Monday, March 9, 2015

False Flags/JFK

Jim talks about false flags during the first hour and discusses JFK with Chance, founder of Media Broadcasting Center
Posted by at

14 comments:

  1. joan edwardsMarch 20, 2015 at 12:23 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. joan edwardsMarch 20, 2015 at 12:41 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. joan edwardsMarch 20, 2015 at 12:54 AM

    Sorry, everyone. I'm breaking in a new computer and it has too many features to master. I am ahead of the podcasts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OnebornfreeMarch 22, 2015 at 7:06 AM

    False flag attacks by governments, either on people inside that governments territories, or outside of them, depending on the goal[s] aimed at, [usually war], are a necessary price [though usually unrecognized], of having governments in the first place.

    'Fact is, if you want government[s], to run yours and everyone else lives, false flags, along with all the rest of the crap, are a wholly inescapable part of the "deal", I'm afraid. There is no getting away from them, as all governments are criminal organizations, nothing more, nothing less.

    See: "Governments Already Admit To "False Flag" Attacks":
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2015/03/governments-already-admit-to-false-flag.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  5. joan edwardsMarch 22, 2015 at 8:31 PM

    Does that mean we shouldn't spend time analyzing these events and why are there so many of them lately? Don't you think it has a lot to do with the new technology and our reliance upon it? Is it easier to get away with things because public attention is so scattered? How many people do you know are asking questions about Sandyhook or Boston? None in my circle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. joan edwardsMarch 22, 2015 at 9:57 PM

    I've been following the JFK murder since it happened fifty years ago. Mark Lane got it right and has a lot on E. Howard Hunt and Sturgis. Both were involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion with Hunt, "Eduardo" in charge. Here is more evidence of his involvement and high position in the CIA. This also fits with Ole's research on Operation 40, to which Hunt, Sturgis and Lorenz belonged. i wouldn't believe for a minute Hunt's "deathbed confession."

    Frank Fiorini (Sturgis)
    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsturgis.htm
    (6) Mark Lane, Plausible Denial (1991)

    Howard Hunt, close associate of David Atlee Phillips, with whom he worked in the both the CIA's Guatemalan campaign of 1954 and the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961. Hunt would later be arrested for his role in the Watergate affair. …

    In one of Hunt's libel suits, one Marita Lorenz gave sworn testimony that Lee Harvey Oswald, American mercenaries Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming, and Cuban exiles including Orlando Bosch, Pedro Diaz Lanz, and the brothers Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampol, had met one November midnight in 1963 at the Miami home of Orlando Bosch and had studied Dallas street maps.

    She also swore that she and Sturgis were at that time in the employ of the CIA and that they received payment from Howard Hunt under the name "Eduardo," …

    They arrived in Dallas on 21 November 1963, and stayed at a motel, where the group met Howard Hunt. Hunt stayed for about forty-five minutes and at one point handed an envelope of cash to Sturgis. About an hour after Hunt left, Jack Ruby came to the door. Lorenz says that this was the first time she had seen Ruby. By this time, she said, it was early evening.

    In her testimony, Lorenz identified herself and her fellow passengers as members of Operation Forty, the CIA-directed assassination team formed in 1960 in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion. She described her role as that of a "decoy."

    ReplyDelete
  7. OnebornfreeMarch 23, 2015 at 7:27 AM

    Joan Edwards said :" Does that mean we shouldn't spend time analyzing these events and why are there so many of them lately? "

    I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, Joan, can you? Really? :-)

    It's your life, your time; you are free to spend it in any way you wish, and investigate all this stuff "till the cows come home" if thats what "floats your boat".


    For myself, its a little different.

    I know that the government is a 100% unchangeable criminal organization, so I start from the assumption that it is probably at the bottom of any likely new "false flag" or suspicious event.

    Then, if I have time and interest I might look for evidence that disproves my starting assumption.

    However, my time is precious to me, so if my starting assumption holds over a period of time, I do not then waste time trying to figure exactly who did it, and exactly why [eg the Jews, the Illuminati, the Knights of Malta or whatever] - its enough to know that the government was heavily involved, if not the sole instigator, and that this [false flags] is what you get for having governments in the first place.

