DC to discuss Real History
This coming year's JFK Conference, to be held in DC Nov 18-20, has one of the most illustrious set of speakers ever gathered.
Gary Hart, who investigated the JFK assassination as part of his role on the Church Committee in the seventies, will be there.
James Bamford, author of A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies, and Body of Secrets, in which he describes how the military and Kennedy were at serious odds over Operation Northwoods and other activities, will speak.
So will Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post, David Talbot of Salon, Professor John Newman, and so many others. See this list for the complete set of speakers and topics.
I hope to attend, and bring some tidbits of the talks back to this blog. When I first got into this case, I attended a conference and took copious notes, and shared as much as I could with the Internet audience. Amazingly, those reports are still out there.
The JFK case is the one that really opened my eyes to real history. The government and the mainstream media told us one version of events. But the actual data tells a clearly radically different story. Clearly. Radically.
The book that first helped me start to really put together what I was learning was Mark Lane's book Plausible Denial because he was the first to illustrate for me directly the link between the CIA and the media. If the CIA killed Kennedy, and the CIA controlled the media, then it suddenly made sense that the evidence said one thing and the media another. Doh!
From this, I branched out into other events. If the mainstream media could be so completely wrong on the Kennedy assassination, what else where they completely wrong about?
The Iraq war, obviously. But what about other events? The downing of TWA Flight 800. When all those witnesses saw something hit TWA Flight 800 in the sky, do you remember who did the rebuttal video? The CIA put together a "simulation" showing the plane breaking up and the flames ascending in their attempt to say when the plane was falling, the flames were going up, and that's what people saw. In other words, what was up was down, what was before was after. What's amazing is how many people fall for that kind of disinformation. I would have been one of them, had I not studied the Kennedy case in depth for a period of years.
When people used to join the CIA under James Angleton, he wouldn't let them work in his counterintelligence outfit until they had studied one Soviet deception case, called "The Trust", for two full years. Only then were they fit to study counterintelligence. Similarly, I wish citizens would study the Kennedy assassination for two years. After that, they would never take any government or media pronouncement on faith alone. They would ask to see the evidence. They would ask better questions, and hold the government and media more accountable to the truth. A pipe dream? Of course. But you can educate yourself, you know? No one's stopping you.
Yet.
Gary Hart, who investigated the JFK assassination as part of his role on the Church Committee in the seventies, will be there.
James Bamford, author of A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies, and Body of Secrets, in which he describes how the military and Kennedy were at serious odds over Operation Northwoods and other activities, will speak.
So will Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post, David Talbot of Salon, Professor John Newman, and so many others. See this list for the complete set of speakers and topics.
I hope to attend, and bring some tidbits of the talks back to this blog. When I first got into this case, I attended a conference and took copious notes, and shared as much as I could with the Internet audience. Amazingly, those reports are still out there.
The JFK case is the one that really opened my eyes to real history. The government and the mainstream media told us one version of events. But the actual data tells a clearly radically different story. Clearly. Radically.
The book that first helped me start to really put together what I was learning was Mark Lane's book Plausible Denial because he was the first to illustrate for me directly the link between the CIA and the media. If the CIA killed Kennedy, and the CIA controlled the media, then it suddenly made sense that the evidence said one thing and the media another. Doh!
From this, I branched out into other events. If the mainstream media could be so completely wrong on the Kennedy assassination, what else where they completely wrong about?
The Iraq war, obviously. But what about other events? The downing of TWA Flight 800. When all those witnesses saw something hit TWA Flight 800 in the sky, do you remember who did the rebuttal video? The CIA put together a "simulation" showing the plane breaking up and the flames ascending in their attempt to say when the plane was falling, the flames were going up, and that's what people saw. In other words, what was up was down, what was before was after. What's amazing is how many people fall for that kind of disinformation. I would have been one of them, had I not studied the Kennedy case in depth for a period of years.
When people used to join the CIA under James Angleton, he wouldn't let them work in his counterintelligence outfit until they had studied one Soviet deception case, called "The Trust", for two full years. Only then were they fit to study counterintelligence. Similarly, I wish citizens would study the Kennedy assassination for two years. After that, they would never take any government or media pronouncement on faith alone. They would ask to see the evidence. They would ask better questions, and hold the government and media more accountable to the truth. A pipe dream? Of course. But you can educate yourself, you know? No one's stopping you.
Yet.
posted by Real History Lisa at 9:04 PM - Permanent Link -
3 Comments:
The cartoon of Flight 800 was sort of like the drawings we saw as "proof" of Sadams intricate bunker system that reached some 10's of stories below ground level.
I understand Thom Hartmann has written a new book that is due out within a few months.
"We solved the murder, and the cover up..." - Thom Hartmann
more info on my blog
related article
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/13th_Issue/copa_ciacuba.html
JFK, the CIA, and Cuba
Project Freedom: Robert Kennedy's Plan
to bring Democracy to Cuba
by Lamar Waldron (with Thom Hartmann)
The comments of Dmitry Fonarev of the KGB, as related to the Russian publication Moscowski Komsomolets, on both the RFK and Rabin assassinations are interesting, as the opinion of an intelligence professional.
On RFK:
Under the official version, the murderer was the 24-years old immigrant of the Palestinian origin from Jordan Sirhan Abu Hattar (known in the West as Sirhan Sirhan). He shot his victim almost at a point-blank before the eyes of the numerous security men and journalists. However, the former bodyguard of the Soviet heads categorically rejects the official version. As he said: "Sirhan was shooting, but he missed, and Robert was casually shot by his security guard…".
On Rabin:
As Fonarev said: "In this case we also see that it was plot". The President of the Russian association of bodyguards explains this version by a fact that "Rabin was shot practically at point-blank when he was standing between two security guards. The one who worked on such a post it is obvious that it is impossible."
See: www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=474
Post a Comment
<< Home