High Strangeness, Adele Edisen and the otherworldly murder of JFK

SlavaOn

Jedi Master
Hello @Michael B-C

I take it back - ad hominem was an incorrect term. It was perceived by me as personal, as I would not have wanted to be called a flat Earther. So I have felt that I had to protect the man. Thank you for pointing it out.

I have lived with "knowing" that JFK was killed all my life. I knew it for the fact and never questioned. I have read about the alternate theories of who his murderers were and why they killed him. They all seemed to be plausible. The military-industrial-intelligence complex did not need the guy who worked against their wishes and sabotaged their goals. None of these theories ever proclaimed that JFK's was working along and not against the rulers of our world. Kennedy's family itself was amongst those ruling families. I would not have come up with that, that JFK was not murdered and the whole thing was staged on my own, and defended the right of Mr.Mathis to do so.

Let me have another go at speculating why I think JFK had a need and the means to be "murdered" in public.

From many C's transmissions we knew about large numbers of people snatched from the surface to become worker bees underground. Tens and hundreds of thousands, in every war. And we heard from C's how large the underground world is. It is large enough to accommodate the whole "Lizzies" civilization. Is it a stretch to think, that this activity has been known, tolerated and maybe aided and abetted by the Consortium (aka "shadow government"). Definitely, the Intelligence on the ground was/is fully aware of what is going on. That knowledge is being protected by many levels of security clearances and would never be allowed into the public domain. And if the importance and influence of the "other" side in 1940s-60s eclipsed in importance "our" side, they would have needed to place their king on the "other" side as well

JFK came up in several C's session transcripts. I will add my comments after the quotes.
From 06-09-1996
Q: (L) Obviously the consortium was operating through the FBI, the CIA, the Mafia, and God knows who else, but, can you tell us who fired the shot that caused JFK's death?

A: No, because it would put you in grave danger.
Why would it put Laura in grave danger if the name of the assassin is revealed in 1996? What if there was no assassination? That would have put her in a grave danger because the plot was ongoing (and still is).

From 12-21-2012
Q: (Belibaste) Okay, that's what we thought. (L) Next question? (Perceval) They made a comment in there about assassinations. They made a reference to major steps being like assassinations that are accepted by the masses. Is that what the Sandy Hook massacre was?

A: Well, we had in mind things like JFK, RFK, John Lennon, Diana, and others of note. Of course the Sandy Hook affair was an assassination of sorts, but more along the line of psyops with an objective.

Q: (Perceval) You said that it was more along the line of psyops with a specific goal…

A: Remind people how much they need the chancellor and his pals!

Q: (L) Like the scene in “V for Vendetta”. (Perceval) How many individuals were involved in the killings of the people at Sandy Hook?

A: 5

Q: (Perceval) Was the younger guy, Adam, involved? Did he shoot anybody?

A: He shot but did he hit anything???
Why would Diana be placed in this group of people "whose assassination was accepted by the masses"??? "Accepted by the masses" implies that there was no assassinations! That supports Mr.Mathis's theory. This is what he wrote about Diana: http://mileswmathis.com/diana.pdf

Who are the "chancellor and his pals"? Hitler and the Nazis?

As recently as 12-01-2018
(Joe) Did the shot that killed JFK come from someone in the drain at the side of the road?

A: No

Q: (L) It came from the bridge and the grassy knoll.

A: Yes
Joe asked a specific question and the answer is "No", Laura asked a follow up question and that "Yes" answer supports that JFK is killed.
I am unclear, how could "the shot", that killed JFK, come from 2 locations: "the bridge" and "the grassy knoll"? Logically, it could not be "Yes" to both... And, actually, Laura was not asking a question (there is no question mark) - she was stating a fact. So, the C's were answering a non-verbal question that Joe or Laura had at the moment, IMHO.

The reason why Rivera was prepping Adele, that something bad will happen to JFK and his family could be explained as such. He (as part of alleged perpetrators) was implanting facts into and through Adele that when there is a shooting in Dallas, she would "know" without a 2nd thought that JFK is killed for real.

Of course you do have access to factual evidence SlavaOn - as we all here do - this forum and SOTT is full of it let alone the 100s of books and articles that can be found elsewhere. So I'm wondering whether you see any paradox in you stating you don't know the facts but you do know enough to think that Mr Mathis' theory is equally valid as any other?
All we have is hearsay and circumstantial evidence. None of these 100s books and articles will stand in the court of law as evidence. I base my conclusions, in large part, on a gut feeling. I am not even judging which one is more valid. All I am saying is that Mr.Mathias came up with questions that were never asked.

