Wednesday, June 4, 2014

New JFK/MLK/RFK book / New JFK Show #12

James Norvell book (w/Michael Rivero) / JFK (w/Gary King) Researcher ALERT! Lisa Pease uncovered along with the Bundy Ranch Hoax and some elementary numerology.


  1. Great show . Mike Rivero, I used to listen to you regularly but stopped because of all those commercials... Yikes. Yeah, I know, gotta pay the bills, but a little excessive maybe? I love shows that have a conversation style uninterrupted, or if there are some, only a few... Otherwise it breaks the continuity and feels like the mercantile world --- what all this populist radio is supposed to liberate us from-- is too much with us. A great compromise is that set out by programs like Red Ice, where they give you a solid uninterrupted hour free and a bonus hour that you can get with an affordable subscription. Using a profit model, that is the best. But better still is the pure unadulterated conversation that is made of love as a gift to humanity.

  2. Regarding Lisa P. I was astonished at some if the things she said in the last Black Op episode. Either she is very naive, which I don 't think, or is trying to -- not sell out mind you -- but climb the regular ladders of establishment organs. Maybe she is trying or has a landed a job writing for a TV show or aspires to, to use an example, so she would like to still carry the torch of her former cause, but dress it down or make it seem very clear she is not to be confused with that rabble of conspiracy researchers who. "Speculate". In other words, she is becoming a sophist. My intuition on her and James D. Is that they are going to point to the CIA but would never point to the Mossad, to use a thought experiment. Can other of those strange anomalies wherein Anerucans have no problem bashing their own country , but if you bring MI5 or Mossad in, that is politically incorrect. The prevailing view of the CIA is very naive among that self- anointed elite of torch holders, those who-- like Joan Mellon-- think anyone writing anything implicating LBJ is part of a CIA limited hangout. Funny, such a view was held by most of the people who knew LBJ. And among the most scathing books that came out on the 50th anniversary that did implicate LBJ were not written by CIA stooges, but people like James Tague, remember him? So that is a pronounced and curious blind spot that has been incorporated into Len Osanic and Jim D.'s views as well.

    And since Len is giving roses to Lisa all the time, it follows that he just might embrace her cosmogony of the JFK case, which is not so much an accurate one as one that dovetails with the Democratic Party.

    Does Lisa not follow the news? How can she think democrats are some bastion of progressive thought when Kerry and Obama act like war mongering buffoons? If she thinks the democrats are okay, I am not probably am not going to be too keen on herJFK insights. She probably doesn't 'to have any, since all insights can only be those vetted by the very establishment covering up the case. She talks about having solid evidence without noting the irony here, where the whole point is that evidence is manufactured, compromised, etc. when there is no legal body to present to, etc. she is waiting for what then ? And yet she talks with a swagger that insists she apparently knows more than Fletcher Prouty.

  3. She reminds me an average American -- we all know them, often are related to them -- who will never know when the revolution comes until the New York Times says it. She can't parcel out the meta/conspiracy behind her cogent world of empirical thought. She is more likely to destroy truth via Wikipedia than an army of Zionist sweatshops, and all in the name of "legitimate research", peer reviewed, signed in triplicate by all three branches of government and telegrammed just to her in Iambic Pentameter. Proof from the confessed guilty party himself, apologizing in an agonizing press conference. Only Obama is not fighting the mafia everywhere like JFK - Obama is the mafia!

    One feels Lisa is just so "tired " of that old JFK scene with its bumbling fools who can't understand the nuance of a Jefferson Morley. When in reality all those bumbling fools might be a League of Extraordinary gentlemen not willing to debase so important a cause for any old world protocols invented and designed by the very conspiracy they seek to undermine.

    Lisa does not yet get that society is itself the conspiracy! Yes, that amalgam of complicit fools, enablers, and bourgeoise climbers. The tiny few researchers that are marginalized by her crowd are probably those you should read first. Morley is an enemy of the JFK case, by the way, Lisa. Naturally, it follows that he would be on the case to re- release the files. Right, I have outgrown the Kabuki theater ritual. Lisa is just starting.

