cosjobs
Footballguy
New Orleans was a hotbed of crazy, insane #### during that time. There were some tasty crumbs in the book, but connecting all the conspiracies together seemed a bit contrived.
What did you think of Stone's JFK film?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Conspiracy Theories (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
What did you think of Stone's JFK film?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yeah, people tend to stick with the tried and true bogeymen.
https://www.history.com/news/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-theory-debunked
Kennedy was shot from behind.
cosjobs
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Actually here's one I find believable. A friend of mine, an attractive blonde btw, met this guy in the Quarter one night and he told the story of how he was Jack Kennedy's illegitimate son.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
A lot of those folks' (Garrison, Andrews, Mary, Ochsner...) children and grandchildren are still running around. They bang into each other every so often which is pretty funny when it happens. I have a relative who lived across the street from Oswald for a bit. I think a lot of those cross-connections that conspiracists like to focus on are just the marble-factory effect of this city.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
One time I was sitting in a bar in Royal Oak Michigan and Kid Rock came on the jukebox. The guy next to me started swearing and acting all ####ty and I was like “hey man you ok?” He then told me how he used to play with kid Rock and how he stole all their songs.
Radio Free Homer
Footballguy
JFK having ******* children running around is the most believable thing in the world.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Well he changed it a little. It used to be “brown chicken cow badonkadonk ditty”
cosjobs
Footballguy
Here's one that I had never heard before this morning: I knew something about the death of Pat Tillman, and how his death was misreported and used for propaganda purposes before it was later revealed that he was the victim of friendly fire. My assumption had always been that his death was a tragic accident, and that the military repeatedly covered up the truth out of embarrassment. What I had never heard previously was the theory that he was deliberately targeted. Even Tillman's mother has endorsed the theory.
Having just heard the theory, I can't judge it one way or another, though the notion that he got fragged because he was going to meet with Noam Chomsky seems far-fetched. That said, I remember in the aftermath being puzzled that the military went to such great lengths to avoid admitting that their initial story was wrong, including repeatedly lying to the family. Even for CYA-obsessed bureaucrats, it seemed excessive.
Having just heard the theory, I can't judge it one way or another, though the notion that he got fragged because he was going to meet with Noam Chomsky seems far-fetched. That said, I remember in the aftermath being puzzled that the military went to such great lengths to avoid admitting that their initial story was wrong, including repeatedly lying to the family. Even for CYA-obsessed bureaucrats, it seemed excessive.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Not exactly a conspiracy at this point, but might be news to some. The revolving door between the CIA, network news agencies, the film industry, and other centers of power is basically an open secret at this point. Ted Koppel's statement here, starting around page 16, and Dr. Don Argue's (PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS) around page 29 are interesting. Manually added some spacing for readability //
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF TED KOPPEL, ANCHOR, "NIGHTLINE," ABC NEWS Mr. Koppel. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for inviting me here this morning and for this opportunity to make a few preliminary comments. As you no doubt expected, I am unalterably and categorically opposed to the notion of the CIA having the legal option of using journalism as a cover for its officers or agents.
Having said that, there are circumstances under which the Agency has, under what it perceives to be the greater national interest, broken American laws in the past, and I have no doubt that it will continue under such circumstances to do so in the future. Pragmatism demands that we accept that as a fact of life in the gathering of intelligence. It does not require, however, that Congress sanction such illegal behavior with its own benediction or that it facilitate the process by changing our laws.
Let me begin by giving you the perspective of someone who has been a working journalist for more than 35 years. As things already stand, most governments, police, and intelligence agencies around the world assume that many, if not most American journalists working overseas are, at the very least sharing information with the CIA and probably work for the Agency. Since that is the way most of them operate, it is only natural that they assume that we do so also.
Until now, we have been at least able to point to American law to insist that we would be breaking the law if we worked simultaneously as journalists and intelligence operatives. It wasn't much, but it was all we had. Occasionally we were even able to convince people, in other countries, that Americans are curiously attached to their laws, even when those seem to complicate the process of governing.
It will be much easier for those foreign government and agencies if we give them yet another opportunity to assume that the United States is, after all, just like them. It will certainly make life much more difficult for my colleagues and me. It will also place an even greater strain on the worn thread of credibility that exists between American journalists and our readers and viewers if they are left to wonder which of us are still trying to maintain some ethical and professional standards and who among us is actually working for U.S. intelligence.
