The mainstream media put their own corporate interests ahead of the public interest in giving conclusions and hiding facts about noteworthy events.
I have done my own research away from mainstream sources and have made conclusions that contradict the "official" theories given to us by the mainstream media:
the JFK assassination
the RFK assassination
I offer the tag line "This Site Operates as Part of Independent Media" for your easy reference as a site that offers unbiased conclusions. We have the evidence of media complicity in these and other events. We just need an audience.
There is only us
We all live in society
Some of us have lots of power and wealth
Most of us do not
Those with power and wealth want to keep it and get more
Power and wealth is attractive and who among us turns it down?
Few of us would
Few of us pass up opportunities to make more money or to gain more power
Are we that much different from those in power?
We are as quick to judge as we are to dismiss the powerful
We have seen the disguise of the powerful
The lies, the fall guys, the alibis
Who among us does not cover up things we do?
The powerful simply have more to cover
There is little power when truths are inconveniently revealed
So some of us have power
And some of us want to change those in power
But we do not know the powerful
We barely know ourselves
So nothing changes
The events of 9/11 were a hoax. I spent several years researching the event and have presented my conclusions on this topic. People are free to read what I have to say and agree or disagree with those conclusions.
My question now is: what should we who are convinced of the falsity of the official theory of 9/11 want?
We will never convict those responsible for this fraud.
We will never get the mainstream media to show our side to the story.
We will never reverse the policies that came about as a result of the fraud.
With that in mind, we can and should focus on something that we can attain. It is something far more basic than any of these other goals and perhaps even more useful.
It is the simple concept of freedom.
The controversy over what happened on September 11 and many other events before and since has stoked the fears of all of us.
Fear of terrorists. Fear of foreigners. Fear of flying. Fear of freedoms being taken from us. Fear of the future.
In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, we need freedom from fear.
We can work toward this goal by untangling us from what makes us so afraid: the unknown. Answers to a few simple questions would be helpful.
Are you afraid the government will take your guns (or other freedoms)?
Do you often believe what the same government tells you about 9/11 and other events?
Do you believe history repeats itself?
Do you believe the future will be much different than the past?
If you are willing to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time, will you ever achieve freedom of thought?
Welcome to a future that will be a lot like what we have already experienced. The government and media will continue to lie to protect interests. People will continue to predict Doomsday. The truth about anything important will be known but never stated openly until it no longer matters.
Clear your mind and follow the way of the world. Not a straight line to disaster but one big familiar circle instead.
Conspiracy theory is dead.
That’s because it never existed.
Whether things (allegedly) happen, it hardly matters that the action was planned; it matters a lot more as to WHO planned them and WHO carried them out.
Take the competing theories as to what happened on September 11, 2001.
The official theory says that nineteen hijackers and others planned attacks.
Alternate theories say that others planned the attacks.
Still other theories contend that the events were staged with the goal to frame people for committing attacks.
All of these theories could be characterized as conspiracy theories.
So why bother using this phrase?
It is awfully strange that those who disagree with the official theory are the ones given the label of conspiracy theorists.
The one word missing in the shallow analysis often offered about the events is the word “agent.”
According to Dictionary.com, an agent is one who is a person or business authorized to act on another's behalf
We learned through a Fox News headline today that there was “9/11 plane landing gear found in Lower Manhattan.” Getting to the text, the message softens a bit, to “Part of landing gear apparently from one of the jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, has been found wedged between two buildings.”
Apparently. The article never tells us which plane the landing gear came from, although it quotes the deputy police commissioner of New York City as saying that the gear has a Boeing number identification clearly identified upon it.
What does this have to do with the concept of conspiracy?
We have been persuaded to believe, from this article, and numerous media reports before it, that the only true theory is the official one. The wording “from one of the jetliners that crashed…” gives away this presumption.
We have been persuaded to believe that only conspiracy theorists believe otherwise. By implication, we are to ignore their ideas completely.
We are persuaded to ignore the possibility of agency, in this case the idea that people not privy to the plan could act on behalf of those who made the plan.
