Wow, on the anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination, NYT comes out with a really sophisticated attack on conspiracy theories, via the "Umbrella Man" who was at the scene of the Kennedy Assassination. This kind of stuff doesn't appear by accident.
In a clip at NYT, filmaker Errol Morris (The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara) discusses the umbrella man and the real explanation behind the man using an umbrella in Dallas on a clear day at the Kennedy assassination. Morris then makes the grand jump and declares, it's impossible to explain any facts that you aren't intimately aware of. Translation: The 9-11 attack, and the JFK assassination, went down exactly the way the government said they did because you can't definitively prove otherwise.
Deep translation: The CIA is pretty damn scared of the internet blowing the cover on their black bag operations, if they are using their top level mouthpiece, NYT, to debunk conspiracy theories.
Maybe if we could start to get to the bottom of jack's assassination, we could start with the elder Bush.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Russ Baker, he wrote a letter to the FBI one to give himself a false alibi as to his whereabouts and actually called the FBI to finger some halfwit in a suburban Republican party office who he claimed made threats towards Kennedy.
National Geographic released a new documentary a few days ago about the JFK Assassination called JFK: The Lost Bullet. It states that Oswald did the shooting alone in 11 seconds, not 6 seconds.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Why must all seemingly intelligent and rational libertarian leaning blogs dive into this stuff? Just once, I'd like to see one come out and say "9/11 was clearly committed by insane Muslim terrorists, to think differently is absurd and has no place on this site." I'm not holding my breath though.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 10:31 AM
ReplyDelete"I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don't believe anything the government tells me." - George Carlin
Anon at 1031
ReplyDeleteLets test your rational thinking skills. Building 7 was a steel framed building and collapsed due to fire (government's assertion). It was not hit by a plane.
If fire can bring down a building once it could happen again. It seems to me that engineers and architects should study that plan in great detail as to not make the same mistake in design.
Guess what, after filing a LAWSUIT to release blue prints the government claimed that it would "endanger lives" to do so.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/576-foi-response-release-of-wtc-blueprints-would-endanger-the-life-or-safety-of-any-person-.html
Excuse me? releasing blueprints would endanger lives? Isnt it rational to think that the failure to release those blueprints would endanger lives?
Go read a few books by David Ray Griffin. Particularly Debunking 911 Debunking and The Mysterious Collapse of Building 7.
@Anon 10:31
ReplyDeleteWhat they said in 2003:
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
Hindsight:
2011: Mistakes were made. (Translation: We got called out.)
Are you serious, "to think differently is absurd"?
ReplyDeleteAnon@1031-
ReplyDeleteWhen has the govt ever told the truth?
More to the point, a rational analysis of the known facts around 9/11 or the JFK murder leads an intelligent person to conclude that the generally accepted narrative is full of holes and does not add up. THAT is why these sites question the govt story.
"Why must all seemingly intelligent and rational libertarian leaning blogs dive into this stuff?"
ReplyDeleteWhat rational libertarian blog would believe the government?
"9/11 was clearly committed by insane Muslim terrorists"
ReplyDeleteHook line and sinker gets you in the bottom of the boat and served for dinner.
"to think differently is absurd and has no place on this site."
Sorry, but Steve Jobs told me to think differently and I do!
"I'm not holding my breath though."
Ever stopped a sec to wonder why you can't hold your breath for ten years? Yes economicpolicyjournal.com has parted the thick wool to see the light. Bully!
...erm, because there is as little evidence of that as there is of the conspiracy theories - Well some of them. I take your point though, one mention of 9-11 stuff and your credibility is shot. Effective means of censorship, I guess.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 10:31 AM I was not aware closing our eyes and blindly being led by the government was a libertarian quality.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 10:31 AM
ReplyDeleteBecause hijacker passports were magically found in the wreckage at the WTC and Pentagon completely unscathed. Hot enough to melt steel and entirely disappear a whole plane but not burn paper?
Because all flights were halted except for Saudi Arabian royalty.
Because Junior Bush didn't even flinch.
Because buildings don't fall into their own footprint on their own and steel frame buildings don't collapse from fire. See WTC Building 7.
Because the BBC announced Building 7 collapsed before it actually did.
Because thinking people know the real conspiracy is the government's ridiculous story and their agenda to destroy and remove the evidence without real investigation.
