Anonymous{963] wrote:

I can’t help but feel a tickle of amusement when the Sophists pull out their own “intellectual rigor” and always play the same semantic shell game – “well it’s not actually doctrine, but…”

Long delay in responding but better late than never:
Above Anonymous{963] creates a straw-man which he couldn’t defend from anything I wrote in post #420—–the post to which he responded.

My post #420 was a reply to Hulkamania’s (Post #38) which was mostly a vague rant about Papism none of which he did or even could justify from Catholic Dogmas concerning the Papacy. In fact Hulkamania would have had difficulty justifying his vague claims through an honest historic review of the history of the Popes—good and bad. Hulkamania’s vitriol against the Papacy was akin to the un-reasoned and largely ad hominem rants made by the apostate priest Martin Luther. Luther’s written works are so filled with unsupported vulgarity that his supporting protestant theologians/historians never quote for fear of discrediting him.

In my reply to Hulkamia I make quite clear that Catholic Universalism espoused by Origen is NOT part of Catholic Dogma or any Church teaching binding on its members. I’m afraid there is no “but” in there.

Anonymous[963]

Good to see you saying that the Pope, (indeed the Antichrist, where all the sin of the world emanates from – especially modernism realized as the merging and exaltation of pagan ideals (!) into Catholic doctrine to become secular humanism, Social Teaching, and globalism – teaching pagans. . . .

Of course I say nothing of the sort. Who is the sophist now?

Then Anonymous[963] dove head-long into a rant which had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion begun by Hulkamania (post #38) or my reply to him (post #420). Nonetheless I’ll make a few points in reply to it:

1. All the Vatican II Constitutions promulgated by anti-pope Paul VI in 1970 were declared by the Vatican authorities to be pastoral and not dogmatic. Technically this is correct however anti-pope Paul VI and all the anti-popes after him treated these constitutions as the new guiding “dogmas” of the Vatican II Church. Most (if not all) of the Vatican II Constitutions contain heresies inconsistent with actual Catholic Dogmas propounded in the previous 1900 years of Catholic history.

2. As a note of interest the heretical Vatican II Constitutions were in large part designed by anti-pope Paul VI (and his loyalists) to move “Catholic” doctrine closer to Protestantism and Judaism—both in its beliefs and its worship.

3. Two of Luther’s principle, largely invented “dogmas” were that
a. every man was his own authority in the interpretation of Scripture and
b. that once a man professed belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior his/her salvation was guaranteed no matter how vile their behaviors were before and subsequent to that profession.

Luther himself discovered that after he let the genies of (a) and (b) out of bag that conditions in Europe at the time turned to disaster—-30 years of war. Luther hoped to depose the Catholic Church’s authority and replace it with himself. Sadly once Luther proposed (a) his authority with regard to Scripture was shucked by many of his followers.

4. Lutheranism and Calvanism splintered into 100s or 1000s of different protestant sects each claiming to know the correct interpretation of Scripture. Hence Anonyymous[963]’s interpretation of Scripture is just one among many that has No greater validity—–according to protestantism.

5. Luther’s invention of protestant Justificationism was a direct result of his own rampant sinfulness. He found himself unable to turn from sin and needed a way to avoid Hell. Lutherian Justification was his personal invention which taught that any profession of faith in Jesus Christ shielded the professor from Hell no matter what subsequent evil acts were committed. Luther saw the disaster in Germany and Europe that resulted from this. The Protestant doctrine of Justification is closer to that of Talmudic Judaism and Islam than to anything Christ taught in the New Testament. That is, very little causes their adherents to enter Hell. Freed as the Protestant, Jew, and Muslim is from the prospect of Hell for doing evil may be the proximate cause of much Evil in the world.

6. As the Vatican II Church attempted to move closer to the evils of protestantism in the Vatican II Constitutions in 1970 so did it also in its 1999 agreement about the validity of Lutherian Justification.

I thought Notsofast’s comment was well written, brief and to the point.

Hudson’s Trotskyist upbringing is certainly predictive of his Judaized position on the eternal goodness/victim-hood of the Jews along with his eternal hatred of the Catholic Church. Hudson’s comments about Catholic Dogma (for example, the Trinity) and his interpretation of the Lord’s prayer bordered on the nonsensical. So if he makes no effort to get that correctly it is doubtful that he is any more interested in finding the hidden truth of historical events hinted at in his upcoming book. Hatred and destruction are the hallmark of the judaized mindset which typically causes its holder to have a disinterest in the truth and a desire to do harm.

I am aware that an attempt was made to suck Smedley Butler into leading an armed coup against our government. An attempt which he spurned and then courageously tried to make public. I suspect he was successful in quashing additional attempts but memory of that history and of Bulter are largely unknown. By then the Jew/Commies had already succeeded in the banker’s coup by establishing the privately run “federal” central banking system under Woodrow Wilson. And FDR was so deeply under the control of the jew/commies that when Whitaker Chambers (10 years before he went public) tried to warn FDR about their entrenchment in the US government he effectively told Chambers (through an intermediary) to go piss up a rope.

Most modern economists (like Hudson) are trained to believe that their field of study is science rather than a subset of sociology and psychology. Except in simplistic thought experiments their ability to predict how people, societies and government’s will behave under conditions of scarcity is ephemeral. That is, their predictions are almost always wrong. Yet if you read the transcript of Hudson’s interview (which was, apparently, a preview of his upcoming book) he doesn’t display the understanding of an economist nor even the attributes of a serious historian.

Don’t get me wrong most serious historians do not paint a rosy picture of the prelates of the Catholic Church throughout most of its history including E. Michael Jones (see Jones’s, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury). I’m not a particular fan of Jones either but at least he offers of balanced view of Church history.

If one believes Whitaker Chambers’s view of the communist party in the United States some (or many) of the trade unions were the result of communist organizers. And just like the Bolsheviks misled the poor laborers in Russia to destruction so did the communist organizers in the US

Hulkamania wrote:

Papism is not universalist. True universalism is the recognition of all particularities in their interconnectedness, not the elimination of all particularities and distinctions through relentless abstraction.

By definition, the Catholic Church is a universal church: one church, containing multitudes (even different, separate rites, such as the Byzantine rite), but unified under the pope. Catholic Universalism (mentioned by E. Michael Jones in his opening paragraph) on the other hand almost always refers to the doctrine introduced by Origen: that everyone is saved. Universalism is a sentimentalist position, not a dogma of the Catholic Church and is nowhere taught in Scripture. It was never taught to the faithful (at least not prior to 1970). So Hulkamania ‘s opening paragraph is a wrong turn into oblivion,

Hulkamania’s 2nd, 3rd and first part of his 4th paragraphs are philosophical nonsense unless he could actually connect it to Catholic Dogmatic teachings which he doesn’t——a sharper turn into oblivion.

Hulkamania then wrote:

That is why papists say, with all honestly, that they worship the same god as Muslims or Jews: because they all worship the same conceptual understanding of god. This is also known as the “god of the philosophers.”

Of course Hulkamania couldn’t produce Catholic doctrine justifying this if his life depended on it. However, after the Vatican II Council the new Vatican II Church did make the heretical claim that salvation can be had via other faiths.

Hulkamania continues:

For example, if you look at the famous “five proofs” for god from Thomas Aquinas, none of these “proofs” are proofs for the Christian God. They are “proofs” for this general and conceptual “god of the philosophers,” so they apply equally well to the god of Muslims, the god of pagan philosophers, the “first mover,” or even to Satan.

More grasping at straws. Aquinas’s five proofs are philosophical musings and not part of Catholic Dogma/Doctrine. That is, they are certainly interesting but irrelevant to the Catholic faith. Furthermore for us Christians (which includes Aquinas) the Muslim god and the god of the Talmud bear no resemblance to the Holy Trinity; that is, they do not exist. How is it that we should be concerned about entities that are considered a priori non existent? Likewise for the god of philosophers who doubtfully has none of the characteristics of the Holy Trinity.

Hulkamania finally wrote:

This explains why the papist cult is so overtly Satanic. Satan is the king of abstraction. The elimination of distinctions is the core of Satanism. This is because with enough abstraction, anything can become equal and the same as anything else. In this way, Satan can be equal to and the same as God.

Argument by bald assertion is practically useless.

You are one of the few who have correctly figured out E. Michael Jones.

I would agree that Jones in his opening paragraph uses the word “universalism” in the theological sense. While “catholic” is a synonym for “universal,” “universalism” in the theological sense was condemned by the Catholic Church. Why is it that Jones, the “Catholic Intellectual of this Century,” seems unaware of that fact?

After falling away from membership in the Catholic Church in his youth Jones returned after it had fully transmogrified into the Vatican II Church (1970). The Vatican II “popes” enforcement and application of the new Vatican II Constitutions became ambivalent to the Four Last Things (Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell). That is, the Vatican II church began teaching that membership in the Vatican II church was not the only faith leading to salvation. The Vatican II church also formally accepted Lutherian Justification which teaches that every person who professes faith in Christ is saved regardless of their behavior. Lutherian Justification is a form of theological universalism.

Luther’s attack on the Catholic Papacy was largely ad hominem with little substance. Luther (an apostate Catholic priest) denigrated the authority of the Papacy and taught his followers that every man and women of reasonable intelligence were their own biblical authority. Unfortunately Luther himself saw the detrimental results of his invented doctrine: many of his growing number of followers were keeping their own council on the meaning of Scripture leading to harmful behavior. Luther saw himself as the super authority and attempted to rein his followers in but to no avail—-Luther taught that each of them was their own authority.

Luther also wrote that his invented doctrine of “Justification” lead to equally bad behaviors throughout Europe. Yet Luther had encouraged such bad behavior. He had encouraged the members of his Lutherian faith to sin early and often because their salvation was guaranteed. Luther plunged Europe into 30 years of war and destruction. Lutherian historians have admitted as much about all this

Thousands of Protestant sects—who today still praise Luther—have nonetheless placed their head councils in place of the Papacy. Instead of one, universal, Christian leader professing and teaching what Jesus and His Apostles taught we have thousands of Protestant leaders teaching their sect members some different doctrines.

Jesus stated clearly and unequivocally that, upon this rock I will build My Church.” Of course Jesus was referring to Peter. And the Catholic Church has had an unbroken succession of Popes leading directly from Peter. Jesus chose Peter as his successor on Earth—-the Vicar of Christ. This title is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep” (John, xxi, 16, 17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matt. xvi, 18, 19. Luther and future Protestant theologians have no good reply. Luther saw the detrimental effects of making everyone a “pope.” Yet he admitted at the time that he believed himself to be the uber authority, but he had already let the genie out of the bottle. And today the head of each Protestant sect has effectively set themselves up as plenary “pope” of their own sect.

E. Michael Jones is a Vatican II church member and as such follows the “doctrines” and heresies emanating from the Vatican II Constitutions. The heresies of the Vatican II Constitutions are an over-riding break with the previous 1900 years of Church history and doctrine. So the Vatican II Church has broken with Apostolicity and is therefore neither Catholic nor Universal. Provost is a product of the Vatican II Constitutions that brought us the disastrous Bergoglio papacy; a pope which Provost has praised and not disputed. About all this Jones is utterly silent.

Among other things E. Michael Jones is principally focused in his intellectual career on the effects of human events on Culture. To the man with only a hammer everything looks like a nail. So the title of Jones’s piece, its opening paragraph, its connecting paragraphs and his concluding paragraph are almost wholly about Provost’s cultural makeup and NOT whether he has taught or will teach what Jesus and his Apostles after Him taught. Nevertheless Jones feels confident to conclude about Provost that

Logos trumped ethnos, if by that we mean race, as it always does in the universal church.

I have no doubt that Provost will faithfully continue with Bergoglio’s legacy of following the heresies contained in the Vatican II Constitutions. If this were not the case he would never have been elevated to Cardinal. Finally it is the Vatican II Church which came to agreement with Protestants over the correctness of Lutherian Justification—a doctrine made up from whole cloth by Luther not Logos. And so the conclusion to be drawn is that the Vatican II heresies trump Logos and race.

Someone could have solved this affair and finally made public all the records, contrary to Trump, Biden, Obama & co. It is Robert Kennedy Jr. if he was elected president this November.

If the CIA and FBI as institutions conspired to assassinate JFK at Dealey Plaza, for example, why on Earth would they put evidence in their files that would implicate themselves? This would be like an idiot bank robber who leaves his driver’s license at the teller window after leaving the bank. So why this over-whelming belief that gov’t files will solve the crime?

That’s right, your point was about Israel, but my response was that given he was potent enough to turn the opposition to the test ban treaty around from about 70-30 against to 70-30 in favor by waging a grass roots campaign that energized the American people into supporting in so strongly the Senate adopted it tells everything about his power to move public opinion to support a position he advocated.

You’re grasping at straws. The very Test Ban Treaty—-with your claim of its over-whelming US public and Congressional support—could have been used but wasn’t used as a tool to pressure Israel over Dimona. Pressuring the Jews to agree not to test any nuclear device they developed might have been better than nothing. But JFK couldn’t pull this off either. No consensus of congressmen ever uttered any such thing with the Test Ban Treaty as cover. Furthermore this would have required public exposure to the world that the Jews had a nuclear weapons program. Your latest red-herring is weaker than usual.

Congressmen don’t bite the hand that feeds them and they fear the vicious dog that threatens them. That is—-both in 1963 and now—-the Jews controlled Congressmen with money for re-election campaigns, with the power of the Jew-controlled press and/ or through extortion after leading them into the usual sins.

Just like today. All Biden has to do to bring the Sinai genocide to a screeching halt is to tell Bibi that is he doesn’t stop within one hour and start withdrawing from Gaza within an hour later, he’s on his own and the US will call an Emergency meeting of the UN and demand Israel be declared waging an illegal war and invoking the UN to stop it.

Biden would be Eisenhowering them again and about time.

Coulda, woulda and shoulda. . . . but they DON’T. The US Gov’t controlled by Jews let the Eastern European Jews get a foot hold in Palestine in 1948 and continuously since then funded them to kill Palestinians and all non Jews. Eisenhower was a disgrace and completely under the control of Jews as was FDR and Truman. How do you think, Eisenhower who had no combat experience was made Supreme Allied Commander? At the end of WWII Eisenhower and Truman turned over half of Europe to the Jew-created communist Russia and you think Eisenhower was a real threat to the Jews in Israel? You are in a movie land and not the real world.

Right. Just like there was no consensus expressed in Congress to adopt the Test Ban Treaty that JFK submitted for ratification. So tell us. did the Senate reject the treaty for which there was no consensus to adopt it when JFK submitted it.

I didn’t say that JFK was impotent to convince Congress of anything, only that he was impotent to convince them to cut Israeli aid in 1963. That his threats to cut off aid to Israel over Dimona were as toothless then as they are now. Today members of the two Houses of Congress are falling over themselves to get billions of more dollars to the Israelis to murder and displace as many non Jews in the greater Palestine area as they can. Of course this is what they’ve been doing since 1948.

The “Test Ban Treaty” only restricted those countries who signed and as far as I know Congress didn’t threaten Israel to sign. So your argument is rubbish. Furthermore while JFK blathered about non proliferation he was quite willing to use nuclear weapons and proliferate their use. In Dec 1962 JFK agreed to sell Polaris submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles to the UK. And in the same month the Test Ban Treaty was offered for signatures JFK considering using conventional and nuclear weapons against Chinese facilities to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

Dumb ass doesn’t know how to spell the location of the murder site that tells all about what he knows about the case.

And this is why I have nothing to fear from your side. Your childishness is regularly evident and an indication of intellectual bankruptcy.

Right we don’t, and one good reason is that the majority of the staff of the Warren Commission were either Jews or married to Jews whose only job was to suppress those facts from the American public.

But there have been plenty of investigations. They either don’t look at Dealey Plaza or there’s nothing there to see. That is, there is no evidence whatsoever of your movie scenarios. Motive isn’t evidence. And the weakest motive I’ve seen is the claim that Dimona caused the Jews to assassinate him. Your beliefs about motive don’t constitute evidence of anything.

