, both H&N yielded 20kt. Again, Los Alamos Laboratories stated 15kt +- 20% for H, and 21kt +- 10% for N (http://tinyurl.com/qjpfave). You claim 11kt and 20kt. The numbers are all over the place here. That indicates you don't have a clue.It is now clear that you cannot point out anything in the published films or photos of Hiroshima that indicates 1 big bang there. Could just as well have been Mrs O’Leary and her cow, who kicked over the lantern which began the Great Chicago Fire in 1871 by setting the straw on fire which set the barn on fire. Could just as well have been Mrs O’Leary and her cow again, who demolished Hiroshima, that according to the published films and photos of the event. We don't even need firebombs to explain the damages. So why not Mrs O’Leary and her cow? Prove it wasn't her. Illustration of this WMD here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mrs_OLeary%27s_cow.jpgYou didn't comment on Don's blooper. He put up the reported smoke plume in Nagasaki while discussing Hiroshima.
In case you are wondering about the spelling, it's Alen J. Salerian, M.D. Excellent article, Jim. The criminalization of marijuana is bad enough, but now the criminalization ofprescription psychiatric drugs while they monopolize TV with ads for dangerous and unnecessary drugs with incredible side effects is truly disgusting. At the same time, lawyers are soliciting candidates for class action suits for certain popular drugs which have caused damage such as diabetes. Outing The Washingtonian and the Criminalization of Medicine | Veterans Today http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/02/01/outing-the-washingtonian-and-the-criminalization-of-medicine/The War on Drugs is as phony as the War on Terror. Congress, the CDC and the DEA have criminalized adolescent experimentation with marijuana at enormous cost to society, where, behind the scenes, “Big Pharma” controls the use of drugs in medicine and rips off the public with mark-ups that spiral the cost of medical care upward, while physicians are now pawns in the criminalization of medicine. While it used to be the practice of the DEA to sell drugs in schools, it has now adopted the far more sophisticated strategy of targeting a special class of persons, those who are in need of psychiatric care. Since their drug prescriptions are recorded electronically–as well as the names of their physicians–tracking those who possess them–no matter that they are from prescriptions–is effortless and turns them into “sitting ducks”.Then the DEA can track them and arrange for car stops, for example, by local law enforcement, which then leads to their arrest and the prosecution of their physicians for alleged offenses. The cops get credit for a “bust”, the drugs are “taken off the street” and the DEA builds it statistics to sustain the “War on Drugs”.This creates inflated numbers supporting a “drug epidemic”. Imagine my astonishment at discovering that The Washingtonian–a more sophisticated version of The National Enquirer, which, in this case, specializes in high-end gossip about people and politics in Washington, D.C.–had done a hit piece on my good friend, Alen J. Salerian, M.D., the former top shrink for the FBI, which exemplifies this new strategy.
Medical care is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. http://chriskresser.com/medical-care-is-the-3rd-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-usThe most shocking revelation of her report is that iatrogentic damage (defined as a state of ill health or adverse effect resulting from medical treatment) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.This means that doctors and hospitals are responsible for more deaths each year than cerebrovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and pneumonia.The combined effect of errors and adverse effects that occur because of iatrogenic damage includes:12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals106,000 deaths a year from nonerror, adverse effects of medications
Sigh. Yawn.Once again another worthwhile comment thread on this website has become infested with troll postings.Jim, do you know how to check the server log to determine the origin of these dollops of cyber-excrement? If not, can you ask your webmaster for assistance?Depending on how much effort these pitiful cubicle dwellers (mischevous volunteers, Zio-ideologues, low-level mil-intel grunts or better-paid cognitive-infiltration workers) even put into spoofing their IP addresses (which experience tells me they usually don't even try) you might be surprised to see how many of their potty-mouth rants (under oft-changing monikers) repeatedly come from the same locations.And considering how low-profile this site is, compared to both mainstream news-and-comment sites AND foundation-funded "alternative" web portals -- it should be gratifying to discover how much the "Chosen" and their dutiful spooks nevertheless do take it seriously."All the Troll-y people....""Where DO they all come from?"
