Jump to content
The Education Forum

Wade Frazier

Members
  • Posts

    1,081
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wade Frazier

  1. Hi David: Greg cited the primary document, which my post stated that Hansen also cited. Again, it is: SECOND LOOK, Vol.1. No.7, Washington DC, May 1979, pp. 2-7. You will have to do some digging to find it, and I have about zero doubt that the attribution is accurate. In Hansen’s book, he deals with Marchetti’s quote at more length. Marchetti wrote a several page essay. Marchetti wrote that he did not come into direct knowledge of UFO existence during his CIA days, but he also wrote: “But I do know that the CIA and the U.S. government have been concerned over the UFO phenomenon for many years and that their attempts, both past and present, to discount the significance of the phenomenon and to explain away the apparent lack of official interest in it have all the earmarks of a classic intelligence cover-up.” That quote you have doubts about comes later in that essay. That is a small world regarding Ralph. I bought some of his intelligence library when he shut down CIABASE and moved to Florida in 2000. When he was afraid to leave his house in 2001 because of the FBI’s Stalinist tactics, he faxed me that letter from the CIA to post on my site. He told me that the heat on him immediately reduced after I posted it. Then 9/11 happened a few weeks later, and Ralph has pretty much dropped out of sight since then, trying to live out his remaining years in peace, and I sympathize. Ralph ended up selling his intelligence library for a song to a local university. I let Ralph know that I would have gladly paid twice what he sold it to that university for but, in the end, I am sure it is for the best. I can barely house my own library, much less take on another thousand volumes, and I am pretty much retired from the field myself. I have other connections to the CIA that I am not at liberty to publicly discuss, but let me just say I always get my facts straight about the CIA before I write about them and, like Ralph, I will not publish any of their “secret” stuff that can give them an excuse to begin harassing me, although we both know that Ralph was not divulging secret stuff himself, and look at what he lived through. Ralph is one of my heroes, and his fate is all-too-common amongst the good guys. On Gilliland and if the craft are not of this earth, boy, that is a long story, and I will tell a little bit of it here. Part of the point of what is happening at Mount Adams related to my work is that even if it was all terrestrially-based, it obviously gives evidence to technology that is way beyond what is on the market and, at the very least, gives more evidence to FE technology being possible. However, I believe they are ET in origin, not the least reason being that James obviously mentally interacts with them (nobody who saw that craft “light up” about a minute after James tried to “flag one down” had any doubt that they responded to his efforts – one of the attendees that night was an Air Force captain who was also, literally, a rocket scientist), and James’ claims of telepathic interaction have great credibility with me. I have encountered stuff like that many times during my adventures: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/spirit.htm#my While we hung out with James, he told us many tales of his experiences and those of others, and without getting into too many specifics, I will say this… The term “flying saucer” was coined in 1947 when an airplane pilot pursued several saucer-shaped craft that ended up disappearing at Mount Adams. The Roswell Incident happened a couple of weeks later. The Indian tribes near Mount Adams have oral histories going way back before the white man showed up regarding that craft and their occupants. This stuff far predates the supersonic and space ages. About half of Mount Adams is on the Yakima Indian Reservation, and the Yakima tribal elders have had face-to-face encounters with the crafts’ occupants, and the occupants are obviously not of earthly origin and their relationship with the Yakima tribe is a friendly one. The black helicopter types try to disrupt the relationship that the tribe has with the “visitors,” and have had limited success. James is a very down-to-earth person and pleasant to be around, and he speaks all over the world, and people come from all over the world to visit his ranch. James says that people from industrialized nations have all sorts of “skepticism” about ET beings, but the world’s indigenous people, when asked about ETs, say something like, “oh yes, those folks.” I think that is partly due to the Western ego. That famous alleged correspondence from Gerald Light to Meade Layne regarding the 1954 ET “open house” event that Eisenhower allegedly attended, has always rung true to me, especially this part: “When we were allowed to enter the restricted section (after about six hours in which we were checked on every possible item, event, incident and aspect of our personal and public lives), I had the distinct feeling that the world had come to an end with fantastic realism. For I have never seen so many human beings in a state of complete collapse and confusion, as they realized that their own world had indeed ended with such finality as to beggar description. The reality of the ‘other plane’ aeroforms is now and forever removed from the realms of speculation and made a rather painful part of the consciousness of every responsible scientific and political group.” http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolit...olitics_Q_0.htm James is constantly visited by military and spook personnel and, when they get a show, they always say that what they saw was nothing that “we have.” The craft above Mount Adams and James’ ranch, if they come in too low, are often attacked by our military/spook folks, sometimes with exotic weaponry. I’ll relate some anecdotes on that subject. One day, somebody from the above-top-secret world was visiting James, and a craft came in low over the ranch and headed toward Mount Adams, slightly to the east of a line between Mount Adams and the ranch (Mount Adams is due north from the ranch). A few miles from James’ ranch is a small foothill to the east of Mount Adams (take a look at my photos, and you can almost see it, and should be able to imagine its location – it is almost all wilderness between James’ ranch and Mount Adams). When the craft passed over that hill, ground fire hit it. The above-top-secret person with James identified the weaponry as a combination of “plasma weapon and laser cannon.” The craft barely wobbled and kept going, unscathed. The American government does not admit to that kind of weaponry, and it was probably a mobile and more modest version of that shot fired at an ET craft captured in that infamous STS-48 shuttle footage (and NASA “coincidentally” stopped live shuttle transmissions after that incident), most likely fired from the Pine Gap base in Australia. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=6vVvEdPXOXg and Oberg, Aldrin and others have tried debunking the footage, very unconvincingly, I might add. Greer’s Disclosure Project witnesses have confirmed those kinds of attacks, and have disparaged those authorizing those attacks as “cowboys.” James and others call such behavior idiotic, because the smallest ET scout craft can defeat earth’s combined military might in minutes. They could vaporize a continent in seconds, if they were of that kind of “death star” motivation, but they are benevolently intended. However, those attacks are not to really “protect” humanity from the ETs, but to prevent open interaction between the ETs and the public, because then the free energy and other technology would become available, and it would quickly become “game over” for the hyper-elites that control the world economy and, hence, humanity. I survived their shenanigans myself, and that situation is the primary upshot from Greer’s Disclosure Project witnesses: the UFO cover-up has nothing to do with protecting humanity, but protecting the Big Boys’ global control racket, a racket that may be thousands of years old. Another anecdote is about a tech geek who was a regular at James’ ranch. The guy had highly sophisticated equipment that could detect the frequencies that the ET craft operated at (very high frequencies), and he said that he could also detect the craft BELOW the ranch, as they traveled the lava tubes below Mount Adams. The guy was also able to tune-in to the frequencies that the military and spooks use, and one night at the ranch he tuned-in to local traffic, and there was all sorts of crosstalk from the crews lying in wait to shoot at the craft if they came in low. After listening to the banter for awhile, that tech geek began talking on the same frequency and remarked on the nice weather that evening or some such greeting, and there was a startled silence for a moment, and then one of the spook/goons angrily threatened that James’ buddy was talking on a frequency reserved for government use, and that it was illegal for James’ buddy to use it, and that he should cease his transmission immediately. James laughed as he told that story. My final Ranch anecdote relates to some footage that I think is on one of James’ DVDs and maybe is also on his site. During my latest visit to the ranch: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/ufo.htm#visit2007 I saw the lights on the cliffs of Mount Adams for a couple of hours, which may be the most common “unexplained” sighting at the ranch. There is nothing on those slopes but cliff and ice, but those lights are regular events. One night, the light appeared on the cliffs, and from the west a military jet came roaring out of the night, going after that light. The light began moving off of Mount Adams to the east, staying just ahead of the chasing jet. When it got several miles east of Mount Adams, it simply disappeared and the jet lost its prey. Almost instantly, the light reappeared back on Mount Adams, right where it was when the jet showed up. It was almost like the ETs have a sense of humor. : - ) That is all I have to say for now. When people give me their UFO “skepticism,” I reply with, “Nothing is preventing you from going and seeing for yourself.” “Skeptics” worthy of the label DO go see for themselves, but their attitude may defeat them - they need to suspend their belief (or disbelief) and go with an open mind and heart and, as James says, a joyful attitude of awaiting the show is the best attitude to take along, and I have seen, at the ranch, where the wrong attitude will lead to seeing nothing. However, I have also never seen those who called themselves “skeptics,” (by that I mean the organized “skeptics” like Mr. Skeptic ( http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#friends ) leave their armchairs and go see for themselves, which speaks volumes about their motivation. Best, Wade
