Friday, March 18, 2011
OK folks. I know from the statcounter I’ve got on this blog that there are some visitors every day, from all over. So here’s an experiment I’d suggest you conduct (OK it’s not an experiment in the true sense, i.e. with a control group) -- ask people you run into these three questions: (1) “Have you ever heard of E. Howard Hunt?” If not, they might read his Wikipedia entry – he was a longtime CIA operative who participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion, among other historically important episodes, most famously the Watergate break-in. OK, now ask, (2) “had you heard that Hunt, on his deathbed in january 2007, gave his son (Saint John Hunt) a taped confession in which he says he was in on the JFK assassination, and names his co-conspirators?” Go ahead, Google it. Visit his son’s website. Now, the final question, (3) “isn’t it kind of mind-blowing that no mainstream media found this story interesting enough to look into?” what does that tell us? I mean, it’s his son who’s saying this, fer crissake. And he has audiotapes. Unless he’s fabricating it, it means that we now know the answer to the riddle of the “crime of the century”, JFK’s assassination. Yet no one in the mainstream/corporate media gave the story the time of day. I mean, even if you're convinced his son is a charlatan, isn't this kind of, uh, interesting? What’s wrong with this picture?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Alan,
You have to think of Hunt as doing one last job for CIA on his deathbed. Those who have studied the JFK Assassination know that if Hunt wanted to come clean he could have spoken about MUCH more incriminating information than fingering Johnson. If Hunt was making a real deathbed confession he could have straightened-out the matters of what he was doing that day that was the focus of the Miami trial where the verdict went against him. He could have given MUCH more information about his payroll duties he was witnessed doing for the Cuban exile conspirators the day before. No, you have to think of Hunt's "confession" as being a last ditch attempt to finger one more patsy. Yes, Johnson was aware and involved but he was simply the fall guy for the people who were really in control. The best way to look at it is Oswald was the patsy for the actual shooting and Johnson is now the patsy for the conspiracy. If you are sharp you'll realize the people who create patsies this way are the people who are trying to lead people away from realizing who they are.
Wow, well OK...I feel like the guy at the beginning and end of the film "RFK Must Die" (which I keep recommending to anyone who'll listen): surrounded by mirrors, impossible to tell where he is and where he's going. I also haven't read the transcript or seen the DVD sold by Hunt's son on his website (saintjohnhunt.com) but it's in the mail and I'll post a review after I digest it. So I'll certainly defer to others, including Exiles800, who probably know way more about this than I do. And again, I thank Exiles800 for her/his contributions. The point of this blog is to share information, ideas, etc. But it still seems to me that even if LBJ wasn't the puppet-master but *was* in on the plot to kill JFK, that's still earth-shaking news. I think one of the main points here is this: whether or not Hunt was still lying on his deathbed -- still working for the Company until his last breath -- or even if one thinks that his son is making all this up... why didn't his "confession" make it into *any* mainstream news outlet?
Alan,
I saw an interesting theory on another 'CIA Killed Lennon' link on Google. They speculate that the fifth missed shot might have been taken at Yoko as she ran in the door. That is interesting to ponder because Chapman landed four tightly-clustered perfect shots on Lennon, which means he wasn't having trouble aiming. The poster speculated that Chapman landed four good shots and saved the fifth for a moving target in Yoko and missed. Interesting.
I'm leaving the Astucia theory of a second CIA gunman in the side door in the tunnel alone. It sounds like nutty conspiracy theory, however it does make sense according the the wound forensics. It simply doesn't make sense that Lennon would have his left side angled away from Chapman and be able to have shots travel in from the left side. The reason I'm leaving this alone is because it is possible Lennon swung around with a first missed shot or maybe after hearing "Mr Lennon" (true or untrue). In any case it's pretty obvious Chapman took shots.
I also find it interesting that the doorman across 72nd Street saw Chapman assume a classic military shooting position. The first thing that went off in the WWII veteran doorman's mind was "that guy's had military training". These are the instincts and subtle clues investigators look for because they tell them most and can't be fudged. We have to now ask ourselves how did mild-mannered Chapman, who was known to dislike handguns, suddenly become a crack military shot?
Chapman is interesting because when Larry King asked him what he thought about the CIA hypnosis theories he commented "Hogwash, I did it all on my own!" However we then look at other statements made by Chapman that read like an unfiltered direct admission of mind control. One thing I do get from Chapman's interviews, he seems to speak of himself as a person sitting outside himself looking in at the murder and commenting on it. And what does that detachment tell you? What does the fact Chapman willingly speaks like a rational observer from the outside of himself tell you?
Exiles800: I’m with you on the second shooter hypothesizing, even if it turns out that José Perdomo (the doorman) was, in fact, a member of the CIA/Cuban counterrevolutionary Brigade 2506 … OK that does seem potentially significant, but I’m trying to shave with Occum’s Razor here, keep it simple, and in my view pursuing such possibilities as multiple shooters (à la JFK, RFK) complicates, dilutes, and distracts from the central point, that Chapman was a programmed assassin (or patsy, take your choice). I’ve also avoided Astucia’s theories for the same reason. And as for what Chapman is saying now, I’d suggest that it’s pretty irrelevant. It is integral to the management of a programmed assassin that they are programmed to forget how they got there. To this day Sirhan Sirhan maintains that he doesn’t remember what happened. Chapman has no clue why he shot Lennon because part of his hypnotic programming was to forget how he was programmed, only to recall that, say, “Lennon is a phony” (ergo the importance of the Catcher in the Rye). Over 35 years in solitary, he’s had plenty of time to ponder how he got there, and it would be natural for him to fill in the blanks with something. Everyone reading this, remember: Chapman was not a Beatles fan; he abhorred violence; he was in close proximity to the CIA; his funding source has never been identified; and far from being an attention-seeker, he avoided all contact with the press and by pleading guilty instead of insane (against his lawyer’s advice) he avoided a spectacular show trial in which he would have been the star.
CNN did an anniversary piece on Hinckley's shooting of Reagan last night. Of course, like their Lennon anniversary piece, they never mentioned anything about mind control hypnosis.
What I got the most from the program was CIA probably studied their Kennedy Assassination and tweaked their Lone Nut process in order to increase the appearance of guilt in their patsies. What I saw in the CNN piece is that CIA looked at the flaws in their framing of Oswald and refined them by making sure Hinckley was seen as definitely being psychotic in his delusional love affair with Jody Foster. Few people who watch the CNN piece are probably aware that they are seeing a very evil and diabolical CIA program in making Hinckley appear as a dangerous Lone Nut. Once Hinckley was induced by mind control to act out on his imaginary love affair with Foster he would successfully create a paper trail to convince the public he was a dangerous psychotic. In my mind this was a process his mind control think tank handlers developed in order to compensate for failures in the Lee Harvey Oswald Lone Nut scenario.
In the case of Chapman, CIA's refinement of their patsy framing technique came in the form of open claims of imaginary meanings in the book 'Catcher In The Rye'. This was yet another creepy spook adjustment of their mind control Manchurian Candidate process after studying their successes and failures in the Kennedy Assassination. Some of the best 'evidence' for these CIA hypnotic assassin programs is looking at how the nuances of each case conform to the overall pattern of such operations. There's no doubt CIA continued using this method because of its functional success in the famous assassinations of the 1960's. When you apply the pattern of progressive development of the technique in the Chapman and Hinckley cases it fits perfectly. They removed the doubts by placing their assassin right up front without any co-conspirators. They also created less doubt of their guilt by enhancing the psychotic nature of their motives. In my opinion you are looking at the progressive development of the technique in this pattern.
Post a Comment