How Much More Obvious Could It Be?
How much more obvious could it be that the official story of the JFK assassination is a farce?
How much more obvious could it be that the MLK assassination was a government conspiracy?
How much more obvious could it be that the JFK assassination was an inside job?
How much more obvious could it be that the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing is a joke?
How much more obvious could be that the '93 WTC bombing was a set-up by the FBI?
How much more obvious could it be that the official story of the 9/11 attacks is a cruel hoax?
How much more obvious could it be that the corporate media and our government representatives are complicit in these crimes by not speaking out and using their power to seek justice?
How much more obvious could it be that we need a revolution?
How much more obvious could it be that the MLK assassination was a government conspiracy?
How much more obvious could it be that the JFK assassination was an inside job?
How much more obvious could it be that the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing is a joke?
How much more obvious could be that the '93 WTC bombing was a set-up by the FBI?
How much more obvious could it be that the official story of the 9/11 attacks is a cruel hoax?
How much more obvious could it be that the corporate media and our government representatives are complicit in these crimes by not speaking out and using their power to seek justice?
How much more obvious could it be that we need a revolution?
posted by spooked at 1:49 PM
26 Comments:
How much more obvious could it be that the post "Is Hillary Warning Obama..." fails as something other than an extremely juvenile rant, free of supporting evidence, strung together like an argument made by one who is wholly unfamiliar with the use of logic in constructing an argument meant to be taken seriously.
Maybe that's the whole idea behind it. To demonstrate how easy it is to fool the uninformed and those unable to reason with skills beyond those of the typical junior high
school slacker.
what kind of evidence were you looking for? There was evidence linked to-- did you bother to look at it-- and it should be obvious to any one with a brain that the RFK ass'n was "an inside job". But I suppose being a shill requires you to act like an ignorant ass, so I suppose you did your job here.
The very first paragraph makes this
astonishing claim:
"All this had happened after President Lyndon Baines Johnson was ordered by the PTB to decline re-nomination—something he never would have done if he really were in charge."
EVIDENCE? None cited and for good reason: There isn't any evidence that happened.
The claim that RFK "invited" MLK to be his VP running mate is equally
astonishing and there is no evidence THAT ever happened.
It should be obvious to any RESPONSIBLE blogger, and especially one who claims to be involved in doing research as his occupation,
that there is a responsibility to
make a reasonable effort to see that an opinion piece which makes
claims that aren't likely to be familiar to the average visitor here, is not just a whole bunch of
made-up claims strung together.
Those of us who have spent a great deal of time studying these events
instantly recognize BSshift when we come across it, and I'm confident that if you were even half as knowledgeable about these issues as you are about 9/11, you would agree and even be appalled that you were so wrong in allowing your blog to contain articles that are an embarrassment and that do violence
to the truth and which serve to misinform the naive - even if that wasn't the author's actual intent.
"All this had happened after President Lyndon Baines Johnson was ordered by the PTB to decline re-nomination—something he never would have done if he really were in charge."
EVIDENCE? None cited and for good reason: There isn't any evidence that happened.
That sounds like a major over-simplification. You may doubt AP's interpretation, but knowing politics at this level, there is certainly reason to think that LBJ was urged by certain parties not to run again. Of course his cover story was about wanting to do the right thing with Vietnam and about spending more time with his family. But come on-- it's quite hard to believe a man with LBJ's ambitions gave up the presidency on his own.
As far as the MLK/RFK info, AP provided a link, and the info comes from one of Pepper's books.
In ANY case, perhaps the most important point in the post was that RFK's ass'n was "an inside job"-- and that should be fucking clear. Are you denying that?
Obviously, AP is drawing his own conclusions on certain things, but there's nothing wrong with that. When I have pressed AP for details or sources or his reasoning, he has delivered for me. His logic has always been very sound as far as I am concerned. So at this point, I take AP at his word on some matters.
It looks like 2:09/4:12 above has his panties in a bunch. And unjustifiably so, I might add. He doth protest far too much, methinks.
From reading A.P.'s article here on the RFK hit, and re-reading the one a few weeks ago on MLK, he does cite his references.
