Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?
Why don't you start by posting something of substance that makes sense to folks other than yourself? Then I'll post a "substantive response".
Sorry, Martin. I have neither the time nor the inclination to lecture to the short bus kids.
And stop trying to project your ignorance onto the world at large. What I write makes a great deal of sense indeed to those who do not suffer from anal-cranial inversion.
James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE: WHY HE DIED AND WHY IT MATTERED.
I heard Saint John Hunt telling his story to George Noory on Coast to Coast AM, downloaded, printed, punched and bound his ebook.
BOND OF SECRECY is the deathbed deflection of a career intelligence officer who is the author of 42 works of fiction43 counting BOND OF SECRECY.
E. Howard Hunt, who confessed to Congress he'd forged cable traffic to frame JFK for the murders of Nhu and Diem claimed on his way out the door that it was LBJ what done it, cunningly relying on the jealousy of Cord Myer and the world-class talents of Lucien Sarti.
I sent Saint John Hunt a five-page email; there's much to say but it can be condensed: Howard Hunt shunts the bloodhounds to the grave of the dead Texas facilitator. Even Hunt's company is a facilitator. Who is the sponsor: not LBJ, not anyone in CIA. I speculate it may be Jabba the David, and if not, he's heard something from his business associates scattered round the wonderful world, though some of them have the sod pulled up to their necks.
James Douglass delighted us with 400 pages of lyric historical diorama resting on 100 pages of well-compacted notes. JFK beset at every turn by the fog of the unspeakable.
Oh what characters we'll see. A swarm of cloaked reapers moving to the tune of masked sponsors, that elite which uses nations and politics and religion to its ends.
My view of Hoover, and Johnson, and Nixon is that they were terra cotta warriors in the terra cotta legions of the high room of men whose whim is their mission.
Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?
Why don't you start by posting something of substance that makes sense to folks other than yourself? Then I'll post a "substantive response".
Sorry, Martin. I have neither the time nor the inclination to lecture to the short bus kids.
And stop trying to project your ignorance onto the world at large. What I write makes a great deal of sense indeed to those who do not suffer from anal-cranial inversion.
Good, then stay of my thread.
And stop trying to project your paranoid nonsense on those of us who wanna discuss what occurs in the real world.
I OWN this forum, you little pissant. You are on DPF because my co-owners and I allow you to be.
You have offered nothing but disruption here to date. I strongly suggest that you return to the EF, home of Morrow, Fetzer, and Cinque. You have no business here among the adult and righteous.
I OWN this forum, you little pissant. You are on DPF because my co-owners and I allow you to be.
You have offered nothing but disruption here to date. I strongly suggest that you return to the EF, home of Morrow, Fetzer, and Cinque. You have no business here among the adult and righteous.
Don't call me names, Charles.
I guarantee you wouldn't have the balls to call me a "pissant" to my face.
Would you like to explain to me how it is that by starting a single thread, aimed at creating a discussion without the type of childish name calling and personal attacks you have brought to the table, I am the one who has offered "nothing but disruption"?
Take your "guarantee" empty threat of physical violence, and your cowardly, avoid-debate-at-all-costs "Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " ad hominem, and your literal mind elsewhere ... pissant!
Martin Hay Wrote:Fine, have it your way, Charles. I'm not gonna get dragged into your childish bullshit.
I was led to believe this was a forum for intelligent people but you have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the exact opposite is true.
Please delete my account.
Martin,
If I might interject something here. Charles regularly uses the "fire test" to initiate the novice member and also to confirm bonafides. If/when you emerge from the other side of the oven you'll be glazed, but unharmed.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Martin Hay Wrote:[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.
I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.
"Suspects" for WHAT?
I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.
Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?
"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.
You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.
You conflate the carpenter with the architect.
You conflate the architect with the homeowner.
The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.
Thanks, Monk. Hay is welcome here.
Above is my post to which he responded with "Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " If my reference to the "Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model" didn't ring a bell, he might have either asked for an explanation or sought out one on his own. Had he done either, the balance of the post might have made sense to him.
Had Hay responded to my "'the FBI' and 'the CIA'" construction and claims with honest query and/or disagreement, we would not be having this exchange.
So the ball is in his court. I've admired many of Hays's posts on EF, and I think that more of the same would make him an asset at DPF. And he's more than welcome to his threats of duels. He will be treated -- at least by me -- in a manner consistent with his own approach.
.
Martin Hay Wrote:[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.
I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.
"Suspects" for WHAT?
I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.
Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?
"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.
You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.
You conflate the carpenter with the architect.
You conflate the architect with the homeowner.
The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.
Thanks, Monk. Hay is welcome here.
Above is my post to which he responded with "Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " If my reference to the "Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model" didn't ring a bell, he might have either asked for an explanation or sought out one on his own. Had he done either, the balance of the post might have made sense to him.
Had Hay responded to my "'the FBI' and 'the CIA'" construction and claims with honest query and/or disagreement, we would not be having this exchange.
So the ball is in his court. I've admired many of Hays's posts on EF, and I think that more of the same would make him an asset at DPF. And he's more than welcome to his threats of duels. He will be treated -- at least by me -- in a manner consistent with his own approach.
.
You're welcome, Don Drago.
I too grow weary of the "CIA or FBI done it" drivel. However, it speaks more to the efficiency of their own psy-op programs than it does to the integrity or intellect of those who fall for it.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
