I have asked you a couple of times about CBDC's from a biblical perspective. Some time ago I started a page myself, and am going to put a link in here. I would very much appreciate your thoughts.
As people become aware of the treachery committed by the fake government against the people of the United States of America ( thank you for your work), they are preparing legislation to draft people by force into the insane woke military, again. I met people who fled conscription for Vietnam and they still can't go back to the USA, without being arrested, and jailed, and we know that war was a fraud.
Fox News deeply supports the Zionists. I can’t watch it anymore. Haven’t since December 2020. My husband has it on but I have to leave the room. Hard to find my self supporting AOC and Talib. But they’re right on this issue.
Wow! We aren’t taught this history in school. So much ignorance to the truth of what our government conspires to do against Americans. I will forward this to my son to show him why it’s always best to question everything & never just blindly go along with what the government tells you. Thanks so much for sharing this incredible story. God bless all our veterans, especially the crew of the USS Liberty & may those that perished in this operation of betrayal forever rest in peace. I bet 90% of Americans have never heard this story or don’t remember. What a tragedy & an embarrassment on our part. I pray our current servicemen and women are protected by God from this sorted evil & the evil leadership of our great nation.
Yes but they always push out multiple streams of propaganda. At least one of the bombings during Operation Gladio was faked, the 1980 Bologna Station bombing and I'd say the rest were too, I just haven't really looked - I know someone looked at Piazza Fontana and determined it was faked. I really don't think there's such a thing as a "false flag", they're always fake.
Yes, like an octopus jetting ink out to confuse everything. Truths, half-truths, lies and half-lies. All competing for space and many credible options, but which is real?
You just need to know that the ONLY ENEMY OF MAN (AND GOD) as it says in the Bible are the Synagogue of Satan. The 9/11 False Flag was the mother of them all to MAKE US GET TO WHERE WE ALL ARE NOW--in the destruction of America as it brought in the FALSE "Patriot" Act;
Every time I read about this my body reels. Scipio is both brave and on point to call this out because it is easy to want to avoid the pain.
I would like to take this chance to look at 2 quotes in the post;
-"I’ve never seen a President … stand up to Israel".
-"Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government.”
👉The Israeli Gov’t is not beholden to the Israeli people, and the US government is not beholden to Americans, there is no standing up to nor betrayal if you realize these structures are all invalid representations of their constituents and part of the same world crime syndicate-the entire system needs to be deconstructed.
Yes. Different branches of the worldwide cabal. You cannot call them criminals because they control the courts and the law so they claim what they do is not a crime, if you did it it would be a crime. Lying, cheating, and stealing is what they do. And murder.
Thanks for bringing up that possibility. Fakeologist has some points but he hasn't fully debunked it either. The other issue is the result of this could have really backfired on Johnson and that plus the testimony of many crew holding up this long makes me lean to the actual attack side, but the fact that the IDF couldn't sink this sitting duck is strange, and why at least some of the Israeli fighter jets didn't refuse orders faced with clear attack on the US is strange. So did they plan an evacuated sinking and that didn't work? I admit being a bit stuck on both sides and hopefully Scipio can also reply.
I'm a nobody ignoramus generally with regard to history and politics, PM, and I wouldn't have a substack except for one reason: I get that when those in power push out things against themselves it's almost always fake and while others - who I've learnt from - get that too we're not thick on the ground. Additionally, I have embraced to my bosom that they always use Revelation of the Method (RoM) which other analysts sometimes waver on. The perps follow their RoM rules rigidly ... so it only makes sense that we should too.
If this was fake there will be no reason to only lean in the direction of fake, we will know for sure that it's fake because they will tell us. Agreed? The witnesses, survivors, etc always "hold up" forever and a day and not sure why you would use that as a argument against fakery - anyone come out on Manson or the other agreed fakeries?
--- As Fakenukes Phil points out there are no images of the "blood everywhere" that the alleged survivors speak about. For goodness sake, that is the most common fake event hallmark - claims of people with no arms and legs, blood everywhere but no matching images and unconvincing bandaging and no IVs, etc.
--- Rather than watch the video of testimonies I looked up the written testimony of one guy in the testimony video, Ed Bechtel, and - as I was expecting - found the kinds of anomalies exposed in the faked 9/11 firefighter testimonies.
------ Ed tells us that "my section had the afternoon watch below decks ...". Now even for someone utterly clueless about Navy stuff "watch below decks" seems unlikely. You'd watch from above right? - from the "bridge" located on one of the upper decks according to ChatGPT.
------ Similarly, we wouldn't expect the transmitting antenna to be on 0-1 level (one level above main deck), we'd expect it to be higher on 0-2 or 0-3 but wouldn't you just say clean the antenna on the mast rather than specify level as that's where it would be?
------ Ed tells us that they spotted two jets which then circled their ship three times - really, this is what military planes do, circle other nations' navy ships three times? and then he tells us that later their ship was approached by aircraft, "this time propelled planes." Love that! They really do employ comedians for their nonsense. The only planes that fall into the category of "unpropelled" are gliders, sailplanes, paper planes and kites.
