Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jeff Carter

Members
  • Content Count

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Carter

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jeff Carter

    Backyard Photographs

    The “cutout” figure would not necessarily represent an easy photo-editing task, certainly not as simple as the later matte cutout done by a member of the Dallas Police would have it. Tricky matte areas include the small gap between the Oswald figure’s right elbow and his waist, the pistol on his hip, the creases of the trousers, and then the thin barrel of the rifle. Any small mistake would result in an obvious matte line. Also, assuming the Oswald figure’s shadow has been added, it has been carefully overlayed as features of the ground are still visible within the shadow (more apparent in 133-B and 133-C). So not the work of someone inexperienced, and this is one of the reasons why there was an earlier consensus that any fakery would be limited to the pasting of an Oswald head onto another body. The analysts working for the HSCA had the great advantage of working with first generation copies and the existing negative, and a 30x magnifier. Unless they are lying, and I am unaware of any direct refutation of their work, their observations should be factored into these discussions. One important factor is the “curvature of field” (see item 457 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=189&tab=page), which suggests, at a minimum, that all elements within the BYP were filmed with the Imperial Reflex camera, and the positioning of the Oswald figure -if it was to be added later to backyard background - is remarkably consistent with features of the background based on relative sharpness of the image. It should also be kept in mind that the Imperial Reflex camera is an extremely cheap low-end camera, and its evident flaws help the analysis to the extent it can be determined which images originated with that camera. In my opinion, it is the camera itself, along with the mysterious provenance of 133-C, which are the major issues, and if these trails were followed properly by the HSCA then certainly one faction of the conspiracy could have been exposed. Instead, questions of authenticity served as a massive diversion.
  2. Jeff Carter

    Backyard Photographs

    From a technical POV, asserting there are different light sources in the BYP implies the photos are composites created from three or more photos taken at differing times of day. Furthermore, it assumes the forgers managed to stitch these photos together seamlessly, so there is no visible evidence of the “joins” where one photo meets the next. That on its own would be quite a feat. The experts on the record say that simply pasting Oswald’s face onto another body would require a “skilled” technician working with high-end equipment. A seamless composite of multiple photos is another level of accomplishment. The composite argument implies that the forgers were simultaneously technical geniuses and also very sloppy in that the mis-matched shadows reveal their craft. I have a hard time with that, as I also have a hard time trying to figure what any composite work was trying to conceal or why any prospective forgers would take the time to make three forgeries instead of just one. About a decade ago I worked with people from Framestore, one of the top digital effects companies. Achieving composite effects digitally is much easier than what could be done in 1963. Still, the attention to detail and need to precisely control the filming process was most apparent. One factor is the requirement of “plate shots”, a reference frame of a landscape or background, without actors or other similar elements (see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_control_photography). A seamless composite of a BYP utilizing photographs from differing times of day would not be achievable without the photographs matching in the same manner as plate shots (i.e. the camera sat on a tripod in the exact position for several hours). Is this a realistic scenario? I don’t think it is.
  3. Jeff Carter

