My claim is that the government knows it is going on and has done things to cover it up. And that they have also been involved in it to one extent or another.

And please, don't call me stupid, and then follow it with "no offense intended." I would in fact, have to be "stupid" not to take offense to the comment you made.

Watch the video, read the links I gave, and then discuss the topic if you so desire. If you do not wish to do so, then you are ignorant about the situation. It's that plain and simple.

How can you discuss something that you won't even bother to look into?

Don't say I didnt bother to look into it, cause I did. The story that you are spewing was disproven in more ways that one. Lets start....

Yes, the story was released in the 29 June 1989 issue of the "Washington Times" which is a local paper, not a national paper... now, there is a reason it didnt go national
Years later, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL did an inquiry, wanting to make a documentary out of the situation, only to find that it was disproven because a number of "male prostitutes" that had supposedly toured the white house, actually came forth and admitted that it was nothing more than a ploy for them to make money.

Further More, there was a case in 1988 where Craig J. Spence was charged, and Mr. Spence Did indeed give late tours of the White House under the guise that the people he was bringing in were his family members, Mr. Spence has also been involved with a Secret Service OFFICER by the name of Reginald A. deGueldre. Mr. deGueldre was not identified as a suspect, but as a victim and was called to testify against Mr. Spence.

Also, the ONLY thing that connects this story with the presidents of the time is the fact that these men SERVED under them as VIP's. To state that the staff of the white house and multiple members of the government were involved in covering this up is rediculous. If that were true, it would have never hit the news paper to begin with. and the names of Spence and deGueldre would have never been released. As far as the statement about "Stupidity" Im fine with you going on the defensive about that, but next time you call some one "Ignorant" just because they dont see things through your distorted eyes, think twice.

*edited for wording errors*

Wow. Well put. (Clap, clap, clap....)

Telling someone they are ignorant is far different from implying they are stupid. It simply means they don't have enough knowledge on the topic they are attempting to discuss. And from everything else you've written, it is clear you still do not know as much as you think you do in regards to the Franklin Case.

Watch the video and explain to me why Loran Schmit would be receiving anonymous and threatening phone calls about the case if there was no cover up taking place.

Explain to me how children would come up with the names of all these prominent figures in the area, and then decide to make charges of pedophilia against them. Why would Alishia Owens refuse to recant her testimony and be sent to prison as a result rather then simply saying none of it was true?

Why did Paul Bonnaci receive $1M as a result of the claims of pedophilia he made against Lawrence King if nothing happened?

You may have some knowledge about what you want to know and believe about the case, but you haven't shown that you know much beyond that. People would rather sit here and defend the pedophiles rather then look into the childrens claims and how and why the case was covered up. People like you only make it easier for them to cover up the crimes they commit.

And also, I haven't said one word about the White House or the President in regards to this (although if you look into enough, you'll see that Bush Sr. is implicated). I am saying certain parts of the government (such as the FBI) know about it and helped in covering it up.

Far from it. That is a line you throw out there as if others who think differently about the situation should feel bad for questioning the events that took place that day. I think it's moreso a slap in the face to those that lost their lives on 9/11 that you would resort to such a tactic by using them to defend your own point of view.

Just because I question what happened doesn't mean I respect those that lost their lives any less than you do.

kmt_sesh,

Like any thinking person, I'm with you 100% on this, but the above reminded me of yet another argument against the "9/11 truthers," and that is that the entire thing is explained (by them) as a trumped up excuse to go to war in the Middle East. Primarily (one might assume) against Iraq.

Why none of these people ever stop to consider the billions of cheaper, safer, faster and less traceable ways at our government's disposal to "trump up" a war is just completely beyond my comprehension.

Making the "excuse for war" claim is like saying Truman dropped the A-Bomb so he could blame the Japanese for a particularly bad case of heartburn at Benihana.

If the government is so "all powerful" that they can make a building start to collapse at the precise point of impact of a remotely controlled airliner why, then, can they not plant false evidence of WMDs convincingly in Iraq?

What, suddenly they got scruples?

Give me a break. I like this section of the board. As loony as some folks in this section get, they are still loveably loony (to me, anyway.)

These haters should go over to the nasty venomous "conspiracy" section and spew their ignorant neuroses (you nailed it there, pal!) into that particular area where people are used to it.

Harte

You really think you are a "know-it-all" don't ya?

It's people like you that cause these problems on the board. Instead of having a fair discussion about something, you resort to namecalling and acting as if you are better than others who don't believe the official version of events.

