Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #4861  
Old 11-10-2013, 02:03 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Part 2 of two part reply to Matthew Jones

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
So back to the curving bullet. Bonar Menninger redid the ballistics on this shot after obtaining a correct seating arrangement from the manufacturer of the vehicle and the whole shot lines up. The seats in the car were not arranged correctly in Warren commissions testimonies. The seats the Governor and his wife were in were more to the center of the vehicle. They were small and lower to the floor board then back seat bench Kennedy was in. The damage inflicted was consistent with the round fired by Oswald, which [was a ] full metal round that did not break apart.
True, the copper jacketed round, known as "the magic bullet" did not shatter and was in near pristine condition when found on Governor Connally's stretcher at the hospital. Pictured in the below photo as CE 399, there is only a small nick at the tip end at left, and this was admittedly caused by the FBI having removed material for testing purposes.

I would ask how in the world it is "plausible" to you that this single magic bullet could have caused 7 wounds in two men. The Warren Commission had to go with this theory, since without it the notion of a single shooter would have collapsed. In their report, to buttress the single magic bullet theory, the Commission misleadingly stated that, “In their testimony, the three doctors who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh after the bullet had lost virtually all if its velocity; and fallen out of the thigh wound.” Sylvia Meagher was the first to observe that the Commission’s claim accurately reflects what these witnesses had said during their first, 3/23/64, Commission interview. But that was before they had seen the Zapruder film, the stretcher bullet (CE #399), and other key physical evidence. The Commission’s account, however, doesn’t reflect the fact that they radically altered their views after they were allowed to see this evidence. During his second Commission interview on 4/21/64, and being questioned by Commission counsel Arlen Specter, Dr. Shaw said, “I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds [both Kennedy and Connally had sustained] being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.” Dr. Gregory, who followed Dr. Shaw in testimony, said, “I am not persuaded that this (the Single Bullet Theory) is very probable ... .” Dr. Shires, the third physician involved, was, as Meagher put it, “never recalled, never shown the Zapruder film or the stretcher bullet, or given the opportunity to reconsider his opinion in the light of physical evidence he had never seen or taken into account. In spite of the contrary statements by Shaw and Gregory, two years later Arlen Specter was still telling the press that, as he put it in a U. S. News Report interview, “all of the doctors who attended the Governor thought [the same bullet had inflicted all of the nonfatal wounds]."

When Arlen Specter asked Dr. Humes, “could that missile [Warren Exhibit CE #399] have made the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?” Humes answered, “I think that most unlikely … The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds [Connally’s wrist wound or JFK’s head wound] is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations [JFK’s head or Connally’s wrist].” Humes also said, “ I think that extremely unlikely” that it was CE 399 that had lodged in Connally’s thigh, which was the seventh of the seven wounds required of CE 399 by the Commission’s theory. Humes’ forensic consultant, Pierre Finck, MD, backed him up. Specter asked Pierre Finck, “[Could [CE #399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?” “No,” Finck replied, “for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist,” the problem being, as Finck put it, “there was practically no loss of this bullet.”


Now let's see what was said about Kennedy's fatal head shot skull wound. In an artist's drawing of the head wound made under direction of Dr.McClelland of Parkland Hospital, we see the below left illustration, which shows a blowout exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head. Compare this to the Commision's flesh-colored explanation diagram, showing only a small entry hole in that location.





Some difference, huh? Now look at the Commission diagram that purports to show the trajectory of the bullet through Kennedy's head:


To obtain this trajectory angle, which would support a shot possibly fired from the Texas School Book Depository's 6th floor window, Kennedy's head is depicted as slumped way forward, and this has no basis in truth. Below left is a photo taken from frame 312 of the Zapruder film, just one frame before the fatal shot, and at right you see the above image having been rotated so as to very closely reflect the actual angle of Kennedy's head.


Note how, at the actual angle of slump, a rear-to-front bullet would be traveling upward, rather than downwards! Thus Kennedy could not possibly have been shot as the Commission stated. Furthermore, even at the corrected trajectory, Kennedy would have to have been shot from inside the trunk of the car, and up through the seat back, to satisfy this corrected slump angle. The commission's drawing was based upon the false head wound evidence supplied to them by the FBI, and J Edgar Hoover had effectively closed the department's investigation by the time that Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby. Hoover had called LBJ's presidential adviser Walter Jenkins on November 24th, and had said to him, “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach [assistant Attorney General], is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.” See the House Select Committe on Assasinations (HSCA) report, HSCA Appendix to Hearings, volume XI, page 3 (indented paragraph) for confirmation about Hoover's statement.

Without making this post overly long, I will stop here, but there is plenty more damning evidence which tells us that the "official story" of JFK's assassination, as told in the Warren Commission report, is pure bunk. For starters, there's the fact that Hoover had his FBI dig up dirt on all the Warren Commission members and their staff, which he used to intimidate the Commission members into not questioning anything provided to them concerning the JFK assassination. This was uncovered by the Senate's Church Committee, chaired by Frank Church. And then there's the fact that 3 different rifles were said to have been the assassination weapon. One was photographed by the Dallas PD, another appears in the National archives photo, and still another in a photo by the FBI for the Warren Commission. All are side profiles, and they don't match up when scaled identically! More on that soon. I don't want to overwhelm anyone now, and simply want you to see that what at first may seem "plausible" is really just a blind alley of misinformation.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 11-10-2013 at 02:15 AM.
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #4862  
Old 11-10-2013, 08:20 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Obama administrations "brain washing" .....