    Backyard Photographs

    The FBI’s Shaneyfelt, the HSCA’s panel which examined the BYP, and, by the latter’s instigation, two prominent critics who had made appearances on the CBC and BBC doubting the photo’s authenticity, all agreed that the photos have not been manipulated except for the possibility that Oswald’s face could have been pasted onto an unidentified posing figure. This is very different to claims that the photos represent some sort of composite of multiple photos taken at different times and stitched together. The argument against such a composite is that it would not be possible to achieve a seamless rendition of the backyard I.e. that the “joins” would feature obvious flaws similar to the Oswald figure’s chin. The photos do not expose such flaws. Also, while the two magazines held by the Oswald figure do represent competing ideological factions, it is a fact that Oswald did indeed subscribe to both. This is one reason I struggle with the idea that the BYP were created some months after Oswald left Dallas, as it would require the forgers to both know Oswald’s subscriptions and acquire copies backdated to that time in late March. I also wonder how these forgers knew Oswald lived at that address, as his stay was fairly short and known to relatively few people.
  4. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    I don’t regard the National Security/Surveillance State as monolithic and hegemonic. Rather, leading figures within the National Security/Surveillance State regard it as such, as is confirmed by public statements they have made. During the second Obama term the codeword for a hegemonic worldview was “exceptional”, as in “I believe America as the exceptional country.” When I think of “enemies” of the National Security/Surveillance State, neither Trump or Putin really come to mind. The only true enemies seem to be persons and organizations dedicated to Constitutional protections and open government. The Surveillance State has a tight hierarchical structure which precludes factionalism or internal battles. However, America’s ruling class/elite/1% are precisely “faction ridden and given to intense internecine warfare.” On display these days in full intensity. The powers of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DEA have only increased since Boston and Snowden. Very good article today by the excellent reporting team of Paul Fitzgerald-Elizabeth Gould, describing the deliberate manipulation of reality involving events in Afghanistan in the late 1970s, and how clusters of politicized insiders can in fact control national policy utilizing the controlled dissemination of information, with echoes of the internecine warfare of today. https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/27/the-grand-illusion-of-imperial-power/
  5. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    Here is Steele conceding that information in his dossier is unverified: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html Here is CNN reporting, shortly after Clapper stated there had been no verification, that according to unnamed officials portions of the dossier had in fact been verified but they won’t say what portions or if the verified information was pertinent to the RussiaGate narrative: https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/ Here is confirmation that the persons behind the Steele dossier were key sources to the Isikoff Yahoo News article. The “senior U.S. law enforcement official“ who confirms the Steele allegations to Isikoff is likely an FBI source as it was the FBI which was directly involved: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/yahoo-news-michael-isikoff-describes-crucial-meeting-cited-nunes-memo-231005733.html This Yahoo article is directly referred to, and quoted, in Application 1 of the document released over the weekend (p21-23) Here are some examples of Robert Parry’s excellent work on this story: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/29/the-sleazy-origins-of-russia-gate/ https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/29/the-democratic-money-behind-russia-gate/ https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/13/the-foundering-russia-gate-scandal/
  6. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    hi Paul - the information in the dossier has not panned out. The last official statement, by Clapper in early 2017, conceded that it remains unverified. Steele himself has been backtracking since facing a lawsuit by one of the persons named. Both Steele and persons from the FBI leaked material from the dossier to the media in September 2016, and the media reports generated were then portrayed in the FISA warrant request directed at Page as independent information corroborating the information in the dossier. (just like Cheney had his people brief reporters with phony Iraqi WMD information, and then cited the resulting news stories as further proof for his false claims).
  7. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    It is my understanding that the overt move to institute a fascist political structure in the United States was the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. Douglas Valentine has discussed how this legislation codified a security architecture first developed by the CIA’s Phoenix Program, expressed in America through Homeland Security and its networks of Fusion Centres. It is common now for US police forces to meet any unsanctioned political protest with the display of heavy weaponry and armoured vehicles. The militarization of the police to the degree it is now was largely carried out during the Obama administration. As was the huge increase of use of deadly force by police agencies - well over 1000 persons killed every year for a few years now. It has been established that the NSA and its 5-Eyes partners basically scoop up all communication on the planet, including US persons, and store it in searchable databases. This blatantly unconstitutional activity is justified by assurances the strictest procedures are in place to prevent abuse of the system. The information released over the weekend confirms such assurances mean nothing. In the case of Page, an American citizen was subjected to state-directed surveillance based solely on unverified information. More troubling, that citizen had been connected to a presidential political campaign, and the unverified information had been gathered on behest of such campaign’s political opponents with the express intent of establishing information which could damage that campaign. Furthermore, the FBI agent in charge of the FISA warrant as been revealed as extremely partisan in favour of the political opponents, and had discussed ways of using his office to support them in and around the time of developing such warrant. And, according to established procedure, the approved surveillance was not limited to the subject of interest, but the net also included any of that person’s contacts and associates. Meaning that, in effect, a presidential campaign was subjected to state surveillance based solely on unverified and possibly prejudiced information. And permission to do that was effectively rubber-stamped by the supposed gate-keepers. That is far beyond the dirty tricks squads of Watergate days. I understand your position that Trump represents a unique danger to your republic. I’m not sold on the fascist/racist hyperbole - I.e. that Trump’s fascist and racist character is somehow leagues beyond what already exists. The fascism/ racism problem in the U.S. has a bipartisan institutional character, and as long as people insist on viewing the issue through a binary Democrat/republican good/evil lens , then understanding the problem in sum and what to do about will remain unclear. What is needed is clear-minded critical thinking.