Those of my colleagues who have devoted a lifetime striving for fairness and objectivity in their work, who have genuinely reported without fear or favor, will now have to settle for the assumption that they were just maintaining their cover. How often the CIA would actually use such cover is beside the point. The relevant question is how often it would be assumed, both home and abroad, that American reporters are working with a second secret agenda.
Which brings me back to my initial point. The gathering of intelligence is a difficult, dangerous, and sometimes dirty operation. That is not my judgment. That is what we have repeatedly been told by senior intelligence officers. It is they, including the distinguished current Director of Central Intelligence, who explained the use of tainted assets by invoking the need to deal with crooks and thugs in the interest of protecting our national security. When, as they sometimes do, U.S. intelligence officers circumvent or even break American laws, they must reckon with the possibility that they will one day be held to account.
If their arguments are persuasive, if it is true that the national interest could not be served in any other fashion, the Congress can be expected to be lenient and understanding. But at least everyone understands that a line has been crossed and that there may be consequences. If the CIA must on occasion use the role of an American journalist to conceal one of its operatives and to protect the greater national interest, it will do so, regardless of what is decided by Congress. But let that continue to be in the knowledge that a free press is being endangered and that American law is being broken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Koppel
"CIA's use of journalists and clergy in intelligence operations." Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, hearing transcript, July 17, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF TED KOPPEL, ANCHOR, "NIGHTLINE," ABC NEWS Mr. Koppel. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for inviting me here this morning and for this opportunity to make a few preliminary comments. As you no doubt expected, I am unalterably and categorically opposed to the notion of the CIA having the legal option of using journalism as a cover for its officers or agents.
Having said that, there are circumstances under which the Agency has, under what it perceives to be the greater national interest, broken American laws in the past, and I have no doubt that it will continue under such circumstances to do so in the future. Pragmatism demands that we accept that as a fact of life in the gathering of intelligence. It does not require, however, that Congress sanction such illegal behavior with its own benediction or that it facilitate the process by changing our laws.
Let me begin by giving you the perspective of someone who has been a working journalist for more than 35 years. As things already stand, most governments, police, and intelligence agencies around the world assume that many, if not most American journalists working overseas are, at the very least sharing information with the CIA and probably work for the Agency. Since that is the way most of them operate, it is only natural that they assume that we do so also.
Until now, we have been at least able to point to American law to insist that we would be breaking the law if we worked simultaneously as journalists and intelligence operatives. It wasn't much, but it was all we had. Occasionally we were even able to convince people, in other countries, that Americans are curiously attached to their laws, even when those seem to complicate the process of governing.
It will be much easier for those foreign government and agencies if we give them yet another opportunity to assume that the United States is, after all, just like them. It will certainly make life much more difficult for my colleagues and me. It will also place an even greater strain on the worn thread of credibility that exists between American journalists and our readers and viewers if they are left to wonder which of us are still trying to maintain some ethical and professional standards and who among us is actually working for U.S. intelligence.
Those of my colleagues who have devoted a lifetime striving for fairness and objectivity in their work, who have genuinely reported without fear or favor, will now have to settle for the assumption that they were just maintaining their cover. How often the CIA would actually use such cover is beside the point. The relevant question is how often it would be assumed, both home and abroad, that American reporters are working with a second secret agenda.
Which brings me back to my initial point. The gathering of intelligence is a difficult, dangerous, and sometimes dirty operation. That is not my judgment. That is what we have repeatedly been told by senior intelligence officers. It is they, including the distinguished current Director of Central Intelligence, who explained the use of tainted assets by invoking the need to deal with crooks and thugs in the interest of protecting our national security. When, as they sometimes do, U.S. intelligence officers circumvent or even break American laws, they must reckon with the possibility that they will one day be held to account.
If their arguments are persuasive, if it is true that the national interest could not be served in any other fashion, the Congress can be expected to be lenient and understanding. But at least everyone understands that a line has been crossed and that there may be consequences. If the CIA must on occasion use the role of an American journalist to conceal one of its operatives and to protect the greater national interest, it will do so, regardless of what is decided by Congress. But let that continue to be in the knowledge that a free press is being endangered and that American law is being broken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Koppel
"CIA's use of journalists and clergy in intelligence operations." Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, hearing transcript, July 17, 1996.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
I thought this was an interesting story in light of today. It sounds like the major news release is still months away.
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
https://mustreadalaska.com/breaking-uaf-study-says-government-wrong-world-trade-center-collapse/
https://www.ae911truth.org/
- A 4 year study concluded that world trade center tower 7 did not collapse due to fires as previously cited in the NIST report.
