• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

The Reason JFK Jr was Murdered


Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,364
Two documentary films can be seen on the web on Google Video

1. JFKII

2. The Assassination of JFK Jr


These are very important documentaries and are produced by a guy called John Hankey.

His website is www.jfkii.com

John Hankey sent an e mail out to all on his contact database recently and it was posted on the net at: http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm

Its a series of e mails between himself and another guy who makes claims on why JFK Jr was taken out. The evidence sent to John Hankey may be a fabrication but you may judge for yourselves.

John Hankey is a hero for the great work he has done in exposing the complete disinformation on the death of JFK Jr.

Many on this site are openly hostile to me posting this type of topic. But one thing you can't deny: assassinations have always been part of the political landscape. It is my belief they haven't gone away and are still part of it today. You've just got to have the acute senses to pick it up. Or as others call it, paranoia.



JFK Jr would have been running for election about now or perhaps back in 2004.

He would have ruined a lot of plans for Bush, the military machine and perhaps a certain lady in waiting.

Im not saying Bill had anything to do with it, but it happened on his watch and the coverup came from the Pentagon. JFK Jr had published an uncomplimentary article on Bill's past in his publication GEORGE . Like his publication on The Mossad's involvement in the assassination of Yitzak Rabine, JFK Jr was perhaps too dangerous for the establishment to tolerate.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,364
There is even something else about JFK Jr. which is worth noting.

In one of the first issues of George magazine, published in 1996, there appeared an article entitled, "The Quigley Cult," written by Scott McLemee. The headline read, "What do President Bill Clinton and the militias have in common? They both revere the weird theories of the late Carroll Quigley."

Quigley was a highly regarded professor of history who taught a course in Western Civilization at Georgetown University which Bill Clinton took in the school year of 1964-65, a year after the assassination of President Kennedy. That was about the same time that Quigley had finished writing his massive tome on contemporary history, "Tragedy and Hope," which was published by Macmillan in 1966.

We probably would not be talking about that 1,300-page book today if it weren't for one paragraph that appears on page 950. Quigley wrote:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies . . . but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

What Quigley was alluding to was the secret plan, concocted by Cecil Rhodes, to achieve world peace by creating a world government, controlled by the Anglo-Saxons, powerful enough to impose its political will on the rest of mankind. This was to be achieved by creating a secret society on the order of the Society of Jesus that would gain control of the wealth of the world, gain control of the British and American governments, and recruit its future leaders through the Rhodes Scholarships. Rhodes figured that the plan would take about 200 years to achieve its ultimate goal.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=16178


Is this the One World Government conspiracists are talking about?

The one which Bush Sr in 1990 talked about "A New World Order"

And repeated by Gordon Brown recently which can bee seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0

Bill Clinton was on Tubridy this morning talking about his new book Giving. Bill was excited by his new role as world peacemaker. Was Bill an anointed candidate a long time before he ran for the Presidency?
Who knows. At least the man has a brain of his own.

PS
His book Giving does have a somewhat lurid connotation in the context of a sexual act performed by Monica. No doubt the pun is there for a purpose.
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,100
It's funny how pejorative the term "conspiracy theorist" is. Anyone who suggests that Oswald didn't act alone in the JFK assassination is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and is dismissed in a hostile way by many people. However, if you go on the evidence, you must conclude that it's likely that Oswald didn't act alone; in other words, you're putting forward a theory that there was a conspiracy. We don't know for sure, but we can see that certain things are more likely than other things.

So, I'm asserting that it's likely that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. There's a fair bit of evidence that there was a conspiracy behind the Robert Kennedy assassination too, and that some of the same people were involved (as in the JFK killing).

I know almost nothing about the death of John Kennedy Junior. Is there any solid evidence of a conspiracy? It does seem likely that all sorts of people wanted him dead.
 

Jozer

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
57
Lee Harvey Oswald. Where are you when your country needs you? :D
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
The House Select Committee on Assassinations found that Oswald didn't work along and that he couldn't have fired the third of the four shots fired at the Presidents car.

The Warren Report found that Oswald had worked alone and also that only three shots were fired.

So there are two official reports on what happened.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,364
Soubresauts,

Just watch the Video on google Video.

You'll be shocked by what you see.

JFKii and The Assassination of JFK Jr do go hand in hand.

As for RFK, well the Coroner who did the autopsy said the gunpowder residue at THE BACK of RFKs head, meant the shot had to have been fired within a few inches of RFKs head.