In your mind, apparently the government can do no wrong.

...And we go to the cameras for a resolution in this pot/kettle/black issue.

I think the thread needs to be closed or moved to the CT section.

--Jaylemurph

In my experience Harte is usually right. Harte supports his arguements with facts and logic.

That he is winning this particular discussion does not mean that there is a "Problem" with the thread. If you can further support your theory he will continue to challenge it with facts and logic. If he can not refute something, he owns up to it.

That he has a sharp wit is also not cause for alarm. Almost everyone that has posted an arguement against him suffers it's edge.

And, I don't see where he was calling you specifically a name. He uses the words "haters" and "ignorant", but if you find those offensive, I'd stay out of most of the other Forums here, especially the Religion and Conspiricy Theory forums. The word ignorant gets thrown around quite a lot around here.

Dredimus wrote:


Nicely written argument, Dredimus.

I admit I knew nothing about this "conspiracy" before Left Field brought it up, so I was hesitant to post anything about it myself. But over the weekend I did spend a lot more time than I even meant to, surfing the Net to explore what might be out there concerning the story. I started with the links provided by Left Field and carefully perused them, and then moved on to other sources. The most disturbing were the heart-breaking images on the Johnny Gosch Foundation website, and I had a very hard time with that stuff, although clearly some of those photos have been doctored for one reason or another. Nevertheless it was a very sad account to read. I knew of Johnny Gosch because I used to volunteer for the Jacob Wetterling Foundation in the early 1990s, and this foundation regularly interfaced with the FBI and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

That's neither nor there, except to establish that I do take the subject of child abuse very seriously. But as for the "government pedophilia ring," in all the time I spent looking for information on the internet, I learned basically two things:

1) Discussions about it appear on quite a lot of other internet message boards, where most people openly denounce it.
2) It seems to appear elsewhere only on websites or on web pages with a "government conspiracy" theme, and these are hardly credible.

I tried to approach it with an open mind, but such a thing is hard to take seriously when no credible news outlets appear to have carried the story. And as is obvious to most people here, had the story actually been true, it's something the media would've been splashing across its front pages for years. Reagan would've been impeached. Bush, Sr. never would've become president.

So folks like Left Hand are caused to remark that the media is in the pocket of the government, and this makes me chuckle. Regardless of who sits in the White House, it should be obvious to everyone that the media delight in giving our presidents a decidedly hard time. Many major media outlets have been remarkably disrespectful to presidents, be they Republicans or Democrats, and it's something I've noticed ever since I was a kid.

Perhaps Left Hand is just shocked that we're not falling for the story as he has. I've no doubt he believes in it, and passionately so, but that doesn't mean everyone will fall for it. I see nothing credible about this dramatically unlikely story.

DieChecker wrote:


Thank you, DieChecker. I appreciate your kind comment. LOL I wish there were more such civility at UM.



I couldn't agree more! Harte is one of the points of light at Unexplained Mysteries. And I must say he has the patience of Job. Even with all the naysayers, conspiracy theorists, and alternative theorists shrieking at him, he always maintains a level head and presents clear and logical arguments.

Harte wrote:


Oh, I know that, Harte. Still, the logic arguing against their claims never seems to stall them, does it? They march right along to the beat of their own broken drum. I suppose they think of themselves as patriots somehow. It's sad, really.

I was just surprised to see this argument, at all, but that was naivety on my part. I don't often collect my arguments from the Discovery Channel but I remember the special they ran on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. With remarkable ease and clarity, actual scientists and investigators were able to disprove and dismiss every single one of the theorists' claims.

Well, you know how it is: I'm certain the scientists and investigators, although being independent of government service, were paid by the Bush administration to tow the line.

And why does that need to be done? Cracks me up at all the people who can't discuss the topic, so they reply with either wanting it closed or being moved to the CT section. Then they belittle everyone that wishes to use their mind and ask questions about things. And then to top it off, they act as if they aren't belittling anyone. They're so full of themselves they don't even realize how pompous they are with their comments.

And again murph, as I've said, I know very little about 9/11 - we're all in the same boat in that regard. The only difference is I'm at least willing to question things about it. And I don't go around belittling others that wish to ask other questions, or decide they know all that happened on that day. You wish to paint a picture of me that simply isn't true.

I garauntee you, I am far from a "know-it-all". I've never claimed to be one. You seem to think I consider myself a "know-it-all" simply because I question certain things about the government and events that have taken place in history.