Heath, here is a column from last week that takes Bush's letter and pieces together the reason for it. Shocking! And, after reading the column, watch this 30 second YouTube video:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-george-h-w-bush-involved-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3eGWZd7LE
Anon at 10:31 --
ReplyDeleteYou can't understand the world without understand that many watershed events didn't happen like the history books said.
9/11 is one of them; so are the assassinations of the Kennedy's. The official story on Bobby's in particular simply can't have happened the way it's claimed. To take just two facts:
1) RFK's coroner, Thomas Noguchi (who is still alive and stands by his autopsy) says the bullet entered Bobby's head from behind and from a distance of less than two inches. None of the eyewitnesses puts Sirhan Sirhan anything but 5-10 feet in front of RFK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Noguchi
2) There have always been questions about a second gunman, since there were more shots heard than were in Sirhan's gun. But an audiotape discovered by a British journalist in 2007 clearly records between 10 and 13 shots fired, far more than the 8 Sirhan had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy#Second_gunman_theory
It's a painful and difficult task to re-educate yourself as an adult, which is why regimes want "public education" so much -- so they can indoctrinate you and your kids while young.
Any educated person who has an understanding of the laws of physics, material science and metallurgy will understand the impossibility of the official 911 story. It is only the insiders who committed 911 and the ignorant masses who pooh pooh those who question the official story.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes with the JFK assassination. If you understand time, ballistics and physics, you too will understand the impossibility of the official story. Perhaps that is why the government is so adamant about controlling the education of students in the USA. An ignorant populous is easier to control and manipulate.
Yes, "Tink" Thompson named the Umbrella Man, shortly after inventing the exclamation point. And he also dug up Witt; not Penn Jones by any stretch of the imagination. Also, detectives should stop focusing on detailed evidence and just look at the shall we say macro view of crimes, lest they be led astray by something "weird." And I guess "Tink" forgot to mention that the umbrella was being pumped up and down as JFK's limo went by.
ReplyDeleteSurely, Witt's explanation is far easier to swallow than, say, a pre-arranged signal that there had been no time to change after the weather unexpectedly turned sunny.
Critical thinking is really unnecessary when we have such august disseminators of truth to rely on.
Anon @ 10:31 AM,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am unsure where I stand on 9/11, I believe your statement is an oversimplification in many ways.
Having said this, it's not irrational for people to search for the truth when an entity such as the U.S. government actually considered such a thing as "Operation Northwoods", for example.....
And if we as a society and free moral agents can't openly discuss supposedly "taboo" subjects and perhaps smash a few sacred cows along the way, how will anyone progress?
I mean, if you don't like the subject matter, why do you enter and engage? I'm posing the question respectfully, of course.
@ Anon at 10:31 am
ReplyDeleteThat's a very reasonable question I think.
I can't speak for others but the reason I question the story that has been reported in the mainstream media (msm) is that if defies reason. I think many others have already written repeatedly what those unreasonable assertions were by the msm so I won't waste your, and especially my time, re-writing them here for someone who is not prepared to entertain multiple hypothesis, no matter how inconvenient, uncomfortable or unpopular.
Good luck.
@ anon at 10:31
ReplyDeleteEver wonder why demolition experts charge hundreds of thousands of dollars and spend months to determine where to place charges when all they have to do is start a fire? And why they are still in business?
In the meantime enjoy another glass of delicious, refreshing kool-aid.
Here's what I don't get: why intentionally destroy Building 7? Even without WTC 1 and 2 falling, the shock generated was enough to cause the public to clamor for war - so, the pretext for war was met. CIA field offices in Building 7 that needed to be destroyed to complete the cover up? Come on - I'm sure the CIA can destroy physical evidence without taking down a whole building ... which in turn would lead to inconvenient questions regarding "hey, why did that building that wasn't hit by an airplane fall?" Hell, the conspiracy is more sound if Building 7 stood. There's a lot of ineptness on the government's part on 9/11, and I wouldn't put it past any member of government to have "sat on" intelligence regarding an attack to allow a pretext for war, but why take down Building 7? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
ReplyDeleteJFK is the fulcrum, a point from which to study what came before, but more importantly how JFK led to 911.
ReplyDeleteReagan is lauded for every notable day, all over the cable channels.
JFK is not remembered on the day of his assissination. Where are the network specials?
Why are we not allowed to remember the greatness of the man?
I don't mean the constant din of "history channel" narratives... I mean remembering the things he stood for, at the time.
But to begin to understand is dangerous.
GHW Bush ran the asassination.
ReplyDelete