Regarding the RFK-MLK Pres./V.P. ticket, he stated that Pepper's books stated this. For the info on the RFK hit, he cited the book by Philip Melanson, and also even Wikipedia on Daryl Gates.
And for his statement on LBJ, can anyone but a shill, doubt that a power-crazed assassin (LBJ) would not give up his power unless he had no choice, but to obey those really in charge? And in case this troll objects to this portrayal of LBJ as an assassin--save it troll.
LBJ freely admitted it!
LBJ’s admission of his involvement in the killing of President Kennedy to his long-time mistress Madeline Brown, is in many books, and is even online. See this youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Ywho
Any honest “researcher” who isn’t a paid troll would know that LBJ confessed to Ms. Brown, THE NIGHT BEFORE the assassination!
She kept quiet for decades, out of fear, and unfortunately she also said she loved the murderer too. Perhaps a power trip thing.
Now the logic of all this even demonstrates that an admitted traitor, murderer, and conspirator--LBJ--wouldn’t want to give up his power for the simple reason, that it would be easier for others to indict him, after giving up the presidency!!
And what murderous dictator ever gave up power voluntarily before? So clearly A.P.'s logic is impeccable.
Now this troll gives away his raison d’etre with his statement above:
“Those of us who have spent a great deal of time studying these events instantly…”
Translation: Whenever the truth gets out on the government being the proveable assassin of JFK, MLK, RFK and others, their well paid agents must “INSTANTLY” try to counter this with their absurd lies. (Here it admits it’s been doing this for a long time.) Here this troll, like so many books, authors, and so-called forums, desperately try for the last hangout, “It’s unknowable.” This is their purpose. They troll apparently for any and all sources of information on the planet. Unlimited funds, to go with unlimited evil.
Such individuals are not “researchers.” Look in the mirror, troll--you are guilty of obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting murder and treason, and other crimes. They follow orders, and they kill President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Dr. King, all over again with every lying post they put up on their “forums”, or in their books. Obviously they can get away with their crimes because their bosses are the assassins. In some cases, these blog/forum trolls are actually individuals involved in the murders themselves. Just as those involved in the assassinations, or who partook in the bogus investigations of the assassinations include numerous filth who were made president. This includes, Johnson, Nixon, GHW Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Wm Clinton. Many references document all this.
Keep up the good work, Spooked and A.P. This blog is an oasis of revelation in a desert of lies.
A. Citizen
Attention A.P. Citizen (who do you think you're foolin', A.P.?) and
Sir SPOOKED:
Do you really think anyone actually believes that citing a book is the equivalent of providing evidence for a claim such as the extraordinary ones made by A.P. aka A. Citizen?
His interpretations are worthless because they're not factually based.
If he can provide actual evidence and not just cite a book, that would be one thing, but knowledgeable people know that there is NO evidence for most of his claims. And note that he doesn't couch them as being his guess or just his own opinion - he states them as though they are common knowledge.
Well, they might common knowledge to him and you, Spooked, but I can guarantee you that if he posted that article on the Education Forum, the Lancer Forum, or either of the JFK assassination forums (alt.com etc.), he would be challenged and if he responded the way he does here (by attacking those who question his claims), he would be categorized as either a troll or a shill for some outfit like L. Larouche's. More sympathetic posters might just ignore him rather than point out that he obviously has studied the facts and therefore his claims are
not worthy of comment.
Ah, Colonel "Early Wynn"
Who still has not replied to repeated requests as to
"Where were you posted on Nov. 22, 1963?
What was your own role in the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy?"
We will wait till Hell freezes over, Colonel!
Thanks 9:12 for telling all of us who read this blog, which "forums" are run by the CIA.
Much appreciated.
A.P. must be scared to post on forums where his claims would be subject to examination and rebuttal.
Think maybe THAT'S why s/he is pushing the lie that the forums mentioned are "run by the CIA"?
If A.P. is a physicist, I'm a Chinese Army General.
And we were told you were only a Colonel.