__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development

Last edited by FuzzyTomCat; 11-11-2013 at 12:11 AM. Reason: title
Reply With Quote
  #4863  
Old 11-10-2013, 08:20 PM
Matthew Jones's Avatar
Matthew Jones Matthew Jones is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,741
@Rick

I can't answer to that whole 2 posts, cause its just to much typing for a subject I just pay attention to but don't really care either way about. I just read or listen to the subject I have no opinion on it.

In the BOOK which I now have now the CORRECT Wounds on Kennedy head is displayed. The ones you are showing are incorrect and those have been part of the problem for along time according to the Author They came from the Hospital in Texas, were included with the Secret service report.
The actual bullet hole in the back of the head was on the left rear and the wound was hollowed out about an 1" through the skull and then there were metal pieces after that, all the way out of the skull which was missing. Menninger was given the correct drawings when he was granted access to the Ballistic from the naval hospital, or something like that. I haven't got to that part yet I am trying to remember what they said in that show.

Either way most people are going to draw their own conclusions. I personally feel the simplist answer is the best and this one by for more simple than anything presented in the conspiracy realm. But I wasn't there who knows....Really.

Matt
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4864  
Old 11-10-2013, 11:14 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
This morning I happened to catch a very interesting documentary on the Travel Channel, where they have a series titled America Declassified. Today's show featured a segment questioning the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. The show opened with a look at a historical plaque that has been placed on the Book Depository building, at the corner of Elm and Houston streets, and which tells the history of the building. The bottom paragraph reads, "ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, THE BUILDING GAINED NATIONAL NOTORIETY WHEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD ALLEGEDLY SHOT AND KILLED PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FROM A SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW AS THE PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE PASSED THIS SITE." What is interesting about this plaque is the use of the word ALLEGEDLY to qualify the statement, a reminder that it was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was the shooter. What is even more interesting about the plaque is that the black background around the word ALLEGEDLY had been scraped off so that the word becomes highlighted. Here's a photo of that section:

Early this month, a member of the Dallas historical society restored the black background around this word so that it looked like the below photo, though the word still appeared accented by underlining:

Two days later, though, the black background had been scraped off again.

Anyways, the documentary went on next to point out that a Dallas police officer entered a cafeteria on the second floor of the Book Depository shortly after the last shot being fired, and had said that he saw Oswald standing there drinking a Coke. Indeed, that officer (patrolman Baker) had signed a statement for the Warren Commission saying, "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." Baker, who was accompanied by building manager Roy Truly, and who was holding a pistol in his hand, had approached Oswald asking who he was. Oswald responded correctly, and Truly confirmed to Baker that Oswald was an employee. Baker noted that Oswald appeared calm and not out of breath. That would have been a remarkable accomplishment for Oswald if he had run down the four flights of stairs in the stairwell (actually 8 paired flights), entered the cafeteria, purchased a soda from the machine there, and begun drinking it, because the Warren Commission's re-enactment of this encounter between Baker and Oswald determined that it occurred within 75 seconds of the last shot being fired. And that would be if Oswald had immediately dropped the rifle and left the 6th floor to run down the stairwell. That could not be the case, however, since the rifle had been found carefully hidden between boxes at the opposite end of the sixth floor from the so-called "sniper's nest." Furthermore, and as the documentary next pointed out, two women employees had entered the stairwell Oswald was said to have utilized, just after the shots were heard, and made their way to the first floor without ever seeing Oswald.

One factor that the documentary didn't mention, but which absolutely blows away the theory that Oswald was the person in the "sniper's nest," is that two photographers standing outside the Book Depository building had taken photos of the building's open sixth floor window. One was taken by a Dillard, just a few seconds after the last shot was fired. The second was taken by a Powell approximately 2 minutes later. A photographic expert, Dr Robert R Hunt, who was questioned by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was asked whether a difference between what was seen in the two pictures indicated that boxes close to the open window had been moved about at some time between the first and second pictures. Hunt replied, "T
hat would be my only personal conclusion, that somebody or something moved boxes around in that room during the time of taking of those two pictures."

So, if Oswald had actually performed the super human feat of wiping all fingerprints from his rifle (none were found on it by the Dallas PD), carefully hiding it at the opposite end of the sixth floor, running down 8 flights of stairs without being seen by the two women who were walking down at that time, entering the cafeteria, buying a Coke, and drinking some of it before being approached by Baker and Truly while appearing calm and not out of breath, then who the heck was rearranging boxes within 2 minutes of the assassination? That's a question the Warren Commission should have asked, but never did. And neither did the FBI.

The last portion of the documentary focused on the grassy knoll area, which would have been the logical position from which the kill shot was fired. Eyewitnesses said they had seen what appeared to be gun smoke in that area, and one of those witnesses was Lee Bowers, who worked in the 14 foot high Railroad switching control tower a few hundred feet to the north of the grassy knoll. In the documentary film Rush to Judgment Bowers said that at the same time as the shots were heard, he had seen a flash of light, or smoke, in the same area at the grassy knoll where he had seen two men standing. In the documentary that I saw this morning, the tower was revisited to determine exactly what Lee's view of the picket fence and grassy knoll actually was, and it was a very good view. One of the men in the documentary film, an ex-CIA officer, was given permission to go over to the picket fence with a rifle and fire blanks at a passenger riding by in an open limo at 11 mph, the same speed as the JFK motorcade. Smoke and muzzle fire were clearly visible at the tower, and the rifleman said that he had a perfect line of sight for the head shot. I believe that this documentary will be shown again tonight at 10:00pm Eastern time on the Travel channel, and is worth watching.