    Nevertheless , I will give Lisa the benefit if the doubt-- since she cannot be such a fool or so malicious a character , there is another theory. I'm half-serious too- maybe she is climbing up into that corruption herself so that she can find the truth to JFK as an "inside, double agent." Get it? So she has to walk the walk until they can tell her the the truth down the road. But by then, she will have assimilated and she too will keep the "bond" intact. Pity us fools, poor meek marginalized truth tellers. We inherit the Earth, but only when it's too late.
    Well then, a toast! To the real torch carriers , to the true spiritual brotherhood, I salute you.

  4. M Rivero is a gate keeper. His refusal to address the moon landing hoax and the plane @ the pentagon nonsense illustrates the point . Is jim aware of his views with regard to these issues?

  5. what a pees of krappe another disinfo troll has this woman any credibility? I had no idea how much disinfo is being pumped thanx Jim

  6. It is true of Rivero- he says much that is good, but strangely avoids discussing plane at pentagon and any Nasa issues. By the way, are you aware Mike 'a background is in film/television special effects/compositing? And before that, he worked for NASA. He also mentions the banks as behind all -- and brings the FED up regarding JFK with regularity; I don't imagine he talks of the Torbitt document or if the NASA connections to JFK, including Gehlen's org. Ah, we all have blind spots.

  7. What if Rivero is Russian intel. Remember how Russian granite missiles were brought up by Dmitri? If 911 was more complicated as Dimitri once said, where the demolitions were a failsafe enacted to pulp the buildings to prevent a greater threat if there was nuclear warheads in the buildings, which if detonated in the atmosphere would take much if Manhattan with it, thus it might reason that is what Dmitri meant when he said he didn't know why the buildings were demolished, only how, and that there was Granite missile drama. Another intel group could have been behind the fake intel suggesting active nukes were in the building, thus triggering contingency plans. So plot was still a plot, just different than you think. And government would be forced to cover it up, similar to JFK situation.

  8. Does Mike Rivero even know that his very own face was borrowed -- for some of the 9/11 victim-photo fakeries?

    Of course he does.

    Max Konrardy pointed out this grim "inside joke" several years ago, and Rivero, of all people, should have been sufficiently interested (and outraged) to start promoting at least the fake-identities portion of the September Clues discoveries.

    But did he???

    (crickets chirping...)

    So go right ahead, Mr. tecumseh55, and call Mike a gatekeeper.

    But of course he might also be too scared (of the REAL perps) to say anything at all about the (still-unread by Dr. Fetzer?) Vicsim Report -- which has yet to be targeted with any serious "debunkng" by even the most resourceful of Dr. Sunstein's cubicle-mafia.

    Or the rest of the Mossad sayanim, for that matter...

  9. Does Mike Rivero even know that his very own face was borrowed -- for some of the 9/11 victim-photo fakeries?

    Of course he does
    have you a link?

    1. Go here for an introduction to the concept of vicsims:

      Here is the full-length analysis, completed in 2009 by Max Konrardy aka Hoi Polloi:

      The borrowed face of Rivero, deleted after the Vicsim Report was published, used to appear here:

      However, it can still be seen here:

      Phil Jayhan's initial discovery of the Rivero facial borrowing appears here:;

      Further reaction to Jayhan's discovery shows up in the eighth comment on this page:

      (Although CluesForum and LetsRollForum are sometimes bitter rivals in the 9/11 truth quest, their contributors have, over time, come to agree on the central tenet that a GREAT DEAL of the publicly released "evidence" is either deceptively tampered with or the product of outright. propagandistic fabrication.)

    2. Ian, even you dispute the reports on the commercial plane crashes 911, but still you embrace the reports on the victim parts of the story. This is EXTREAMLY inconsistent. If they could fake the plane crashes, on live news, they certainly also could faked the victims part of the story. At least, even you have to admit that they faked the plane victims?