Much of this comes down to the thought that we are all farmed food. The answer is do we willingly allow ourselves to be eaten when we have the tools to hand - particularly networking through this forum - to chose to refuse to be munched!?
Yes, indeed. It is my worst fear. This forum was a big part of the 'red pill" that woke me up to that reality. We made the choice not to consume the fare that is being cooked to the masses. It is understandable that PTB would be cooking special fares, that are more palatable to us, with an extra shot of poison.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
APRIL 1963

This is where our story really begins.
Noticed you had bolded Clint Murchison, now there is a guy who had his hands dug in deep, from J Edger to many others.

Very interesting background on Adele Edisen, Michael B-C.

Ochsner also developed a close friendship with Clint Murchison who helped fund various right-wing organizations. Ochsner was also connected to Warren Commission member, Hale Boggs. According to one Louisiana State Representative, Ochsner was "the most aggressive seeker and recipient of so-called federal handouts in the Second District (Hale Boggs' district).

In 1961 Ochsner, with the financial help of Clint Murchison, established the Information Council of the Americas (INCA). Ed Butler was appointed as Executive Director of INCA. The main objective of the organization was to prevent communist revolutions in Latin America. Ochsner told the New Orleans States Item: "We must spread the warning of the creeping sickness of communism faster to Latin Americas, and to our own people, or Central and South America will be exposed to the same sickness as Cuba." (16th April, 1963)
Why would Diana be placed in this group of people "whose assassination was accepted by the masses"??? "Accepted by the masses" implies that there was no assassinations! That supports Mr.Mathis's theory. This is what he wrote about Diana: http://mileswmathis.com/diana.pdf

Who are the "chancellor and his pals"? Hitler and the Nazis?
Think this denotes (along with the others mentioned); in terms of being accepted, meaning as far as the official narrative was told to the masses (assassination or accident).

"Who are the "chancellor and his pals"? Hitler and the Nazis?"

Consortium and their followers perhaps - like now as we can see with the current state of affair?

If you have never caught the documentary Evidence of Revision, it is very interesting - here is the link:

 

SlavaOn

Jedi Master
@Voyageur

Let's look at this quote one more time..
The session took place on December 21st 2012.

Q: (Belibaste) Okay, that's what we thought. (L) Next question? (Perceval) They made a comment in there about assassinations. They made a reference to major steps being like assassinations that are accepted by the masses. Is that what the Sandy Hook massacre was?

A: Well, we had in mind things like JFK, RFK, John Lennon, Diana, and others of note. Of course the Sandy Hook affair was an assassination of sorts, but more along the line of psyops with an objective.
1) It is not clear to me in Perceval lead-in, what he is referring to. There is nothing about assassinations in the previous session (July 22, 2012) and in the one before on March 4, 2012. What did he mean by "in there"? If Perceval is reading this, can that source be shared, please?

2)Perceval did not use the word "official", that @Voyager is suggesting.
2.1) In JFK and RFK cases the masses could have accepted the official or the unofficial version of the assassination. The option that JFK or RFK were not killed and the whole events were staged have not been raised and thus couldn't have been considered by the masses.

2.2) In John Lennon case there was no competing versions of who or why he was assassinated. Mark Chapman did him.

2.3) In Princess Diana case the unwashed masses never accepted "assassination version". It was a tragic accident.

2.4) "Others of note" needs to be defined. Since some of the hoaxed death were attributed to the natural causes, these individuals wouldn't be counted here. Mr.Mathis lists these assassination hoaxes of "others of note": Abraham Lincoln, Marylin Monroe, Sharon Tate & Jay Sebring, Nicole Simpson,

3)
JFK - 1963
RFK - 1968
John Lennon - 1980
Princess Diana of Wales - 1997
others of note - (1865 - current)

These events span 34+ years, yet the Cs combined these names in the single list. What unites these people?
3.1) They are all from top ruling families
3.2) There is no verifiable evidence (that public can access to) to their bodies.
3.3) The details of the "official" stories changed many times.
3.4) Alternate "conspiracy' theories are promoted (100s of books and articles), but one theory that unmasks the hoax is squashed and suppressed.
3.5) There were no crimes committed. If their deaths were staged, not a single person who participated or covered them up, can be persecuted for it. They did not break any laws.
 

loreta

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Wow Michael, what an extraordinary way to present this subject! thank you so much. The JFK assassination is super important, and super important to think about it. Some years ago I read the fantastic book of Douglas but I will read it again.

Why Adele did not contact Jim Garrison?

You are a genius in your threads, I am a fan of you. ;-D Thank you!
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
2)Perceval did not use the word "official", that @Voyager is suggesting.
Correct, that was my thinking as was considered, and Perceval, or others that were there would offer their reasoning.