  2. Hi David: If you read much of my site, you will see that I am pretty careful about correct attribution, such as tracking down that quote from Founding Father Benjamin Rush: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#rush getting permission from Howard Zinn to quote his work: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/columbus.htm#zinn and so on. I have burned before on quotes that turned out to be apocryphal (or misquoted), such as the Herbert Ley quote on the FDA: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#ley but it has only been a few times. I generally chase down the primary documents, or when I see several credible secondary sources make the same quote (and cite the primary document), then I tend to not go after the primary documents. With my writings on Ralph McGehee: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/mcgehee.htm I obviously have to have my ducks in a row when I am writing about the CIA, posting official CIA correspondence that way on my site. Marchetti and Ralph are the only two CIA employees that ever went through the proper legal channels to publish their critical memoirs. I first saw the Marchetti quote in one of Brian O’Leary’s books, and in Terry Hansen’s The Missing Times, he devotes quite a bit of ink to Marchetti. Hansen’s work is highly respected in the circles that I run around in, and as Greg showed, the primary documents are available for Marchetti’s quote, which is the same document that Hansen cites in his book. I hope that helps, Wade
  3. Hi Evan and Peter: Evan, thanks for beginning this thread. I have been working insane hours at my day job, but have some time this morning. Let me begin by saying that the political-economic dynamics of alternative energy is really my bag. Evan, I have gone three years in a row to watch UFOs at Mount Adams: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/ufo.htm and I received a show every time. For the record, I was not “skeptical” about UFOs before I went, but seeing one was not that high on my list of things to do, because I had seen way too much “weird” stuff on my journey, and seeing one, while a nice thing to do, I did not think was going to change my worldview much, if at all. All three of us who went in 2005 did not go there to DARE something to happen, but to go SEE something, which James Gilliland says is the best attitude to take along for UFO hunting. If there was not a reported 90% chance of seeing something, I would not have bothered. Even a few seconds after the first spectacular display, I asked myself if spending an entire three-day weekend going to see one was worth it, and my answer was yes and remains so. Watching one “light up” on request was a significant event for me, in ways that I am not sure I can articulate. One of my Boeing buds (professional engineer and project manager) was in a daze for a week after watching that UFO “light up” about a minute after James Gilliland tried to get one to do it. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/ufo.htm#call I have to say that there is nothing quite like being there. I eventually learned that what we saw was better than average, but by no means extraordinary, at James’ ranch. During the next two visits I saw more strange stuff, but if I ever see a show better than that first year, that will be something. Hi Peter: The New Energy Congress and New Energy Movement have members (some belong to both orgs, like Sterling Allan) who are very conversant in that stuff and have credentials that you would recognize. I would recommend taking technical issues to them. Sparky Sweet had the goods. I have encountered three scientists who knew Sparky and studied his device (Bearden, O’Leary and Mr. Advisor - who I am a lot closer to than I can publicly admit at this time): http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#sweet Sparky’s case is a classic in the field. Sparky actually mailed off working prototypes to the big energy institutions. Not only did he never hear back from any of them, but that was when his harassment really began. When you begin trying to take that pig to market, the Big Boys then mobilize their resources to take you out, by either carrot or stick, as I know all too well. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#make The Big Boys have their ear very close to the ground, globally, on the FE front. When Sparky told Mr. Advisor that he mailed off those prototypes, Mr. Advisor chastised Sparky with, “Oh come on, you can’t be that naïve!” But Sparky was. He was an establishment bulwark and suffered from the nerdy naiveté that Bucky remarked on: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/radleft.htm#nerd Sparky’s end was a tragic one, hiding in the desert. To Evan’s earlier question, true skepticism is a very healthy thing. My site is full of skepticism, mainly toward things I was taught were true (questioning my ASSSUMPTIONS http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#introduction ). Much of my “learning” failed to hold up to my adult scrutiny. If we use rigor in assessing ALL claims, both orthodox and alternative, that is the path to true knowledge. I have long dealt with the “skeptics,” but did not find them to be truly skeptical. They were true believers of another kind, so much so that they have made the word “skeptic” into an Orwellian epithet, and that is too bad. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#friends Defending the establishment is the opposite of true skepticism. My orientation to the energy issue was originally technological, when my first professional mentor invented the world’s best engine for powering an automobile: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm#glimpse and then I met the man who was selling the world’s best heating system: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#hitting I did not get radicalized until I had my nose rubbed in the real world of trying to bring those technologies to the marketplace. I got far more than I bargained for, and that is normal for anybody who truly pursues making a difference in those fields. None of the heretics in FE that I respect began their journeys as “rebels,” but were highly successful true believers in the system. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/hooked.htm#sweet Part of getting in way over my head was encountering the Real McCoy, more than once. FE technology is very real, but the general public is not going to enjoy its benefits unless there is enough of a collective awakening that helps break through the inertia and suppression. People close to me have seen the goods: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#underground Even though Steven Greer and I both had relatives at NASA on the inside during the Apollo days, and we had mystical awakenings while young, we came to our current FE understandings by different paths. I learned about the suppression of alternative energy the hard way, while Greer learned about it through his Disclosure Project witnesses and subsequent harsh education. Greer has described the FE world that I came to independently know, so he has a certain credibility with me. Although Woolsey has disputed the context of their “briefing” (can you believe anything that a neocon says?) and Ed Mitchell has dissociated himself with Greer for “stretching the data points,” much of what Greer has reported on the FE front http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer I can verify because I have lived through some of it. My fellow travelers like Brian O: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#oleary Adam Trombly: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#trombly and others who will remain anonymous for now: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#traveler have had experiences that confirm the general contours of what I have learned over the years, much of it the hard way. That will not necessarily convince YOU of anything, but that is part of the conundrum. You will not be invited by a faction of the Big Boys anytime soon for an underground exotic technology show. Anybody who has the Real McCoy and goes public is quickly removed from the scene, in one way or another. Performing true investigation of that milieu can be very hazardous to one’s health and is not recommended for the incautious or the naïve. I have had interactions with naïve engineers and scientists over the years. The vast majority are in deep, irrational denial: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/radleft.htm#circular but some have wanted to dive right in where angels fear to tread (and they scare me, for their sake – I do not want any dead, naive, scientists on my conscience, who died because they rushed off to their doom after encountering my work). It was very frustrating to receive Mallove’s skepticism on what I lived through (true skepticism, mind you, as in being willing to dig into the evidence – so Eugene got some points), to have him be murdered a few months later: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#mallove That is part of the conundrum and why the ET/FE cover-up has been so successful. Armchair skeptics and Internet surfers will get nowhere, and active investigation and activism is perilous. So very, very few are actually mounting constructive efforts: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/conun.htm#summary sad to say. We’ll see where this thread goes. I have some hope for it going someplace important. Best, Wade
