Amazing JFK Speech on Conspiracy and Secrets and Propaganda

[Liberation Angel]

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberationAngels#p/f/12/3KeR3yMZi0g

[SDuderstadt]

1. Simple question...

Are you implying or insinuating that if JFK were alive today, he would be a "truther"? I object to coupling JFK's inspiring words to some of the more goofy aspects of the "truth movement" (for example, William Cooper).

[Liberation Angel]

3. What the hell does that even mean?

There is no connection between reality and your question, frankly.

I don't even know what a "truther" really means.

It sounds like a denigratory term.

insulting to people who speak or want to know the truth.

Or speak Truth to Power.

So , well, damn

I guess maybe

JFK would have been a truther.

touche!

[SDuderstadt]

12. "people who speak or want to know the truth"

There's a big difference between searching out evidence or proof and pimping some goofy CT video, dude.

[ryan_cats]

137. Speaking truth to power, uggh.

1) Speaking truth to power; I hate that phrase.

2) You're correct about 'Truther' being a derogatory term.

3) JFK was intelligent, I seriously doubt he would do nothing more than laugh at 'truthers'.

4) You're using one of the biggest cowards around as your avatar.

Something tells me your a little kookie.

[LARED]

2. Repulsive. nt

[Liberation Angel]

4. Ummmmm.... Why? A speech by JFK is "repulsive"

wow

I ought to play in this dungeon more often.

That is really funny!

You are such a card!

[William Seger]

5. No, your VIDEO is repulsive...

... for attempting to use JFK's speech to validate Freemason/Illuminati/New World Order horseshit. That's equivalent to accusing JFK of being a paranoid crackpot and an idiot. I'm pretty damned sure everyone in that room knew what JFK was talking about, and it wasn't Freemasons.

[Liberation Angel]

6. So New World Order is not real? Didn't Bush use that term?

Isn't it a Nazi term?

As far as Freemasons and Illuminati., I honestly know too little about them to comment on their influence in government. But i do know that damn near all presidents were masons and a good friend I have who is a mason has discussed the influence they have.

As for the context of the video, i wanted to post the speech of JFK. The context it is put in visually is not my choice. But i thought it was very effective.

JFK's speech is what I posted it ofr not the truth of the added content.

I did NOT find any of it repulisve.

And the New Wpr;d Order is EXACTLY what JFK was talking about (Bush, Rockefellers, Dulleses. Morgan, Wallkers, et al) and this is WHY he was murdered.

In THIS forum, I figured that it would be cool with most folks.

Apparently not with you, whatever your user name is (do you have more than one cause you responded with a different user name? - thanks)

[William Seger]

10. Oh, so you're just spreading someone else's bullshit

... on your YouTube channel 'cause you think it's "cool?"

Can't you at least come up with some original bullshit?

[Liberation Angel]

18. Umm, it's not BS and the video is well done

as an artist i thought it was well presented artistically (hence "cool") and I feel it represents the speech well.

But to be honest I looked at several versions of the speech and this one was, imho, one of the best done creatively.

But in terms of preaching to the choir it is effective whereas trying to bring nutjobs around that do not believe the Kennedys were murdered because they presented a threat to the NWO it is not so much.

Of course if you in the minority who actually believe the :official" stories of the assassinations, I simply feel sorry for you or else feel that a smear of me and the video is tactical.

So be it. My posting it was tactical too. I usually stay out of this forum because of the hostility against people who actually are trying to speak truth to power on this board.

If you want to detail specific parts of the speech and video that is somehow false, rather than just smearing it (anyone playing in this sandbox) that would be a more useful approach in terms of what this speech is really referring to.

I think it refers to secret societies and conspiracies and threats to our Nation. NOT communism although there are schools of thought that say the Communists were in the pocket of wall street (see Anthony Sutton, for example).

as for original materials, these are coming. I am assembling my data and sharing what I find in this which is a work in progress.

[SDuderstadt]

19. I'll take a swing at it...

William Cooper was a virulent RWer who:

1) despite what CT's claim, did NOT "predict" 9/11
2) was openly calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government by the "patriot movement"
3) who predictably died when he decided to shoot it out with federal agents rather than submit to the lawful warrant they were trying to serve upon him.

Why is he in the video?

[Liberation Angel]

23. Okay, fair enough, --- I know little about Cooper

and will check on that.

You know, I actually chose to link this video because it would open discussion od what JFK said NOT to necessarily endorse the whole content of the video. But generally I think it is well done and is pretty much right on.

as for Cooper and maybe a few other moments in this video, I do not yet have a response.

But this is a valid critique which leads to more reasonable discussion about the other content.

So I will delve further and see what i come up with as a response.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Here's a thought....

why didn't you just find a film or audio file of JFK simply delivering the speech without all the CT bullshit?

There are far more problems with that "film" than just Cooper, although he is one of the more glaring ones.

[Liberation Angel]

33. Got links? I'd be happy to.

And specifically what else besides . "its BS" do you have problems with.

be happy to deal with specifics when I have time. It is fair to ask.

IFm though, JFK spoke of Conspiracies and secret societies then how can this be CT bullshit (unless this is a total fabrication and is not JFK at all). I did enough searching to convinve me it is accurate and is JFK, but I suppose I could be fooled by a clever impostor. But I doubt that happened.

I think the speech is real and that he was speaking about the NWO. AND when I think of the NWO I consider the USSR a part of that because of the deals the most poweful wall streeters have had with them since their inception. (See Anthony Sutton and Carroll Quigley for more details)

[SDuderstadt]

35. Get a clue...

not one person here has claimed that JFK's speech is CT bullshit. The problem is all the CT bullshit packed in with it. I already gave you the William Cooper example.

Simple question: did you bother to fact-check any part of the film?

[Liberation Angel]

75. JFK dicusses conpiracies and secret societies.

But as far as fact checking I certainly did.

It rings mostly true to my seasoned ears.

[SDuderstadt]

77. "But as far as fact checking I certainly did"

Then why post a video that lionizes William Cooper??

[Liberation Angel]

90. I never said I endorse the whole thing and in fact have said the oppositie

as for lionizing William Cooper, I posted this so we could discuss the JFK speech and not Cooper.

If he is really "Lionized" in your opinion, then attack him.

I have no problem with that.

The POINT is to dicsuss these issues not bury them under the sand or under a bushel, as the saying goes.

If Cooper was a crackpot then provide facts to support that view. i am NOT defending Cooper and have said that already.

I am defending democracy and reasoned dialogue on these issues.

I realize that in order to get people to open their eyes and their minds less subjective methods are needed. banging folks over the hed with CT which is even in itself potentially disinformation (like, perhaps, William Cooper) isn't always the best way.

but the reason i posted this video is so that we could have this discussion which we are having.

[SDuderstadt]

92. "I posted this so we could discuss the JFK speech"

Bullshit. If that was your aim, you would have taken the time to locate a clip or transcript of JFK's speech to ANPA, rather than some clip which dishonestly couples JFK's words to warmed-over "further" nonsense.

Do you deny that Cooper was a far right wacko? If you do, do yourself a favor and locate a clip of a segment of his Internet radio shows. I find it odd that you profess to be an "anti-fascist", yet post something which makes Cooper out to be some sort of "9/11 truth" hero.

