Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) 4 PARTS
Joe Sat, 11/20/2010 - 3:28pm
Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) - PT 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/user/Federaljacktube3#p/u/5/TX48y4n5EYw
Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) - PT 2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/user/Federaljacktube3#p/u/4/gRIE7G2Bc64
Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) - PT 3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/user/Federaljacktube3#p/u/3/6vSHr5ppVSM
Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) - PT 4 of 4
- Joe's blog
- Login to post comments
Also available as bittorrent at Pirate Bay
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5969656/Conspiracy.Theory.with.Jesse.Ven...
350 MB download. Page also has descriptions of this and other programs in Season 2.
I didn't really learn anything new...
,,,but I DID sit through a program which featured a continuous string of clanking and clonking sound effects to accompany the narrative - which is even more irritating than canned laughter.
TV is for people who don't have a lot of attention span or who can't find something interesting unless it is hyped with a lot of action-packed crap and lots of frequent interruptions (commercials). Makes me so thankful, once again, for the internet.
but then again...
this was created for a different demographic (* ) than you or I and it provided them with a lot they didn't know.
That is the right direction.
I turned away from the TV five years ago and will not look back unless the 9/11 Conspiracy trials are televised.
*TV is for people who don't have a lot of attention span or who can't find something interesting unless it is hyped with a lot of action-packed crap and lots of frequent interruptions (commercials).
I need to stop
paying my TV licence (a UK thing)
there hasnt been a TV in my home for years now
I kept the licence going in case my lodgers wanted to use one but none have for a long time now
Ha haaa!!
I win!
good
prediction
Did I miss something?
Was the deathbed confession proven to be a hoax?
I know E Howard Hunt could have made up part of it, or the whole thing, but still, did something come up that I haven't heard that disproves what St John Hunt is claiming?
Nope
It's just that Jesse presented it as something new and exclusive, which it wasn't, so that's how I expected it to be in his show. Just having a little fun.
It has long been known, btw, that LBJ was at the nucleus of the JFK assassination plans. (RFK allegedly accused him, Jack Ruby said it, LBJ's mistress said it) There were many others involved, too elaborate to go into here. JFK had a legion of enemies.
I was guessing..
he would try the James Files confessions myself. Though I know very little of this confession, I presume it hasn't a lot of merit since it didnt seem to get much traction. (media wise)
Yeah the E Howard Hunt confession is nothing new.
good call SC
dan
James Files
I have the DVD... It's worth seeing, but there are a few cracks in the facade that might expose him as a charlatan. However, Files had ties to all the major players from which we know they were involved one way or another, Johnny Roselli, Charles Nicoletti, Sam Giancana, Lee Harvey Oswald, Frank Sturgis... It's a long and complicated story.
What the CIA did, according to Chauncey Holt, was deliberately have the scene crawling with known assassins and hit men, so that nobody would be able to pick a likely candidate. For example, Chauncey Holt was photographed on the scene, as was Woody Harrelson's father, Charles Harrelson, a known hit man. Then there was Orlando Bosch, a known anti-Castro Cuban and a terrorist. A fingerprint of Malcolm Wallace, LBJ's personal hit man, was found in the TSBD.
It goes on and on. I like to stick with what Jack Ruby, RFK and LBJ's mistress said though.
about Dark Legacy
The JV show just hit the surface, but critical areas were covered.. In the show what seemed to be new in the MSM was that E. Howard Hunt implicated Bush 1. Hopefully more people will learn this connection in more depth via the film by John Hankey, Dark Legacy: George Bush and the Murder of John Kennedy.
In my comments in the article,
[Bad link], I gave more details about Dark Legacy, and note the copy of the the J. Edgar Hoover memo titled "Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy" in which he named "George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" as the supervisor of what Hoover himself called the "misguided anti-Castro Cuban group" who were likely part of the assassination. President.George H.W. Bush has said he doesn't remember the events of that day, but FBI documents place him in Dallas.Note too what I posted at blogger - John Hankey - 9/11 and JFK connection
I am showing his film today in my community with my 9/11 group and will be discussing the connection. I hope others will get the Hankey film and especially up to the 50th anniversary, November 22, 2013; it is a great tool that helps connect the dots to the many coup d'etat and false flags in the US especially since WWII and no wonder they had a Bush Jr. as President for engaging 9/11, initiating a new round of terror wars, and further dismantling of the USA Republic..
Dude
As I pointed out to you here, the Hoover memo memo doesn't come anywhere close to saying what John Hankey claims it says. More specifically; the memo didn't name George Bush as "the supervisor" of anything, nor does it make any claims as to who played a part in the assassination.
dude back to you..
you wrote:
"More specifically; the memo didn't name George Bush as "the supervisor" of anything, nor does it make any claims as to who played a part in the assassination."
An excerpt from the memo reads: "The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished by Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency.."
And with a subject heading: "ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY NOVEMBER 22, 1963.."
The memo was dated November 29, 1963 - and you don't see any connection of Bush as part of a broad daylight coup d'etat, or J. Edgar Hoover?
That may be as close as we get to a memo naming George Bush on an assassination cover-up, but that is only one part of the film.
The best parts of Hankey's film is his use of many government documents, statements right after the event, before the information was censored and controlled. He shows the corruption of the CIA from its inception; the history of the CIA-NAZI connection. If any one person connects with all that and the one person most connected to a 9/11 is a Bush, which is why Bush Jr. got into office.. because of his daddy... and you think Hankey is stretching his accusations that he was involved.. you might as tell people NIST was right about WTC-7.