  4. Hi everybody: I have been buried in my day job for the past week, and have a little time this morning. My host has been giving me big headaches for months now, and they took my site down for most of last week, sigh, but it looks like all is well for now. Evan indeed began that thread, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=12213&hl and I thank him. That thread may end up where I focus my efforts in this forum, but we will see. Duane: On Ted, call it what you may. I have seen so many fall on their swords like Ted, and then they act like they are not even bleeding as they keep sallying forth. That kind of behavior really gives “conspiracy theorists” a bad name. Ted is a disinfo specialist at this time, whether witting or not, and that is way too bad. I thought I made it very clear about Brian and that quote, and am surprised to see you state that I am avoiding the issue. Brian wrote that in early 2001. His position was that he thought it possible that NASA may have faked some footage to replace some that was destroyed. He never argued that we never went, as far as I know, but he believed that some things may be awry. He wrote that not long before that FOX special aired, and Brian was not happy with how his comments were portrayed. So, ONE astronaut thought, for a time, that MAYBE NASA MIGHT have staged some footage on earth and passed it off as taking place on the moon. Brian did not have much evidence to that effect, but with the other things he has seen, he was not dismissing anything as impossible. Move forward several months, and Brian was really smarting from what that FOX special did, “ambushing” him with that interview and then running those ten seconds that they blew out of proportion. It largely wrecked his remaining relationship with the other astronauts. That NASA has removed his bio is not too surprising. Then I stumbled onto Armstrong’s Leap with Jay’s help, and it was key evidence in removing Brian’s remaining residual doubt. By August 2001, Brian was firmly in the camp that believes that the landings were genuine and made as presented: http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html After looking at literally hundreds of images that people like Percy, Jack, Rene and others have claimed were faked, and that not one of them held up to critical scrutiny, I put as low as probability (like 0.001%) as I can that the Apollo footage was faked, although anything is POSSIBLE. The moon hoax believer crowd keeps giving themselves a bad name by clinging to Brian’s former “skeptical” stance, a stance that he repudiated several years ago, when he dug further into the evidence. The moon hoax believer crowd is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I was just trading email with Brian this morning on important stuff (free energy). The moon hoax debate is an energy waster for the public, with people like Ted keeping it alive with his tripe. I doubt I will give much more attention to this thread, but will concentrate on the FE/ET connection. The political-economic dynamics of alternative energy is really my bag. On Hoagland, I am very familiar with his Apollo work and that press conference anecdote. Hoagland debated Collier on Art Bell back in 2001. Heck, even Jay is suspicious of NASA. They are covering up plenty but, as far as I know, it relates to ETs, “national security” and related exotic technologies, not faked moon landings. On the others who believe that Percy has presented compelling evidence, all I will say is that I looked at it for a long time, and none of Percy’s evidence held up, and when I have been approached, fairly regularly, by people who try to convince me that Percy and friends have the goods, it ends up being the same tired old hash served up again. If you really want to present some of the evidence here (like Allen’s documentary), I can take a look, but I generally send people Jay’s way, like with Ted’s recent “find.” If you are going to present evidence, be warned: it had better be good, tight, rigorously-tested evidence, or I will quickly lose interest. I am really tired of seeing more “image analysis” that falls apart after mere seconds of scrutiny, or empty hypothesis that begs the question. I became tired of it several years ago but, amazingly, this “hoaxed moon landings were faked” red herring has a life of its own. Hi James and Duane: I am highly aware of that early email by Brian, and referred to it earlier, so I am surprised to see you keep asking about it. I believe that I have made a pretty thorough response on the issue, and I hope this is the last post I need to make on it. So there is no confusion, here is that quote: “but have a small residual doubt about the landings themselves, because I didn't go, so who am I to know for sure, besides the official word and comments from my friends and colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about activity on the lunar surface were answered strangely at times--hence a bit of doubt.” If you go see his full email, I believe he says that he has no doubt that we went to the moon. His small residual doubt was about the landings themselves. Brian basically said that, like the rest of us, he did not walk on the moon himself, so how can he know for sure. In later published exchanges on the issue, Brian has stated his reason for his doubt partly being due to the terse answers that he would sometimes get when he would ask about the landings with those who walked on the moon, and I have little doubt that Buzz was one of those people. There can be many reasons for that kind of reaction from a Buzz, and Brian has admitted that it was not much to go on, but it gave him some doubt (and Brian thinks it may well be because they were tired of the constant questions, which is VERY understandable). That is a reasonable position to take, especially with all that Brian has seen. Go forward several months, after I showed Brian Armstrong’s Leap and after he interacted with other investigators on the issue after the uproar of the FOX special, and Brian’s residual doubt was gone and remains gone to this day. For that ATS poster to make the case that Brian’s early 2001 email trumped his stance since the summer of 2001 is some very strange logic indeed. No, I have not discussed in depth with Brian the reasons for his residual doubt, because it is an extremely trivial issue anymore. After Brian resigned from the astronautics program in 1968, he still worked with NASA, so I am sure that he had many opportunities to talk to moon-walking astronauts. We talked about Armstrong’s Leap and some ancillary issues, but there are far bigger fish to fry than digging into that small residual doubt. The world is melting down and we know how to fix it, but almost nobody really cares. That is the stuff worth spending time on, not the “were the moon landings faked?” issue. Again, Brian KNOWS that all is not how NASA would make things appear, but the moon landings, as far as them happening as advertised, is not one of those issues. This is a long-dead horse, as far as Brian is concerned. I have not read Hoagland’s book. I may get it one day. I have followed Hoagland’s work for many years. Some may well be legit, but I have seen many instances where they stretch the data a little too far, which ultimately backfires, as far as their credibility goes. Best, Wade
  5. Hi Duane: I am not sure if you followed the situation, but what Ted did was far more egregious than not admitting he was wrong. I began that thread at Jay’s forum when Ted published his first “analysis” of some Apollo images. In about two seconds, it became clear that Ted had zero idea of what he was talking about. Comparing images from two different Apollo missions, to make a specific claim about the LMs, was a brainless thing to do, and to finish his analysis with a “case closed” comment showed him to be, as one of Jay’s pals said, “a moron.” Jay immediately began communicating privately with Ted, to give a Ted chance to defend what he did or admit his error, and Ted did what so many in that milieu do (which gives “conspiracy theorists” a bad name, BTW). Ted, as you have mentioned, refused to admit he was wrong (and gloriously so), but instead began playing misdirection and obfuscation games with Jay. I would advise Apollo hoax theorists to never play that game with Jay. But Ted was one of those fools who rushed in and paid for it with highly reduced credibility. Now, if Ted had slunk off and never pretended to be an image analyzer again, on Apollo or any other space matter, he may have been forgiven for being a tad too bold. He could go clean the egg off his face in private and never show it again on these matters, even though we did not demand that he make a public apology/retraction for his errors. But no, Ted has served up at least two more instances of similar image analysis on Apollo, to make the case of faked images. They were of the same level of validity as his first foray. Now, at this stage, the question is if Ted really is a moron or is being dishonest, playing the Rense crowd as chumps, making a name for himself as an Apollo image analyzer when ANYBODY with some familiarity and competence with the situation and evidence KNOWS that Ted does not have a clue. The first time, he could have been forgiven for being one of those fools who rushes in, but the second and third times? He has zero credibility with me on any subject now. Rense has always been a mixed bag. It never really serves up original work (except arguably stuff like Ted’s “exclusive” posts there), but posts stuff from around the net, and I and a fair number of very hip pals go to Rense almost daily to get the news (not the only place we go, but a regular place). I avoid and the Israeli/Jewish stuff on Rense. Much is tripe that can easily be labeled anti-Semitic. I studied that subject long ago: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm#anti and a lot of what Rense publishes on the Holocaust and Jews is libelous, stuff that has long been shown to be on the level of Ted’s Apollo analysis, but it is also used to attack an entire people. Rense published writings from Fisk, Chomsky, Asia Times and other good sources on current events, so my buddies and I winnow through the chaff on Rense to get to articles that we are interested in reading. Ted’s work is something I was never impressed with before (right wing diatribes, mostly), and his Apollo “analysis,” and him continuing to post such tripe, put him way over the edge, and at this time I think he is a disinformation specialist, not just somebody who is in over his head and is too stupid to realize it (but maybe I am wrong and he really is that stupid – or his ego is way out of control). Gotta to go work, and I will have an insanely busy week, so this board may not hear much from me this week. Best, Wade
