They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story becomes the "official truth". It helps that the plausible story always aligns with what people want to believe.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment of Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certainly might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money to send your child to high school or college, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

This discrepancy between average income and the cost of paying a college (or at least high school) educated person to teach your child, teachers who were themselves used to a reasonable level of wealth, is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all, and less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story becomes the "official truth". It helps that the plausible story always aligns with what people want to believe.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment of Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certainly might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money to send your child to high school or college, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

This discrepancy between average income and the cost of paying a college (or at least high school) educated person to teach your child, teachers who were themselves used to a reasonable level of wealth, is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all, and less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story becomes the "official truth". It helps that the plausible story always aligns with what people want to believe.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment of Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certainly might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

This discrepancy between average income and the cost of paying a college (or at least high school) educated person to teach your child, teachers who were themselves used to a reasonable level of wealth, is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all, and less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story becomes the "official truth". It helps that the plausible story always aligns with what people want to believe.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment of Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF. This discrepancy between average income and the cost of paying a college (or at least high school) educated person to teach your child is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all, and less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story becomes the "official truth". It helps that the plausible story always aligns with what people want to believe.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment of Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF. This is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all. Less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story stands.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment of Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF. This is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all. Less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it by saying "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story stands.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF. This is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all. Less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. For Pizzagate, for example, they "debunked" it said "there was no basement" at Comet Pizza, completely ignoring the fact that James Alifantis actually posted about the basement at Comet Pizza on Twitter. But of course no one checks those things, so the plausible story stands.

As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF. This is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all. Less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF. This is why only a couple percent of children in the 1700s had ANY formal schooling at all. Less than 1% had "private teachers."

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary?

As an example of important context of the times, both of those positions (treasurer and secretary) were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary, superintendent, or treasurer mean very little today. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a "plausible story" to cover the implications when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary? Both of those positions also, were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary or superintendent today mean very little. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a plausible story when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary? Both of those positions also, were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary or superintendent today mean very little. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence if you understand the context of the time period.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a plausible story when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many "editors" especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary? Both of those positions also, were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary or superintendent today mean very little. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a plausible story when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many editors especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary? Both of those positions also, were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary or superintendent today mean very little. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all available evidence.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a plausible story when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many editors especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary? Both of those positions also, were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary or superintendent today mean very little. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England. The idea that BF came from "humble beginnings" is complete and total bullshit by all measures.

They pretty much said it wasn't him, but the husband of the land lady that was an early anatomist (that was a murky undertaking during that time).

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There is ALWAYS such a plausible story when something like this pops up. As I said, the evidence of this particular event wasn't sufficient, but that was not what I base my assessment on Franklin on, rather it is a ton of other stuff that he did that advanced the agenda of the Cabal. If you think the "matter is solved" however, you have much to learn about the complicity of the media.

But it turns out, he definitely wasn't a murderer.

Unless you understand the monopoly of the media, you can't appreciate the fuckery that lay therein. The Londonist, where the article was published, is very much a main stream site, which means 100% owned by the Cabal. The author, Zoe Craig has been an editor for many other main stream sites, including the BBC. This makes her a very possible MI6 agent. Not necessarily of course, and I'm certainly not trying to make an argument for that with such little evidence, but once you understand the complicity of the media, and how many editors especially are in fact agents of Intelligence, you can appreciate that everything is suspect. I am only trying to suggest your conclusion is far from certain, I am not saying "FB was a child murderer." But he most certain might have been, and this is evidence that supports that conclusion.

As for the rest of your thing, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Everything I said stands. His father held a position of power and authority. He came from wealth, his schooling, such as it was, cost money most did not have. Did he come from "great wealth?" No, I never said he did. But the average person in America made a few cents an hour in the 1700s (in the early 1800s it was ~0.05c per hour, I'm not sure about the century before). Secondary or Tertiary school cost $600 per year according to the previous source (secondary school was actually more expensive, but easier to get into if you had the money). Assuming a 60 hour work week, and that it was the same in the 1700s as the early 1800s, the average yearly wage was $150 per year. You would have needed to make about 10 times the average to have such “disposable” money, and that’s just for one kid. Josiah Franklin had a plethora of rugrats, and he still had the money to pay for a private teacher for BF.

Again, the problem people have is that they associate these things with TODAYs standards. For example, they see “minister” and think of someone “doing God’s work.” Yet being a minister at that time was ALWAYS a position of power. The ministers were ALWAYS wealthy. Even just being a leading member of the Church (such as Josiah Franklin) was ALWAYS a position of power in the community. In this case being a tithesman was more than just a "ruler of ten men" since that is a completely different context. It was a leader of the legal and administrative system. I'm not sure exactly what that means, perhaps a judge and/or accountant? Treasurer and Secretary? Both of those positions also, were positions of great power in the community. Indeed, “secretary” was sometimes more powerful of a position than “president” in some corporations and/or organizations. Things like “superintendent” meant the highest position one can have in some settings, and yet, such words such as secretary or superintendent today mean very little. Context is everything. You have to understand the times to understand the power associated with the positions being named.

As for "his business was a "tallow chandler/soap boiler" that is meaningless. Rockefeller dug sludge out of the ground and was the richest man on the planet (not really, but people thought he was). Elias Dodge made shoes, but had hundreds of employees and made more women's shoes than anyone else in the world. Success is not about the business, but about the scale of the business. Without knowing say, how many employees he had, or how many shops he had, how much he exported, etc., there is no way to even begin to judge the measure of his wealth.

At the least he was a community leader, which is NOT an "average" father, which puts a direct lie to the idea that "Franklin was a self-made man." By all accounts Franklin did take advantage of the opportunities that were available to him. In that sense he was "self-made" as in, he could have failed in his endeavors, and he did not. The point I am making is, he had FAR MORE opportunities than the vast majority of the people on the planet, or in America, or in New England.