Don Ecker: December 29, 2013

[Ripthesystem]

Just a little perspective on politics and how they impact us. I am pretty much in agreement with Richard Dolan's views. There is very little difference between the two parties. Oh they play the game and gin up false outrage to control the masses. This is especially true when it comes to domestic issues like gun control and abortion. It's all in an effort to trick and control us. We are the subjects, they are the feudal lords, and the royal families are the huge multinational financial interests. Which less than 1% of the 1%.
Examples abound. I can remember a documentary on the Soviet/Afghan war. It was Zbigniew Brzezinski, (The so called Democrat real power behind the throne guy.) meeting with Bin Laden and radicalizing and forming the Taliban. Here is a snippet. It was pulled from television after 9-11-01.

Zbigniew Brzezinski to Jihadists: Your cause is right! - YouTube

How does that differ from the Repubican real power behind the throne Kissinger? Not one damn bit. Neither guy was ever elected to any US office. They answer to what Kennedy called "The Gnomes of Zurich." (I realize it is a very popular term. He was the only president brave enough to utter it.).

We live in a world where Alex Jones has been proven right about a great many things. If the story can't be buried, they rely on the fact that he says it so far in advance of the "legitimate media" that they try to label him a crank. As an example he was screaming for years about Anwar Al-Awlaki being a guest in the pentagon AFTER 09-11-2001! He was labeled a crank. We'll check this out.

www.cbsnews.com/news/qaeda-linked-imam-dined-at-pentagon-after-9-11/

God help us. We live in a world where Alex Jones is right about the NSA, CIA, etc. I differ with him on tons of stuff too. But even if he is only right about 15% of the stuff he talks about; we are in real trouble.

No one is the subject of this kind of lying and public disinformation than UFO investigators. That is why we need the brilliant fertile minds of Don, Gene, and Chris. They are the first to say that after years of investigation they have not figured this field out, but at least they have exposed tons of crap, as just that, crap.

 

[Decker]

On Oswald and then his rifle.

John F. Kennedy assassination rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".[57]

However, Nelson Delgado, a Marine in the same unit as Oswald, used to laugh at Oswald's shooting prowess and testified that Oswald often got "Maggie's drawers"; meaning a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target during qualification firing. He also said that Oswald did not seem to care if he missed or not.[58] Delgado was first stationed with Oswald in Santa Ana, California at the beginning of 1958 meeting him for the first time there and a little more than a year after Oswald first made sharpshooter.[59]



In an effort to test the rifle under conditions that matched the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet (81 m).[65] Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target at 175 feet (53 m), and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot at 240 feet (73 m) by several inches. Five of the six shots hit the third target at 265 feet (81 m), the distance of President Kennedy from the sixth floor window when he was struck in the head.[66]

 

[TheMoon]

Lance great info!!!

I'm a Layman on JFK. But wasn't the bullets recovered from JFK different? It was my understanding some where full metal jackets while the headshot was hollow point? What about the grassy knowle?

 

[Han]

I have not had a chance to read all the previous posts yet, but having just finished listening to the show, I have to say that I enjoyed it very, very much, in fact over here we have a show called desert island discs and this episode would be in my collection of recordings should I be stranded.

Best wishes for 2014

 

[enzo]

I believe the US Senate declared the JFK murder "a conspiracy" when they reopened it in 1976.

Wiki says this:

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. However, the Committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The Committee also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of these two groups acting together.

Yes, this should be a different thread. But disinformation works by making you doubt your own eyes or the simple reason of your brain. JFK is clearly shot at least once from the front. This is what our common sense and our very eyes tell us. Spooks try to convince us we should not believe our eyes. Same with 911. This is how you get OJ cleared from a murder case - throw up dust. Confuse everyone. Pay off 'experts.' They will not rest until we are all in prison camps.

 

[stonehart]

Well, did not mean to hijack this thread for JFK discussion but would be willing to participate in a separate thread if folks are interested.

Lance

Carry on as the thread is well and truly derailed now

 

[Tony B.]

More like:

 

[dr.abbadon]

Once bitten, twice shy. But at Gene's request I'm posting this:

Speaking in a strong voice doesn't guarantee that the message is accurate. Don´s claim regarding the position of US-friendly governments on the issue of weapons of mass destruction prior to the (2nd) Iraq War is inaccurate.

These are the facts: The French government insisted repeatedly and officially that there were no such weapons in Iraq, as did the Swiss and the Germans, as well as others even closer to the Iraqis. This was all known in diplomatic circles, and was widely reported here in Europe.

Interestingly - and significantly - Israel was conspicuously supportive of Bush. But that's another story.

I, personally, was a guest lecturer in Political Science at a major New Jersey college, where I served as an adjunct professor, just one week before the start of the War. I recall very well the swell of anti-French sentiment over the issue at the time, including demonstrations and boycotts of French products in the US. The big right-wing radio stations in New York were actually collecting signatures against the French position to present to the French Consulate. Remember how French Fries were renamed by the rednecks as "Freedom Fries"? Just one example.

I supported and explained the European position during my college lecture, but was practically booed off the stage. Even the full professor came to me later to ask if I really believed what I was saying in support of the European position.