With that, the news media which rehashes this “news” will completely ignore what many alternative theorists have said for years: that of the four planes alleged to have been a part of the events of September 11, two of them did not fly and two of them flew well past the time of the alleged attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.
You can believe those who condemn conspiracy theory while secretly supporting one.
Or you can believe those who are willing to present an alternative to a theory that does not work.
I am an avid sports fan and wrote the book A Fan’s Folklore: Six Seasons of Triumph,
Tragedy and Tough Luck to revive baseball and football in the 1970s. By writing about the athletes, coaches and games, I learned some things about myself.
I remember Lyman Bostock, an outfielder who signed a large contract with the
California in early 1978.Though he was an exceptional (.300) hitter, he batted a dismal .147 in April 1978.
He went to the owner of the Angels, Gene Autry (the singing cowboy) and
told Autry that he was giving his money back because HE HAD NOT EARNED
Bostock’s integrity was exceptional. His shocking murder a few months later was tragic.They simply don’t make athletes like him anymore.
Writing books allows me to reach people I would not otherwise reach. My writing about the “Immaculate Reception” is a case in point. On this controversial football play, it is a mystery who actually touched the ball, a question the referees had to guess in order to rule on the ending of a playoff game.
Using social media, I got the attention of one of the players involved in the play,
John “Frenchy”Fuqua. He emailed me back and told me he was going to show people like me that the play, which benefit his team the Pittsburgh Steelers, was “miraculous.”
A Fan’s Folklore informs the reader as to some of the most remarkable players and games in baseball and football history.It asks the reader to place themselves in the position of those who played the game and ask what they might have done.
Consider the so-called “Holy Roller” in which Oakland Raider quarterback Ken Stabler was about to be tackled by an opposing player as time ran out on the game.As the other player was about to grab his throwing arm and toss him to the ground, he had a split-second to decide whether to “cheat” by rolling the ball forward in the hopes a teammate could make a play or to quit by falling on the ball.
How does that sound – Be a cheater or be a quitter?
From this context, the players teach us about ethics in a way that nothing else
could. So grab this book and learn a little about yourself!
Book available here
A small group of people owns most of the wealth
This is true in the United States and in most other nations
This group, which I will call the GROUP, does not want to share its wealth
They make money through defense contracts and ownership of resources like oil
They have the inside information on stocks
They fund the politicians and usually know them personally
The politicians grant them favors which help them extend their wealth
They cover this truth up through their ownership of the media
There is no future
The future is only something we project our fears and hopes onto
The past keeps changing
We only re-interpret it
The past happened the way the GROUP tells us it did
“Lone gunman” “Nineteen” “Aggression”
Those who know better change the past
But the PICTURE remains the same because the GROUP holds its channel
The PICTURE tells the only story spoken aloud
If you speak against the PICTURE you never appear on it
And you are given a label
“Conspiracy Theorist” “Dissenter” “Traitor”
The GROUP keeps its story going without you
They have what they want
The GROUP has no need to round us up
It would be a waste of their time
The only prison we face is in our own minds
There is only one thing really happening
A tug of war
The GROUP vs Us
The PICTURE show this as a war of words
In coded language
“Support the war” = “Support the troops”
“Remember the victims”
“Don’t engage in class warfare”
The GROUP wants us to leave well enough alone
As if they are fighting for us
Ask a hungry person with a pizza pie in front of them
How many times they are willing to split it up
Ask a tax payer if they would voluntarily
Pay more in taxes
Ask the house in Vegas
How it stays in business
It is not in human nature to share what one believes they need
The GROUP is full of humans
They believe they need more power, more resources, more money
They get it by pushing for wars, “national security” and other hoaxes
If you accept their story, you will get what you deserve
But if you don’t - - -
Turn off the PICTURE and tell the GROUP you have your own story---READ THIS SELECTION OF ON-TOPIC COMMENTS BY RANDOLPH BOURNEIt can be found on Stewart Ogilby's site "BigEye"
Would you follow an illegal order?