OK General, aka "Early Wynn":
Instead of speculating on why A.P. wouldn't waste his time on CIA forums, a much better question is this:
Since you have stated your views here, namely that you believe
There were planes that smashed into the towers
The towers came down due to gravitational collapse (aka “Pristine Pancakes”)
That the Apollo Program was anything more than a TV Program
That Oswald did it, or that it is unknowable
That James Earl Ray did it
That Sirhan Sirhan did it
That the American Regime is good as a whole ,and is not just a mass murdering, world destroying, democracy destroying entity
All the other impossible and/or ludicrous lies, the regime puts out
Other than as an well paid, intel gatekeeper…
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU HERE?
Once again, we will wait till Hell freezes over for your answer! Show us your logic skills.
So, does that mean you WILL post your
screed on a forum that is dedicated to serious research?
C'mon, A.P., show 'em you're not afraid and that you are perfectly willing to defend your views.
I don't think you WILL because I don't believe you CAN. The only place where you can post BS and claim it's "Ultimate Truth" is here, where you are protected by someone who doesn't realize you're that most of your claims are
ludicrous.
Here's the ULTIMATE Opportunity for
A.P. to interact with someone who
knows as much about the RFK assassination as A.P. wants everyone
to think that HE knows.
Read this article, a.p. - then respond to it THERE. Don't come back here and throw darts at the messenger to avoid dealing with the substance and facts raised, while crouching behind Mother Superior.
Here you go: http://hnn.us/articles/50532.html
This was posted above:
OK General, aka "Early Wynn":
Instead of speculating on why A.P. wouldn't waste his time on CIA forums, a much better question is this:
Since you have stated your views here, namely that you believe
There were planes that smashed into the towers
The towers came down due to gravitational collapse (aka “Pristine Pancakes”)
That the Apollo Program was anything more than a TV Program
That Oswald did it, or that it is unknowable
That James Earl Ray did it
That Sirhan Sirhan did it
That the American Regime is good as a whole ,and is not just a mass murdering, world destroying, democracy destroying entity
All the other impossible and/or ludicrous lies, the regime puts out
Other than as a well paid, intel gatekeeper…
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU HERE?
Once again, we will wait till Hell freezes over for your answer! Show us your logic skills.
So we see no answer from the CIA troll HERE. The gutless spooks can't deal with daylight. So used to sneaking up on people or killing them in the night.
Hell has frozen over, you didn't even try to answer the above question HERE. (Couldn't twist logic well enough to even try to answer, eh?)
You are HERE vermin, you were obligated to answer HERE. You blew it, liar.
Go back to Langley, Colonel filth.
My, my A.P. - you must really be desperate. I've never said any of the things that you posted above. They're all lies.
To be called "vermin" by a cowardly sissy shows just how DESPERATE you are to avoid being held accountable for your ludicrous claims.
I KNEW you were too cowardly to
post your views on a forum where there are informed readers; I just didn't know what kind of excuses you'd use to avoid being exposed
as a fraud.
One of these days, SPOOKED is going to realize he's been "had" by a pusillanimous faker who characterizes himself as an informed keeper and exposer of "hidden" knowledge.
Mr 4:08PM-- dude, chill.
For better or for worse-- and I'm not sure why you care so much-- A.P. has earned my basic trust. You have not. I don't even know who you are.
If you don't like what A.P. says and you don't like that I allow him to post stuff here, why do you come here?
"why do you come here?"
To do what I can to point out the many mistakes and outright false statements & claims A.P. makes.
I know that you trust him, but I believe your commitment to the truth is strong enough to withstand having
his BS pointed out.
5:17pm-- the problem is that you have failed to prove that he has made mistakes and false statements. You can't simply say that a book reference doesn't count, or that his theories wouldn't hold up at some forum you go to. You need to show precisely how he is wrong.
No, HE needs to prove that he's RIGHT, and he has failed to do that time after time.
He makes unsubstantiated charges, then when asked to provide proof, he typically cites a book (or says "a book by so and so").
His most common response however, is an ad hominem argument (of the very juvenile variety).
Maybe you've been too busy coddling him to remember even these two points raised the other day and which have yet to be supported with
credible evidence.
I don't know what your background is, but anyone who knows even the least about formal argumentation and presentation knows that saying you know something is TRUE because you read it in a book doesn't make it true.
