If you listen critically, he said a whole lotta nothing. The only thing he was willing to give details on was a "lenticular acorn" (a contradiction in itself — when was the last time you saw an acorn shaped flat like a lens ???) from.....1933 — which was the only details he had “clearance“ to talk about. I thought the whole point about being a so-called whistleblower was to talk about the things the public has a right to know about that you *don’t* have clearance to disclose! Cue exaggerated eye roll. And it only got worse from there. Sprinkled with lots of innuendo and "I can’t talk about that...".
And if it's true that the feds have killed people over this, why is he still alive? That tends to discredit the whole thing.
But maybe that's intentional. Ha.
No, I don't believe it. You noticed that Tucker alluded to the Kennedy assassination coverup. That's a flashing red light. I'm aware that the government is keeping a lot of things about the assassination classified, and I'm quite sure that sparing the government embarrassment is 99% of it. It's known that the C.I.A. had informed the F.B.I. in early November, 1963, that Oswald was in Dallas, and needed to be interviewed. He wasn't. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald and Oswald alone killed Kennedy. There are three books I recommend to all:
1. Case Closed, by Gerald Posner.
2. Reclaiming History, by Vincent Bugliosi.
3. Oswald's Game, by Jean Davison.
There are other books, such as Kennedy Assassination Logic, which I haven't read.
Of course, Oswald had some connection with our intelligence agencies. The pathetic dumb mother had defected to the Soviet Union in 1959. Do you think he would have been allowed to return to America in 1962 without having agreed to let himself be reamed out by the Feds? Still, he was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, in September, 1963, obviously hoping to persuade the Cubans to allow him to defect.
The one "conspiracy" theory about the assassination which makes any sense at all is not even a conspiracy theory, but a theory of influence, the possibility that when Oswald was in Mexico City, Cuban officers might have taken him into their confidence about the Kennedy administration's efforts to kill Castro.
"Comrade Oswald, Comrade Fidel wants us to give you his fondest regards. However, the international situation is so delicate that it is impossible for us to welcome you to join our glorious revolution. However..."
That has some persuasiveness when you consider that the previous April, Oswald had tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker. It's possible he tried to use that to sell himself at the Cuban Embassy.
But the likeliest explanation of the why of the assassination has to do with the fact that the evening before, November 21, Oswald was in Irving, a Dallas suburb, pleading with his estranged wife, Marina, to come back to him, telling her that if she would agree, he would take the next day off from work and go apartment hunting with her.
She turned him down. After the assassination, she said that she had been playing hard to get, and was going to acquiesce the next time he asked her.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, history turns on such banalities. ( This is gone into in the Bugliosi book. )
It's disappointing to see Tucker fall for crap.
As for Grusch, if he's telling the truth while still not saying much about anything, I reiterate, why is he still alive? Is it possible that thousands of faceless spooks don't have souls, and that not one of them would come forward with definitive evidence that what we have thought was reality about our place in the Universe is not?
Have you ever been to The Sixth Floor Museum at The Texas School Board Depository Building, and stood at the window Oswald fired from.
Of course not. If you had, you'd be shocked by how easy a shot he had. The first thing everyone who goes to Dealey Plaza is struck by is how small it actually is. In photos, it has the weird quality of appearing twice as large as it actually is.
The chances are you have your certainties about what happened that day from Oliver Stone's fantasia, JFK, which is a preposterously untrue movie about the sociopath, Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of New Orleans who had absolutely nothing of substance to bring to bear against Clay Shaw.
Has there been a coverup? My, yes, for one thing, the Warren Commission was hampered by several things, which is the primary topic of the Phillip Shenon book, A Cruel and Shocking Act. Shenon also devotes considerable time in the book to the matter of the influence which officials at the Cuban Embassy, in Mexico City, may have tried to exert on Oswald in September, 1963. The spook agencies f****d up tremendously in failing to make sure that Oswald was under watch. ( Sidebar: the Secret Service detail, having been up "partying" until 5:00 AM that morning, was terribly hungover. That didn't help. )
Your sentence, "No possible way Oswald could have been the only shooter" tells me you have never stood at that window and seen for yourself that it was not at all a difficult shot.
I never said Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. I just know ballistically, bullets don't behave in the manner described by Arlene Specter. No idea who was responsible, but I'm sure it was deep state related. Where do you think they will assassinate Trump?
I'm so glad I thought of this. There is a YouTube channel with the odd name, LEMMiNO. It's done by, as he describes himself, a Swedish guy in his 20s who likes to make videos.
