Bradley Manning Story A Complete Fake?

[eyeno]

CIA misdirection away from how doubles were used for the JFK hit and cover-up media + how the March 2002 David Manning memo was decoyed for the 2009-10 Chilcott Inquiry by framing up a keyword hijacking patsy named Bradley Manning....as exposed right here at RI.

Gee, how would the spooks know what to turn into psyops B.S.?
By reading discussion boards, that's how. DUH.

I'm totally open to your theory. Totally. I just don't understand it. Can you explain it in more detail?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Remember the David MANNING memo of March 2002?

When this was discovered in 2005 it was called 'the Downing Street Memo.' Very high-level with clarity.
It might have come back up during the 2009-10 Chilcot Inquiry.

But, no. Some other "Manning" and a zillion memos in a zillion low-level directions and thus lacking clarity.

Doubles: The JFK hit was carried out using two Lee Harvey Oswalds and FBI DIrector J. Edgar Hoover accidentally exposed this with a memo warning that two people were using Oswald's passport.

It took years for JFK investigators to figure out the use of doubles to patsy up one with the other in Dallas.
Plus CIA-Hollywood's use of actor doubles to mirror real people has been expose right on this discussion board in thread's like mine called
"Oswald in the Middle"-
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=20762

You can see doubles of JFK Dealey Plaza witness, Mary Moorman.
And CIA handler of the Oswalds, Ruth Paine.
And CIA Dr. Silva.
etc.

[eyeno]

Remember the David MANNING memo of March 2002?

When this was discovered in 2005 it was called 'the Downing Street Memo.' Very high-level with clarity.
It might have come back up during the 2009-10 Chilcot Inquiry.

But, no. Some other "Manning" and a zillion memos in a zillion low-level directions and thus lacking clarity.

Doubles: The JFK hit was carried out using two Lee Harvey Oswalds and FBI DIrector J. Edgar Hoover accidentally exposed this with a memo warning that two people were using Oswald's passport.

It took years for JFK investigators to figure out the use of doubles to patsy up one with the other in Dallas.
Plus CIA-Hollywood's use of actor doubles to mirror real people has been expose right on this discussion board in thread's like mine called
"Oswald in the Middle"-
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=20762

You can see doubles of JFK Dealey Plaza witness, Mary Moorman.
And CIA handler of the Oswalds, Ruth Paine.
And CIA Dr. Silva.
etc.

I don't doubt you. But, I also don't have the knowledge background to make this real for me. I don't have the background knowledge that would allow me make this real for me. I came on this scene 'after' JFK and I have very little JFK knowledge. I know the JFK thing was a total set up, and I think I know why, but i don't know all the nitty gritty details. I just know JFK got popped by the PTB for some very broad reasons. (bankers) I have not spent hundreds of hours studying that situation. I can't put that much time into JFK because he wasn't in my era. I get it, but my studies are broader, so to speak. But I appreciate you taking the time to educate me. I will study the clues you have given me. Thank you.

[JackRiddler]

.

I almost wish I'd taken up mod duties.

.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Re: Oswald double (coming up on Nov 22 anniversary)-

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.ja-ex01.html

As late as November 1960, the FBI was still
making inquiries about Oswald or an Oswald impostor at Albert Schweitzer
University (NARA #124-10010-10011; JA 2, 21).

Re: Manning + memo-
http://downingstreetmemo.com/manningtext.html

SECRET - STRICTLY PERSONAL

FROM : DAVID MANNING
DATE: 14 MARCH 2002

CC: JONATHAN POWELL

PRIME MINISTER

YOUR TRIP TO THE US

I had dinner with Condi on Tuesday; and talks and lunch with her an NSC team on Wednesday (to which Christopher Meyer also came). These were good exchanges, and particularly frank when we were one-on-one at dinner. I attach the records in case you want to glance.

IRAQ

We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.

Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. (See the attached piece by Seymour Hersh which Christopher Meyer says gives a pretty accurate picture of the uncertain state of the debate in Washington.)

From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:
- how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;
- what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;
- how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);
- what happens on the morning after?

Bush will want to pick your brains. He will also want to hear whether he can expect coalition support. I told Condi that we realiised that the Administration could go it alone if it chose. But if it wanted company, it would have to take account of the concerns of its potential coalition partners. In particular:
- the Un [sic] dimension. The issue of the weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade European and wider opinion that the US was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal base. Renwed refused [sic] by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument’
- the paramount importance of tackling Israel/Palestine. Unless we did, we could find ourselves bombing Iraq and losing the Gulf.
.....

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.

I almost wish I'd taken up mod duties.

.

Got something concrete to offer? Do.

[crikkett]

I had to leave and just got home. Glad so many folks weighed in. I have not had time to watch as many of these vids as you guys have, yet, but I will. Some of his theory seems far fetched but some of it seems spot on. The Tony Greenburg stuff looks possible. Not sure what I think about this guys work yet but i'm gonna watch some more of it. He may not be right on all of it but some if it seems more than possible. I have some photo experience and some of the landmarks he points out on facial recognition seem very plausible. He may be taking some of it too far but some of it seems likely to be true. One thing that makes me think that he is at least attempting to be honest is his focus on the Greenburg family. That probably is not a healthy family to focus on, so if he is a disinfo agent I wouldn't think he would focus on this family. Takes balls to focus on that family.