I think everyone has seen your post for what it actually is.

[Liberation Angel]

100. I am working today and can't respond just yet but as I've said repeatedly

I have no idea really who Cooper even is.

You question my motives and you assert certain things which I will get to.

Be patient.

and quit with the personal attacks.

that is all for now.

[William Seger]

26. You don't even CARE that it's only parts of JFK's speech, taken completely out of context

... deliberately, with the clear intent of promoting the lie that JFK believed bullshit conspiracy theories about Freemasons and imaginary Illuminati boogie-men -- and that with the deliberate intent of fooling gullible people into thinking those are serious and respectable theories. Now you think a "more reasonable discussion about the other content" is in order?

[Liberation Angel]

30. To be honest I DO care. But have you got a link? I am working today

and I don't have the time to search it right now.

Get me the complete speech and if I am wrong about it I will acknowledge that.

Truth never hurts.

And since I have not necessarily heard the whole speech (I do not know if I did, I played a few versions of it but am unable to know if it is all the speech or not cause I wasn't there with my own recorde,

Honestly I DO care.

Get me a link to the whole speech and I will listen to it.

Your point is well taken even if I may disagree with you after listening to it.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Why didn't you care enough to...

properly research it to begin with?

[Liberation Angel]

34. I did. I found enough evidence that it was real and I posted it

but frankly i really do not believe that it is inaccurate or misrepresented.

I do not know, as I mentioned in another post, where the original untouched audio is or whether it even exosts online.

But if it does I will listen to it. I heard enough of it to believe it was real and to raise it here for discussion.

Which is what we are doing.

I CAN'T authenticate it in a legal sense, but if you have the whole thing I'll listen and comment.

Otherwise this is a waste of time.

[SDuderstadt]

36. No....

the waste of time was you posting this nonsense to begin with, without fact-checking its claims.

At the very least, your subject line is misleading. It's not simply a JFK speech. I doubt if anyone would complain if you had bothered to post an accurate copy of his speech.

[William Seger]

86. Good grief

Link.

[Liberation Angel]

95. Okay, I have now read the entire speech and stand by my posting of the video

Thanks for the links.

The purpose of my post of this video was to allow DUers to hear words of JFK's that i had never heard before about the issues of conspiracies, secret societies, propaganda and totalitarianism.

The reason i stand by the posting of this video is that it was meant to open up dialogue and I found the presentation useful and interesting for that purpose

BECAUSE

what JFK was saying WAS indeed about the NWO in the sense that Totalitarianism is a danger to all of us.

In the context of THIS speech he was indeed speaking in his very young presidency about the Cold War. But his words are just as applicable to the totalitarians which ultimately murdered him and in fact, as I have stated repeatedly, the evidence I have relied on demonstrates that the Soviets at that time were in league with fascists here in the US from Wall Street who had financed Hitler and who also provided support to Stalin AFTER the end of WWII.

Global Conspiracies are what JFK was talking about and his own way he was describing EXACTLY the NWOers and their techniques and tactics which would ultimately destroy him and perhaps result in a fatal blow to our Democracy and our world (indeed to all humanity).

Communism as practiced by Stalin (but which many would argue was not truly Communist nor Socialist) was simple fascism in a Socialist guise (as National Socialism i.e.Naziism, was) with a plan, as Hitler had with the Bush/Rockefeller elites backing him, for a global fascist state or, in other words, a New World Order.

The fact is that Wall Street alliances behind the scenes with Stalin were precisely the piece of the puzzle that JFK at that moment did not or could not really understand. The fascist were in his own government undermining him and helping the NWO.

When JFK began to try to diusmantle this fascist conspiracy within our own government he was shot down in cold blood.

THAT is why this video is relevent and valid as a means of raising the issues.

it is no Cherry picking. It is not woowoo conspiracy theory. It is what JFK saw as a global conspiracy theory which uses secrets and lies to subvert democracy. In this speech he was discussing the current issues facing the country with respect to the "Cold War" AND he was discussing the battle between fascism and democracy for control of "one world" (which he refers to at the end of the speech).

NOW

I plan to review the video to take the criticisms of it point by point.

If you want to raise other issues besides the generic issue that JFK's words are ONLY applicable to socalled Communism (though i would argue they are and may be interpreted as going much farther than JUST "Communism" but reach to levels of conspiracy much deeper than the cold war alone) I would welcome that.

We can agree to disagree on the whether JFK's words have applicability to the NWO or western style secret societies which originated in the Nazi-mentalities and their precursors and which were adopted by WASP elites in this country, especially in secret societies like Yale's fraternities , particularly Skull and Bones, Harvard's "Supper Clubs", particularly Porcellian and the Princeton "Tea Clubs". I believe they are very apt and applicable and portentious, especially given my belief that JFK was murdered by tis very same NWO which was in collusion with the Soviet fascists.

Clearly he WAS speaking about these secret societies here in the US when he addressed that issue and clearly he was speaking about a global conspiracy when he referred to the Cold War. Did he know their was collusion between people in our own government, wall street and the Soviets? Maybe he did. And maybe that is why he was asking for help in this way. But maybe he did not fully understand it, was too idealistic, too spiritual, too elitist and blinded himself and maybe naive, to believe he would be murdered by his own countrymen; and those, at that, who were working with the very dark forces he was speaking of in this speech.

I have sources and info I am not willing to share here and now about this collusion but it is written about by Carroll Quigley as well as Anthony Sutton and can easily be googled or binged, etc. if you want to argue that my "theory" is "BS" or woowoo. These are respected scholars who understand and revealed much which the NWO/BFEE wants us to be unaware of.

It is like the Bush collusion with the Chinese Communists and the Saudis and other totalitarians like Peron, the Shah of Iran, Somoza, and on and on.

THAT is the NWO and hat is what we are up against and THAT IS what JFK was talking about. Dark forces who will use any means to subvert democracy.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Simple question...

Why did EMK, in his memoir, reiterate his steadfast belief in the Warren Commission Report?

[Liberation Angel]

101. Got links?

I have no idea what he said, but if you have a direct quote I'd be happy to respond.

As for Ted, I knew him personally (barely but in fact) but i also know he had some dark stuff around him too.

So I really have NO idea why he might say anything remotely like that.

I know the Select Committee found there was likely a conspiracy. And thus the Warren Commission report was a fabrication. But Teddy's position? Je ne sais pas. Maybe he did not want to be next. Maybe he was blackmailed. Maybe he was in denial. Too late to ask him now.

But if Bobby hadn't been murdered by the same spooks maybe we woulda known and the world would be a better place and the fascists would be in prison for life.

[William Seger]

97. Fraud

I went to your YouTube channel a little earlier to see if you had taken that bullshit video down yet, now that you have the facts, and instead I saw a comment that had a very interesting link. I just checked again and I see that instead of deleting the video, you deleted that comment. Why don't you explain to your many fans here what was in that comment?

[SDuderstadt]

98. I'd like to know what was...

in that comment, WS. I'm relatively certain we won't hear it from "Liberation Angel".

For the record, I don't remotely believe "Liberation Angel" is any kind of "investigative journalist" nor do I remotely believe the claim about having been a "criminal investigator".