By the way, 3 months after Lee was interviewed for the Rush To Judgment documentary film, he was killed when his car ran off the road and struck a concrete formation. A witness to the crash said that another car had pulled alongside Lee and had forced him off the road. While Lee had made statements before the Dallas police, as well as the FBI and the Warren Commission, he had either not specifically stated anything about the smoke or flash he had seen, or it was left out by the authorities. Lee explained that he only answered questions that he was asked, and of course no one was asking if witnesses had seen likely shooters. Many witnesses were said to have been fearful of their lives if they had disclosed anything that could have been of enough potential consequence to negate the "official" story of Oswald being the lone gunman. Lee's brother stated that Lee had confided to him a lot more than he had told the authorities, and that Lee was very fearful. One of the two women in the Book Depository stairwell, that I mentioned earlier, actually disappeared for many years after giving her testimony, as she was afraid that she would be killed.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4865  
Old 11-11-2013, 12:26 AM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
Rick

I really enjoy your posts as they are always full of very informative, well articulated factual information. Your posts are the reason I continue to visit this site and participate here. I find you to be a very level headed and educated person who doesn’t mind sharing his vast knowledge with others. I cannot tell you how much incredible information I have gained from your posts and how much I truly appreciate all the contributions you have made here.

I just wanted to take a moment publicly and thank you for your time and dedication and to let you know at least one person greatly respects and truly appreciates all your time and effort here.

I would enjoy having a few beers with you and just discussing “life”, however with all the information you have inside of that head of yours I think the conversation could last a week and it wouldn’t even scratch the tip of the iceberg.

I don’t really see myself ever being up your way (unless I am on the run from the law) but if I were up your way without a trail on me and in “normal” circumstances I’d love to stop in for a few beers.

Again thanks for the great posts!
__________________
Obamisim ; “descriptive term” ; = Something so blindingly full of hope and optimism to heal or fix any situation yet only resulting in a most catastrophic cluster f*ck of failure.
Reply With Quote
  #4866  
Old 11-11-2013, 02:02 AM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150 View Post
Rick

I really enjoy your posts as they are always full of very informative, well articulated factual information. Your posts are the reason I continue to visit this site and participate here. I find you to be a very level headed and educated person who doesn’t mind sharing his vast knowledge with others. I cannot tell you how much incredible information I have gained from your posts and how much I truly appreciate all the contributions you have made here.

I just wanted to take a moment publicly and thank you for your time and dedication and to let you know at least one person greatly respects and truly appreciates all your time and effort here.
I wholeheartedly agree and second that opinion.


I seem to recall that Jackie was supposed to have written about the shooting in her memoirs. However they were to remain sealed for 50(?) years. Assuming they will be released, it sure would be interesting to learn what she wrote and why the need to have them sealed for 50 years.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4867  
Old 11-11-2013, 02:47 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Rick

No doubt there were all sorts of 'dirty deeds' going on, before, during and after the Kennedy assasination. The Warren Commisssion was a 'cover-up', obviously, but I think its quite possible many of the 'members' were unaware of the truth i.e. unaware of WHAT they were covering up. Either as 'good soldiers' they did what they were told to do, and/or they were given some plausible reason.
John Kerry recently 'let slip' in an interview, that HE didn't believe the Warren reprot, or that oswald acted alone, but quickly shrugged off any attemt to get him to elaborate. Bobby is SAID to have stated he thought the mafia was behind it.
The Kennedy assasination and aftermath DOES clearly demonstrate something; to 'cover up' something like this, you only have to 'muddy up the waters' so much that what really happened, (and who was behind it) can't be clearly discerned; even with most people not believing the 'official' version, the goal WAS achieved ; Kennedy was killed, and THEY, whoever THEY were, 'got away with it'. THEY probably feel that the more of these books that are published, the better.
On Obummercare, discussed it with my wife, and we've decided she WON'T re-up her policy, this year. Based on something I heard on Fox news, (don't know if its accurate), we will reduce her amount of withholding to the minimum, and put the $ in the bank. What I heard was that the IRS can only collect the tax, (for not having healthcare Ins.) by holding it back from your tax 'return'. If you have no return, and end up owing, they apperently can't collect. This is similar to the way the IRS collects back-due child support, which I know something about. If you are a 'deadbeat' Mom or Dad who owes back-due child support, and you have a tax return 'coming', the IRS will divert it, so, such 'deadbeats' learn after the first year to make sure they end up owing, at the end of the year. The IRS can't (has no mechanism for it) add any of the child support obligation to the back-due taxes. Apperently, (if what I heard is accurate) they are using a smilar mechanism to collect the 'tax' of O'bummercare.
I'll find out, next year, (actually, in 2015, when I file 2014's taxes). Even if the Gov't DOES fine us, the fine won't be more than the cost of insurance, at 1% of our annual income, so 'nothing to lose'. And, I suspect there will be a LOT of people in the same boat as I and wife will be in; O'bummercare is I think, going to be a headache that never goes away; the problems with the website are just the tip. Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4868  
Old 11-11-2013, 09:37 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
@ 5150 and MadScientist:

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate hearing that my work here is of value to readers, and also appreciate the frequent posts that you and others are making to keep this thread alive and interesting.

