Jump to content

We are being played


Recommended Posts

There is no point in arguing either side, as both proposed positions negatively affect the Federal Reserve - its a pseudointellectual equivalent of beating around the bush of the core of the possible reasons one side thinks one statement is correct and another believes the other in regards to his death - was he making moves against the Federal Reserve, yes

Do I believe that got him killed, very probably, but he also made a number of statements against other very wealthy people in positions of power over his country

I am not calling you pseudointellectual btw, I am saying that to argue either side doesn't really matter as at the core of it people believe(d) he was killed for his policies, EO and statements regarding wealthy groups of people siphoning value and land from the country he supposedly ran

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

There is no point in arguing either side, as both proposed positions negatively affect the Federal Reserve - its a pseudointellectual equivalent of beating around the bush of the core of the possible reasons one side thinks one statement is correct and another believes the other - was he making moves against the Federal Reserve, yes

 

But doesn't spreading false claims about the Kennedy assassination damage the cause thereby strengthening the Fed et al.? They can say, 'See, look at these silly truthers getting things wrong'. 

 

I am happy to hear your nuanced argument on why Kennedy's actions re. this matter were damaging to the Federal Reserve. And I'm sure you're happy to have that argument scrutinised since that's part of the truth seeking process, asking questions etc.

 

I'll leave it to @JCP to defend the Marrs claim. 

 

I look forward to reviewing your original research, reasoning etc. (which is separate from the Marrs claim). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Oakwise said:

But doesn't spreading false claims about the Kennedy assassination damage the cause thereby strengthening the Fed et al.? 


I am not making a conclusive statement either way, evidently, I am merely pointing out that either proposed position of said conspiracy regarding the removal or issuance of the silver certificate is moot 

If we assume Marrs is 100% correct, it affects the bottom line of FED - moving towards a silver certificate that FED couldn't exchange for dollars would stop them siphoning both dollars and Gold via exchange and would have kept the means of production away from FED

If we assume Corbett is 100% correct it still affects the bottom line of FED - as at the time Silver determined the Price of Gold as it was previously linked to money, removing that would have meant that the Federal Reserve would actually require to have enough Gold in stock in order to back up the money that they printed - it has of course exacerbated exponentially since that time with the use of fractional reserve banking, but that is beside the point - although makes a nice anology for what they may or may not have been doing at the time, fractional reserve (gold) banking, only now they do it digitally and with cash reserves to back up those fractions issued elsewhere

I really don't know which way around it is but it also doesn't matter for the reasons stated above

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


. . . regarding the removal or issuance of the silver certificate is moot 

If we assume Corbett is 100% correct it still affects the bottom line of FED - as at the time Silver determined the Price of Gold as it was previously linked to money, removing that would have meant that the Federal Reserve would actually require to have enough Gold in stock in order to back up the money that they printed - it has of course exacerbated exponentially since that time with the use of fractional reserve banking, but that is beside the point - although makes a nice anology for what they may or may not have been doing at the time, fractional reserve (gold) banking, only now they do it digitally and with cash reserves to back up those fractions issued elsewhere
 

 

Excellent. Thank you for writing up your thoughts. 

 

Before I respond, I just want to be clear.

 

So you're saying that: 

  • The removal of silver certificates would damage the Federal Reserve in ways they would want to avoid
  • The removal of silver certificates could be a reason for the Kennedy assassination

Correct?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Oakwise said:

So you're saying that: 

  • The removal of silver certificates would damage the Federal Reserve in ways they would want to avoid
  • The removal of silver certificates could be a reason for the Kennedy assassination

Correct?


No we are talking about two proposed positions - one states silver certificates were being issued, the other states the exact inversion of that and for clarity that is the removal of silver certificates - both negatively affect the Federal Reserves criminal activity at that time - I am not saying it is the reason for his assassination either, I am saying it very probably played a role, but so did his speeches regarding Military Industrial Complex, Secret Societies and Gold Standard, coincidentally all spearheaded by the same group of people

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offing David Icke would elevate him to martyr status. His theories have already gained huge traction over the past two years, the last thing the PTB want is to attract more people to his theories. And the reason he wasn't offed in the nineties is because he simply wasn't a threat then. He sometimes spoke to audiences of a handful of people.

 

That being said, if you're suggesting that we don't just blindly agree with any other conspiracy researcher, I'm all for that. I love David Icke's attention to detail and skills as a researcher, but I ain't no flunkie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ethel said:

That being said, if you're suggesting that we don't just blindly agree with any other conspiracy researcher, I'm all for that. I love David Icke's attention to detail and skills as a researcher, but I ain't no flunkie.


Couldn't agree more with that statement
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

 

  • the removal of silver certificates . . . negatively affect the Federal Reserves criminal activity at that time 
  • it very probably played a role

 

Thank you for answering.