  6. Hi Jack: I have never seen any convincing evidence that the photographic evidence that NASA has published from the moon landings was forged or manipulated to give the impression that what the world saw was not what happened (on a stage, etc.). I saw dozens of your examples of alleged Apollo fakery that you published back in 2001, and not one of your examples I considered convincing evidence of fakery. While I respect much of the work that you did on the backyard Oswald photos, I believe that you were out of your element on the moon landings. That is just my opinion, from long years of looking at image analysis produced by a huge array of amateur analysts. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I have never seen the evidence that stood up to rigorous scrutiny. Hi Duane: Back in the winter/spring of 2001, I spent a few months digging pretty deeply into the Apollo evidence, after ten years of looking at the evidence on and off and hunting down evidence on William Brian’s neutral point discrepancy, for instance: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#neutral Again, I never heard of Jay before the summer of 2001 (I got him in touch with Brian in August of 2001, which was not long after I discovered Armstrong’s Leap with Jay). I spent months with Dark Moon in hand, and researching the material in it. In the end, it was a very disappointing experience to chase down the facts and analysis in Dark Moon. Very, very little of it stood up to any rigor, especially anything that supported arguments for forged/altered evidence. Percy’s shadow direction analysis (pp. 22-27), visor anomalies 26-27 (the sun-reflection difference is between video footage and still camera footage – the video overexposed and made the reflections of the sun appear larger than they really were), the astronauts lit in the shadows (p. 31-37), the C-Rock (p. 42) are just a few examples of many that failed to stand up under scrutiny. There was an entire chapter on radiation (which did nothing to convince anybody knowledgeable about the radiation risks being insurmountable), and then we get to the “no rocket exhaust” analysis on p. 153, an analysis of Apollo 12 footage of Surveyor 3 that is obviously not genuine on p. 160, the Apollo 11 reflector angle, p. 327, Rover “clumping moon dust” evidence (citing Collier, of all people), the neutral point discrepancy (p.396), and on and on. None of it held up, as far as supporting the “faked moon landing” hypothesis, or the idea that what the world saw was fabricated on some elaborate stage. The “they did it with wires” evidence is also in Dark Moon, and is as credible as the rest of it. After spending months sifting through the evidence, I realized that Percy’s work is not very credible, if at all, and digging through more of his mine tailings for stray nuggets is not high on my list of things to do. If somebody provides a mountain of “evidence,” and as you sift through it, it all turns out to be dross, with not a single gold nugget to be found in it, you begin losing enthusiasm for digging through any more of it. Jay is a better man than I am for continuing to deal with it. I do not subscribe to much of what is imputed to the motivation of the “conspiracy theorists” by the hoax debunker crowd (moon landings or otherwise), but I tend to agree with Jay’s assessment that Percy is just into selling as much schlock as he can to the uninitiated and gullible, and when his stuff is completely dismantled by people who know their stuff (Jay and company were so good at doing so that Percy closed the forum on his site, back when I followed it), I won’t be buying any more of it. So, I did not look at Percy’s “evidence” that he put into his later offerings, not when Dark Moon turned out to be such schlock. Again, if anybody can make a coherent and rigorous presentation of evidence of Apollo fakery, I am all for it. I have never seen that presentation or heard of it. All I see, especially when people approach me with the “proof,” is just the recycled, tired old stuff that people like Percy peddle. Jay had little to do with my assessment of Percy’s work. As an interesting aside, not long after I found Armstrong’s Leap, Richard Hoagland invited me to be a part of his image analysis team. I declined the invitation for a few reasons, not the least of which is that I know I do not have the training to really do the work (I believe that Hoagland gets too creative in his analysis fairly regularly – I was at his 1994 lunar presentation at Ohio State (I lived in Columbus at the time), so have followed his work for a long time). The Internet is full of amateur image analysts, be it for the moon landings, JFK, 9/11 and so on, and most efforts are examples of people knowing just enough to be dangerous. In my professional life, I am a specialist in the production and analysis of financial data, and the axiom is that most data users (particularly the execs) only know enough to be dangerous, and are not really fit to make competent determinations of what the data says. On JFK, Apollo, 9/11 and so on, that axiom is richly supported as you surf the Internet on those subjects or get ahold of works like Dark Moon. I am not saying that the official story on JFK or 9/11 is correct, but the amateur investigators sure muddy the waters. It is late, going to bed now. Evan, I am more into the FE/ET stuff than I am having this thread turn into a three-ring circus on Apollo. Start that FE thread soon :- ) Best, Wade
  7. Hi Duane: Please do not misrepresent my relationship with Jay. I originally finished my Apollo essay (in the spring of 2001) before I ever heard of Jay. At that time, I stated that never found anything that the moon hoax crowd put forward that convinced me of fake moon landings, most did not survive my scrutiny, and that I leaned toward believing that the landings were genuine, but would have liked to have seen any evidence that strongly suggested otherwise. It was only after I published my cover-up essay, and it was originally being discussed for its JFK content, not its Apollo content, that one of Jay’s pals looked me up and invited me into a forum that is now defunct. It became instantly obvious that Jay knew what he was talking about, and it was his command of the evidence that impressed me, and the only way that anybody is going to make the case that the moon landings were faked is to adduce some EVIDENCE that helps make their case. Jay help further convince me with facts, evidence, and science. That is what impressed me. He helped correct some of my errors, and added to my understanding of some important technical issues. Finding Armstrong’s Leap was just icing on the cake, and it helped removed Brian’s residual skepticism too. If you know Brian’s relationship to the controversy, he never argued that the moon landings did not happen. If you ever help change an astronaut’s mind about the moon landings, that will be a memorable day in your life. Brian said that some of the evidence MAY have been manufactured, and not to bolster a fake landing scenario, but to make up for lost evidence. I spent months looking into the claims that Percy made and the evidence that he put forth, and I sprinkle those findings throughout my Apollo essay. Almost nothing that Percy held up as evidence of faking the landings survived my scrutiny. Some of it was appallingly bad. I’ll take Jay’s work over Percy’s any day. Again, Duane, it comes down to the evidence. The evidence can speak for itself. Hey, don’t post it to Jay’s forum, put it on the Internet. Sites are cheap and easy to maintain. Way too many people try to get me to pursue their pet Apollo evidence, and it invariably goes down the same tired old path that I went down many years ago. Heck, even Percy does not maintain that the moon landings never happened, but that some of the documentary evidence has been manufactured. If Brian never advocated fake landings, and Percy still does not, who really does? Where is their evidence? Evidence that effectively invalidates hundreds of hours of lunar footage, taken both from the moon and from the orbiting command module, moon rocks, ham radio operators who could hear the conversations from the moon, telescopic evidence of the craft in flight to the moon (Hoagland saw it live back during those days, as did others)? Saying that Ted jumped the gun is a very generous thing to say. I have watched many like Ted make similar “case closed” arguments over the years, and they only end up with egg on their faces. Ted has absolutely nothing of substance to add to the issue, and only makes himself look stupid with those kinds of posts, and then he says stuff like “case closed” after he makes one of those worthless posts? He has zero credibility with me and with anybody who has the slightest understanding of those issues. Again, the conclusions of my Apollo essay are very clear: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#possibilities I find it amazing that people think that I am making the case that the moon landings were faked. Best, Wade
  8. Hi Peter: I am familiar with the rudiments, but in no way would call myself an expert. I CAN direct you to who is more conversant with the physics. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/purpose.htm#physics Yes, FE physics is largely outside the bounds of what is in physics texts. Bearden has been trying to reproduce Sparky Sweet’s stuff for a long time: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#sweet All I can say is that those close to me have seen the Real McCoy in action: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#underground The technology is very real. When I watched a UFO light up on request with aerospace and military personnel: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/ufo.htm#call It knocked my aerospace buds back on their heels. One pal, who also went with me in 2006 and 2007, was in a daze for a week afterward. I was not in a daze (I have seen too much of the strange stuff in my life to be dazed), but immediately afterward, I asked myself if spending an entire long weekend traveling several hundred miles for a five-second show was worth it, and at the time I said yes, and still say so. There is no substitute for being there, but seeing an FE device in action is not easy to do. Just yesterday, I had an exchange with Brian on this recent demo: http://www.thestar.com/Article/300041 Brian noted that that kind of out-of-control acceleration of magnetic motors that are able to tap into the zero-point field has been reported by others, e.g., Troy Reed, John Hutchison, Paramahansa Tewari (partially), and others. Not sure if that helped much. Best, Wade