I was NOT referring to Joan Edwards' postings, by the way.
Andy, if you were not, then maybe you should delete your comments from under her thread on marijuana, etc., and paste them on the right thread or just press the main reply button so yours go separate from all specific people, though it would be at the bottom when you post it.
" CONGnitive" ??Inhabitant of (North/South) Vietnam??
Judyth Vary Baker and the letter to President Kennedy when there was no such thing as a "President" Kennedy.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/science_fair.htm
Andy: "infested with troll postings"?You are, of course, referring to Clare Kuehn and her totally irrelevant and misplaced swipe at Allison. Allison has every right to express her opinion on JVB but that does not give Clare Kuehn the right to use Allison's JVB comment as a pretext to launch herself and her P.I.D. baggage into this thread. It's getting to the stage now where EVERY thread is infested with her P.I.D. baloney. She never fails to drag her maniacal Paul Is Dead bollocks into EVERY thread. I say to Clare Kuehn: Stop trolling Jim Fetzer's blog with your P.I.D. nonsense, Clare!!Hasn't Jim Fetzer done enough for you already without you taking advantage of his generosity? Enough is enough is ENOUGH, Clare!!!
I mentioned it in context of Allison's uncarefulness in thinking the Beatles were Featles (all replaced), and questioned her ability to concentrate on JVB's authenticity; they are separate cases, it's true, and have retracted the point to Allison.Also:Since PID is a legitimate inquiry (and directly provable as well as circumstantially), anyone can mention it along with Boston, etc. as far as lying psyop coverups go.Nick Kollerstrom and I and Jim will be doing 2 hours next Wed. on PID, at Jim and Nick's request. Nick's post on the subject is at terroronthetube.co.uk/2014/02/12/a-very-english-911-mysteryMaybe you will find it interesting.
Enough of this trashing of Clare, DuCon, a name that suggests you are here as a con. I am glad to tolerate diverse points of view about Judyth and PID, but I have read too many ad hominem attacks. I will delete them when I find them. If you have something to say that has substance, say it! But cease the endless stream of ad homs.
Ducon is a French name Professor Fetzer. A Canadian French name to be exact and I'll thank you not to be so insulting about it. I see you are following Clare Kuehn's lead with her vile "DuCon (a con?)" above. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, Professor Fetzer, when you demean yourself and your blog by following the example of Clare Kuehn. I realize, of course, that an apology from you, Professor Fetzer, for your immoderate, ill informed and offensive slur on my name (DuCon) is out of the question.Roget DuConLe Québec
Oh Roget, you know people get suspected of being agents here. As such, I suggested it and Jim just did, in a way, I think; even I, even here on this thread, have been suspected of it (bizarrely, since my constant work on many topics is available and never in support of nonsense official stories if they can be proved wrong).So you are in Quebec. You and Stooy44. Well, enjoy the weather we're having all over Ontario and Qebec; cold, eh?
Roget, forgive me. I did not mean to insult your bona fide family name. Thanks for the clarification.
where is all the broken glass from the twin towers destruction aftermath photographs? I don't recall seeing any examples of what should have been piles and piles of the stuff everywhere. anyone up to doing the calculations as to how many panes were contained in the two buildings? (of course I know that the 9/11 footage was fabricated, and that includes the rubble aftermath footage).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3b0PyYUFGsjfk and lee Harvey Oswald were actors and I think Judith is an actor also.http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=225299&postcount=238
and the whole Osama thing is another concoction. Obama played the role of the Osama we all know and love, and he only went and killed hissself when he killed Osama. the only difference between Obama and Osama = bs. get it?it is all high f-arse!and as for fox news reporting Osama's death. indeed!fakery fakery everywhereand we lap it up.
Well, we know he died on or about 15 December 2001 and was buried in an unmarked grave in accordance with Islamic tradition. Not everything that appears on FOX is fake--and this is a nice example.Nick Kollerstrom has an article about it, "Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001", David Ray Griffin has a book about it, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE?, and I published about it in "Zero Dark Thirty: The deeper, darker truth".
pshea:*The only difference between Obama and Osama = bs. get it?*I got it!! Neat!!!Gimme 5!! You da man!! Respect!! Yo!!