 

So in effect you are agreeing to point #1 (removal of silver certificates negatively affects the Federal Reserve's criminal activity) and saying it was a factor but not main reason for point #2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Oakwise said:

 

Thank you for answering.

 

So in effect you are agreeing to point #1 (removal of silver certificates negatively affects the Federal Reserve's criminal activity) and saying it was a factor but not main reason for point #2?

still no! Refer to your point earlier regarding ignoratio elenchi - not sure how its possible to say the same thing in a multitude of ways and it still be overlooked entirely - two proposed points, Marrs or Corbett I have no opinion on either viewpoint and quite honestly its irrelevant to what occurred

I am saying I don't know but many things point in the same direction with wider historical context

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheConsultant said:


still no! Refer to your point earlier regarding ignoratio elenchi - not sure how its possible to say the same thing in a multitude of ways and it still be overlooked entirely - two proposed points, Marrs or Corbett - I say doesn't matter either way for reasons given in multiple posts - specifically on the assassination though, probably played a role but as I have also said, bigger picture surrounding that

 

I'm confused. You say that both positions were harmful to the Fed. Yes?

 

And you specifically say that 'removal of silver certificates negatively affects the Federal Reserve's criminal activity (at the time)'. I'm literally quoting you!

 

'Playing a role' is the same as being a factor. Yes?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oakwise said:

 

I'm confused. You say that both positions were harmful to the Fed. Yes?

 

And you specifically say that 'removal of silver certificates negatively affects the Federal Reserve's criminal activity (at the time)'. I'm literally quoting you!

 

'Playing a role' is the same as being a factor. Yes?

 

 

 

Yes to highlighted text in quote

You were also quoting me on one part of the two proposed positions as I have stated both would negatively affect them - as I do not know the answer to which way around it is I am more interesting in the why and wider historical context does just that - to be honest I could be talking utter rubbish entirely as I do not know definitively but many things do point in the same direction(s) outside of who is right Marrs or Corbett, it simply does not matter which, what if its neither

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, saying that both positions are harmful to the Fed is the same as saying the removal of silver certificates is harmful (negative effect) to the Fed since one of the positions involves the removal of silver certificates. And it's safe to say that the Fed would want to avoid being harmed - that's logical, isn't it? Generally speaking, no one wants to be harmed. You also say if the 'Corbett' position is true, then it probably (not definitely) played a role in the Kennedy killing. 

 

Based on what you've said, that is a correct summary of your position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Oakwise said:

Well, saying that both positions are harmful to the Fed is the same as saying the removal of silver certificates is harmful (negative effect) to the Fed since one of the positions involves the removal of silver certificates. And it's safe to say that the Fed would want to avoid being harmed - that's logical, isn't it? Generally speaking, no one wants to be harmed. You also say if the 'Corbett' position is true, then it probably (not definitely) played a role in the Kennedy killing. 

 

Based on what you've said, that is a correct summary of your position. 

again no not saying that at all - if both proposals negatively effect the fed the discussion on whom is right regarding corbett and marrs is entirely irrelevant

if both negatively affect FED one can only assume that either would have possibly played a role IF the policy-EO-speeches etc did indeed play a role in his death, the wider historical context may clarify that for you

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

again no not saying that at all - if both proposals negatively effect the fed the discussion on whom is right regarding corbett and marrs is entirely irrelevant

if both negatively affect FED one can only assume that either would have possibly played a role IF it did indeed play a role in his death, the wider historical context may clarify that for you

 

But right now I'm not talking about 'whom is right'. I've moved away from Marrs Vs Corbett and am looking at your idea. 

 

You wrote:

 

Quote

If we assume Corbett is 100% correct it still affects the bottom line of FED - as at the time Silver determined the Price of Gold as it was previously linked to money, removing that would have meant that the Federal Reserve would actually require to have enough Gold in stock in order to back up the money that they printed - it has of course exacerbated exponentially since that time with the use of fractional reserve banking, but that is beside the point - although makes a nice anology for what they may or may not have been doing at the time, fractional reserve (gold) banking, only now they do it digitally and with cash reserves to back up those fractions issued elsewhere

 

You said 'affects the bottom line of the FED'. In another post you also said it would 'negatively affect the Federal Reserve'. I was just double-checking - seeing if you were basically saying that removing the silver certificates would damage the Fed. That's all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Oakwise said:

 

But right now I'm not talking about 'whom is right'. I've moved away from Marrs Vs Corbett and am looking at your idea. 

 

You wrote:

 

 

You said 'affects the bottom line of the FED'. In another post you also said it would 'negatively affect the Federal Reserve'. I was just double-checking - seeing if you were basically saying that removing the silver certificates would damage the Fed. That's all. 


so too would the issuance of silver certificates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


so too would the issuance of silver certificates

 

Brilliant. I feel we're getting somewhere now. 

