That's the main site with plenty of evidence, but in the years since I first stumbled across it, I've found much more. Also, I always compare that thesis to the analysis from any JFK researcher I happen to hear. Do they mention any of the evidence pointing towards Jackie?
Nope. When you listen closely there's a howling silence. I've concluded that probably about 80% of the high-profile JFK researchers are disinfo, and a further 15% are basing their work on the misleading research of those disinfo agents.
Beyond the whodunit, the event was clearly a public ritual murder, Satanic in nature. And you can add in that the famous Oswald assassination that was supposed to shut the lid was also hoaxed.
So whether you agree with all that or not, just fix in your mind for a moment that those things are all true. Is the public really ready for that? I personally don't think so. At least, they reject it out of hand--sometimes vehemently--when I bring even a little of it up.
And if you're saying to yourself, "That is all so ridiculous I can't even tentatively entertain it to be true for the sake of argument," then, well, you definitely get my point.
Jackie Killed JFK? Saying Jackie shot JFK since 2010!
That's the main site with plenty of evidence, but in the years since I first stumbled across it, I've found much more. Also, I always compare that thesis to the analysis from any JFK researcher I happen to hear. Do they mention any of the evidence pointing towards Jackie?
Nope. When you listen closely there's a howling silence. I've concluded that probably about 80% of the high-profile JFK researchers are disinfo, and a further 15% are basing their work on the misleading research of those disinfo agents.
Beyond the whodunit, the event was clearly a public ritual murder, Satanic in nature. And you can add in that the famous Oswald assassination that was supposed to shut the lid was also hoaxed.
So whether you agree with all that or not, just fix in your mind for a moment that those things are all true. Is the public really ready for that? I personally don't think so. At least, they reject it out of hand--sometimes vehemently--when I bring even a little of it up.
And if you're saying to yourself, "That is all so ridiculous I can't even tentatively entertain it to be true for the sake of argument," then, well, you definitely get my point.