This is what I've been looking for. I remembered this web page but had trouble finding it. For those believing the Judyth Vary Baker story could possibly hold water... get a load of this:http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.htmlSome of the biggest names in JFK assassination research have taken turns impeaching her story... including Mary Farrel and David Lifton.
I have never heard of Allison Hunt in the nearly 25 years I have been engaged in serious research on JFK. I met Mary Farrell and know David S. Lifton very well. But anyone who cites John McAdams as a source on JFK cannot be taken seriously. For those who want to see a dozen video interviews I have done with Judyth, go to JamesFetzerNews (YouTube) and check 'em out.
Allison, that JamesFetzerNews channel has a lot of discussion which clarifies what Lifton is misunderstanding regarding Judyth "Cancun/Kankun" debate, and also how human beings don't always remember things the same but their general tone and personality come through, which are part of a proof. McAdams is picking on a person and treating it as a proof; it's true it could be part of a general proof, but that general proof is where JVB is strong, though on some specifics there are mistakes. Any human being might have those.
Yes, I'm well aware of the reputation of John McAdams. That doesn't mean everything McAdams writes is wrong. I also oppose the New World Order but that doesn't mean they are always dead wrong. The NWO believes we have too many people. I think they're right. I think we had too many in 1860 (read OVERSHOOT).The majority (nearly all) of your ideas are spot-on accurate AND supportable. You have to know Judyth Vary Baker is thin ice... REALLY thin. I am merely pointing out what is obvious to most everyone else. What else would you expect from your fans? Our leader has left the track and derailed. You should be more suspicious if your unwavering support of Judyth Vary Baker did not draw heat.
Coming from a family of dentists, this is roll-on-the-floor funny. Judyth Vary Baker incorporates an old wives tale regarding the re-attachment of an Oswald tooth which had been previously knocked out.http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-tooth.html"Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. That there is funny." Larry Cable
This is too much. We now have Professor James Fetzer and Clare Kuehn working a double act together.Before you know it, they'll be finishing each other's sentences. This blog has gone to the dogs. I blame Clare Kuehn, of course, for filling Professor Fetzer's head with her Paul Is Dead hogwashwhich has contaminated and destroyed the blog totally and entirely from the inside out.I knew this would happen. This once esteemed blog of Professor Fetzer's is now, beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, finished.It's over, folks.
? Your argument is? Nothing. Thought so.
To me the concerns are the racists and those who simply insult without at least offering something constructive. Mr. Fetzer does not wish to censor these types of comments.He is thereby losing much intelligent debate in favour of nonsense.I believe Mr Fetzer is standing upon a ridiculous principle. Of course there must be limits to freedom of speech and expression. Where to draw the line is the question.By drawing it where he does, Mr Fetzer gets the kinds of useless comments that he does.I do not care if Clare digresses, so long as she does so respectfully.If you disagree with her digressions, at least do so respectfully.
Lots of people bring in other cases, or beliefs -- some of them tenable and some untenable. If people do not personally believe that the PID case is serious, then at least let them make an argument. As to this thread, it was in reply to a specific person who understood immediately that I was questioning her capability to assess JV Baker's authenticity, due to her trouble telling the difference between PID and "Featles" total-Beatle replacement. However, since they are different cases, and maybe Allison Hunt could do better on JV B possibly than she was doing on "Featles", I retracted the statement. Others were already attacking, as though PID had no value, but made no argument. DuCon had even asked if I would mention PID. Well, of course I would if relevant, since like all cases we discuss, the particular case has links to specific things we discuss in other cases.
