pap

There is the deathbed confession of E Howard Hunt. Perhaps every opportunity is a bit strong, but they clashed over far more than Northwoods. Kennedy was burned by the military over the Bay of Pigs. They told him it'd be a slam dunk, and he privately never forgave them. They never forgave him because he never committed the resources to take the island. In 1961, Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, presented Kennedy with a plan for a surprise attack on the Soviet Union. This is actually a fairly balanced account of the briefing, which has been released in the public domain. http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/CMC50/ScottSaganSIOP62TheNuclearWarPlanBriefingtoPreside ntKennedyInternationalSecurity.pdf Well worth a read. On hearing the plan, Kennedy apparently walked out of the briefing in disgust, remarking "and we call ourselves the human race". In 1962, Northwoods was presented. Kennedy rejected it out of hand and sent Lemnizter off to Europe to command NATO three months later. Lemnizter brought much of it on himself; after Northwoods he is reported to have refused to speak with Kennedy directly. Much of the testimony relies on the account of Arthur Schlesinger, Pulitzer winning author of A Thousand Days. Robert Dallek writes that Kennedy was planning for US withdrawal from South East Asia as early as 1962, another desired objective of the US war machine that Eisenhower warned people about. Didn't LBJ say "get me re-elected, then you can have your damn war?" Blocked them on Northwood and that was it? Behave. I believe we've covered this. Agreed. You're completely misrepresting what Northwoods means. No one is claiming it happened. However, it's a matter of public record that it was signed off by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and blocked by Kennedy. Northwoods gives an insight into what the joint chiefs of staff considered acceptable. They all signed off on a terror campaign on their own soil to arouse public sentiment against Castro's regime. You're trying to pass it off as if it has no consequence. Northwoods never happened because JFK blocked it. JFK wasn't around to block any Operation Northwoods style plans after 1963. Agreed? I note the use of the qualifier decisive. There is decisive evidence of a very limited investigation for the scale of the crime. The crappy NIST pancake theory you promoted on the 9/11 thread is f**king hilarious. "Yes. Here's what happened. These two buildings, see. The ones that have held all their mass since being erected, were crushed by the same mass, from roof to floor, when that mass was in dust form" There is a wealth of evidence disproving aspects of the account, but no one wants to know. Good to see you getting in the anti-Semite association thing again. That's not transparent at all. No professed interest or opinion. More anti-Semite references ( have to admit it's losing its power now ). No professed interest or opinion, but you're still plugging away with that anti-Semite stuff. Lordy, this is starting to look like an obsession! About as much "investigation" as 9/11. The "let's round up a posse for no good reason" incident. I have to ask you, and I'm sorry to be so direct, but I have difficulty getting answers out of you. Are you a rabid anti-Semite? You seem very interested in this sort of thing. And never mentioned once on here apart from Verbal! Fancy that! Mate, play to your strengths. You are most effective as a strawman debater who uses insults and feigned disgust to try and prove a point. Don't try to do the empathy thing. Tonally, it's just not nasty enough to sit with your other work. Cool story, bro.

See my points about the amount of people you'd actually need. When an intelligence service infiltrates an organisation, it doesn't need to infiltrate every position in order to be effective. With the automation and reliance on technology, you don't even need to be on-site. Since you bring it up, 9/11 might be a good example of how chaos can act as an enabler. On the day of 9/11, NORAD were running drills simulating hijacked airliner scenario. Confusion reigned in the FAA. When hijacked planes were reported, operators were asking "real or simulated?". You say that thousands of people would have to be in the know. I don't agree - the chaos at the FAA was ultimately a systems and communications failure. You don't need thousands of people to pull that off. Calling someone's existence sad is subjective at the best of times, because it's always relative to what you'd call normal. However, honestly - I do think I'm a bit sad for spending the amount of time I do on here, not on conspiracy sites. I'm sure there are others in a similar boat. Good point, and a definite minus point for the "it's all a sham" line of thinking. But do you think for a second either of them will enter a plea of not guilty?

Bearsy on hols. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPylI9t1cMw Welcome back, mucker.

Not being funny, aintforever, but have you ever heard of moles? I know there's a fair chance that someone will label this the usual conspiracy rubbish, but they've been a staple of intelligence services for centuries, providing intelligence and operational support, in secret, to their respective parent organisations. The assumption that I think you're making is that everything that happens needs to be meticulously controlled. I wouldn't say that's safe. Just as much can be achieved under cover of chaos and uncertainty, and it doesn't take many people to create that.