Now if that ain't enough for you, PM, then you need to tell me one thing that favours real over fake ... and if you ain't got that why would you believe that it was real?
As far as modern day "false flags" go I haven't seen a single one that's genuine, they're all completely staged. So if you've got one, please let me know. It's funny how other people's posts prompt my own - thanks Scipio. My next post will be on how false flags aren't things just as self-immolations, mass school shootings and suicide bombings aren't.
I understand the points you raise but I disagree with utilizing RoM as a rigid interpretative maxim. I certainly don't have enough information to definitively state they always adhere to this method, although there is certainly a lot of usefulness in utilizing it as an interpretative framework.
1. "As Fakenukes Phil points out there are no images of the "blood everywhere" that the alleged survivors speak about. For goodness sake, that is the most common fake event hallmark - claims of people with no arms and legs, blood everywhere but no matching images and unconvincing bandaging and no IVs, etc."
Clearly there is a lot of fakery throughout history, but, without concrete proof of such, immediately jumping to the conclusion "well I would expect there to be xyz and it isn't there, it must be fake" is a fallacious argument from silence. This a time period without cellphones, so the lack of images is not suspicious to me. Additionally, the Liberty was an intel ship and the equipment you are allowed to bring into secure areas is severely restricted. Unless things changed drastically since my time in the service, they would not have been authorized to bring cameras onto an experimental and highly classified vessel.
2. "Ed tells us that "my section had the afternoon watch below decks ...". Now even for someone utterly clueless about Navy stuff "watch below decks" seems unlikely. You'd watch from above right? - from the "bridge" located on one of the upper decks according to ChatGPT.
Where you are running into issues here is you are reinterpreting military terms in your normal parlance and assuming that the story is fishy because the lingo, which you admittedly don't have knowledge of, seems "off". ChatGPT and its answers can not be trusted, I would really dissuade you from relying on that engine as it has clearly led you astray on this topic, and others no doubt. I've watched numerous testimonies of the surviving crewmembers, and, as a former serviceman, didn't spot anything out of the ordinary; but perhaps I'm missing something.
3. "Similarly, we wouldn't expect the transmitting antenna to be on 0-1 level (one level above main deck), we'd expect it to be higher on 0-2 or 0-3 but wouldn't you just say clean the antenna on the mast rather than specify level as that's where it would be?
------ Ed tells us that they spotted two jets which then circled their ship three times - really, this is what military planes do, circle other nations' navy ships three times? and then he tells us that later their ship was approached by aircraft, "this time propelled planes." Love that! They really do employ comedians for their nonsense. The only planes that fall into the category of "unpropelled" are gliders, sailplanes, paper planes and kites."
Likewise, propelled planes does not mean a plane with propulsion. Propelled planes are planes with props/propellers - as opposed to the fighters with jet engines, which the crew had spotted previously.
As for the antennas and whether they should be placed in certain positions or not, I can't speak to that with any degree of specificity. It was an experimental SIGINT vessel after all, so assuming what you've identified is indeed "abnormal", the antenna location does not necessarily imply fakery here.
That said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of some sort of fakery but the signs of it here don't appear evident to me. The logic of your position seems untenable: why would "they" fake the wounds and fake the attack of a fake false flag? What purpose does it serve? Why draw attention to Israel and its bizarre relationship with the US by faking an attack and then "covering it up", thereby continuing to draw attention to it?
The logic behind the survivor's narrative seems much sounder to me: the US and Israeli governments - affirmed then and now by numerous officials, documents, crews, and survivors - colluded to sink the Liberty in order to draw America into Israel's war.
Thanks for all your responses, Scipio. I forgot you were in the military! This reminds me of the discussion I had with an FDNY guy over the anomalies in the 9/11 firefighter testimonies. He informed me that some of what I perceived to be anomalies weren't, however, there are still enough seeming anomalies that really are anomalies that show the 9/11 testimonies are fabricated.
I agree, we shouldn't be rigid in interpreting events through the RoM lens, however, in the scores of psyops I've looked at RoM is always employed - we have loads of little ones in Australia - so it's a handy lens to use. It's not a matter of finding RoM particularly, simply whatever is wrong with the narrative ... which often comes in RoM form and sometimes, of course, as with the 9/11 narrative it's difficult to say where simple falsity and RoM start and finish as 9/11 is really just one big RoM narrative.
1. In terms of visual evidence of injury and death a clear fact is that we have nothing that favours real over fake and we have nothing that suggests what is claimed in testimony, eg, missing limbs and blood everywhere. We do, in fact, have things that actually suggest fakery, eg, in this photo taken after the alleged attack (obvious holes in ship) we see a bunch of sailors sitting around looking perfectly relaxed with the guy in the centre wearing a shirt that looks covered in blood but nothing wrong with him. https://honorlibertyvets.org/
What needs to be kept in mind is that the burden of proof is on those claiming what happened not on those objecting to it. It is more on you to show the reality of the injury and killing than on me to say it didn't happen ... in terms of visual evidence there is nothing favouring real.