Exactly. The Beatles (3) plus one new one, but not general replacement. The case for "Featles" does not hold. Nor does the case for no Faul.Sadly, the latter is eminently supportable, and thankfully not the former. But this is not the place to argue it. I raised it because Allison holds that Featles may be real, constant doubles, not Faul as one singular case and was discussing JV Baker as if her case is not strong.I have since acknowledged that her capacity or position on the Beatles/Featles issue and PID itself does not necessarily reflect on her thinking in this case about Baker.Still, Baker is also quite genuine from multiple lines of reasoning and general fairness to how memory works; she simply messed up in a few places (as Allison's McAdam link shows), and caused Lifton and Farrell to have such resentment that they pick and choose tiny worries about Baker out of masses of supported claims for Baker (as Allison's other link shows).But Allison's conclusion re. "Featles" does not mean she does not try to think things through or come up with things on Baker -- though in questioning her ability, her "Featles" belief was mentioned by me.
Gary Miller has gone through and removed all his comments, all his accusations that I called Paul a dingbat, and other vitriol against me, instead of apologizing (if he realized I didn't say that Paul was a dingbat, or deserved vitriol). His comments are gone, as if he's hiding. The content was vitriolic. How about an apology, Gary, if that is your intent, instead of wiping your statements to hide? -- Aside: I removed my own comment (directly above) only to adjust the statement here and repost it.
Take a hike, Clare!! Go learn to punctuate simple and complex sentences. Pay particular attention to the use of the comma. Have you really nothing better to do with your time than troll Jim Fetzer's blog, waiting and hoping, for someone to hurl imagined insults at you?Get a life, Clare!! Soon!!!
Clare Kuehn's unwarranted and unsolicited comment to Gary Miller is a prime example of this troll Clare Kuehn's despicable behavior.Attacking somebody who has not posted a comment and who is, in fact, not engaged in any exchanges must rank as the vilest act that has been seen on this blog in a long time. Clare Kuehn's unprovoked attack on Gary Miller is, of itself, a sickening provocation and an outrage and calls for the immediate and strongest sanctioning of Clare Kuehn.
This is disgraceful behavior from Clare Kuehn. An unprovoked attack. It's Pearl Harbor all over again! Something has to be done.Appeasement is not an option.
Gentlemen, let's act like gentlemen. We have had a lot of Clare-bashing. And Gary Miller has made a lot of ad hom posts. So be so kind as to clean up your act. Clare can moderate her enthusiasm for PID and let this forum focus on the shows at hand. I would appreciate cooperation from all sides.
Got it, Jim!!We're now back to DEFCON 5, Fade Out.Geez, man! That was close!!!
Frank, why are you even here? Whatever you may or may not think of Clare's work on PID, it has generated more posts and discussion than any other interview I have ever done. So OBVIOUSLY a lot of those here think it is WORTHWHILE. And for you to dismiss over 700 interviews because you don't like one is a classic example of THE STRAW MAN. If you don't like it here, then go somewhere else. All this bashing of Clare for BEING A WOMAN and standing up for her views about a complex and controversial subject is DISGUSTING.
When I read these words, Jim, I can here your radio voice calmly enunciating them. :)
Jim, this is off-topic, but quite important. Please see if you can interview Wolfgang Halbig, a Connecticut resident who happens to have expertise in school safety as well as having been a FL state trooper. He also has a background as a teacher and sounds quite rational and skeptical.
He already did: radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014/01/wolfgang-w-halbig-sofia-smallstorm.html
A lot of useless, off topic and irrelevant comments generated solely by the mere presence of Clare Kuehn and her dingbat Paul Is Dead rubbish on this blog. The typical troll, paid shill and psyop Clare Kuehn must be happy with her handywork and laughing all the way to CIA Headquarters, Langleyor wherever her HQ are. Toronto?
I must say that I am deeply disappointed that I myself have not been accused of working for CSIS. I guess I will just have to try harder.
Wow. CSIS! I've come up (gone down!) in the world. Where's my MONEY?! Hmmm.Anyway, do these people have no sense of real people and of real cases and arguments for and against the cases?Phil:1. Mouths at rest2. Teeth crunched from small palate then not crunched and no palatal surgery done3. Outer ear cartilageAny one of these is good as fingerprints, for the public proof level of what we need them to show. Done. Your impressions are off. Deal with it. Different guy in photos.AND I COMMENT ON MANY TOPICS, not only PID. So grow up, Phil. Or send me money. I have $1 in my purse. Maybe CSIS has a cheque coming? Ha.
