💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › conspiracy › CN › cn11-65.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 07:11:15.
View Raw
More Information
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 11 Num. 65
=======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GOOFY-LAND USA
==============
- * Ted Kaczynski wanted to have a lawyer of his choosing
represent him in his "trial." But, no, he can't have that; you
see, it would cause a "delay." Then Mr. Kaczynski said he wanted
to defend himself in his "trial." But no (apparently), if Ted
Kaczynski represents himself that could mean he'd risk being
found guilty -- as if he stands a snowball's chance in Hell of
being acquitted as the situation now stands. And do we know that
Mr. Kaczynski's request to have a lawyer of his choosing
represent him was =really= made at the last minute? Maybe Mr.
Kaczynski's request had been made earlier, but was hushed up.
What comes next? Will Ted Kaczynski be gagged during his "trial"
to prevent his inconvenient voice popping up during the charade?
Note also that the unabomber -- whoever they are -- agreed to
stop their attacks after the condition of having their manifesto
published by the mainstream media was granted. So after it's
been agreed that no further attacks will occur, =then= Mr.
Kaczynski, pondering his navel in Montana, is nabbed. But what
if the real unabombers suddenly decide to renege on their
agreement and renew their attacks? Wouldn't that be a funny
situation?
- * Our Maximum Leader, Bill Clinton, made gross sexual advances
to Arkansas state employee Paula Jones -- unless you believe that
Bill Clinton is telling the truth and Paula Jones is lying.
Paula Jones wants to confront Clinton during his upcoming
deposition in a case filed against him by Jones. Isn't this a
good opportunity for Bill Clinton to unnerve Jones by staring her
in the eye? If such an accusation were made against you,
wouldn't you want to stare the scalawag in the face? Then why is
Bill Clinton afraid, and Paula Jones is not?
- * Anyone who's looked into the Oklahoma City bombings knows that
no "fertilizer truck-bomb" did all that damage. Besides the
unusual circumstance that Murrah Building support pillars nearer
the Ryder truck were not blown out, yet pillars further away
crumbled, my friend Joseph Andreuccetti pointed out something
else. Next time you see a picture of the damaged Murrah
Building, notice how the vertical damage is basically shear and
not radial. Mr. Andreuccetti worked in a rock quarry in Italy in
his youth, and tells me that he immediately noted the
similarities between the damaged Murrah Building and
after-effects of quarry blasting. Yet =none= of the defense
lawyers, representing either McVeigh or Nichols, have challenged
the prosecution to prove that it was a "fertilizer bomb," and
=only= a "fertilizer bomb," that did all the damage. STILL NOT
PROVEN: THAT A "FERTILIZER BOMB" AND ONLY A "FERTILIZER BOMB"
KILLED 168 PEOPLE IN OKLAHOMA CITY ON APRIL 19, 1995.
- * Riots in Indonesia (AP, 1/7/98). Riots in Switzerland. ("In
Switzerland, where five banks have already gone bankrupt over the
past three months, people have begun converging on supermarkets,
pharmacies and hardware stores, buying up canned food, medicines,
bottled water and other necessities. There has been rioting in
Bern and Geneva." Weekly World News, 1/20/98.) Near-riots in
France. And this is with the "good economy." What happens when
the "bad economy" arrives?
- * There is a large portion of America now calling for a proper
investigation into the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.
The mainstream media, forced to notice, has been dragged, kicking
and screaming, toward reporting on the matter. Typical to
mainstream coverage have been statements like, "Well, you know,
these blacks, they believe these sorts of stories." (Questions
arise due to a "sense of powerlessness and vulnerability black
folks feel in face of American society." AP, 1/8/98) Supposedly,
suspicions that Brown might have been assassinated are all based
on some sort of "peculiar psychology." But in spite of
comfortable-sounding pop psychology, real and troubling questions
about Ron Brown's death remain unanswered. Here is part of what
radio host Joe Madison said on the Pacifica News broadcast of
1/8/98:
Steve Cogswell is an expert in ballistic pathology. He
said that it appeared to be a perfect, circular, beveling
wound [in Brown's head], that was characteristic of a .45
caliber gunshot wound.
Now also understand that four other pathologists who were
there at the examination, including an Army Lt. Colonel,
did examine Ron Brown's body and agreed with Lt. Colonel
Cogswell.
So here you have two medical examiners, both of whom are
high-ranking military officials, that now support each
other's position.
As soon as Cogswell's story became public, the x-rays [of
Brown] came up missing. They no longer exist! They are
"missing."
- * These have been major stories this past week, 1/5/98 - 1/9/98:
(1) Terry Nichols avoids the death penalty, due to jury
deadlock. A supposedly representative sampling of relatives of
victims of the OKC bombings are magnified on the television
screen. Almost all of the supposed representative sampling are
like salivating dogs denied an anticipated meal. "Give us Terry
Nichols, and we'll rip him apart with our teeth!" Meanwhile, the
press amazingly includes comments by Jury foreperson Niki
Deutchman, that she believes the FBI "dropped the ball" on the
OKC case and that there are still other guilty persons out there.
Say, what's that!? FBI DROPPED THE BALL!? OTHER GUILTY PERSONS
STILL OUT THERE!? Why aren't the snarling Oklahomans snarling
about =that=?
(2) Ted Kaczynski says he is not crazy. But, "Ah-hah!" says an
"expert" interviewed on National Public Radio. "You see, don't
you," says the "expert," "that if he =is= crazy, then of course
he will say that he is =not= crazy!" So now Ted Kaczynski is
going to be "evaluated" to see whether he is "crazy." If he is
found to be "crazy," then he cannot represent himself at his
"trial." And at his "trial," his lawyers want to show he is
"crazy," and thereby get him hopefully acquitted. So if Mr.
Kaczynski is found to be "crazy" and so can't represent himself,
but then during the "trial" the jury decides he is not "crazy,"
then which is it? How can a man be "crazy" =and= not "crazy,"
both at the same time?
(3) The current U.S. President is widely and credibly believed
to have pulled down his pants in front of a stranger and told her
to "Kiss it."
(4) Many believe that former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was
assassinated because his past corrupt deals were on the verge of
becoming public knowledge, thereby implicating or even
incriminating Mr. Bill Clinton and associates.
These are the stories floating around in the American
consciousness this week of Jan. 5 - Jan. 9, 1998. And if you
think all this is goofy enough, just wait until this weekend when
goofy America will forget all about it!
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
For related stories, visit:
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html
http://www.netcom.com/~feustel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those
of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New mailing list: leave message in the old hollow tree stump.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc?
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9