2. Notwithstanding all the items you explain or say don't necessarily indicate an anomaly I find this testimony very confusing. It seems odd to talk about afternoons and mornings mixed in with actual times ... the odd timing reminds me of the 9/11 firefighters. The wording of things strikes me as odd. I know I have no military background but ...
Ed says: "At noon dinner was announced and all ships work stopped."
If things are going normally why would he mention dinner being announced and work stopping. Wouldn't lunch time be set and he'd just say we had lunch at 12pm? And what does "all ships work stopped" mean exactly?
--- Donald Pageler tells us "When the Mirage fighters left the Liberty they had inflicted 820+ rocket and cannon holes. They were followed by Mystere bombers dropping napalm."
How in any shape or form does this correspond with the image linked to above? Also he says 3 torpedo boats fired 5 torpedoes and then later "Of course with a 40 foot hole in the side a submergible pump was of no use," while Ed says:
' ... the phone talker screamed "Stand by for torpedo attack." A sudden jar shook the ship. The ship began listing to starboard. The words "Stand by to abandon ship" were sounded, however the order never came. After a short time, subsequent warnings of torpedo attacks were issued, but the torpedoes never came. "
So Ed doesn't actually confirm a single torpedo, just "sudden jar" while Don says "5 torpedoes" and "40 foot hole". How could a navy boat suffer 5 torpedoes and still be standing?
Funnily enough, my father was in the Italian navy in WWII and his boat was torpedoed by the British. His escape from the boat was very touch and go and I think he suffered survivor guilt over the other sailor who helped him get out who he wasn't sure survived but would have had he not helped him. As everyone went everywhere into different rescue boats he didn't know what happened to him. I didn't know this before he died but someone from his village wrote a book about the villagers' wartime experiences and his was included ... but you know what? There's a tiny skerrick of doubt that it didn't even happen.
I have absolutely no doubt that this was a staged event and very happy to discuss it further.
Can you give anything you think that favours real over fake evidence-wise and if you don't have that what makes you believe in the reality of the event?
The evidence is why I think it's real, in addition to finding the idea that Israel and the US would fake a failed false flag rather untenable. What purpose does that serve? This event has done more to wake people up to the overwhelming Zionist influence in American politics than almost any other, I don't see how that is an outcome that the cryptocracy would want, let alone instigate.
1. What constitutes evidence in your eyes and what level of evidence could be brought forward which would satisfy that requirement? If photographic evidence of every aspect of an event must be catalogued, then there are little to no historical events that can stand up to that metric.
"I agree, we shouldn't be rigid in interpreting events through the RoM lens, however, in the scores of psyops I've looked at RoM is *always* employed - we have loads of little ones in Australia - so it's a handy lens to use."
This is somewhat contradictory and speaks to the fundamental impasse here, which is that we are coming at these events from two very different hermeneutical approaches. Your baseline assumption, unless I'm mistaken, is that deaths in PsyOps are always fake. If you come to the table with the presupposition that every mass casualty event is staged, it is not going to be hard to find evidence that you think doesn't "fit" or to find anomalies since human memory is not only fallible, but highly malleable.
When compelling evidence has been brought forward, the burden of proof lies with those trying to prove an event is faked to actually establish that, not merely appeal to possibility. We have forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony which does not fundamentally contradict each other. Fakenukesphil didn't actually engage with it, he merely handwaved a dozen or so pictures away as "easily faked" with out actually proving that. Saying that someone is a liar does indeed place the burden of proof on the accuser at that point. Your assumption on watches below deck being an anomaly isn't one, so I think you should ask yourself if you could you be reading into other things in that same manner.
Donald Pagaler's testimony conforms with the testimony of other survivors, I don't really see the discrepancy but I can't find the testimony of Ed that you reference. Even granting that to you for the sake of discussion, minute differences such as bullet holes or timing is not dispositive proof of a staged event. If seemingly contradictory photographic evidence is all we need to establish falsity, I'm curious why this event doesn't stand up to scrutiny for you, yet the moon landings do, despite a plethora of contradictory testimonies and photographic impossibilities within those datasets (such as whether we can see stars or not in space: "astronauts" contradict each other wildly on that one).
If you haven't been in life or death scenario, it certainly plays tricks on your perception and memory. You could ask 10 soldiers about how a firefight went down and get 10 different stories with seemingly incongruent details. Does that mean it didn't happen, or is that a function of human memory and recall? It's hard to say as we grow more and more distant from a historical event, so I think expecting perfection of recall in a scenario like this is unrealistic. If anything, small discrepancies amongst survivors would strengthen the idea that these testimonies are real memories of an intense and stressful event, not a scripted one.
From my perspective, I find the mindset that every major event is "faked" to be a thought terminating cliche that prevents us from actually believing anything since we are constantly looking for the "tell" or the incongruent puzzle piece; which you will find, or seemingly so. It's a destabilizing thought pattern in which literally nothing can be trusted or verified, as well as ascribing a near godlike level of control to the powers that should not be.
I'm not committing to fake or not, open to both until I can see some logic. So if it's fake but the war was over, they had to make up deaths and go with the "mistake" rather than admit it was fake, because they did not get anything out of this false flag and the problems from the "mistake" getting out are less than the false flag op getting out. Is this the logic?