[William Seger]

99. Just a link to a video...

... basically saying the same thing many people here are saying -- that LiberationAngel's video is a gross, deliberate distortion of the speech and an insult to JFK: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=928_1217456062

That much is obvious from the full transcript, but the interesting part of the video is that it points out that the "events of recent weeks" JFK referred to was the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and that some newspapers had published articles about the groups training for the invasion. JFK was asking for the publishers' help in not exposing secrets that could jeopardize national security, not for help in exposing the vast Freemason/Illuminati conspiracy.

Now, LiberationAngel is trying to rationalize the video by claiming that if JFK was talking about Communism, then the video is actually accurate, apparently because on LiberationAngel's planet, Communism was just a part of the vast Freemason/Illuminati conspiracy to control the world.

[Liberation Angel]

104. ODD - I did not delete videos or comments

but I noticed that it had happened.

Somebody hack much or did they delete their own comment so I would not go to their youtube site?

Maybe it was something else....

Like to discredit me by CLAIMING I deleted it.

I did not.

4 comments were deleted but I never saw any of them.

AND, I already said that the Freemason/Illuminati stuff is pretty much a red herring.

The NWO is not.

[William Seger]

110. Yeah, whatever

I don't think you have any credibility left to salvage, anyway.

[zappaman]

112. suuuuuuuuure....

must be the NWO deleting them

[Liberation Angel]

123. Somebody is but I am not

curiouser and curiouser.

[William Seger]

116. LMAO, those hackers are quick, ain't they!

My reposting of that link on your channel "disappeared" in less than 2 minutes.

[Liberation Angel]

122. I didn't delete it

so, i guess you are actually right. They are quick.

Or maybe something else is at work and someone with your username and password deleted it without telling you.

[spooked911]

128. Yes, communism was in fact a conspiracy by the elites

that is why JFK's speech works on different levels-- and is very important.

If his speech was just about communism, why isn't communism mentioned ONCE in the speech?

What IS mentioned? SECRET SOCIETIES.

Jeez, dude. Get a clue, or at least ACT like you have a clue.

[SDuderstadt]

129. "communism was, in fact, a conspiracy by the elites"

Would you please explain this, Spooked?

[spooked911]

130. what exactly do you not understand?

do you not see why the elites and secret societies would want to set up giant adversaries to promote war? Not to mention the nuclear aspect of this.

[SDuderstadt]

131. "not to mention the nuclear aspect of this"

Y'know, you're really fucking brilliant, Spooked. Did nuclear weapons exist at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution? Again, could you provide specific evidence of your claim?

As I have pointed out repeatedly, this is why you're not taken seriously here and have evolved into a kind of inside joke.

[William Seger]

132. Oh, I've got lots of clues

I've gotten many, many clues on this board about what happens to peoples' reasoning processes once they get sucked down the spiral of neurotic paranoid conspiracism.

But as for the speech: To anyone who reads the whole speech without that particular form of dysfunctional reasoning, there is absolutely no reason to think that JFK was accusing the Freemasons or Illumninati or the Skull and Bones Society or the Bohemian Club (or the Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission or the CFR) of conducting a "Cold War" against us "around the globe," or that JFK was asking the newspaper publishers to use discretion in publishing information that would be useful to them. That interpretation of the speech is beyond bizarre, and in fact completely impossible without the heavy editing and misleading graphics used in this bullshit video. If you "deduced" that's what JFK meant simply because he "mentions" secret societies just before the "but" that introduces the point he was actually trying to make, then I've got (yet another) clue that your reasoning processes are severely crippled with self-inflicted blindness and agenda-driven irrationality. If you want to make irrational claims like that, then knock yourself out, but you have absolutely no right to attempt to borrow any undeserved credibility from JFK. If you can't comprehend that simple point, then I've got another clue.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Y'know, Spooked....

between your "communism was in fact a conspiracy by the elites" and LiberationAngel's absurd claim that Hitler didn't die in the last days of the Third Reich, there's really no reason to take anything either one of you has to say seriously, let alone engage with you guys.

[William Seger]

25. Yes, Freemason/Illuminati conspiracism is pure bullshit

If you don't quite understand the distinction between rational views of reality and unsubstantiated speculation promoted into paranoid delusion, then I think it's easy to predict what your "data" will look like. There's lots and lots of "data" out there like that bullshit video you copped.

A lot of people think Oliver Stone's JFK movie was a documentary. That's a good example of why I say bullshit never did anyone any good.

[Liberation Angel]

37. Stone's JFK was dead on correct. But it was not a documentary that's true

It was a dramatization and he took few liberties with the facts and where he did he acknowledged them publicly and fairly.

But now you are bordering on insulting me.

As far as the Illuminati and Freemasons I know too little to comment on whether they have any real influence the way that say, the members of Skull and Bones and Porcellian and the Pirnceton Tea Clubs do in inel, finance, wall street etc.

But I suspect many among the illuminati and freemasons have links to these people and may or may not have such juice anymore, if they ever did.

But there is nothing delusional about conspiracies and assassinations and murder. Pinpointing and establishing specific perps is very difficult in this landscape.

But I wouyld argue that "ruling out" such groups as being players in the NWO would be delusional without evidence.

Sure, substantiation would be nice.

But you NEED to speculate when you are invesdtigating such crimes.

Who has motive. Qui bono? What evidence is there for their participation?

Substantiation is subjective as well. One person's proof is another person's disproof. It is like eye witnesses. They are notoriously wrong and unreliable even when they BELIEVE what they thought or said they saw is accurate; the mind can play tricks on us and so can devious men (people).


Saying something is BS is just a way not to have to argue the facts.

Search freemasons and the Illuminati on wikipedia. It is a question which could be debated endlessly. Since I know so little about either of them and kind of consider them red herrings to detract from the real MF's who govern things (WASP supremacists) then I will have to delve further.

As far the NWO THAT was stated plainy by Bush I and Hitler.

[SDuderstadt]

38. "he took a few liberties with the facts"

There are over 100 blatant factual errors in "JFK".

Did you know that?

[Liberation Angel]

42. Arguing this issue would take too much time.

If you have a link to factual errors analyzed etc, I will take a look at it. As an investigative journalist and criminal investigator I have looked at reams of evidence for many years. I have interviewed some folks close to this as well.

Stone's portrayal is the best I've seen. But it WAS a dramatization of actual events so 100% percent accuracy isn't even a possibility. AND Stone acknowledged speculation and actually delineates what that is.

Factually wrong info I would be happy to parse.

But you need to provide.

[SDuderstadt]

44. "As an investigative journalist and criminal investigator I have looked at reams of evidence for...

many years".

If you're an investigative journalist and criminal investigator, why aren't you aware of these blatant factual errors already?

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

[Liberation Angel]

48. The site you link to is a disinformation site

Jst analyzing one piece of data, for example the Umbrella man (and the dark complected man) shows that the alleged error is not at all an error but a theory of the assassination.

It hasn't been proved nor has it been disproved.

But if you google search and see the Umbrella Man videos and analysis on youtube for example, you can see that his testimony before the house select committee is entirely noncredible.

THAT is the "proof" that Stone is promoting a blatant factual error? Some guys testimony which sounds about as unreliable as you can get?