      If no one was killed in that operation, no one could be involved in a conspiracy to murder, with no statute of limitations. Every other possible crime that day has now expired, with the possible exception of treason. My guess is that the traitors will be or are protected by the first amendment - the 911 operation was their way of expressing their political convictions etc?

      Anyway, I'm sure the national news anchors and producers at Fox are very pleased that they never were involved in a conspiracy to murder.

      Must be a nightmare for the 911 operation management to handle both real and fake victim family members.

      Why Ian, has no reported 911 victim family member been interviewed by some one slightly skeptical to the official conspiracy theory? There should be millions of victims family members out there, but not even 1 interview by someone slightly skeptical to the story.

      It takes a LOT of faith to believe in the 911 victims reports, Ian. But you know, some people can even make themselves believe in the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX!

    3. While there weren't any planes, that doesn't mean no-one died, many died, some were office workers who didn't manage to get out, some were firemen and police who went in to help them.

      The Vicsims Report is typical Shack nonsense - he thinks he sees a glimmer of fakery sheimmediatey declares the entire thing to be completely fake without bothering himself to follow the proper scientific method and consider all the available evidence.

      Just like your denial of nukes proves you're full of shit, Shack's denial of deaths and nukes on 9/11 proves he is too.

    4. Ok, Ian, so they faked the plane crashes on live news, with the foreign hijackers (THE TERRORISTS™) like in a Hollywood action/horror movie. The top agents in the Gov backed up this BIG lie. Pretty significant. They fooled everyone with the story that planes brought down the WTC towers, with up to 40000 office workers inside. This part also backed up or covered up by the top agents in the Gov. Lies, lies lies, but the official victim part of the story is real? Cant you see that they are trying to get the people to support a new crusade here? They are manufacturing the reality to create this support. The victim part of this operation they have presented (by MSM and their top agents in the Gov) is very crucial for the support of this crusade, etc. Looks like it is very important for you too Ian to support this part of the official story.

      Why have not a single vicsim family member been interview by anyone even slightly critical to the MSM version? Not even Jim himself have been able to get hold on even 1 of them - not even 1.

    5. The reported victims family members wouldn't have been so shy if the story was real, Ian. Can you really make yourself believe that?

    6. You really are a shameless shill aren't you?

      There were over 1,500 legal hearings with families of victims and survivors and Ken Feinberg doled out billions in compensation; however, in order to get their money they had to sign away any right to take legal action in order to seek the truth.

      Of course, you disinfo bastards ignore all evidence that doesn't fit with your BS theories.

    7. Is that really the best you have, Ian?

      The gang behind this 911 operation had the ability to fake plane crashes on live news, and have the top Gov agents back up their story (scripted reality movie).

      This MSM gang has total control on the election process, and are always able to pull up some of their controllable puppets to the top, and hand him the keys to the White House. Then they can place their other agents wherever they want or need in the Gov.

      This Feinberg is their favorite victim compensation actor. He plays the role of the Gov guy that takes care of their operatins victim-needs. You know, if they spend billions on some victims family members, obviously they must be very real and cannot just have been made up. That is the general impression this Feinberg actor is supposed to create. Of course he has some tricks up his sleeves, like talking about some legal hearings (that sounds very impressive) and so on. What ever it takes to make the reported victims in the operation/movie appear as real, the 911 operation management will be all for it.

      If they have some real money in this fund, it could be used for paying off all the actors, the scriptwriters and the animation team who participated in the operation. That way the operation will be a kind of self financed too. Brilliant, isn't it?

      Signing off any right to take legal action? Well, when they have made up (the Hollywood way) all the reported victims, it is necessary to have an explanation for why no one has sued anyone. According to MSM and Feinberg, it is because they were paid not to sue. The public will eat that story of course, and the perception of the victims as real, is also reinforced. Brilliant, or not, Ian?

    8. You haven't refuted anything, Ian. You are worse than the Iraqi information minister, yelling and screaming and making up stuff as you go. You should rather spend your time on questions like What Does the Fox Say?

