Blockbuster Movie ‘Back to the Future’ is Released

Marty McFly, a typical American teenager of the Eighties, is accidentally sent back to 1955 in a plutonium-powered DeLorean “time machine” invented by a slightly mad scientist. During his often hysterical, always amazing trip back in time, Marty must make certain his teenage parents-to-be meet and fall in love – so he can get back to the future.

The “Back to the Future” films predicted the September 11 attacks as well as the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jr., at least according to fans.

One fan theory claims that the film actually predicted the September 11 attacks in multiple scenes. In the first movie, the clock reads 9:55 p.m. at one point, a clear indication for some fans that the film predicted 9/11 because the clock’s hands point to 9 and 11.

In a second scene, in which Marty McFly is ambushed in the Twin Pines mall parking lot, the fan points out that the shooting takes place in a location that contains the word “Twin” in its name. Naturally, he connects that to the fact that Al-Qaida chose the Twin Towers for their terrorist attack.

And he notes that turning the clock of the Twin Pines mall sign around, 1:16 a.m. becomes “911.”

2. The film echoes the assassination of John F. Kennedy

In another fan video, various eerie “similarities” are pointed out that made one fan think that the film also echoed the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. According to the video, Dealey Plaza in Dallas, where Kennedy was assassinated, has the same layout as Hill Valley Town Square, and the courthouse clock tower look similar. In a store front, a bust of JFK is depicted, positioned in Hill Valley where JFK actually “lost his head” in Dealey Plaza.

Moreover, “Back to the Future II” was released on Nov. 22 — the day JFK was killed.

William Sullivan, Former Head of FBI Intelligence, Shot in Hunting ‘Accident’, or was he Murdered?

William Sullivan is someone who would have been a problem for the conspirators if he gave evidence to HSCA. There are several reasons for this. He was given overall responsibility to carry out a FBI investigation into Lee Harvey Oswald after the assassination of JFK. Presumably he found evidence that Oswald was working for the FBI.

Sullivan was also the FBI link man with the CIA Executive Action operation. He therefore knew more than anyone else in the FBI about the CIA assassination plots against Fidel Castro.

Sullivan was a strong advocate for the FBI war against liberals. Sullivan was in charge of FBI’s Division Five. This involved smearing leaders of left-wing organizations. This included the campaign against Martin Luther King. In January, 1964, Sullivan sent a memo to Hoover: “It should be clear to all of us that King must, at some propitious point in the future, be revealed to the people of this country and to his Negro followers as being what he actually is – a fraud, demagogue and scoundrel. When the true facts concerning his activities are presented, such should be enough, if handled properly, to take him off his pedestal and to reduce him completely in influence.”

One would have Sullivan to have kept quiet about his illegal activities. However, Sullivan eventually became disillusioned with FBI’s campaigns against the left. For example, by the early 1970s Sullivan began to disagree with Hoover about the threat to national security posed by the American Communist Party and felt that the FBI was wasting too much money investigating this group. On 28th August, 1971, Sullivan sent Hoover a long letter pointing out their differences. Sullivan also suggested that Hoover should consider retirement. Hoover refused and it was Sullivan who had to leave the organization.

After Hoover’s death Sullivan was brought back to office by Richard Nixon. This included supporting Nixon’s policy of expanding illegal surveillance methods (Huston Plan). I suspect Sullivan now became Nixon’s source of information on the involvement of FBI and CIA in the assassination of JFK. (See H. R. Haldeman’s book The Ends of Power for this).

Sullivan also started writing his memoirs after leaving the FBI. Giving the fact that he knew so much he clearly posed a danger to a great number of people. The book was eventually published after his death. I very much would have liked to read the “unedited” version.

William Sullivan was shot dead near his home in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, on 9th November, 1977. An inquest decided that he had been shot accidentally by fellow hunter, Robert Daniels, who was fined $500 and lost his hunting license for 10 years.

On the surface it seemed to be an accident. However, I believe it was murder. Both Sullivan and Daniels were known to go out hunting for deer early in the morning. I suspect there was a third man in the woods on 9th November. He would have been armed with the same gun as Daniels. He would have either waited until the two men got close before killing Sullivan. Or he killed Sullivan and then with help moved him closer to where Daniels was firing his gun.

The Watergate Break-In: A CIA Coup to Overthrow US President Richard Nixon

On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington, D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House. Though at the time the […]

Robert F Kennedy Assassinated by Mind Control Assassin, Sirhan Sirhan

Problems with the official version of the Robert Kennedy assassination: More bullets were recovered than could fit in Sirhan’s gun; Nitrite deposits and powder burns indicate that shots were fired at point- blank range, but witnesses are consistent that Sirhan’s gun was never closer than two or three feet; Sirhan was seen before the shooting […]

CIA Document 1035-960: The Memo that Began the Weaponization of the Term “Conspiracy Theorist” to Smear Jim Garrison and Others who Questioned their Official Narrative on JFK’s Assassination

“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a book by Florida State University political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. deHaven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

CIA Document 1035-960 was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

  • No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
  • Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
  • Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
  • Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
  • Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator.
  • Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.

Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.

The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.

So, the CIA campaign used members of mainstream media friendly to the CIA to discredit New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. Garrison was prosecuting New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw in what Garrison alleged was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Shaw, an OSS liaison to high-ranking British officials during World War II, founded a major regional trade mart in New Orleans shortly after the war. Garrison alleged that Shaw met with rightist opponents of JFK to plan the death.

A 50-page CIA memo, known as “CIA Dispatch 1035-960,” instructed agents to contact their media contacts and disparage those, like Garrison, criticizing the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone. The 1967 document is here in the original, and here in reformatted text of its summary.