Of course you don’t argue the facts. You simply make a childish smear. This is about the best most of you can muster.

Like all the others you fail to explain why, in 1963, Jews—–who were largely in control of the three branches of the US Gov’t and most of the US Press—–feared JFK’s self righteous indignation about Dimona. Feared him to the point that they would risk a messy assassination in broad daylight? This is almost nonsensical.

The problem of course is there was no consensus of indignation expressed by Congress over Dimona in 1963. JFK’s threats to terminate Israeli aid over Dimona were toothless. Congress was never going to cut off Israeli aid. And the Jews, who controlled J. Edgar Hoover, likely were well aware of JFK’s continuing adulterous affairs while President. Likely they were in possession of photographic and audio evidence. They owned JFK and as a result they didn’t need to murder him.

You keystone cops still can’t decide how many shooters were at Deally Plaza, where they were located or what calibers they used. In fact most of you couldn’t care less what happened at Deally Plaza since your faith-based beliefs rest on fanciful movie scenarios.

He doesn’t need the power of the purse to prevent Israel from receiving money from America when he is seeking to prevent it from being spent on Israel.; it only matters were he wantring to spend money on Israel.

This concedes, of course, that JFK would never have been able to swing Congress to put teeth in his idle threats to Ben Gurion.

And since Congress is the representative will of the people any attempt by JFK to withhold lawfully enacted aid would also be an act against the people—the voters. If JFK withheld the aide he would have been finished politically. Most of the Bible Christians in the United States saw in 1961 (and still see today) that the Jew return to “Israel” was biblical manifest destiny. Combine that with the continuous barrage by the Federal Gov’t and the Jew-run media that Jews are/were eternal innocent victims to be protected at all costs and JFK didn’t have prayer. The Jews knew this then AND they know it now. The Jews had no need to kill JFK.

I’d say LBJ had a much more compelling motive to do the deed. But there isn’t any evidence of that either. Believe in your movie scenarios but your arguments lack any historical understanding.

I won’t beat this to death any longer.

There is no public info to ne shown because JFK had just laid down the challenge in private, and was bumped off before he could take it public, which is what he would have done had Israel resisted.

And so there is no evidence of any well spring of support from Congress or the general public about Dimona. This is the general problem when one’s under-pinning is a movie scenario.

You really think he would have had the slightest trouble waging that campaign to demand shutting down the Israeli nuclear program as against the interests of the American people as he was seeking to stop nuclear proliferation as a threat to mankind, and then denouncing Jews who were seeking to thwart it as agents of a foreign power.

The Jews have been so successful at painting themselves as the eternal victim since WWII that JFK would have been facing an uphill battle in Congress and among its misinformed citizens.. It was the supposed Jew victim-hood which lead to the Balfour Declaration. Jews had no right to any of Palestine yet the US and Britian provided them the support to murder and displace Arabs, Christians and other non Jews. There was hardly a whimper in congress during and after WWII about the Jewish murderous exploits in Palestine. There is hardly a whimper in Congress or among the public at large in recent weeks about the latest Israeli-Jew murders and displacements of non Jews.

He would have crushed them with such a campaign that would have brought the US public to his side and neutered whatever power Jews had in America.

Wishful thinking but this is not born out at any time subsequent to the discovery of the Dimona reactor. Since WWII public and parochial schools in the US beat into our children from K-12 since WWII that Jews were innocent victims in history and that Palestine is there’s; anything they need to maintain their security is justified. This is what the majority of our uninformed US citizens believe.

Furthermore JFK’s failed foreign policy exploits from the beginning of his Administration were never going to engender undying support from either house in Congress about ANYTHING—– particularly when the Jews were funding and portraying congressional re-election campaigns in Jew-owned media.

JFK’s dimona threats were toothless. There is no evidence of a ground-swell of support for dismantling Dimona from anywhere in the United States before or after the JFK assassination. The Jews, who had long been ensconced in the Executive Branch, long funded most congressional re-elections and with their lobbying groups having one of the best investigative networks in the US knew all too well that JFK’s sanctimonious threats about nuclear proliferation in the state of Israel were TOOTHLESS.

I won’t beat this to death any longer with you.

And JFK would have Eisenhowered them by telling them in that case, they were on their own.

That being so would have cut off all US funds and, most important, US military aid without which they would have been hard put to resist Arabs retaking the lands Israel had seized illegally. It would have left them to face the music at the UN on their own, with the US supporting instead a vetoing resolutions demanding Israel comply with international law . With their lobbying group required to register as an agent of a foreign power would have prevented them from ever gaining the lobbying power they have acquired.

Unfortunately the President lacks the power of the purse. And so JFK’s threats were toothless unless Congress would go along. And I don’t recall any hue and cry in the press of the time (or histories told thereafter) reporting that Congress was unified with JFK. If anything they were exhausted from his repeated foreign policy blunders.

It was in fact only by LBJ looking the other way that Israel extended its tentacles into the US body politic that has enabled them to play the tunes US politicians feels compelled to dance to.

LBJ was just another example in a long list of US politicians beholden and in the pocket of the Jews. If you’re under the delusion that the Jewish tentacles merely began their extension in 1964 then your knowledge of US history and the influence of the Jews is grossly deficient.

And that’s what terrifies you as you keep spouting how invincible Israel is and how powerless the American people are to call a halt to the whole thing while you keep whistling as you walk past a graveyard shitting your britches realizing that’s where you are headed.

The first thing you’ve been right about—-I am terrified. Trump is the only one bucking the system and even he bows before the Jews here and in Israel. Think you can solve that problem?

I have no idea whether the Jews are invincible but they held significant power in 1964 as they do today. They largely control the three branches of the federal government. They control banking which includes the Federal Reserve and they control the media. The Jew lobbies have one of the most extensive investigative networks in the US. JFK’s threats were toothless and they knew it. Show me press reports of the two houses of Congress standing in unison with JFK to cut off aide to the Jews over Dimona. The Jews in the United States had already let the nuclear genie out of the bottle when they gave those secrets to the Jew instituted Russian Commies

I noticer there is nary a tiny thread of evidence that substantiates a single one of the extravagant claims of Jewish power you profess existed then. Not on single jot of it.

Wow, this is a first time I’ve seen someone actually deny the financial, political and media power of the Jews in the United States. So let me get you clearly on the record:

1. Do you deny, categorically, the financial, political and media power of the Jews in the United States?

2. Do you deny that the Jews in the United States are a separate nation within the United States whose allegiance is to Israel and not the United States?

3. Consistent with any denials above do you assert that the Jews in Israel were actually terrified of JFK’s toothless threats about Dimona? And why?

4. If Israel had successfully allowed stage-managed inspections in 1961, 1962 and 1964 what was it about JFK’s threats that lead Israel to believe that murdering JFK was the only answer?

This should be interesting. . . .

Speaking for myself, and I’m sure more than few others that have been unfortunate enough to have crossed paths with you would also concur, there are not enough hours in the day to address all the falsehoods you’ve posted in your comments.
So for the most part, we just ignore them.

The problem, of course, is that you rarely address anything. You either soft shoe around issues offered, ignore them completely because you have no answer or divert completely by bringing up some new aspect of your movie scenario. I don’t dispute that any number of groups have a dislike of JFK giving them motive to bump him off. What I dispute is that any of you movie scenario buffs have the slightest evidence to back it up. And I’ve pointed that out clearly, repeatedly and compellingly.

FACT: Nitrate tests performed by the Dallas Police on Oswald soon after his arrest, demonstrated that LHO HAD NOT FIRED A RIFLE IN THE PREVIOUS 24 HOURS.

This is the same police department that conspired with the FBI to coverup the fact that they knew Oswald was a potential danger to JFK.

Well, Lee Harvey Oswald was awarded with the lowest rating of ‘Marksman’ – which is no big deal. Most Marine Corp soldiers obtain this rating after being allowed multiple attempts at getting it. (You need only one good day at the shooting range to obtain it, even if you have a poor track record of shooting like Oswald did on his other attempts).

What’s your point? Witnesses put Oswald in the Book Depository before JFK’s motorcade arrived. His Carcano rifle was found in the Book Depository with at least two spent casings. In April 1963 he attempted to assassinate retired Col Walker in Texas. He had expressed a burning desire to commit terrible acts against the United States. Ballistics supports JFK’s neck and Connally’s wounds coming from the 6th floor Book Depository. Means, motive and opportunity—–it doesn’t get any better than that.

However, ballistices DO NOT support Oswald being responsible for the JFK head shot.

Meanwhile, LBJ’s personal hitman (Malcolm ‘Mac’ Wallace), whose 34 point* fingerprint match was found in the TSBD (it is likely that the bullet that struck JFK in the back was fired by him), Mac Wallace had achieved an EXPERT rating in the Marine Corps and was known to be a superb shooter.

And the evidence that LBJ’s hitman committed the assassination?

What we see from you is movie scenarios where the viewer is expected to assume the truth of non-existent evidence.

Believe in ephemeral evidence if you wish; ephemeral evidence is inadmissable.

I’m familiar with all the inspections carried out at Dimona.
As for ‘trying to put a hole in LBJ’, why would the small hats kill the first Jewish President, a man who did more to advance the ZOG agenda than other politician either before or since ?

Iris’s theory was that the Jews would kill JFK to stop any inspections. He never mentioned that Dimona inspections were conducted in 1961 and 1962. When you referenced iris’s comment you never mentioned that two inspections had been conducted during JFK’s Administration BEFORE the assassination. It is rather irrelevant that all the inspections were “stage managed” since the theory was that the Jews would kill to stop any inspections.

Obviously there was no more need to put a hole in LBJ than there was to put one in JFK because the Jews were never going to allow anything but sham Dimona inspections. JFK had no means to force a serious inspection on the Jews. He only had the “bully pulpit” of a failed foreign policy and idle threats about stopping aid which would required convincing Congress. You still have egg on your face.

The rest of your comment is a waste.

You do realise that Dr Cyril Wecht, that man you’ve labelled as ‘great’, is himself Jewish ?
Just further proof, as if we needed any, of what an uninformed individual you are Mr Guano.

I used “great” sarcastically as Wecht is nothing more than another who clouded rather than illuminated the events of Deally Plaza.

Of course, it matters not whether one is Jewish or not. What matters is whether one is among that subset of Malevolent Jews who seek to deceive (like you Mr Guano), or whether they are honourable ones, wholeheartedly committed to telling the truth, like Mark Lane clearly was.

How exactly does one distinguish between a “good” Jew and a “bad” one? Perhaps all the ones that agree with you are “good.”

Yes, Mark Lane did do a good job – you at least got that bit right.
He will long be remembered as a champion of integrity, a Colossus* in the field of JFK assassination research.

He did the “good” job of an attorney. An attorney’s job is to plant alternate theories of an event regardless of whether there is much evidence to support them. And cast dispersions on the veracity of everything the prosecution has to offer. Lane had no more interest in the truth at Deally Plaza than the “prosecution” is a fact you over-look.

For UR readers that are not familiar with Mark Lane’s history, watch this masterful display of his from 1966, where he’s interviewed by the mendacious William F. Buckley, a CIA asset in the employ of ZOG:

And so my choice is between an elitist and judaized Buckley or an outright Jew attorney who no more solved the case of Deally Plaza than you have. You can have ’em both.

And how were they controlling JFK when his brother was about to blow the whistle on the Jewish Lobbying group by declaring them agents of a foreign power that would have neutered them in American politics?

Since the Jew Lobbies in the United States are alive and well today apparently the Jews in 1963 were no more worried about JFK’s brother than they were of JFK. You are grasping at straws to save your religious-like view of a movie scenario.

In 1963 the Jews had a good hold over the Congress, the Executive Branch, to some extent the Judicial Branch, the media and the big Banks and therefore the Fed Reserve. And so you fail to argue against these facts:

1. The Jews were never going to submit to a legit inspection of Dimona short of invasion which would never happen.
2. JFK had no stick to make them submit to a legit inspection other than “mere threats” to cutoff aide.
3. JFK had no authority to cut Jew aide other than asking Congress.
4. Congress was under the control of the Jews through re-election money, ownership of the media and likely through blackmail in the furtherance of their honeypot operations in Wash DC.
5. Epstein, for example ran a Jew, international honeypot scheme to compromise politicians
6. The Jews were well aware of JFK’s philandering and could make this a powerful means of extortion to control JFK.
7. JFK was as compromised as was J. Edgar Hoover and the Jews owned him.
8. Murdering JFK when Congress was never going to back his threat to cutoff aid and Israel was never going to submit to a legit inspection would be nonsensical on the part of the Jews.

You failed to address any of these. This makes your movie scenario nonsense rubbish. Furthermore not one person on your side can connect this movie scenario to Deally Plaza.

Then you babble in response to my showing how Eisenhower forced Jews to back down over the Sinai that:

But it wasn’t babbling to show that Eisenhower was in the pocket of the Jews. He held Patoon back to let the Jew instituted Russian Communists overrun Eastern Europe. Eisenhower didn’t save the world from Nazis he handed it to something worse—Jew instituted Russian Communism under Stalin. A Jew is still in charge of Ukraine today. And its highly likely that Eisenhower had Patton murdered because of Patton’s opposition to what Eisenhower had done. And so Eisenhower is your hero who was under Jew control. You failed to address this.

Finally I previously pointed out that the Jews in Israel are never in a position to engage in a lengthy and protracted conflict. They lack the resources and the manpower. Each time they start a war to murder and push out non Jews they need someone to come in to allow them breathing time until their next rein of destruction. That’s all Eisenhower did. He didn’t save any of non Jews that were murdered and displaced by Israel. You failed to address this.

But your failure to even to respond much less address my exposing the fraud you were perpetrating with your half-truth comment is your confession it hit the mark and exposed the lies you wwere peddling.

Hogwash I’ve responded to nearly everything. It’s your side who religiously adhere’s to movie scenarios that fail to connect the motive to Deally Plaza.

1. Your side can’t even agree on whether Oswald fired any shots.

2. Your side rests on Jewish motive over the Dimona reactor when JFK had NO authority to force a legitimate inspection other the bully pulpit of his office. Congress was never going to bite the hand that feeds them at election time and grooms them in the press. Congress was never going to backup JFK’s threat to cut off aide.

3. Some of your side claims the Israekli’s, the Jews in general, the Cubans, the Italian Mob, the Jewish Mob, the Russians, the CIA and the FBI each had motives to kill him. And that they all had som hand in Deally Plaza. This is nearly absurd.

4. You endow the Jews with power over the US gov’t and yet insist that a messy murder in broad daylight was the best they could do.

5. Had JFK not ordered the Secret Service detail from standing on the back of his bumper the rear shots would never have occurred or would have likely been ineffective. Evidence of front shots is tenuous at best.

6. The great Dr. Cyril H. Wecht admits that Gov Connally’s three wounds were the result of ONE shot.

7. Your side is not based in evidence at Deally Plaza but in religious like zeal for Mark Lane the Jew who began the cloud of smoke over Deally Plaza. And what a good job he did.

And you still haven’t answered the question. Nor have you addressed the point I made establishing the motive they had for doing it.

There could be any number of reasons for Ben Gurion’s resignation. It was likely little more than a grand, international display of deference to JFK’s sanctimony over nuclear proliferation. It was about the best JFK was ever going to get from the Jews in Israel. The Jews owned the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and to some extent the Judicial Branch. And they had the photo and audio evidence of JFK screwing every skirt that tickled his fancy. Under such conditions why kill JFK when they could control him? No one has an answer for this.

Finally while audiences are easily led by movie scenarios like this on the big screen and encouraged to fill in the non existent evidence this is not how things work in the real world. There is an enormous gap between Ben Gurion’s resignation over JFK’s sanctimonious threats about Dimona and the shots fired at Deally Plaza. You certainly haven’t filled that gap. Your side can’t even decide whether Oswald fired any shots. You haven’t a prayer.

