You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

DABBING_AT_AUSCHWITZ ago

I don't get it, how does the original CIA use prove it was a Jewish thing? Can you explain that to me?

Laurentius_the_pyro ago

It doesn't even seem like ((())) was referring to Jews.

Can anyone confirm if that document is even real?

alele-opathic ago

Can anyone confirm if that document is even real?

You're retarded. Here it is.

You can also confirm it's existence by searching the records, or downloading their excel file to reference the line number from this page, then downloading it yourself.

DABBING_AT_AUSCHWITZ ago

So then you are assuming the Jews killed JFK, and the CIA communicated this by putting the assassination in triple parentheses? Am I getting this right?

alele-opathic ago

So then you are assuming [...] Am I getting this right?

No. No you are not. Do strawmen even merit replies?

 

If we assume nothing, then this simply proves:

  1. CIA use of echoes internally dating to the JFK assassination era, and
  2. The first external use was on the Daily Shoah

This allows us to reason that the author on TDS must have known what they meant, and strong CIA ties by marriage confirms this. The leaker was the one who taught us that the echoes refer to jews.

CameraCode0 ago

His comment isn't a strawman, the title of this post includes

Reminder that echoes around a name were originally how jews referred to themselves in declassified CIA documents.

and it's easy to see why one would think what he said. Do you have an issue with the "assuming the Jews killed JFK" part, or the "the CIA communicated this by putting the assassination in triple parentheses" part, or both?

alele-opathic ago

His comment isn't a strawman,

His attempted conflation of my arguments, which comprised the origin of echoes (and only the origin of echoes), into a position on Jews assassinating JFK does constitute a strawman, yes. This is true even if it turned out the strawmanned position was correct.