At this point, I must confess ignorance of the context, however, I work on the principle that I only need to know enough to know something and I think I know enough to know this was fake:
--- Images don't match testimony
--- Testimony makes no sense outside images
--- Nothing favours real
I will look at the context later, however, as far as I'm concerned there is no doubt of fakery ... which they tell us loud and clear as they always do. A priori, I take "false flags" to be fake.
OK you are honest you don't know about context, seems to me that in this case the context changed and/or the mechanics didn't work and the FF had to be aborted and all they govt could do was go into cover up mode.
The first problem we ought to be having with this story is, where did it happen and who was involved? The answer to both questions is blatantly obvious, and as such casts doubts upon any/all of this alleged attack having occurred.
Second, the odds of an Admiral (in Liberty's case, John McCain) undertaking command of a tiny Intel ship, on supposedly short notice, and then going All Ahead Full out to a remote part of the sea -- unescorted -- are about the same as the Mets winning the Series this year. Seriously, though: Admirals of McCain's value would never take risks like that... unless it was his role in the plan. And yes, seeing how his son turned out does color my opinion of Admiral McCain, I must admit. Nonetheless, he is as guilty as Judas in this plot.
Last, the entire command crew is also suspect, if for no other reason they followed orders which led to others' deaths. Once these "attacks" began, if the Admiral just sat there while letting the ship go down, a true Captain would have had the Admiral up on charges if they survived, and his XO on down would back up their Captain. Thus another bit of evidence against the official story.
For context, Admiral McCain was not present and not in direct control of the ship. He was nominally in control of the ship as the CO of the fleet responsible for the Mediterranean at that time.
I apologize for making that unclear: McCain was not on the Liberty. Being a Fleet Admiral, however, it was his responsibility to carry out the orders he received, so in a sense it was he in control of the Liberty as much (or more so) than its Captain. Again, the risk of sending an unprotected Intel ship out there, alone, is one that would never be taken unless there are sinister reasons (think Gulf of Tonkin).
But McCain still made it all happen. He knew what he was doing. I hope everyone involved is enjoying their stays in Hell now.
What you say makes good sense CO. So in your opinion, was this a false flag that screwed up, got outed and they had to run cover on it incl the many fake crew who reported on the attack and fake deaths (fake names), etc? I'm trying to make sense of all the moving parts.
My personal opinion? I believe that Israel, with American help, planned on destroying that ship and blaming it on Egypt (which explains their "We thought it was an Egyptian ship" excuse).
Egypt and Jordan agreed to a ceasefire on 8 June, and Syria on 9 June, and it was signed with Israel on 11 June 1967; as you can see, 8 June is the date of the alleged attack.
LBJ sent that ship out there to be a slaughtered lamb, plain and simple, so that if this war escalated and Israhell were threatened (much less invaded) they could get America involved to protect them. (I know, so much has changed since then, amirite?)
That is my take on it. I hardly think it coincidence (or cohencidence as case might be) that on the very day of the "attack" that practically all parties agreed to stop. Israhell was ready to ratchet everything, but it was still virtually on its own and had to take the cowardly OOPSIE, for they had no forthcoming retribution.
So the false flag op failed because the ship wasn't sunk and the survivors spoke up about the IDF attack then they needed to make some story? That wouldn't be fakery because that would mean people died. If the war was really over but the attack went on anyway, why say so many people died if they didn't and it was all fake? Honestly something in the story is missing for me.
I have asked you a couple of times about CBDC's from a biblical perspective. Some time ago I started a page myself, and am going to put a link in here. I would very much appreciate your thoughts.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-145668965?source=queue
Well, when is THIS GOING TO HAPPEN?
http://citizensamericaparty.org/AmericanFreedom.htm
As people become aware of the treachery committed by the fake government against the people of the United States of America ( thank you for your work), they are preparing legislation to draft people by force into the insane woke military, again. I met people who fled conscription for Vietnam and they still can't go back to the USA, without being arrested, and jailed, and we know that war was a fraud.
Disobedience to Tyrants is Obedience to God.
True.
Fox News deeply supports the Zionists. I can’t watch it anymore. Haven’t since December 2020. My husband has it on but I have to leave the room. Hard to find my self supporting AOC and Talib. But they’re right on this issue.
Excellent journalism as usual.. the Liberty travesty tied
into the current situation.
Also an impressive compilation of sources, Scipio!
Was first introduced to the event by Chuck Baldwin's efforts.
jk
Secrets = lies 👌
It's all connected!
https://youtu.be/v8wURb7npl4?si=YAjs4IvJysuCbHw1
Come on now, Scipio, I don't get it. False flags are almost always fake and so much of war is fake too although obviously not all.
Fakenukes Phil does a good analysis here (15m): https://fakeologist.com/uss-liberty-hoax/
http://citizensamericaparty.org/realdeal.htm
Wow! We aren’t taught this history in school. So much ignorance to the truth of what our government conspires to do against Americans. I will forward this to my son to show him why it’s always best to question everything & never just blindly go along with what the government tells you. Thanks so much for sharing this incredible story. God bless all our veterans, especially the crew of the USS Liberty & may those that perished in this operation of betrayal forever rest in peace. I bet 90% of Americans have never heard this story or don’t remember. What a tragedy & an embarrassment on our part. I pray our current servicemen and women are protected by God from this sorted evil & the evil leadership of our great nation.