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
https://mustreadalaska.com/breaking-uaf-study-says-government-wrong-world-trade-center-collapse/
https://www.ae911truth.org/
- A 4 year study concluded that world trade center tower 7 did not collapse due to fires as previously cited in the NIST report.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
@Max PowerI felt like folks jumped on you in the Biden thread. Anyway if you want to flesh out the Biden Ukraine claims I am glad to do it here.
I take it this is the piece you saw on Hannity. Glad to break it down if you wish to discuss.
I take it this is the piece you saw on Hannity. Glad to break it down if you wish to discuss.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Something I find really disturbing is Trump's use of the National Enquirer and his manufacturing of conspiracy theories as part of his actual political strategy.
What he did with Ted Cruz's dad in a cross promotion with the Enquirer is still astounding to me.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s interesting that you brought this thread up today. It seems to me that President Trump’s continual belief in conspiracy theories may finally be his undoing. The underlying assumption behind that Ukraine phone call appears to be that Trump himself believed that there was something to the Biden-Ukraine story.
timschochet
Footballguy
What always struck me as bizarre about that incident is that Trump had already pretty much locked up the nomination. Cruz was the only guy left at that point, and hanging on by a thread.
identikit
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
There is something within the human brain that results in some sort of excitement, passion, or other positive feelings, when one comes to believe that they've learned of a secret, or are now on the inside of a club that is based on shared knowledge (aka being in cahoots with others) especially when that shared knowledge is not accepted or in limited availability to outsiders.
It's why some people love gossip. It's why people join clubs like Elks, Shriners, Masons, etc... It's why people believe in religions and join churches. In fact, in some ways it's why some of the different forums even exist on this site, and an even better example were the spin off sites such as :e:.
The same excitement, passion and other positive feelings that results from people and conspiracy theories is no different than what people above experience and what motivates them to continue with it.
I'm not saying this to justify conspiracy theories. Most of them are wrong, and some have proven to be very harmful. But the same can be said of everything else above. Especially religion and churches.
Max Power
Footballguy
This was the clip I was referring to. What did Solomon say that was incorrect? Hannity asked if any statement was incorrect and not a matter of record and Solomon responded "no".
The events with dates and names were sourced. That lends a lot of credibility to the reporting. No one has demanded he retract anything he stated. Solomon was the VP at The Hill which is left leaning publication that is rated as "highly factual". I understand he was a conservative writer for the organization, but that doesn't discredit his work. If there are major ethic violations in his past reporting (as some suggest), I'd like to hear about them so I can continue to form my own opinion.
Also in that Hannity piece was the other guy (forgot his name) who highlighted similar engagements with Biden and his son in China. Shortly after Joe's visit to China, Hunter comes into contact with Chinese money. This was again sourced with dates and names and has not been disputed to my knowledge.
Now if the final claim of Hunter Biden has only ever made money from China and Ukraine, both shortly after his father visited, that is a major claim that needs to be confirmed or debunked.
Max Power
Footballguy
Why can't I just think the government is full of #### sometimes? We all know they are, so pointing to where I believe they aren't being honest shouldn't be labeled as something negative.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok let's really dig into this here if you like, I am glad or happy to run down every point. Primarily I'll start with what Solomon didn't tell us.
One thing I'll point out is that the gas company at issue (Burisma) engaged in the acts under investigation in 2013. - Per Solomon himself Hunter was not brought into the board until May of 2014.
Another thing I'll add that Solomon did not explain is that the Ukrainian prosecutors - and there were two - were not investigating Busima (the company that Biden joined as a board member).
- Were you aware of these facts?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think this is Schweitzer.
Tbh this is a different issue. I am glad to discuss it but I have to say it's not something I'm much familiar with.\
- eta - Update from Reuters, a summary of Hunter's business dealings in China, including the Rosemont investment in BHR with the Bank of China.
QUOTE
>>>In 2009, Hunter Biden co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners, along with Christopher Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, and Devon Archer, an American businessman who was Heinz’s classmate at Yale University.
In 2012, the younger Biden and Archer talked to Chinese private equity investor Jonathan Li about joining forces on a fund that would invest Chinese capital - and possibly capital from other countries - outside of China, the New Yorker magazine reported in a profile of Hunter Biden in July.
Li, Archer and others agreed in 2013 to establish the fund, called BHR Partners, and Hunter Biden joined as an unpaid member of the board, the New Yorker said.