  8. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    Hi Paul - yes, for sure I can agree that Trump is a bully and that he probably is a crook to the same extent that the others in his business milieu are crooks. Totally agree that the constant focus on alleged Russian meddling is a big tactical mistake, not least because it diverts awareness from the real threats to the democratic process in your country. The corporate media’s decision to keep ratcheting anxiety and hysteria to ever higher levels, as seen this past week, risks provoking something like a psychotic break. I remember reading an observation from a historian a few months ago warning that the level of division and rancour within the federal government has not been seen since the years leading to the Civil War. The FISA warrant issue I mentioned is back in the news cycle. The corporate media is vastly underplaying this facet and therefore many people are not aware of the issues (it is mostly discussed by people on the right, but Consortium News has also been covering it). In a nutshell, it appears that, in the Fall of 2016, politicized members of the FBI used opposition research paid for by the Democratic Party to justify and acquire access to NSA surveillance databanks directed at a member of the Trump campaign team, and using the “hops” revealed by Snowden, whereby anyone in direct contact with the targeted person is also added to the surveillance net, this seems to mean the Trump campaign was being directly spied on by agents of the government politically allied to the Democrats. After the election, Trump was briefed by the head of the NSA, Mike Rogers. After the meeting the Trump transition team abruptly moved from Trump Tower to a location in New Jersey. And inappropriate use of FISA warrants for domestic political advantage appear to stretch back at least to the start of 2016. Here is a more detailed summary if anyone is interested: https://themarketswork.com/2018/04/05/the-uncovering-mike-rogers-investigation-section-702-fisa-abuse-the-fbi/ And here is the late Robert Parry from Consortium News wondering if the Russian meddling narrative wasn’t merely politicized intelligence: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-gate-assessment/ This past week I’ve actually read conservative Americans who say they are prepared to disavow the Patriot Act because they now agree with the civil libertarians who argued from the start that the sweeping surveillance powers were sure to be abused. It is the perfect moment for a bi-partisan grassroots pushback against the surveillance state, but many on the liberal side of the spectrum have been convinced by a phony politicized narrative and have circled the wagons in common cause with the Intelligence agencies.
  9. The United States supported the Indonesian coup in the mid 60s, and the CIA created lists of persons deemed as potential political opponents to the new authoritarian regime. Hundreds of thousands killed. The CIA created the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, an effort to identify and neutralize political opposition to the South Vietnamese dictatorship. Tens of thousands killed. This effort morphed into the Latin American death squads of the 1970s and ‘80s - directed at the political opposition to authoritarian rule in the region. Hundreds of thousands killed. The death squad model was later imported into Afghanistan and Iraq, where it targeted political opponents to the US occupation and, in Iraq, was used to foster a sectarian bloodbath that US planners called the “Salvador Option”. Tens of thousands killed. Douglas Valentine has written extensively on the above. President Obama himself approved a death-by-drone program directed at opponents of US overseas activity, and he also participated in selecting targets for these extra-judicial assassinations, expressly illegal under international law. Thousands killed, including a high number of innocent bystanders. No one calls Obama a “thug”. The plane crashes of Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan were very suspicious. Both men could be said to have been impediments to the intentions of the W Bush administration. Maybe JFK Jr the same. The death of the reporter Michael Hastings appears to have involved the remote control hijacking a his vehicle. He had run afoul of some top military people.
  10. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    hi Kirk you asked for names and I gave you some names…a couple of quick searches easily found material which described hawkish figures in the mix for a Clinton administration, and all of those articles anticipated that Clinton would herself be hawkish in her foreign policy. That’s just the mainstream stuff skimmed off the top. Fluornoy was a bit beyond "prospective" for the Defense Dept job. Hillary had already destroyed Libya and encouraged the Honduras coup. The substantive link in my post was the “rough blueprint for several crucial aspects of American foreign policy, which we believe the next occupant of the White House should adopt…” https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order This report is from Fluornoy’s own think tank advocating US hegemony, higher military budgets, and more assertive military activity across the world utilizing “ new approaches or more consistent application of time-honored approaches.” Just read the introduction, it says enough about where these people are coming from. A lot of information at the time indicated this thinking would be informing Clinton’s foreign policy decisions. The report advocates the application of military force under the assumption that US military power was without equal and that adversaries would not choose to challenge it. If this doctrine was tested in Syria, Russia certainly would have challenged. The pressure on Clinton to escalate against that challenge coupled with her psychology…. her cackling over the death of Gaddafi was a big reveal on her character. Obama did actually resist enormous pressure to escalate in Syria i.e. intervene using all military assets, while Clinton had consistently endorsed establishing a no-fly zone.