These lies about Stone anjd the coverup are just that: lies. Stone said such theories were conjecture (or they are clearly explained as theories in the film), Just cause a character said or did ssomething in the film doesn't mean it is Stone's "facts" on the assassination: they are characters playoing roles and explaining the theories and are NJOT conclusive;y facts or errors.

Stone's work was imho pretty impeccable.

I could probably debunk every one of the lies posted on that weirdo site but why bother?

Maybe I will spend time some day doing it. but for now it is not time I have to waste on a disinformationist. I have other fish to fry and earn a living in the meantime too.

[SDuderstadt]

49. "I could probably debunk every one of the lies posted on that weirdo site but why bother?"

What bullshit.

We can let the readers decide for themselves.

Your invocation of the "genetic fallacy" doesn't work with me. The real irony is you post some goofy CT bullshit video that hijacks a JFK speech in the process, then you have the audacity to accuse me or anyone else of "disinformation"?

Simple question: if the "umbrella man" did anything other than what he testified to before the HSCA, why did he sit on the curb after the assassination? Wouldn't you expect him to flee the scene?

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100tum.html

[Liberation Angel]

50. Maybe he was waiting for orders from the walkie talkie guy he was sitting with

Watch the youtube video of this stuff,

His actions make absolutely no sense at all. And is testimony is totally noncredible.

And for the record

I am NOT calling you a disinformationist - I am calling the operator of that assassination information site attacking Oliver Stone as a disinformationist,

But readers CAN decide for themselves and there is some useful info at this site (like all good disinfo which is most effective when 99% true and 1% false, say, for example, the protocols which are true regarding the NWO for the most part in terms of idealogy and machiavellian tactics etc, although its fictional, and false when it claims it is a zionist conspiracy)


But without context and KNOWING it is propaganda for the New World Order the info is useless and worse: it is a lie. BUT if you KNOW what it is you can glean useful tidbits out of it. i had never read umbrella man's testimony. It is BS, but I am glad I read it so i can see exactly HOW full of shit that testimony was.

[SDuderstadt]

51. "Maybe he was waiting for orders from the walkie talkie guy he was sitting with"

You've got to be kidding. According to Stone and Garrison, Witt is cueing the shooter(s), then after the fatal shot, he sits down on the curb and stays there.

If you are, as you claim, a "criminal investigator", some government entity is wasting their money. Your obsession with the "NWO" is equally laughable.

[Liberation Angel]

65. Sounds plausible to me. But if you actually WATCH what is happening

in the films made of him. He is sitting WITH a man who is using a walkie talkie until he disappears.

The man with the walkie has not been identified. But the umbrella man's actions LOOK suspicious and his denials are meaningless (if the guy who says he was the umbrella man even really IS the umbrella man).

As far as being a criminal investigator, i do not work for the government. But I have. In several capacities: including murder and fraud investigations and racketeering. i know my stuff.

Stone and Garrisons theory is certainly plausible and the evidence for it is certainly not disproven or debunked.

[SDuderstadt]

68. "i know my stuff"

Yes, that's why you embrace Stone and Garrison.

[Liberation Angel]

72. Yep, And why I embrace antiFascists everywhere

and always oppose the lies and methods of Fascism

as Stone still does and Garrison did when he was alive.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Garrison was an idiot....

WTF does any of this have to do with anti-fascism?

[Liberation Angel]

76. Fascists killed JFK. Garrison was trying to expose them.

thats what.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Lee Harvey Oswald was...

no fascist.

[Liberation Angel]

80. That is arguable. But also I doubt sincerely that he was the killer.

He was the patsy.

ALSO he was working for the fascists who killed him.

So maybe he was a fascist (or at least on their payroll).

[SDuderstadt]

81. Jesus fucking christ...

He was the patsy? Based upon what? Because he said so?

It's been nearly fifty years. Can't you guys turn something up and crack this case????

[Liberation Angel]

82. well, jeez, wow....

Its cracked already.

Hunt and Sturgis were the shooters and Dulles and Bush were the COO's of the op.

How;s that?

[SDuderstadt]

83. More goofy CT bullshit....

Duh.

[Liberation Angel]

89. more goofy anti- ct bs - WOOOOOOOO!!!!

really

pot calling the kettle black

look, I get it. You don't get it.

And you will keep up the jaunt here to discredit my posts and views probably forever because that is what you enjoy doing.

But for those of us who care about this country we MUST keep asking questions, posing theses, examining the data, ad refrain from ridiculing theories about who and what is working behind the scenes to keep fascists in power and totally in control of our country and the globe. And not really always behind the scenes: now a lot of it is wide open: targeted assassinations, drone attacks, murder by any other name, collateral damage, internet spying, electronic surveillance.

Whatever you want to call it, there ARE conspiracies and individuals and organizations who seek to destroy our Constitution and our rights and our futures for their short term necrophilic greedy and blood-soaked gains

get used to it.

[SDuderstadt]

93. "get used to it'

Trust me, we are. Now; you should get used to being called on providing a misleading subject line and not doing the work to locate a clip of JFK's speech to ANPA (which others did with remarkably little effort, despite your protest that you "didn't have the time").

[deconstruct911]

134. If you don't like the content

too bad.

[SDuderstadt]

135. The content is bullshit...

more "truther" nonsense. This is why you guys are nowhere nearly nine years later.

[Coldpal]

136. I'm with you, Lib

I bet the person debating you thinks Ruby killed Oswald because Ruby felt very sad about Jackie Kennedy, so he decided to go to jail forever in order to spare her tears.

[William Seger]

94. Unbelievable

If you think that movie just took "a few liberties with the facts" and is nonetheless "dead on correct" then you seem to have spent about as much time "investigating" the JFK assassination as you have that JFK speech and the Illuminati. Oh, but anyone who might try to give you some more accurate information to evaluate is a "disinformationist?" Any attempt to correct your misconceptions must be "tactical?" You're an "investigative journalist" who doesn't have "time to waste" fact-checking the bullshit you propagate? You're a "criminal investigator" who doesn't hesitate to toss around completely unsubstantiated accusations against anyone implicated by ignorant, distorted, and delusional views of history?

Gosh, how rude of me to imply any insult. Anyone interested in the "truth" is fortunate to have a fearless "investigative journalist and criminal investigator" like you around. Otherwise, they could end up with a head full of crap, huh.

[Liberation Angel]

102. I see what you are doing

smear away.

I'm a tarbaby.

The harder you hit the more you will get stuck in the body of truth.

But personal attacks are not cool, dude.

[William Seger]

111. Apparently, you do NOT see what I am doing

You posted a bullshit video, and you got called on it, by several people. I told you exactly why in my first post: because bullshit never did anyone any good. You could have let it quietly drop at that point, but you decided to dig the hole deeper. You STILL don't give a DAMN that the video takes parts of JFK's speech completely out of context to dishonestly assert that he was talking about the grand Freemason/Illuminati world domination conspiracy and asking the newspaper publishers to help him expose it. That's the tarpit YOU'RE stuck in now, and if that's what you call the "body of truth" then people can decide for themselves what that says about your credibility.