The fact is that merely 10 years after Eisenhower forced the Israelis to back off and withdraw from the Sinai simply by telling them they were on their own if they didn’t JFK’s demand and his brother’s plans to neuter their lobbying group in America forced their hand.

This is the same Eisenhower who had no combat experience and was made Supreme Allied Commander. This is the same Supreme Allied Commander who held back Patton’s Third Army allowing the Russian Communists (a communism instituted by Jews) to take half of Europe. The same Supreme Allied Commander who forcibly repatriated Russian soldiers and other Eastern Europeans at Stalin’s demand sending them to their certain deaths. The same Supreme Allied Commandeer who threw Germans out of their homes so that displaced Jews could live there. The same Supreme Allied Commander who ignored the intelligence and belicose activities of the Russians at the end of war. The same Supreme Allied Commander who likely had Patton murdered who wanted to liberate Eastern Europe from under the yoke of jewish communism?

Eisenhower didn’t force the Jews to do anything they didn’t want. The Jews goal in Palestine and the greater area surrounding it is to sweep it clear of Christians, Moslems and all non Jews. Given the size of their population this was never going to occur over night. They murder or displace as many as they can in a short period of time and then regroup. This is still going on today. Eisenhower was nothing more than a pawn of the Jews.

If you agree they were “stage managed,” then how can they be regarded as legitimate inspections?

The argument offered by iris and Truth Vigilante was that the Jews killed JFK to prevent ANY inspections of Dimona. And yet inspections were done by the AEC in 1961 and 1962 while JFK was in office. Inspections that the general public were unaware of at the time but JFK was aware of them. It was pretty apparent that iris and Truth Vigilante were unaware of those inspections and they had egg on their faces. And another inspection was completed in 1964 and no one tried to put a hole in LBJ. This motive to kill JFK is absurd on its face.

When has there ever been a legitimate inspection or investigation of anything the Jews have ever done in Israel or anywhere else? When have they ever been held accountable? With that kind of power they have no need to murder heads of state.

The Jews were never going to permit anything but a “stage-managed” inspection of Dimona. The only way JFK would have accomplished a legit inspection of Dimona was by invasion of Israel which was never gonna happen. Congressmen, almost to a man, were all either beholden to Jew money for re-election and/or Jew newspapers for favorable coverage; they were never gonna stop aide to Israel. Hell even Trump cow-tows to them.

Congress did almost nothing when it was forced to view evidence that traitor Jews in the US funneled nuclear secrets to the Russian Communists—-a communism begun by Jews, executed by Jews and financed by Jews in the US. So you think the Jews needed to kill JFK with that kind of control over Congress, the Executive Branch and in some cases over the courts?

And so you think Congress was going to ratify JFK’s sanctimony about nuclear proliferation and his threats to the Jews about real Dimona inspections in Israel by cutting off aide? Pure nonsense. JFK’s foreign policy was a disaster and Congress knew it. The nuclear genie was already let out of the bottle and Congress knew that. The only stick JFK had over Israel was the withholding of aide and he didn’t possess authority over the purse strings. The Jews were tense but they still held all the cards. The Ben Gurion resignation might have been little more than a face saving means to deal with the situation. It certainly doesn’t lead to the necessity of assassination.

And while this kind of movie scenario plays well in fictional stories on the big screen where the audience is expected to draw the appropriate conclusion it doesn’t work that way in real life. Now you have to connect this tenuous motive to the three shots fired in Deally Plaza. Where is the connection from the Ben Gurion resignation to the events at Deally Plaza?

Yes, Oswald certainly was “in the system,” as he had a very high security clearance while in the military. And (quote:) “Oswald to be mentally unstable, incompetent, bumbling and barely able to feed his family. No one would take him seriously and likely none did.” – is untrue. Oswald was very fluent in the Russian language, one of the most difficult languages to learn. In fact, while he was in the military, he attended Russian language school.

As a low-ranking Marine radar operator Oswald would have had little access to classified documents because he had no need for them to do his job. The Russians knew he was mentally unstable after his suicide attempt and he had nothing of value to them. This is practically indisputable.

Any US citizen who defects to Russia is flagged for required investigation by the CIA and FBI regardless of their state in life. Oswald’s fluency in the Russian language is irrelevant to his mental state and he never developed that talent into a way to feed his family. Oswald was by all accounts a failure; his upbringing made that almost assured. All Oswald wanted to do was commit some great but terrible act against the US. This explains his failed assassination attempt against Retired US Army Col. Walker in April 1963 with his Carcano rifle and his subsequent assassination of JFK in Nov 1963.

As an aside I should point out that I do NOT subscribe to the position that Oswald was the lone shooter. I also don’t subscribe to the movie scenario nonsense that everyone but the Easter Bunny had a contract shooter at Deally Plaza. Of the three shots fired in Deally Plaza Oswald likely only fired two. He missed with his first shot. Based upon ballistics the shot into JFK’s head could NOT have come from Oswald in the 6th floor of the Book Depository or from the Grassy Knoll.

One other item, as far as him being “connected” is concerned: Marina Oswald conveniently found shelter with Ruth Paine, who was very fluent in Russian. Her husband was CIA-connected.

How is this relevant? Marina was a Russian citizen who married Oswald while he lived in Russia subsequent to his defection. That native Russians who emigrate to the United States tend to hang together is a behavior exhibited by nearly every group of emigrees since Columbus arrived. Every foreign national who arrives in the US is screened and subjected to some kind of investigation by the FBI. Many are targeted as potential sources of information about the country they left. This is all routine practice and hardly evidence that Oswald became a secret agent whose job it was to assassinate JFK with a mail order Carcano rifle.

You would do well to spend some time on the kennedysandking.com website. You would find a vast amount of factual information concerning the murder of John F. Kennedy.

This vast amount of information has left you and everyone else with little more than movie scenarios of dubious truth-value—-particularly with regard to the events at Deally Plaza. There are at least two reasons why that vast information is nearly inconsequential:

1. The Six Degrees of Separation Theory tells us that since the globalization of the world in the early 1900s almost everyone is only six acquaintances away from everyone else. This certainly isn’t a law of nature but it is generally a well-though-of theory. And so drawing what seems, to you, to be earth-shattering connections between Oswald and Marina to other Russian emigrees—or anyone else—–are actually trivial. As is the fact that many Russian emigrees are in contact with US Intel agencies as a standard practice of those intel agencies.

2. The Jews have been well-placed throughout the US government since before Woodrow Wilson’s
administration—-that is, they are the government. And so the Jews and the CIA both had JFK under their control when necessary with their direct knowledge of JFK’s philandering. Since the Jews owned most of the newspapers in the US, well timed news articles throughout the US—-with photos of him boinking Marilyn——–was all they needed. Claims that the Jews-CIA wouldn’t use or publish those photos to control JFK are naive. As are those who think JFK could have survived such revelations. That is there was no need to kill JFK. NONE WHATSOEVER.

In closing, I would like to say to you that it is my belief that Oswald never even fired a gun on November 22, 1963. He most likely had never even touched one on that day. He was a “patsy” – someone to take the fall for the murder of Kennedy.

This is not new and is largely devoid of evidence. Which is why one never sees the evidence separated from movie scenarios which insert evidence where none exists.

Since you don’t dispute anything I wrote about Oswald what’s the point in viewing the videos?

As is typical of many of the commentors here—-who blindly follow movie scenario proponents—–you are utterly unable to make the so-called good arguments in the four corners of your own comment.

This is too easy. . .

I never disputed that inspections of Dimona were anything but stage managed. The argument by commentators iris and Truth Vigilante was that the Jews in Israel would go so far as to murder JFK to prevent any inspections of Dimona. Yet inspections had ALREADY been conducted in 1961 and 1962 during JFK’s Presidency. It is rather irrelevent that the inspections were stage managed—–THEY WERE INSPECTIONS. And so the claim that the Jews assassinated JFK to prevent ANY inspections is rubbish. Another inspection was conducted in 1964 and no one tried to put a hole in LBJ.

JFK’s sanctimony about preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons had nothing but the force of his bully pulpit behind it. Certainly the Jews in Israel were sensitive to the press reports. Nonetheless the Jews were never going to abandon Dimona, Congress was never going to stop financial aide to Israel and JFK was never going to get anything but a stage managed inspection of Dimona. Ipso facto there was absolutely no need to assassinate a sitting US President. Even the Jews aren’t that stupid particularly when just the threat of publishing photos of him boffing Marilyn would do the trick.

Once again, why did David Ben-Gurion abruptly resign in July, 1963?

You still haven’t made the argument about why this is evidence that the Jews in Israel found it necessary to assassinate a sitting US President. You didn’t do it before and you didn’t do it now. Ipso facto you can’t make the argument. This is just too easy. . .

Mark Lane was the first high profile individual to come out publicly (in the mid 60’s) with serious doubts about the official narrative on the JFK coup d’etat, and everyone in the JFK truther community is intimately familiar with him/his books/videos and his ethnic background.

This is irrelevant to whether he was a Jew. Furthermore if the assassination was a Jew-US Gov’t operation then both would have every reason to cause great confusion in the minds of the public over exactly what happened in Deally Plaza. If one can sufficiently cloud the whole event and claim that everyone but the Easter Bunny had a motive to assassinate JFK then the public would never get the truth. This is exactly what Mark Lane began and it turned him into a celebrity.

Since Michael Collins Piper is ‘likely’ to be a Jew, obviously then you must’ve read some research or been privy to some DNA analysis that demonstrates that Piper is a member of the (((tribe))).
Can you share this ‘evidence’ with us ? Only a FOOL would claim Piper is likely Jewish based on just a gut instinct (seeing as Michael Collins Piper has never done or said anything in his whole life to even hint at any Jewishness). Piper did not look remotely Jewish. He comes from a family that is littered with war veterans that had actual combat experience (Vietnam War, WWII etc), and we all know that Jews avoid military service – instead preferring to send the gentiles to fight wars on their behalf. I don’t recall Piper’s entire ethnic background, but I remember him saying that had some Cherokee Indian forebears (or perhaps it was another American Indian tribe ?), as well as Anglo-Celtic. So then, let’s see what you’ve got to justify your fanciful claim that Piper was likely Jewish.

I don’t even care about Piper, Lane is of primary interest. Jews have never been cowards or shunned military service so that is a non-starter. Lane was born in NYC where there was roughly a 1 in 8 chance of a resident being a Jew merely by chance. His father changed his surname from Levin likely to hide his Jewish origin. Mark Lane served in US Army Intel and likely had contact with the OSS (the precursor to the CIA), he was a democrat, liberal, attorney. All of that screams Jewish origins. It is interesting that no mainstream articles kicked up in a quick web search about Lane’s life or obituary say ANYTHING about his national origin or his religion. The national origin and religion of most celebrities are often reported.

These are the only two things I found in quick web search about their Jewishness:

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/history/zionism/news.php?q=1255536099

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/denial.htm

A more thorough research would have to be done to confirm or deny but Lane is likely a Jew.

As a US Marine Oswald was “in the system.”

Oswald made a formal declaration at the US Embassy in Moscow that he was defecting to the USSR and that he wished to renounce his US citizenship. A US consular officer talked him out of renouncing his US citizenship since that would prevent him from returning to the US.

Initially the Russians were unwilling to take Oswald as a defector. All he had to offer was a US Marine soldier’s operator’s knowledge of radar systems which the Russians had no use for. They declined his request to defect. So Oswald attempted suicide in a Moscow hotel (another indication of his mental instability) and as a result the Russians agreed to take him to avoid an international incident.

Any attempt to defect at the US Embassy in Moscow would have flagged Oswald to the Diplomatic Security Service (State Department), the CIA and the FBI. So the fact that he was know to the Federal Gov’t in general and those agencies in particular is a trivial claim. The CIA and the FBI would both likely have kept tabs on him as a matter of standard procedure. As soon as he returned to the United States his movements would have been covered for some period of time as a standard procedure by the FBI. A few routine surveillances and phone taps would have found Oswald to be mentally unstable, incompetent, bumbling and barely able to feed his family. No one would take him seriously and likely none did.

The claims that ANY intelligence services selected him as a crack operative is simple minded nonsense.

As is the case with others in this forum the good information you claim exists is always everywhere but in the four corners of your comment.

And so your claims:
1. That Oswald was “known’ to the State Department, the CIA and the FBI is a trivial claim largely explained by his travel and defection to the USSR.
2. And the fact that some documentary video presents some lessor known aspects of Oswald’s life isn’t of any terrible value unless it does more than insinuate that the Fed Gov’t tasked a mentally unstable fool to murder a siting US President.

As usual Old Philosopher does a lot of soft shoe dancing and doesn’t address the web links I offered. They indicate that Lane’s father changed his surname from Levin to Lane and that Mark Lane was a Jew by birth. Lane was raised in NYC where there was roughly 1 in 8 chance of a resident being a Jew by random chance alone.

Lane was stationed in Germany during WWII in Army Intel with some suspicion that he was associated with the OSS the precursor to the CIA both of which (Army Intel and the OSS) went to great lengths to support the Jew created Russian communists.

Not a single mainstream (read: Jew owned) article identifies Mark Lane’s national origin or religious affiliation, yet in many (but certainly not all) cases the national origin and religious affiliation of other celebrities is usually reported.

So much B.S in that comment of yours. I wasn’t going to reply to it because the UR readers can see for themselves that you’re a know-nothing moron on the JFK coup d’etat issue.

Your typical childish personal attack rather than a reasoned response.

But, not content with spewing out one falsehood after another, you cap off your display of shameless mendacity by claiming that Michael Collins Piper is Jewish.

Your replies are largely personal attacks and not reasoned responses.

Furthermore I never said I had definitive proof that Lane and Piper were Jews, I said they were likely to be Jews. Furthermore what isn’t in dispute is that while in the US Army during WWII Lane was associated with the precursor to the CIA. This turned up in just one web search:

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/history/zionism/news.php?q=1255536099
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/denial.htm

Now, if by some alignment-of-the-planets occurrence you managed to demonstrate that Piper is 1/128 the Jewish, or some other infinitesimal proportion, so what ? There are/were many righteous Jews in the JFK truth movement, just like there are for the 9/11 False Flag.

I see; so, the Jews that agree with you are the “good” Jews and the rest are bad?

They’re not mendacious Jews like you Guano and Alden. They are righteous Jews (like Mark Lane) who we owe a debt of gratitude to for their enormous contributions in getting the truth out.
This is a sure sign that one is a rabid Jew, when one attempts to discredit the likes of Mark Lane, or places undue emphasis on JFK’s extramarital dalliances, to make him appear as some sort of moral degenerate.

So everyone who disagrees with you is now a Jew—including me. You’ve now reached intellectual bankruptcy

And now you are even admitting that Lane is a Jew. Mark Lane is an attorney whose job it was to insert doubt into an accusation. The job of the attorney isn’t to find the truth but cast dispersions on a particular theory of the truth. This Lane and Piper have both done. However, neither ever proved anything about the events at Deally Plaza; nor did they ever intend to. A good covert op is designed to amaze and confuse not to enlighten. Boy they got you good.

I couldn’t care less who JFK was boffing. However, JFK’s handlers painted him as the innocent picture of youth with the adoring wife and children who would save us from ourselves. The fact that he was screwing a number of different women on the side made him susceptible to extortion by the Jews. If the Jews sullied his image in all the Jew-owned newspapers in the country JFK would be finished. Or he could decide to be controlled by them. There was no necessity, whatsoever, to kill him. And since the Atomic Energy Commission had conducted Dimona inspections in 1961 and 1962 while JFK was in office there was no need for the Jews to kill over a 3rd inspection.

The fact is that you are now going through cognitive dissonance. If Mark Lane was an intelligence operative, hob-nobbing with the precursor to the CIA during WWII and a Jew we’ve hit the trifecta. And, if so, you’ve been duped.

Oh dear, skewered again.

Maybe you went down in flames along with Truth Vigilante, but geokat62 has barely had time to respond. I’ll let him speak for himself.