  11. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    hi Kirk - thanks for the sarcasm. Here’s a name: Michele Flournoy was slated to be Clinton’s Defense Secretary. Here’s a Guardian article which has background on her thinking and states she has “an agenda that confidently asserts American leadership in the world, backed by strong military force.”: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/17/michele-flournoy-hillary-clinton-possible-pentagon-chief-isis The Guardian article points out Fluornoy , through the think tank Centre For A New American Security of which she held a senior position, released a policy directive in the spring of 2016 which called for a more assertive US foreign policy relying on the use of military force. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order There were others such as Michael Vickers, Michael Morell, Matt Olsen, slated to be involved in a Clinton administration who were known outspoken hawks. As you can see by the articles below, these people are described as preferring a “muscular” approach to the world: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/08/clinton-taps-former-obama-officials-for-transition-teams-at-state-defense/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-would-differ-barack-obama-foreign-policy-n653596 The indications from these people were that Clinton, upon achieving the presidency, would move to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, which would have required a direct confrontation with the Russian military. This was openly talked about in the US press in the autumn of 2016, as can be seen above (except the confronting the Russians part was usually left out). Furthermore, Obama’s Defence Secretary Ash Carter, also a potential Clinton cabinet member, made a policy statement in autumn 2016 announcing plans to "sharpen our military edge" as the next phase of the Pivot To Asia initiative, a policy designed to contain China. This next phase would rely on a big increase of military assets in the South China Sea area and more naval patrols directed at the Chinese presence there. https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/ash-carter-asia-pivot-south-china-sea/index.html
  12. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    The Politico article shared by Cliff insists there is “irrefutable evidence” of Russian meddling in Election 2016. A common refrain. It should not be forgotten that there was also, or so we were assured, irrefutable evidence that Lee Oswald shot JFK. That Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction was irrefutable as well, a “slam dunk.” Just a few months ago the British government created an international incident based on, they claimed, irrefutable evidence of which there could be “no doubt” because it was so “overwhelming.” And yet, since, every single one of their major assertions has been shown to lack any substance at all. What I see with the Trump thing is an elected President moving forward with a policy initiative which he campaigned on. And facing furious opposition from a power nexus tied to the Intelligence community and the corporate media. The Intelligence community and the corporate media were also deeply involved with selling the lies about Oswald and Iraqi WMD. Skepticism on the Russian meddling issue is a healthy position, in my opinion. By the way, there was a big revision to the “irrefutable evidence” published by the NY Times on Wednesday. It looks like the “collusion” angle has now been dropped, and instead Trump is portrayed as simply psychologically incapable of processing the clear irrefutable evidence which had been assembled. The Times article is written in exactly the same slippery imprecise language - implying things without actually stating them - that one can find in the official documents and news reporting that appeared assuring Oswald’s guilt and WMD in Iraq. The holes and fault lines in the “shifting narrative” portrayed by the NY Times are obvious if one has followed this story from all sides, but otherwise it’s just more irrefutable evidence. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html
  13. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    Certain Republicans, mostly in the House of Representatives, have been weaving their own Election 2016 conspiracy theory, which drops the Russians and instead focuses on politicized misuse of government surveillance power, i.e. using FISA warrants to conduct partisan opposition research illegally. This theory involves Perkins Cole, Fusion GPS, the DNC, Crowdstrike, the FBI, Steele Orbis, and GCHQ. There is a redacted document which 1) confirms the FBI was using “private contractors” to do “analysis” using the databases accessible only through the FISA warrant. 2) these private contractors were often abusing FISA restrictions on accessing information on US persons. If the redacted names of these private contractors are revealed to be DNC associated firms like Crowdstrike or Fusion GPS, then the Democrats will face serious credibility issues and the Russian influence narrative will really crumble as its origins can be linked with opposition research activity on the part of the Brits (according to the Republican theory). Neither the RussiaGate conspiracy theory or the competing FISA Abuse conspiracy theory can be determined at this point to be correct or true by the public because the evidence to support either narrative is classified. But the House Republicans who have apparently seen the unredacted information appear confident, and certainly Trump felt secure enough to go ahead with the Putin meeting. If this blows up on the Democrats, then they would have compounded the mistake of anointing Hillary then losing the election, with the mistake of wasting two years going all in on a RussiaGate conspiracy theory.
  14. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    Cliff - your partisanship is clouding your analytical skills. If you believe Comey released the emails because he was on Team Trump the whole time, then why does nothing which occurred before or afterwards fit with that assumption? That is why I speculate that some other matter forced his hand, and the release was similar to a limited hangout. “The only reason Trump gave for not believing the indictments was Putin's "strong, powerful denial." That’s not correct, he alluded to other reasons, technical questions, which have been part of the debate stateside. “Publicly back Putin over his own Justice Department? Fk'n traitor…” My country right or wrong? Wasn’t that the fall-back reactionary position not so long ago? Besides, he didn’t “publicly back Putin” but said Putin has a position and the Justice Department has a position. His stance seems to be that he has an open mind on the matter, which has been spun by the media to mean he is a traitor. The internalization of McCarthy-esque paranoia, fealty to the Intelligence apparatus, and refusal to deal with things as they are on behalf of many intelligent rational people in America is astonishing to witness. Again, I am no supporter of Trump as a businessman or politican, but my more objective take as an observer outside of the U.S. is that Trump is obviously an unvetted POTUS whose policies have gone “off-script” and the permanent deep state is determined to ruin him and have been since the moment the election results were confirmed. Trump’s unforgivable sin is his desire to ease tensions with Russia, there's no real push-back amongst the political class on most of his other policies. That both the campaign to demonize Putin and the campaign to get rid of Trump have extensively utilized known propaganda techniques such as repetition and insult, and that the equivalent of Orwell’s Two Minute Hate is now a daily feature of America’s media-sphere - might suggest that clear thinking has been abandoned.
  15. Jeff Carter