"Our" Government. Stop using that phrase. Never was "our government:" when the Jews took it over:
http://citizensamericaparty.org/Serpent_Race.htm
http://citizensamericaparty.org/SerpentRaceRulers.htm
I meant it as US government vs. another country. To clarify. Didn’t mean it as our government, as in for the people. But thanks. Have a wonderful day!
Operation Gladio and the Liberty were the conspiracies that first cracked my eyes open 😳
More of cracking your eyes open:
http://citizensamericaparty.org/ISIS.htm
Yes but they always push out multiple streams of propaganda. At least one of the bombings during Operation Gladio was faked, the 1980 Bologna Station bombing and I'd say the rest were too, I just haven't really looked - I know someone looked at Piazza Fontana and determined it was faked. I really don't think there's such a thing as a "false flag", they're always fake.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/bologna-1980-and-mogadishu-2017.html
"By DECEPTION thou shalt do War" -- the Israeli Mossad.
Yes, like an octopus jetting ink out to confuse everything. Truths, half-truths, lies and half-lies. All competing for space and many credible options, but which is real?
You just need to know that the ONLY ENEMY OF MAN (AND GOD) as it says in the Bible are the Synagogue of Satan. The 9/11 False Flag was the mother of them all to MAKE US GET TO WHERE WE ALL ARE NOW--in the destruction of America as it brought in the FALSE "Patriot" Act;
http://911truthawakenings.org/
Your Owners:
http://citizensamericaparty.org/Serpent_Race.htm
http://citizensamericaparty.org/SerpentRaceRulers.htm
Every time I read about this my body reels. Scipio is both brave and on point to call this out because it is easy to want to avoid the pain.
I would like to take this chance to look at 2 quotes in the post;
-"I’ve never seen a President … stand up to Israel".
-"Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government.”
👉The Israeli Gov’t is not beholden to the Israeli people, and the US government is not beholden to Americans, there is no standing up to nor betrayal if you realize these structures are all invalid representations of their constituents and part of the same world crime syndicate-the entire system needs to be deconstructed.
"The Israeli Gov’t is not beholden to the Israeli people"
Oh yeah? These goddamn rascals were protesting Netanyahoo that he was NOT KILLING ENOUGH PALESTINIANS TO SUIT THEM!
http://undergod.love/RosaryPrayerforPalestine.htm
Yes. Different branches of the worldwide cabal. You cannot call them criminals because they control the courts and the law so they claim what they do is not a crime, if you did it it would be a crime. Lying, cheating, and stealing is what they do. And murder.
Just call THEM the Synagogue of Satan -- that will EXPLAIN THEM ALL.
http://citizensamericaparty.org/Them_and_Us.htm
Come on, PM, what false flag can you point to that was real?
https://fakeologist.com/uss-liberty-hoax/
Idiot. Are you a troll?
If you can't see anything wrong with the testimony of alleged USS Liberty survivor, Ed Bechtel, then come back to me and we'll discuss it.
https://www.usslibertyveterans.org/files/Archive/Survivor%20Statements/USS%20Liberty%20Survivor%20Ed%20Bechtel.pdf
Thanks for bringing up that possibility. Fakeologist has some points but he hasn't fully debunked it either. The other issue is the result of this could have really backfired on Johnson and that plus the testimony of many crew holding up this long makes me lean to the actual attack side, but the fact that the IDF couldn't sink this sitting duck is strange, and why at least some of the Israeli fighter jets didn't refuse orders faced with clear attack on the US is strange. So did they plan an evacuated sinking and that didn't work? I admit being a bit stuck on both sides and hopefully Scipio can also reply.
I'm a nobody ignoramus generally with regard to history and politics, PM, and I wouldn't have a substack except for one reason: I get that when those in power push out things against themselves it's almost always fake and while others - who I've learnt from - get that too we're not thick on the ground. Additionally, I have embraced to my bosom that they always use Revelation of the Method (RoM) which other analysts sometimes waver on. The perps follow their RoM rules rigidly ... so it only makes sense that we should too.
If this was fake there will be no reason to only lean in the direction of fake, we will know for sure that it's fake because they will tell us. Agreed? The witnesses, survivors, etc always "hold up" forever and a day and not sure why you would use that as a argument against fakery - anyone come out on Manson or the other agreed fakeries?
--- As Fakenukes Phil points out there are no images of the "blood everywhere" that the alleged survivors speak about. For goodness sake, that is the most common fake event hallmark - claims of people with no arms and legs, blood everywhere but no matching images and unconvincing bandaging and no IVs, etc.