Ignorant doesn't bother me. Read my posts and you'll see I've called Harte ignorant in regards to the Franklin Case and how it pertains to the governments involvement in pedophilia and covering it up. It's when he implies those that don't agree with him are nuts, or loony, or any of those other wonderful labels he decides to place on people that I take offense to his comments.

Harte said he would debunk the Franklin Case, and did nothing at all to debunk it. He hasn't looked into the case much at all and has already made up his mind in regards to what he thinks of it.

Once I get the time, I will be more than happy to present information, and logic discussing what went on in the Franklin Case. I doubt others will be willing to do the same in a fair fashion however, because that would then involve them reading about it and owning up to the fact that it happened.

How can you say the the story is unlikely when if you read how the case was handled it's clear as day that something fishy was going on? Have you watched the entire 'Conspiracy of Silence' video?

Why would Loran Schmit say he received threatening phone calls about the case if it isn't true? He is on video saying he received a phone call from a person that wouldn't identify himself, that told him he doesn't want to pursue this case. When he asked the person "Why?", he was told "it will lead to some of the highest ranking republicans [in government] , and that both you and I [the caller referring to himself and Schmit] are both good republicans, so we wouldn't want that to happen."

Now please, explain to me what reason Schmit would have to make that claim.

Maybe you can also explain to me why children would not only want to get involved in this sort of thing, but why in the world they would create such a "hoax" to begin with. Where in the world did they come up with the names of these people if they've never had contact with them? Sure, they are prominant figures in the area, but not in the sense that children would have any clue who they were, or any interest in them.

Don't you think questions such as those are fairly important ones? What's the answers to them if this is all a hoax as you and many others would wish to believe.

And about the media, it's not nearly as honest as you would like to think. What do you think would happen if the United States had to own up to pedophilia in the White House and/or a story regarding the government's involvement in it and/or covering it up?

Have you looked into why the "Conspiracy of Silence" video was kept from airing on the Discovery Channel, and at the time all copies of the video were thought to be destroyed? It's because once it was scheduled to be aired the government stepped in and said, "Hey, you can't air this." They then went and bought the video and compensated both the producers of the video and the Discovery Channel for the costs of the production. Now why do you think they did that?

As I said in another post, I will be more than willing to put together a thread that discusses the Franklin Case and what went on in regards to the cover-up that took place. I have no doubt I could raise some very good points that will be hard for others to debunk if they were willing to have a fair discussion about the topic, and don't approach it from such a biased standpoint.

Here is the name of this section of the board:
Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
with the subtitle:
Discussing the Mysteries of the Ancient World

Here is the name of the section Jaylemurph recommends:
Conspiracies & Secret Societies
with the subtitle:
Conspiracies, Black Projects, and Government coverups.

Surely even someone wearing the gigantic blinders you so openly exibited in recent posts can appreciate that, at the very least, you should wait about a thousand years before you post anything concerning this subject in this particular section of the board.

While, obviously (at least to me and several others wasting their time replying to you here) what you are claiming is apropos to the other section, and without the extended thousand year delay.

Since all this is completely obvious to anyone that bothers to cogitate on the subject, it leads one to wonder why you are doing it.

What happened, did somebody in the other section decide not to agree?

Or, even worse, did they all agree and your trolling resulted in nary a nibble?

To the others,

Thank you for your kind words. I myself don't think I am all that patient though.

I should have more patience, IMO.

Harte

Harte,

You don't even know what you are discussing in regards to the Franklin Case. You know how I know that - because you refuse to discuss it.

Like 'checker' mentioned, usually you will back yourself up with some type of facts and logic, in regards to the Franklin Case however, you are unable to do so, so you (as you always do) resort to belittling those that disagree with you, and now you won't even discuss the topic.

How about answering the questions I made in my post before this one? You wouldn't dare want to do that though because then it would involve you actually reading about the case and how it was handled. Something you are clearly unwilling to do.

The only people wearing blinders are the ones like yourself who refuse to believe the government can do wrong. Keep looking straight ahead and don't ask any questions. I guess for some life is easier that way.

Let me know if you ever decide to really learn about what happened in the Franklin Case. By the way, did you watch that 'Conspiracy of Silence' video yet? It would be a good start if you at some point are willing to take the subject seriously. Or maybe you'd rather go around defending pedophiles without even realizing you are doing so.

Moving this to a more apropriate section, and lets keep the discussion civil please.

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe it was Saddam who had misled everyone instead? I mean all he has to do then was satisfy and cooperate with Hans Blix and the war could have been avoided, right?

Its kinda strange that I gave you a list of facts about the case that have been proven... You are basing everything you are talking about off of one edited, cut, copied, dubbed video... do a bit more research.

Great!

The OP has questions and you call him a lunatic for thinking un-critically..

9/11, Bin laden, Afghanistan, WMD's, Saddam,

What's your take?

Yeah Saddam was misleading everyone.

His country had sanctions imposed on them for 10 years following the so called Gulf War

so he decided he'd create a weapons of mass destruction program to change that..

..the weapon Saddam had was courage to stand up to The World Bank and the IMF.

.. no different than our NEW enemy Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez, leaders who dare dig in and oppose the Globalists.

No, I said that the OP should post CT nuttery in the CT section, not in the Ancient History section. Now that it's been moved, I don't really care. I find (generally) most CTers to be beyond the point of rational discussion, so I don't really feel like continuing the debate here. I'd no more discuss 9/11 here than I would bring raw steaks into a dog-fighting ring and discuss etiquette.

--Jaylemurph

I am most certainly not basing it off of that one video. I've done A LOT of research regarding the Franklin Case. Far more than you have I am certain.

Why is it that no one is willing to answer my questions in regards to Loran Schmit's comments, and making sense out of why the kids would not only know the names of the people they accused, but why they would accuse them anyway if this was all a hoax?

Can you answer either of those questions in a way that makes sense?

I will start a thread soley on the Franklin Case once I have the time to put it together accordingly. We'll see if anyone bothers to participate in that discussion with their attempts to "debunk" it then. I'll be surprised if anyone steps up to the plate at that point with meaningful discussion, as oppossed to resorting to belittling statements and comments like "you've been duped", rather then discussing the facts of the case.

But anyway, please, tell me why the kids would make these accusations, why they would know who these people are, and why Loran Schmit would say he received threatening phone calls if the whole thing was a hoax?

Their beyond the point of rational discussion because they don't agree with your view of things? What a cop out...

I have discussed it before. I've discussed it here with you as well.

Neither your links, nor the video, support the claims you made:


If you think they do, please state why and state your evidence.

There is none in the video or the links that would tend to support your above claims at all.


Like I said, I have discussed it before.

Like Jaylemurph, I do not enjoy feeding the neuroses of the paranoid.


Here are your questions:


Although this question was not asked of me, I'll answer.
Yes I've watched it. I just watched it again to make sure I didn't miss something.
I have to say, and I've said before, that probably some people got away with sex with minors in this case.
Unfortunately, for the justice system, the minors were somewhat less than reliable re their testimony as witnesses. This was true for various reasons not entirely addressed in the video.
Primarily, criminal charges were hanging over a couple of them before they spilled the beans on the sex ring. This made it appear that these individuals were trying to cut deals to avoid prosecution.
Also, the claims of sex with very young children were never substantiated by these young "victims."
Why is this?


What reason? Because it's true.


Please, the "children" you're talking about were street-wise homosexual prostitutes.

On the other hand, maybe there were prominent civic leaders involved.

In what way does that support your claim (stated again here for the third time by me):



"Guess" what you will. The only thing I refuse to see is that which is not there. I realize that you cannot make this same claim, but I am not to be belittled for problems that you have yet to deal with.

One thing I do see here, and I see it quite well. From your link:


The site you linked to provides the following information at their "about us" page:

The bolded (by me) portion in the opening paragraph indicates that this group and I share a common desire.

What follows that opening paragraph is a list of a handful of people primarily trying to sell their books.

Now, perhaps were I to look into them, most of these folks would be perfectly honest individuals trying their damnedest to do what I bolded in that opening paragraph.

However, I know two of the above listed individuals to be money-grubbing, lying con men.

I won't say which because I don't plan to continue this conversation, due to the following:


I think this statement illustrates perfectly what Jaylemurph was talking about when he said:


Harte

And the kids were silenced..

I'm not accusing you of being irrational, LF. But look at people like Zaus and say with a straight face he's completely rational, coherent and respectful.

It's not /fun/ with him around; you don't /learn/ things or refine viewpoints. I see no reason to engage him or his ilk, really, but I am happy to throw in a Nelson Muntz-like "Ha-Ha!" when they can't even get basic facts right.