3.4) Alternate "conspiracy' theories are promoted (100s of books and articles), but one theory that unmasks the hoax is squashed and suppressed.
3.5) There were no crimes committed. If their deaths were staged, not a single person who participated or covered them up, can be persecuted for it. They did not break any laws.
From review, it seems a standalone 'theory' and you have been provided some opinions (I've not read from Mathis and will look myself). Now I don't suppose there are may here who have not latched on to a theory at one time or another (Big Bang ;-)), myself included, that can become a sacred cow, only later to realize it needed to go into the dustbin. This is a choice based on reasoning that may involve further research and cross referencing. So, to take Mathis in his opinion that it is all just all an elaborate hoax dismisses the painstaking work done by others - so must we take Mathis on his word?

Personally, I've followed this list of people cited and can't mesh the concept of their deaths being a hoax as it does not reason, yet that is for me, and on that point, is this not why the network exists, to pass subjects along and listen to who might have reasoning that may be opposite to what is being posited?

Okay, had a brief look at his 'Something for my Critics" pdf whereby there are many many papers her wrote, a great number on physics, so if someone here came along who is well trained in physics and reasoned Mathis words unreasonable for x. y and z, should they be dismissed as just wrong critics? Of all his papers listed, perhaps he makes some points here and there (like he did in brief words with Google generally - and this is no secret).

On the other paper 'Censored' (4 pages) he says (as example) "Stranger still, my paper on Stephen Hawking being an imposter isn't censored at all." Is Hawking being an imposter reasonable? He says he is not censored in this because CIA/MI5/6 did not like Hawking's, or something like that. He states "can't really explain this, since you would think the same people that are running interference for Lincoln and Kennedy would be running interference for Hawking. But we find it isn't so."

Not sure who 'we' are, yet being 'censored' (like some videos advertised as being banned), can be its own psyops to get people on board, its own counterIntelligence program, because if it is censored people may be attracted for the wrong reasons - dividing people further. Just something to keep in mind for many things, and each must be weighed, osit.

If you want to create a thread (so as not to impede with what Michael B-C has started) whereby Mathis's hoaxes can be critiqued, you could try that.
 

Hello H2O

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
(I've not read from Mathis and will look myself).
One thing that struck me about his site, is that he has literally hundreds, if not thousands of articles. Pretty much one every day. Doesn't leave too much time for research, imo, so I was thinking that his site is maybe a repository. But with everything credited to him. The guy seems to be an expert on everything. Too good to be true? Who knows.
If you want to create a thread (so as not to impede with what Michael B-C has started) whereby Mathis's hoaxes can be critiqued, you could try that.
I agree. I have enjoyed Michael BC's thread so far, waiting for more...:read:
 
Michael B-C, thank you for posting these excerpts with commentary. I have read much about JFK's assassination because it was not only tragic in terms for the people in the USA but because there was never a satisfactory explanation as to the who, why and how did all these people not only work together but keep it secret for so long. Regarding the Life Saver candies reminded me of the old saying, "Never take candy from strangers!"

On your notes about Rivera, I also wonder if he was greenbaumed and was reciting a script that he was programmed with? If it's possible he was then that's a new area for me where the mind controlled are trying to mind control others in that era of time. Today it seems normal, although that is sad in and of itself.

(This first mention of offering and freely taking a ‘Life Saver’ is key. It will be a recurring event in the story with significant implications, especially regarding her interactive acceptance of the journey she was being taken on).



MY NOTES ON ABOVE

(1) Double, double agent… or Greenbaum?

(2) For what purpose – to copy or to learn from and see how they happen so you can pre-empt? Or something else entirely…?

(3) Oswald made his first attempt to call attorney John Apt at 1:40pm, Saturday 23rd November 1963.

(4)
Edward Grant Stockdale was a close friend of Jacks’ and an ardent New Frontiersman. On December 1, 1963, he told his attorney that ‘those guys’ were trying to get him. Stockdale died on December 2, 1963 when he fell (or was thrown) from his office on the 13th floor of the Dupont Building in Miami. He did not leave a note but the police declared it to be suicide and closed the case. Many of his friends said he was not the type of person to kill himself.

(5) The infamous Clay Shaw of Jim Garrison investigation renown.

(6) The Shrine Circus took up performance residency in New Orleans from
November 23 to December 1, 1963. However they were a sizeable operation and needed days to set up, so we can assume they were there in some form or other before 22nd November. And why the reference to a circus at all – clowns, magicians, masquerades… a liminal world inhabited by tricksters?

(7) Jack Ruby has been reliably placed in Oswald’s company in the years and months running up to the assassination.

(8) The
Chicagofailed’ assassination incident, of October 31st 1963.)
 