Experiments, such as the Milgram Experiment, have concluded that people will break their own moral code if conditioned under certain circumstances. In that experiment, the person running it would tell the subject to ask questions of another person. Upon receiving incorrect answers from the other person, the subject would be told to order shocks to be given to them.
Unbeknownst to the subject, the other person was an actor secretly helping those who ran the experiment. Separated by a wall from the subject, the actor pretended to feel serious pain from the shocks. Overwhelmingly, the subjects, at some point told that they would not be held responsible for the harm, would continue to administer the shocks.
In a municipality recently, the head of Code Enforcement made a remark we have probably all heard frequently. When asked why he did not charge a city official with permit violations, he said he was “just following orders” from supervisors who urged him not to pursue the matter.
Before we make any moral judgments of those discussed here who went along with actions they knew or should have known were wrong, we could start by asking ourselves:
What would we do?
Few people are comfortable with the idea of standing alone in advocating a point of view.
Few people are willing to risk repercussion from authority.
Few people have the ability to see themselves as part of the orders they carry out, especially when given the choice to displace the blame on the ones who gave the orders.
The morality of an order depends upon the followers’ willingness to equate their responsibility to that of those who give them.
A French proverb tells us that only fools and children speak the truth.
Many children grow up believing in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. It obviously isn’t because they researched the issue on what happens to their teeth after they put them under their pillows or how a sleigh run by reindeers can fly all over the world in one night.
Someone told them to believe it.
I believed in these things as a kid because it felt good. I liked to believe that someone was thinking about me and giving me rewards.
It was all plausible to me because I did not give the details of any of these myths much of a thought.
For most of us where I grew up, these were among the first things that someone (i.e. adults) told us to believe. The beliefs of the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were our first official theories.
We laughed off any suggestion that they were not real. After all, everyone we knew believed in them, so we did, too. Anyone who said anything to the contrary was not with us. They were just foolish.
The best theory in alternative to the official one was, of course, the theory that adults were lying to us about where the money we would find underneath our pillows or gifts under the Christmas tree would come from. Our parents – lie to us?
It was a lie to help us enjoy our childhood, long before we became adults ourselves and faced big responsibilities. The lie made us feel safe. Never mind it was barely plausible.
But the white lies didn’t stop there. And it wasn’t just being lied to, either.
We learned to lie and accept lies out of comfort. I could not stand eating certain vegetables as a child. I also learned my mom feared looking old. So, at around the age of eight, I lied to my mom by telling her she looked 30 (she was 31 when I was born) to get her approval to skip the vegetables.
In high school, I had a date with a girl who offered no opinions, thoughts or ideas on anything during our dinner. I should have told her that I did not want to see her again. Instead, to avoid the discomfort of dirty looks from her friends who were in my classes, I waited for her to tell me that I was not a high priority.
I don’t know who told the lie that I just needed to get a bachelor’s degree to get a good job. But I felt conditioned to believe it. Then I discovered the cold truth when I took a job shortly after college graduation that did not even pay minimum wage and for which I slaved to try to please a boss who could not be pleased.
We are simply conditioned to avoid truths that would wake us from our slumber of comfort. We are conditioned to respond negatively to unpleasant truths.
I had trouble believing any of my English ancestors held slaves. My family wouldn’t do that! But I couldn’t help but notice a black man named Edgerton Hartwell while watching National Football League games. There were so few blacks in England during the time my ancestors were there, the proof that people I am related to owned slaves stares back at me.
The issue here is not really the truth. It is comfort. Few will risk stepping out of their comfort to speak up for the truth. It is so much easier to stay asleep and tell ourselves that at least we aren’t foolish.
As a child, there was a phrase I had to say every day…
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
My kindergarten class says there is a God, but my parents don’t. Why should I recite this pledge?
BECAUSE I SAID SO
The principal says I must say it. Maybe he is wrong.
YOU’RE A LOSER* IF YOU BELIEVE THAT
I tried to trust God, but my friend died in a car accident.
GOD MUST HAVE HAD A PLAN
Then I do not care for God.
FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD…
Then why does he let innocent people die?
