+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 (/thread-11134.html)
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Peter Lemkin - 06-08-2013
There are no active members here who believe in the WC nor official lies about 11/22/63. I think it behooves the flurry of new members to familiarize themselves with this Forum and those who have been here many years. While an argument against the WC is not a problem, as is stated above, it is very much preaching to the choir. In fact, while 'fans' of the WC may lurk or look here, they can not post - as they'd soon be removed. This is WC-free zone; magic-bullet free zone; lone-nut free zone; Oswald did it free zone. Etc. Welcome.
New members who ONLY are interested in the JFK Assassination, while welcome, will notice that most here have a broader interest in exposing the underlying structures that caused: Dallas, various wars, assassinations, covert operations, bankster actions, the growing police-state, the cancelling of our rights and liberties, false-flag operations up the yazoo, 9-11, and just about everything we see these days - and applying past incidents to current events, and vice-versa. [i.e. how the JFK assassination informs on what had happened prior; has happened since; and what is happening today - as well as the 'details' and 'players' of the events, themselves]. We all, I'm sure, are aware of how very important the JFK assassination was and is still. But, I personally, like to put it in context as much as possible - as it was but one [very important] of many similar operations that occurred before and since - by the same general forces and for the same general reasons. IMO.
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Jim DiEugenio - 06-08-2013
Rob:
Paul May is a wonderful person who never told a lie in his life.
How could you say something like that about him.
Plus he is so fair minded and objective about the case and evidence.
That is why I call him St, Paul.
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Phil Dragoo - 06-08-2013
Peter
I find your paragraph of setting the table reflects my own appreciation of context continually refined here at the Deep Politics Forum:
New members who ONLY are interested in the JFK Assassination, while welcome, will notice that most here have a broader interest in exposing the underlying structures that caused: Dallas, various wars, assassinations, covert operations, bankster actions, the growing police-state, the cancelling of our rights and liberties, false-flag operations up the yazoo, 9-11, and just about everything we see these days - and applying past incidents to current events, and vice-versa. [i.e. how the JFK assassination informs on what had happened prior; has happened since; and what is happening today - as well as the 'details' and 'players' of the events, themselves]. We all, I'm sure, are aware of how very important the JFK assassination was and is still. But, I personally, like to put it in context as much as possible - as it was but one [very important] of many similar operations that occurred before and since - by the same general forces and for the same general reasons. IMO.
Fify years ago November 22 a Friday our principal Ralph Clevenger a former sports coach advised the president had been shot, was dead, buses would take us home for the weekend where I would see live Rubenstein perform his duty to the labyrinthine security state, now in its hundredth year in the Century of the Fed.
What Lane and Meagher began Gerald McKnight has refined while Sibel Edmonds advises that little Dulles who thought he was a god also gave birth to Gladio with its strategy of tension apparent in the ever most recent theater or school or sporting event "terrorism"
With Unspeakable is seen the toxic fog surrounding the 35th president which wasn't used to having its machinations thwarted and hasn't so suffered since
What an exciting age, with history rewritten at every moment--as soon as we discover the truth, the Great Extruder emits a security patch with a whirr and ting
DPF is a continuing education, a forum for Mycroft Holmes' skills and knowledge base to find the common thread in disparate events
Coincidence is an undertaken unfinished
Shots didn't "ring out" in the
Murder of the Century
The gun was loaded before the Great War and its smoke still brings the mavericks to heel
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Charles Drago - 07-08-2013
Phil Dragoo Wrote:The gun was loaded before the Great War and its smoke still brings the mavericks to heel
The gun was loaded before there were guns.
When Menes went to harvest. When Hassan-i Sabbah convened his master class. Cum dies de Gracchis Numerati sunt et literatum.
To be content to comment on this is to perpetuate it.
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Rob Caprio - 07-08-2013
David Josephs Wrote:It's good to see you here Rob, yet your series about sinking the WC conclusions is WAY beyond preaching to the choir here....
There are few if any WCR apologists here.... I'm a friend and supporter of your posting and contributions Rob... but I am sure you will be met with great amounts of silence here if you feel it your duty to ONCE AGAIN lay out the WCR shortcomings and explain it to us as if we were the same bunch of bewildered sheep hunting and pecking on that other Forum. (Giving it it's due... the imagery analysis and reconstruction accomplished on that Forum is at times simply amazing. The work of Chris Davidson from the initial work of Tom Purvis has helped me understand how the Zfilm and other films were manipulated and are able to sync)
The Cointelpro techniques utilized by a handful of LNer posters on that forum is so obvious as to be absurd.
The vigilance against and awareness of those that only disrupt... or come with an obvious agenda based on these techniques are simply not tolerated here.... and it's a welcome sanctuary.
There's disagreement here for sure.... but not over whether the WCR was the POS it was... or the HSCA and other related attempts to cover-up were what they are....
So I'd suggest Rob, that you take a little time and acquaint yourself with the key players here, their POV's and their styles.
They have helped me see past the minutia (ala Salandria) and concentrate on the details of the cover-up/conspiracy as opposed to the daunting task of piecing together a 1000 puzzle from a barrel of 100,000 pieces... not knowing if ANY of the Original 1000 pieces from the puzzle are even there.
Who created the 1000 piece puzzle....
who removed/replaced the actual pieces with those we have now... and
who added the other 90,000 pieces to hide what was left of the 1000.... ?