    9. You haven't presented anything tenable worth refuting.

      Whereas I have refuted several of Simon Shack's incredily stupid pieces of 'analysis'.


    great link

    1. Thanks for link. I had heard that interview of Nathan (short for Nathaniel) Folks when it first came out and immediately emailed on May 21 Dr. Fetzer to see if he would invite Folks to be guest on his show.


      partial transcript

      begins at 01:56:50 on the audio track

      It’s like the Boston Bombing. We have a Hollywood producer-director named Nathan Folks who has studied the scenes in the Boston Bombing and concluded that they’re what is known as hyper-realistic filming, when you try to make a scene look like it would look if you had soldiers going into combat, what they could be expected to confront, he noticed the man with his legs blown off, presumably Jeff Bauman, doesn’t have blood spurting, he’s not writhing in agony, in fact, and this is quite remarkable, and even Folks observed that he [Folks] actually knew he was an actor because he [Folks] had cast him in a previous film that Folks himself had made…”

      Your link contained a nice transcript of that interview by John Robles but it contained nothing I can see that substantiates Folks saying he knew and hired Bauman.

      I realize Dr. Fetzer for whatever reasons may not want to invite Folks as guest, but in light of the fact that Dr. Fetzer has since that time stated on his radio show that Folks stated he recognized Jeff Bauman, double amputee Boston, as being an amputee actor he, Folks, had hired for a movie he had made in the past, I think it is very important for SOMEONE to see if they can get clear verification of this on record. Folks has a Twitter account that Dr. Eowon of Fellowship of the Minds forum has located, so contact info for Folks should not be too difficult.

      Here is a partial transcript I made and posted about on this Real Deal recent show.


    2. Sorry my last post's paragraphs are out of order.

  11. Andy,

    Still love your mind. You are right about the Vicsim repor, and of Rivero's face as one of the victims. Of course they didn't kill 3000 people. Whistleblowers would be everywhere. Instead that is the big joke. Instead if targeting Navy HW tugs and financial firm that. Think those people were the ones in on the op. Yes , the fake people needs to be addressed, but that might be next year's issue. Will Sinon come on this show. It would be a good thing, in a respectful way. I don 't like others speaking for him and there is much in common with Fetzer's views and Simob's. I still think September Clues was the one doc that really changed my paradigm. At the very least it shows media complicity, not any "dropping the ball." And his work on NASA is great. And he did pioneer this fakery thing. Simin, if you are out there, would be great if you were a guest.

  12. Andy brings up an important notion we should always keep in mind. We should periodically look Round at who is being ignored, not getting any attention, not being in the conversation. It's the reverse if the Snowden op. Real secrets get ignored before they get attacked. And I hear no one discussing the fakery of. 911 as much as they should. It's like the government felt pity for us and decided to do Sabdy Hook and Boston with a third string team in the most conspicuous way just to get us up to speed. We all know, but alas, shirt if crowd sourced vigilantism, what can be done? I am hungry to know answers. And who wants our terrible fascism anyway; it's time to pivot from our global truth conversation to a global replenishing of our civic institutions , and not later. Now. Obama is a start... If we have to endure one more bogus national election, I will be very sad.

  13. This isn't a "new JFK show", it's the "We want to be Black Ops Radio" show. No original research? Why can't you interview these people that you feel are so aggrieved by BOR? Instead of putting up straw man arguments, and running out every negative debating trick that Fetzer accuses everyone else of doing!

    1. No, we thought it would be worthwhile to review the "50 Points" to establish our various points of agreement and of disagreement.

      I co-hosted the show with Len for five or more years not that long ago. But I am increasingly disillusioned by the role of DiEugenio.

      And that Len left our interviews on the Zapruder film and the Doorman issue on the cutting room floor was extremely disturbing to me.

      They are two of the most important discoveries in the history of the JFK research and should have been "front and center", not left out.

