20-01-2011, 08:26 AM
Jack White Wrote:I feel that Charles is muddying the waters with ill-understood terms.
I am talking about Sponsors vs Conspirators. Many readers will look at
his saying LBJ is a "false sponsor" as clearing him of conspiratorial participation.
Not so, in my opinion. This is similar to the argument over Mastermind vs
Essential Participant.
In my opinion, LBJ was a conspirator, an essential conspirator, a pivotal
conspirator, an eager conspirator.
In my opinion, False Sponsors include Castro, Kruschev, Marcello,
Giancana, and the like.
To equate Lyndon with people like these is to excuse his culpability.
In my opinion, the Sponsors were The New World Order, the International
Bankers, the Military-Industrial-Complex, Politicians and Cronies (LBJ),
Intelligence Agencies (CIA, FBI, SS), Military Officers, Oil Interests, and
various Right Wing groups.
Charles intends that the Word Sponsor apply only to the very top person
or group which gave the order to kill. I use the word more broadly like
Jim Marrs...meaning a Concert of Interests. LBJ was "a member of" those
with a common Concert of Interests, therefore was a sponsor and conspirator.
There was no SINGLE SPONSOR, but many with the same idea...get rid of JFK.
Jack
Jack before you call CD 'convoluted' I'll remind you of what you wrote mate.
"In my opinion, the Sponsors were The New World Order, the International
Bankers, the Military-Industrial-Complex, Politicians and Cronies (LBJ),
Intelligence Agencies (CIA, FBI, SS), Military Officers, Oil Interests, and
various Right Wing groups."
Thats a veritable mouthful sun shine. :vomit:
And lets be Frank Cassano (one of the most upfront cats you'll ever meet) about this. Because as he says to me regularly 'This type of @#$% is not at all encouraging'.
I think that out of all of the researchers who represent the more extreme viewpoints in the case your by far one of the most reasonable and in my opinion more readable and polite of them. Jim Marrs (a good bloke like yourself) is a person whom backs some interesting stuff at times. Enough of this feel good however. The big issue here Jack is that by weilding a grouping as big and as ambiguous as this (the nebulous not 'new' world order for starters companero) is just.....well........silly.
The problem for Jim Marrs is that by making comments like that, all sorts of creepy crawlies come out of the carpet. People like John Hankey get a shot at the title. JVB pulls on the heart strings of every middle aged man she encounters. Our dear 'Ron' becomes deepthroat and fobs off photo copied non CIA documents on highly lit over passes. People let their imaginations run into over time. It gets people to endorse the work of John Hankey. Barr McClellan and Phil Nelson as being the equal of works like Talbot's, Morleys and Jim Douglas.
This is the problem and for every amount of gold we extract from this thing the disinfo influenced crowd dig up a pipeline of shite. Since the defenders of the lone nut line in government and beyond can't really fight Talbot, Morley and JD on the share majority of issues they point out-the next best thing is too try and equate lesser researchers with them and their work. It's almost like leaching off of a legacy. If the kook says 'this guy inspired me' wouldn't you wanna keep your distance? I sure as hell know I would if I didn't know any better.
If John Hanky or Alex Jones said they got all of their information from me CD or Jim Di you don't think we'd look like complete turnips? Unless theres a stunning transformation in content from people like this I wouldn't wanna go near them. As Lisa Pease said there is a hierarchy of truth and their is a hierarchy of researchers I agree with Jim Di even more so here. Jack I have to ask what was the ARRB and what did it outline?
Nothing thats in this new piece of garbage thats going to be ate up and rolled over on by many a useful idiot unfortunately.