Why not complain about the "unreal nuke" folk, or the "all is fake and Jackie shot Jack" folk? They have a harder case to make. Try them. The Paul case is as solid as Sandy Hook, which some doubt, too.In fact solider. But ... it is only ONE case I deal with. One. Look up my other work. Stop focussing only on Paul. (Though I'm sure in spirit he likes the attention, dingbat.)
Stooy44, if I hear from CSIS or CSEC (even more "secret") here in Canada, for Quebec where you are, not only Ontario, where I am, I'll let you know. Maybe they have a job for us ...! But wait, oops, we know some real stuff so maybe not. :)
Clare, are you saying that the Jackie- shot- JFK and nukes-are-fake nonsense are on a par with your Paul-Is-Dead views and opinions?
As you know Clare, I do believe that there have been two Pauls in pictures, but only one in the music. So I do not believe that Paul is dead.But based upon recent photographs of Keith Richards, I think he must be dead. Further, he is such a pathetic musician that, unlike Paul, any hack could fake him.
Rod, I am saying that if people want to attack, attack the cases which are NOT strong.PID is perfectly strong. But this thread is NOT ABOUT PID.
Stooy44I see the old CSIS and CSEC training is still alive and kicking. The old double, triple, quadruple bluff. Would I lie to you? Who? Me? Deeply disappointed indeed, Stooy44. Once a spook - always a spook.Sweet as a nut, Stooy44. You still got it, Stooy44!!You still got it!!Old spooks never die, they just fade away (into the background) on Jim Fetzer's blog.Nice try, Stooy44
Gary, I was calling Phil Sheridan a dingbat. Can you read commas, Gary?
I called the other idiot commenter a dingbat.I will call you one, too.Do you notice a comma, addressing the commenter? No? Thought not.This thread is not about PID. Stop raising it as if it were. There was one comment I made to Allison about her ability to reason -- about "Featles" and Judyth Vary Baker by association.And someone was already (a "Roget DuCon") before even that, impugning me for commenting about Baker simply because I have done extensive work on PID as well.So, dingbat, get your comma reading straight. That's YOU, not Paul (or Sir Paul).
I said ( ... , dingbat.) It was in an aside to the speaker.You misunderstood it as: "(Though I'm sure, in spirit, he likes the attention, dingbat [as he, i.e., Paul, is].)"My punctuation was fine. You can go on about this all you like and you are still wrong. The entire statement was in parenthesis because the whole idea was an aside.
Square brackets are used in scholarship to mean the current author is making an addition to a quotation, or, if quoting oneself, that one is making an addition to one's own previous words. No "rambling, inane and disjointed gibberish."It is true one can misread the sentence as I wrote it originally. It has both possibilities, but is not wrong; wrong would be that it could not have the possibility which I intended and it does. Now, let's get back on topic, please.
Everyone, please comma down.Remember what Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Eliott Trudeau said when he heard that Richard Nixon, in the famous Oval Office tapes, called him a "frog bastard.""I have been called worse things by better people."
Stooy, you are implying I am not good people, and I think you don't mean that, based on your other discussions with me.I would have called him worse, but refrained, unlike some people here.
I intended no such implication, Clare, and apologise for the ambiguity.Fuddle duddle!!
I know you didn't mean it. It would have just read that way for nastier people toward me, and I was pre-empting that.
Has anyone ever asked Judith umm....personal questions about Lee? Dont mean to be crude but when I asked a female friend of mine what she thought about Judiths story she asked me if anyone had asked those kinds of questions of Judith. Sort of compare notes with Marina, who would know the correct answersI thought it was a pretty good if pointed question for which Ive no idea what the answer is
I had similar thoghts when listening, Chris. I am not convinced this woman is legit. I am not saying she is a fake, just not convinced.