 

I find it interesting you would say that. Silver certificates had been in circulation since 1878 and were finally phased out in March, 1964, after Kennedy's assassination. So obviously the Kennedy killing had no bearing on that outcome. Also, did it harm the Federal Reserve? That policy's been in place for nearly sixty years and the Federal Reserve clearly survived and maintained its power. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20140403223347/http://moneyfactory.gov/silvercertificates.html

https://libertycoinandcurrency.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-silver-certificates/

Edited by Oakwise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Oakwise said:

 

Brilliant. I feel we're getting somewhere now. 

 

I find it interesting you would say that. Silver certificates had been in circulation since 1878 were finally phased out in March, 1964, after Kennedy's assassination. So obviously the Kennedy killing had no bearing on that outcome. Also, did it harm the Federal Reserve? That policy's been in place for nearly sixty years and the Federal Reserve clearly survived and maintained its power. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20140403223347/http://moneyfactory.gov/silvercertificates.html

https://libertycoinandcurrency.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-silver-certificates/


The overall picture requires historical context which is why I brought it up initially :)

So it made way for them to remove silver issuance and exchange as well as all other commodities, removed Gold in January 30 1934, and install their own President and thus negate any negative affect it could or would have - by backing their printed money with "U.S. Treasury, federal agency, and government-sponsored enterprise securities." according to last line on link below

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12770.htm

That said though, LBJ and Fed Chairman fell out really quite publicly

 

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 10:09 PM, TheConsultant said:

... Not picking a fight either as it is probably just me but does the term "debunked" infuriate anyone else? Just me? ...

 

I find the word 'debunked' makes me wince, for several reasons. In my experience it was a term used on the American radio shows I used to listen to. When I 'suddenly' started hearing it on uk radio and TV I thought, oh yeah, here we go, where did you learn that word? You know. To me it's too short, like anti vaxxer and conspiracy. It's another taught word. But from whom?

 

I refer mostly to people other than 'us lot', who accidentally or deliberately use the word to dismiss .. something ..

 

I know it's not always that simple, of course, and I'm fairly sure I would also reach for 'it' as a quick way to make a point, but then I admit sometimes I am a hypocrite 😆 

 

 

Edited by Observations
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Observations said:

 

I find the word 'debunked' makes me wince, for several reasons. In my experience it was a term used on the American radio shows I used to listen to. When I 'suddenly' started hearing it on uk radio and TV I thought, oh yeah, here we go, where did you learn that word? You know. To me it's too short, like anti vaxxer and conspiracy. It's another taught word. But from whom?

 

I refer mostly to people other than 'us lot', who accidentally or deliberately use the word to dismiss .. something ..

 

I know it's not always that simple, of course, and I'm fairly sure I would also reach for 'it' as a quick way to make a point, but then I admit sometimes I am a hypocrite 😆 

 

 


I never really thought about where it comes from, I guess it is similar in essence to "conspiracy theorist" which was coined by CIA in order to dismiss or "debunk" people who are heading towards being over the target.

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 10:09 PM, TheConsultant said:

Not picking a fight either as it is probably just me but does the term "debunked" infuriate anyone else? Just me?
 

 

Bit of a tangent on the topic in question but most definitely! "Debunked" is quite often as subjective as mere opinion - when told something has been "debunked" I ask to whose satisfaction has it been debunked. Not mine, usually.

 

There's also something of the playground to "debunked"; it's often used in a childish manner, like a trump card in a debate/argument, like an appeal to a higher authority or registry of ultimate knowledge (usually the cult of science or the latest corporate or government misinformation). If one party in a debate doesn't subscribe to said ultimate authority then an assertion of "debunked" is irrelevant and wholly moot. 

 

Anyways, apologies for veering off topic but "debunked" is a bugbear of mine (...although many things have indeed been debunked, e.g. official 9/11 conspiracy theory, Oswald vs JFK, 7/7 'terrorists', Mysteriously Vanishing Maddie, etc etc).

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dickwan said:

to whose satisfaction has it been debunked.

absolutely spot on!

You mentioned JFK again, check this out:

image.png.13e1e559a239d299e6d136435c7ce6e3.png


Correspondents between CIA director (at the time) and John F. Kennedy merely 10 day before he was killed, according to dates would be this guy heading CIA.image.png.eae171e60422cd756264de7da68f1fdc.png
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

www.majesticdocuments.com - check out some of the documents yourselves, it is quite clear other people from other places exist and are not a threat to humanity. At all.

In fact other documents in that cache show that a group of people decided to hide this from everyone for their gain and nothing more and some elude to JFK knowing and being killed for knowing. So I guess his comments and actions towards FED were an element to the reason but not the reason.

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 5:14 PM, TheConsultant said:

absolutely spot on!

You mentioned JFK again, check this out:

image.png.13e1e559a239d299e6d136435c7ce6e3.png


Correspondents between CIA director (at the time) and John F. Kennedy merely 10 day before he was killed, according to dates would be this guy heading CIA.image.png.eae171e60422cd756264de7da68f1fdc.png
 

fair enough. On point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...