Hunter Biden told the New Yorker that he met Li during the December 2013 trip but described it as social encounter. “How do I go to Beijing, halfway around the world, and not see them (Li) for a cup of coffee?” he said.
George Mesires, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, has said his client started out on the advisory board for BHR and only became an investor in the fund with a 10% stake in 2017.
Mesires has said Hunter Biden’s investment in the fund was $420,000, implying a total capitalization for the fund of $4.2 million.
Neither Hunter Biden nor Mesires could be reached for comment.
BHR’s investments span a range of industries and companies, including one of the China’s main nuclear energy firms, China General Nuclear Power Corp, and AI startup Megvii Technology Ltd, also known as Face++.
In 2015, BHR joined forces with AVIC Auto, a unit of Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), the country’s dominant aerospace and defense contractor, to buy Henniges Automotive, a U.S. auto-parts company.
That deal was subject to review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and last month Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley raised concern about the CFIUS process, citing potential conflicts of interest.
WHERE DID THE $1.5 BILLION FIGURE COME FROM?
BHR’s website says it is the cross-border investment arm of a state-approved Chinese private equity firm and is supported by some of China’s largest financial institutions, including the Bank of China.
An archived version of BHR’s website from 2014 says BHR was formed in 2013 by two Chinese asset managers alongside Rosemont Seneca Partners and Thornton Group LLC.
The $1.5 billion figure cited by Trump may come from conservative author Peter Schweizer’s 2018 book “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends”.
Schweizer’s book referenced a July 2014 Wall Street Journal article that said the BHR consortium aimed to raise $1.5 billion to invest outside China, citing a Bank of China spokesman.
BHR did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
From the beginning, the firm appeared to be aiming to leverage its ties to state-backed lenders to make big investments.
BHR would “concentrate on ultra-large-scale and internationally influential projects in the future”, Li was quoted as saying in a February 2014 article in the state-owned 21st Century Business Herald.
“Projects with less than $100 million will be considered only if there are special advantages,” he said.<<<
QUOTE
*********************************
eta2 - There is also this excellent summary of Hunter Biden's personal and business like from the New Yorker in July 2019.
QUOTE
>>>In September, 2008, Hunter launched a boutique consulting firm, Seneca Global Advisors, named for the largest of the Finger Lakes, in New York State, where his mother had grown up. In pitch meetings with prospective clients, Hunter said that he could help small and mid-sized companies expand into markets in the U.S. and other countries. In June, 2009, five months after Joe Biden became Vice-President, Hunter co-founded a second company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, with Christopher Heinz, Senator John Kerry’s stepson and an heir to the food-company fortune, and Devon Archer, a former Abercrombie & Fitch model who started his finance career at Citibank in Asia and who had been friends with Heinz at Yale. (Heinz and Archer already had a private-equity fund called Rosemont Capital.) Heinz believed that Hunter would share his aversion to entering into business deals that could attract public scrutiny, but over time Hunter and Archer seized opportunities that did not include Heinz, who was less inclined to take risks.
In 2012, Archer and Hunter talked to Jonathan Li, who ran a Chinese private-equity fund, Bohai Capital, about becoming partners in a new company that would invest Chinese capital—and, potentially, capital from other countries—in companies outside China. In June, 2013, Li, Archer, and other business partners signed a memorandum of understanding to create the fund, which they named BHR Partners, and, in November, they signed contracts related to the deal. Hunter became an unpaid member of BHR’s board but did not take an equity stake in BHR Partners until after his father left the White House.
In December, 2013, Vice-President Biden flew to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping. Biden often asked one of his grandchildren to accompany him on his international trips, and he invited Finnegan to come on this one. Hunter told his father that he wanted to join them. According to a Beijing-based BHR representative, Hunter, shortly after arriving in Beijing, on December 4th, helped arrange for Li to shake hands with his father in the lobby of the American delegation’s hotel. Afterward, Hunter and Li had what both parties described as a social meeting. Hunter told me that he didn’t understand why anyone would have been concerned about this. “How do I go to Beijing, halfway around the world, and not see them for a cup of coffee?” he said.