  9. Brian worked with Buzz in the 1980s. Brian helped get Buzz the job, and they shared the same office for awhile. I am not sure, but I think it was for the same aerospace company that was Brian’s last job for the space establishment. That company went whole hog on Reagan’s Star Wars stuff, and Brian refused to get involved, which cost him his job and career. I do not see Brian’s former moon landing skepticism in any kind of “amazing” light. He made that early-2001 statement long after he had been radicalized and had come face-to-face with the dark underbelly of the space establishment, and it is dark indeed. A relatively benign example of Brian’s exposure to that underbelly was Carl Sagan’s fraudulent “skepticism.” http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#sagan Sagan recruited Brian straight out of NASA, and Brian worked with Sagan at Cornell, where they were the world’s two leading experts on Mars (but the level of information on Mars in those days was extremely sparse compared to today). While Brian eventually woke up from the dead-end of materialistic, mechanistic science and left the Citadel, Sagan became the Citadel’s Chief High Inquisitor, becoming the world’s leading “skeptic.” Studying the parallels and their eventually divergent paths can lead to important understandings, and their stories can become a poignant parable on pursuing the truth and the pitfalls that beckon along the way. Sagan became the world’s leading “skeptic,” while Brian followed his conscience and began finding out how the world really worked. Brian was on the way to becoming a radical long before the 1980s. He led a protest of Ivy League academics right to the Oval Office door not long before Nixon resigned, and he was stopped at the door by one of Nixon’s henchmen, Haldeman if I recall correctly. Brian became McGovern’s energy advisor during his run to the presidency, and that was a long time before Brian became truly radicalized. That is a relatively benign example of what Brian ran into on his journey, and another relatively benign aspect is what I have encountered myself regarding astronauts that have been to the moon. How many times do you think they have been asked about their lunar experiences? I’ll bet the questions got real old for Buzz by 1970, so the terse answers that Brian got are not so hard to understand. I have been in milieus like that one, and it can be easy to read “conspiratorial” motivation into people’s reactions, when it is really something far more innocent. That is one of the hazards of investigating “conspiracies.” There are many ways to get sidetracked into dead ends and get mired in minutia that ultimately does not mean much. There is usually a ton of chaff amongst the kernels of wheat. I am not saying that Buzz is not keeping quiet about many things that he knows, with the “national security” sword hanging over his head, but the terse answers that he and his moon-walking brethren often give regarding their lunar exploits I believe have a far more innocent genesis than they are covering up for the faked landings. The darker stuff that Brian has encountered in the space establishment he will not publicly talk about much, and I will not discuss it publicly until Brian decides to, but let’s just say that it was life-threatening at times. It related to the UFO/ET angle, a subject on which Brian has been one of the most outspoken astronauts, along with Mitchell and Cooper. Brian has publicly stated that Mallove’s murder was when he decided to leave the country, and I was there for those events: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#mallove and I have little doubt that Mallove’s murder was not random. I understand and sympathize with Brian’s position. I have been invited to leave the U.S. for safer pastures several times since 9/11, but I am not ready to give up on America yet, and it is my home. The Big Boys can play very roughly with people who begin snooping into the free energy milieu, as I know all too well: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#hitting Brian wrote the forward to Greer’s latest book: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer and the space establishment’s relationship to free energy, anti-gravity and related technologies is the tree worth barking up, not the “moon landings were faked” angle, IMO. Hey, I looked into the moon landings for many years, and part of me would have welcomed information that the moon landings were faked, even though I lived in Houston when my father worked in Mission Control: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#apollo I have not talked with my father about his NASA days for many years, but he was also open to the idea that not all was how it may have seemed regarding the moon landings. Again, it is not crazy to suspect that we did not land on the moon, but it takes a lot of time to sift through the claims made by those who argue that the moon landings were faked and take a good, long critical look at the evidence. If you do not have a scientific background, however, the going can be hard. It can be good work to do, but I am 99.9% certain that if you really took the deep dive (it takes a lot of time and effort), you would end up where Brian and I are today on the subject. Jay has admitted that it can take a lot of homework to effectively analyze the evidence supporting the arguments that the moon landings were faked. For instance, he had to do some serious digging to counter the “no visible exhaust” angle that the moon hoax theorists use. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#exhaust Jay eventually helped convinced me of it, and that exhaust issue is not just used to argue that the moon landings were faked. William Brian and others used the fact of no (or little) visible exhaust as evidence of anti-gravity being used, not that the footage was faked using a crane or something similar. Again, you are free to do the deep dive on the evidence, and if you come up with something that is truly impressive, I would submit it to Jay and friends (or Evan) before you tout it too much. I understand much of why people think the moon landings may have been faked, but they are barking up the wrong tree, IMO, however well-intended their efforts may be. Best, Wade
  10. Hi James: Brian presented the reasons for his skepticism here: http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html That quote was made several months before I showed Brian Armstrong’s Leap. In early 2001, Brian was “ambushed” by the people who made that FOX “moon hoax” documentary, and took ten seconds of a two-hour interview and put it in their documentary, the ten seconds that they wanted to publish, which was taken a bit out of context. By August 2001, Brian’s residual doubt was removed, and he is not happy with how people keep recycling that early 2001 quote, to use it to keep making him appear to be in the moon hoax believer (or moon landing “skeptic”) camp. I have had truly bizarre interactions with the public on that issue. I used to post to Above Top Secret, but the forum is dominated by trolls, and serious researchers are not welcome there (as another fellow researcher recently said, it is dominated by the “blind and the stupid,” although I also connected with some very hip people there – they were in the minority, however). I was actually banned at ATS, while the trolls had a field day on my threads. It makes the COINTELPRO suspicions about ATS a little more believable, but I think it is just the egos that are in charge there, not a “conspiracy.“ I once made a few posts to some Apollo Hoax threads at ATS, particularly where one poster kept making a lot out of that “skeptical” quote by Brian and the moon landings. I posted and said that I personally helped remove Brian’s residual skepticism, and the poster dismissed everything I had to say on the issue, and said that Brian’s early 2001 quote trumped his August 2001 quote. My mind was boggled, and I stopped contributing to that thread. : - ) Hi Duane: Finding Armstrong’s Leap was not the only thing that put me over the hump on the moon landings being genuine. I was already on this side of the hump when I found his leap. I had looked into the moon landings for a decade by the time I found, with Jay’s help, Armstrong’s Leap. At the time I found Armstrong’s Leap, there was no piece of evidence that the moon hoax crowd put up that held up to scrutiny, as far as the moon landings being hoaxed, that I ever saw, and Jay helped me largely lay aside the lingering questions that I had about the evidence that was put forth to support the hoax angle. As I also write about in my essay, you have to understand a little about the history of the long-running debates about the moon landings and the effects of one-sixth gravity. Until I found the footage of Armstrong’s Leap, there were no recorded feats that conclusively precluded them from happening in earth’s gravity (in analyses by NASA, the moon hoax debunkers AND proponents). All the analyses focused on Young’s Jump-Salute next to the American flag, Rover footage or other astronaut antics. Armstrong’s Leap was the only feat ever filmed on the moon that impressively supported the argument that it was not happening on earth. It helps to understand the history of that debate. The argument that it was done with wires or other tricks has never held up to scrutiny, as far as I have seen. When moon hoax proponents have presented me footage of evidence of wires being used, that evidence never held up to the slightest scrutiny. I am aware of the work to simulate the lunar environment for the moon landings. Yes, some could argue that they were used to stage the fake landings, but that argument is a weak one, IMO, when there is not really any good evidence to support the theory. Staging a lunar environment before the landings is also good evidence that they did their homework before landing, which is partly why the moon landings were so successful. I have seen many, many attempts to show how the images from the moon landings were faked. There is not one piece of evidence that I ever saw that held up. What has been particularly disheartening is to watch hoax believer after hoax believer keep recycling the same tired old “evidence” that does not amount to anything. Ted Twietmeyer’s recent posts at Rense are a classic example, and when I see that stuff, I send it to Jay’s forum, where it is critiqued in a scientific and thorough way. What Ted did is a classic instance of sloppy research parading as insightful critique and uncovering the “smoking gun.” http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1198812229 I’ll be the first to admit that there are too many in the moon hoax debunker camp that have too much of Randi’s smug style. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#randi That is part of what gives fuel to the fire of the moon hoax camp and others who are flayed by the “skeptics,” and I understand and sympathize. I have long dealt with the “skeptics,” http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#friends and have been their victim more than once. About the only honest members of CSICOP I have ever seen may be Feynman and Blackmore, but I was far from impressed with Blackmore’s work: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/spirit.htm#blackmore If a love of the truth motivates people looking into the moon landings, and they have a rudimentary scientific background and some critical thinking ability, they will eventually lose interest in the moon hoax arguments, because they never hold up to rational, scientific scrutiny. I admit that looking into the moon landings for ten years, and sifting through all the evidence, was an important educational process for me. From early 2002 to 2006, I had very little interaction with the public, but persistent people would find a way to reach me, and I would get approached a couple times a year or so by people making the case that the moon landings were faked. They would then present me their evidence or writings, and I could quickly show them where their evidence or logic was faulty, and I would usually direct them to Jay’s forum, where they could test their evidence and theories with highly knowledgeable people, many of whom would give their evidence a fair and rigorous test. Every time, their evidence and theories would not withstand even minimal rigor from Jay and friends, and even more tellingly, most who approached me would refuse to submit their work to Jay and friends, making up lame excuses for not submitting their evidence and theories. Jay knows his stuff and sticks to the facts. Reading his site is highly recommended. http://www.clavius.org/ In this forum, from what I have seen, Evan knows his stuff, and I would take his arguments on the moon landings very seriously, if I were you. On the UFO/ET angle, I am not saying that ALL of the astronauts are “conspirators” in the UFO/ET cover-up, but I would listen to what Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper have had to say on the subject. While Mitchell subsequently disassociated himself from Greer, Mitchell is not denying the ET cover-up, and Greer’s odyssey is highly instructive: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer I KNOW that the technologies that Greer stumbled into during his ET work are real: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#underground Brian O knows what I am talking about, and he KNOWS that the space establishment is deeply involved with the ET issue, even though they publicly debunk the UFO/ET angle. They are lying through their teeth, and that is where fruitful investigation into NASA and the space establishment lies (although it can be perilous and is not recommended for the idly curious – snooping around in that milieu can drastically shorten your life expectancy), not that the moon landings were faked, although immersing yourself in the evidence, and really doing your homework, can be very educational. If you really think you have some good evidence of faking the moon landings, submit it to Jay’s forum and see how it fares. I have yet to see anything stand up to scrutiny, but who knows? Maybe you will be the first, but I advise you to be very careful and do your homework first. If your evidence is of the kind that Ted has publicly presented, or is the kind that Jay’s site and forum has dealt with at length, your evidence won’t last long, as far as being taken seriously. Best wishes, Wade
  11. Hi. I have not posted here for years, and I have been aware of these Apollo posts for a week or two, and just now dug up my user I.D. and password for this forum. I joined a couple of years ago when I saw my JFK work being discussed in an intelligent and serious manner: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...planet&st=0 I am happy to add my two bits to this Apollo discussion. I am surprised that my work gets used from time to time to try making the case that the moon landings were faked. I point out anomalies and mainly show how there is little to the anomalies that show that any faking may have taken place. For the record, my writings are being misinterpreted a little by various parties. For instance, my landing angle of Apollo 12 writings do not argue that it landed at a 6 degree angle, but that it landed a few feet from what probably WOULD have been at least 6 degree angle. They may have landed a few feet away from not being able to take off. I heard from an initiate that the LM was designed to still be able to take off up to six degrees from plumb. If one of those LM legs had landed in the crater a few feet away, I bet that it would have been sitting at greater than 6 degrees from plumb. So, that was taking one hell of a risk to get a porch-eye’s view of Surveyor 3. My Apollo essay should be taken as a layman’s investigation of the Apollo landings. What I found out, after looking into the matter for about ten years, on and off, was that the “we never landed on the moon” arguments never really held any water, as far as I could see. What I did was look into all the areas where faking was claimed, and nothing really held up, once I dug into it. Amateurs can stumble forward, and with Jay Windley’s help, I discovered long-forgotten footage of Neil Armstrong’s leap on the moon: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt My writings in that area are not going to have the rigor of a scientist doing hard research into those areas. What I hope my work did, and I think this may be one reason why people still use my work to make the case that the moon landings were faked, was that there IS plenty about the moon landings that can make people wonder if we really went there or not. When even a Robert Seamans can say that sometimes he looks up at the moon and has a hard time believing humanity actually went there: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#seamens It is legitimate for laypeople to wonder the same thing. What Jay is doing with his site is a great public service: http://www.clavius.org/ I get approached from time to time on the moon landings, by people with some way out theories, and I also run into moon hoax stuff, and when I do, I kick it into Jay’s forum, and they handle it, as I did recently on Ted Twietmeyer’s stuff: http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1198812229 Flying to the moon with rocket technology, in the 1960s, is the technical feat of all time, at least for publicly-available technology. There is one hell of a lot of technology that exists today that can transform the world in ways that are difficult to imagine: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#underground That quote about Brian O’Leary now being a landing believer came from my efforts. I got Brian in touch with Jay, which led to that quote. Seeing Armstrong’s Leap also was key in removing Brian’s remaining residual doubt. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#governor Brian has survived deadly harassment from the space establishment, but it was due to the UFO issue, not the moon landings. The UFO cover-up is the biggest one of all time, and it is joined at the hip with free energy, anti-gravity, etc. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greer That situation is vastly more important than whether the moon landings were faked or not. At this time, I believe that if anything was covered up about the moon landings, it had to do with the UFO/ET issue, not that we never went, which is the conclusion of that part of my site. The radiation and other arguments that I see continually advanced do not hold water, as far as making the arguments that the moon landings were faked. I have some time to discuss these matters, if people want to. Best, Wade Frazier
  12. Gary described that envelope very precisely, with a wax seal and a thumbprint on the wax. Also, that envelope was the bone of contention when Decker called Murphy a few days later and threatened that if he did not return it, Murphy would be “destroyed.” Since Gary says he watched Tower push it across the table to them, if that aspect of the story is doubted, then the doubter must put Gary’s story completely into the realm of fabrication and discard his testimony entirely. In the realm of witnessing events and recalling them later, either for writing books or for court testimony, there is the issue of what people recall and how well they recall it. The modern “skeptical” movement dismisses any and all human testimony (that diverge from the dogmatic pronouncements of authority), saying that human memories are entirely unreliable. Modern deniers of the Jewish Holocaust play the same game (saying that all the death camp survivor testimony is suspect). I have had the misfortune of studying their tripe. In fact, studies of memory show that people can recall specific events very clearly (those with deep emotional or life-changing impact), and the event’s essentials are indelibly burned into their memories. Kind of like, “What were you doing when you heard that JFK was shot?” or “What were you doing when you heard about 9/11?” Nearly everybody who was there will take those vivid memories to their graves. They might misremember some inconsequential details, but the essentials of the core memories can stay clear for the rest of their lives. Because Gary and I were fellow travelers in a very dark place, and he demonstrated his integrity to me (and publishing his book was a highly