    2. I enjoyed your reviews of the 50 reasons. I think Len's focus on the more mainstream views is understandable, considering that the target audience was the casually interested. As for the Zapruder film and Doorman issues, it's a bit of a stretch to claim them as "two of the most important discoveries". While the findings about the Zapruder film warrant investigation, the Doorman debate has been on and off again for years. There are so many other clear cut proofs that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor, that the Doorman issue isn't something to hang your hat on.

      A question I've asked previously about the Zapruder...Since there are claims of significant amounts of time missing from the extant Zapruder film, how does that line up with the Dictabelt recording, which has been used repeatedly as a soundtrack for the Zapruder film? This evidence wasn't discovered until much later, and it seems strange to me that a film could be doctored the night of the assassination and still line up with an audio recording discovered years later....

  14. Solfeggio,

    "Sinon"? "Simob"? "Simin "?

    What's the deal with this? Do you think it's funny / or cool - to keep miiisspellling my name - or does it serve some other, useful purpose? Just curious - thanks for a kind reply.

    Simon Shack

    1. iPhone mishaps. Apologies. I was defending you if I recall.

    2. Ps: writing on an iPhone with large fingers makes one spell like a fifth grader and Fetzer's blog is glitchy in terms if going back to correct. I hardly can fathom what agenda spelling your name wrong would do when I was asking that you should be a guest in the show since others don't do you the best service by speaking for you and putting words in your mouth. We are all a little paranoid, but my spelling is no nefarious plan to undermine you. :)

  15. Alright, Soulfudgio - no harm done ;O)

    As for the day when I'll be debating world matters with Fetzer - be prepared to see pigs flying in your skyline.

    See, I just cannot see the point of guesting a radio show hosted by a vapid individual who NEVER "finds the time" to respond to ANY of my questions submitted to him on his own blog or by e-mail - year after year - whilst regularly throwing denigrating epithets ("time-wasters"/ "idiots"/"incredibly stupid") at yours truly and whomever happens to support my work.

    But perhaps you have a good reason to suggest that I had better engage such a senseless, inflated, obnoxious and lily-livered individual on his own radio show?

    About Fetzer's latest invitation - in which he appeals to "the courage of my convictions" :

    1. Well, I know not who responds, but who is sending the vitriol, and who was paranoid as to assume my spelling error was a plot? Perhaps in the spirit of fraternal peace, we can let what misunderstandings may have transpired lay in the past as we all seek truth. I don't imagine a combative debate, but a forum in which to defend those ideas as best as only the author can, with his passion and allegiance to truth. Personalities should not get in the way, and we all suffer blemishes there at some point. Sometimes we must give one the benefit if the doubt, as I am sure you might be familiar with as so many react with incredulity at your more controversial claims? Yet here is a place where many of those ideas and their spirit is embraced. I should hardly think nitpicking details should be an obstacle to keep the global community in intelkectual ghettos. I would like to hear the illustrious Simon Shack or equivalent spokesmen and without the sardonic demeanor as well. For as surely as I embraced so much if that great work at Ckues, was I also put off by the tone and sarcasm of its forum. It wasn't casual, but arrogant often. And there are epistemological issues at stake with the issues brought up. No one has to do anything, if course, and I am merely a listener, but if that prior comment is any indication, it's very wording indicts its author more surely than it does it's supposed antagonist. One cannot call out another for his venom while piercing the same with double fangs. It's not the hypocrisy that bothers me, but where does it lead us. Are we the macrocosm of truth seekers or the microcosm of your feud with Fetzer any more resolved; and by extension, are we not yet still a divided rabble. As surely as you wish your intellectual dissenters to come around, you must pay heed to those that might say the same to you. And being your defender, and Fetzer's, I see no need for division at this time, but rather, perhaps a time of appreciating what is shared in common. And there is much.
      So perhaps we can baptize ourselves of past quarrels, regardless of appropriating blame, and try to bring the philosophy of Shack to this village. If not, then not. My intent is only one of healing wounds and ensuring we are all making progress.

    2. I Mis-spelled clues wrong. Perhaps there is some Freudian thing in it, lol... But I mention it here so you don't think I did it on purpose. Peace profound.