Faith in what? A God I cannot see? A Bible I read and do not believe?
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
My nation sends troops to fight wars that make no sense.
OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER DO THAT
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
I CANNOT REVEAL MY SOURCES
SUPPORT THE TROOPS
I support the troops coming home and for all of them to stop supporting wars based on lies.
THE TERRORISTS DID IT
What terrorists are you talking about?
I CANNOT REVEAL MY SOURCES
Who can I trust?
FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD...
I give up. Is there something you can tell me not connected to God or country?
"RAYMOND SHAW IS THE KINDEST, BRAVEST, WARMEST, MOST WONDERFUL HUMAN BEING I'VE EVER KNOWN IN MY LIFE."**
*or a communist, a traitor, a conspiracy theorist, etc.
**from The Manchurian Candidate, a movie based on the novel by Richard Condon
Lombardi Trophy for the Winner!
The Super Bowl pits the champions of two conferences, the American Football Conference (AFC) and the National Football Conference (NFC) in one winner-take-all game. Much has been written about the players who have competed and the plays they have made which helped make some teams winners and others losers.
I have enjoyed reading about the play of the teams, but my focus is on something even more important. I analyze the strategy used by the teams in games where it made the difference in the outcome of the contest. By strategy, I mean decisions that coaches and players had time to dwell upon before selecting a specific option.
Strategies include, but are not limited to:
Going for one or two point conversions
Using a specific type of defensive or offensive or special teams play
Directing players to get out of bounds to save time or to avoid getting out of bounds to use up the clock (also known as time management)
Attempting a field goal or going for the first down or touchdown
Here is one of my “cases,” Super Bowl X:
Roger Staubach’s interception on the final play of Super Bowl X was not a strategy. Staubach, his coach Tom Landry and his teammates had little, if any, time to decide what play to choose. And there wasn’t much of a choice, anyway. The team had to move the ball thirty-nine yards in three seconds. The “Hail Mary” pass, which had worked so well weeks earlier in the playoffs against the Minnesota Vikings, failed here not because the Cowboys chose to throw deep, but because the Steelers knew it was coming and effectively handled the play as would be expected.
On the other hand, Staubach’s decision about time management upon getting the ball back from the Steelers late in the game and down by 4 points WAS a strategy. The Cowboys had time to decide how to manage the clock (1 minute, 22 seconds), the yardage (61 yards) and time outs (none) to get the necessary points to win the game. On first-and-ten, Staubach could not find a receiver and ran with the ball. He had a chance to go to the sidelines to stop the clock but instead ran further upfield. He got ten yards on the play but gave up precious time and probably the game in the process.
Here is a chart of the game's final plays, all offensive plays by the Cowboys. Note the field at the far right hand side, the Yards Needed/Second (YND/SEC). As the series of plays starts, this number is a little more than .74. In short, the Cowboys needed to make an average of three yards per four seconds to win the game. Of course, the circumstances which led to the final series of plays and the strategy on how to attempt to score were set in place earlier. If we look at this game backward, we can best determine earlier strategies that might have averted the situation the Cowboys found themselves in.
Below I have re-printed the last four series, two by each team. This will enable us to look backward to the point where Dallas strategy cost them the game.
1-10 P30 F.Harris 4 rush up middle (J.Pugh).
2-6 P34 F.Harris 2 rush off right tackle (E.Jones, C.Harris).
3-4 P36 T.Bradshaw 64 pass to L.Swann deep middle (catch at D5), touchdown (11:58).
R.Gerela's extra point attempt hit the left upright, no good.
PITTSBURGH 21, DALLAS 10
R.Gerela kicked into end zone, touchback. DALLAS: 3:02
1-10 D20 R.Staubach 7 pass to C.Young middle (A.Russell).
2-3 D27 R.Staubach 30 pass to D.Pearson deep right (J.T.Thomas).
1-10 P43 R.Staubach 11 pass to P.Pearson left (A.Russell).
1-10 P32 R.Staubach sacked, loss of 2 (D.White).
TIMEOUT: Two-Minute Warning.
