Huffington has someone claiming Hickey did it...

[Jan Klimkowski]

Addressing the crowd, McLaren claimed that Hickey and other Secret Service agents were out partying the night before Kennedy's fatal motorcade drive through Dallas. Based on his painstaking investigation, McLaren said, evidence suggests Hickey was not qualified to use the weapon he was holding the morning of the shooting.

"It was his first time in the follow car, his first time holding the assault weapon he was using," McLaren said. Producers said the film's theory is that shots rang out, and Hickey grabbed his weapon to return fire. When his car stopped suddenly, Hickey accidentally discharged his weapon -- making him the second shooter, the film's investigators and producers alleged.

Evidentially, this is a crock of shit.

At the mundane level, it's as perfect a psyop distraction as Fetzer & "Cinque's" ridiculous Oswald Innocence Project.

At the deep political level, it's ideal as it provides a way round the nonsense of Three Shot Oswald and the Magic Bullet, it identifies the Second Shooter as an Innocent rather than a Conspirator, and it does absolutely nothing to address the issue of high level coverup, fabrication of evidence, murder of witnesses and Warren Commission Big Lying.

It allows MSM to wallow in "conspiracy theories" about the assassination of JFK, attract an audience for their advertisers, and distract the populace down the blindest and most harmless of alleys.

In short, scramble the people's brains in steaming, bubbling, ordure.

[Albert Rossi]

Addressing the crowd, McLaren claimed that Hickey and other Secret Service agents were out partying the night before Kennedy's fatal motorcade drive through Dallas. Based on his painstaking investigation, McLaren said, evidence suggests Hickey was not qualified to use the weapon he was holding the morning of the shooting.

"It was his first time in the follow car, his first time holding the assault weapon he was using," McLaren said. Producers said the film's theory is that shots rang out, and Hickey grabbed his weapon to return fire. When his car stopped suddenly, Hickey accidentally discharged his weapon -- making him the second shooter, the film's investigators and producers alleged.

Evidentially, this is a crock of shit.

At the mundane level, it's as perfect a psyop distraction as Fetzer & "Cinque's" ridiculous Oswald Innocence Project.

At the deep political level, it's ideal as it provides a way round the nonsense of Three Shot Oswald and the Magic Bullet, it identifies the Second Shooter as an Innocent rather than a Conspirator, and it does absolutely nothing to address the issue of high level coverup, fabrication of evidence, murder of witnesses and Warren Commission Big Lying.

It allows MSM to wallow in "conspiracy theories" about the assassination of JFK, attract an audience for their advertisers, and distract the populace down the blindest and most harmless of alleys.

In short, scramble the people's brains in steaming, bubbling, ordure.

Jan, you are undoubtedly correct to point to all of this as planned distraction, but in my view, to ask someone to buy this silly "accident" scenario is even more an insult to one's intelligence than the great Specter fabrication. I mean, what are the odds of making that kind of shot to the head by an accidental discharge? Even Dick Cheney couldn't do it. But I suppose as long as we even pay attention to this bilge, they've accomplished their mission.

[Charles Drago]

I give you the next False Sponsor operation.

Tom Hanks as "Moe."

Jim Fetzer as "Larry."

Ken Rahn as "Curly."

[Charles Drago]

Jan once again has offered a world-class tutorial on deep political analysis.

Two other functions of this operation:

To test the shelf life of broad dismissals of previously proffered False Sponsor gambits.

To determine just how much bullshit is, for the people and their media, too much bullshit.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Two other functions of this operation:

To test the shelf life of broad dismissals of previously proffered False Sponsor gambits.

To determine just how much bullshit is, for the people and their media, too much bullshit.

Indeed.

Sadly, for the people and their media, the answer is that there can never be enough steaming ordure.

Jan, you are undoubtedly correct to point to all of this as planned distraction, but in my view, to ask someone to buy this silly "accident" scenario is even more an insult to one's intelligence than the great Specter fabrication. I mean, what are the odds of making that kind of shot to the head by an accidental discharge? Even Dick Cheney couldn't do it. But I suppose as long as we even pay attention to this bilge, they've accomplished their mission.

Albert - as a journalist I can write copy for a broadsheet or a tabloid.