I stopped long ago having my time wasted by claims that good evidence, good premises and good arguments exist everywhere but in the four corners of the claimant’s comment.

Either post the argument in a comment here or the strong suspicion is that you can’t make the argument.

Try again?

Why did David Ben-Gurion abruptly resign in June 1963?

What’s your point?

Commenters Truth Vigilante and iris argued that the Jews had to kill JFK before he forced an inspection of the Dimona reactor. The problem with this is that the Atomic Energy Commission had already conducted inspections in 1961 and 1962 while JFK was in office. And an inspection was conducted in 1964 without any prior assassination attempts.

My opinion is that the loudmouth Marxist Oswald did it because Kennedy was very much anti Castro. Castro, the hero of every communist leftist progressive and Jews in America.

Oswald was no secret agent. The Russians didn’t want him when he tried to defect. They took him in only after he attempted suicide on Russian soil to avoid an international incident. Once there the Russians wanted nothing to do with him. He returned to the US dejected and angry that the Russians refused to use him as a tool against the US. Once back in the US Oswald engaged in periodic attempts to convince the Cubans to use him as an agent against the US. Apparently the Cubans wanted nothing to do with him.

Oswald was determined to commit some great-but-horrible act against the US. Oswald’s wife testified that Oswald had told her that he had tried to assassinate retired Army General Edwin Walker in Texas in April 1963. This demonstrated Oswald’s disposition to commit acts of violence against the US. Nonetheless Oswald was a failure and a bumbler throughout his life. He was ruled by an irrational passion. No intelligence service would employ Oswald to clean the toilets in their office buildings let alone to assassinate JFK. Oswald alone had the means, motive and opportunity to do just what he did at Deally Plaza.

Bullet trajectory of JFK’s throat wound is consistent with a Book Depository shot. It is doubtful that JFK’s head shot came from the BooK Depository. And the incessant claims by those following the Mark Lanes down the rabbit hole that the front cratering of JFK’s head was caused by the entry of any known rifle round is nearly ridiculous.

2,000 books, 2000, theories and no proof of anything but the facts discovered by police the day it happened.

I agree with this except for one investigator who didn’t waste his time with movie scenario motives but examined the evidence in Deally Plaza—-Howard Donahue. Donahue participated in the CBS News attempt to re-create and re-enact Oswald’s shots at JFK to prove if it was possible—–Donahue proved that it was. Donahue investigated on/off for years.

The results of his investigation were published in the mid 1970s in the Baltimore Sun Sunday Magazine and it was almost completely ignored. In 1992 Bonar Menninger published a book about Donahue’s Deally Plaza investigation (“Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK”) and it likewise was almost completely ignored. And in 2013 a documentary film (JFK: The Smoking Gun”) was released also chronicling the results of Donahue’s investigation. Again it wasn’t debunked, it was ignored. Not only was Donahue’s theory consistent with the evidence it was compelling. The movie-scenario-down-the-rabbit-holers have completely ignored it because it turns their movie scenarios into nonsense.

A commie Jew liberal named Moshe Levin wrote the first book claiming Oswald the communist didn’t do it. The rest of the controlled by commie Jew media chimed in, Last I heard about Moshe Levin aka Mark Lane he went to Guyana as an attorney for Jim jones and managed to escape the Jonestown massacre.

I was unaware of this but this appears to be true. Not only is Mark Lane likely a Jew but so is the celebrated down-the-rabbit-holer Michael Collins Piper. This should send most of the down-the-rabbit hole movie scenario worshippers scurrying for cover. This should be fun to watch.

The entire genre of who killed Kennedy theories is a communist Jewish dis information program. No different from Rodney King, Mike Brown and George Floyd were martyrs beaten or killed by evil White supremacist cops. No different from the coverup of black crime. No different from affirmative action discrimination against Whites.

The Jewish program is to pit the classes against each other. The government follows this by favoring certain classes and demonizing others to ensure the animosity between classes. In the case of the JFK movie scenarios the people are pitted against a corrupt government making the level of enmity in the country complete.

JFK’s philandering was a bargaining chip used by the Jews during the 1960 Presidential campaign to blackmail him into putting LBJ on the ticket as Vice President.
JFK’s advisers (notably his father Joseph), knew that the 1960 campaign would be an extremely close run thing, and they could not risk losing a few percentage points among voters who would be swayed by any alleged moral shortcomings of Jack Kennedy.
So, through gritted teeth, JFK accepted the pathological liar (‘Lying Lyndon’) as his running mate.

LBJ did almost nothing for the 1960 election results; JFK won the popular vote by less than 120,000 votes and the reports of voter fraud in a few swing electoral college states have never gone away. A voter fraud operation that was no doubt financed by the wealthy Papa Joe Kennedy. LBJ was on the ticket for one reason—-the Jews twisted JFK’s arm. And I doubt that the Jews played the Philandering Card to get LBJ on the ticket.

But by late 1963, JFK’s popularity with the electorate was through the roof. JFK knew that he could withstand news coming out in relation to his extramarital dalliances and STILL WIN IN A LANDSLIDE in 1964.

JFK was the first “television” President; that is, it was the first time in US history that the majority of US households had a TV—they could watch the soap opera of Camelot. They could adoringly watch the young, handsome President and his beautiful wife. Little different from the popular adoration given by British citizens to the useless British royalty.

And so JFK and Jackie were popular in the sense of their celebrity and not necessarily that the majority of voters agreed with his foreign or domestic policies. He got very little accomplished in his domestic agenda and by most accounts JFK’s foreign policy was a disaster. So JFK’s intially high approval ratings had more to do with his personal celebrity than his competence as a statesman. Shortly before his assassination his approval ratings had begun to slip and his disapproval ratings had begun to rise.

The US voting citizens are a fickle bunch that change their hearts and minds on a dime. Newspaper photos of JFK playing “grab ass” with Marilyn next to a photo of Jackie and the kids and JFK would have lost in a landslide.

Truth Vigilante’s web link to a comment by Iris is hardly the earth shattering tidbit:

Iris wrote:
– So, in summary, the Israeli government needed JFK gone or dead before December 1963 and the planned inspection of the Dimona reactor, to hide its military nature and already progressed operation.

– How incredibly convenient and indeed, miraculous, that he got killed ((( by a lone gunman))) just one month before this dreaded deadline that would have brought American hellfire on the Zionist state.

But this and other links paint a different picture
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/kennedy-dimona-and-the-nuclear-proliferation-problem-1961-1962

This reports that the Atomic Energy Commission had already inspected the Dimona facility in May 1961 and Sep 1962 while JFK was in Office. And so Iris thinks the Jews had to assassinate JFK for fear of another inspection? Nonsense. Another inspection of the Dimona facility occurred again in 1964. You’re gonna have to do way better than this.

The bottom line is this:
A full 50% of the electorate in 1960 wanted no part of JFK—–that is upwards of 34 million voted against him. It (likely) took Papa Joe’s money and his expertise in voter fraud to get JFK elected. JFK was popular as a young handsome celebrity (aided in no small part by Jackie and the kids) and not as a statesman. His foreign policy was a disaster. His approval and disapproval ratings had already begun to go sour before the assassination and these popularity polls are often little indication of what the voters would do in 1964. Well-timed publication of Photos of JFK boinkin’ Marilyn (and others) side-by-side with photos Jackie and the kids in every Jew-run newspaper in the US would have caused JFK to be run out of Wash D.C. on rail.

The fact that the Atomic Energy Commission conducted Dimona inspections in May 1961 and Sep 1962 devastates the position that the Jews needed to kill JFK before any inspections were conducted. And Dimona inspections occurred in 1964 and no one was assassinated.

This is what happens when the likes of Truth Vigilante and iris only look at facts which support their position. This is pretty much the behavior of the Warren Commission.

Indeed, the whole point of my comment was that the controlled autopsy the doctors at Bethesda were allowed to perform was no better than the unbiased visual inspection of the testing doctors at Parkland for revealing the truth about the nature of the injuries.

Unfortunately you argued that this was my opinion—-that Hume’s Autopsy Report was no better than Crenshaw’s opinion spouted at a news conference and based upon ZERO investigation. My position is that almost any investigation is better than no investigation.

Furthermore you attempt to misrepresent the facts again. You imply (with your use of the word “controlled) that the Bethesda Autopsy was allowed to proceed in a slow, methodical fashion wherein everyone in the place had the time to meticulously falsify everything. This is rubbish; the reports show that the Secret Service dogs turned the Bethesda Autopsy into the same hurried, circus-like, chaotic affair that they created at Parkland. The Bethesda autopsy was forced to be conducted in hours instead of days. Humes wasn’t even aware—-until after the autopsy was completed—-that the tracheotomy in JFK’s throat had originally been a bullet hole.

Crenshaw made public statements to the world based on ZERO investigation and NOT Humes. If JFK wasn’t shot from the front—-and there is NO conclusive evidence to show this——-Crenshaw had just mislead the world. That would make him part of the government conspiracy and not Humes.

Indeed, the fraudulent autopsy conducted at Bethesda was designed to obscure and cover up the truth about the nature of JFK’s injuries to make it appear he was shot from the back when that was entirely false that was covered by by the Bethesda medical examiners being prevented to trace the path of the bullet that allegedly struck his back.

Undoubtedly the Secret Service dogs did everything they could to make sure that any investigation was neither thorough nor complete.

The claim that the crater-sized opening in the front of JFK’s head was the result of an entry wound is almost absurd, It is doubtful that even a shotgun slug would create “entry” cratering like that. There is little evidence of a front shot other than fanciful movie scenarios.

The one thing that the Bethesda Autopsy and X-rays did make clear were the numerous tiny metal fragments scattered throughout the inside of JFK’s skull. This is almost a definitive indication that the head shot was the result of a frangible round commonly used in M-16 rifles firing the 5.56mm x 45 mm round. The kind of ammo used by the Secret Service dog carrying the M-16 in the vehicle immediately behind JFK. I find it interesting that Guyenot and the rest of those chasing motive never mention “that” Secret Service dog.

The too much is his confession of the alleged power Jews have to control American politicians to bend them to their will as they appear tom be doing with Biden. Thanks for that admission that thereby completely debunks that anyone daring to expose the control Jews exercise over American politicians is an expression of anti-semitism that si the smear they use to intimidate them to keep them from exposing the obvious truth the American people need to confront to excise that power root and branch from the American political system.

The Jews have controlled every President and most of the Executive Branch since Woodrow Wilson. Nixon intended to purge them from the Executive Branch and they easily forced him from office. J.Edgar Hoover was muzzled by and used by them. Like J.Edgar Hoover, JFK gave them all the ammo they needed to control him or have him removed from office. There never was a need for a messy assassination. Guyenot and you ignore all this.

Those indeed ate the facts I listed in my comment that were the clear-cut motives driving the Israelis to join the plot to kill JFK precisely because he refused to be bent to their will on requiring them to submit to inspections of their nuclear facilities to bar the from developing nuclear weapon and to declare that the Jewish lobbying group in American be declared an agent of a foreign power that would have neutered it as an agent for controlling US politicians.

So the lying drivel that makes up his comment avoids addressing the key point I made about the actual motive that was driving Israel while hew seeks to divert attention from it by accusing Guyenot of failing to make the connection that thereby refutes they had a motive that my comment instead supplied it full.

The Jews easily bent JFK’s will to take LBJ as his running mate; a man he detested. The Jews ended up submitting to Damona inspections—-sham inspections. Any inspections would have been a sham regardless of which President submitted to them. Extorting JFK over his philandering would have kept him in check or forced him out in disgrace. And JFK did all the work. The Jews would have owned JFK and controlled him. They had no need to kill him. This possibility is never even considered by any of the movie scenarios offered by Guyenot and others like him.

So the lying drivel that makes up his comment avoids addressing the key point I made about the actual motive that was driving Israel while hew seeks to divert attention from it by accusing Guyenot of failing to make the connection that thereby refutes they had a motive that my comment instead supplied it full.

Summary:
1. Crenshaw made an unsupported guess of about the nature of JFK’s throat wound without the benefit of investigation. Hume at Bethesda made no such unsubstantiated statements.
2. Your claim that the Bethesda autopsy was controlled and methodical allowing Bethesda to meticulously falsify the records is nonsense. The Secret Service dogs forced a hurried autopsy in a matter of hours when it should have been conducted over days. It was so huried that Hume was unaware until after the autopsy was completed that the tracheotomy hid a bullet wound.
3. The claim that the crater sized wound in the front of JFK’s head was caused by an entry wound is nearly ludicrous. And the failure of the movie scenario enthusiasts to recognize the head wound autopsy evidence that showed evidence of a frangible round. The kind of round chambered in the M-16 carried by one of the Secret Service dogs in the vehicle directly behind JFK’s.
4. Your admission that the Jews have tremendous power in the US Gov’t easily taming Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover. And they had already easily bent JFK’s will to take LBJ as his running mate; a man he detested. JFK’s philandering made him putty in Jewish hands. Yet the Jews preferred messy assassination. Hogwash.

You people are worse than the Warren Commission.

So the alleged autopsy was a no better {actually a falsified) conclusion of the injuries and cause of death than the visual inspection of the Parkland doctors because none of the requirements you describe that are called for to establish the cause of death for which an autopsy is required were actually performed because the SS forcefully prevented it by illegally seizing the body at LBJ’s instructions.

Unfortunately I never claimed that the Bethesda Naval Hospital autopsy was “no better,” I said that it was hurried and proceeded in a coercive atmosphere created by the Secret Service dogs. The Bethesda Naval Hospital doctors were ordered not to perform wound tracking procedures. Get the facts straight.

And a great deal has been learned from the Naval Hospital records—-good and bad. Dr. Wecht’s and Dr. Mantik are two popular sources of conclusions drawn from those records.

Nor in fact was the path of the bullet ever dissected at bethesda to establish how it in fact actually transited through the body.

The Bethesda autopsy was a fraud that was designed to cover up not establish the actual injuries and cause of death.

How does one distinguish between an autopsy that was an intentional fraud from one which was hurried in a matter of hours when it should have taken days? And since the lead Agent of JFK’s protection detail, Kellerman, initially took the autopsy records from the Naval Hospital how do you know what was the result of the hospital staff or the “doctoring” of it while in the hands of Kellerman?

The only unbiased medical information we have about the condition of the wounds and how they were inflicted are thus the direct observations of the doctors who treated Kennedy.

The Parkland doctors had JFK for such a short period and their only purpose was life saving. Once they declared him dead, JFK was ripped from their hands. Crenshaw’s hasty opinion was a guess unsupported by ANY investigation.

And none of your attempts at falsifying the facts will change the truth.

You haven’t shown that I’ve falsified anything. At best you’ve intentionally misrepresented my position and created a strawman to attack.

————————————————————————

What’s the point of all this?

There are two things of which there is no doubt: there was more than one shooter and the federal government was covering up what happened. This doesn’t prove who was responsible only that some in the federal gov’t knew what happened.

The theory that the Jews assassinated JFK is hardly confirmed—-even in a small way—–by accepting Dr. Crenshaw’s scientifically unconfirmed opinions and/or rejecting Dr. Hume”s autopsy report (Bethesda Naval). Guyenot work sheds not the slightest bit of light on anything that occurred at Deally Plaza.

The leap that Guyenot makes from motive to perpetrator is a leap unsupported by any evidence at Deally Plaza. Furthermore it is likely that the Jews had JFK by the short hairs with knowledge (and likely photographic and audio proof) of his philandering. JFK would either bend to the will of the Jews or be publicly exposed and lose his power. Far easier than a messy assassination. This never seems to have occurred to Guyenot.

Guano, we can see right through your phony outrage at there not being an autopsy. (Behind closed doors you’re actually chuckling because it gives you the pretext to declare that the opinion of Dr Crenshaw is void).