2-12 P34 R.Staubach 34 pass to P.Howard left end zone, touchdown (13:12).
T.Fritsch kicked extra point.
PITTSBURGH 21, DALLAS 17
T.Fritsch onside kicked to D42, recovered by G.Mullins, no return. PITTSBURGH: 1:48
1-10 D42 F.Harris rush left, loss of 2.
TIMEOUT: Dallas (1st).
2-12 D44 F.Harris 2 rush left.
TIMEOUT: Dallas (1:33-2nd).
3-10 D42 R.Bleier 1 rush left.
TIMEOUT: Dallas (1:28-3rd).
4-9 D41 R.Bleier 2 rush right tackle (E.Jones). DALLAS: 1:22
1-10 D39 R.Staubach 11 keeper left.
1-10 50 R.Staubach 12 pass to P.Pearson (M.Kellum).
1-10 P38 R.Staubach recovered own fumble, pass to D.Pearson overthrown.
2-10 P38 R.Staubach pass to P.Howard right end zone broken up (J.Lambert).
3-10 P38 R.Staubach pass to D.Pearson deep intercepted two yards into end zone, G.Edwards 35 return to P33. GAME OVER - PITTSBURGH 21, DALLAS 17 Right before Dallas took over on its own 39 yard line with 1:22 remaining in the game, Pittsburgh had run the ball on a 4th down and 9 from the Dallas 41 yard line. To this day, some question the call that Steeler head coach Chuck Noll made because it almost ensured that Dallas would get the ball in good field position. In fact, Rocky Bleier took a handoff for two yards, well short of the first down.
Why didn’t Noll order a punt? A smart coach who would end up winning what is still a record four Super Bowls, he undoubtedly considered the option of punting. But earlier in the game, his punter Bob Walden dropped a snap from center, which led to a Dallas touchdown and 7-0 lead. If Walden again dropped the ball, or the Cowboys blocked the punt or made a good return, Dallas would have an excellent opportunity to win the game.
Instead Bleier held on to the ball and the Steelers gave the ball to the Cowboys on the Cowboy 39 yard line. Noll estimated correctly that Staubach and Company could not make the winning score.
A better question has to do with strategy before the Steeler set of downs. With 1:48 to go in the game, Staubach threw deep to Percy Howard in the Steeler end zone for a touchdown. The extra point made the game Steelers 21, Cowboys 17.
Dallas had all three of its time outs left. So, provided that they could hold the Steelers without a first down, they could use the time outs and get the ball back with plenty of time to go. And, given that Steeler starting quarterback Terry Bradshaw had left the game (for good) due to an injury moments earlier, the Steelers chances of making a first down seemed fairly slim. In fact, backup quarterback Terry Hanratty, sent into the game as a replacement, had not thrown a single pass all season!
The Cowboys should have known that Hanratty would turn around and hand the ball off to either Franco Harris or Bleier. They could have counted on getting the ball back.
The real strategy decision, then, should have been one that ensured good field position. Instead of an onside kick, which works at best about one time in four when the other team (as in this case) expects it, Dallas should have kicked off deep. A touchback, followed by three carries for one yard, would have put the Steelers on their own 21 with a 4th and 9.
Then the Steelers would have to punt. This is the essence of strategy: make the other side do something they do not wish to do!
Walden punted four times on the day. The first three punts went for 32, 34 and 34 yards and each time the Cowboys took a fair catch. Walden boomed the fourth punt for 59 yards after which Cowboy Golden Richards returned it five yards.
Now the odds are three in four in FAVOR of the Cowboys and even better if there were a problem with the snap or a blocked kick. A 34 yard Walden punt with a fair catch would put the ball on the Dallas 45, which happens to be the same place Dallas would get the ball with a successful onside kick!
In short, the only difference between what the Cowboys could have gotten as a best-case scenario with the poor strategy and what they likely would have accomplished with better strategy was twenty-six seconds, time that they would not need, anyway.
Chalk this Steeler win up to Chuck Noll!
Here is the actual Play-by-play of Super Bowl X (January 18, 1976)