.... and then. Who told them to do it, when and how.
The enjoyment of reading threads here is unmatched anywhere....
IMO, your contributions will be viewed and commented upon as long as it's not about that which is so painfully obvious.
Based on the evidence Rob, we both know that CE399 came into being in the office of Director Rowley... ARRB's MD149 states that Johnson brought CE399 to "BULAB" (FBI/Frazier)... yet the puzzle pieces tell us that Todd got it from Rowley and brought it to Frazier...(MD149 surfaces 35 years later) The telex reiterates the shallow, non-transiting back wound where a bullet falls out of the wound. We KNOW this. But this CAN'T be CE399...
The real question is WHO shot the bullet into water, WHEN, and how did it get to Rowley to give to Todd...... all evidence of advanced planning. With CE399 in the record and no other contrary evidence... the FACILITATORS got what they wanted... evidence in the record tying the rifle to Oswald and the bullet to the rifle.
Authenticating the details of this, or any other theory, is what makes this forum so special IMO....
Cheers
DJ
David,
Thank you for your advice and feedback. I do this series for several reasons. One of the reasons is to consolidate the evidence into one place-the post I am doing-so I can refer to it quickly and easily and repost it if need be.
Secondly, being a CTer does not mean we know everything about this case. I have studied this case for nearly twenty-five years and I don't know it all so I thought this series could help newer people to this case. Furthermore, even veteran CTers can be less knowledgeable about some areas of this case and perhaps this series can help them there.
If no one wants me to post these then I won't, but I do not see many of the topics I have covered discussed at all so I would hope these could start a conversation about those topics. I have studied the big picture for years and I think I have a good idea of the layers involved and who was involved, but to just blurt out names would be the same as what the WC did since I can't support it with proof.
I have found doing this series has opened up many new ways to view the assassination for me, and perhaps it will do this for others. It is up to the board to decide this, but one can never truly go forward without learning the WC evidence fully and I am attempting to do this in my series. I am learning things I have missed in all my years of study.
I will continue to do it, but I won't post it if no one is interested. I feel a big part of our posts should educate people with less knowledge, thus, they are not meant for folks like you in most cases.
Regards,
Robert
,
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Rob Caprio - 07-08-2013
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Rob:
Paul May is a wonderful person who never told a lie in his life.
How could you say something like that about him.
Plus he is so fair minded and objective about the case and evidence.
That is why I call him St, Paul.
Jim,
All I did was say what Paul May has admitted to--using fake names to post under. Duncan seems rather sensitive aboutthe matter too despite saying he allowed folks to do this. It really is not important, but I think banning me for a month for telling the truth is silly. Why does Duncan not want this discussed?
Robert
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Rob Caprio - 07-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:DPF members - I've merged all the threads entitled "Statements that sink the Warren Commission", already numbered up to #172, into one thread.
Rob - please keep these posts and any new such statements in one thread.
Multiple threads are akin to spam. Thanking you in advance.
Will do, but it seems these posts are not being received well so I will probably not post any more until I learn the climate better.
I understand a lot about the big picture so I can see what others know to enlarge my knowledge base.
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Jim DiEugenio - 07-08-2013
Rob Caprio Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Rob:
Paul May is a wonderful person who never told a lie in his life.
How could you say something like that about him.
Plus he is so fair minded and objective about the case and evidence.
That is why I call him St, Paul.
Jim,
All I did was say what Paul May has admitted to--using fake names to post under. Duncan seems rather sensitive aboutthe matter too despite saying he allowed folks to do this. It really is not important, but I think banning me for a month for telling the truth is silly. Why does Duncan not want this discussed?
Robert
I was being sarcastic. Paul May is kind of like a David Von Pein, except he is even more irrational than Von Pein. If that is possible. Many people thought it was not.
But the first two points you brought up here are fine with me. The idea that Finck did not think the SBT was possible, or the hole in the back of JFK's head. They definitely sink the WC.
And the WC knew it.
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Duncan MacRae - 07-08-2013
Rob Caprio Wrote:[quote=Jim DiEugenio]Rob:
All I did was say what Paul May has admitted to--using fake names to post under. Duncan seems rather sensitive about the matter too despite saying he allowed folks to do this. It really is not important, but I think banning me for a month for telling the truth is silly. Why does Duncan not want this discussed?
Robert
Rob,
Every forum has different rules.
The stating and baiting via a post at my venue, that a specific member uses an alias elsewhere is forbidden, and you were aware of that due to a previous warning. You also agreed to abide by this rule when you ticked the box on the registration form when you joined the forum, so there is no excuse.
You can make these claims, true or false elsewhere, I don't care, but you must stick to the rules when posting at my venue, as a failure to do so could result in me receiving a complaint from the aggrieved party regarding a rule breaking post, hence resulting in a ban or suspension being implemented.
You know how I work. I normally let things go, and flow, unless I receive a complaint from a member about a post directed at that specific member.
You broke that rule, again, and I received a complaint from the person that the accusation was directed at.
The 28 day suspension was dished out because of your complete disregard of the previous warning, not because you told an alleged "Truth"
Duncan MacRae
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #1 - Magda Hassan - 07-08-2013
Dear Duncan. Please do your forum admin on your forum or use the PM function here and do it in private. I deleted your post as it was off topic to the thread.