Tuulikki

Padawan Learner
Fascinating information about the assassination of JFK (or not). Also what an amazing woman Adele Edison was. She must have realised that she could be in terrible danger but she continued to try to inform the people she thought should be informed, about her experiences. What amazed me though, was that she continued to meet up with this man even though everything was telling her that something was not right. I would have been on the first bus home!! What a shame she did not reach a hypnotist who could try to find out the truth of what happened to her. What strikes me continually about reading articles and comments on the Forum is how things that we previously thought of as being absolutely the truth are now perceived as being lies and misinformation. Examples of our unreal "reality" I suppose.
 

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
1) It is not clear to me in Perceval lead-in, what he is referring to. There is nothing about assassinations in the previous session (July 22, 2012) and in the one before on March 4, 2012. What did he mean by "in there"? If Perceval is reading this, can that source be shared, please?
Further up in this same session that you quoted (21 December 2012) it is mentioned:

Q: (L) Well, anything further along that line before we divert off onto questions which we have?

A: Today was not the end of the world in case you didn't notice, however an "end" of sorts will certainly come as we have been suggesting for many years. Time is never definite. Things also happen in steps and stages. The major steps include things like assassinations that are accepted by the masses. When such is not objected to, then the next stage is prepared.
Hope that helps.
 
@Voyageur

2.2) In John Lennon case there was no competing versions of who or why he was assassinated. Mark Chapman did him.

2.3) In Princess Diana case the unwashed masses never accepted "assassination version". It was a tragic accident.
Ad 2.2) Of course, there was. As we read in Wikipedia:
"In 1978, Chapman went on a six-week trip around the world. ". Earlier he was just poor man of many jobs, tried to make suicide, then he went on 6 week tour around the world, then killed pop star who was promoting human ideology? Someone probably sponsored him. Capital killed John Lennon.
Ad 2.3) There was many assasination version. Most popular - it was military sector, because Diana acted strongly against use of anti-infantry mines around the world. Capital killed Diana.
 
For a reference I've added the parts of the session about JFK that I ran across while reading the transcripts.

June 9, 1996


Q: (L) Moving along... recently I read "On the Trail of the Assassins," by Jim Garrison, the New Orleans attorney. This is the book about his investigation into the Kennedy assassination. I know that we asked one or two questions about this earlier, but I think that now, with expanded perspective, we could ask a few more. Was the purported Cuban agenda what was really behind the assassination of JFK?

A: Not in its entirety.

Q: (L) Was there, in fact, any connection between this murder and JFK planning to reveal the government's knowledge of alien interaction?

A: Maybe, or that was feared, based upon a sophisticated psychological profiling system.

Q: (L) One thing that we noticed was that Lee Oswald was 'sheep dipped' in many areas around the country, well before the election of Kennedy. Why would this be the case?

A: Consortium.

Q: (L) What was the intention in using Oswald in this way? Was it just to have a handy person around, or did they already know, in advance, that Kennedy would be elected and that they would assassinate him?

A: Time alteration.

Q: (L) Do you mean time alteration in the sense that these events did NOT actually occur at the noted times, or that they were able to go back in time and do this to put more confusion into the picture?

A: Latter, see Montauk.

Q: (L) Obviously the consortium was operating through the FBI, the CIA, the Mafia, and God knows who else, but, can you tell us who fired the shot that caused JFK's death?

A: No, because it would put you in grave danger.




Q: (L) Back to Kennedy, people say that Marilyn Monroe committed suicide, some say she was murdered. Was she murdered?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Was she murdered by the Kennedy's or someone else?

A: Both.

Q: (L) Was it because she was going to reveal things?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Can you tell us what?

A: Any and all, but it does not matter, because the "bottom line" was that she knew too much.
 
Here is another reference in another session that talks about the greenbaumed possibly programming another individual.

A: Now, some history... as you know, the CIA and NSA and other agencies are the children of Nazi Gestapo... the SS, which was experiment influenced by Antareans who were practicing for the eventual reintroduction of the Nephalim on to 3rd and or 4th density earth. And the contact with the “Antareans” was initiated by the Thule Society, which groomed its dupe subject, Adolph Hitler to be the all time mind programmed figurehead. Now, in modern times, you have seen, but so far, on a lesser scale: Oswald, Ruby, Demorenschildt, Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Arthur Bremer, Farakahan, Menendez, Bundy, Ramirez, Dahmer, etc...

Q: (L) Is there any particular individual who is currently being programmed to take a more prominent position in terms of this...

A: Later... you must know that Oswald was programmed to be the “patsy.” So that he would say many contradictory things. Demorenschildt was both a programmer and programmed. Ruby was hypnotically programmed to shoot Oswald with an audio prompt, that being the sound of a car horn.

Q: (L) The question has been brought up, is there some way or means that one can distinguish or discern a victim of Greenbaum or other mind programming by some clues?

A: Not until it is too late.
 
Top Bottom