It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The speech that got John F. Kennedy Killed by nwo

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Wow off-topic much? TheWind how about addressing the issues raised in this thread concerning the speech? You still haven't adequately addressed the fact that this speech as presented on youtube was taken radically out of context and has nothing to do with the NWO.




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by flybynight
 
One more thing about this youtube video, there are about 3 or four different versions of it. I seen version #2 a bit ago while looking for some stuff.
_____________________________________________________________
See the above partial post???? That was part of a reply I done about 3 posts ago, or were you caught up in me being called a "troll" and "ignorant"? Don't cast stones my way til you pluck the fencepost outta your own eye please.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by flybynight
 
Now, here is a copy of the original manuscript straight from the JFK library. It clearly mentions the words, secret societies, conspiracy, secret oaths, secret proceedings, and the word secrecy. Now, if that isn;t a speech on "secret societies, then I don't know what is. The point JFK was making abouit the press and other journalists was that this war against the secret societies had to be fought with pen and paper, not guns and bombs.

Now, if this manuscript was or is a fake, what would it be doing in the JFK library?
_____________________________________________________________
www.jfklibrary.org...
Here's a short excerpt, and if it doesn't sound like he's talking about secret societies, then some of you people need your head examined!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

So flybynight, did I address the subject to your satisfaction now?



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thewind


So flybynight, did I address the subject to your satisfaction now?




Obviously not! All you did was pull one paragraph out void of its proper context!

Just because "secret societies" is mentioned doesn't mean that he's validating the existence of the NWO, Illuminati or whatever you want to call them. All he said was that historically humanity has been opposed to the idea of secret societies - that's ALL he says. It's a point brought up to re-enforce humanity's contempt for secrecy. The "monolithic conspiracy" described by JFK isn't the NWO, it's those collective cold war enemies who conspire in secrecy against America.

JFK is so clearly juxtaposing the traditions of democracy with those of communism in this section. He is carefully assuring the press that their freedom to report will always be maintained by his administration while at the same time asking for discretion and an understanding of how a free press can acutally do harm to its country if it isn't responsible (an obvious reference to the Bay of Pigs debacle).



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I also believe it was because of his incentives to abolish the Federal Reserve system [ for instance his initiatives for the 4 billion in The United States Notes through the treasury instead of the FED]. He was a very clever president on economics and was openly attacked by wallstreet for it [CHarles Murphy, Nelson and David Rockefeller and all the other wall street journal editors]



The difference between Kennedy and Eisenhower and Wilson was, the other two adressed the danger of the militairy industrial complex and FED on the end of their ruling period or life (Wilson), Kennedy had some time to go, so they shot him for it..
After seeing that Korn video it reminded me of this one, couldnt find it on youtube..

www.dailymotion.com...



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by flybynight
[ All he said was that historically humanity has been opposed to the idea of secret societies - that's ALL he says. It's a point brought up to re-enforce humanity's contempt for secrecy. ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, above is "your" post. Now, by posting what you did above, you have hypocracised yourself in stating that my observation of this speech is unfounded and irrelevant. Your above statement fbn is exactly the reason why I said for you folks to follow up with the reading of JFK's Iron Mountain Report. Ya see, there's a lot you don't seem to know about JFK and his reasoning for dealing with the secret societies the way he did. For if you did, then you'd seen that this speech had not much, if anything to do with the bay of pigs, or even vietnam for that matter. It addressed those "behind" the scenes, pulling the strings and making things happen!

To further my point, I implore you to go and read this report by former chicago court recorder Sherman Skolnick where he addresses JFK, the CIA, the vatican, the bay of pigs, the Israeli connection, and grandpa Joe Kennedy. After you read that, you might now, just maybe see what I am talking about. Skolnick is very credible and has uncovered many gov't scandals.

www.rense.com...



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Thewind I will look into the Iron Mountain report for sure and will post my thoughts in this thread probably sometime within the next 24hrs.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by flybynight
 
FBN, do me one big favor when you read the material I gave ya. If I came across as snyde, insensitive, and or just like a regular ole smarty pants, to you or anybody else here in this thread, accept my apology. For it is never my intent to be such a way! I just got fed up with being called ignorant, uncredible, and a troll! Once you people get to know me, you'll see I never post anything that isn't or hasn't been well researched on my part. Times like we are living in right now are far more important to me than petty dissagreements, for in the end, we all have some kind of info that is valuable to each and every one of us! We must learn that it's not about being right, or who knows the most or who's ego is the largest! It's about helping one another survive. These are very dangerous days of living folks, and we're gonna need all the help we can get from each other!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thewind
 


Read the speech!

Normally, it is considered a personal attack when someone points out another's reading/comprehension skills. However, I'm sorry to say that this post is a perfect example that you are indeed lacking reading/comprehension skills.

You gave the same link Lasheic gave you on page 1, that is, the one from the JFK library. As he also suggested on page 1, it is imperative that you read it in its entirety.

Stop taken one quote out of context from it.

In fact, if you do read it, you'll discover that JFK is himself demanding greater secrecy!!!


In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.