His most recent one is stunning: a ninety minute long graphic explanation of why Oswald and Oswald alone was the lone assassin. I've never seen anything like it. You owe it to yourself to watch it.
There is also a professional historian, Sean Munger, who makes long form videos for YouTube. His very long video about the JFK assassination is superb.
You're sure it was deep state related? Then, as an intellectually honest person and, I presume, a patriot, it should be your ravenous interest to tear through those books and show why they're wrong.
In the introduction to his, Gerald Posner writes that when he began his investigation, he was certain he would find it was a Mob related hit. And that actually makes sense because of the war which Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, was waging on the Mafia.
But Posner, to his shock, found that not only was there no reason to believe it was a Mob hit, there was plenty of reason to believe the Mob had nothing to do with it.
You know the old saying that simply because a person is paranoid doesn't mean he hasn't got enemies. Maybe a corollary could be that just because a thing is a source of consternation at first blush, it isn't necessarily so that it is. The fact may be that the person just doesn't have sufficient information to understand that it isn't.
Both Posner and Bugliosi go into detail about the bullet, about how and why it's credible that it did indeed do that.
As for a deep state hit, there wasn't a more determined Cold Warrior than Kennedy. Are you aware that at the very hour of the assassination, a C.I.A. op was meeting with someone in Paris about the possibility of arranging the assassination of Castro? Lyndon Johnson is said to have believed for the rest of his life that Oswald was being "run" by the Cubans. When he became President, he was apprised of what the Kennedys had been up to in trying to kill Castro. He said to somebody that the Kennedys had been "running a goddamned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean," and he ordered it stopped immediately.
So sure, there was skulduggery aplenty going on in the Kennedy Administration, but it was the kind of skulduggery which any deep state would have been in full approval of.
Given the number of conspiracy theories currently being floated by various people, I am constantly reminded of David Hume's sage advice from his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Apportion your beliefs based upon the evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence my own repeated request on this substack, "Where is your verifiable evidence?" Sadly in almost all cases that simple request goes unsatisfied.
One more point: Whenever Tucker Carlson talks about UFOs / UAPs, personally I find it hard not to remember that in August 2022 rather than devote air time to the House January 6 hearings, he produced a 'documentary' suggesting that alleged cattle mutilations were due to UFOs. So much for Carlson's credibility.
Postscript 12/18/2023:
Yesterday I heard an important obvious point regarding the government's alleged suppression of the truth about UFOs / UAPs, one particularly relevant to Sasha and the many MAGA Trump supporters on her substack. Suppose for the moment that for years the Federal government has been in possession of hard evidence (such as crashed UFOs or alien bodies) confirming the existence of UFOs / UAPs. In his four years as President, why did not Donald Trump disclose the information? Given how lax he was with other highly classified matters, I find it hard to believe that he could resist publicly revealing one of the greatest news stories of all time.
As interview went on I realized even these small pushbacks.. no matter what industry. Are important. And ended up really appreciating the fight people bring to the table everyday. Thanks Tucker.
I had planned to watch this later but based on the comments here that say it was a waste of time and based on other interviews I’ve seen on “Theories of Everything” with Curt Jaimungal that really didn’t seem to prove anything I decided to skip this. Elon says there’s no evidence of UFOs. If these UFOs from distant stars were actually visiting us they would have to have a physics more advanced than ours which would enable them to use a Star Trek style warp drive that enable a spacecraft to jump from one point to another in space/time rather than travel the vast distance between stars which would take a huge amount of time even at the speed of light light which is the speed limit under known physics. But if they were that technologically advanced how could their spacecrafts ever end up crashing on earth? Wouldn’t they be way beyond the possibility of such accidents? In this sense then I think Elon is right that there is no hard evidence for UFOs.
I’m open minded on this and Krystal & Saagar on Breaking Points are worth listening to. I pretty much agree with what they say which is that it’s frustrating that some in the government are able to block transparency on what exactly the government does know. They also say they’re trying to get Tucker on the show which I’d very much like to see.
Lex Friedman has a good interview with chemist Lee corvin discussing his new assembly theory and his concern that contact with aliens may be impossible.
Notes: Estimate of dependency and longevity factors are accounted for at the end of the list. References to relevant science research papers and books also follow the list. The definition used here for a planet is broad enough to include a large satellite orbiting another planet. For reasons why satellites in general and starless planets are not suitable candidates for a life-support body see Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002), pp. 39-41.