Again you persist with the lie that it was just one doctor (Crenshaw) who was of this opinion.
FACT: Every EFF’N doctor that saw the damage to JFK’s head and throat, said they were entry wounds coming from the front. (eg: Dr’s McLelland, Malcolm Perry and many more).

I didn’t express outrage—phony or otherwise. The practice of medicine (as is the practice ofALL other scientific endeavors) “requires” investigation. In addition state and county law REQUIRE such investigations. The Law wisely doesn’t accept the unconfirmed opinions of doctors. And so, Dr. Crenshaw’s (and the opinion of the other Parkland doctors’) isn’t void, it is simply devoid of proof that a bullet trace investigation would have provided.

One wonders if Truth Vigilante would accept his doctor’s advice to have his arm amputated without proof that his doctor (or the other doctors in his practice) had conducted a thorough investigation justifying such advice.

And so what we see here from Truth Vigilante is the same behavior as the Warren Commission. Anything that wasn’t consistent with their preconceived notions is dismissed.

Let’s set the record straight. On one side we have the truthseekers, like Laurent Guyenot, Dr Kevin Barrett, Old Philosopher, myself and scores of millions of others around the world.

A statement’s “truth value” isn’t determined by the number of people who believe it. And Guyenot and others have uncovered a great deal of valuable historical information about the relationships with JFK. And that these historical revelations indicate motive. Motive isn’t proof of murder.

And one wonders how much worse our criminal justice system would be if every murder investigation was limited to discovering only who had a motive and summarily throwing all of those with motive in jail. This is the absurdity that Truth Vigilante accepts.

Then we have YOUR side Guano. ie: the obstructors of truth, the obfuscators and outright liars.
And among the obctructors were the Secret Service agents that prevented an autopsy of JFK, we also have the likes of LBJ, the FBI, the ZOG owned msm and so forth.

Crenshaw’s opinion—-unconfirmed by investigation—-is not a lie, it simply isn’t scientifically confirmed. The history of science is littered with the opinions of men like Crenshaw being wrong. Are you denying that the Secret Service dogs prevented any investigation at Parkland and created such a coercive and hurried atmosphere at the Naval Hospital that NO thorough investigation was ever conducted? The federal government was in on the assassination except the Secret Service? More absurdity from Truth Vigilante.

They, like you, are the proponents of the Lone Gunman theory, of the ‘bullets came from behind’ nonsense, of the ‘ZOG didn’t kill JFK’ hogwash.

More of your nonsense. I’ve stated REPEATEDLY that the JFK head shot could not have come from the Book Depository and was a completely different round from Oswald’s 6.8mm Carcano round. And you’ve repeatedly failed to answer some very basic questions:
1. How many shooters did it take to inflict the three gun shot wounds to Gov Connally?
2. Where did the trajectory analysis place those shooter(s) and
3. Where ate the witnesses placing shooters in those location(s)?
These are basic murder scene details that Guyenot doesn’t and can’t answer.

The Jews had no need to fire a shot at JFK. They easily maneuvered him to take LBJ as his running mate; a man JFK detested. Threatening JFK with evidence of his repeated and numerous philandering would have kept JFK in check without firing a shot. This has largely been ignored as the much easier and more effective means of controlling JFK. Nixon threatened to purge the Executive Branch of all Jews and the ZOG never fired a shot.

We know why you’re here Guano, You have been assigned a job to do here, to deflect attention away from the actual perpetrators of this crime – your Talmudic ilk.
We can all see through you, so don’t pretend otherwise. Mark Gaffney caught you out in a previous UR thread from March 2023, because your child-like inferences and extrapolations are amateurish in the extreme.

So you know who the shooters were at Deally Plaza other than Oswald? Enlighten us.

All you do is blindly follow motive down the rabbit hole with Guyenot, et al.. And you ignore the fact that ZOG could more easily have controlled JFK just as they did with J. Edgar Hoover. Why kill a President when the information to control one is far more effective and beneficial?

All any of the people you follow blindly have is motive. Motive isn’t proof of murder. The majority of the people who accuse the Jews (like Guyenot) make no attempt whatsoever to prove anything of the sort. And if Mark Gaffney’s argument was so good why not cut & paste it here? The good stuff is always somewhere other than the four corners of your comment.

Meanwhile, I won’t even address your infantile claims posted in comment # 325 about how a bullet fired from behind could cause JFK’s head to jerk back.
This is the OPPOSITE of Newtonian physics and contravenes ALL laws of motion – in particular the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
I say what I say above as someone whose hard science tertiary background will run rings around whatever ‘education/indoctrinaton’ you were ever likely to have gotten at the yeshiva you attended.

And I suspect that you don’t understand physics any more than Crenshaw did. Calling my explanation “infantile” is a personal attack and not a demonstration of where my explanation is incorrect. Try again with something other than a childish personal attack. This is too easy.

I [Dr Charles Crenshaw] walked to the President’s head to take a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater – an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, blood tissue.
From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that a bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum.

But since Parkland was not permitted to conduct an autopsy or bullet trace examination Crenshaw’s claim was little more than a theory of what occurred. No scientist or doctor is endowed with clairvoyance and so science REQUIRES investigation. This is why virtually every State and County in the United States require autopsies and bullet trace examinations in such cases to confirm or deny initial theories.

The wound resembled a deep furrow in a freshly plowed field. Several years later when I viewed slow-motion films of the bullet striking the President, the physics of the head being thrown back provided final and complete confirmation of a frontal entry of the bullet to the cranium’.

This demonstrates why investigation is required. While Crenshaw may have been a qualified physician, his conclusion here demonstrates that he is not a physicist. Whether JFK’s head would have moved backwards from a projectile impacting somewhere in front of his head depends entirely on whether the collision was purely elastic, purely inelastic or somewhere in between. Purely elastic and the bullet bounces off and pushes his head back. Purely inelastic and the bullet goes straight through without causing his head to move at all. Furthermore Crenshaw didn’t have clue what type of bullet was fired. It’s doubtful he was aware when he wrote his book.

What the Naval Hospital xrays and autopsy showed is that there were hundreds of bullet fragments scattered all over the inside of JFK’s skull. So the head shot wasn’t from a full metal jacket round but a frangible round designed to fragment after penetration. Such frangible rounds were common for the 5.5mmX45mm M-16 round.

Had such a round hit JFK in the upper right front portion of his head it would have penetrated the skull in a relatively inelastic collision leaving a hole (not a crater) and then immediately disintegrated creating a wide pressure wave and blasting a big crater out the BACK left of his head causing JFK’s head to move FORWARD. But why forward? The pressure blast out the back of his head would have caused JFK’s head to move forward.—-from Newton’s Third Law of Motion. So this disproves Crenshaw’s amateur attempt in his book to justify his hasty conclusion in Dallas in November 1963.

And so this is why the frangible round must have entered from the back, disintegrated after penetration, caused a wide pressure wave moving forward, blasted a crater out the front and caused JFK’s head to move back—Newton’s Third Law. The trajectory for this rear head shot COULD NOT HAVE come from the 6th floor Book Depository.

You hit that fool between the eyes with your response. Of courser the doctors who treated Kennedy could at a glance tell the difference between entry and exit wounds, having treated hundred if not thousands of them.

Then I assume we can find in the regulations of a every state and county in the United States the precept that autopsies are optional if the doctor has some sufficient record of observations of gun shot wounds? Hogwash. Only the most arrogant of doctors would draw a conclusion about the cause of death or the nature of a bullet wound without the benefit of an autopsy AND a bullet trace examination. Parkland Hospital would have definitely done both examinations had the Secret Service dogs not forceably removed the body.

Mere to make the claim observations of the wounds lacks credibility because they failed to conduct an autopsy proves his is either an idiot or a liar.

First of all we must rely on the testimony of Crenshaw because the front throat wound was obliterated when the Parkland doctors performed a tracheostomy.

In science the observations of past cases gives the investigator a starting point for a theory of causation and NOT definitive proof that this new case is identical to others. This is exactly why autopsies and bullet trace examinations are REQUIRED. I find it interesting that Crenshaw got his 15 minutes of fame by making claims about the throat wound for which no confirmatory bullet trace examination was ever performed. Instead Crenshaw and the Parkland Hospital should have been screaming about the SS dogs forceable removing the body so that no investigation could be performed.

The SS dogs also prohibited bullet trace exams at the Naval Hospital.

And then as Lifton was the first to establish what has by now become established fact, the Kennedy autopsy was a fraud designed to obscure the actual wounds Kennedy sustained, and false X-rays were produced to substantiate the fake autopsy results..

That the Secret Service also created a hurried and coercive atmosphere at the Naval Hospital is undisputed. The SS prohibited a bullet trace examination there causing the doctors to draw failed conclusions from initial observations. The Naval Hospital saw Parkland Hospital’s tracheostomy and had no idea this was also part of a bullet path A methodical investigation was prevented by the SS. What exactly was the SS trying to prevent any of the doctors from discovering?

And so the answer to the question, were you unaware that the Parkland doctors never conducted either an autopsy or bullet trace examination, is a resounding YES.

The Parkland Hospital had a legal obligation to conduct a thorough autopsy and the Parkland Hospital doctors insisted that they do so. It was the Secret Service dogs who denied the autopsy and threatened the Parkland doctors.

Whether a doctor has hundreds of experiences with gun shoot wounds is NOT a substitute for investigation and facts. And in most counties in the United States an autopsy is the LAW. Just like the Warren Commission was disinterested in facts that disputed their preconceived beliefs so are you.

I agree but Jones is unlikely to be swayed.

Sadly he and a great many in the Vatican II Church see unity in heresy (under a heretical pope) as more important than what the Church has taught prior to 1970. Even though many of the Church’s theologians
1. have taught that heretics in the papacy are possible,
2. that a few popes in the pats have been heretics and
3. that the Church offers remedies for heretic popes
they can’t quite bring themselves to believe it. And so they’re being pulled under the water with the intentionally scuttled Vatican II ship.

You can’t save people that don’t want to be saved, but there are some who, when shown the light, will grab on to one of the life rafts.

In his comment directed at me Penfield neither defends his central thesis nor shows where my criticism of it and him goes awry. It is trivial to claim that anyone is “ignorant” and/or “tribalistic.” And since these are intended to be personal attacks let’s look, instead, at my substantive criticisms of Penfield and his article:

1. Penfield’s use of induction as a means of reasoning to explain (or predict) human events is misbegotten; as misbegotten as Hume showed in the natural sciences;
2. Penfield never shows how he was able to isolate this lone cause (subsidies) from all the others in human events with a dying society as the effect;
3. Penfield saw as prominent religious leaders—Luther and his merry band of Reformers—-as bright lights of rational thinking in Christian History when their principle claims to fame are
a. Luther in particular, was an apostate Catholic Priest;
b that they (Luther, et. al.) separated themselves from the Church Christ established from St. Peter to their own day through a succession of Popes (good and bad);
c. that they effectively claimed that Christ left his Church invisible on the face of the Earth for nearly 1600 years until Luther arrived to directly unleash 30 years of death and destruction in Europe;
d. that they threw out books of the Scripture handed down from the Church Christ established because these Books disagreed with their (or Luther’s) own personal opinions (rather than Revealed ones)—-one of which was that the Protestant is guaranteed Salvation regardless of what evil he/she commits.
4. that like the Protestant, the Jew and Muslim also teach their adherents that their salvation is guaranteed regardless of the evil they commit;
5. that Penfield fails to recognize that the ability to commit evil in society without effecting one’s salvation is a far more potent force in destroying society than subsidies;
6. Penfield attempts to shuck his Protestant lens which recognizes objective evil but has been taught that he is immune from its effects to, instead, view human events from the atheist lens where evil is a moving goal post. Objective Evil results in the death of everything in its path. So either of these lens are not likely to lead to the objective truth about anything.

——————————————————————————————

Because Penfield has blinders on about the history and faith he followed most of his life he is not likely to arrive at objectively true generalizations about human events. His definitions about some of the world religions are a tad flawed.

Protestants are taught that once they accept Christ their salvation is guaranteed regardless of the evil they visit on the world. Find that in Scripture or from anything taught by the Apostles or Church Fathers. Protestants are taught that each man is his own Pope; that is, that each man may interpret Scripture as he sees fit. Christ taught that, upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church; He did not leave the leadership of his Church to each man, woman and child. So Protestants follow some of what Christ and His Apostles taught but they also follow some of Luther’s personal opinions and fail to follow what Luther eliminated from Scripture that disagreed with his personal opinion.

Apart from heretics in the Papacy the Pope teaches nothing, more or less, than what has been handed down from Christ and His Apostles.

The Muslims suffer from the same ill as the Protestants. Because there is no succession of authority to teach they lack unity. They have splintered into various groups resulting in different sects teaching different doctrines
————————————————————————————————-

The rest of Penfield’s comment amounts to an angry, personal attack which neither shows where my criticism of him and his thesis goes wrong nor resurrects his false thesis.

Aiden wrote:

Why am I reading this 4th grade level knowledge of history nonsense?

What’s your point and what “4th grade knowledge” are you referring to? Are 4th graders taught the Protestant Reformation in the United States?

—————————————————————————————————————

Mefobills (in Comment 81) was under the impression that because Luther shook his fist at the Jews in one of his pamphlets that Protestantism was uninfected by Jews E. Michael Jones in “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” (Vol I) tells quite a different story. In any event Luther pit peasant against noblemen and noblemen against peasant visiting little more than destruction on Europe. And destruction is the hallmark of the Jewish program.

———————————————————————————————————————-

Back to the thesis of Penfield’s article: Penfield believes that public subsidies possess the power to destroy societies. Of course he proves nothing of the sort (even in the weak sense of “prove”). In the introduction to his article he implied using the inductivism of science to arrived at such a conclusion. That is, he looked dispassionately—-with no prior notions in his head—–and the events of history he reviewed lead to this inevitable conclusion—–that public subsidies to organized religion destroys societies. Hume showed induction to be invalid and Popper demonstrated that those who attempt to use the tools of science to understand or predict human events are equally muddled. Penfield doesn’t show where Hume or Popper were wrong.

Mefobills (also in Comment 81) does hint at a more potent force which destroys societies which Penfield ignores. Luther taught that a single subjective acceptance of Christ as Savior generated a guarantee from Heaven of their salvation. That is, regardless of the sins committed by the person (pre and post acceptance of Christ) that the guarantee was held intact. Luther is sometimes quoted as saying, “sin early and often for your salvation is assured” Combine this with Muslims where the only sin resulting in banishment to Hell is apostasy; and the individual Jew need only worry about close adherence to the litany of rules in the Talmud to avoid Hell. The Talmud teaches that Jews may cheat, subjugate and kill the goyim with impunity. The goyim are all non-Jews. It would seem to me that freed from any need to do good, as the Protestants, Muslims and Jews are we would have a prescription for the destruction of society.

Penfield, who apparently is or was a Protestant for most of his adult life sees Luther and his merry band of Protestant Reformers as the rational thinkers who saved the world from the Catholic Church. Nonetheless he makes the laughable claim that for the purposes of his article that he will slip the bonds of Protestantism to see the world through the eyes of an atheist. But the atheist hates God in any form and sees man as god. For the atheist what is “good” and “bad” evolves. Penfield article is rubbish from start to finish.

Penfield’s central thesis is this,

An abundance of evidence suggests that *state subsidies* for organized religion (an economic act) result in weak leadership, a dull congregation and a dying society. Why do so many Christians, Jews and atheists put up with it?

As near as I can tell after 10,000 words Penfield fails to explain the precise mechanics of how the granting of subsidies (certainly economic) to organized religious entities leads inevitably to
1. weak governmental leadership,
2. a dull congregation and
3. a dying society.

And while Penfield denies laying the blame for these consequences at the feet of organized religion (mainly the Catholic Church) this is, more or less, exactly what he does.

Mefobills doesn’t rescue Penfield but his comment implies an alternate theory to explain the effects of
1. weak governmental leadership,
2. a dull congregation and
3. a dying society.