It's neither, and let's not kid ourselves - the only reason you're trying to get me to commit to a grand conspiracy theory is that you can storm the position as soon as I take it. I'll grant you this; it's a much more admirable debating position than some others I've seen on here. At least you are asking a question, rather than starting with the answer and working your way back. "The government" is a bit of a catch all term which isn't really helpful. JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy that went beyond Lee Harvey Oswald. The Joint Chiefs of staff, who signed off on a plan to conduct terror operations on its own citizens, were resolutely against him. The feeling was mutual. JFK tried to circumvent them at every opportunity. Was the entire US government in on the plot? Nope, but it is likely that the plot had direction from elements of it - and my money would be on a subset of the joint chiefs plus others. They had no qualms about conducting state-sponsored terror in their Northwoods proposal. They presided over a period in history where political assassinations were rife. JFK, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, all avoiding the road to war in Cuba/Vietnam, all dead in a five year time span. Was the entire US government comprised of moustache-twirling cigar chomping bastards hell-bent on war? No, but it hardly needed to be. There is no government in the world that operates on the basis that all of its members unanimously agree on something. Instead, we use the same thing we do almost everywhere else, a hierarchical system in which decisions are delegated to others. For the record, I'd consider any notion of an entire government conspiring against its citizens to be laughable, but I'd consider the possibility that rogue elements within it could do so, and have likely done so in the past.

Governments tends to be spectacularly dysfunctional affairs, riven with infighting, ultimately bounded to the length of the Parliament, usually involving some gratuitous ideological projects or restructuring. You have a point. What I would say though, is that despite the confrontational and transient nature of Parliament, we have managed pretty well in the past when it comes to running covert ops. We pretty much taught the US the art of deception in war. So yeah, while I'd have a measure of agreement with what you say, government and state are not the same thing. The government might be comprised of rank incompetents, but elements of the state, such as the secret services, definitely do have the capability to conduct such an operation.

So Smirking, have you managed to resolve every issue you've ever pondered on to your total satisfaction, or have there been occasions when you are unable to present a concrete view because you don't have all of the information? You don't have to believe something for it to be worthy of consideration. It's okay not to be in full possession of the facts. I'm intrigued by your last comment. Why is it pretty scary? What do you think I'm going to do, exactly? You're either easily cowed or have got something in mind. Do share

Hmm, those are my choices, eh? I do find it funny that you're calling me out for having no balls, especially in the context of this thread. How many of you are arrayed against me on this issue? Is it likely to win me any popularity contests? Nah. Is it a tad more ballsy than providing the occasional me-too remark amongst relative literary giants? Probs

See my earlier points on belief, CB Saint. I think I'm pretty clear.

If you were a witness in court, would the jury believe you without question if you said "you knew something for a fact"? Nah, they'd weigh it in with everything else.

Thanks for the articulate response on your positions regarding conspiracy theorists. I can't say I agree, but then that would hardly surprise you. We're unfortunately at loggerheads on other points too. See, I don't really respond to "you should be ashamed of yourself" or "you should really slink away in total embarrassment". I recognise it for what it is. It's the same boll*cks I've seen for four years. Y'know, absolute true story. I was interested in this stuff in the mid-2000s, but my interest fell away around 2006. Priorities, and while I retained a passing interest, it was actually your merciless bullying of John Smith in the age old "Do we know and should we care" thread that got me back into it. You were so vehemently opposed to him that at the time, I felt someone needed to stick up for him. So I waded in there, in much the same way as I did on this thread, and slowly but surely *****ed my ears up again. I don't know about you, but I find that f**king delicious.

It honestly depends on how freakish it is. See, I could quite live with being the hippy ringleader of a "bad girls and me" freakish sex cult, but one man's passion is another man's poison. Who knows what Glasgow might be into? For all we know, he might only be able to get aroused by squirrels, and I'm not sure I'm up for that.

I think I've already covered my position for belief, stu0x. A more accurate question would be "why do I consider it?". Let's remind ourselves of the scope of my claims on this thread. I said the pictures had been altered before publication on national media. I know TV expert Verbal dodged the question of how many separate pieces of footage we were watching. I make it two, which fits nicely with his progressive vs interlace explanation. Thing is, the old analogue standard, which was entirely interlace, didn't suffer from artefacting. If anything, it was the advent of the digital age, particularly in the nascent stages of MPEG, that we began to see the most artefacting. Any snooker fan celebrating the birth of digital telly was quickly disappointed in the late 90s. ITV's early football coverage was akin to watching a green spewing carpet. The reason artefacting occurs in compressed footage is due to the way that the video is stored. Digital video is rarely stored frame-by-frame. The MPEG format, and most others since, work by sending mathematical transformations, telling the player how to turn one frame into the next. In slow moving scenes, this works a treat, because each transformation is quite small. The problem occurs when you get a lot of change, all at once, and not enough transformational commands to turn one frame into the next. In the first video I posted, you barely see any artefacting. In the second, you see loads. Alright, fair dos - that might be the differing results of two different recording devices with different capability, or recording at different bit rates, but I doubt it. Those hands are blurrier than pretty much everything else in the footage, and the difference in colour between the two shots of palms is stark. If the whole video had been been colour changed, you'd have seen that reflected everywhere. To me, one looks more legit than the other. It's not a case of belief.