courageous act), when Gary said he saw something, I believed him. When he theorized about something, such as the Jewish gangster world and generalizations about the Jewish people, I have remained skeptical. I have long pondered the situation in which Gary ended up writing about the Tower meeting. The Ventura County gangsters destroyed his career in 1970 when he innocently got caught in their crossfire (he refused to take a bribe). As Gary’s wife once told me, Gary was a fighter, not a lover. He did not go away quietly, and they tried murdering him once. Gary even ran for sheriff, and they quickly changed the law to make him too old to run. Gary wrote about his Tower meeting as he wrote his manuscript in the early 1970s, while he was running his gas station and liquor store (what he was reduced to to try surviving, and they also stole that from him). When all else failed, they manufactured a fire code violation to “get him” on something. Until you have lived through crap like that, it can be hard to believe, but I have been there, to my great sorrow. Even before I read his book, I had heard about the “alternative” version of several events he wrote about, and I believed them. Gary even wrote about the parents of childhood friends of mine (and not flatteringly, but I believe the truth of what he wrote). Several years ago a former policeman who worked with Gary back then stumbled into my work and got ahold of Gary’s book. He told me that he witnessed an event that Gary described, and that Gary wrote about it accurately. When Gary was writing his manuscript late at night or while manning the counter at his gas station, ten years after the events, it is possible that he got some things wrong about the Tower-related events (it is a small part of his book and not even that important to his book’s narrative). Gary wrote about his encounters with Mick Cohen and with Jack Ruby about twenty-five years after they happened, so recalling the Tower incident would have been easier. When Gary wrote that Tower said that one of Hunt’s ploys for taking out Castro was an exploding cigar, maybe that was what Tower also heard, but we now know that it was a poisoned cigar (or maybe the exploding cigar angle has yet to be admitted by the U.S. government). When I have pondered Gary’s writings, I figured that somewhere between Hunt dreaming up and trying out his Maxwell Smart schemes and Gary writing about them, there was some distortion along the way. Who knows where it happened? That is about the level of skepticism that I have toward Gary’s writings about what he witnessed. As far as what Gary speculated about the JFK hit and other events, I have some respect for them too, but I also realize they are colored by what he lived through and his worldview in general. Living the violent life of a World War II sailor and L.A. policeman goes a long way toward explaining Gary’s worldview and why he was friends with people such as Audie Murphy. Wade
  13. The members of this JFK forum are obviously far better read than I am about the JFK milieu. My connection to it was this: Back in December 1988, my partner sat in solitary confinement in Ventura County Jail, after turning down a billion-dollar offer earlier in the year to stop our pursuit of free energy. December 1988 was the blackest month of my life. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#it After overcoming the urge to violently “clean up” Ventura County, I devoted my life to whatever could spring my partner from jail, and that was when I met Gary Wean. Gary went out of his way to help me, and gave me the best advice that anybody could: nobody anywhere in the American government would help us; if I was going to save my partner, I had to do it myself. I took his advice, and my partner was miraculously released from jail less than two months after I met Gary. I will always be grateful for Gary’s help. Many lives were ruined in those days, including mine. As I read Gary’s book, his Tower Tale was very compelling and spurred my interest in the assassination. Since 1989, I have spent a fair amount of time looking into the JFK evidence. I never saw any compelling evidence that ruled out Gary’s story, and evidence kept coming to light over the years that reinforced it, the Northwoods documents significantly. Unfortunately, my journey took me to places where I brushed shoulders with the cloak-and-dagger world. They almost tried to induct me into it before my free energy days, and fate smiled on me as I unwittingly escaped their clutches. I ended up re-engaging it during my free energy journey, and that is a world that I do not want to revisit. I’ll go watch UFOs fly overhead: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/ufo.htm But that is about it for me anymore. I consider myself “retired” from that world. I respect people who dig into the cloak-and-dagger world, as it is very dangerous. Many prematurely dead people have lived in or investigated that milieu, and I leave that field to those with the fire-in-the-belly to do it. If anybody has any more questions about Gary and John Tower, just email me and I will try to answer them Good luck, Wade
  14. Hi Lee: Yes, I think that Decker and Murphy knew each other quite well. Murphy and Decker’s friendship was the nexus of those police academy luncheons, with Gary and his partner (Frank, who died many years ago) along partly because of Gary’s friendship with Murphy. My thought was that Tower was trying to get information into hands he could trust, kind of like a get-out-of-jail-free card, in case he ended up being targeted for a fall, and maybe because he wanted a chance that the truth might come out. Decker told Murphy that Tower had given it to him in a moment of panic, so it is hard to know what all was going through Tower’s head or what he was facing. I think a covert op up blowing up in Tower’s face, and Decker doing his part to help Tower get out the word (maybe Decker was also trying to save his bacon too) is sufficient, but there certainly could have been other motivations. Selling Murphy a line to manipulate him does not seem to fit Gary’s rendition, as they tried getting the documents back to cover their tails a few days later. I got the sense that there were plenty of panicked people in that situation. I have witnessed situations like that, and self-preservation quickly becomes the overriding motivation for nearly everybody involved. Yes, putting one’s self in the shoes of the man who fled the book depository is a very interesting exercise, and wondering what Decker and Tower were thinking can also be interesting. I am open to other renditions of the scenarios, but I have not seen anything over the years that really conflicts with Gary’s Tower Tale, not what I consider credible, unchallengeable versions of the events. In the end, the big picture of what Gary testified to has held up remarkably well over the years. Be well, Wade
  15. Just letting this thread know that I have posted replies on this subject on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers....php/t2861.html Wade Frazier
  16. Hi Lee: I’ll respond after each question: Welcome Wade! I have a lot of questions I had of course hoped to ask Gary Wean - it's a shame I was unable to do so prior to his death. -Any ideas as to what became of the document that was given to Audie Murphy? I never asked and Gary never volunteered. Having information like that can be hazardous to one’s health, so I trod lightly there. A few years ago, Jim Fetzer asked me if I was interested in doing an interview/debrief of Gary regarding his JFK experiences, but I had other things more pressing on my plate. Gary was the last surviving member of that meeting with John Tower, Audie Murphy and Bill Decker. You could try to contact Gary’s widow, if she is still around. There are others you could contact who were closer to Gary than I was, if you want to try tracking that down. -Was foul play part of why Audie's place went down, and was that related to the document? Gary thought that both Murphy’s and Tower’s plane “accidents” were not accidents at all. Gary said that both planes exploded in mid-air. He saw that kind of stuff at the Santa Paula airport regularly, and Gary’s suspect for rigging the planes that “crashed” after taking off from the Santa Paula airport was the guy who got arrested with John DeLorean (but who knew too much, so the gangster judges who ran Ventura County made sure he disappeared right after he was released). Knocking out planes seems to be SOP (Wellstone, Carnahan, Torrijos, Roldòs and others http://www.ahealedplanet.net/other.htm#neocolonialist who were “in the way” have gone that way). I do not have any inside info about their demises, but people in their world get bumped off for numerous reasons. I am skeptical that Tower and Murphy died because of their JFK knowledge. It is surmised that Tower died because he knew too much about other stuff, such as Iran-Contra. And sometimes a plane crash is just a plane crash. -Did Wean really provide information on the phone calls warning of JFK's impending assassination to RFK just before his assassination - originating from [memory] Ventura County Law Offices? Did Wean retain a copy? Gary wrote about it in his book, but I do not know what documentation there might have been. Unfortunately, plenty of stuff like that is going to be from the memories of those who saw it, and a lot of what Gary wrote about was due to witnessing the events or knowing those who did. Tracking down any documentation there is going to be a tall task. -Have you considered the work of Jim Phelps in his DoeWatch? Jim is also a Forum member, and I'm hoping he'll have something to relate relative to the Piper thread - if it can get back on track. Not familiar with it. Don’t keep up that much on that stuff anymore, sorry to say. -In terms of the overall scenario - do you have any opinions on it? Do you suppose that it may have been 100% a scenario that was provided exclusively to Oswald? Or that it indeed was a plan that may have been hijacked? I have some opinions on what I think happened, but they are leavened by my own experiences, so may be a bit colored and off base. I believe that Tower was involved in the operation that Oswald was part of (as was Tower’s good buddy George Bush the First). E. Howard Hunt “officially” ran it, but I have a suspicion that Hunt may have been “in on” having the fake assassination turn into a real one, or whoever used him thought he was a great dupe, so he was used to “mastermind” Watergate ( and was probably involved in the George Wallace shooting – so Gore Vidal thinks) and so on. It looks like whoever pulled off the JFK hit was probably involved with all of the next twenty years of assassinations and attempts (King, RFK, Wallace, both Ford attempts, Lennon, Reagan), as the MO was similar for all of them (“lone nuts” with intelligence connections and so on). 