This “Scorched Memo” Is Proof That the US Government Murdered President John F. Kennedy

Click above images to enlarge…

We now have LEAKED PROOF that the US govt ASSASSINATED President John F KENNEDY. I was shocked to see these burned pages!

“As far as I know, this ‘burned memo’ is the only document that I’ve ever heard anyone claim could be the authorization to kill President John F. Kennedy.”

– Robert Wood, Ph.D., Physicist and Retired Aerospace Manager

These two pages are from a 9-page memo that was thrown into a fire to be destroyed but then pulled out by a man who died in 1987. Before his death he leaked the story of the “scorched memo”. There’s a link at the end of this post to the whole memo and explanation. These two pages are the important ones. Things to note while readin: MJ-1 was code for Dulles himself. “Lancer” was what the secret service called JFK during his presidency. And the last words on the second image “it should be wet” is known to be a code phrase taken from the Russians that means “to assassinate someone”—“wet” being a reference to spilled blood.

So what this memo is saying is that JFK was getting to close to TOP SECRET information and Dulles is asking “MJ-12” (Majestic 12 = code name of secret committee of scientists, military, and govt officials, formed in 1947 by President Truman to facilitate recovery/investigation of alien spacecraft.)—and reminding MJ-12 that they may have “to wet” or “wet up” (second set of pages above) Kennedy, i.e., kill him.

One month after the date of this memo, JFK was shot dead in Dallas.

---

---

If you want to know the full details, this PDF has it all:

Click to access 6404101-JFK-MJ12.pdf

---

More here:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2018/07/did-president-john-f-kennedy-seek-ufo.html?m=1

---

FBI doc on MJ-12 from FBI Website:

https://vault.fbi.gov/Majestic%2012/Majestic%2012%20Part%201%20of%201/view

---

Majestic 12:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_12

---

Video of Interest:

President Trump Just Called Himself a ‘Nationalist.’ Here’s What That Means—and Why It’s So Dangerous.

Nationalism is not patriotism. Just ask George Orwell.

Normally, there’s a kind of catharsis in watching someone finally admit to themselves and the world who they truly are. Not here. It has never been much of a secret that Donald Trump, American president, is a nationalist. The debate is more often over what adjective might go in front. And yet it was singularly unnerving on Tuesday—in the context of a midterm election campaign in which he and his Republican allies are appealing to racism and anti-immigrant sentiment and fear in a strategy so explicit that The New York Times felt comfortable calling it out—to hear him declare, loudly and proudly, that he is “a nationalist, OK?”

The juxtaposition here between “globalist” and “nationalist” is a Steve Bannon joint—a nice hat-tip to the guy on a day where he could be found playing a near-empty conference room on Staten Island. It’s the kind of binary nonsense that authoritarian types feed on, an us-or-them formulation where the United States can succeed, or the wider world can succeed, but you can’t have both. In the context of a globalized, entirely interconnected world—a development Trump is powerless to reverse—it is fantasy. But it gets the people going.

Now that the President of the United States has embraced it as his own, it’s worth digging into what the term “nationalist” actually means and the historical baggage it carries. For this, we can turn once again to George Orwell, the legendary British theorist who, more recently, has become a prop for diaper-wearing right-wing propagandists who looked him up on brainy quote dot com. The essential point, also made eloquently by Charles de Gaulle, is that not only are nationalism and patriotism not the same, the gap between them is not some difference of degree. They are often wholly contrasting emotional forces, as Orwell writes in his Notes on Nationalism:

Facebook Is Bad For Us in Many Ways…So, Why Do We Still Use It?

‘In the past few years, the fortunate among us have recognised the hazards of living with an overabundance of food (obesity, diabetes) and have started to change our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that Facebook is to the mind what sugar is to the body. Facebook feed is easy to digest. It has made it easy to consume small bites of trivial matter, tidbits that don’t really concern our lives and don’t require thinking. That’s why we experience almost no saturation. Unlike reading books and long magazine articles (which require thinking), we can swallow limitless quantities of photos and status updates, which are bright-coloured candies for the mind. Sadly, we are still far away from beginning to recognise how toxic Facebook can be.