The Jews used the accumulation of wealth to ensnare governments and other organizations through money lending. The granting and withholding of capital and the strings tied to the money lending is enough to explain weak men in government leadership. Destruction of the morals and education of individuals, families and the communities they live in is enough to explain the other effects—-which Penfield attributes to subsidies and, more less, lays at the feet of the Catholic Church.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Mefobills does go a bridge too far here:

Money is the mainspring of history, not religion. Caveat – false religion is used as a cover and shield for the “creditor class.”

Certainly money in its various forms has made the ability to buy goods and services for both good and evil ends. This makes money a tool of good and evil men (causing good and evil events) and, is not, in and of itself the power behind or the originator of good and evil. This would absolve men of the free will they have to commit both good and evil.

While the Church abused its use of indulgences Luther’s disputes with the Catholic Church (Luther was a Catholic Priest) were far more fundamental than this—-Luther disliked Catholic doctrine. Indulgences were just the straw on the camel’s back. Your attempt to liken “money” to a virus is ill-begotten—men have free will.. An evil man may use a hammer to beat someone to death while a good man may use it to build a disabled man a home. Accumulated wealth is likewise a tool; it can be used for good and evil; it is not, in and of itself, responsible for anything.

The changed doctrines foisted by Luther and the like-minded protestants made following the path of good completely unnecessary. All its followers were required to do was make a subjective profession of belief in Christ and their sins were covered. Even better according to Luther their salvation was guaranteed regardless of any prior or subsequent sins. Luther is said to have instructed his fellow congregants, “sin early and often.” And so he did himself.

Mebofill also goes wrong in believing that because Luther may have shook his fist at the Jews that he and his reforms were uninfected by the Jews. Not according to the E. Michael Jone’s magnum opus, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History” (see Volumes I and II).

As near as I can determine the only sin which causes a Muslim to head to hell is apostasy so the Muslim have very little reason to follow the path of good. And Talmud teaches the Jew that they may cheat, abuse, swindle and kill the goyim without worry over their salvation. That is, to the extent that Rabbis have any interest in salvation.

In any event Penfield’s thesis is absurd.

Normally I wouldn’t take the time to read a 10,000 word article but the title was intriguing. It seemed to suggest that governments (in this day and age at least) have no religion but are nonetheless subject to some religious authority. Unfortunately Penfield’s article has almost nothing to do with this. Instead his thesis was stated succinctly as:

An abundance of evidence suggests that *state subsidies* for organized religion result in weak leadership, a dull congregation and a dying society. Why do so many Christians, Jews and atheists put up with it?

What this means, of course, is that Penfield assumes the truth of the inherent evil of religious subsidies and cherry picks historical evidence to support it. Some of the evidence is factual and some not so much. And his attempt to group all Christians in one group is bad enough let alone presuming that Christians, Jews and atheists would be of one mind about anything.

Penfield goes on in describing his thesis:

My focus here is on the poor excuses for and harmful outcomes of mingling personal belief with the brute force of government.
One would hope that any reasonable Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist should be able to find common ground that no religion should be subsidized. But as of today, it appears that this position is extremely unpopular—at least among public intellectuals of any significance.

But aren’t the “Revealed” religions something more than personal, man-made belief easily swayed by external interference?

Penfield goes to state that he will be operating,

For purposes of this essay, I will be identifying as a non-practicing atheist. Membership in ((certain groups)) does offer some advantages. Avoiding the vulgar Us vs. Them mentality, to the greatest extent possible, is also important.

I wonder how he’ll pull this off when he admits:

As a long-time church member (three decades in upstate New York, 4 years in Nashville, and the last 15 years in the suburbs of Dallas)

Penfield is a little vague as to which Church he is (or was) member, but let me make a stab at this and guess he was a member of a Protestant sect. And I’ll base that on a vague dig at the Catholic Church while praising the likes of Luther and his Protestant Reformers as having attempted to save Christianity:

During the many dreadful centuries afterwards, the Corporate Church of the West would develop levels of intolerance that first led to dubious condemnations and expulsions, then eventually tens of thousands killed or tortured (and millions terrorized) for bogus claims of “heresy” (i.e., challenging the absolute truth of any Church teaching). Meanwhile, the general public endured centuries of suffering until independent scholars and workers like Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Jan Huss, Martin Luther and thousands of their supporters would sacrifice much to reestablish a better understanding of Christian teachings and help society slowly climb out of that pit of misery.

This is the same Luther, apostate Catholic priest, who pit noblemen against peasant and peasant against noblemen resulting in 30 years of war, lured a Catholic nun out of her vow of celibacy, eliminated inconvenient books of Scripture that disagreed with his personal opinions and made every man his own authority over the interpretation of Scripture. Luther and his Protestant Reformers made themselves to be god-like much as the Rabbis who teach and interpret the writings of Talmudic Judaism. Christianity like putty in there hands to be used for their own aggrandizement. And yet Penfield sees Luther and the rest of the Reformers as ending the suffering of centuries of Catholic “rule.” Don’t get me started on the path of destruction that the Talmudists have unleashed on the world. So Penfield’s blindness is understandable.

And the last tidbit from Penfield:

I’ve often wondered: how is it that we’ve come to a point where rampant debt-servitude is tolerated ($103 trillion and rising), blind faith in governing officials is expected and supported by a daily loyalty oath at schools and mandatory hymns before sporting events, unprovoked violence against defenseless third-world nations is openly encouraged, organized theft is celebrated and official policies of divisive double standards are the norm?

And this and every other example he sites in history is, according to Penfield, the result of religious subsidization by government? This is simplistic and absurd. I can understand why no historian would take this seriously. I suspect Penefield would have no difficulty getting such a book published but selling it would be quite another.

Truth Vigilante admits that assassination by the Jews is a last resort but never demonstrates that the much easier avenue of blackmail with JFK’s repeated trysts was even considered let alone attempted. The Jews bent JFK’s will to put LBJ as his running mate even though JFK detested him. Perhaps someone other than the Jews pulled off that feat?

With a blackmailed JFK and Jew-favoring-LBJ in the White House the Jews had nothing to fear. The only game JFK was running contrary to the likes of the Jews was JFK’s dislike of their nuclear program and blackmailing him with his trysts would have ended that or ended his Presidency without firing a shot. The Jews were never going to dismantle Dimona regardless of JFK’s protestations and Congressmen held in check by the Jews were never going to cut off aid to Israel. Israel was never going to lose this battle. Finally, Truth Vigilante forgets that in 1963 the morals of US citizens had not yet been corrupted by the Jews and any public revelation that the Catholic JFK was repeatedly cheating on his wife would have crushed him at the polls.

Truth Vigilante hardly proves that assassinating JFK was necessary to keep LBJ’s criminal activity from coming to light. Powerful people always escape justice—the Clintons, for example.

Nixon made explicit his desire to put Jews out of the Executive Branch. That was a real threat to them yet the Jews got him without firing a shot. And if any President was “running his own game” it was Trump. And they easily got rid of him without firing a shot. Truth Vigilante is hoisted on his own petard.

Notice that Truth Vigilante fails to answer the specific questions I raised (and implied):
1. Where exactly were the Deally Plaza gunmen?
2. How many of them were there?
3. Which ones actually fired and what calibers were they using?
4. Where is the eye witness evidence for 1, 2 and 3.
5. Where is the ballistics evidence to prove 1 and 3?

His answers to my questions always seem to be elsewhere or vague. Take this tidbit of his:

In that thread, Pa-Guano kept arguing that the shot to JFK’s head and throat came from BEHIND, contrary to what the actual doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas all unanimously stated (click on the link below to a comment that contains a video from one of those doctors that treated JFK):

Apparently Truth Vigilante is unaware that the Parkland doctors NEVER conducted an autopsy or bullet trace examination because the Secret Service refused to allow it. So the Parkland doctor’s opinion about the nature of JFK’s throat wound was conjecture without the benefit of investigation. The ONLY job the Secret Service allowed the Parkland Hospital staff to perform was an attempt at life saving. They took no photos prior to performing a tracheostomy and no communication between Parkland and the Naval Hospital occurred until after the Naval Hospital autopsy was completed.. As a result the Naval Hospital doctors saw the tracheostomy that Parkland doctors had performed and had no idea that this was initially the result of a bullet. The Secret Service also bullied the Naval Hospital into rushing and did not permit a bullet trace investigation.

Certainly there were witnesses aplenty but there are NO witnesses who gave sufficiently reliable information leading to the discovery of spent casings or descriptions of other putative shooters.

It is undoubted that since the early 1900s the US government has been littered with Jews, communists and those beholden or otherwise sympathetic to one or both. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to believe a government conspiracy to assassinate JFK wherein these same conspirators dutifully fill their files with true evidence of their own wrong doing. Or that the rabid adversarial relationship between the CIA (and its precursors) and the FBI was placed on hold to collaborate in the actual assassination of JFK. Absurd.

About the only thing this vague tidbit of yours might prove is that Oswald was the lone gunman—-exactly what the federal gov’t has been shoveling since the day after 11/22/1963. There is no doubt the federal gov’t is covering up something it knows but what is it? The JFK assassination theorists have been running around like madmen chasing every sliver of motive down an equal number of rabbit holes. I can only imagine how amused the Jews must be watching this keystone cop act for 60 years.

Here’s a laundry list of what you failed to explain:
1. Why did the Jews need to assassinate JFK when blackmailing him with his repeated philandering would have done much better? J.Edgar Hoover seemed to be kept under complete control until his death very nicely after being blackmailed with his homosexual trysts. Congressmen and Presidents feared him more than the mob for the blackmail material he collected on many of them.
2. Nixon made no bones about the fact that he intended to purge the Executive Agencies of Jews. This is where the Jews held the majority of their power over the US. Yet there was no need to assassinate Nixon, they had more control over the Executive Branch than Nixon and they “got” him out in disgrace without firing a shot. The Jews have an unmistakable dislike of Trump and they easily removed him without firing a shot. So why was assassination easier than blackmail for the Jews or any other of the governmental conspirators? No one even broaches the subject. I find it interesting that the Gov’t has rarely attempted to refute any of these movie scenario rabbit holes—-quite likely because they divert everyone’s attention from the truth.
3. None of the Jew-Mob-FBI-CIA-did-it worshipers have ever done a basic ballistics investigation to prove where all the shots came from. How many shooters and where were they in Deally Plaza? Why no witnesses? The majority of witnesses heard only 3 shots. Where were the shooters? The Jew-Mob-FBI-CIA-did it-worshipers couldn’t care less about evidence at Deally Plaza. For them motive and a dislike of JFK was enough. If so, the half of the voters in the US could be implicated. It’s no wonder our justice system is a shambles.

And Guyenot gives no less an interesting analysis of the history surrounding the JFK Assassination than the rest. Unfortunately the whole lot of writers/investigators don’t have clue who actually fired the shots at Deally Plaza. Their movie scenarios rarely even mention Deally Plaza. This is like investigating a bank robbery by viewing all the bank surveillance videos except the videos on the day of the robbery. This is why Jews have held the US under its control for so long—–most US citizens can be lead down the primrose path with ease.

Guyenot’s articles are always interesting and his analysis of the opinions of others is not to be ignored. Most of these investigations reveal a great deal about the the history of the powerful players of the time. They establish compelling motives for some of these players to act against JFK but not the actions they actually took, if any.

Why does virtually every published JFK Assassination investigator assume that the powerful players they implicate would use assassination to achieve their goals? Why was Nixon, Carter and Trump easily pushed out of the Presidency and left alive while JFK was not? Israel was never going to abandon Dimona regardless of JFK’s personal feelings about nuclear weapons and Congress was never going to cut aide to Israel. And JFK’s philandering left him just as vulnerable as was J. Edgar Hoover with his homosexual tysts. That is, the compelling motives of Israel and LBJ to work against JFK don’t necessarily require assassination. For example, Israeli interests easily maneuvered JFK to pick LBJ as his Vice President even though JFK loathed LBJ.

Assassination is the most messy and in some cases the most difficult to pull off. As far as I know neither these published JFK Assassination investigators nor the commentors in this forum seem to realize that motive doesn’t limit the action taken to assassination and certainly isn’t proof that any action was taken. That is, unless anyone, including Guyenot can connect the powerful players being portrayed to the shots fired at Deally Plaza we are no closer to solving the murder than we were on November 22, 1963.

The majority of Deally Plaza witnesses heard only three shots. Was JFK shot more than two times? How many shots did it take to cause the three wounds in Gov Connally? How many shooters would it have taken to cause the three wounds in Gov Connally? And based on ballistics where MUST these shooters have been located? Why didn’t a single witness see any shooters?

Absent the interest or ability to answer these questions (which almost no one seems to have) these interesting forays into the history/relationships of powerful people leads to nothing more than movie scenarios. That isn’t particularly satisfying if we’re interested in justice and truth.

Jones’s anecdote about telling a Unitarian Joke which elicits laughter from a bus load of Iranians riding on a bus in Tehran isn’t funny and likely isn’t true. There are only roughly 150,000 Christians (of one denomination or another) in a country of 89 million Iranians. It’s unlikely that the .2% of Christians in Iran would know the beliefs of a Unitiarian any more than the Moslems. This would be equally true of the occupants of any random bus load of US citizens traveling anywhere in the United States. Things go down from there in his article.

Apparently it doesn’t take much to get E. Michael Jone’s goat. The Protestants have long been exercised over the Catholic dogma of, “no salvation outside the Church.” And by “Church” is meant clearly the Catholic Church. The Protestants side step the issue that they separated themselves from the Church that Christ and His Apostles founded. And so the oft made protestant quip about unbaptized babies going into hellfire under Catholic doctrine is typically the best they can do. Ultimately it is Christ the King and Judge who decides such matters.

Thankfully it is Christ the King who decides such matters and not Jones who apparently thinks he can adjudicate such inscrutable criteria as “invincible ignorance.” It should be pointed out that there is no Catholic dogma of “baptism of desire,” it was never taught by Jesus or His Apostles and is rarely if ever taught to the faithful. There is no consensus among theologians and even if there were the Magisterium never ratified it. St Augustine who propounded it changed his mind after battling the Donatists. Aquinas cited St Augustine in his acceptance of it but never cites Augustine’s argument. As near as I can tell no theologian has presented a logical argument from Scripture or Tradition for “baptism of desire.” The Council of Trent and the Code of Canon Law make a brief and vague mention of it.

And so “America’s leading Catholic intellectual” was goaded by the ramblings of a protestant heretic into giving the rest of us a brief theological treatise about something the Catholic Church has ill-defined and over which Christ the King and Judge has the sole power to decide.

What E. Michael Jones should be more worried about is that since 1970 the Vatican II hierarchy has lead the Church to become more Protestant every day. And that in becoming more Protestant Catholic Churches have emptied and its current and former members lead down the same splintered pathways which its heretic brothers have gone since Luther. In 2023 the Vatican II Church is in free fall and look what worries “America’s leading Catholic intellectual.”

Let’s take this one final step. The Vatican II Church rarely mentions or worries about Baptism of Desire. It has taught explicitly that the Catholic Church is not the only means of salvation; that salvation can be had via any of the faiths. Though such faiths are not as perfect as the Catholic Church they are nonetheless a means of salvation. This, of course, is heresy taught by the Vatican II Church but this doesn’t seem to worry E. Michael Jones. For him unity in heresy trumps Tradition every time. By the way, the Jews and the judaized Protestants were fans of the Vatican II Constitutions. Go figure. . .

What Ron Unz’s article and his televised interview with Iranian TV make clear is that events such as the JFK Assassination result in valuable investigations which discover the relationships between powerful, wealthy elites in every walk of life: banking, government, foreign governments, organized crime, intelligence agencies, and business. They often discover that just below the surface these agents are often working in concert for one issue or another to some end. These findings are historically important to the unwashed masses if they want to know which way they’re being pushed towards the abyss.