He is saying that in time of war, freedom of the press is second to national security. JFK points out that although the US is not officially at war, it is nevertheless at war with the USSR. (what we call the "cold war") You see, JFK was afraid that the enemy (USSR etc.) would be able to find sensitive info through the newspapers. As he later says:


For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage;...


This is not a matter of interpretation. We are talking facts. The only way someone could misinterpret JFK's meaning is to only read the quote in the OP. Without its context, the quote is highly deceptive.

It is irrelevant what Sherman Skolnick, Dr John Coleman, Eustace Mullins, Daryl Bradford Hitchcock, David icke, Dr Antony C Sutton, Fritz Springmier, Richard Belzer, Al Cuppett, Anthony J Hilder think in this case. We have the speech. We can all read it for ourselves, we don't need anyone holding our hands to tell us what it really means. (ps - I doubt Skolnick, Sutton or Mullins would take this quote out of context like you did - Icke and Springmeier - most probably)

BTW, JFK was a Knights of Columbus - a secret society!!!


Here's a video of a President actually warning us about the NWO, in this case the military industrial complex. Also, think of Andrew Jackson's "I killed the Bank" engraved on his tombstone. JFK's Executive Order 11110 and his own assassination are IMO, much better examples. However, this speech simply isn't about the NWO.


[edit on 5/5/09 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 
[The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conspiracynut, did you read the paragraph I posted above in my last reply to the poster who said that jfk mentioned nothing about secret societies? Well, the above comes from the "same" and exact speech from the JFK library, and do you see the words :secrecy, secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings??? Umm, now who seems to have the reading comprehension problem now here CN? You cherry-picked what ya wanted to post from that speech CN in an attempt to try and prove me wrong, and you failed.

One more thing, I know all about JFK's affiliation with the knights of columbus, the vatican, the kennedy bootlegging, and their extremely close ties to the Rothschilds(or did ya know this already). I also know alllllllll about andrew jackson and his victories over keeping the international bankers out of operation during his terms in office. Jackson, by the way, is the only usa president that ever paid off our national debt and had a "real" budget surplus! But hey, what can I say, I am just stupid and irrcomprehendable, and I lost my hooked on phonics diploma somewhere!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thewind
 


...I posted above in my last reply to the poster who said that jfk mentioned nothing about secret societies?


Prove me wrong.

Show me the exact quote in this thread where a poster said JFK never mentioned secret societies?

Plenty of people, rightly, told you that it wasn't about secret societies. And if you read the speech, (which you keep demonstrating you haven't) you will see that it isn't about secret societies. (hence the title "The President and the Press" not "The President and the Secret Societies".)

I cherry picked in order to show you the meaning of the speech because it's evident that you will not take the time to read it for yourself. As you pointed out, I failed to make you understand. It is impossible that someone reads this speech in its entirety and conclude that JFK was somehow warning us about a NWO.

and one more time...
Read the speech!

You are a welcome addition to ATS. You are well-read in conspiracy literature and I enjoy reading your tidbits of knowledge. However, it is imperative that you learned to on occasion reevaluate your own research in certain subjects. Especially in this case, when all we need to determine the truth is to read a relatively short speech in its entirety.



[edit on 6/5/09 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 
[
[Kennedy never gave a "Secret Societies" speech as a warning against the NWO - and he certainly was not killed over something so historically insignificant as his "President and the Press" speech. ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conspiracynut, I don't usually get nasty like this over a thread, but you have more or less called me a "liar", and I don't particular take to that kinda thing myself. Now, CN123, did you read the above quote? It's the "EXACT" "WORD" "FOR"WORD" reply posting that Lasheic replied to me with when he/she called me ignorant and non-credible.

Now, CN123, I know you're a good person, and just got a bit carried away here with your emotions, but when you call somebody a liar, especially me, you better have 100% "Proof" of your accusated claim or I will put you in your place! Now, before you get all twisted up in yer bloomers, remember, you're the one who said "where was the exact quote", and now I provided it, and with great pleasure!


Anything else I can provide you with here, exact quotes, some more history lessons, a new hooked on phonics dvd?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 

One thing I am going to add here CN123, I have researched the nwo many many years, and I am in no way any kind of an expert in any of it, but I am well read and backgrounded on it as a whole, but there are 3 areas that I am not only a researcher of, but am actually a student of the information to. These 3 areas are, 1: the Rothschilds, 2: The Federal Reserve, 3: the JFK assassination, Lincoln's assassination, and Andrew Jackson surviving over 22 assassination attempts.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Ahhh, the infamous abovetopsecret.com /////////

JFK, UFOs, 9/11, and a wide range of "provocative" topics.

But really, what you're getting is disinfo agents, sock puppets, truth getting buried time and time again.

Go ahead, stand up against these clowns who call themselves skeptics, and take it to the ATS issues thread.

Nice knowing ya'll, before the inevitable ban hits and my post gets censored.

I'm sure it will be swift and clean, without a trace



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Extraordinaire
 
What truth gets buried here at ATS? Do you have something of incredible info that needs to be posted? The first casualty of war is the truth! There is nobody, and I mean nobody who has access to anything that is 100% accurate concering any topic here at ATS. All of our info is flawed at some point, and that's what makes for a good debate. Do you think for a nano-second that any global gov't or group of people behind the scenes would allow any of us to really know their next move?