I agree with you completely. The man's premise is sound.

I find it totally believable that sensationalist news outlets (RT, Alex Jones) would either knowingly use or turn a blind eye towards actors, if ratings aren't hurt.

It's also been demonstrated time and again that mainstream news can be damned lazy, and that's an opening for manipulation by actors like the Balloon Boy's parents and the Yes Men, and perhaps the Greenberg family.

[JackRiddler]

.

I almost wish I'd taken up mod duties.

.

Got something concrete to offer? Do.

I don't mean you, Hugh. You often raise the level of crazy, also of funny, but rarely of stupid. I find your work creative, original, and, occasionally, remotely true. The history and context tend to be a lot more solid and informative than the almost always fetishistic, bizarroland associative claims of keyword (or key face/key image) hijacking, which also almost always lack for any model of how it's done, or even possible, to implant these keythingies into the popular entertainments. But it's your stuff, indisputably. For example, I never saw you serve as the re-post vehicle for completely moronic bullshit from a Christianist-apocalypse radio show - one that on the Scale of Smart is definitely looking UP at "Entertainment Tonight." Also, one already known for producing some of the most intentionally disruptive disinfo propaganda about 9/11 - e.g., The Pod. I never saw you take utter crap with zero logic on its face from others and re-post it here as though it's the basis for a discussion here. If you've produced utter crap at any point, it was your own, and I respect that. Your stuff does not radically lower the IQ of the board as a whole, as this thread otherwise does. In fact, I'd say your stuff is the product of a beautiful mind.

.

[eyeno]

jackriddler wrote:
Your stuff does not radically lower the IQ of the board as a whole, as this thread otherwise does.

I put this thread into the griss mill to see what the brain trust here would make of it. Consider it putting corn through the mill to be ground.

[JackRiddler]

jackriddler wrote:
Your stuff does not radically lower the IQ of the board as a whole, as this thread otherwise does.

I put this thread into the griss mill to see what the brain trust here would make of it. Consider it putting corn through the mill to be ground.

More like pebbles through the mill to wreck it.

In the same spirit, I'll be re-posting 50 celebrity stool-sample stories from ET shortly, each as its own thread.

.

[eyeno]

jackriddler wrote:
Your stuff does not radically lower the IQ of the board as a whole, as this thread otherwise does.

I put this thread into the griss mill to see what the brain trust here would make of it. Consider it putting corn through the mill to be ground.

More like pebbles through the mill to wreck it.

In the same spirit, I'll be re-posting 50 celebrity stool-sample stories from ET shortly, each as its own thread.

.

You should stop flirting with me like that. You make me blush. Coming from the guy that wants to keep the fed and bring us more taxes (tobin tax) I take this as the highest compliment. Means I'm doing it correctly.

[Simulist]

For example, I never saw you serve as the re-post vehicle for completely moronic bullshit from a Christianist-apocalypse radio show - one that on the Scale of Smart is definitely looking UP at "Entertainment Tonight." Also, one already known for producing some of the most intentionally disruptive disinfo propaganda about 9/11 - e.g., The Pod.

Good to know. When I first listened to The Power Hour interview between Joyce Riley and Ed Chiarini, I hadn't bothered to look into the other bullshit Ms. Riley and company have proffered prior to this heaping helping, but it doesn't surprise me.

This particular interview just sounded like an information stool-sample (ISS), and I'm more convinced now than ever that, as far as reliable information goes, "Bradley Manning Story a Complete Fake?" contains everything but reliable information — and deliberate disinformation, quite probably.

[Nordic]

eyeno, so you're admitting to be a disruptor by posting these sorts of things?

Listen, I'm sorry I responded on this thread. I responded to the headline and not the video, as I was out on location for 16 hours a day and couldn't watch it on my blackberry.

It sounds like more of Eyeno's silly conspiraporn.

And Jack, that was the most amazingly positive take on HMW that anyone could have possibly have written. Amazing, really.

[eyeno]

eyeno, so you're admitting to be a disruptor by posting these sorts of things?

I'll say this again. I threw it into the mill to see what would happen. Nothing more. It got ground just like I hoped it would. I was only looking for input. Not much else to say. Its been interesting to see the reactions though, when a big name family came into the cross hairs. What else can I say?

[Canadian_watcher]

so...
is it 'Christianist,' now?

It reminds me of the way some people say "ironical" when 'ironic' will do. In fact, not only would 'ironic' do it just must be. It is what it is, which is to say that it is correct and the other word not even a word at all. At least, 'ironic' is correct when used to describe something that is sort of badly coincidental in a smack-your-forehead the Gods must be joking sort of way

Unlike, for example, when Alanis sings:

It's like ra--a-aiiiiiin,
On your wedding day

because that situation does not, in my opinion or the opinion of many scholars, describe anything approaching irony. Perhaps it would though if, say, the wedding in question were being held in a desert and the theme was 'Mermaids' as kind of a tongue-in-cheek "aren't-we-clever-out-here-in-the-dunes having marine themed nuptuals" sort of thing and it pissed all over the cake. Then maybe.

Anyway yeah.. 'ist?'