Specifically the “Mark Lanes” uncovered that JFK was an impediment to some (or all) of the powerful elites in their attempts to push the US in their preferred direction. What these kinds of investigations don’t answer and can’t answer is the specifics of the murder scene. That is they are no closer to determining
1. who pulled the trigger?
2. how many shooters were at Deally Plaza?
3. exactly where were they positioned?
4. how did they shot without witnesses uncovering them?
5. who hired them?
6. what caliber bullets were used?

The “Mark lanes” are completely out of their element in dealing with a crime scene. And so they behave exactly like the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission set out to prove that Oswald was a lone crazy shooter and that was the outcome. The “Mark Lanes” using compelling Israeli/Jew/LBJ motives set out to prove that only those factions could have killed JFK. Motive is not proof and so long as that is the principle hammer the case will never be solved.

Another major issue that the “Mark Lanes” leave unsolved is: why was it necessary to assassinate JFK? Why was Nixon, Carter and Trump easily pushed out of the Presidency and left alive while JFK was not? Israel was never going to abandon Dimona regardless of JFK’s personal feelings about nuclear weapons and Congress was never going to cut aide to Israel. And JFK’s philandering left him just as vulnerable as was J. Edgar Hoover with his homosexual tysts. That is, the compelling motives of Israel and LBJ to work against JFK don’t necessarily require assassination. For example, Israeli interests easily maneuvered JFK to pick LBJ as his Vice President even though JFK loathed LBJ.

Truth Vigilante wrote:

Pa-Guano, the B.S from you just never stops, does it ?

This is your trademark personal attack and name calling. It is simply childish.

Truth Vigilante wrote:

The throat and back wounds to JFK (both entry wounds), are NOT the consensus belief.

But you claimed the exact opposite in your Comment #290. Here’s what you wrote:

NO serious/objective researcher asserts that the wound to JFK’s back was an exit wound and no serious researcher suggests that the wound to JFK’s throat is related to the wound in his back.

“Consensus” means a position reached by a group (in this case the group of “serious researchers”) and NOT everyone. In this case “serious researchers” (along with you) are those who ignore or accentuate evidence which tends to show that Oswald (or someone from the Book Deposiory) did not fire the throat shot. This is evident with your assertion that Crenshaw is telling the truth while Humes is a good-for-nothing shill.

In the years shortly after Deally Plaza there weren’t many detractors of the Warren Commission but by the late 1970s that rapidly ended. Your claim that the majority of JFK assassination researchers in the last 25 years are merely regurgitating Warren Commission findings is absurd nonsense.

Most of your Comment # 295 makes your hatred of the Jews crystal clear. And also makes clear that this hatred is driving how you “color” the evidence to ensure your proper conclusion—-that the Jews did it. Motive is not evidence. This is little different from the Warren Commission who set out to prove that Oswald was the sole shooter responsible for all the shots.

You FALSELY accuse me of blindly following the Warren Commission. I have stated repeatedly that the “magic bullet” theory is bunkum and any shooter in the Book Depository could NOT be responsible for the JFK head shot. Where is the evidence that the second shooter was a Jew or hired by the Jews? Perhaps the theory is true but where is the evidence?

Truth Vigilante wrote:
First of all, Dr Humes was a corrupt POS, PURPOSELY CHOSEN FOR HIS LACK OF SCRUPLES and paid by his Zio controllers to write statements that were in accord with the bogus USG account of the assassination. NO ONE with any integrity ever quotes the findings from this liar Dr Humes, UNLESS THEY ARE AGENTS OF ZOG themselves. Dr Humes was the LEAST QUALIFIED PERSON one could choose to do the autopsy on JFK.

This is almost completely a childish personal attack and NOT a reasoned or a scientific argument. Crenshaw made a hasty decision without the slightest confirmatory evidence or the slightest bit of investigation. Nonetheless it agreed with your preconceived theory while Humes had to be vilified because his observations did NOT. This ain’t science and Crenshaw was NOT allowed to investigate the truth of his hasty conclusion. If there was a reasoned argument “you” didn’t provide it; you claimed the reasoned argument was elsewhere. Again let’s look at what you failed to address:

1. JFK’s collar was buttoned up which would have restrained the skin of his neck had the bullet come from behind causing less damage to the exit wound below the Adams apple. The back wound just below the nape of JFK’s neck also had all the appearance of an entry wound with the front neck wound below the Adams apple being a plausible exit—this has at least one piece of supporting evidence.
2. The Parkland doctors never examined JFK’s back. The bullet hole in JFK’s back ALSO had all the appearance of an entry wound. This would have caused Crenshaw to have less certainty about the throat wound and he would have conducted FURTHER INVESTIGATION—-but was NOT allowed to do so. The 1978 House Committee on Assassinations confirmed—-from autopsy photos—-that Humes got both the location of the back wound (just below the nape of JFK’s neck) and its appearance as an entrance wound correctly.
3. Parkland doctors were not permitted to perform an autopsy or bullet trace procedures. These would have confirmed or DENIED their initial conclusions about the throat wound. Neither were the Bethesda Naval doctors permitted to perform a bullet trace procedures.
4. The FBI analysis of JFK’s shirt found that the fibers around the bullet hole in the back of the shirt pointed INTO the wound and the fibers in the front collar pointed away from the bullet wound. This contradicts Crenhaw.
5. During the autopsy Humes had presumed JFK’s throat wound was the result of the Parkland Memorial tracheotomy and not of a bullet wound. Since he didn’t know there was a potential exit wound at the throat (at the time of the autopsy), the fact that he could feel the end of the back wound with his finger led him to hastily conclude a shallow penetration. This didn’t seem particularly relevant at the time given the fact that JFK had a gaping head wound.
6. From the point JFK’s body arrived at Parkland Memorial it is the Secret Service armed dogs who are guiding what was and was not performed. They forceably removed JFK’s body from Parkland Memorial after he expired before any real investigation could be conducted. These armed dogs apparently also created a chaotic and hurried atmosphere at Bethesda Naval. What should have been a several day long autopsy was forced to be conducted in a matter of hours—-the Secret Service armed dogs made sure of that. The only person with the authority to direct the armed dogs would have bee LBJ who was certainly a Jew sympathizer.
6. While there is evidence of a strike to the inside of JFK’s limo windshield there is no bullet hole in the windshield.

Unless you can explain this with something other than personal attacks and claims that the explanation is elsewhere you got nothin’. NOTHIN’ And I’m still waiting for an explanation of how many shooters it took to inflict the three bullet wounds in Gov Connally, where they were, and what caliber was used. Don’t give me url links provide the explanation in the four corners of your comment—-if you can.

Truth Vigilante wrote:

NO serious/objective researcher asserts that the wound to JFK’s back was an exit wound and no serious researcher suggests that the wound to JFK’s throat is related to the wound in his back.

They were TWO SEPARATE BULLETS fired by TWO SEPARATE SHOOTERS.

1. Whether any researcher was objective is doubtful. Most of them had preconceived notions about motive which drove their investigations. Consensus is not a method for arriving at the objective truth. In many forensic and scientific investigations the consensus view turns out to be plausible but FALSE. The truth of an event is often illusive.
2. Most are willing to accept Dr Crenshaw’s (Parkland Memorial) hasty conclusion that the front throat shot was an entry wound, while they disregard Dr Humes’s observation that the back wound was an entry wound. If Dr. Crenshaw at Parkland had known of the back wound (which he didn’t) his conclusion might have been less hasty. And by the time Humes got the body at Bethesda Naval the throat wound was so altered by the Parkland Memorial tracheotomy he didn’t even recognize it as a bullet wound.
3. So many shooters have been introduced by your “objective” researchers yet they produce few, if any, confirmatory witnesses or evidence. How many shooters were responsible for the three wounds in Gov Connally and where are the witnesses for those shooters? There are so many proposed shooters that witnesses at Deally Plaza should have been tripping over them.
4. If JFK’s back wound AND the throat wound were entry wounds where are the exist wounds? And since NO bullet trace procedures were performed at Parkland Memorial or Bethesda Naval where’s the evidence. Where did these TWO DIFFERENT bullets end up? This is evidence-free story telling. The FBI analysis of JFK’s shirt found that the fibers around the bullet hole in the back of the shirt pointed INTO the wound and the fibers in the front collar pointed away from the bullet wound. This contradicts Crenhaw and the notion that both wounds were entry wounds.

Truth Vigilante wrote:

The bullet that struck JFK in the throat was an obvious ENTRY wound.

1. Again this was a hasty conclusion made by one or more of the doctors at Parkland. Unfortunately they were all unaware of the back wound which according to Dr. Humes (Bethesda Naval) AND the 1978 House Committee on Assassinations had all the appearances of an entry wound. This would have introduced considerable doubt in the minds of the Parkland doctors that could only have been resolved with further investigation and bullet channel analysis. Neither of which the Parkland doctors were allowed to do.
2. The FBI analysis of JFK’s shirt found that the fibers around the bullet hole in the back of the shirt pointed INTO the wound and the fibers in the front collar pointed away from the bullet wound. This contradicts the claim that both wounds were entry wounds.

Truth Vigilante wrote:

After piercing the windscreen of JFK’s vehicle (seeing as it was fired from someone directly in FRONT of JFK’s limousine – quite likely from the vicinity of the triple underpass) and losing much momentum, it lodged in JFK’s throat and hence no exit wound.

1. While there is windshield damage to JFK’s limo there is NO bullet hole.
2. The claim that the back wound and throat wounds were entry with no exit means two bullets should easily have been found by xray and retrieved—neither are available as evidence. And no wound channel procedure was conducted to prove these claims. This is mere unsupported speculation.

Truth Vigilante wrote:

Because if they were found, ballistics would have identified them as coming from differing rifles and perhaps even differing calibre/weaponry.

This is pure unadulterated story telling. The rest of Truth Vigilante’s comment is more of the same evidence free story telling.

Gaffney wrote:

Pagano, you are so full of it I can see why some have dubbed you pa – guano. The slur fits.

Beyond the fact that ad hominem statements violate Unz’s posting policy this isn’t a reasoned argument but name calling. I’m not claiming certainty; I simply suggest that the evidence is not nearly so complete and unequivocal as you and the authorities you blindly follow claim.

Gaffney wrote:

Speculation? Nonsense. Dr Crenshaw knew an entry would when he saw one — after treating umpteen gun shot wounds at Parkland. Same for the other doctors. Later, when asked why he didn’t speak out sooner, Crenshaw said it was intimidation.

There is no denying that the throat wound should have been larger and more jagged for the typical exit wound of a FMJ round, IF the conditions were typical.

1. JFK’s collar was buttoned up which would have restrained the skin of his neck had the bullet come from behind causing less damage to the exit wound.
2. The Parkland doctors never examined JFK’s back. The bullet hole in JFK’s back ALSO had all the appearance of an entry wound. This would have caused Crenshaw to have less certainty about the throat wound and he would have conducted FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
3. Parkland doctors were not permitted to perform an autopsy or bullet trace procedures. These would have confirmed or DENIED their initial conclusions about the throat wound.
4. The FBI analysis of JFK’s shirt found that the fibers around the bullet hole in the back of the shirt pointed INTO the wound and the fibers in the front collar pointed away from the bullet wound. This contradicts Crenhaw.
5. While there is evidence of a strike to the inside of JFK’s limo windshield there is no bullet hole in the windshield.

So what we have here is you relying on the authority of others rather than thinking for yourself. And/or you allowing the theory of multiple Jew assassins to dictate what evidence will be seen and which will be ignored.

Concerning JFK’s head shot—–IT COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM THE BOOK DEPOSITORY AND IT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CALIBER AND TYPE OF ROUND. If this can be pinned on Ben Gurion or Lansky then so be it. But let’s see the evidence.

Gaffney wrote:

Your theory of exploding bullets in reverse is refuted in the film: From JFK to 9/11. See my post # 267 for the details.

Unfortunately I didn’t claim an “exploding” bullet was used. I suggested that a frangible bullet was used. A round commonly found in the 5.56mm x 45 round fired from an M-16 or AR-15. This round is designed to penetrate and then immediately disintegrate.

Here’s the “details” in Gaffney’s Comment 267:

Most of the other shooters – the filmmaker claims — had missed (except for the frontal throat and the back shots which were not necessarily fatal)….If true, this means the crossfire strategy nearly failed. A white mark painted on the curb visible to the driver allowed him to know when to stop — and apparently he also received a signal from the conspicuous umbrella man on that same side of the street.

The trajectory of this shot came from lower right explains the backward and upward jerk of JFK’s head — and also the severe damage — brains and blood thrown out in all directions. By Occam’s razor this is the simplest and therefor best explanation — no need to resort to Pagano’s reasoning.

The key is understanding why the CIA (or someone) altered the Zapruder film: to hide the fact the driver of the presidential limo slowed down to nearly a stop. This allowed the shooter hidden in the storm drain to blow Kennedy’s head apart. The shot came from the lower right which explains why JFK’s head jerked as it did. It wasn’t an exploding bullet.

1. The problem with the “cross fire” theory is that there are few, if any, witness statements putting particular shooters at particular places in Deally Plaza with firearms in their hands. I’m not dismissing the possibility, only that there is little evidence for it. The acoustic evidence (where did witnesses think the shots came from with their ears) is at best equivocal; particularly since the shots rang out in rapid succession.
2. Your evidence that the Secret Service agent driver of JFK’s limo actually came to a stop to give multiple assassins an easier shot is conveniently absent. This is a plausible theory but NOT evidence.
3. I wouldn’t necessarily discount “umbrella man” as providing signals to multiple assassins. Unfortunately, even if true, this fact doesn’t lead to how many assassins were in place, how many actually fired, what were their locations was within Deally Plaza, what were their motives or what caliber rifles were used.
4. The large skull wound at the top right of JFK’s skull could have come from two different directions. A shooter facing the motorcade, at/near ground level and from the shooter’s point of view to the right of JFK’s limo as it approached him. Or a shooter from behind JFK’s limo, also at/near ground level but from the shooter’s point of view to the left of JFK. Did any witneses put shooters at either of the those locations? The front positioned shooter had almost no cover and likely would have been directly viewed by the police and spectators standing on the overpass. Likewise the shooter from behind should have been seen. Where is the evidence for either?
5. Assuming that the head shot came from the front is not, alone, evidence that the bullet “pushed” JFK’s head back. The collision between the bullet and his skull was NOT an elastic collision like that between two billiard balls. Theorizing the front shooter used the storm drain as a firing position is not the same as having a witness place a shooter there.
6. Finally the numerous bullet fragments found by the Bethesda Naval staff particularly those embedded in the inside of parts of JFK’s skull is compelling evidence that the round fired at JFK’s head was frangible. This was likely NOT a FMJ bullet.
7. I’m still waiting for the explanation of where all the shooters were to explain the wounds to Gov Connally’s shoulder, wrist and leg.

You make the gross errors of presuming that a theory and a plausible explanation is the truth of events.

Sparkon wrote:

Not one of the objective JFK researchers is suggesting that the wound to JFK’s throat was an exit wound – NOT ONE.

The argument from authority is among the weakest of arguments. Everyone, from the beginning, including all the researchers, have been operating from imperfect and missing evidence. Consensus is not equivalent to truth.

Sparkon wrote:

Now, if we were to assume for one second, the preposterous notion that the wound to JFK’s throat was an exit wound, WHERE is the entry wound ? (seeing as there is no entry wound ANYWHERE in the vicinity of the back of JFK’s neck).

If we assume that the back wound is the exit wound. And assume the back wound is correctly located by Dr Boswell’s Bethesda autopsy diagram (which even he denied)—-that is, well below the nape of JFK’s neck then the bullet path from the front necessarily would have been very steep—-likely 45 degrees or greater. If the shooter wasn’t standing on the hood of JFK’s limo what location in front of the motorcade would have afforded such a shooting platform? What evidence is there for such a shooter?

But of course this isn’t necessary. Dr Humes report showed the entry hole in the back to be just below the nape of the neck and just to the right of the spine. This was confirmed by the 1978 House Committee for assassinations who had access to the autopsy photos. And the FBI examination of JFK’s shirt fibers showed that the fibers pointed into the wound in the back of the shirt and pointed out in the front collar. The fact that the holes in JFK’s jacket and shirt are lower than the nape of the neck is explained simply by JFK having raised his right hand (and shoulder?) just prior to the neck shot.