Rick
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4869  
Old 11-12-2013, 01:27 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Scientist View Post
I seem to recall that Jackie was supposed to have written about the shooting in her memoirs. However they were to remain sealed for 50(?) years. Assuming they will be released, it sure would be interesting to learn what she wrote and why the need to have them sealed for 50 years.
A book titled "The Secret Memoirs of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" was published in 2006, but the author readily admits that it is a work of fiction.

Another book, “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy," was released in September of 2011 which contains transcripts of a series of recorded interviews that Jackie gave to historian Arthur M. Schelsinger Jr. in 1963, shortly after President Kennedy was assassinated. The recordings are also available. Over seven sessions, she recalled conversations on topics that ranged from JFK's reading habits to the botched Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. The book barely mentions JFK’s assassination, though. In an introduction to the book, Caroline Kennedy wrote that Jackie had discussed the assassination at length with historian and author William Manchester but later sued to keep much of the material from being published until 2067. So the memoirs contained in the Manchester work are at least some of the ones we would be most interested in. The Manchester interviews took place in 1964, and it is known that he interviewed both Jackie and Bobby Kennedy. Manchester did put out a book in 1967 titled, "The Death of a President," but before the book could be published, Jackie sued and was able to keep the important stuff from publication. It is said that she had been drinking before one of the interviews and ended up saying "too much" - whatever that means. In the CIA report, "Background Survey of Books Concerning the Assassination of President Kennedy" (January, 1967), it stated: "William Manchester's not-yet-published "The Death of a President" is at this writing being purged of material personally objectionable to Mrs. Kennedy." It is uncertain why she objected and sued, though it has been suggested that she said some things about LBJ that the Kennedy family didn't want repeated in a book that was about to go public. Jackie had made it clear in the Schelsinger recordings that neither she nor JFK thought very much of LBJ, and she had also made some disparaging remarks about Martin Luther King.

It's no secret that Jackie had believed that LBJ had something to do with JFK's assassination, and Jim Marrs said that Jackie had hired a team of private investigators to investigate the assassination. No doubt she could afford the very best once she became Mrs Onassis, and spared no expense. I am sure that this group of investigators must have turned up far more than has been written about by other researchers, even including Jim Marrs. Jim's book was the basis for Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jim said that Stone followed it to the letter without any embellishments or straying. Anyways, one might almost think that Jackie's hiding of this report until after her children had both died would be an invitation to some nut case to kill them all off, but I believe that Jackie felt she really had no choice. Obviously she feared more for her life and the lives of her offspring if the investigative report were released, and if the investigators had concluded that the Warren Commission was correct and that Oswald was the lone assassin then she would have had nothing left to fear by releasing the report. Thus I think it is reasonable to assume that there is some very eye-opening material in the report.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 11-13-2013 at 01:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4870  
Old 11-12-2013, 02:01 AM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickoff View Post
Obviously she feared for her life and the lives of her offspring if the investigative report were released, and if the investigators had concluded that the Warren Commission was correct and that Oswald was the lone assassin then she would have had nothing left to fear by releasing the report.
That has been my feeling all along. She was either threatened or felt that she or other family members would be harmed if she publicly told what she knew.

While that would be understandable unfortunately it does tell the bad guys that they won and can continue doing whatever they want.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4871  
Old 11-12-2013, 09:22 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Let the head "GAMES" begin .....

__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development
Reply With Quote
  #4872  
Old 11-13-2013, 01:55 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
Let the head "GAMES" begin .....
It would appear that these folks are quite aware that ObummerCare stinks!
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4873  
Old 11-13-2013, 02:13 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Scientist View Post
That has been my feeling all along. [Jackie] was either threatened or felt that she or other family members would be harmed if she publicly told what she knew.
It would certainly seem so, MS. Another idea on this is that she was pressured by the Kennedy family to stop the book from being published, and hold back on the investigative report, because it would have led to LBJ being made a criminal, and would have negatively affected the Democrat party because of the scandal this would have caused. And they may have believed this could have a negative impact on Bobby Kennedy's quest for the Presidency. I personally don't buy into that logic, though. Even if it were the case, why the need to withhold the information until 2067, or until Caroline and John jr had both passed on? Why wasn't everything released after Bobby Kennedy's run for the Presidency was terminated by his assassination? Id say that was just a reminder to Jackie and the Kennedy family to keep their mouths shut and their memoirs stowed away.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4874  
Old 11-13-2013, 05:51 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
Let the head "GAMES" begin .....

"The big lesson is that we're better off with this law than without it."

Cuz
"Too many snouts in the trough."

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4875  
Old 11-13-2013, 05:44 PM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Obamacare: it is hard to imagine that group of supposedly intelligent individuals (although that maybe debatable) could inadvertently concoct this total disaster of a bill and then those same people who created an agency that can listen it to all our cell phones in real time were not able to produce a working enrollment web site. How is this possible or was it done by design?

Could it be that Obamacare was never meant to be implemented? What if the real goal was a totally government run health care system, of course most people would probably be opposed to that. Thus they are left with using a problem, reaction, solution scenario.