Hunter’s meeting with Li and his relationship with BHR attracted little attention at the time, but some of Biden’s advisers were worried that Hunter, by meeting with a business associate during his father’s visit, would expose the Vice-President to criticism. The former senior White House aide told me that Hunter’s behavior invited questions about whether he “was leveraging access for his benefit, which just wasn’t done in that White House. Optics really mattered, and that seemed to be cutting it pretty close, even if nothing nefarious was going on.” When I asked members of Biden’s staff whether they discussed their concerns with the Vice-President, several of them said that they had been too intimidated to do so. “Everyone who works for him has been screamed at,” a former adviser told me. Others said that they were wary of hurting his feelings. One business associate told me that Biden, during difficult conversations about his family, “got deeply melancholy, which, to me, is more painful than if someone yelled and screamed at me. It’s like you’ve hurt him terribly. That was always my fear, that I would be really touching a very fragile part of him.”<<<
QUOTE
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
I'm not either, but again he is citing his work and I'll take it at face value until someone shows those events are not factual.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
My guess is Solomon is either 1. not the actual reporter on this but is simply repeating something that was given to Hannity, or 2. these "officials" are actually Giuliani clients or something similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is absolutely ridiculous. Shokin was thoroughly corrupt. He shut down the investigation himself before 2014 and before Biden even came on to Burisma. Shokin is lying if he said this.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Max, one key to understanding this is that Shokin was absolutely a big part of the corruption problem in Ukraine. He wasn't investigating corruption.
Max Power
Footballguy
Can you link me to some stories on this?
So Burisma committed possible crimes in 2013? What was the result of this investigation? Did the next prosecutor continue the investigation?
Solomon sources the follow on prosecutor saying the same thing. Is Solomon making this up?
Max Power
Footballguy
So if none of his sources are legit, why is a left leaning "highly factual" news organization letting him publish this? And you are really just speculating yourself at this point.
Max Power
Footballguy
And this is an issue that requires the vice president of the united states to step in and leverage tax payer dollars?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yes. Burisma should be investigated, principally its main owner, an oligarch named Mykola Zlochevsky.
Shokin shut it down. It's not clear why but Shokin was seriously corrupt.
No. Lutsenko was hoped or expected to be a reformer but he failed on a number of levels and eventually appeared to be corrupt himself. He did not reopen the investigation.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Eh, The Hill is funny. They put Solomon under "Opinion" if you notice. Solomon or a group he belongs to may have bought into the site. I agree it's weird but that's how they are.
No, I am referring to reporting from Eastern Europe. And I follow Russia/Ukraine news events. Why? Well I've been interested in that part of the world for a long time.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
Did Shokin shut it down before or after Biden threatened to withhold US funds? We seem to be pointing to a corrupt company being looked into by a corrupt prosecutor that was shut down (because of the US?) The company was never then investigated and everything the Biden's did was above board?
Max Power
Footballguy
So we agree that Joe Biden stepped in to fix a problem in a country where his son was profiting? At he very least is this a conflict of interest? Is Biden ethically obligated to remove himself from this situation?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Before.
It was shut down by Shokin well before Biden's visit. And even if it wasn't it would make no sense for a 'corrupt Biden' to invite a new prosecutor who would start investigating.
I don't know about saying what Hunter did was totally above board. I think it's worthy of questioning - like I do all the time about TrumpKids - whether politician children should be using their name for profit. Like to me that problem would stand on its own. It would be a legit criticism of a possible Biden presidency, I say that even if Hunter was just window dressing for Burisma. The problem is that Trump has to contort and distort facts like this.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think that's a fair criticism. I don't have the perception that Hunter or any other board members from Rosemont were in any danger of investigation. However - like the Clinton Foundation and Trump Org - conflicts of interest create appearances of impropriety, so Hunter should never have been anywhere near that situation. Otoh, the USA could show up making policy in almost any country, including the US, so in a way if Hunter wanted to make big bucks he's stuck in almost every way while his father was VP (or president).
timschochet
Footballguy
He has a history of making stuff up:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)
Max Power
Footballguy
So lets get down to the supposed facts of his story.
Biden prompted Ukraine to increase natural gas production by using American assets. - Sounds true as a transcript is cited.
Biden's son signed on as a board member for a natural gas production company 3 weeks later - Sourced and not disputed.
Biden's son had no experience in Ukraine or Natural gas prior to his hiring - This is assumed to be true, and I haven't seen anything disputing it.
The company Hunter joined was (already?) under investigation by a corrupt prosecutor - Yes.
Joe Biden demanded that prosecutor be fired because of his corruption and withheld funds to ensure it happened - Fact
Before/After the original prosecutor was fired the investigation was dropped and never followed up on? - apparently.
Once the "solid" guy started looking into the company he came away with the conclusion that the aid was possibly withheld do to personal reasons - Claimed in reporting.
So these are my take aways from the story.