As a filmmaker, I've directed documentaries for the mass audience of BBC1 and the tiny rarefied audience of BBC4, with some garbage NatGeo and mendacious Discovery in between.

I worked on many episodes of the world's most intellectual and highbrow science documentary programme, BBC2's Horizon. There were some rules which were set in stone, passed down from the mythical "Golden Age of Television":

1) in a fifty-minute documentary, even an intellectual audience can only assimilate three new facts;

2) whenever a new fact is introduced, it should be subject to the Rule of Three Repeats, eg the narrator articulates the new information, a contributor repeats it in their own words, the narrator underlines the point.

There are many who still believe Greer shot JFK, a nonsense promulgated and cast out here at DPF.

[Albert Rossi]

Jan once again has offered a world-class tutorial on deep political analysis.

Two other functions of this operation:

To test the shelf life of broad dismissals of previously proffered False Sponsor gambits.

A less well-known gambit having a better chance of being repackaged or resold, certainly.

To determine just how much bullshit is, for the people and their media, too much bullshit.

I always underestimate the public's tolerance for bullshit. But it is true that the general attitude in DC, on Wall Street and in the Pentagon is that the American public has a collective IQ of 10. Sometimes I have to agree with them.

[Albert Rossi]

I give you the next False Sponsor operation.

Tom Hanks as "Moe."

Jim Fetzer as "Larry."

Ken Rahn as "Curly."

THAT'S FANTASTIC! I need to send the URL to a friend of mine.

[Phil Dragoo]

To suck the public's consciousness from the truth

In the continuing discussion of Stan's Splintering Frame and the JFK Assassination as an intelligence operation.

In this forum I had suggested to Professor Irascible that his Niagara of conspiracies

(from Moon Landing to Wellstone Plane Crash and every small town along the way)

would tire the public whose attention span expressed in gnat orgasms is a negative

to which he roared he was the Mighty Oz and tired of the Lilliputian pedestrians.

Huff-and-puffington fills the volume of "consciousness" with the creamy yet suffocating meringue of the Seven Chinese Brothers

leaving no "oxygen" for clearly perceiving the evil which men do.

Defending Nelson?

Now comes Roger Stone to the circus acrobat pyramid of Craig I. Zirbel, Barr McClellan, Phil Nelson and E! Howard Hunt--

--all disinfo rodeo clowns.

Boner Meningitis is a fart joke.

Allen Dulles is even now laughing.

"Nothing! I see nothing! His head might be spinning in circles for all you've shown me!"

We expect a craptastic level of journalism from the site formerly owned by Zsa Zsa Gabor's maid.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4998[/ATTACH]

[Albert Rossi]

Albert - as a journalist I can write copy for a broadsheet or a tabloid.

As a filmmaker, I've directed documentaries for the mass audience of BBC1 and the tiny rarefied audience of BBC4, with some garbage NatGeo and mendacious Discovery in between.

I worked on many episodes of the world's most intellectual and highbrow science documentary programme, BBC2's Horizon. There were some rules which were set in stone, passed down from the mythical "Golden Age of Television":

1) in a fifty-minute documentary, even an intellectual audience can only assimilate three new facts;

2) whenever a new fact is introduced, it should be subject to the Rule of Three Repeats, eg the narrator articulates the new information, a contributor repeats it in their own words, the narrator underlines the point.

There are many who still believe Greer shot JFK, a nonsense promulgated and cast out here at DPF.

Jan, your point about the ability to assimilate new ideas is well taken. My complaint, however, is leveled more at a presumption concerning the recipient's ability to evaluate what she hears or reads. Perhaps the signature on Lauren's message says it all.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Jan, your point about the ability to assimilate new ideas is well taken. My complaint, however, is leveled more at a presumption concerning the recipient's ability to evaluate what she hears or reads. Perhaps the signature on Lauren's message says it all.

Albert - I loathed and fought the Golden Age Rules adumbrated above.

And I want to believe in our, humanity's, ability to evaluate what we hear or see with intelligence and insight.

But it is hard to watch the dominant, consensus, public discourse unfold day after day and fail to conclude that the vast mass of humanity has lost its critical faculties.