9/11 looks like a similar MO as the JFK hit and last year’s London bombing, where drills for the real thing became the real thing on that very day. Oswald was obviously a patsy, just as he said. Ruby was involved in the hit (I’ll get to that later in this response). On the day of the shooting, I think that Oswald was probably managed and misdirected and probably was not in the depository window when those historic shots were fired, but immediately realized he had been set up and did his best in an impossible situation. As Tower said, Oswald is unlikely to have shot Tippit, but Tippit was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was taken out by members of the operation. If Tower’s Tale was true, it obviously gave plenty of motivation for the FBI, CIA and military to cover-up their involvement in the fake assassination attempt ploy, and explains a great deal of how various agencies behaved in the aftermath and official “investigations.” It also makes it easy to see why Gary and Murphy realized they were in way over their heads (as Tower also realized). Assassinating heads of state and other shenanigans are not too extreme for the people who run the world from behind the scenes (more on that later, too). - Do you have any clue as to where this information would have been provided to Lee Oswald? Does Oak Ridge ring any bells? Not familiar with that line of evidence. Sorry. - Any idea as to why Tower would have made this information available through Decker to Audie Murphy of all people? Not real familiar with that connection, but there has been no American figure since World War II of Audie Murphy’s stature, in the circles that people like Decker, Tower and Gary ran around in. Murphy is America’s greatest war hero, and to men of that generation Murphy was like…well, as I said, there is nobody like him in America today. Let’s just say that World War II vets and men of that generation looked at Murphy (runt that he was) like a god. Murphy was from Texas, so that was obviously part of the Tower/Decker connection. Gary wrote that Tower did not want to talk to anybody associated with the Feds (obviously, if his story was true), and I think there was some serendipity involved, as Decker happened to be in town a couple weeks after the JFK hit and one thing led to another during their lunch at the L.A. police academy. - Any chance that Wean may have known Loran Hall? Don’t know. -If it was a scenario, of which possibly even JFK himself was aware, since I found an obscure reference once to his having created an assassination film of himself months before the actual event - which was strange - do you believe that the Jewish and Italian Maffia would have had sufficient power to have infilitrated the US Intelligence community to the point of hi-jacking such a plan? I think that the mob personnel were used as “mechanics” by whoever orchestrated the hit. With the Jack Ruby connection, we know the Jewish mob was involved, and the Oxnard connection is intriguing. During my wild ride with Dennis Lee, I saw plenty of strange events, and we eventually interfaced with the people who say they run the world. They are the people who offered us a billion dollars or so to stop pursuing free energy: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#offer During audiences that members of our organization had with that crowd (one of them boasting that he was in the world’s top ten most powerful people), they sometimes made fun of mobsters, even rubbing the nose of people like Carlos Gambino in their inferior status. So, I doubt that the real hit was initiated by the mob, but they were obviously involved, and as you know, some big time mobsters had a beef with JFK/RFK, and were probably “happy to help out.” As I am sure you know, there is little difference between CIA off-the-shelf assets, mobsters and Nazis, as they all worked together from time to time. http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm#gehlen I also have some personal experience with that milieu, but cannot publicly discuss it at this time. -Do you believe that Karen Kupcinet was part of the phone call made from Ventura, or may have inadvertantly crossed lines with another caller? Don’t know. -As per Thomas Purvis in another thread here, I was facinated to learn about yellow paint markers on the curbing on Elm street - does this somehow figure in to the fake or real plan? Don’t know. -Could the number of misses in Dealey Plaza be attributed to a False assassination being unfortunately coupled with a real one? Perhaps, but I doubt it. The fake plan was just to fire some shots from that sniper’s nest, the real one was all those other shooters, IMO. -Did Gary ever comment on photos and films [the ones that were released] from Dealey Plaza? Did he recognize anyone, or perhaps know any identities of folks through Tower, etc.? He never told me about that. -Why do you suppose Bill Decker would have been forthcoming with the information and the contact to Audie Murphy? Dealt with above. It was a unique historical moment. I believe that Tower was part of the “fake assassination” angle, and was not in on the real hit. Imagine the terror somebody like him felt two weeks after the hit, not to mention the guilt (OK, maybe not all that much guilt, but I think his meeting with Murphy was more an act of conscience than it was to cover his butt, but I could be wrong). -Any chance Audie Murphy may have been the contact 'in the music business' that was tipping off Kilgallen? Don’t know. -Are you familiar with the HSCA testimony of Steve Osborne? Is it possible that the camera crews were in position for 2 reasons? Some unaware of what was to unfold [hard to believe]. Not very familiar with it. Sorry I could not give you more answers. That's probably enough for now - I don't expect you to have the answers, but would appreciate your opinion. Welcome aboard - any input much appreciated!
  17. Hello: This is one of the most informed and intelligent exchanges I have seen on the issue of Gary Wean and the JFK hit. I’ll tell some of what I know, and see if there is anything else anybody wants to know. I am the author of this: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#wean I did not know that Gary had died until I saw this thread. I considered him a friend, although we did not communicate very often. My last communication with him was almost four years ago. I hear there is some speculation about his death, and I do not know anything about it, but he was in his mid-eighties when he died. Because he and I trod much of the same territory (had our lives ruined by the people who run Ventura County as their fiefdom), I can speak to how credible his testimony in general was, as far as what he witnessed. For one thing, being a policeman should give him some credibility. I fully believe his John Tower story. Gary mostly wrote his book (written manuscript, typed up by his wife) in the early 1970s, while he was trying to survive what the Ventura County gangsters were serving up. That was many years before revelations such as Operation Northwoods became public knowledge, or even a lot of the stuff about what the U.S. was doing to Cuba. When he first published his book in 1987, Gary hid Tower’s identity, calling him a large man. Tower was about five feet tall. When Tower’s plane “went down” (the day after another Senator died), Gary felt that he was free to tell Tower’s real identity, and he did so in the 1996 edition of his book. Gary once told me that he gave Piper the idea for his book many years ago, when he walked into the Spotlight’s offices in Washington D.C. and talked to Piper for hours about the JFK hit and what he knew. Piper apparently published something before his Final Judgment that did not give Gary enough credit, but Gary is fairly prominent in Final Judgment. It is the only JFK book I am aware of that gives Gary any ink. Gary met with Andy Summers many years ago, but Summers has never mentioned him publicly, to my knowledge (Summers was researching Marilyn Monroe’s death at the time, and Gary was the man in the know about those days in Hollywood). As is evident, Gary’s Tower Tale ties into several of the more compelling lines of evidence with the JFK hit, and yes, it does serve as a sort of meta-theory that can act as an umbrella for many lines of evidence. Until I read Gary’s book in 1989, I did not know much at all about the JFK hit (although, ironically, I lived in Oxnard when JFK died), but his testimony was the center of gravity into my JFK research ever since, and I never saw a credible piece of evidence rule out Gary’s tale, and over the years evidence has kept coming to light (such as the Northwoods document) that only makes his story more credible. The point of my work has never been to “solve the crime,” but to show how unbelievable the official explanations are (and when Nixon himself called the Warren Report a hoax, I suppose it is not difficult to dismiss the official explanations). Gary does go off the deep end on Jews in his work, but it is understandable, as he suffered so much at the hands of Jewish gangsters. Jews do not enter the Tower tale at all. The Ruby connection is an interesting one, however, and Gary met Ruby (Ruby was a fairly senior mob player, who Gary saw with Cohen, and Gary had an interesting chat with Ruby in 1947) My interest lies more in other areas than the JFK hit, such as here: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/conun.htm but I will answer your questions to the extent I am able. Wade Frazier
  18. I am an accountant and former alternative energy activist who spent about 12,000 hours creating my web site here: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/home.htm I live in the Seattle area, and I am joining because my work has been discussed in this forum, and at least one forum member has unsuccessfully tried to contact me.
×
×
  • Create New...