I don't know if this answers your question but JVB has discussed Jewish alterations of Oswald's factory equipment.
Right, but has anybody run that by Marina?But perhaps there may be something a lot less delicate than that. Maybe dude liked to put onions on his ice cream .. something of that nature that was real personal and singular. However, females comparing notes about bedroom behavior is probably a damn good indicator. My female friends assure me of thisBut in any event somebody needs to get these women on the phone together and either dial Judith into the story by getting Marina to confirm what she knows about Lee or dismissing this as but yet another business venture to make a couple of bucks and get some face time.
Yes, I asked Judyth, who confirmed that he was "well hung" and circumcised, which was indeed the case based upon autopsy photos. So I think he gets a high ranking even on the most personal questions about Lee's anatomy.
Why does Paul have to be dead? The whole PID premise seems to lack imagination. Whatever happened to Paul is down with a cold (PIDWC)? Or how about Paul has syphilis (PHS)? Perhaps, Paul got his balls pulled off in an accident (PGHBPOIA)?
Very funny, Allison. I love PGHBPOIA! The only problem is that there is no evidence that Paul lost his balls but instead may have lost his head. We have to deal with the evidence, where I find the theme of BILLY'S BACK! to be quite fascinating and highly plausible.
The one thing he did not lose is his voice.
agreed Allison. that paul died in the car crash is exactly what they would have you believe (just as they would have you believe nukes brought down the twin towers (by intentionally referring immediately to the crashed zone as ground zero)). I like PIDBNDRBHWSSNSEATT (paul is dead but not dead really because he was sipping slippery nipples somewhere else all this time!Oswald's death was faked as is clearly demonstrated by culto, cluesforum and ed chiarini. judyth vary baker is an actor amidst the rest of the actors involved in this long running fakery filled psy-op.
Okay, Allison and Pshea:1. Why does Paul have to be dead? Because an ad hoc explanation from a general impression of cultic material swirling around the Beatles later, and their having some interest in strange religion before (but more lighthearted in general), does not explain away the grief, the constant theme of death by car crash with grisly mentions.2. Paul sipping mai tais, etc., does not account for how a prima facie honest problem, as an explanation (i.e., a death as quite real and a problem), would be quite naturally and simply solved here by getting a double. Unusual, yes. Lying, yes. Troubling to them and to us, yes. But more natural than plotting within the Beatles for just having fun with horrible grief, or plotting with MK people to kill Paul or send him away.One can see the grief and awkwardness in the Beatles. One can feel it. They refer to it. Their work changes. He died.And John drew the sad and accurate little dead friend.Now, let's not discuss PID more here. Okay?There will be a show coming up soon. How about save it for there.pshea: please desist with the Culto stuff, at least for this Baker thread. It is, in general. ad hoc added to ad hoc, making complexity which does not work. Chiarini can't string most identifications of people together properly.Baker is quite ordinary and dedicated, and people who have not got spook credentials (McAdam) or who are not angry at her (Lifton) know how to look at the overall honest tone, features, naturalness, hurt, humanity, and some proof points and friends who vouched for her.
Jim, I know you stand firmly behind JVB's narrative, but surely you know that such autopsy data could have been supplied to her by her "handlers" IF she WERE an entreprenurial/disinformational shill. Therefore this is not proof.But I agree that she does come across (IMHO) as a most compelling memoirist, seemingly privy to a whole host of previously not-circulated details that help us tie together the loose ends of our otherwise still-ragged vision of the "last days" of the Riley Coffee Company and David Ferrie's "mousing around".It's been a while since I first paid attention to the JVB story, and at present I can't recall what, if anything, she had to say about the widely reprinted collection of candid photos of Lee's Russian sojourn.Did she agree that the guy in the picture was the SAME fellow she once loved in Lousiana? Did she express some misgivings? Or did she come right out and proclaim that the Russian photos are of SOMEONE ELSE?The Russian Lee and the New Orleans Lee sure don't look the same to me, Jim, and you, of all people, know I'm not the Lone Ranger on this matter.
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth: