Was roosevelt killed because he opposed "Paperclip"?

[Quasar]

If u want to look for lies in our history, nowhere are they more in abundance than WW2.

We are all told that Jesse owens won some medals in the 36 Olympics which is true but where the lie is inserted is when they said Hitler looked like a fool cause his Aryan supremacy theory was shot to pieces. Reason this is just propaganda or hometown spin is cause if u look at the 36 Olympics on Wikipedia u will see that they left something out....a very big something. That something is that Germany dominated that Olympics in total metal count, most gold, most silver and most bronzed. Heck they were a few medals away from doubling us up. Not only that but they also amazed the world by introducing the first televised images during those games.

After I learned this I began looking for more lies and although I cannot offer as good of proof as the Olympic games lies I can offer a few pieces of circumstantial evidence.

My first feeling of a lie was with regards to the atomic bomb and who actually created it. We were all told that their was a race between us and Germany to build this bomb and that we won. The facts are that we did not test our first a-bomb until 2 months after Germany surrendered, which begs the question of how can we have a race with only one participant? Another head scratcher is a look at the record of innovation between us and Germany. The facts are that they had a pipeline of new innovations which were consistently and continuously finding their way on to the battlefield in all arenas of battle throughout the entire war and we on the other hand were basically fighting with the same weapons at the end of the war as we were at the beginning, yet were suppose to believe that we beat them in the GRANDDADDY of all innovations? Kinda like someone telling u that Zaire just invented a time machine.

Before coming to the conclusion of who built the A-bomb and without knowing the first date of testing I told myself, "if we tested the bomb before they surrendered than that's the end of that hypothesis," since I had have to start fitting pieces into the puzzle that did not seem to fit.

Next I learn that our president Roosevelt (only 4 term president) and General Patton both died around the same time. This really got me excited. I learned that Roosevelt who was in perfect health went to the Yalta or Malta conference in Egypt I believe and a month later returned a very skinny and sick man. He could not even stand to give a his first speech upon returning and shortly there after died.I started to think that if I wanted to kill someone by poison or similar method that getting him out of his comfort zone and away from those he loved who be a great idea since then he would be vulnerable.

Next I had to figure out why they would kill him. Before looking any further I came to the conclusion that he must have been against any deal with the Nazi's. This sounded good, so next I had to find if this was the case and it was, Roosevelt was not in favor of Paperclip.
Truman who was vice president became president and his first act as president was to drop the atomic bomb on japan.

The potential value of what the Nazi's had to offer was simply to great imo, apart from the weapons they also secured numerous other Nazi's in other operation similar to "paperclip", with the common denominator of those operations being they were all experts in "mind control". Does not take but a half-awake person to see the value they have extracted from that knowledge.

 

[Joe]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Prouty has revealed that FDR was most likely murdered by poisoning.

WHO KILLED FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT?

February 9, 1986 issue of the nationwide Sunday Supplement magazine "PARADE." .


The World War II Cairo conference between Pres. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek ended on Oct. 26, 1943. That evening I was given orders to fly a group of participants from Cairo to Tehran. Up to that time, I had not been aware that there was going to be a Big Four meeting of the Super-Powers in Tehran.

As I went out to the plane that morning to get it ready to go, two limousines came from the city. They were T. V. Soong's Chinese delegates. I flew them to Tehran that day.

En route, I stopped at Habbaniyah in Iraq for refueling, and while on the ground an Air Force B-25 arrived with an old friend of mine flying it, and with L. Col. Elliott Roosevelt, the President's son. I introduced him and Roosevelt to the Chinese, and vice versa.

I don't know whether any of you ever realized this, but years later the fact that Elliott Roosevelt had gone to the Tehran conference brought up one of the most amazing untold facts in our history. I can only imagine why more had not been written about it.

Because Elliott had met Stalin in Tehran with his father in 1943, in late 1946, Gardner Cowless, publisher of LOOK magazine asked him to go to Moscow to interview Stalin.

Roosevelt accepted this offer and did interview Stalin there. At the end of a long interview, he turned to the Generalissimo and asked one more question, "Why is it that my mother has never been permitted to visit Moscow even though she has made three very formal applications for the trip?"

Stalin glared at Elliott and said, "You don't know why?"

Elliott replied, "No!"

Quickly, Stalin responded, "Don't you know who killed your father?"

Roosevelt-shocked-answered, "No."

Stalin rising from his chair, continued, "Well, I'll tell you why I have not invited her here. As soon as your father died, I asked my ambassador in Washington to go immediately to Georgia with a request to view the body." Stalin believed that if Gromyko could see the body he would confirm that the cerebral hemorrhage that had caused his death had caused extensive discoloration and distortion.

Elliot responded that he knew nothing about that and then Stalin said, "Your mother refused to permit the lid of the coffin to be opened so that my ambassador could see the body." Adding "I sent him there three times trying to impress upon your mother that it was very important for him to view the President's body. She never accepted that. I have never forgiven her."

This forced Elliott to ask this last question, "…but why?"

Stalin took a few steps around the office, and almost in a rage roared, "They poisoned your father, of course, just as they have tried repeatedly to poison me."

"They, who are they," Elliot asked

"The Churchill gang!" Stalin roared, "They poisoned your father, and they continue to try to poison me…the Churchill gang!"

I had heard, while in Tehran, that Roosevelt and Churchill had had a strenuous argument in front of Stalin and Chiang during the conference on the subject of decolonialization of South East Asia. I have read it in a government publication of the time. Then, this account of Elliott's visit to Moscow in 1946 was written and signed by him and appeared in the February 9, 1986 issue of the nationwide Sunday Supplement magazine "PARADE."

We all know that there are amazing stories that can not be found in the history books. That is what I am saying here. Most students have not been able to learn that Chiang Kai-shek was a member of this Four Power Conference in Tehran. But, I was there. I had flown the Chinese delegates there from Cairo, and I have read it in a Congressional Committee Report, "The U. S. Government and the Vietnam" Part 1-1945-1951" by the U. S. Government Printing Office, 1984.

Both sources have been in the public domain for more than 10 years. Why haven't we seen them, on campus, in the History books and in classes?

In 1953, in a toast before the New York Press Club, John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times and the "Dean of his Profession" stated: (part extracted)

"If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell this country and this race for their daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

From my own experience, I know that there are countless journalists who could say that. Just consider what they said about Oliver Stone's Film "JFK" and about my own book "JFK, the CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy."```

L. Fletcher Prouty

Bill Hanson confirms this in his book 'Closely Guarded Secrets', which, incidentally, is available on Amazon for the princely sum of $572.

Hard to tell why, probably several reasons, all of which had to do with the fact that FDR was a decent sort as far as US presidents go.

Another president who was most likely murdered, by arsenic poisoning, was Zachary Taylor.

 

[Quasar]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Thanks. I never would have suspected Churchill.

 

[Joe]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Thanks. I never would have suspected Churchill.

I wouldn't put anything past that genocidal maniac.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Hard to tell why, probably several reasons, all of which had to do with the fact that FDR was a decent sort as far as US presidents go.

Yeah, it seems those who are of "a decent sort" are prime targets for those of the "psychopathic sort":

Interestingly, a distant relative of Winston Churchill, Prescott Bush (the grandfather of George W. Bush) funneled American wealth to Hitler and was part of a plot to overthrow President Roosevelt a decade before Roosevelt was killed by the "Churchill gang".

He was a founding partner of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., (1931) which was the Wall Street front for several Nazi companies and U.S. financial backers of the Nazis. Bush was a director and shareholder in the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) which also ran a complicated financial web that supported Hitler until 1942. Ultimately, UBC's assets were confiscated that year by the government, after President Roosevelt signed the Trading with the Enemy Act.

The Business Plot was a conspiracy to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt, according to testimony by Major General Smedley Butler, who exposed the attempted coup d'état in 1934. By the end of Roosevelt's "First 100 Days," America's richest businessmen, including Prescott Bush, were in a panic. They felt Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

First, they planned to create a fascist army, like Italy's Black Shirts and Germany's Brown Shirts, for Butler to lead. MacGuire claimed to have 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion and each man was a leader of 10 others, equaling 5 million men, if needed.

Backed up by such manpower, Wall Street plotters wanted Gen. Butler to deliver an ultimatum demanding either Roosevelt pretended to be incapacitated by polio and allow Butler to takeover or be forced out with the army of 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion.

The plot collapsed when Butler went public in late 1934 and exposed the conspiracy. The General revealed the details of the coup attempt in sworn testimony before the "McCormack-Dickstein" Committee (the predecessor of the soon to be infamous "House Un-American Affairs Committee"

_http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Thanks. I never would have suspected Churchill.

I wouldn't put anything past that genocidal maniac.

Thanks for sharing, Perceval. Then it could be that Churchill has been an example of how the descendants of Caesar and other lineages were mutated?. Thinking in this session:

[quote author=Session 9 August 1997]
Q: Next question: is there any relationship between the fact that Roger de Mortimer, the carrier of the last of the line of the Welsh kings, was the lover of Isabella of France, who was the daughter of Philip the Fair, the destroyer of the Templars, and the murder of Edward II, the first of the English Prince of Wales?

A: Templars are a setup, insofar as persecution is concerned. Remember your "historical records" can be distorted, in order to throw off future inquiries, such as your own.

Q: I know that. I have already figured that one out! But, it seems that no one else has made this connection. I mean, the bloodlines that converge in the Percys and the Mortimers are incredible!

A: You should know that these bloodlines become parasitically infected, harassed and tinkered with whenever a quantum leap of awareness is imminent.

Q: Whenever a quantum leap...

A: Such as "now."
[/quote]

 

[seek10]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Thanks. I never would have suspected Churchill.

I wouldn't put anything past that genocidal maniac.

Thanks for sharing, Perceval. Then it could be that Churchill has been an example of how the descendants of Caesar and other lineages were mutated?.

Interesting ..
941007

Q: (L) Were any of the descendants of Jesus famous individuals that we would know.
A: Yes. Yassar Arafat. Churchill.

Some where down the lineage, mutation got split ?.Assuming, Jesus story is a composite story ( Caeser part being major) , so called "jesus" in above quote meaning Caeser. Again, body is only 50% and soul is the remaining.

941022

Q: (L) On a couple of occasions it has been mentioned that Yasser Arafat was a fifth density soul and that he was a descendant of Jesus of Nazareth. What is there about him that demonstrates
these qualities or these genetics?
A: Have you not seen? Imagine what it would be like to be Yasser Arafat. Look at your perception. What is he doing now?
Q: (L) Well the pro-Jewish point of view is not favorable to him.
A: Well, what you describe as pro anything is an obsession. And, as we know, obsession blocks knowledge which in turn blocks the ability to protect oneself against negative occurrences. Not a good idea. If you were following circumstances, Yasser Arafat is now trying to take the world upon his shoulders by making peace with the Israelis who have been enemies for a very long time. And, therefore, he is now a peace maker and knowledge dispenser.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Thank you very much, seek10! It really is interesting. During his lifetime Yasser Arafat could have been supported by millions of more people on his way to force over the deviants to ensure peace to all, if people had not been blinded by the Zionist media (that there is where they always win their wars against humanity first). I have to read more about the life of Yasser Arafat.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

Prouty has revealed that FDR was most likely murdered by poisoning.

WHO KILLED FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT?

February 9, 1986 issue of the nationwide Sunday Supplement magazine "PARADE." .


[...]

In 1953, in a toast before the New York Press Club, John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times and the "Dean of his Profession" stated: (part extracted)

"If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell this country and this race for their daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

[...]

L. Fletcher Prouty

[...]

Had also read this quote that Prouty mentions above related to John Swinton from within a book read last week, and see that this is the only thread Swinton is mentioned in on the Forum. Fletcher attributes this quote above to the year 1953, yet Swinton actually said these words (at the same New York Press Club toast) in the year 1901, the very same year he died. Thinking about this now, one hundred and sixteen years has passed since John said these words, and they are as relevant as ever. One hundred and sixteen years later, they call our times flush with democratic freedom and progress - along with journalistic integrity. With the exception of the few, John had it right then unto this day, or so it seems.

When reading this quote last week in its entity, and if the date were left off and the salaries changed, and if alive, Swinton could have said the very same words today with the same intent-nothing has changed except for the internet and, fortunately, some good alternative news sources and authors.

Notwithstanding the work in providing for and feeding a family while practicing ones craft, the burden upon a conscious man or woman journalist to obfuscate the truth with their words each and every day in one thing, then there are the unconscious types who do not give it a second thought. One must remember that reciting the the news today on the MSN is not journalism, yet the publications and newspaper columnists do try and practice their craft - a few more successfully than most. Here again is Swinton quoted for prosperity (it is in Wiki under his name as a source):

John Swinton (1829–1901) was a Scottish-American journalist, newspaper publisher, and orator - called “The Dean of his Profession”

There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

 

[gdpetti]

Re: Was roosevelt killed cause he opposed "Paperclip"?

The situation with Roosevelt seems much the same with Trump today... the communists/globalists in his administration, including his VP, or so it's said vs the 'nationalists' in the military, intel etc.... again this seems a pattern or cycle, as it seems similar to the Kennedy administration as well.... dealing with the Soviets behind their backs. I remember reading that Roosevelt was forced to put Truman on the ticket to get rid of the VP who was talking too much to too many people, and the whole Commie scare was a meme pushed to go after all of them that Roosevelt put in the govt... but even Truman needed their votes, so it was done off stage... using the likes of McCarthy etc.... everything in our history seems setup in this way... the push-pull inside the Beltway between the two factions in power... similar to our situation here in 3dSTS.... aka Purgatory... too much in one direction, then too much in the other until it balances out again. The implication on Roosevelt was that he was too political, he felt he needed those socialists votes in the Democratic primaries and general election, so he allowed them to hold sway and setup shop in his administration...

I've heard the Stalin thoughts on him being poisoned... and they do seem accurate coming from a plotter himself who was so paranoid about those around him... mostly the Jewish leadership in the original gang of revolutionaries... you can almost see the SG at work all the time with this script... always trying to see how far they can go in one place before setting up another to replace it... and the show must go on.

As for Paperclip, that was on Truman's watch, right? and the Roosevelt admin was very much against bringing any of them in... even stopping those ships that came near, like in Cuba... etc.... 'they' do have a rep, don't they? They've done a better job this time in keeping their history unknown and keeping up appearances better in their friendly western media....