--- Rather than watch the video of testimonies I looked up the written testimony of one guy in the testimony video, Ed Bechtel, and - as I was expecting - found the kinds of anomalies exposed in the faked 9/11 firefighter testimonies.
https://www.usslibertyveterans.org/files/Archive/Survivor%20Statements/USS%20Liberty%20Survivor%20Ed%20Bechtel.pdf
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
------ Ed tells us that "my section had the afternoon watch below decks ...". Now even for someone utterly clueless about Navy stuff "watch below decks" seems unlikely. You'd watch from above right? - from the "bridge" located on one of the upper decks according to ChatGPT.
https://chatgpt.com/share/4fae0756-b96f-417b-929b-6df84738dfb7
------ Similarly, we wouldn't expect the transmitting antenna to be on 0-1 level (one level above main deck), we'd expect it to be higher on 0-2 or 0-3 but wouldn't you just say clean the antenna on the mast rather than specify level as that's where it would be?
------ Ed tells us that they spotted two jets which then circled their ship three times - really, this is what military planes do, circle other nations' navy ships three times? and then he tells us that later their ship was approached by aircraft, "this time propelled planes." Love that! They really do employ comedians for their nonsense. The only planes that fall into the category of "unpropelled" are gliders, sailplanes, paper planes and kites.
Now if that ain't enough for you, PM, then you need to tell me one thing that favours real over fake ... and if you ain't got that why would you believe that it was real?
As far as modern day "false flags" go I haven't seen a single one that's genuine, they're all completely staged. So if you've got one, please let me know. It's funny how other people's posts prompt my own - thanks Scipio. My next post will be on how false flags aren't things just as self-immolations, mass school shootings and suicide bombings aren't.
I understand the points you raise but I disagree with utilizing RoM as a rigid interpretative maxim. I certainly don't have enough information to definitively state they always adhere to this method, although there is certainly a lot of usefulness in utilizing it as an interpretative framework.
1. "As Fakenukes Phil points out there are no images of the "blood everywhere" that the alleged survivors speak about. For goodness sake, that is the most common fake event hallmark - claims of people with no arms and legs, blood everywhere but no matching images and unconvincing bandaging and no IVs, etc."
Clearly there is a lot of fakery throughout history, but, without concrete proof of such, immediately jumping to the conclusion "well I would expect there to be xyz and it isn't there, it must be fake" is a fallacious argument from silence. This a time period without cellphones, so the lack of images is not suspicious to me. Additionally, the Liberty was an intel ship and the equipment you are allowed to bring into secure areas is severely restricted. Unless things changed drastically since my time in the service, they would not have been authorized to bring cameras onto an experimental and highly classified vessel.
2. "Ed tells us that "my section had the afternoon watch below decks ...". Now even for someone utterly clueless about Navy stuff "watch below decks" seems unlikely. You'd watch from above right? - from the "bridge" located on one of the upper decks according to ChatGPT.
https://chatgpt.com/share/4fae0756-b96f-417b-929b-6df84738dfb7"
Where you are running into issues here is you are reinterpreting military terms in your normal parlance and assuming that the story is fishy because the lingo, which you admittedly don't have knowledge of, seems "off". ChatGPT and its answers can not be trusted, I would really dissuade you from relying on that engine as it has clearly led you astray on this topic, and others no doubt. I've watched numerous testimonies of the surviving crewmembers, and, as a former serviceman, didn't spot anything out of the ordinary; but perhaps I'm missing something.
A watch is a naval term for a shift, and despite the name, often has nothing to do with actually watching/observing anything. If my duty was in the engine room, I would still call my shift a watch. (https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/navy-terms-decoded/) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchkeeping)
3. "Similarly, we wouldn't expect the transmitting antenna to be on 0-1 level (one level above main deck), we'd expect it to be higher on 0-2 or 0-3 but wouldn't you just say clean the antenna on the mast rather than specify level as that's where it would be?
------ Ed tells us that they spotted two jets which then circled their ship three times - really, this is what military planes do, circle other nations' navy ships three times? and then he tells us that later their ship was approached by aircraft, "this time propelled planes." Love that! They really do employ comedians for their nonsense. The only planes that fall into the category of "unpropelled" are gliders, sailplanes, paper planes and kites."
Likewise, propelled planes does not mean a plane with propulsion. Propelled planes are planes with props/propellers - as opposed to the fighters with jet engines, which the crew had spotted previously.
As for the antennas and whether they should be placed in certain positions or not, I can't speak to that with any degree of specificity. It was an experimental SIGINT vessel after all, so assuming what you've identified is indeed "abnormal", the antenna location does not necessarily imply fakery here.
That said, I'm certainly open to the possibility of some sort of fakery but the signs of it here don't appear evident to me. The logic of your position seems untenable: why would "they" fake the wounds and fake the attack of a fake false flag? What purpose does it serve? Why draw attention to Israel and its bizarre relationship with the US by faking an attack and then "covering it up", thereby continuing to draw attention to it?
The logic behind the survivor's narrative seems much sounder to me: the US and Israeli governments - affirmed then and now by numerous officials, documents, crews, and survivors - colluded to sink the Liberty in order to draw America into Israel's war.
Thanks for all your responses, Scipio. I forgot you were in the military! This reminds me of the discussion I had with an FDNY guy over the anomalies in the 9/11 firefighter testimonies. He informed me that some of what I perceived to be anomalies weren't, however, there are still enough seeming anomalies that really are anomalies that show the 9/11 testimonies are fabricated.
Our discussion if you're interested: https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/psyops-nobody-dies-nobody-gets-hurt/comment/52784488
I agree, we shouldn't be rigid in interpreting events through the RoM lens, however, in the scores of psyops I've looked at RoM is always employed - we have loads of little ones in Australia - so it's a handy lens to use. It's not a matter of finding RoM particularly, simply whatever is wrong with the narrative ... which often comes in RoM form and sometimes, of course, as with the 9/11 narrative it's difficult to say where simple falsity and RoM start and finish as 9/11 is really just one big RoM narrative.
1. In terms of visual evidence of injury and death a clear fact is that we have nothing that favours real over fake and we have nothing that suggests what is claimed in testimony, eg, missing limbs and blood everywhere. We do, in fact, have things that actually suggest fakery, eg, in this photo taken after the alleged attack (obvious holes in ship) we see a bunch of sailors sitting around looking perfectly relaxed with the guy in the centre wearing a shirt that looks covered in blood but nothing wrong with him. https://honorlibertyvets.org/
What needs to be kept in mind is that the burden of proof is on those claiming what happened not on those objecting to it. It is more on you to show the reality of the injury and killing than on me to say it didn't happen ... in terms of visual evidence there is nothing favouring real.
2. Notwithstanding all the items you explain or say don't necessarily indicate an anomaly I find this testimony very confusing. It seems odd to talk about afternoons and mornings mixed in with actual times ... the odd timing reminds me of the 9/11 firefighters. The wording of things strikes me as odd. I know I have no military background but ...
Ed says: "At noon dinner was announced and all ships work stopped."
If things are going normally why would he mention dinner being announced and work stopping. Wouldn't lunch time be set and he'd just say we had lunch at 12pm? And what does "all ships work stopped" mean exactly?
--- Donald Pageler tells us "When the Mirage fighters left the Liberty they had inflicted 820+ rocket and cannon holes. They were followed by Mystere bombers dropping napalm."
How in any shape or form does this correspond with the image linked to above? Also he says 3 torpedo boats fired 5 torpedoes and then later "Of course with a 40 foot hole in the side a submergible pump was of no use," while Ed says:
' ... the phone talker screamed "Stand by for torpedo attack." A sudden jar shook the ship. The ship began listing to starboard. The words "Stand by to abandon ship" were sounded, however the order never came. After a short time, subsequent warnings of torpedo attacks were issued, but the torpedoes never came. "
So Ed doesn't actually confirm a single torpedo, just "sudden jar" while Don says "5 torpedoes" and "40 foot hole". How could a navy boat suffer 5 torpedoes and still be standing?
https://www.usslibertyveterans.org/files/Archive/Survivor%20Statements/USS%20Liberty%20Survivor%20Don%20Pageler%20Statement.pdf
Funnily enough, my father was in the Italian navy in WWII and his boat was torpedoed by the British. His escape from the boat was very touch and go and I think he suffered survivor guilt over the other sailor who helped him get out who he wasn't sure survived but would have had he not helped him. As everyone went everywhere into different rescue boats he didn't know what happened to him. I didn't know this before he died but someone from his village wrote a book about the villagers' wartime experiences and his was included ... but you know what? There's a tiny skerrick of doubt that it didn't even happen.
I have absolutely no doubt that this was a staged event and very happy to discuss it further.
Can you give anything you think that favours real over fake evidence-wise and if you don't have that what makes you believe in the reality of the event?
Sorry for the delay, busy week here.
The evidence is why I think it's real, in addition to finding the idea that Israel and the US would fake a failed false flag rather untenable. What purpose does that serve? This event has done more to wake people up to the overwhelming Zionist influence in American politics than almost any other, I don't see how that is an outcome that the cryptocracy would want, let alone instigate.
1. What constitutes evidence in your eyes and what level of evidence could be brought forward which would satisfy that requirement? If photographic evidence of every aspect of an event must be catalogued, then there are little to no historical events that can stand up to that metric.
"I agree, we shouldn't be rigid in interpreting events through the RoM lens, however, in the scores of psyops I've looked at RoM is *always* employed - we have loads of little ones in Australia - so it's a handy lens to use."
This is somewhat contradictory and speaks to the fundamental impasse here, which is that we are coming at these events from two very different hermeneutical approaches. Your baseline assumption, unless I'm mistaken, is that deaths in PsyOps are always fake. If you come to the table with the presupposition that every mass casualty event is staged, it is not going to be hard to find evidence that you think doesn't "fit" or to find anomalies since human memory is not only fallible, but highly malleable.
When compelling evidence has been brought forward, the burden of proof lies with those trying to prove an event is faked to actually establish that, not merely appeal to possibility. We have forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony which does not fundamentally contradict each other. Fakenukesphil didn't actually engage with it, he merely handwaved a dozen or so pictures away as "easily faked" with out actually proving that. Saying that someone is a liar does indeed place the burden of proof on the accuser at that point. Your assumption on watches below deck being an anomaly isn't one, so I think you should ask yourself if you could you be reading into other things in that same manner.
Donald Pagaler's testimony conforms with the testimony of other survivors, I don't really see the discrepancy but I can't find the testimony of Ed that you reference. Even granting that to you for the sake of discussion, minute differences such as bullet holes or timing is not dispositive proof of a staged event. If seemingly contradictory photographic evidence is all we need to establish falsity, I'm curious why this event doesn't stand up to scrutiny for you, yet the moon landings do, despite a plethora of contradictory testimonies and photographic impossibilities within those datasets (such as whether we can see stars or not in space: "astronauts" contradict each other wildly on that one).
If you haven't been in life or death scenario, it certainly plays tricks on your perception and memory. You could ask 10 soldiers about how a firefight went down and get 10 different stories with seemingly incongruent details. Does that mean it didn't happen, or is that a function of human memory and recall? It's hard to say as we grow more and more distant from a historical event, so I think expecting perfection of recall in a scenario like this is unrealistic. If anything, small discrepancies amongst survivors would strengthen the idea that these testimonies are real memories of an intense and stressful event, not a scripted one.
From my perspective, I find the mindset that every major event is "faked" to be a thought terminating cliche that prevents us from actually believing anything since we are constantly looking for the "tell" or the incongruent puzzle piece; which you will find, or seemingly so. It's a destabilizing thought pattern in which literally nothing can be trusted or verified, as well as ascribing a near godlike level of control to the powers that should not be.
I'm not committing to fake or not, open to both until I can see some logic. So if it's fake but the war was over, they had to make up deaths and go with the "mistake" rather than admit it was fake, because they did not get anything out of this false flag and the problems from the "mistake" getting out are less than the false flag op getting out. Is this the logic?
At this point, I must confess ignorance of the context, however, I work on the principle that I only need to know enough to know something and I think I know enough to know this was fake:
--- Images don't match testimony
--- Testimony makes no sense outside images
--- Nothing favours real
I will look at the context later, however, as far as I'm concerned there is no doubt of fakery ... which they tell us loud and clear as they always do. A priori, I take "false flags" to be fake.
OK you are honest you don't know about context, seems to me that in this case the context changed and/or the mechanics didn't work and the FF had to be aborted and all they govt could do was go into cover up mode.
The first problem we ought to be having with this story is, where did it happen and who was involved? The answer to both questions is blatantly obvious, and as such casts doubts upon any/all of this alleged attack having occurred.
Second, the odds of an Admiral (in Liberty's case, John McCain) undertaking command of a tiny Intel ship, on supposedly short notice, and then going All Ahead Full out to a remote part of the sea -- unescorted -- are about the same as the Mets winning the Series this year. Seriously, though: Admirals of McCain's value would never take risks like that... unless it was his role in the plan. And yes, seeing how his son turned out does color my opinion of Admiral McCain, I must admit. Nonetheless, he is as guilty as Judas in this plot.
Last, the entire command crew is also suspect, if for no other reason they followed orders which led to others' deaths. Once these "attacks" began, if the Admiral just sat there while letting the ship go down, a true Captain would have had the Admiral up on charges if they survived, and his XO on down would back up their Captain. Thus another bit of evidence against the official story.
For context, Admiral McCain was not present and not in direct control of the ship. He was nominally in control of the ship as the CO of the fleet responsible for the Mediterranean at that time.
I apologize for making that unclear: McCain was not on the Liberty. Being a Fleet Admiral, however, it was his responsibility to carry out the orders he received, so in a sense it was he in control of the Liberty as much (or more so) than its Captain. Again, the risk of sending an unprotected Intel ship out there, alone, is one that would never be taken unless there are sinister reasons (think Gulf of Tonkin).
But McCain still made it all happen. He knew what he was doing. I hope everyone involved is enjoying their stays in Hell now.
What you say makes good sense CO. So in your opinion, was this a false flag that screwed up, got outed and they had to run cover on it incl the many fake crew who reported on the attack and fake deaths (fake names), etc? I'm trying to make sense of all the moving parts.
My personal opinion? I believe that Israel, with American help, planned on destroying that ship and blaming it on Egypt (which explains their "We thought it was an Egyptian ship" excuse).
Egypt and Jordan agreed to a ceasefire on 8 June, and Syria on 9 June, and it was signed with Israel on 11 June 1967; as you can see, 8 June is the date of the alleged attack.
LBJ sent that ship out there to be a slaughtered lamb, plain and simple, so that if this war escalated and Israhell were threatened (much less invaded) they could get America involved to protect them. (I know, so much has changed since then, amirite?)
That is my take on it. I hardly think it coincidence (or cohencidence as case might be) that on the very day of the "attack" that practically all parties agreed to stop. Israhell was ready to ratchet everything, but it was still virtually on its own and had to take the cowardly OOPSIE, for they had no forthcoming retribution.
So the false flag op failed because the ship wasn't sunk and the survivors spoke up about the IDF attack then they needed to make some story? That wouldn't be fakery because that would mean people died. If the war was really over but the attack went on anyway, why say so many people died if they didn't and it was all fake? Honestly something in the story is missing for me.
Excellent Scipio!