[Liberation Angel]

121. Freemasonry and the Illuminati are examples of secret societies that JFK refers to

Totalitarian New World Order is exacrly what he was describing. His example in the speech is the Soviets; but it is equally applicable to the NWO.

Plu, i have already said that the Freemasons and Illuminati are largely red herrings when global fascism is really the problem.

And that view is well represented by analogy to what the Soviets were doing.

In 1961 JFK was still finding his feet. The Bay of Pigs was a giant clusterf*ck run by the NWO/BFEE who were also in cahoots with the Soviets.

So, yeah, i do give a damn.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[Liberation Angel]

7. This video speaks truth to power. Is THAT repulsive to YOU?

As for conspiracy and crackpots etc: I would venture to say JFK was murdered by these crackpot conspirators who WANT people who try to expose them to be viewed as crackpot conspiracists.

If you think ANYONE would think JFK was a crackpot and an idiot because he knew that there WERE dark forces at work in the world behind the scenes, and that secret societies ADDED to the problems in the world (and arguably this includes the Masons, and again the illumunati I am no expert on at all) then I think your are deluding yourself.

WHO was JFK talking about?

I think you are right and it wasn't mainly the freemasons (although some of them certainly were and because it is secret maybe we will never know) but to put this out there for people to think about is hardly repulsive.

It is positive and worthwhile.

No horseshit, dude, JFK and his brother were BOTH murdered by these dark forces.

but if it wasn't NWO guys then WHO was it and who was he referring to, Unaffiliated dark forces? LOL!

anyway, the speech is the message, The imagery is just, imho, one effective means to bring JFK's points home - correctly and justly!

[Make7]

8. If the speech was the message, why were only parts of it pasted together to omit its context?

The answer to who JFK was talking about, and also who he was talking to, can be found in the parts of the speech not included in that video presentation.
 

[Ohio Joe]

13. meh... It is not really a surprise

Cherry picking is the CT'ers best Friend. It is how shit gets spread on the internet via youtube, cherry pick little bits and parts from this and that and put them together with suggestive background visuals and crappy music. Why do they always use crappy music? I think thats the real mystery.

[Make7]

54. Another thing I find unsurprising is that the OP seems unaware the speech was cherry-picked...

... yet claims that the video accurately represents the meaning of JFK's words. :eyes:

How difficult is it to find a complete speech by a former U.S. President? And the OP claims to be an investigative journalist. Impressive research skills.
______

I think there are subliminal anti-NWO messages in the music. What other possible explanation could there be?
 

[Liberation Angel]

69. Look, I listened to several versions of this.

But i LIKED this video and thought it made points that the others did not.

If you think quoting JFK is cherry picking, then so be it. That is what you think.

Finding the complete speech is what i would like to do, but it is more a matter of time.

I asked those who say it is not representative of that speech to provide me links BECAUSE I am working and do not have time right this second to do so.

It is not my skills which are a problem it is limited time resources plus trying to respond to every woowoo attack on my credibility and bona fides.

If you have a link for this, please link it and I will respond. Otherwise, quit with the personal attacks.

[SDuderstadt]

73. "every woowoo attack on my credibility and bona fides"

I assume you were not aiming for unintentional irony here.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

85. You mean fascists like...

William Cooper?

[Make7]

84. Follow this link to find the whole speech:

 
   JFK Address to ANPA


I look forward to a discussion of the differences between what JFK actually meant and what was imparted to his words in the video that you posted.
 

[Liberation Angel]

91. thanks

okay

[SDuderstadt]

9. It appears that...

your "who, me?" defense is not working, dude.

[William Seger]

11. Bullshit never did anyone any good

Freemason/Illuminati bullshit is not "truth to power."

JFK was talking about the "red menace."

JFK was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.

RFK was murdered by Sirhan Sirhan.

Any more questions?

[LARED]

14. Was that was a speech by JFK?

How could one know? It is completely out of context. With superimposed images having nothing to do with his words; the best I can tell.

JFK was not some oddball Illuminati believing woo swilling crackpot, so my comment could only mean the video and those that post it are repulsive

[Liberation Angel]

105. Was it was.

and the video is context for the maker's position that JFK's words relate more deeply to the truth than most may ever know or believe:

That the NWO was working hand in glove with the Soviets.

[Liberation Angel]

17. Well, I can see that THIS forum is productive for reasoned dialogue about such things.

:banghead: :sarcasm:

[LARED]

28. You want reasoned dialogue?

Then why post a video that is completely unreasonable, idiotic, outright disingenuous, that sullies the name and memory of a fine man and President?

Bang your woo infested noggin on that that.

[Liberation Angel]

67. Oh. That helps.

That that is really constructive.

A personal attack.

Nice.

But inappropriate.

I won't alert just yet.

But I will if such attacks get out of hand here. YOU broke the rules. Not me.

How;s that that?

[LARED]

87. How about you admitting the crap you posted

was taken out of context, and is nonsense. The transcript was provided by a number of posters and still no response by you.

[Liberation Angel]

103. not happening

not yet.

I am looking at specific complaints and will get back to you.

But I did respond to the actual audio/transcript and stand by the value of this video and the exercise even though i have repeatedly said I do not endorse every jot and tittle of it.

I am working on Cooper.

PLUS

I have already said that such things as this video CAN be used by the extreme right to discredit the truth contained in them.

So maybe that is a factor here.

Mostly truth and a littlle woowoo with the Cooper. I will let you know on that.

But I am working and can respond later (actually I am going to vote right now for my democratic choices).

Cheers.

[deconstruct911]

15. have you seen wkjo?

Barry Seal & the civil air patrol unit part....

[Liberation Angel]

16. No - Got links?

[deconstruct911]

20. I recommend watching the entire film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_whpf5-yeYo

Full film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCFWcKVeWUE&feature=related

edit.The film is more about 9/11 but I found the connection of the civil air patrol unit & jfk interesting by the intelligence connection to the drug trade.

[SDuderstadt]

21. What a fucking stupid...

"film".

Did you bother to fact-check ANY of it? Wait, I think I just answered my own question.

[Liberation Angel]

22. thanks - I'll watch it tomorrow

nt

[LARED]

27. Wow, the very first sentence in the film is incorrect

Which is of course a good thing so I don't waste more than 30 seconds.

Here's a question, exactly how uninformed does someone have to be to believe the CIA created Islamic Fundamentalism?

[Liberation Angel]

29. How uninformed does someone have to be to NOT see it?

The backlash against the US by Fundamentalists is created in large part by our policies ands actions.

We initially funded MANY of those groups we are now at war with via covert operations as well as other not so covert support (especially in Afghanistan during the Soviet conflict. NWOer Brzezinski, now an informal advisor to Obama, was a strong promoter of that but it came through intel ops.

Via the Saudis and our support and association with their fundamentalism and totalitarianism and by buying their oil we supported the funding of Al Qaeda and those groups who were killing pilots on the planes which crashed on 9-11. The CIA (or some other black operators off the shelf) had a hand in their training at US pilot schools and was watching them, even managing them.

So I would argue that only an uninformed person could NOT see that the fundies we are now killing and being killed by were in largew part created by the US and the CIA. I know and have interviewed one intel operator who told me thisL that the Taliban and Al Qarda support and financing by the US was insane and was going to mess us up bad. And so it is messing us up bad.