Sirhan Sirhan the supposed assassin, didnt know why he would have wanted to kill RFK and was standing IN FRONT of RFK when he raised his gun. RFKs assassination was like a magicians sleight of hand ie watch the guy holding the gun at the front as a bullet is put through the back of RFKs brain.

JFK Jrs death was sold as Jr being a wreckless pilot spoilt rich kid who deserved to die. Its was a pity though he had to kill his nice wife and sister in law etc etc.

You may download these JFK videos for free at:

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
 

Insider2007

Active member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
213
For Christ's sake, if you want to write threads about conspiracy theories, go to a conspiracy theory website. This is not a conspiracy theory website. It is a politics website. At this stage your nutty threads are just making a laughing stock of this site. Sooner or later the mods will begin to get as tough on this cr*p as they have done on other stuff and ban it from the site.
 

EvotingMachine0197

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,629
Insider2007 said:
For Christ's sake, if you want to write threads about conspiracy theories, go to a conspiracy theory website. This is not a conspiracy theory website. It is a politics website. At this stage your nutty threads are just making a laughing stock of this site. Sooner or later the mods will begin to get as tough on this cr*p as they have done on other stuff and ban it from the site.
Did you consider it ?
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
46
Insider2007 said:
For Christ's sake, if you want to write threads about conspiracy theories, go to a conspiracy theory website. This is not a conspiracy theory website. It is a politics website. At this stage your nutty threads are just making a laughing stock of this site. Sooner or later the mods will begin to get as tough on this cr*p as they have done on other stuff and ban it from the site.
Bravo old boy.
We wouldn't want people to question the status que, now would we?.
 

pluralist

Active member
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
180
Insider2007 said:
For Christ's sake, if you want to write threads about conspiracy theories, go to a conspiracy theory website. This is not a conspiracy theory website. It is a politics website. At this stage your nutty threads are just making a laughing stock of this site. Sooner or later the mods will begin to get as tough on this cr*p as they have done on other stuff and ban it from the site.
Speak for yourself, I find these threads valuable and I've been contributing to this forum for longer than you.

Who appointed you the moderator of what is and isn't allowed here?

You're not really the liberal progressive you like to think, are you, Insider?
 

Insider2007

Active member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
213
}IknowurbutwhatamI{ said:
Insider2007 said:
For Christ's sake, if you want to write threads about conspiracy theories, go to a conspiracy theory website. This is not a conspiracy theory website. It is a politics website. At this stage your nutty threads are just making a laughing stock of this site. Sooner or later the mods will begin to get as tough on this cr*p as they have done on other stuff and ban it from the site.
Bravo old boy.
We wouldn't want people to question the status que, now would we?.
It is 'status quo' not 'status que'! :oops: And this is not a conspiracy theory site. This is a site about politics. You may have noticed that the mods are clamping down on threads that have nothing to do with politics, by deleting or locking them. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with this site. If you want to discuss your latest conspiracy theory (and you seem to have a new one every 36 hours, while DS seems to come up with a new one every 24 hour hours, go to the usual conspiracy theory sites. There are enough of them. This isn't one.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
46
Insider2007 said:
}IknowurbutwhatamI{ said:
Insider2007 said:
For Christ's sake, if you want to write threads about conspiracy theories, go to a conspiracy theory website. This is not a conspiracy theory website. It is a politics website. At this stage your nutty threads are just making a laughing stock of this site. Sooner or later the mods will begin to get as tough on this cr*p as they have done on other stuff and ban it from the site.
Bravo old boy.
We wouldn't want people to question the status que, now would we?.
It is 'status quo' not 'status que'! :oops: And this is not a conspiracy theory site. This is a site about politics. You may have noticed that the mods are clamping down on threads that have nothing to do with politics, by deleting or locking them. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with this site. If you want to discuss your latest conspiracy theory (and you seem to have a new one every 36 hours, while DS seems to come up with a new one every 24 hour hours, go to the usual conspiracy theory sites. There are enough of them. This isn't one.
Sorry for the spelling mistake,master.
Is there a point to your act?. Are you the standard bearer for what should and should not be allowed on this forum?. What are your views on free speech insider?. Is it a case of we are free to speak as long as we conform to your world view?.
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,100
The Kennedy presidency had an enormous effect on Irish politics, and on Irish life in general.

Conspiracy theories provide the best explanation we have of what happened in the JFK assassination. This thread is not out of place.