First they create a problem, Obamacare. When seeing it the people react saying this is unacceptable and demand it must be changed. They then offer a solution, total government run health care, which in comparison now sounds reasonable.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4876  
Old 11-13-2013, 07:22 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
@Rick

I can't answer to that whole 2 posts [#4860 and 4861], cause its just to much typing for a subject I just pay attention to but don't really care either way about. I just read or listen to the subject I have no opinion on it.
You didn't answer to, or contest, any of the proofs I showed in my two posts other than to assert that the illustrations of President Kennedy's head wounds which I displayed are incorrect, and state that the ones shown in Bonar Menninger's book are the correct ones. That leads me to believe that you never took the time to read my replies to you, and instead only glanced at the head wound illustrations and compared them to Menninger's book. By the way, for someone who says that the subject of Kennedy's assassination is something you "don't really care either way about," it seems odd to me that you would have watched the TV documentary and then ordered a book from which the documentary was produced. It is also quite odd to me that, in view of your statement, you would take the time to order and read an entire book, but not take the few minutes needed to read and understand what was in two posts specifically addressed to you. If you cannot take a few minutes to read what follows in this current post, please do at least answer the questions that I pose to you, which I will colorize in red so that you can find them quickly. If I can take the time to research and respond to your assertions then it is only fair that you respond to my questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
In the BOOK which I now have now the CORRECT Wounds on Kennedy head is displayed. The ones you are showing are incorrect and those have been part of the problem for along time according to the Author They came from the Hospital in Texas, were included with the Secret service report.
You never stated which of the head wound diagrams that I presented were incorrect, so how about clarifying that statement? Also, how about scanning the Menninger book images or diagrams and showing them to us? I was simply showing the immense difference between the Parkland Hospital diagram (black and white diagram) and the Warren Commission diagrams (colored) purporting to show the neck and head wounds and the bullet trajectory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
The actual bullet hole in the back of the head was on the left rear and the wound was hollowed out about an 1" through the skull and then there were metal pieces after that, all the way out of the skull which was missing.
Regarding the text which I bolded above for accent, if that were the case then how do you, or Menninger for that matter, explain that the "magic bullet," shown below, was found in pristine condition with no visible signs of deterioration other than the small amount of metal which was scraped off near the tip by the FBI for testing purposes?


Regarding the blowout "skull piece which was missing," if Menninger's theory were correct then that piece would have exited at the upper right area of Kennedy's head, and would have either fallen into the limousine or hit the pavement, but that's not the case. So what did happen with that skull piece? It is an undisputed fact that Jackie picked up that piece and held it in place on the President's head until reaching Parkland Hospital, but where did she find that skull piece? Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who ran to the rear of the limousine after the shooting and climbed aboard, talks about that in a November 2012 book, "Mrs Kennedy and Me." Clint explains that Jackie Kennedy leaped onto the back of the presidential limousine in a desperate bid to save her husband by attempting to retrieve a piece of his skull. Here's what Clint wrote:
"Somebody had fired a shot at the president, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the president and Mrs. Kennedy. Nothing else mattered." As he raced toward Jackie he could see "her eyes were filled with terror. She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the president's head." [emphasis added by Rickoff]

She then climbed back into the seat with Clint's help and cover and cradled Kennedy's head in her arms, saying, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?" Now how do you, or author Menninger, explain why the blown out piece of Jack's skull was found behind President Kennedy on the limo's trunk lid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
Menninger was given the correct drawings when he was granted access to the Ballistic from the naval hospital, or something like that.
You are simply assuming that the final autopsy report regarding the ballistics, as issued by the Bethesda Naval Hospital, is a correct and honest report. You are also assuming that the doctors at Parkland Hospital, who were the first to see Kennedy's head wounds, don't know what they were talking about when they described Kennedy's fatal head shot as entering from the front and creating a skull blowout area at the back of the head. The Parkland doctors all saw exactly what the wounds were, and none of them had any reason to bear false witness, whereas the doctors at the Naval Hospital were military men under the command of a higher officer, all of which were quite likely pressured to come up with a report that "fit" the official story of Oswald being the shooter.

Did you know, and/or did Menninger mention, that the lead autopsy doctor at the Naval Hospital, Commander J Humes, admitted to the Warren Commission that he burned his first autopsy report in the fireplace at his home? He later admitted to the ARRB that he had also destroyed his original handwritten autopsy notes. The Associated Press (AP) reported this in an August 2, 1998 article which stated, “Under oath [before the ARRB], Dr. Humes, finally acknowledged under persistent questioning – in testimony that differs from what he told the Warren Commission – that he had destroyed both his notes taken at the autopsy and the first draft of the autopsy report.” [bold character emphasis by Rickoff] What's more, notes that Dr Finck prepared on the night of the autopsy happen also to be missing. So unless someone else in the military who was involved in the chain of custody had destroyed Finck’s notes, Humes must have done it. According to the records, including his own affidavit, it was Commander Humes who took sole possession of all the autopsy notes, including Finck’s, and Dr Finck testified under oath to the ARRB on 5/24/1996 that he had written notes during the autopsy, but that he did not leave the morgue with them in his possession. See: ARRB Deposition of Pierre Finck, p. 14.

Don't you acknowledge that the destruction of original handwritten autopsy notes, and the destruction of the original autopsy report which was replaced by a later version, are very strong indicators that a cover-up of the medical evidence had occurred, and which makes the report given to Menninger an unreliable one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
I personally feel the simplist answer is the best and this one by for more simple than anything presented in the conspiracy realm.
I think you meant the simplest answer. Anyways, if you prefer simple explanations in regards to Kennedy's assassination then why not simply acknowledge that the evidence clearly points to Kennedy being shot from the front? What is simpler than an irrefutable understanding that his head violently jerked backwards, bouncing off the seat back, upon being hit by the fatal kill shot? You stated in an earlier post that this was due to the limo suddenly accelerating after the shot was fired, but I proved that was an incorrect assumption by showing that Jackie, who was leaning forwards, and unsupported at the time, was not thrust backwards. Can you come up with a "simple" explanation for that, as well as the fact that Jackie retrieved the blown out skull piece from the limo's trunk lid?