There are many fine people here at ATS, and yes, some are more aware of things than others are, but that doesn't make them dis-info agents. If you have a specific topic of interest, please start a thread and let's share all our info together. There are strength in numbers, and knowledge is the greatest weapon that wins all battles, and eventually wars!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by thewind
 


Look dude, This is simple.

You wrote that somebody in this thread claimed:

jfk mentioned nothing about secret societies


I asked you to provide me with a direct quote of someone making this claim, you provided me with Lasheic's statement which is: (as you quoted)

Kennedy never gave a "Secret Societies" speech as a warning against the NWO...


How could you not see the difference?


As I told you, Lasheic is telling you that the speech isn't about the NWO. You have failed such a simple task.
IMO, this goes a long way towards explaining why you can't comprehend JFK's meaning.

I'm not saying you are a liar. (although you did lie elsewhere about having a copy of Moral& Dogma which you never had - if I did call you a liar, I'd be fully justified in doing so) I'm saying what anyone reading this thread can plainly see, you have difficulty comprehending what you read.

If English isn't your first language, please say so and I'll let the matter drop.

and to make a point...


Originally posted by thewind
I readily agree.


I'm glad you finally agree that JFK's speech might have not been a warning against the NWO!


(Of course, I had to use your agreement quote out-of-context and from a completely different thread - But that's OK by your own standards, isn't it? You see what happens when things are allowed to be taken out-of-context?)



[edit on 7/5/09 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 
[Prove me wrong.

Show me the exact quote in this thread where a poster said JFK never mentioned secret societies? ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you understand what "you" read CN123? Above is your post citing that a poster NEVER said JFK mentioned "secret societies" in his speech! I proceeded to provide the exact quote, and who wrote it, and you still don't understand what it means when you read it? I personally "Posted" an excerpt from JFK's speech, and it plainly had the words, secret societies, secret proceedeings, and secret oaths among other pertinent acronyms that point directly to secret societies. Now, I do hope you know what an "acronym" is. You'd make a good politician, for you like to cherry pick phrases, and "spin" things a lot out of proportion.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


[I'm not saying you are a liar. (although you did lie elsewhere about having a copy of Moral& Dogma which you never had - if I did call you a liar, I'd be fully justified in doing so) I'm saying what anyone reading this thread can plainly see, you have difficulty comprehending what you read.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say you never called me a liar?? Look above at YOUR own statement! And if you want to see my copy of morals & dogma, come on down to my house and I'll be happy to show it to ya. What you don't know is how many times it has nearly been stolen because of its' value. Do you think I am going to give a publishing number on the internet so somebody can trace my web portal entry isp and see where I live exactly? You're a bigger fool if you think I am that crazy. I have over probably $50-$65,000.00 in books alone that are antiquities. They are worth more than this. So, you and your mason buddies can believe what ya like, I know what books are in my library.




"If English isn't your first language, please say so and I'll let the matter drop."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, another barb at my intelligence? No, I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do have a 137 IQ, what's yours? Is it lower, higher, or just sooo bad you're ashamed to say? We can be what we wanna be on the internet, but I am one of the few that actually is truthful when I speak. I know this is something that you and others aren't use to, and I can forgive and overlook that, for it's no big deal to me. I know what I am and what I am all about. Oh yea, one more thing, when I was a soldier, I spent a couple of years in Panama and learned to speak a bit of spanish. I don't write it very well, but I did learn enough of it to go shopping and carry a conversation.




"Originally posted by thewind "
I readily agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CN123, I went back and re-read every single post I wrote, and nowhere did I say "I readily agree" to anything. So, after calling me a liar, once again, you seem to be the one lying huh?

What's wrong, does somebody who's well rounded in their research threaten you in some way or form? I make no apologies for my research, and won't say I am sorry for correcting you when you call me a liar, but you can call me whwtever ya like, for they beat Jesus with the cat of 9 tails, drove big spikes through his hands, and stuck him in the side with a big spear, and after it all, he still had the compassion and love in his heart to ask his Father (God), to forgive them for they know not what they do. So, if it makes you feel like a "big" man to berrate me here, then please do so, I won't hold it against you, but whatever God has in store for ya, well, that's tween you and him!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Its extremely important what some of you have just written. That highly edited speech is being increasingly used for nefarious purposes. Most recently, in Jason Bermas's highly questionable 'Invisible Empire'.

I can confirm 100% that Kennedy was indeed discussing the press, not the NWO/Masons etc. Its irritating in the extreme that there are not more discerning people out there like yourselves. As for the "Report From Iron Mountain" we all know it was a joke. However, Fletcher Prouty (who has been falsely accused of believing in it) and others close to the paths of power. Have said it was an insightful piece of writing, echoing much of their experiences.

But, to take it as gospel is extremely naive. Furthermore, I think that anybody drawing inspiration from David Icke and then discussing the Kennedy assassination is rather questionable.



[edit on 30-6-2010 by Lee Harvey Osmond]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Lee Harvey Osmond]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Very interesting thread. Thanks to the OP.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join