(Snip)
less than 1 chance in 10 to the 282nd power....Against
Michael Strauss - God, Particles, and the Cosmos [Entire Talk]
(October 13, 2015) God is a concept which rarely finds any support from the scientists. Most of them don't even try to include the idea of God in the modern science. And of course, there are exceptions such as Dr. Michael Strauss, who tries to find a scientific explanation of God in his talk "God, Particles and the Cosmos". Dr. Michael Strauss is the Professor of Physics at the University of Oklahoma.
I LOVE Sc-Fi, and have for many many decades BUT if you are looking for "Little Green Men" I've got some Bad News. The Numbers say "Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens." Alex C. Kramer / Joan Whitney
I have no informed opinion on UFOs and don't think much about them. But I have heard it said (which is an interesting point) that maybe one reason for an increased interest in UFOs these days is that some plausible explanation is going to be desired by the powers that be when the Rapture occurs, and millions of people are suddenly missing from the earth. (Many Christians believe, based on biblical prophecies, that true Christians will be rescued before the horrible seven-year Tribulation that precedes the return of Jesus Christ to earth). If anybody is unfamiliar with the idea of the Rapture, there are videos and resources at olivetreeviews.org.
Rod Dreher has done several Substacks about Diana Pasulka, who is the author of two books, American Cosmic, and the recently published, Encounters. According to her, no one in the government/military/Silicon Valley complex thinks these phenomena are evidence of little green ( noun/hybrid of choice ) from other planets. They think they're manifestations of non - physical intelligences.
If so, my hunch is they're demonic, not angelic, and there is a goal: deception of the human race into a false religion.
I think aliens are wearing skin suits and controlling our govt. ;)
As Tucker would say, "so evil".
This was a total waste of time. He never really said anything….
Meh. I don’t buy it.
At least he is more credible than Corey Goode, of blue avians fame.
Plus, he is an up-talker like Christine Blasey Ford.
If you listen critically, he said a whole lotta nothing. The only thing he was willing to give details on was a "lenticular acorn" (a contradiction in itself — when was the last time you saw an acorn shaped flat like a lens ???) from.....1933 — which was the only details he had “clearance“ to talk about. I thought the whole point about being a so-called whistleblower was to talk about the things the public has a right to know about that you *don’t* have clearance to disclose! Cue exaggerated eye roll. And it only got worse from there. Sprinkled with lots of innuendo and "I can’t talk about that...".
And if it's true that the feds have killed people over this, why is he still alive? That tends to discredit the whole thing.
But maybe that's intentional. Ha.
No, I don't believe it. You noticed that Tucker alluded to the Kennedy assassination coverup. That's a flashing red light. I'm aware that the government is keeping a lot of things about the assassination classified, and I'm quite sure that sparing the government embarrassment is 99% of it. It's known that the C.I.A. had informed the F.B.I. in early November, 1963, that Oswald was in Dallas, and needed to be interviewed. He wasn't. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald and Oswald alone killed Kennedy. There are three books I recommend to all:
1. Case Closed, by Gerald Posner.
2. Reclaiming History, by Vincent Bugliosi.
3. Oswald's Game, by Jean Davison.
There are other books, such as Kennedy Assassination Logic, which I haven't read.
Of course, Oswald had some connection with our intelligence agencies. The pathetic dumb mother had defected to the Soviet Union in 1959. Do you think he would have been allowed to return to America in 1962 without having agreed to let himself be reamed out by the Feds? Still, he was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, in September, 1963, obviously hoping to persuade the Cubans to allow him to defect.
The one "conspiracy" theory about the assassination which makes any sense at all is not even a conspiracy theory, but a theory of influence, the possibility that when Oswald was in Mexico City, Cuban officers might have taken him into their confidence about the Kennedy administration's efforts to kill Castro.
"Comrade Oswald, Comrade Fidel wants us to give you his fondest regards. However, the international situation is so delicate that it is impossible for us to welcome you to join our glorious revolution. However..."
That has some persuasiveness when you consider that the previous April, Oswald had tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker. It's possible he tried to use that to sell himself at the Cuban Embassy.
But the likeliest explanation of the why of the assassination has to do with the fact that the evening before, November 21, Oswald was in Irving, a Dallas suburb, pleading with his estranged wife, Marina, to come back to him, telling her that if she would agree, he would take the next day off from work and go apartment hunting with her.
She turned him down. After the assassination, she said that she had been playing hard to get, and was going to acquiesce the next time he asked her.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, history turns on such banalities. ( This is gone into in the Bugliosi book. )
It's disappointing to see Tucker fall for crap.