I am saying that neither of the two shots that hit Kennedy were fired from behind him. Can you present any credible evidence which would show that these shots were fired from behind, or that Oswald fired either of them? If so then please do show that evidence rather than repeating allegations unsupported by facts.
__________________
 

Last edited by rickoff; 11-13-2013 at 09:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4877  
Old 11-13-2013, 08:59 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
More simple questions for Matthew Jones......

There is absolutely no indisputable evidence to even suggest that Kennedy was shot from behind, or that Oswald was a shooter during the assassination. It is assumed by many people that the bullet wound to Kennedy's throat entered from the back of his neck and caused what appears to be a larger blowout wound at the front of his neck, as seen in the below photo. Is this also your and Menninger's conclusion?

The Warren Commission concluded that this rather large opening in Kennedy's throat was an exit wound, and that's certainly what it looks to be, but looks are deceiving and here's why:
Two of the first doctors to arrive in trauma room one at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dr Charles Carrico and Dr Malcolm Perry, described the throat wound as having the characteristics of an entry wound: small and circular. Dr. Carrico said it was "probably a 4- to 7-mm wound...rather round...no jagged edges..." Dr. Perry described it as about "5 mm" and "roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound..." Dr. Perry made a tracheotomy incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry stated the incision was "two to three centimeters" (less than 1 and 1/4 inches at most) wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed upon itself, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision."


In rather stark contrast, when the President's body was observed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital at the start of the official autopsy, the incision/wound in the throat was elongated and widened. The autopsy report described it as "a 6.5 cm long (more than 2 and 1/2 inches) transverse wound with widely gaping, irregular edges." In his testimony to the Warren Commission, chief pathologist Dr. James Humes said that it was actually "7 or 8 cm" in the transverse direction (as much as 3 inches or more).

It is rather obvious that someone intentionally altered the appearance of Kennedy's throat wound after his body left Parkland Hospital, and before the autopsy photo, shown above, was taken. Can you, or Meninger, explain why the wound was altered in this manner, other than to create a false impression of an exit wound? I suppose that you and Menninger might attempt to propose the idea that the Secret Service had done this before the body arrived in Bethesda, but that doesn't jive with testimony given by Jerrol Custer, a technician at the Bethesda Naval Hospital who supervised the taking of x-rays of the President's body before the autopsy began. When asked by the ARRB's Jeremy Gunn to describe the throat wound, Custer described the throat wound as a "typical bullet hole...a little bit bigger than my little finger...(in) diameter." After Custer was asked if he had observed a long incision or cut on the throat, Custer replied, "Not at that time, I didn't." After he had described the throat wound, Custer referred to schematics of the skull, saying that there was damage in the parietal temporal region with a "king-size hole" in the occipital region, into which two hands together would fit. The parietal temporal region at the upper side of the head corresponds to the bullet entrance area, while the occipital area is at the back of the skull, just as shown in the Parkland Hospital illustration reposted below, which you claimed was incorrect. Care to change your preferred theory?

__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 11-13-2013 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4878  
Old 11-14-2013, 01:35 AM
jdodson's Avatar
jdodson jdodson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Scientist View Post
Obamacare: it is hard to imagine that group of supposedly intelligent individuals (although that maybe debatable) could inadvertently concoct this total disaster of a bill and then those same people who created an agency that can listen it to all our cell phones in real time were not able to produce a working enrollment web site. How is this possible or was it done by design?

Could it be that Obamacare was never meant to be implemented? What if the real goal was a totally government run health care system, of course most people would probably be opposed to that. Thus they are left with using a problem, reaction, solution scenario.

First they create a problem, Obamacare. When seeing it the people react saying this is unacceptable and demand it must be changed. They then offer a solution, total government run health care, which in comparison now sounds reasonable.

If that was the plan, I think its backfiring.

Firstly, half the country doesnt even support Obamacare. (thankfully)
Secondly, I think the only reason Obamacare had so much support from the left wing was that they simply wanted to see change.
Hell or high water, democrat voters were ready to hold their nose and say "yes we can". Meanwhile not knowing anything about the bill...it was passed.
It seems this same voting block was significant enough to get Obama elected in the first place. (Obama being a politician with no real experience doing anything important.)

There will always be a percentage of people who want canada's single payer system.
But, those in the left wing who are on the fence will now get to see first hand, the government incompetence in running an unaffordable health insurance system.
Ultimately everyone seeing this Obamacare incompetence, I think will be very helpful in preventing a single payer system.

I can understand why people want government provided health care.
We already have government provided services like the fire and police departments which I think we can agree, works very well.
It would be great, to go into a doctors office without needing to be insured, or being worried if your medical claim will even be covered or if you will get cancelled by the insurance.

I dont think socialism itself is inherently a bad idea. The problem I have with socialism is the great amount of responsibility it requires from our leaders and ourselves.

I do not have confidence in our government which is already going bankrupt and already having robbed social security, to manage something as massive as universal health care. If our government was operating at a surplus, I would be far more supportive of a single payer system.

