On April 14th 1989 Chinese students started a protest in Tiananmen Square. Tensions were high and western media had started to notice, so on June 4th the government declared martial law. The students refused to disperse, so the government sent in The People’s Liberation Army, who opened fire on unarmed student protesters. The Chinese government denied this had happened, but a journalist had managed to sneak the photo out undetected. Estimates range from several hundred to several thousand unarmed civilians being massacred that day. The photo above and the photo of "Tank Man" are both illegal and censored in China.
Dr. Fauci continually denies that the National Institute for Health (NIH) ever funded any gain-of-function research. Below is a video of Dr. Fauci saying the NIH will now fund gain-of-function research…
Below is a screenshot of a 2015 gain-of-function research paper funded by the NIH
Below is a link to an archive of the gain-of-function research paper funded by the NIH
On March 10, 2022, The United States State Department tweeted they do not have a biological weapons lab in the Ukraine, this is a lie…
In 2005 Senator Dick Lugar and then Senator Barack Obama (yes that Barack Obama) worked together on developing a plan to setup a bio-research lab in the
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Ukraine is a country located in Eastern Europe. It is the second largest country in Europe, and shares it's north eastern border with Russia. Ukraine is also the home of Bursima the energy company connected to Hunter Biden.
SEE MORE ABOUT: Ukraine Ukraine. In 2010 the facility opened in Odessa Ukraine. The webpage that made the announcement in 2010 was suddenly deleted in March 2022, here is a link to an archived copy on Archive.org
Archived Article Quote"The level-3 bio-safety lab, which is the first built under the expanded authority of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, will be used to study anthrax, tularemia and Q fever as well as other dangerous pathogens..."
You can verify this announcement in USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal issue 818 (PDF ) published on June 10, 2010. The announcement appears on page 11:
In April of 2020 The US Embassy announced that the Department of Defense was operating a biological research laboratory in Ukraine:
Archived Article Quote"The Biological Threat Reduction Program's priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats..."
In March of 2022 State Department Under Secretary Victoria Nuland was appearing before The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was asked if there were chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, she hesitates and her body language shows she’s uncomfortable with this question, but eventually answers with a carefully worded evasion saying the US has biological research labs in Ukraine and goes on to say how The State Department is concerned about Russian forces seeking to gain control of those laboratories…
The nervous fidgeting and body language of Under Secretary Nuland reveal that she’s being evasive with her answer, and is genuinely concerned about Russian forces gaining control of the research materials. Her actions make a lot more sense if contents of these laboratories are a lot more dangerous than the State Department is saying they are.
Archived Tweet"FACT: The United States does not have chemical and biological weapons labs in Ukraine."
ADDED: See Russian Tank with "Victoria' Secret" painted on the side.
In 1967 The CIA published an internal document, CIA Document 1035-960 (PDF ), that spoke about countering the growing criticism of the Warren Commission Report (PDF ) on the Kennedy Assassination. The CIA coined the term “conspiracy theory” as label to discredit anyone who questioned the official narrative:
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.(emphasis added)
The New York Times tried to obtain a copy of the report in 1976 with a FOIA request, the material wasn’t declassified until 1996. There are reproductions of the document, and recreations, but the original is extremely hard to find. You read the original CIA Document 1035-960 - Countering Criticism Of The Warren Report (PDF ) or the reproduced text below:
CIA Document #1035-960
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
Note: Released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The document shows how the term conspiracy is being utilized to prevent critical rational analysis and dissenting perspectives.
- Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
- Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
- To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
- To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
- In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
- No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
- Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergentand hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission’s records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
- Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy’s brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
- Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
- Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator. He was a loner, mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
- As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
- Such vague accusations as that more than ten people have died mysteriously can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the ten mysterious deaths line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
- Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.(emphasis added)
Local PDF Archives
- – Original PDF
- – Original PDF
Below is a articles about information that was deleted, but we were able to find in an archive. You may also be interested in Archive Documents.
Below are documents that were censored, deleted, or are hard to find on the internet. You may also be interested in Deleted Information