Facebook misleads. Take the following event (borrowed from a Facebook friend). A bloke you knew in high school, whom you’ve not met or spoken to in real life since you left high school, has got married. He posts pictures of his wedding taken by a snazzy professional photographer. The pictures gather hundreds of likes and comments. Your friends shower your high school mate with congratulations. There are discussions about the bride’s dress, the tasty food, the fancy hotel, but absolutely no one knows that the reason they are really getting married is because the bride is pregnant with your mate’s baby. Facebook leads us to walk around with the completely wrong idea about our friends’ lives. So holiday pictures are over-liked. Stressful outbursts go unshared. A new job is immediately updated. Being fired is never made note of. Your friends might subscribe to a lot of “Causes”. In real life they do nothing about those causes.

We are not rational enough to be exposed to Facebook. Watching a video of your mother in a dance club is going to change your attitude towards your parents, regardless of your real relationship with them. If you think you can compensate with the strength of your own inner contemplation, you are wrong. Bankers and investors – who have powerful incentives to keep you hooked so that Facebook can make a profit – have shown that they cannot. The only solution: cut yourself off from using Facebook entirely.

Facebook is irrelevant. Out of the approximately 10,000 status updates, links or photos that you have accessed on Facebook in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. The point is: the consumption of the “feed” is irrelevant to you. But people find it very difficult to recognise what’s relevant. It’s much easier to recognise what’s new. The relevant versus the new is the fundamental battle of the current age. Facebook wants you to believe that using Facebook Home will make your life better. Many fall for that. We get anxious when we’re cut off from the flow of the news feed. In reality, Facebook consumption is a competitive disadvantage. The less time you spend on Facebook, the bigger the advantage you have.

Facebook has no real power. Notifications are bubbles popping on the surface of the real world. Will accumulating facts about your friends help you understand what is happening in their life? Sadly, no. The relationship is inverted. The important stories are not shared on Facebook: people are actually desperately alone. The more “factoids” you digest about your friend, the less alone you think you will feel. But if more information about your friends leads to happiness, we’d expect Facebook users with the most friends to be at the top of the pyramid. That’s not the case.

Facebook is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system. New pictures on Facebook spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol). This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress even though you are feeling good. High glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation.

Facebook increases cognitove errors. Facebook feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: “What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.” Links your similar minded friends share exacerbate this flaw. We become prone to overconfidence, take stupid risks and misjudge opportunities. It also exacerbates another cognitive error: the story bias. Our brains crave stories that “make sense” – even if they don’t correspond to reality. Any of your friend who writes, “Terrorists should be bombed” or “Cut the rapists penises” is an idiot. I am fed up with this cheap way of “solving” the world’s problems.

Facebook inhibits thinking. Thinking requires concentration. Concentration requires uninterrupted time. Facebook notifications are specifically engineered to interrupt you. They are like viruses that steal attention for their own purposes. Cute cat pictures make us shallow thinkers. But it’s worse than that. Facebook severely affects memory. There are two types of memory. Long-range memory’s capacity is nearly infinite, but working memory is limited to a certain amount of slippery data. The path from short-term to long-term memory is a choke-point in the brain, but anything you want to understand must pass through it. If this passageway is disrupted, nothing gets through. Because Facebook disrupts concentration, it weakens comprehension. Friends who share too much have an even worse impact. Why? Because whenever a link appears, your brain has to at least make the choice not to click, which in itself is distracting. Facebook is an intentional interruption system.

Facebook works like a drug. As stories develop, we want to know how they continue. With hundreds of your friends’ storylines in our heads, this craving is increasingly compelling and hard to ignore. Scientists used to think that the dense connections formed among the 100 billion neurons inside our skulls were largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. Today we know that this is not the case. Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. The more time we spend on Facebook, the more we exercise the neural circuits devoted to skimming and multitasking while ignoring those used for reading deeply and thinking with profound focus. Most Facebook users – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It’s not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It’s because the physical structure of their brains has changed.

Facebook wastes time. If you check Facebook for 15 minutes each morning, then check it again for 15 minutes during lunch and 15 minutes before you go to bed, then add five minutes here and there when you’re at work, then count distraction and refocusing time, you will lose at least half a day every week. Good Instagram pictures are no longer a scarce commodity. But attention is. You are not that irresponsible with your money, reputation or health. Why give away your mind?