I haven't watched the film yet so i can't comment on it. But the first statement sounds true to me.

It may be a bit hyperbolic since fundamentalism in all religions goes back to their origins. But the CURRENT set of our worst "enemies" were created in large part with US tax dollars channeled through intel budgets and/or oil profits from the Saudis paid for by our wasteful mass consumption of their oil.

[SDuderstadt]

31. "but the first statement sounds true to me"

If it was true, you could actually prove it with evidence.

It's a patently stupid claim.

[Liberation Angel]

43. It rings true in the reiteration here.

I haven't even heard it yet.

And there is plenty of evidence that we funded Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and the Taliban. Also via our support for the Saudi royals and the ISI we directly and indirectly finance such fundamentalist groups (not to mention sending weapons to them and to war zones which they now use against us.)

Stupid?

Nah!

Its history.

Historical, not hysterical (although it is hysterically funny that someone could deny it with a straight face).

But, again, i have not seen the film so maybe I speak too soon.

Some CT is disinformation for sure from the extreme right made to make the real conspiracies more obscure and to create red herrings.

[SDuderstadt]

46. If it's "history"...

then provide some concrete evidence of it. I'm not interested in conspiracy theory "tribal knowledge".

[deconstruct911]

45. well said

and the 93 Emad Salem story was true. The FBI knew about the 93 bombing in advance and I'm not positive on this but I believe the convicted bombers were funded during the soviet invasion era. The whole thing is just a psy-ops.

[LARED]

52. Simple question

In the video "Who killed John ONeill" the very first sentence says--

"On July 3rd 1979 the CIA gave birth to Islamic Fundamentalism...."

Is that the truth?

[Liberation Angel]

71. Yes, it is,

But it is a qualified yes.

The CIA gave birth to MODERN Islamic Fundementalism in its current state.

I already said basic fundamentalism goes baxk way before that.

But as far as what is the CURRENT incarnation of it as perpetual war - yeah - it is ture.

[LARED]

88. Still wrong

You might want to investigate the difference between Islamic fundamentalism and radicalized Islamic fundamentalism.

There are perhaps hundreds of millions of people that identify with fundamentalist Islam going back long before 1979.

Even if you look at the radicalized Islam it goes back at least a few decades before 1979.

[Liberation Angel]

106. But US funding it in 1979 gave rise to a whole new version of it

one which created the blowback we have now.

It is a new incarnation of, a new birthing of, the fundamentalist movement which is creating hell on earth today: THAT is a US creation.

[deconstruct911]

40. wait a minute

so how exactly would they get weapons on mass scale without the drug trade? Please let us in on this one it should be good.

[LARED]

53. What does that have to do with the first sentence in the film? nt

[Liberation Angel]

47. A Reviewer called the "First 9-11" art film. Shot on a shoestring budget.

I saved it to my conspuracy theory playlist.

It is worth watching.

I do think the claim at the outset that we gave birth to Islamist Fundamentalism is hyperbole BUT it needs only o be qualified to state that we gave birth in large part to the CURRENT fundamentalist Islamic movement of mass warfare and perpetual global war (which our rich make oodles of money from and our soldiers and many civilians die)

Islamic fundamentalism started a way lot longer ago than 1978-9.

But we ceertainly aided its rise to where it is now: a global clusterf*ck financed by spooks of all stripes with one goal: totalitariansim and corporofascism.

Thanks for telling me about this. i am not crazy about the music or the style but appreciate the effort. It is a valiant work of political art.

[deconstruct911]

55. Hey

glad you took the time to check it out. I saw it a long time ago and didn't think much of it & found the start particularly annoying until I researched 9/11 as deep as possible and came across the "convar" data recovery off hard drives from the destroyed buildings pertaining to insider trading. Upon further research I started to realize the connection to what the film depicts-- insurance companies etc-- I find the film most helpful with BCCI/Iran/Contra/those that have emerged from the district attorneys office in New York & the cases they prosecuted leading up to 9/11.

Also the reason the film started out like that is because it attempts to shed light on the psy-ops leading up to 9/11. It starts by creating a Patsy....

Take care.

[SDuderstadt]

56. "it attempts to shed light on the psy-ops leading up to 9/11"

I gotta tell ya that you guys just might be onto something. You should also know that if you hit too close to home, you're putting your lives in danger.

I'm assuming the satire smiley is not necessary.

[deconstruct911]

59. nor is your feedback most of the time

considering I wasn't replying to you. No worries though it's good to know on a daily bases your opinions haven't changed.

[SDuderstadt]

60. You guys are my heroes....

Let me know how I can help.

[deconstruct911]

64. the skeptic is the help

you're doing a fine job.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Yes, dude...

the "truth movement" is exploding (sorry, couldn't help myself)...why, you guys are the rage at the Democratic National Convention, aren't you?

[Liberation Angel]

39. Illuminati on wikipedia

has many informative links and deals with the issues of Freemasonry and the NWO.

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

The Illuminati is real. It was banned but there are others who use it in their rituals and secret societies.

Does it have any influence or is it a red herring?

I have no idea just now, but I suspect the latter.

The NWO does not need such an organization as the Freemasons or the Illuminati anymore imho (except maybe as a recruitment methodology). It has plenty of organizations already both secret and more or less public. They are too powerful to need to hide the organizations, but they DO hide what they are doing.

[Liberation Angel]

41. List of Freemasons (link- wiki)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons

The absence of any Rockefellers, Bushes, and Dulles tells me that unless they are "secret" members, this groups influence is large but not really a deep part of the NWO fascists.

I feel pretty much the same way about the Illuminati.

Yet BOTH groups in one form or another may be recruting grounds for the larger BFEE.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

58. "resident shills"....

LOLOLOL.

[spooked911]

114. yeah

*HILARIOUS*

[spooked911]

61. "John Fitzgerald Kennedy, The Last True President Of The United States"

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/11/john-fitzgerald-kennedy-last-true.html

[SDuderstadt]

62. Spooked....

I hate to burst your bubble, but it's a fair bet that JFK would not endorse your goofy bullshit.


P.S. Despite that, I am certain JFK would have loved to see your bunny cage experiment.

[LARED]

63. I just know someone, somewhere, believes

the Alien overlords were responsible for JFK's murder.

[Liberation Angel]

70. and others believe...

it was the BFEE (I do).

AND

That the BFEE is still using propaganda and disinformation to cover it up.

[LARED]

142. Do you beleive

the so called BFEE is controlled by alien overlords?

[spooked911]

113. Fair bet?

That dude was *totally* onto the deeper nature of things -- the things that you act oblivious to.

[SDuderstadt]

115. Of course, dude....

we all know JFK would have embraced "no-planes", mini-nukes and all your pet claims. I daresay he would, if alive, be the president of your fan club.

[LARED]

143. A fan club is a great idea

I think with a little effort we could have a Spooked911 fan page on Facebook, so lots more can enjoy the show.

[defendandprotect]

141. Agree with that -- wholeheartedly . . .

And they moved everything very smoothly from that point on with taking over

government --

The cover-up got a little cramped for them now and then but there always seemed to

be a new killing of a witness coming along to calm things down for them!

They say something like 100 lawyers in DC alone were murdered fairly soon after the coup.