Insider has told us that the restrictive editorial policy of the Irish Times suits him/her just fine. It doesn't suit all of us. There's more that can be said, and written.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,364
Insider says Conspiracy Theories have nothing to do with this site.

I think Insider is already a victim of word association. He cannot use the word Conspiracy without adding another word Theory.

I am pointing out to people that it is absolutely abnormal for an experienced, ultra cautious, responsible pilot, who always flew with a flight instructor at night (who confirmed with a friend he was going to fly with a flight instructor that night), to radio the tower at Martha's Vineyard 9.38pm as he was within 5 mins of landing his new Piper II Saratoga plane, to not have a had an IMMEDIATE search and rescue when he didnt land.

It is basic procedure to launch a search and rescue within 5 mins of his plane not landing.

Supposing a Ryanair plane was within 5 mins of landing at Dublin Airport and never lands: would a search and rescue be launched 15 hours later?

No it would not. It would happen almost immediately.

Insider stop trying to tell everyone I'm the one who's retarded. Im pointing out to everyone the abnormality of an almost certain FUTURE PRESIDENT of the United States' plane, inexplicably disappearing from radar.

The night was clear and calm as sattelite images confirm, not foggy as the disinformation went out.

Here is your future US President, one of the Irish Diaspora as Mc Williams talks about, going to his death and you Insider think this event means nothing. To you JFK Jr was just another irresponsible Kennedy getting what was coming to him.

The Death of JFK Jr means everything to those growing up in this generation. Like the death of JFK Sr meant so much to so many at the time of his assassination.

The death of Hariri in Lebanon was a political event and means everything to the Lebanese. Why not the death of JFK Jr who was CERTAIN to win the presidency whenever he ran.
Yes I'm damned right it was a political assassination of the highest order as the patterns of disinformation and control of the media at the time gives it away.

I know the majority of people reading this can appreciate that.

Finally:
To draw an analogy, the debate around global warming doesn't just apply to the lecture theatres of the Atmospheric Chemistry and Plant Science depts of colleges. They belong here on this site as there are ramifications to the rest of us who feel the pain of Carbon Taxes and who formulate policy documents.

Likewise those of us who have to endure the impending prospect of Hillary or Giuliani being president of the attack on Iran, or Bush for the past 7 years feel it's time to talk about someone who should be there representing the Irish Diaspora vote.
 

Badboy

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
34
JFK Jnr was not certain to win the white house.

He was a deeply flawed charcacter with one asset - his name.

The history of the rise of the Kennedies to wealth and power is not a pleasant one.

Any number of groups could have wanted them dead at any time.

JP was a Nazi sympathiser involved in elicit booze importation.

Now thats a way to create long lasting enemies.
 

The Earl of Desmond

Active member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
232
Conspiracy theories are a vital part of the political process - they make people think about things or are we not meant to question anything and just shut up and accept what we are told?
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,100
Badboy said:
JFK Jnr was not certain to win the white house.
He was a deeply flawed charcacter with one asset - his name.
What brilliant insights!

JP was a Nazi sympathiser involved in elicit booze importation.
I guess you mean JFK's father, and "illicit booze". (I must admit that, in pre-al-Qaida days, I used to import more wine than was legal, but it would elicit joy among friends and family.) Kennedy Snr did make nasty remarks about Jews, and seemed a bit too friendly with the Nazis, like some other Irish leaders.

Now thats a way to create long lasting enemies.
Be careful yourself now.
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,378
Of all the conflicting opinions that I have seen on this site the one that was a certainty is the fact that JFK would have won the Presidency. Even people like myself who would hold Ted in low esteem would be rooting for JFK. When his plane went missing all the local stations went to round the clock coverage. Here is a fact, a huge number of people headed to the area in their own boats of whatever size to search in the shallow waters around Nantucket. The Navy rushed in and put up a big exclusion zone and these private boaters were turned back. The plane wasn't found for a long time. The bodies were cremated immediately despite the fact that the in-law family were devout Catholics and they wanted a service.
 

Kev408

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
5,124
'Tis great to see you got over the Ciara Durkin death and jumped back in to debate. I know you were at the wake last night and I admire your youthful capability to bounce right back.
 

youngdan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,378
In the interests of accuracy I must point out that I am only young relative to Olddan who is still an East Galway voter at 86 years. I did not know Miss Durkin but knew her older siblings well.
 
Top