As for Grusch, if he's telling the truth while still not saying much about anything, I reiterate, why is he still alive? Is it possible that thousands of faceless spooks don't have souls, and that not one of them would come forward with definitive evidence that what we have thought was reality about our place in the Universe is not?
Do you seriously believe the "Magic Bullet" crap? No possible way Oswald could have been the only shooter.
Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's book?
Of course not.
Maybe Gerald Posner's?
Of course not.
Have you ever been to The Sixth Floor Museum at The Texas School Board Depository Building, and stood at the window Oswald fired from.
Of course not. If you had, you'd be shocked by how easy a shot he had. The first thing everyone who goes to Dealey Plaza is struck by is how small it actually is. In photos, it has the weird quality of appearing twice as large as it actually is.
The chances are you have your certainties about what happened that day from Oliver Stone's fantasia, JFK, which is a preposterously untrue movie about the sociopath, Jim Garrison, the District Attorney of New Orleans who had absolutely nothing of substance to bring to bear against Clay Shaw.
Has there been a coverup? My, yes, for one thing, the Warren Commission was hampered by several things, which is the primary topic of the Phillip Shenon book, A Cruel and Shocking Act. Shenon also devotes considerable time in the book to the matter of the influence which officials at the Cuban Embassy, in Mexico City, may have tried to exert on Oswald in September, 1963. The spook agencies f****d up tremendously in failing to make sure that Oswald was under watch. ( Sidebar: the Secret Service detail, having been up "partying" until 5:00 AM that morning, was terribly hungover. That didn't help. )
Your sentence, "No possible way Oswald could have been the only shooter" tells me you have never stood at that window and seen for yourself that it was not at all a difficult shot.
I never said Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. I just know ballistically, bullets don't behave in the manner described by Arlene Specter. No idea who was responsible, but I'm sure it was deep state related. Where do you think they will assassinate Trump?
I'm so glad I thought of this. There is a YouTube channel with the odd name, LEMMiNO. It's done by, as he describes himself, a Swedish guy in his 20s who likes to make videos.
His most recent one is stunning: a ninety minute long graphic explanation of why Oswald and Oswald alone was the lone assassin. I've never seen anything like it. You owe it to yourself to watch it.
There is also a professional historian, Sean Munger, who makes long form videos for YouTube. His very long video about the JFK assassination is superb.
You're sure it was deep state related? Then, as an intellectually honest person and, I presume, a patriot, it should be your ravenous interest to tear through those books and show why they're wrong.
In the introduction to his, Gerald Posner writes that when he began his investigation, he was certain he would find it was a Mob related hit. And that actually makes sense because of the war which Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, was waging on the Mafia.
But Posner, to his shock, found that not only was there no reason to believe it was a Mob hit, there was plenty of reason to believe the Mob had nothing to do with it.
You know the old saying that simply because a person is paranoid doesn't mean he hasn't got enemies. Maybe a corollary could be that just because a thing is a source of consternation at first blush, it isn't necessarily so that it is. The fact may be that the person just doesn't have sufficient information to understand that it isn't.
Both Posner and Bugliosi go into detail about the bullet, about how and why it's credible that it did indeed do that.
As for a deep state hit, there wasn't a more determined Cold Warrior than Kennedy. Are you aware that at the very hour of the assassination, a C.I.A. op was meeting with someone in Paris about the possibility of arranging the assassination of Castro? Lyndon Johnson is said to have believed for the rest of his life that Oswald was being "run" by the Cubans. When he became President, he was apprised of what the Kennedys had been up to in trying to kill Castro. He said to somebody that the Kennedys had been "running a goddamned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean," and he ordered it stopped immediately.
So sure, there was skulduggery aplenty going on in the Kennedy Administration, but it was the kind of skulduggery which any deep state would have been in full approval of.
Kween Sasha, I want to thank you for emailing alerts of new Tucker interviews. I'd miss most of them without you. I subbed to his new site.
Blessings of peace, comfort, and joy to you and your readers this season and in the next year.
I just want a foolproof way to find out if someone's a pod person. I need to stop watching those movies!
In today's NY Times (12/16/2023), Ross Douthat has a different take on conspiracy theories in general and UFOs / UAPs in particular: "It’s Time for U.F.O. Whistle-blowers to Show Their Cards" (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/opinion/ufo-whistleblowers-government.html).
Given the number of conspiracy theories currently being floated by various people, I am constantly reminded of David Hume's sage advice from his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Apportion your beliefs based upon the evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence my own repeated request on this substack, "Where is your verifiable evidence?" Sadly in almost all cases that simple request goes unsatisfied.