Well, we've moved on from hateful obscenity. That's a start.

Ah, give a man some time to type.

I like people to be tried by a jury of their peers. It looks like this might happen in this case, so I will await the case with interest. However, what evidence have people brought to the table here? That the effects might be achievable with popular video editor VLC. Emphatically not. Your first hand experience is my second hand experience. You're placing a lot of stock in the concept of belief. It's really not the way my head works, and I couldn't give a hoot whether you believe that or not. For me, belief is an entirely dangerous thing, at odds with what I consider to be life's mission; to discover the answers. Belief is genuinely stifling, imo. I know that some people take great faith in unshakeable truths from holy books. To me, it's the very opposite of what life is about. Really?

C'mon now. I've said I don't approve of getting personal. I'm sure buctootim is here of his own volition. Don't turn the man into a government stooge.

I accepted Glasgow's friend request, but only after he changed his avatar to Morph. I couldn't quite bring myself to accept when he had the freaky avatar, but my attitude softened on seeing him rendered as Tony Hart's plasticine plaything. I still think that I may have made a terrible mistake, and there's some freakish sex cult lurking just round the corner, but I stand by my decision.

pap disregards your remark, and resumes playing with his imaginary hedgehog Derek.

The nice thing about a thinly-veiled, not entirely attributed insult is that you can ascribe any qualities you want, and if someone challenges you on it, you can say "ah, I was just talking generally". I've raised questions, expressed doubts, provided possible explanations for things that people said couldn't/wouldn't happen in good faith, and pointed out the obvious ease at which people can be created, bread and butter stuff for any serious intelligence agency. You really are out to destroy now, aren't you? Good luck.

My advice would be to go for the Nexus 7. It's a more capable machine, plus you can get a Kindle app for it. Not sure whether you can buy books in-app, but you can always just open a browser and buy from there. I don't really use my old Kindle anymore since getting the iPad. Traditional Kindles are great for fiction, but really crap for a lot of reference books you might be interested in. The App running on a decent tablet is a much better bet. I often sit the iPad upright and bung it next to a monitor. Very handy productivity boost.

Some would consider what you just wrote to be defamation of character. The truth is that beyond this forum, and what I post on my blog, or other social media, you know nothing about me. This is why I try my best not to get personal on here. I can't say I always succeed, and I've certainly had a few snide words for you in the past, but I'm ever mindful that what I see on here is a fragment of a person, most of the time not even qualified by a real life identity. I find myself in accord with posters on some issues and completely opposed to them on others, but the whole time, I'm still conscious of what I'm seeing. Fragments. What they share on here, that's about it. Within the confines of this debate, I've been very careful not to subscribe to an over-arching theory, partly out of ignorance, but mostly out of common sense. Aspects of it don't sit right with me. They do to you. Fine, we'll agree to differ. What I don't understand is why the same three people, namely yourself, Verbal and VFTT, have thrown such abuse my way and made wild leaps of faith about my general character based on very little information. Verbal's continuing insistence that I'm keeping company with the likes of info-wars or neo-nazi's is a f*cking joke. I'm a lefty with some serious trust issues when it comes to the government. It's a shame it can't be left at that, but you have to go further. We've had our beefs over the years, buctootim - but I don't dislike you, nor do I spend my time idly constructing an entire life story and psychological profile for you. I don't have enough of it. I have enjoyed interacting with all three of you in the past, but your overt abuse in this thread has been disgusting, and says a lot more about you than it does me. pap might be crazy. There are worse things to be, as you've ably demonstrated on this thread.

Is that really necessary?

The best explanation provided for the lack of blood in the video I've posted is VLC video manipulation. When people make these points, they handily ignore the points I make afterward, such as the colour levels going up universally in that scenario. As for spending less time on the Internet, you sure you want to level that at me, 7.6K post boy? We joined at the same time

Here is an article with ten. Dunno if you'd call them major. http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefarious-conspiracies-proven-true/