There are many books of fiction that are presented as non-fiction - you know, like the NIST report, 911 Commission report,
and President Bush's upcoming autobiography.
Here are the two points repeated from when they were first raised.
There are plenty more where these came from:
1. "All this had happened after President Lyndon Baines Johnson was ordered by the PTB to decline re-nomination—something he never would have done if he really were in charge."
EVIDENCE? None cited and for good reason: There isn't any evidence that happened.
2. The claim that RFK "invited" MLK to be his VP running mate is equally
astonishing and there is no evidence THAT ever happened.
1. "All this had happened after President Lyndon Baines Johnson was ordered by the PTB to decline re-nomination—something he never would have done if he really were in charge."
EVIDENCE? None cited and for good reason: There isn't any evidence that happened.
That claim was based on logic and knowing LBJ's personality.
2. The claim that RFK "invited" MLK to be his VP running mate is equally
astonishing and there is no evidence THAT ever happened.
That was in the Pepper book. That reference to the book stands as evidence unless you can prove otherwise.
You could SAY that the 9/11 commission report is fiction, but few people are going to believe you unless you have some evidence that the commission was making stuff up. Now of course, we do have evidence that the 9/11 commission wasn't being completely honest. But that is how we can assert that the report is fictional. Unless you can prove the Pepper book doesn't have what AP says, or that the Pepper book is wrong, it stands as hard evidence to support AP's claim.
That is how it works.
Director Hoover hated Bobby and MLK.
He gave RFK (when he was AG) info
implying that MLK had communists in his organization and that MLK had attended a "training school" run by communists.
RFK authorized the wiretapping of MLK.
Even if RFK had WANTED to ask MLK to be his VP running mate, it is almost impossible to believe that he would even broach the subject to MLK, because Director Hoover would have had Cartha Deloach or some other FBI official contact the media with "explosive" information that RFK was going to invite a known subversive and pervert to be his running mate.
RFK was a very shrewd politician. He was JFK's campaign manager in 1960, when he was a very young man.
MLK would not have added anything to the ticket and would almost certainly have cost him the '68
election.
A.P. doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't have the grace to admit it. Instead, he's more comfortable attacking those who DO know the facts with the kind of name-calling that would make a sailor blush.
If I may, I'd like to ask YOU, Spooked: why is A.P. here? It's more than passing strange to me that he uses the same tactics as
intelligence services disinfo agents and LaRouchites.
Lyndon LaRouche uses a very similar style of presenting fantastical, extremely far-fetched theories, and tries to string everything together by throwing out a long list of unrelated points in a kind of "if this, then therefore this, or therefore AFTER this" reasoning.
If he is simply a "regular" person who has become exposed to a lot of unrelated information and can't be bothered to try and think through it all before pronouncing "ULTIMATE Truths" about how the world works, that's a different story, but he is still WAY out of his league whenever he talks about history and politics.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about
the scientific aspects of 9/11 to
know whether or not his musings on what happened that day are worthy
of being taken seriously, but I acknowledge that they might be.
Unfortunately, if he IS on the up and uP, it will continue to be difficult to give him any credibility due to his lack of respect for the views of others, his unwillingness or inability to be introspective (Epicticus said "the unexamined life isn't worth living"), and his failure to understand the need to provide evidence for claims that are not commonly held by those who know something about the subject at hand.
He needs to grow up and stop the childish name-calling as a tactic to avoid being held accountable.
Pepper has written more than one book. Your little buddy failed to cite which book and on what page does Pepper say that RFK invited MLK to be his VP running mate?
Pepper is a fine lawyer and it is impossible to believe he would say something like that without having hard evidence to back it up. I don't even believe that he, Pepper, even conjectured or speculated that RFK invited MLK to be his VP.
Your "boy" makes things up out of thin air and it's a pitiful excuse to say "well, THAT (anything) was a
logical view based on __'s personality".
BS - I don't think for a minute that your "boy" knows much of anything about LBJ. If he did, he wouldn't say the things he does and have you try to defend them by saying "they're based on LBJ's personality".