Given these set of facts a rear shot from the 6th floor Book Depository is more than plausible. Witnesses put Oswald in the building before the shooting and his rifle with at least two recently spent casing found in the book depository room. Oswald made an unsuccessful assassination attempt against retired Col. Edwin Walker in Texas just 2 months prior to JFK’s assassination. Oswald had wished to make some notable act against the United States since he returned from Russia. Means, motive and opportunity. It simply doesn’t get any better than that.

However, Oswald DID NOT FIRE THE HEAD SHOT. Who was that shooter, what rifle caliber was used, where was his firing position and what was the motive. If this was a Mossad sniper or a Lansky hit man then so be it. I’m just waiting for the evidence.

Sparkon wrote:

What are you talking about? I’ve already explained that the throat shot passed through the windshield of JFK’s limo where it left a hole

Perhaps this is the case, but most of the commonly used rifle calibers have difficulty passing through windshields because of their strength and slant; typically rounds glance off. And while there is damage to the inside windshield there is no distinct bullet hole in the windshield. The notion that the bullet wound to JFK’s throat came from the front is hardly definitive.

Sparkon wrote;

Nonsense. The doctors at Parkland described the throat wound as a wound of entry. At the autopsy,

The Parkland Memorial doctors were given no time to investigate; the ONLY job the Secret Service detail allowed was an attempt at saving/stabilizing JFK. They were never permitted to do an autopsy after JFK expired or conduct a wound channel analysis. The Dallas doctors never even examined JFK’s back. The speculation by one or more of the Dallas doctors that the front throat wound was the bullet entry point was, at best, speculation.

Furthermore the front throat wound would have looked more like a typical exit wound—larger, with torn, ragged edges—except that JFK’s neck was surrounded by and restrained by his buttoned shirt collar. As a result Kennedy’s skin stretched as the bullet pushed through, back to front, from the inside—but only until it was tight against the collar. At that point the bullet punctured the skin, leaving a neat, clean hole, much like a sharp stick would when passing through a taut rubber sheet. The back wound—-found by Hume to be just below the nape of the neck—had the appearance of a typical entry wound.

Sparkon provided quotes from the official Bethesda autopsy:

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

Humes actually described the location of the bullet wound in the back as being 5 1/2 inches [laterally] from the tip of the right shoulder and 5 1/2 inches below the right mastoid process. This put the back bullet wound just below the nape of the neck and just to the right of the spine. In 1978 the House Subcommittee’s Assassination investigation had realistic paintings made of the President’s wounds directly from the autopsy photos and also went to great lengths to make sure the photographs were not fakes and had not been altered. The wound in JFK’s back was exactly where Humes described it.

And as I pointed out in a previous comment an FBI analysis of JFK’s shirt showed the fibers around the bullet hole in the back pointing into the wound while the fibers in the front collar pointing out.

Sparkon provided quotes from the official Bethesda autopsy:

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

It’s not clear what this proves if anything. When Humes received the body for autopsy at Behesda Naval he was unaware of a bullet wound to the throat because all he could see was evidence that a tracheotomy had been performed to JFK’s throat. The back wound clearly looked like an entry wound to Humes but he was confused when he could feel the end of the bullet path with his finger.

Later on in the autopsy word was passed to the Bethesda autopsy staff that a bullet had been recovered at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Humes immediately jumped to the conclusion that the reason the bullet path in JFK’s back was less than the length of his finger was that bullet penetration was shallow and the bullet worked its way out while undergoing treatment in Dallas. In any event Humes did no dissection of the back wound to confirm his hasty conclusion. Dr Finck later reported that Bethesda Naval doctors were ordered not to perform bullet tracking procedures. Finally it wasn’t until the next morning, long after the autopsy was finished at Bethesda that Humes talked to Dr Perry in Dallas and learned of the gunshot wound beneath JFK’s Adam’s apple. This radically altered all the hasty conclusions Humes had jumped to during the autopsy.

What about the issue of Hume’s observation of the shallow back wound channel heading downward at a 45-60 degree angle? The bullet’s true channel may have been obscured by the fact that, in death, JFK’s back muscles were completely relaxed. And Kennedy’s face down position on the autopsy table bore little resemblence to his position when the bullet struck: that is, at the time of the shot, JFK’s right arm was raised, thereby stretching the muscles and tissue of the upper back. In death these muscles eased back into their normal position and may well have obscured or distorted the trajectory. The bottom line is that no bullet tracking procedure was ever performed on JFK’s body?

One wonders, then, where Sparkon derives his confident certainty. Or how Sparkon thinks any of this confirms that the throat wound was fired from the front? And even if we assume a front shot, where in Deally Plaza was there a vantage point to have fired such a shot at such an angle? And what caliber bullet would have successfully penetrated a slanting windshield glass of the 1960s.

The more thorny issue for Sparkon is how, exactly, he explains the three bullet wounds to Gov. Connally.

Sparkon provided from the official Bethesda autopsy:

Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

Since there is absolutely no evidence that JFK’s head wounds could have come from the Book Depository this clearly requires a second shooter, from a different location using a completely different rifle round. The fact that there were numerous metal fragments found throughout JFK brain matter and embedded to the inside of JFK’s skull indicates a frangible round. Oswald’s Carcano rifle was firing FMJ.

While I may have the technical language incorrect the point is clear.

another fred wrote:

I didn’t say it was elastic, I said that an interaction between two bodies does not have to be elastic for momentum to be transferred. You need to read more carefully.

Unfortunately “elasticity” is considerably relevant. Elasticity gives us a qualitative measure for the extent of the transfer of kinetic energy and momentum. Perfectly elastic and there is a complete transfer of kinetic energy and momentum; completely inelastic and there is NO transfer at all.

The collision of a frangible bullet traveling at 2800 ft/sec with JFK’s skull is near the perfectly inelastic end of the scale. The kinetic energy (and the momentum) of the bullet is almost completely transformed to heat and pressure in the skull. The transfer of momentum from the bullet to the skull is negligible.

another fred wrote:

Centrifugal force is germane to rotational momentum, not linear. You are out of your element.

You understood the point being made nonetheless.

I’m not wedded to Oswald being the shooter because there is little certainty about anything. Nevertheless he made an failed assassination attempt against retired Col Edwin Walker a couple of months before Deally Plaza. A commuting buddy to the Dallas Book Depository job prior to Nov 22nd reported Oswald carrying a covered object to work that matches the size of the Carcanno rifle. Oswald was in the Book Depository on Nov 22nd before the shooting and fought capture after the assassination. And since his return to the US from Russia he appeared to have had a single-minded goal of committing some notable act against the United States preferably under the employ of the Russians or the Cubans—-neither of which appeared to want anything to do with him.

Whoever the shooter was, someone likely fired the shot that hit JFK in the back that exited the throat from high in the book depository. Examination of clothing fibers (jacket and shirt) show the fibers pointing into the wound in JFK’s back wound and out on the front collar of the shirt. Finally the wounds to Gov Connally (channel through the upper right shoulder, through the wrist and to the lower left thigh) are problematic it not from the book depostory.

another fred wrote:

I do not care to enter the rest of the argument about what happened or didn’t, I am simply telling you that your application of Newton’s laws is incorrect as regards momentum.

1. The “rest of the argument” that you don’t care to enter involves the system of interest—-in this case the collision of a frangible bullet traveling at about 2800 ft/sec into JFK’s head moving at about 15 ft/sec in the limo.
2. The oft made claim is that only a bullet fired by a shooter from the front would have caused JFK’s head to move backward. I simply doubt that an examination of the forces involved ON THE SYSTEM would necessarily prove this.

another fred wrote:

If you are postulating an explosion (from an explosive round or phase change) then that is different, but you are wrong about momentum.

3. This is exactly what I’ve been postulating. Surely it was clear from my previous explanations that a bullet traveling at 2800 ft/sec penetrates the skull and then immediately disintegrates within the small confines of a closed skull is effectively an explosion. I suspect that the pressure increase in the skull would have been orders of magnitude larger than that of holding firecracker in a closed fist.

4. In any event the shock wave and bullet fragments would continue along the bullet line of travel until the shock wave hits the inside of the upper front skull, exceeds its strength and forces skull fragments, brain matter and fluid out of the skull.

5. The force of the expulsion of those skull fragments, brain matter and brain fluid out the upper front of JFK’s skull would, according to Newton’s 3rd law, apply an equal and opposite force to his head backwards and down. Newton’s Laws generally apply to forces and not directly to momentum. Force is simply the rate of change of momentum with respect to time. F = dp/dt with p being the momentum.

6. Lastly the forward acceleration of the limo after the Secret Service driver heard the shots would also have applied a rearward centrifical force to JFK’s head.

If you disagree then please cut & and paste the incorrect statements from my comment into your reply so that I know exactly where the issue lies.

An elastic collision is an encounter (collision) between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies remains the same and there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms such as heat, noise, or potential energy. Both momentum and kinetic energy are conserved quantities in elastic collisions.

The collision of a frangible 5.56 mm x 45 round with the back of JFK’s head is NOT elastic. The bullet penetrates the back of the skull and then immediately disintegrates inside the brain cavity. Prior to impact the kinetic energy of the bullet is in the form of motion at velocity V. After impact that kinetic energy is largely converted to heat and pressure in the brain cavity.

Furthermore the Secret Service driver of JFK’s limo accelerated causing a centrifugal force to also be applied to JFK’s head.

Try again?

The US Gov’t apparently does whatever it wants with impunity.

Since 1970 and the promulgation of the Vatican II Heresies Catholic Churches and Catholic Schools have been closing at an alarming rate. The US Seminaries are mostly empty. Parishes that are still open often don’t have a Priest. Catholics have been fleeing the Vatican II Church in droves. They are already rushing away.

The Arian Heresy wasn’t solved by reform. A council was called and the heretics were outed and given an opportunity to abjure their heresies or be excommunicated. Similarly for present day Popes, Bishops and Priests. The Vatican II Decrees/Constitutions should be swept away in their entirety, the St Pius V Mass restored and the Novus Ordo swept away. Every Ordinary and Universal Teaching issued by the Vatican II Popes and Bishops should be swept away.

The policy of the SSPX is to recognize the Pope as non heretical but resist and ignore whatever they don’t like that issues from him.. The Catholic Church has NEVER given anyone this license. It is akin to the schismatic Protestants who declare that each person can decide for themselves how to interpret the deposit of faith. Each man is his own Pope. If this is what Jones does he is a schismatic himself.

What is the proper way for a Catholic to behave in the face of heresy by his Pope, Bishops and Priests:

Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, inferiors are bound to correct their superiors publicly when there is an imminent danger to the faith (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae q. 33 a. 4 ad 2; a. 7 co.), and the Catholic faithful have the right and at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to make known their views on matters which concern the good of the Church (Latin Code of Canon Law, Can. 212, §3), Catholic theologians have a strict duty to speak out against the apparent errors in the document. This statement on Amoris laetitia is intended to fulfil that duty, and to assist the hierarchy of the Church in addressing this situation.

Anon[125] wrote:

Get a grip, discourtesy is neither prudent nor persuasive. People jump in on comment threads because that is the nature of this forum.

The notion that I had been discourteous to Pierre de Craon is nonsense. The definition of “discourtesy” is to make a rude or insulting remark. I did nothing of the sort. I merely suggested that a comment of Pierre’s—-directed at me—–had failed to rescue a weak position offered by Dutch Boy. And then I clarified why. I made no personal attacks.

Anon[125] wrote:
The question of EMJ “bashing” traditional groups is an interesting one. Of course, he cannot be for clearly schismatic groups (like those derived from Lefebvre, who I am thankful existed). It is a reasonable position for a Catholic.

In 1970 the Vatican II Church became schismatic with the previous 1900 years of Catholic Church doctrine. Generally Traditionalists, Fatimists and Piux V Mass devotees simply point out the heresies in the Vatican II decrees; they haven’t concocted new ones. In Volume I of his “The Revolutionary Jewish Spirit” E. Michael Jones pointed out that the Protestant Reformers radically altered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass using several Judaized principles as their guide. It was Archbishop Lefebvre and NOT Jones who pointed out that Vatican II had used the same Judaized principles as the Protestants to create the Novus Ordo Service. Where is Jones on this? Noticeably absent. He bashes the Pius V Mass devotees while ignoring the Judaized Novus Ordo service.

While I also admire Lefebvre his SSPX took a decidedly schismatic approach to dealing with the heresy of Vatican II. The SSPX assert that the Vatican II Popes are not heretics; however, they nonetheless pick and chose what they will accept from the Vatican II Decrees/Constitutions. Catholics have no license to do so, so long as the Pope and his Bishops are not declared heretics. While Jones bashes several of the Traditional groups he doesn’t seem to be critical of the SSPX’s schismatic behavior.

Anon[125] wrote:

As to groups that use the “Extraordinary Rite” within the Church, like FSSP, Jones is not against them, IMO.

Jones has a thinly veiled disgust for Pius V Mass devotees and that Rite. The only “Latin” Mass that was permitted after Vatican II was the 1962 Rite which was already altered and a minor stepping stone to the Novus Ordo. Naturally Jones wouldn’t have problem with that.

Anon[125] wrote:

He, Jones, has said simply “Do not follow the Mass outside the Church”. He sees the Pope is persecuting that rite and the people who love it, but he knows that there is no salvation outside the Church. The apostolic succession is a sine qua non condition of the sacramental life and the graces it confers. So he tells the Latin Mass faithful not to go down the path of schism again. In short, pushed to the limit, he chooses “extra ecclesia nulla salus” over “lex orandi, lex credendi”.

How on Earth can the Pius V Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be “outside of the Church” when it was the Rite of the Catholic Church for the previous 1000 years? The Novus Ordo Service was altered by Bishop Anabale Bugnini at the direction of Paul VI using the same Judaized principles used by the Protestant Reformers 300 years earlier. So how can Jones characterize the Protestant Service as schismatic but the Novus Ordo not? He doesn’t explain, because he can’t.

Anon[125] wrote:

The apostolic succession is a sine qua non condition of the sacramental life and the graces it confers. So he tells the Latin Mass faithful not to go down the path of schism again.”.

What isn’t made explicit here is that Apostolicity is more than simply successive inheritance of the See of Peter. It’s successive inheritors must teach the same doctrine as the Apostles. That is the successors to the See of Peter must not be heretics. Vatican II Decrees have several heresies which effectively made the Catholic Church into something foreign. Popes who promulgate, teach and openly profess these heresies are themselves heretics. They have broken Apostolic Succession as heretics.

Anon[125] wrote:

In short, pushed to the limit, he chooses “extra ecclesia nulla salus” over “lex orandi, lex credendi

This is impossible—–one can NOT have one without the other—-because if one does not believe what the Apostles believed one is not within the Church. If the Novus Ordo was born of Judaized principles, Judaized will its members be and NOT Catholic. Positions such as this make Jones an ally of Talmudic Jews and not Catholicism. This is more serious than I thought.

By pitting “extra ecclesia” against “lex orandi” Jones implies that Church membership has nothing to do with what we believe. The vast majority of Catholics learn from the Church predominantly through attendance at its most sacred Rite, the Mass. The Novus Ordo Service has lead its members away from what the Apostles believed and how they prayed.

Anon[125]

Mind you, that does not mean that one cannot resist and defend the Tridentine Mass within the Church..

Unfortunately this is dead wrong and the term “resist” is typically an SSPX attitude towards the Vatican II Church. Unfortunately for the SSPX and those that follow them: if the Pope and/or his bishops are not declared heretics then a Catholic has NO right to resist or ignore any of their Ordinary and Universal Magisterial Teachings. Why would anyone need to defend the Tridentine Mass that had been the Church’s most precious Rite and Prayer for 1000 years?