One more point: Whenever Tucker Carlson talks about UFOs / UAPs, personally I find it hard not to remember that in August 2022 rather than devote air time to the House January 6 hearings, he produced a 'documentary' suggesting that alleged cattle mutilations were due to UFOs. So much for Carlson's credibility.
Postscript 12/18/2023:
Yesterday I heard an important obvious point regarding the government's alleged suppression of the truth about UFOs / UAPs, one particularly relevant to Sasha and the many MAGA Trump supporters on her substack. Suppose for the moment that for years the Federal government has been in possession of hard evidence (such as crashed UFOs or alien bodies) confirming the existence of UFOs / UAPs. In his four years as President, why did not Donald Trump disclose the information? Given how lax he was with other highly classified matters, I find it hard to believe that he could resist publicly revealing one of the greatest news stories of all time.
I was laughing at first at this guy.
As interview went on I realized even these small pushbacks.. no matter what industry. Are important. And ended up really appreciating the fight people bring to the table everyday. Thanks Tucker.
I had planned to watch this later but based on the comments here that say it was a waste of time and based on other interviews I’ve seen on “Theories of Everything” with Curt Jaimungal that really didn’t seem to prove anything I decided to skip this. Elon says there’s no evidence of UFOs. If these UFOs from distant stars were actually visiting us they would have to have a physics more advanced than ours which would enable them to use a Star Trek style warp drive that enable a spacecraft to jump from one point to another in space/time rather than travel the vast distance between stars which would take a huge amount of time even at the speed of light light which is the speed limit under known physics. But if they were that technologically advanced how could their spacecrafts ever end up crashing on earth? Wouldn’t they be way beyond the possibility of such accidents? In this sense then I think Elon is right that there is no hard evidence for UFOs.
I’m open minded on this and Krystal & Saagar on Breaking Points are worth listening to. I pretty much agree with what they say which is that it’s frustrating that some in the government are able to block transparency on what exactly the government does know. They also say they’re trying to get Tucker on the show which I’d very much like to see.
“Schumer Confirms UFO Coverup.” (10 min)
Breaking Points. Krystal & Saagar. Dec 14, 2023
https://youtu.be/PDi1316NX7o?si=B6c4GfOGwXlIsXHB
The lizard people have breached the comment section in many other posts!
The guy glows, if you know what i mean.
Lex Friedman has a good interview with chemist Lee corvin discussing his new assembly theory and his concern that contact with aliens may be impossible.
Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body
Hugh Ross
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
Notes: Estimate of dependency and longevity factors are accounted for at the end of the list. References to relevant science research papers and books also follow the list. The definition used here for a planet is broad enough to include a large satellite orbiting another planet. For reasons why satellites in general and starless planets are not suitable candidates for a life-support body see Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002), pp. 39-41.
(Snip)
less than 1 chance in 10 to the 282nd power....Against
Michael Strauss - God, Particles, and the Cosmos [Entire Talk]
https://youtu.be/NDY9lWYNZi8?t=2212
Dec 6, 2015
(October 13, 2015) God is a concept which rarely finds any support from the scientists. Most of them don't even try to include the idea of God in the modern science. And of course, there are exceptions such as Dr. Michael Strauss, who tries to find a scientific explanation of God in his talk "God, Particles and the Cosmos". Dr. Michael Strauss is the Professor of Physics at the University of Oklahoma.
_____________________________________________________________
I LOVE Sc-Fi, and have for many many decades BUT if you are looking for "Little Green Men" I've got some Bad News. The Numbers say "Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens." Alex C. Kramer / Joan Whitney
Ya Can Look It Up
I have no informed opinion on UFOs and don't think much about them. But I have heard it said (which is an interesting point) that maybe one reason for an increased interest in UFOs these days is that some plausible explanation is going to be desired by the powers that be when the Rapture occurs, and millions of people are suddenly missing from the earth. (Many Christians believe, based on biblical prophecies, that true Christians will be rescued before the horrible seven-year Tribulation that precedes the return of Jesus Christ to earth). If anybody is unfamiliar with the idea of the Rapture, there are videos and resources at olivetreeviews.org.
Rod Dreher has done several Substacks about Diana Pasulka, who is the author of two books, American Cosmic, and the recently published, Encounters. According to her, no one in the government/military/Silicon Valley complex thinks these phenomena are evidence of little green ( noun/hybrid of choice ) from other planets. They think they're manifestations of non - physical intelligences.
If so, my hunch is they're demonic, not angelic, and there is a goal: deception of the human race into a false religion.