Facebook makes us passive. Facebook status updates are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. The daily repetition of notifications about things we can’t act upon makes us passive. It grinds us down until we adopt a worldview that is pessimistic, desensitised, sarcastic and fatalistic. The scientific term is “learned helplessness”. It’s a bit of a stretch, but I would not be surprised if Facebook use, at least partially, contributes to the widespread disease of depression.

Facebook kills creativity. I don’t know a single truly creative mind who is a Facebook addict – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume Facebook like drugs.

Society needs social cohesion—but in a different way. Meeting friends in pub is almost always fun. We need people to spend time together in real life rather than in front of screens. Only then can we have meaningful relationships.

Deleting your Facebook profile is not easy, but it’s worth it.

This write-up is an “almost copy” of an article published in the Guardian recently about the dangers of reading the news (with some relevant changes, in case you hadn’t realised).

It seems reading the news is not as bad as using Facebook after all…’ ♢

– Akshat Rathi, The Healthcare Blog (THCB)

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/08/28/facebook-is-bad-for-you-and-giving-up-using-it-will-make-you-happier/.

(Images: Google Images)

***

Akshat Rathi is a science and tech writer, among other things, whose work has appeared in publications like The Economist and Ars Technica. You can follow him at his personal website, akshatrathi.com, or on Twitter at @AkshatRathi. This post originally appeared on Medium.com on April 16, 2013.

“This is not MY Flag.”—and Mississippi’s Still Burning…

The curious and controversial state flag of Mississippi, USA. (Source: Pinterest)

 

‘Well into middle age, after years working as a writer and an editor in Washington, D.C., and Virginia, I found myself unemployed and floundering. I eventually stumbled across a job, teaching as the Eudora Welty Visiting Scholar in Southern Studies at Millsaps College, a place loved by Miss Welty (to call her anything else would violate Southern propriety) and a quick walk from the house where she wrote her novel “Losing Battles.” I grew up on a farm near the small town of Mount Olive, and attended Ole Miss, a college where the Confederate battle flag was flown at football games. Upon graduating, in 1978, I left for the North and vowed never to return. But when I needed somewhere to go and sort out my life, there were no questions asked. After years as a black Southern expatriate and sometime critic of the place that shaped the man I have become, my loyalties were not scrutinized. In spite of everything, Mississippi left the door open for me and had my room ready.

At six every morning, I run a loop from my home, in the tidy, liberal enclave of Belhaven, through downtown Jackson, a mile and a half to the south. I rarely see another person, but along State Street flags are my constant companions. One version of the state flag has wide red, white, and blue stripes, and bears the Confederate Army’s battle flag in the top left corner. The other is white, with a magnolia tree in the center, a red stripe on the right, and, in place of the Confederate emblem, a white star on a square canton of dark blue. After the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the official flag (the one with the tribute to the armies of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson) flew at half-mast outside the State Supreme Court, almost low enough for me to snatch it down—an idea, I admit, that held some appeal.

A man protests against the Confederate flag at a rally Saturday in Columbia, S.C. A moveon.org petition filed Saturday seeks the removal of the Confederate from Mississippi’s official state flag. Photograph by Mladen Antonov, AFP. (Source: The Clarion-Ledger)

 

Mississippi’s current flag was introduced in 1894, around the same time Alabama and Florida introduced flags that were similarly reminiscent of the Confederate battle emblem. By that time, the Reconstruction era was over, and efforts by conservative Democrats had disenfranchised most African-Americans once again. The new flag was meant to honor Confederate veterans—to preserve the memory of those who had fought for secession from the Union. That the secession itself was intended to preserve the institution of slavery against the federal government (which, the secession declaration stated, “advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst”) is mostly glossed over in Mississippi today, where the flag is just as Southern as sweet tea and cornbread.