Face the facts
The memo didn't name George Bush as "the supervisor" of anything, nor does it make any claims as to who played a part in the assassination. Hankey's suggestions to the contrary have no basis in reality.
based on facts
dear Pavlovian Dogcatcher,
connected with all the facts.. can't you read between the lines.. or are you there to keep people away with an indictment on Bush for treason .. Hankey used the memo to prove Bush was in the loop, and very well associated to E. Howard Hunt and those planning the NWO.. why are you defending him.. or accusing John Hankey.. and placing information of his film out of context? the reality is you are a dogcatcher up the wrong tree.. and Bush is the head of a snake behind the deals where you will never get a written memo that will satisfy your distorting the record of an excellent documentary based on facts..
I'm here out of respect for the truth
While you apparently prefer to wallow in a pit of delusions, the fact remains that the Hoover memo doesn't come anywhere close to saying what John Hankey claims it says.
That's not what mine says
I can't get the link above to work, but the memo in question was reproduced in the 1992 edition of Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgment' (first published in '66)--and what it says is:
'The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency....'
Did you get that? Just a single two-letter word, but the difference is significant: Furnished not 'by' Bush but 'to' Bush--'by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau,' as the information had been received from the Miami office of the FBI. The reference to 'misguided anti-Castro groups' wasn't to suggest they were behind the assassination, but to State Department concerns that they, 'might capitalize on the situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba....'
The significance of the reference to Bush is that he has denied ever having worked with the CIA at that time. The memo provided documentary evidence for those who suspected he was lying--even though he (to my knowledge) still claims it was a different George Bush that Hoover was referring to.
Maybe Bush did have a supervisory role vis a vis the Miami anti-Castro Cubans, but such is not revealed in this memo that I can see anywhere.
one truth vs another
it is like you both are missing the forest because trees are in your way of seeing it..
don't focus so hard to make the memo the key issue of this debate.. attacking a memo connecting bush to the deed in 1963 is only one part of it.. and the memo was to expose but also to obscure the truth.. so don't misread or overdo the wording.. read in between the lines, too.
Dark Legacy in 72 minutes mostly draws connections to all the key players.. which continues to this day and what created 9/11..
Bush (regardless of the memo) is a central figure. Read, too, the work of Chris Story, editor of World Reports and who authored The New Underworld Order .subtitled: "Curse of Criminalism: Dark Actors Playing Games". where he documents a new level of the criminalization of international finance around 1989 where again and to the end of his life, he challenged that Bush was the head of the snake. Bush is a central figure, and this JFK film using original information, and showing connections of all involved, presents support strong and circumstantial evidence..
the memo is just another document that connects Bush with those who carried out the assassination and cover-up.
sometimes over focusing on "being right" or being into "the truth" or finding something, a little thing, wrong, is a recipe of not stepping back and appreciating a film that truly connect dots like no other whereas Bush was involved.. and showing the history of where his father placed him into those positions.. Prescott Bush once failed in a military coup of the US in the 1930's. these fascists are still writing the script and telling the Obama administration what to do..
This is why 9/11 happened on Bush Jr. watch, and the cover-up deception continues with Obama.. and control of the press. Independent journalism is not something to attack, but to embrace.. and we may not agree with everything.. but we should not lose sight on areas where we do agree and can benefit in sharing such resources as Dark Legacy.
It was you who brought up the 'trees'
'the memo is just another document that connects Bush with those who carried out the assassination and cover-up.'
'don't focus so hard to make the memo the key issue of this debate.'
If only you'd followed your own advice! If you had only started out with that as your position, no problem. But instead, you made claims about what the memo said, and Pavlovian Dogcatcher and I pointed out that it doesn't say what you claimed it says.
You claimed that Hoover's memo 'named' Bush as a 'supervisor' of the Miami anti-Castro group. Nowhere does it do that.
(And pointing out that it doesn't do that does NOT mean one is denying he had that role--he may have; only that the memo doesn't SAY he had that role, as you claimed it does.)
You claimed that it cites Bush as the source of the information contained therein ('...orally furnished by Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency'), when instead it refers to him as a recipient of that information ('...orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency...by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau).
We all make mistakes. In this case, owning up to the mistakes wouldn't even detract from the overall case for Bush's involvement in the JFK assassination. The basic idea is that whatever we think, however well-founded our opinions may be, does not entitle us to say whatever the hell we want regarding what this or that source says. The goal of 'seeing the forest' is no excuse for giving inaccurate descriptions of the trees. I would think these points would be uncontroversial.
Why do you seem to have such a hard time seeing that one can be convinced (as I certainly am) that GHW Bush most definitely had a hand in the JFK assassination and, at the same time, object to your making inaccurate claims about what the memo says?
You even went so far as to asky why Dogcatcher was 'defending' Bush. Huh?! Where oh where in those comments was there any 'defense' of Bush?!
Besides seeing things in documents that aren't there, it's also not good to see things in blogger comments that aren't there.
Here here
!
LOVE
Jessies book
I originally bought it to boost the numbers with no immediate intention of reading it as I assumed it was written for pop culture fans who like wrestling or that it was written for kids or whatever
anyway i ran out of high brow books one day, picked up his book and being new to much of it i was impressed and despite the image it's high brow enough for me despite my brows being higher than most due to occasional big-headed-ness!
Consider me humbled!
Author Russ Baker on GHWB, the CI & Nov 22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIIkfGLA47E
Jesse Ventura Exposes the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Nationall
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Jesse-Ventura-Exposes-the-by-Mac-McKinn...