I've also read that the night of the coup, many in DC pretty much knew who was invovled

and were speaking their names.



Imagine the first 16,000 "advisers" in VN were pretty much all CIA!

The betrayals of presidents and threats to them - pushing them to war -- is just insane.


Seemed to be the same story with Kruschev who also feared his right wing generals!

Re Bay of Pigs: Kennedy correctly realized he was set up, and that those who landed were meant to be endangered, so as to force him to a wider war!

Howard Hunt's involvement here is interesting -- his long "act" of suffering over killed members

of the raid isn't believable. Hunt is too involved in all of this for that to be believable.

Hunt has to know this is a total set up. Hunt also gets busy in the Nixon White House basement

as "plumber" trying to forge cables suggesting that JFK "approved" the killing of Diem!



Just repeating this for those who may not have read the whole article ...

Now many know of Operation Northwoods, that Joint Chiefs Chairman General Lemnitzer tried to get JFK to sign onto. This Op, that Kennedy vetoed, included the U.S. blowing up planes and ships and killing American passengers, and even Astronaut John Glenn in his rocket, and blame it all on Castro and Cuba, to facilitate public support for a total invasion of Cuba. Kennedy sacked Gen. Lemnitzer and put in Gen. Maxwell Taylor, who earlier had himself been sacked by President Eisenhower. Taylor was later part of the Hawaii group that countermanded Kennedy’s Vietnam withdrawal order, before he was shot. But few know of a vastly worse, global “Op” that was studied on 7/20/61 and 9/12/63 by the National Security Council. This plan involved a massive, all out, pre-emptive nuclear attack on the USSR and China before the end of 1963. They reasoned that the U.S. would suffer “minimal retaliatory damage” if the pre-emptive attack occurred before the end of 1963. Kennedy walked out of the 7/20/61 meeting to express his disgust, verbally indicating that those who planned such things shouldn’t call themselves “human beings”. He was apparently not aware of the 9/12/63 meeting on the subject. The reference here is Noel Twyman’s book, "Bloody Treason". (pages 517-520) As always, Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay was involved in the planned nuclear holocaust Op-plan. In 1945, LeMay ran the U.S. Air Force’s firebombing of Tokyo and most other large Japanese cities that killed several hundred thousand civilians. His assistant then was Colonel Robert McNamara. Their roles would later be reversed (ostensibly). McNamara has admitted that he and LeMay discussed that if Japan won, they would be tried as war criminals. So we see the same perps are used again and again for the same reasons—here involvement in mass murder of civilians. If you find amoral people, promote them to the top and kill any person of peace-- including the President--who gets in the way. But perhaps this nuclear nightmare, that JFK wanted no part of, is relevant to today’s monsters who have plans to nuke Iran, which-- as before-- threatens to involve Russia and China in global, nuclear war.

Le May and McNamara -- agree with JFK they have no right to call themselves human beings!

I've no doubt that the right wing will still try to pull this off -- they hid the horrific reality

of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and I've no doubt they'll try to use atomic weapons in Iran --

Even easier to hide what nukes would do there!



I didn't know JFK had ordered removal of the Jupiter Missiles PRE-Cuban Crisis . . .

Listen in at about 3:42 of that tape from Oct. 24, 1962, but the quality is poor. This remarkable conversation between the Kennedys is usually left out of all “official” histories of the matter. This includes the supposed “complete” tome (read by me), "The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis", edited by Ernest May and Philip Zelikow. Yes, that Zelikow, who was Executive Director of the 911 Commission! Now the Cuban Missile Crisis, which supposedly almost led to global thermonuclear war and holocaust, could have been avoided, but JFK’s earlier orders to remove the 15 Jupiter missiles in Turkey, near the USSR border, were not followed. These nuclear missiles-- so close to the USSR border-- were the alleged reason Premier Kruschev sent nuclear missiles to Cuba.


Also repeating this in case anyone still doesn't know this stuff --

President Kennedy is also credited with taking the first steps— countermanded upon his murder— of smashing the Federal Reserve Bank when he issued orders that included the U.S govt directly printing money, and left out borrowing from this unconstitutional, PRIVATE enterprise that not even Congress’ GAO can audit, and which leads to massive govt debt. Some people still possess the 1962 “U.S. Notes” (as opposed to “Federal Reserve Notes”) that were printed. Kennedy also forced US Steel to retract their 10% price increase, and fought to end the oil depletion allowance. He started the ball rolling on civil rights. He tried to get the whole alien/UFO matter released to the public, but admitted even he, as President, had his hands tied on that one! There is information now, strange as it may sound to the novice in conspiratorial matters, that the CIA and NSA (and other more hidden agencies?) were created in response to the UFO/alien matters of Maury Island, Roswell and others. See my “Ultimate Truths” article here.


Also repeating this in case anyone still doesn't know this stuff --

President Kennedy is also credited with taking the first steps— countermanded upon his murder— of smashing the Federal Reserve Bank when he issued orders that included the U.S govt directly printing money, and left out borrowing from this unconstitutional, PRIVATE enterprise that not even Congress’ GAO can audit, and which leads to massive govt debt. Some people still possess the 1962 “U.S. Notes” (as opposed to “Federal Reserve Notes”) that were printed. Kennedy also forced US Steel to retract their 10% price increase, and fought to end the oil depletion allowance. He started the ball rolling on civil rights. He tried to get the whole alien/UFO matter released to the public, but admitted even he, as President, had his hands tied on that one! There is information now, strange as it may sound to the novice in conspiratorial matters, that the CIA and NSA (and other more hidden agencies?) were created in response to the UFO/alien matters of Maury Island, Roswell and others. See my “Ultimate Truths” article here.

The FED still undermining us all for benefit of elites --

And US Steel -- that was something that shook the power structure --

And re the "alien/UFO" stuff ... from what Poppy Bush told Carter -- "you don't have high

enough security clearance to see the UFO info" -- evidently, alien/UFO stuff is mroe secret

and more highly classified info than atomic weapons!!



Gonna throw this into my Journal just for the record --




Note: Reply to --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=125&topic_id=291727&mesg_id=291952

[Liberation Angel]

107. On Cooper, Red Herrings, Disinformation and DU - after a very careful review

Having really had very little idea who William Cooper was (but BOY did this name Cooper raise red flags for some folks when there is SO MUCH that could be criticized in the video!) I spent a LITTLE time looking carefully at some of the most prominent internet info.

By no means a thorough search but clearly a representative one.

Cooper may very well have been what he claimed many others were: a disinformationist. Or he may have believed what he was saying based on his military experience. I do not have the pay grade to judge, frankly - but it sounds like SOME of what he says is so far out that it can be easily ridiculed whereas some other stuff is exactly on point and stuff I agree with. Of cpourse I seldom rule out any theories as woo woo unless they are profascist woowoo which is the biggest and nastiest and deadly and monstrous and heinous woowoo of all. Aliens? Who the hell knows, Stephen Hawkings is warried about them and he knows more than most of the planet combined about such things - or else he's just more woowoo and the idea that aliens may pose a threat to us, which Hawkings says, is drivel. Did Cooper believe it or was it a red herring. i suspect the latter.