Groups in favor of keeping the Confederate battle emblem as part of the state flag parade in front of the state capitol in Jackson. Photo by Rogelio V. Solis/AP. (Source: The New Yorker)

 

The magnolia flag flies above an office building across from the capitol and on the lawn of my neighbor, a white Democrat and Teach for America alum whose cheerful yellow bungalow I admire on my cool-down. It is an unofficial alternative for those who feel that the time is up for the Confederate emblem—although even the magnolia is not as innocent as it might seem. Its canton, the white star on a blue field, is derived from the so-called Original Lone Star flag, a banner first flown in 1810 by the short-lived Republic of West Florida, which encompassed a portion of modern Louisiana. It was then adopted by the about-to-secede Mississippi legislature, on January 9, 1861, and had an unfortunate second life as the Bonnie Blue; in that year, it inspired a popular song, “The Bonnie Blue Flag,” which celebrated the spirit of rebellion in Southern states (“We are a band of brothers and native to the soil / Fighting for the property”—read: slaves—“we gained by honest toil”).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Jackson’s municipal government, largely black and Democrat, has refused to fly either flag over the city’s municipal buildings, and most residents don’t fly one, either. With a population of just more than a hundred and seventy thousand,

An Ole Miss student responds to a KKK counter-rally on campus with a “Black Lives Matter” sign. Photo by Deja Samuel. (Source:
https://www.popularresistance.org/students-vote-to-remove-confederate-symbol-from-campus/)

Mississippi’s largest city has a majority black population and a white liberal minority, who live in established neighborhoods like Belhaven or emerging ones like Fondren (whose motto is “keep Fondren funky”). Jackson is also distinguished by its high volume of potholes. In a rural state with a genuine distaste for urban spaces, the city is neglected by the men and women in the state legislature, who cannot be blind to the decay, since they experience the city’s bumpy streets on their way to the capitol.”‘…

Click here to read this article in The New Yorker…

BLACK LIVES MATTER!

Sunny Fowler speaks during a rally by University of Mississippi students calling on the university to remove the Mississippi state flag from university grounds, Friday, Oct. 16, 2015, in Oxford, Miss. Photograph by Bruce Newman/The Oxford Eagle, AP. (Source: The Mississippi-Link)

 

‘JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — An integrated group of at least 200 students and faculty members rallied Friday at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, urging the Ole Miss administration to stop flying the state flag that includes the Confederate battle emblem.

About a dozen Confederate flag supporters showed up at the end of the rally, and photos show some wore T-shirts with the logo of an Arkansas-based Ku Klux Klan group, the International Keystone Knights.

Shouting broke out between the two sides, but there was no violence, said Allen Coon of Petal, Mississippi, a white Ole Miss student who wants to remove the flag…

The Mississippi flag and other Old South symbols have come under increased scrutiny since mid-June, when nine black worshippers were massacred at a church in South Carolina. Police say the killings were racially motivated, and the suspect had posed for photos holding the Confederate battle flag.

The Mississippi flag has had the Confederate battle emblem — a blue X with 13 white stars, over a red field — since 1894. Voters chose to keep the flag in a 2001 election.

Several Mississippi cities and counties have taken down the state flag…and some business groups and university leaders, including those at Ole Miss, have said the banner should be redesigned….

The take-down-the-flag rally was sponsored by the campus NAACP. Protesters held signs that said, “Straight Outta Patience” and “Your Heritage is Hate.”’…

Click here to read this article at the Mississippi-Link…

Students wore shirts emblazoned with “I can’t breathe” and “Black Lives Matter” and held up signs. Photo by Bruce Newman/The Oxford Eagle, AP. (Source: The Hattiesburg American)

 

‘Two hate groups waved the Confederate emblem Friday during a demonstration by the University of Mississippi chapter of the NAACP to secure the removal of the Mississippi flag from campus.

If that happens, Ole Miss would become the fourth public university in the state that has chosen not to display the flag, which contains the Confederate battle emblem.

About 50 students, many of whom wore shirts emblazoned with “I can’t breathe” and “Black Lives Matter,” participated in the rally.

“I think that holding onto these symbols of white supremacy and of these symbols of exclusion, it only perpetuates this image and this stereotype that already follows the University of Mississippi,” said Dominique Scott, NAACP member and one of the three speakers at the event. “It definitely detracts from our mission of inclusion and progression and making this place a safe space for all people.”’…

Click here to read this article in The Hattiesburg American…

♢

To All the Flybys…