    Instead of wasting time with idle, unprovable speculations on who "really" did it, and why, I prefer to then spend my time looking for ways to _avoid_ the criminal organizations known as "governments".

    Its far more rewarding, at least to my mind.

    Regards, onebornfree.
    The Freedom Network:
    http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joan edwardsMarch 23, 2015 at 5:14 PM

      tWe know who did it, but how can they be so sloppy and obvious in the staging? Isn't anyone watching and isn't it fun to watch these really bad video accounts of what happened? That people don't even notice the bad video amazes me. So I come here to see if anyone else saw what I did. Of course the government is behind it all and how sad the current trial going on of the Boston Marathon brothers.

      Delete
  8. OnebornfreeMarch 25, 2015 at 8:53 AM

    Joan Edwards said:"That people don't even notice the bad video amazes me."

    It shouldn't. Most people have never even seen the various videos/photos, let alone closely analyzed them., and even if they see them, they have no idea how to detect even the most obvious,blatant forgeries .

    At one time, I didn't either, but I was interested enough to try learn to detect at least the more obvious signs/clues.

    It's so bad that even most people calling themselves "9/11 researchers" or similar , are not even willing to admit to themselves, let alone publicly, that they have absolutely no clue as to what to look for regarding video and photo fakery.Mr Fetzer is a classic example of this " syndrome" of denial.

    And so it goes :-)

    Regards onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joan edwardsMarch 25, 2015 at 9:14 PM

      Well, it is very difficult to watch five videos at once. That's why I'm asking if Simon Shacks group has done a complete analysis and comparison of all the films.

      Delete
  9. OnebornfreeMarch 26, 2015 at 6:32 PM

    Joan Edwards said : "Well, it is very difficult to watch five videos at once."

    To see how the 5 different MSM networks broadcast the Fl.175 "strike" event "live", check out Simon's video analysis " Synched Out":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk ,

    which simultaneously shows what all 5 network broadcast, via Simon's use of a 5-way split screen.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joan edwardsMarch 26, 2015 at 9:12 PM

      Just finished rewatching that, OBF. I see now that planes were only seen on two networks and the dot as dive bomber on NBC. Actually, that one is the most accurate as the radar diagram shows 175 traveling over New Jersey from the south. Sp that shot is a weird attempt to conform to that information--made up of course.

      Delete
    2. joan edwardsMarch 26, 2015 at 9:21 PM

      I was looking at all that black smoke. There is so much of it. Since planes did not hit the WTC, there was no smoke. I wonder how the animators did it in that opening scene. Must have had a field day because the direction of that long stream of smoke gives away the direction of the shot. I wonder if the perps would have bothered to create smoke for the public "witnesses."




      Delete
  10. OnebornfreeMarch 27, 2015 at 6:55 PM

    Joan Edwards said :" I see now that planes were only seen on two networks and the dot as dive bomber on NBC. "

    That is incorrect ,Joan. The [faked] 2nd plane strike is seen on ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN, and Fox, as Simon;s video shows.

    The entire "divebomber" sequence was shown _only_ on a local CBS affiliate, but was apparently _not_ broadcast as a complete 16 sec. sequence _nationally_ by CBS; instead , the CBS nationwide broadcast consisted of at least 3 separate feeds which were blended/cross-edited for that nationwide broadcast, from what I recall.

    Joan Edwards said : "Since planes did not hit the WTC, there was no smoke. I wonder how the animators did it in that opening scene."

    I suppose it is possible that a real explosion in WTC1 caused a fire and smoke- I have talked to one person who lived close by who says he heard a loud explosion that morning while he was brushing his teeth getting ready for work, so ther might have been real smoke generated.

    However, it is just as likely that the black smoke seen coming out of the WTC1 prior to the 2nd plane impact in the national TV broadcast archives is computer generated, for if you look at it closely , it has all the characteristics of faked, computer generated, cloned smoke, complete with repetitive, angular patterns, even human faces, within it.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)