Please. This isn't 9/11 stuff and
some of us who aren't nearly equipped as you to grasp exactly what happened then...ARE equipped to understand the obvious and nuances of other matters such as JFK, RFK, LBJ, MLK, and their assassinations.
Ha!
It’s “nice” to see that Langley, in addition to killing Presidents, and poisoning citizens, has a sense of humor.
Your statement that you’re here to disseminate your stuff, because you
“understand the obvious and nuances of other matters such as JFK, RFK, LBJ, MLK, and their assassinations.”
is as funny as it is dishonest. First, though, let’s examine why you stopped posting your moniker here, “Early Wynn.”
It’s because I repeatedly cited your lying that “Spooked is blocking me.” All the while you were posting, and were not blocked! So you and your “Early Wynn” moniker have no credibility.
Buy you are clearly him, and clearly the one here from the very beginning of this blog, as a gatekeeper for the regime’s official, ludicrous theories on the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK. And also you, Early Wynn, DID say you believed in the OCT of 9/11, and planes, pristine pancakes, and all the crap. So again, you have to pretend not to be “Early Wynn” now. Even though, of course, “Early Wynn” said the exact same things about each of the assassinations, and rec’d the very same intel-run forums. So your record is clear, “Early”, you have never said a word of truth here, and just leaving out your moniker doesn’t help you any.
You also lost all credibility when you wrote that I was lying when I wrote that a judge and jury found that James Earl Ray was innocent, and that others--including the government of the United States--were the guilty parties. And so then in a separate piece, I added the link to the King Family’s own website, whereby they have the transcript, and verdict, of that trial posted online. Naturally I was truthful, and proved it. But you lie with every single post you have ever had--first pretending to be a “liberal.”
But not everything I cite has an online source, and people need to read books, especially if they are written by the very few “authors” that are not paid by the CIA, or other nefarious agencies. (This leaves out you and your books.)
I do, BTW, agree that a book’s citation does not, ipso facto, prove anything. But speaking, of this, why don’t you list the books you have written, and some of us here can check to see if they contain a word of truth?
I won’t get into the whole Johnson thing, because it is crystal clear from everything about Johnson’s life and career that he was a controlled stooge, and followed orders--though he himself was a serial murderer, and a mass murderer.
We even have THE GREAT LIE from him and others that is desperately put out since 1963. That his SS agent threw him down and jumped on top of him during the assassination. Senator Yarborough has said that he saw (in the same car) that Johnson threw himself down at the onset of shooting, when everyone else thought the sounds were just firecrackers. There is even the Johnson tapes whereby he asks “were any of the shots aimed at me?…” And yes, like the Z film iself, there are a hundred versions of the statement by Sen. Yarborough, but one non-revisionist and truthful one suffices, to all but the vast horde of intel agents--which includes “popular authors.”
Also my comments above relating Madeleine Brown’s account indicating Johnson was certainly part of the assassinations of JFK, could have led to LBJ’s prosecution for murder, and treason. Her being alive, and his potential prosecution, was further reason why he wouldn’t give up the presidency, unless ordered to. It is very telling that your supervisors don’t want the “President as controlled stooge” to be known.
Your Red commie thing about Hoover etc., is obviously superficial hangout junk from the intel agencies, and not worthy of reply.
Furthermore, I have recently observed that the “911truth” disinfo forums have their own intel assets calling others therein “LAROUCHE, LaROUCHE!” at the same exact time you started to cuss me out with that label--demonstrating that you all have the same intel supervisor!
Since everyone here recognizes you as intel, I again ask “Why are you here, Early Wynn? When you disagree with EVRYTHING said on this blog, from 9/11 to the assassinations of our true leaders.”
Hell has frozen over since you did not answer, Early.
Just pretending not to be "Early Wynn", and lying some more, does not qualify as an answer.
Hell has frozen over, Early.
Anonymous Physicist
More LAROUCHE BS and lies from the cowardly girly-man.
And BTW, Oh Great Historian/Gatekeeper, regarding your sentence:
“understand the obvious and nuances of other matters such as JFK, RFK, LBJ, MLK, and their assassinations.”
I regret to inform you that LBJ was not assassinated.
Some historian you are.
Depends on your definition of "assassinated".
Post a Comment
<< Home