    I agree with Trump

    I found it interesting how the final question of the Helsinki press conference, a direct request to Trump to endorse the substance of Mueller’s two indictments of Russian persons - one on election meddling and the other on email hacking - became in effect a loyalty oath. And when Trump refused to directly answer, and spouted some reasons why the indictments might be lacking, that became the specific reason that the immediate charges of “Treason!” started to thunder across the commentariat and are continuing. It wasn’t Treason due to breaching the Constitution, it was treason because he would not accept the “truth” of an untested Indictment or accept the “word” of a small portion of the Intelligence community loyal to Brennan, Clapper, Hayden, etc - persons who actually have breached your Constitution and lied about it. I don’t know why Comey released those emails late in the election cycle, but he can’t be said to be a Trump guy and if anything was tied to the “deep state” faction lining up behind Hilary. There have been hints of intense internal divisions within the FBI at that time. I would suggest Comey’s move was a reactive measure to stave off some other event which would have had more far-reaching consequences. Terrible as it is, “racist appeals to the worst instincts of the worst Americans” have been part of the political playbook since the beginning. I’m glad Hilary lost - she was assembling a national security team of neoliberal hegemonic globalists who gave every indication they were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority. The TPP trade agreement was also set to be ratified with no public debate or input, which would have codified a neoliberal corporatist economic structure resistant to any reform or reevaluation.
×