In light of our current financial death spiral, I will fight tooth and nail against giving any more financial power and control to the federal government.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4879  
Old 11-14-2013, 03:46 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Mad Scientist

On the one hand, I believe BIG screw-ups happen all the time in Gov't; people make mistakes all the time: as each of us looks at our own life, i'm sure we all can recall times when we have 'screwed up'. I believe the same thing happens in INSTITUTIONS. That is Institutional screw-ups.

SOME times, I look at things that some on this forum think of as vast conspiracies, and I think well, maybe THIS, (whatever THIS is) isn't a conspiracy, its a 'screw-up'?

However, I must admit; I remember following the whole debate run-up to passing o'bummercare, and I recall the ardent liberals pushing 'FOR', really wanted a single-payor system from the outset. And, were disappointed with O'bummer for not pushjing for one.

After all, suppose O'bummercare fails to enroll enough 'young invincibles' by the end of the sign-up period? That will mean that the majority of the people 'signing up' will be expensive people with multiple conditions, etc.

The Insurance companies will HAVE to raise the premiums on EVERYBODY; those with 'individual' plans, as well as those with 'good, employer based plans'. Or, they will lose $ on the deal, and so simply cease to 'bid' on plans in the exchanges; in other words get out of the business. Which, ultimately, leaves you with a single-payor plan.

I think its possible that some people who wanted a single payor system all along, COULD have written a law that would LEAD to single payor, all the while in effect saying "Well, we aren't going to single payor". On the other hand, I think the problems with the website are primarily a major screw-up.

If you want a 'conspiracy', over 1/2 the people in the country do not approve of or like o'bummercare; that means, logically, that over 1/2 the people hired, to do the work on the website, dissaprove of it, as well. I haven't heard anyone suggest that this was deliberate sabatoge, tho, and neither am I.

Just cause you can percieve someone as having a MOTIVE for something happeneing, doesn't MEAN, in and of itself, that something was a conspiracy, and not just a screw-up.

I think thats part of the problem with the Kennedy assasination; their are SO MANY who had MOTIVE; too many suspects. And, its entirely possible that Johnson, knowing or THINKING he knew who was behind it, decided that the American people would 'go ballistic' (literally) if they knew. And so he and Hoover etc. 'covered it up'.

I think the most value you can get from the Kennedy assasination is that it seems obvious IF you can 'muddy the waters' sufficiently',... and allowing for peoples short attention spans, for long enough, you can get away with anything. And THAT applies to current and future activities, LIKE O'bummercare, or other things that are going on, now. I'm not at all sure that O'bummer is secretly delighted with whats going on with the website, and saying "ALL part of my MASTER plan!". But, I think its entirely possible there are some on the 'far left' who are thinking "This could WELL lead to 'single-payor' if it collapses!" After all, by the time it collapses, 'we' will be too far into it, to 'go back'. So, its a kind of 'backing into' Single Payor, instead of charging in directly.Certainly, if any efforts are maed to 'fix' O'bummercare, THEY will be having input into the 'repairs', unlike Repubs, who have been shut-out of the process from the outset, and are continueing to and will in the future. Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4880  
Old 11-14-2013, 08:05 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Last night, I happened to catch a JFK presentation on CNN's Piers Morgan show. I was interested to see Morgan's assured spin on the assassination. Sure enough, he had three "experts" appear, and they all stated there was absolutely no evidence to support any conclusion other than that Oswald was the shooter, and that the Warren Commission had it right. Also on the show was Parkland Hospital's then chief resident physician, Dr Ronald Jones. When asked about what he had seen, Jones said this: (CNN video link here)
"As soon as I walked into Trauma Room One and saw him – Mrs. Kennedy was on the left inside the room – he was on a stretcher, arms were out on arm boards, and I saw a small wound in his neck, but I knew he had a large wound in the back of his head." [bolding emphasis by Rickoff]

So there we go once again, with Jones stating there was "a small wound in his neck," not the large one shown in the autopsy photo which I showed in my last post, and also stating that Kennedy "had a large wound in the back of his head." Of course Morgan appeared oblivious to the relevance of what Jones had just said, and never mentioned that this contradicted the Warren Commission report, and the autopsy report, concerning the wounds. Instead, Morgan immediately shifted the conversation to another person before coming back to Jones and asking a question not related to the wounds. And of course there was no mention that Jones' contradiction was supported by the sworn testimony of several other eyewitnesses, or the fact that these contradictions can only support Kennedy being shot from his front.

Something not seen in the CNN video was Dr Jones' closing statement. Morgan showed a clip of Jones stating he couldn't see any reason why any theory involving any shooter other than Oswald had any merit. He did mention that the small hole in Kennedy's throat "could have been an entrance wound," but said nothing about the wound at the rear of Kennedy's head being an obvious blowout wound. It is unimaginable that Jones himself does not realize the relevance of what he stated earlier in the interview, and why this assures that Kennedy was not killed by Oswald. So, the only logical conclusion that I can draw from his closing statement is that while he surreptitiously let loose the truth in his first statement, he only pretended not to realize the significance of what he had said, and did so because he prefers not to become added to the long list of eyewitnesses who have expired under unusual and suspicious circumstances.

Any viewer who did not have knowledge as to why Jones' first statement contradicts both his final statement, and the "official" story, would probably have come away from the program still believing that Oswald had killed Kennedy.