--Jaylemurph

Well, what's your take then? .. nothing out of the ordinary..? .. zip.

Here's the book.. it was really really really hard to find..;........................

http://www.newsfollowup.com/docs/msc/The_F...in_Cover_Up.pdf

You know, Jayle...I do like you (oh hell, you know that...).
I find it so damned refreshing to read some of your posts....

I am confuse here for Saddam to you is a hero and yet you say OUR new enemy Mahmoud and Hugo???
Oh by the way, Saddam was found in a fox hole hiding, very courageous indeed!

.. you may be missing the whole point..

oh well.. who cares..

..forget about it..

It doesn't matter what my take is, because I'm not going to discuss 9/11 here.



Why thank you, MID!

--Jaylemurph

Fair enough murph. I take my comment back. I don't agree with all that Zaus, or some others say, but from time to time I think they make some fair points, although I agree they don't always do it in the best fashion. In that regard, I happen to agree with you. I think they hurt themselves with the points they are making many times simply because they go a bit overboard with what it is they have to say, or what they are willing to believe because it fits into the whole 'evil empire' type of stuff they get caught up in.

I realize that some of the stuff I say may be lumped in with their way of thought, but I don't comment on things as if I know for a fact what is going on unless I've read about it and feel I have good reason to believe so. I will however ask questions when I feel they are worthwhile questions to be asked. The problem though is that sometimes I get ridiculed simply for questioning things that have taken place.

I don't have any problems when people have a differnt take on things then I do. It's only when certain people begin to belittle others, and tend to act like the bully in the school yard that I take offense to what they say. It's also rather disappointing when some people decide to ridicule others simply because they ask questions about certain events and how/why they happened and then continue on with their pompous diatribe as if they are the go-to source for all information, and there isn't any insight that they could possibly gain from others and their points of view.

Again, don't tell me what I do and don't know, or how much research I have done. I'll have you know that Crime and Information are my job, and this case just happened to be one of the many investigation scenarios that I myself had to investigate in training. As for the children knowing who these people were, thats pretty easy, especially for some one that had done their homework. The original complaint that started this whole case was against the Webb couple, Barbara and Jarrett. They were the foster parents of the children that made the allegations. Barbara was the cousin of Lawrence King, and Jarrett served on the board with L. King. THATS where the names stint from. And if you wanna talk about conspiracy and cover-up, look into the money trail. Schmit had a good chunk that needed to be paid back to a certain credit union.... oh... wonder how Loran Schmit became so prominent in business today???

Put your tin foil hat back on. Big Brother Is Watching....

So in regards to Loran Schmit, if I read what you said correctly, you are stating it is true that he received an annonymous phone call telling him not to pursue the case because it would lead to some of the highest ranking republicans in the government.

Yet at the same time, you then say the government has not been involved in anything with regards to pedophilia and that nothing fishy was being done in regards to the case. How does that make any sense? You are contradicting your own statements.

And my claim that the government is involved with it is in reference to the fact the FBI, among others, did what they had to do to cover it up.

All you have to do is read through how the case was handled and you will realize how messed up it was. The victims in this case were treated as the criminals from the very start. You refuse to acknowledge any of this. I mean hell, listen to yourself, you are already beginning to degrade the children involved by portraying them as prostitutes.

actually, the Feds launched the hardest investigation while the LOCAL law enforcement tried to drop the case.

Dont drag a literary masterpiece into this.

Especially when they either haven't read it or didn't pay very much attention to it.

--Jaylemurph

Wow, this one got quiet fast....

Don't worry, I'll get back to it, and sooner or later I will make a thread pointing out all the things that don't add up regarding the Franklin Case. It doesn't do me good to keep going back and forth in a thread like this day, after day, after day. I need a break from it every once in awhile.

A quick point though, you made the comment that the Feds launched a hard investigation (which isn't really true, everything was still covered up) and that the "LOCAL" law enforcement tried to drop the case.

Now for the purposes of this simple question, I'll leave the parts out about how the Feds also didn't want this case to proceed. But anyways, what's the difference, wouldn't the local law enforcement trying to drop the case still point to the fact that things weren't being handled properly?

You make the statement as if the fact the local law enforcement officials wanted it to go away is no big deal.

Don't need to read that book anymore, thanks

Well, it's interesting to know that out of all the countries that we get oil from, Iraq is towards the bottom of the list. If we were to invade a country for their oil we would've invaded some other smaller OPEC nation.


--Mandalore--