He was killed by the authorities in an apparent gun battle when they tried to arrest him. Some sources say the authorities fired first. But he was broadcasting his NWO theories on the airwaves and may very well have been a victim of his own success at broadcasting his views. We will never know. Maybe he just died because he was a gun nut. Maybe he went into witness protection and his death wasn't even real (like Hitler)

But here's the deal, fellow DUers, for my analysis:

The JFK video I posted is a speech I'd never heard before in a context which CLEARLY shows that this is an analogy to TODAY'S events.

The murder of political activists and media which mentions Cooper brifly and in passing is about a few seconds in a ten minute video - yet MUCH is made of the fact that Cooper is in it.

The REASON I do not find his inclusion objectionable is that Cooper was apparently killed for his antigovernment and pro-gun, pro-self defense position. He feared for his life and the lives of his family, apparently, and had sent them away out of the country.

Now whether Cooper was a real patriot or a military veteran with a very active imagination or a PLANT by the NWO to create red herrings, or even somethinbg else involving black ops, i have NO way of knowing.

His image is used to illustrate the analogy made in the vid that the things JFK was talking about are happening now (and in fact these dark forces in the world KILLED JFK for his opposition to them. Cooper was a victim of a government gone wild, perhaps, or a simple martyr for the second amendment. But if he felt his life was in danger he may well have been justified legally in firing back at those in plain clothes who were shooting at him. Who knows. I don't.

I am not lionizing him nor do I think the video does. It mentions him as a possible murder victim for his activism. I have no idea if he was, but the inclusion of it is appropriate in my opinion BECAUSE it MAT have been a murder for his political beliefs - or just very bad police work when dealing with a guy promoting the second amendment and not recognizing the government's authority.

But then again he may have been WORKING for the black operators to make such ideas as many of his seem ridiculous (an old propaganda psych warfare meme).

So after all this anyone who is freaked out and overreacting to the moment of Cooper in the film can keep in mind that it is a VERY small hook to hang a whole argument on that the video is ivalid.

The Video is an analogization of todays events and people to the speech of JFK and I believe it works very well.

Despite a little hyperbole and misdirection. For the most part the analogies fit imho.

And Cooper belongs in this video given its content.

[SDuderstadt]

108. "Maybe he went into witness protection and his death wasn't even real (like Hitler)"

Okay, I'm done.

Before I go, however, there is a question I have posed to the more reason-challenged conspiracy theorists here and I feel compelled to ask it of you.

Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

[zappaman]

109. actually Hitler's death was faked

they found a body double.
the real Hitler worked for the CIA and was even involved in the moon hoax.
so good work piecing this together!

[Liberation Angel]

119. There is probably more truth to that than you know

But the moon hoax thing is a little far fetched imho. I have a good friend whom i interviewed who worked on the moon landing. It was for real.

But maybe Hitler came up with the disinfo meme that it was fake.

Wouldn't that be something?

[Liberation Angel]

120. Sure, plenty.

And I only embrace theories that have solid evidence and science behind them.

I don't believe the moon landing was faked. I don't believe that Oswald or Sirhan murdered JFK and RFK. I don't believe in that 9-11 was done by Islamists, I don't believe that the Tonkin Bay incident was done by communists. I don't believe the communists burned the Reichstag.

Plenty of nutjob theories I do not embrace.

[William Seger]

117. What rot

> And Cooper belongs in this video given its content.

Really? Well, let's look at that context. That section of the video comes right after JFK talks about a global conspiracy, and while everyone in that room knew he was talking about Communism (since they weren't listening to segments taken out of context), your bullshit video uses "a little hyperbole and misdirection" to edit the speech and flash all sorts of Masonic symbols to lie about what he was saying. Let's look at the complete list of people that flash on the screen as JFK's line "it's dissenters are silenced not praised" is repeated over and over:

Martin Luther King
John Lennon
Princess Diana
Benazir Bhutto
Tupac Amaru Shakur
Dr. David Kelly
William Cooper
Barry Jennings

Your video implicitly accuses Freemasons of murdering those people to silence them, and you say "for the most part the analogies fit." You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

[Liberation Angel]

118. You are spinning this in ways that are inaccurate

There is analogy and references to the power of secret societies and I have already stated that I believe the Freemasons really are a red herring for the most part although there may be members of the masons who are evil and corrupt supporters of a fascist new world order.

Yet the Freemasons ARE a secret society which JFK IS talking about. It is analogy not a direct accusation by any means.

Really the groups this addresses is moreso the CFR, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove and the Bilderberger groups (which you are silent about).

Analogies are useful and the Masons are representative of secret groups BECAUSE THEY HAVE OATHS OF SECRECY and by their very nature appear to be conspiratorial due to these oaths and secret brotherhoods. That is what JFK was speaking about directly (not communists) in the part of his speech dealing with secret societies. That is what the video is using as an example of the problem JFK addresses NOT that the Masons killed ANYONE (which you senselessly extrapolate from a few masonic symbols used to represent secret societies.

As for the speech it is damn near complete and is MEANT to be an analogy for what the problem in the world is today, yet the problem is not global communism as practived by the Soviets, but a New Worl order as practived by fascists: two sides of the same coin.

Only Tupac on that list of names is someone whose death I do not know enough to say he was silenced by such dark foeces as Cointelpro and other blackops. And maybe he was too.

Masonuic symbols are representative of secret societies - and they ARE one.

Aren't they?

[William Seger]

126. I do believe anyone who can read the original speech

... with ordinary reading comprehension skills can easily see that you are the one who attempting to spin that bullshit video by pretending that you aren't bright enough to distinguish between what JFK actually said and what that video tries to make of it. But I'm pretty sure that isn't really your problem. You apparently can't admit even to yourself that you got suckered into believing that egregious and slanderous distortion of reality simply because it "rang true" with your paranoid worldview. For some strange reason, you seem to think that continuing to defend that bullshit will make you look less foolish than admitting you fell for it. I don't agree; I think it makes you look twice as foolish. But hey, if you think anyone here still cares about your opinions and viewpoints after this behavior, then you must be beyond shameless, so keep posting and digging the hole deeper. What a shame that you can't delete replies here, huh, given your allergy to the truth.

[Make7]

124. For anyone interested in hearing or reading JFK's full speech...

 
Note to Moderators: This speech is in the public domain as shown at the top of the webpage with audio.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

     I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

     You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

     You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

     We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

     But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

     If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

     I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

     It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

     Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

     Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

     If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

     On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

     It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

     My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

     I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

     This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

     The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

     But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

     Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

     If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

     It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

     Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

     Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

     For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

     The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

     The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

     On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

     I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

     Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

     And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

     Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

     It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

     No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

     I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

     Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

     This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

     It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

     And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.


http://www.jfklibrary.org/

[Liberation Angel]

125. that works!

now make a video illustrating all those key points, folks.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

138. JFK speech should be allowable in "general"... as a needed reminder to us all!!

Yes -- JFK was speaking out against the right wing -- and his responses are

right there for our Dems to use today --

After they killed JFK, people's government and its responses were muted --

[Octafish]

139. It's been pretty much uninterrupted war ever since then.

Oh, and the rich have continued to get richer and more powerful.

[defendandprotect]

140. Seems our monopoly -- anti-trust laws -- are permnently in moth balls ...!!