The French and other Europeans were very well informed about Iraq, and realized the folly of the Bush claims. The French, as America´s second closest allay after the UK, were delegated by Europe to convey European concerns about the Bush position. They did. The rest is (unfortunate) history.

Sorry Don, but your memory or rendition of this is way off. I hope you're more accurate in other of your claims.

Bob
www.switzerlandinsound.com

Well said sir. Is there anyone who truly believes the fairytale of WMD's in Iraq?

 

[Polterwurst]

I don't blame anyone for repeating the bad info, lots of people have heard these things but never looked into them. Glad to correct the record and fix the internet.

I'm probably one of these uninformed people. And actually I'd rather believe that this was the work of one trigger-happy loser who wanted to make his mark in history. But two questions keep bothering me when I'm doing my superficial skimming of the subject.

1. What's the scientific explanation for a bullet hitting a man's skull from behind and resulting in his head and upper body moving backwards, towards the shot?
2. Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union and come back, he was openly distributing communist flyers and the CIA say they didn't have any files on him? Does that make sense?

 

[Han]

Lots of post here talking about WMD in Iraq, but no mention of David Kelly?
for those that do not know David Kelly was the British "expert" who said that saddam could launch a WMD attack on Britain in 45 minutes.

It would be interesting to question MR Kelly, but he allegedly took his own life, so that is not possible.
I remember being doubtful that a WMD attack from Iraq would be possible, but knowing how we (the UK and US) had supplied all sorts of terrible weapons to evil regimes over the years, from a purely patriotic stance I believe that if there is a threat, then acting is better waiting to be attacked.

I am not saying that the war was just, only that at the time there was a "genuine" threat. (according to the experts) obviously with hindsight it was not a realistic threat, but I do not doubt that if he did have the capability, saddam would have had no qualms about using such weapons on his enemies.

 

[kanakaris]

[quote="I won't get into the UFO aspect (!) but the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories finally seem to be beginning to be understood by general public for what they are: poorly supported flights of fantasy. This anniversary I noticed several news stories that debunked some of the old lies. The new NOVA special used science to absolutely devastate some of the most common conspiracy claims.

Lance[/quote]
Then WHY was Oswald killed ?

 

[master-of-grace]

Don was a refreshing change of pace after last week's credulous guest. I was impressed to hear of his research into human mutilations. I can't wait to read it.

I always like it when Don comes on the show. After Tim Good was on, it was nice to have someone who actually does some research and does not quote 2nd or 3rd hand sources.

 

[enzo]

Don quotes plenty of 2nd and 3rd hand sources. There is nothing fresh there. Same bunch of hand-me-downs. He 'wants to believe' too much.

 

[Decker]

Don quotes plenty of 2nd and 3rd hand sources. There is nothing fresh there. Same bunch of hand-me-downs. He 'wants to believe' too much.

Shove it out your ear Enzo. I been out in the weeds of research. What have you done? Further more, you claimed you were a Nam Vet. You were born in 1956 which makes you too young and a liar. Give me an excuse Enzo, give me an excuse.

Decker

 

[Wade]

I'm sure Mr. Enzo meant to say he was a Gulf War Vet, I can understand the confusion Even though he had a background in linguistics.

 

[enzo]

How would Mr. Ecker know the birth year of anyone who posts anonymously on the web if he were not strongly connected to government agencies? I'm not saying he is correct. And even if he is, there might be a good explanation. But how does he think he gets info like that without NSA type of SS connections? He is a hot head and a danger. I think he has connections inside the New World Odor. Makes you wonder. I was in the infantry, PAL.

 

[Donnie Vienus]

Shove it out your ear Enzo. I been out in the weeds of research. What have you done? Further more, you claimed you were a Nam Vet. You were born in 1956 which makes you too young and a liar. Give me an excuse Enzo, give me an excuse.

Decker

Don,i think Enzo could possibly have heart issues.Either that, or he could be an insomniac.
There has to be some reason for him being delusional
It's very hard to take his word.

I personally think its been disgraceful the attacks on Don in this thread.
His episode on the Paracast, maybe the last I ever listen to.
I think I will stick to Dark Matters for my paranormal fix.

 

[Wade]

Enzo, Is it possible he went by the date of your sign up on the forum ? As a moderator i would think he would have access to that. he doesn't need to be a spook.

 

[Wade]

How would Mr. Ecker know the birth year of anyone who posts anonymously on the web if he were not strongly connected to government agencies? I'm not saying he is correct. And even if he is, there might be a good explanation. But how does he think he gets info like that without NSA type of SS connections? He is a hot head and a danger. I think he has connections inside the New World Odor. Makes you wonder. I was in the infantry, PAL.

D-O-D-G-E

 

[enzo]

This is typical Don Ecker 'research.' I've NEVER given my correct birthdate on ANYTHING on the web. Yet he uses this as FACT. And EVEN IF the birthdate I used on the Paracast is correct, who is to say that I did not graduate a year early? I did graduate early, as did my brother who is one of the youngest Eagle Scouts in the USA. It tells you something about the 'research.' All these guys jump on 'facts' that are bogus. ALL of my brothers have genius IQs. Try harder, PAL.