New CTKA Review: The Failings of Joseph Farrell: A Review of LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy

[Jan Klimkowski]

Well that reply was essentially what one does this kinda thing for Jan. That Adam Parfrey stuff is true gold. Thanks.

Seamus - my pleasure.

I always welcome people engaging with my documentaries - especially if it's clear they've actually taken the time to watch the thing. :happyweed:

Fwiw - in addition to James Shelby Downard, another major source of hypotheses involving "masonic symbolism" in the assassination of JFK is Robert Anton Wilson.

Why do these kooky kats always have three names?

Let's ask Francis Ford Coppola. :poke: :gossip: mallprint:

As for Martin. I had a look around for his writings on the net after I found his skeleton key demolition and there wasn't to much which was a shame. He has a writing style similar to mine (he's pretty aggressive in his subject matter lol-however I have use of some fantastic editors that curb some of my indulgences). I came across people with differing opinions on him. He drew a bit of heat for his look into Alien abductions as an MK Ultra type operation. It's actually something I have found to be highly plausible myself.

I've used passages from Martin Cannon's unpublished essay "The Controllers" exploring, loosely, alien abduction as MK-ULTRA type operation, as source material in posts I've made here on DPF. See eg post #16 in the thread here.

For context, it's worth noting that in 1994, a tenured Harvard Professor, who was very friendly with Thomas "paradigm shift" Kuhn, argued in print and in a BBC2 science documentary, that alien abduction was a real phenenomen.

Martin was robust and aggressive in manner. His journey exploring this hypothesis was timely and thorough. He was also a proper researcher. He got access to some of the source files used by John D Marks in his "Search for the Manchurian Candidate" book, and established that Marks went so far, and then stopped.

His Gemstone File article that you kindly linked is another example of quality research. He was a researcher with sufficient integrity to call it how it he saw it - even if that call short-circuited any chance of a meaningful payday for months and years of hard slog.

Essentially what I am saying is that Farrell brags the Torbitt Document predicted the German stay behinds vis a vis Gladio. The problem was of course that Thomas's rendering of the Torbitt document occurred well after Gladio came above board. Farrell was also saying on one hand that Thomas had accumulated all the known evidence and put it together but Thomas is saying someone gave it to him too publish. It seems aas if Farrell cocked up and divulged how Thomas put it all together. There was no 'miraclulous document from thin air'.

I hope that clears it up for you. But in clearing it up of course there's more questions. Namely, what is Childress' motivations in all of this if he's prepared to utilise compromised material and then force some poor buggar to endorse Zirbel.

And I assume Zirbel has no knowledge of Gladio.

My sense is that Farrell accepted the writing commission from Childress then found specific areas that interested him far more than Zirbel's hypothesis.

The result is not a Bouillabaisse, but rather a dog's dinner...