Tonight at 9:00 Eastern time CNN will feature a "special 2 hour presentation" about JFK and the assassination. Included will be a documentary, or docu-drama, created by Tom Hanks and titled "The Assassination of President Kennedy." From briefly hearing a preview, it looks like Hanks is going to insert at least some conspiracy oriented footage. I don't expect that the presentation will end upon a conclusion that the Warren Commission report was wrong, and that evidence was hidden and altered, but I'll watch the show anyways.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 11-14-2013 at 08:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4881  
Old 11-14-2013, 09:34 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Quotable quote of the day...

Quote:
"I never met Obama at Columbia. We were both Political Science majors, both Pre Law. We graduated on the same day. There were perhaps 100 to 150 of us in the Political Science department. And I thought I knew all of them. As the token big-mouthed conservative patriot, I know they all knew me. But not Obama. I never met him, saw him, or even heard of him. Not one of my friends at Columbia ever met him either. At our 30th class reunion last May, I could not find a single classmate who had ever met him." - Wayne Allyn Root, Columbia University class of 1963.

Wayne goes on to say this about the indoctrination and belief system of students at Columbia:


Quote:
In 1981 when a student burst through the doors to our political science class and screamed “The President has been shot. They’ve assassinated Reagan”… my classmates yelled, hugged, high-fived, and jumped up and down cheering the death of a Republican. Today most of my classmates are either in government with Obama, or controlling the mainstream media. They talk about “moderation and compromise,” but always remember 30 years ago they cheered for the death of a Republican.


But, there’s more. We were all taught a simple, but brilliant plan. My classmates discussed it 24/7. It was their “American Dream.” It was called “Cloward-Piven,” after former Columbia professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. To bring down America and our capitalist system, they were taught to overwhelm the system with massive spending, entitlements and debt. That would cause the economy to collapse, wipe out the middle class, and bring Americans to their knees, begging government to save them.


It’s the exact plan Obama has been implementing. The centerpiece is Obamacare. Obamacare isn’t about health care. It’s about bankrupting the middle class and addicting it to government dependency. It’s about redistributing wealth from the middle class and small business to Obama’s voters (the poor and unions). Its goal is to wipe out the last vestiges of middle class America, creating a two-class society: the super rich and the poor (both beholden to Obama). Obama learned well, it’s working to perfection.


So that explains the plan. But how do you implement it? We were taught that at Columbia too. A key component of the plan involved fooling the voters by calling yourself “moderate” and a “uniter,” even though you are a radical Marxist. We were taught to never admit what you really believe in. It involved demonizing your opponents, calling them “evil, greedy, extreme, radical, and terrorist.” Look in the mirror and call your opponents the very things you are. Obama learned well. The plan taught us to hide your true intensions (in other words- lie, misrepresent, commit fraud). So Obamacare is about “saving the uninsured,” as opposed to income redistribution. Government regulations are to “protect us from global warming,” as opposed to wiping out small business. Amnesty for illegal immigrants is about “fairness,” as opposed to creating 12 million new Democrat voters.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4882  
Old 11-15-2013, 02:54 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Excellent posts, as usual, Rick

Particularly the last one. Speaks for itself, so nothing to add but KUDO'S! Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4883  
Old 11-15-2013, 03:04 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
I suppose

ANOTHER 'part of the plan', probably covered in a sepreate class or coarse, (at Columbia, and probably other colleges as well), would be to degrade or destroy morality. One way to do this is to reward behavior that is immoral, and punish behavior that is moral, or responsible.
Such as penalising people who take responsibility for obtaining their OWN health insurance, so as to 'reward' those who haven't taken responsibility for obtaining theirs. And, with businesses, similarly rewarding BAD behavior, with TARP bail-out, etc.
This kind of behavior, by the Gov't., (it seems to me), can have a kind of 'cumulative' effect, on a Nation's people, both a 'demoralisng effect', in terms of morale, and a 'demoralising effect' in terms of them beginning to see moral questions and dilemmas in their lives in a different light? Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4884  
Old 11-15-2013, 06:23 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,263
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 15, 2013

During an appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Chicago radio host Eric ‘Mancow’ Muller revealed that actor Harry Lennix told him he was hired to train Obama how to look presidential by mimicking the actor’s demeanor and body language.

» Report: Obama is an Actor Trained by Harry Lennix Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

A
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4885  
Old 11-15-2013, 06:39 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Dude .... look at your reflection ???

__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development
Reply With Quote
  #4886  
Old 11-16-2013, 03:27 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358


A rope? Sure, what's your neck size?
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4887  
Old 11-16-2013, 04:35 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickoff View Post


A rope? Sure, what's your neck size?
Who will start the outboard engine?

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4888  
Old 11-16-2013, 10:57 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
Who will start the outboard engine?

Al
No one. It's a non-starter, just like Barry's website.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4889  
Old 11-17-2013, 12:16 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickoff View Post
No one. It's a non-starter, just like Barry's website.
Selena Gomez singing in Wizards of Waverly Place [Make It Happen] - YouTube

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4890  
Old 11-17-2013, 05:33 AM
jdodson's Avatar
jdodson jdodson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 183
My father got his health insurance cancellation today, thanks to Obamacare
He has had Anthem for the past year. It was basic coverage for a great price. Only needed it for any dire emergencies.
His private plan only cost $190 a month, on the cancellation notice they say they can switch to a comparable plan that is "compliant" with Obamacare.....for $485

"If you like your plan, you can keep it!"
Obama should be impeached.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers