Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Jeff Carter

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Carter

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. I would comment, but in light of today’s indictments and being Canadian, I fear any critical commentary might place me in legal jeopardy for sowing discord in your fragile fragile country.
  2. Two Questions For James DiEugenio

    The Hill article engages in some of the micro-analysis tendencies critiqued by Cliff Varnell. A conclusion that hacking or uploading information at high rates of speed is “not impossible” does not in turn prove that hacking occurred in the first place. (this type of argument has often been employed in network JFK documentaries, as elements of the SBT or the rapid fire of the Mannlicher Carcano are analyzed, shown to be not impossible, so therefore Oswald did it). Just as the SBT is vitiated by the low back wound, the not impossible upload speed is beside the point as the verifiable trail of the alleged hack should be sitting with the NSA all this time but has not been produced. The upload speed is a secondary issue, and was introduced as a supporting argument. The Hill’s critique treats it as a foundational argument. The Hill article also supports its position by stating: “The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow…” This is a reference to the declassified document from January 2017, the one which consists of opinions from “handpicked agents” which cannot be factually established. This is how “received wisdom” is perpetuated from incomplete feedback loops. Cambridge Analytica demonstrates the urgent need for media literacy and critical thinking skills curricula in public education programs. The alleged links of the company to Russia are highly tenuous.
  3. Two Questions For James DiEugenio

    Tommy - sorry for being erudite. I believe Wm Binney made the point that the fingerprints of any hacking could be identified by the NSA, as was the case a few years ago when the Chinese government was busted for hacking attempts against US gov’t computers. There was no dispute in that case, unlike this scenario. Here, the NSA has either been inexplicably sitting on evidence or has no evidence. Also, Scottish diplomat Craig Murray was indirectly involved with the DNC emails and Wikileaks, and he has been adamant that it was a leak not a hack. Murray and Binney are straight-shooters and credible sources. Otherwise, your questions veer to the “when did you stop beating your wife” side of the ledger and are best left alone.
  4. Two Questions For James DiEugenio

    One of the lessons from the JFK case is the need to identify politicized intelligence, which has been a damaging feature of the American system for some time - i.e. Iraqi WMD, Team B in the 1970s, the various reports emanating from Mexico City regarding Oswald’s alleged meetings and public threat-making, etc. Russiagate, in my opinion, is a subsection of a broader “Russian threat” concept which really gained traction during the 2014 events in Ukraine - which, if analyzed objectively, demonstrates both provocation and extreme deceit on behalf of the NATO alliance. The purpose appears to be linked to justifying expensive arms programs, including a multi-trillion dollar nuclear weapon revamp. This threat enhancement was exactly the intent of Team B back in the 1970s. Most of the intelligence developed by Team B was later shown to be BS, but it helped justify the Reagan arms buildup. The old Roman adage comes into play here: who is guarding the guards? When a report is sold as the absolute judgment of the entire intelligence community and then through gradual quiet retractions revealed to be simply the opinions of “hand-picked” agents - even as the report is used to ignite a media firestorm and generate hostile diplomatic manoeuvres - then there is a distinct whiff of deliberate manipulation in the air. And, since at least 2002, the mainstream media is joined at the hip with these dark arts, and could well be said to be co-conspirators (just as they manipulated the public over the Warren Report). For example, consult the New York Times coverage of the release of the unclassified Russian meddling document I shared.The reporters aren’t stupid and presumably read it, but report the findings as “conclusions” and do not mention the critical page 13 qualifications at all. Just a few weeks ago the Times described Russian hacking/meddling as “objective reality”, linking to precisely that document as their proof. There have been no public admissions or confessions, and the intelligence from outside the country is less than it again seems. (Or may be compromised as well - remember that, if the CIA’s Mexico office had their way with their Oswald stories, it would all have been “corroborated” by Mexican authorities, and remember that lies from the Brits helped cement the WMD story in 2002). That said, I too prefer facts to unsubstantiated theories and feelings. Like a lifeboat in a xxxxstorm.
  5. Two Questions For James DiEugenio

    I agree with Lawrence, and suspect the initiator of this thread just enjoys needling certain people. There is a sort of distant relevancy though. Q 1) What is your theory as to how we ended up with an anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-CIA, anti-FBI, Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able, expendable, "useful idiot" of VladimirVladimirovich Putin for President? A noticeable trend across much of the West in 2016 was electoral success by candidates perceived to be outside the prevailing establishment. Trump’s victory in the Republican primary was fully in keeping with that trend, and arguably the federal election to some extent as well. Clinton was a quintessential establishment candidate with huge negative ratings to boot. Q 2) Do you agree with our intelligence services that Kremlin operatives Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, and Guccifer 2.0 (I should add Julian Assange, too, but I don't want to be overly "sarcastic") not only hacked DNC's and Podesta's and RNC's e-mails, but parceled out during the campaign only e-mails from the first two of those organizations, and only those e-mails which were perceived by many as being damaging to Hillary Clinton? The intelligence services haven’t actually made any conclusions with which to agree or disagree with. The intelligence community’s assessment, often referred as representing the views of all 17 US intelligence agencies, was “drafted and coordinated” by three agencies - CIA, FBI, and NSA. Further clarification revealed the assessment was more accurately described as drafted by a few “handpicked” individuals from those three agencies. The assessment features the following information: “Judgments are not intended to imply we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” This means the assessment represents simply the opinions of handpicked agents, opinions which are not necessarily factual. And although the agents from the CIA and FBI expressed “high confidence” in their opinions, the report goes on to say: “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or certainty; such judgments might be wrong.” Here is the document, and the above quotes can be found on page 13: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf To my knowledge, actual facts about purported “Russian hacking” or other election meddling have not yet been conclusively established and the much referred intelligence assessment makes no claim to accuracy. So there is no basis to claim “our intelligence services” have made any conclusions, despite what the CIA, New York Times, MSNBC, Tommy or anyone else might say. Aren’t we aware from the JFK case of parsed language and fake news? Or the preference to consult original documentation rather than rely on received wisdom?
  6. Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    hi Chris they are describing running the newly processed film on an “analyst projector”. These were common in film labs to allow a quick look at recently developed films to identify any flaws that may have occurred - which in most cases meant prints struck from the negative but also, as here, developed positive films (which had no negative). These projectors sent the film through the gate in a way which minimized contact so as to not introduce scratches or wear. I believe they were variable speed, so not limited to 4x speed. Analyst projectors could also easily move back and forth from forward to reverse. But yes, 4x means 96 frames per second, which means the assassination sequence would have passed through very rapidly. I wonder, once the motorcade appeared, if the projectionist didn’t slow it down closer to 24 frames. The responses from those there certainly suggest that - but unfortunately Chamberlain and the rest were never asked the precise questions which might clarify. The description of the film as “needle sharp”, “clear”, and “beautiful” echo what Josiah Thompson would say when he looked at Life’s “original” a few years later.
  7. Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    An explanation for why frame z-133 is not washed out similar to Z-001 would reside in the spring mechanism powering the camera: the play at the very top of the wind (assuming Zapruder had fully wound the camera to start) exposes the initial frames for longer period of time than restarting the camera a little deeper into the unwinding process. Such that the taught spring holds its tension during the duration of the pause between stopping and starting, and so is up-to-speed almost immediately. Z-133 is a little brighter than the following frames, which is consistent with that thought. Not 100% on this explanation. It is something that could be tested.
  8. While yes the Chicago Secret Service write that the alleged Hidell money order was found in Kansas City, they are mistaken and seem to have associated the confirmation a money order had been located with their knowledge the search for the money order was taking place in Kansas City. The alleged money order was instead found in Washington. But the Chicago report does confirm that most everyone thought it would be located in Kansas City. John Armstrong was right to point that out. Here is the report by the Secret Service in Washington, which covers that side of the story. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=118&tab=page Curiously, Holmes is not mentioned. The liaison in Texas, who supplied the money order information and requested the search, is said to be Postal Inspector Stevens from the Fort Worth Postal Inspection Service. Was Holmes' “boss” the inspector in Fort Worth, not in Washington?
  9. Alexandra Zapruder Book: Part 2

    The process of changing frame-rate speed while a motion-picture camera is in operation is known as “ramping”. This refers to a necessary gradualism in the transition from one rate to another. So to theoretically propose that the Zapruder camera switched from “run” to “slow motion” during the filming of the Z-film, the math must take the “ramping” into account. i.e. if, for example, the button was pushed to slow motion at, say, frame 150 - what would not happen is the following: frames 1-149 recorded at a rate of 16fps (16fps manufacturer’s rate); frames 150 - onward recorded at a rate of 48fps. There would necessarily be a period of transition before the 48fps speed was reached (one second or two seconds, or some fraction thereof… not sure). So, for example, frames 150-180 would represent a transition period (this is an example, not scientific exactness), and frame 181 onwards would represent a rate of 48fps. As I’ve mentioned before - any sudden immediate change in film speed would result in in the film snapping apart (if changed to a higher speed) or jamming up within the camera (if changed to a slower speed). The change in shutter speed must also be accounted for. At 16fps, the exposure time for each frame is 1/32 of a second. At 48fps it is 1/96 of a second. At the lower rate of speed, each frame is exposed for a period 3 times longer than the higher frame rate. The shutter adjustment cannot occur automatically in the space of 1/48 or even 1/16 of a second (it would "ramp" as well). Therefore the difference in exposure at the point of a theoretical sudden immediate film speed change would be visible. Nothing like that is seen in the Z-film. My other caution in assuming the Z-film was at least partially filmed at the slow-motion speed, is that not one of the persons who saw the film on the day or over the weekend have ever suggested the images played out in slow-motion, though it would have been an obvious and pertinent observation.
  10. How did Hosty expect to talk to Marina?

    Alexander Kleinerer featured in the "What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina?" thread from last year. Kleinerer was the only witness to claim to have personally viewed Oswald physically abuse Marina. Kleinerer also appears in a few FBI memos which are concerned with possible Jack Ruby associations with Import/Export businesses. Notable in those memos was a mis-spelling of Kleinerer's name as "Kleinlerer" - which is the exact same mis-spelling as appears here in 1968. Actually, now relooking at the paperwork, it seems that the surname "Kleinlerer" is correct."Kleinlerer" is used for his affidavit to the Warren Commission. "Kleinerer" is mistakenly spelled in several testimonies of White Russians and in at least one FBI memorandum. Still, this info from 1968 confirms him as part of the Dallas area White Russian/intelligence milieu, and imho his claim to have witnessed a coercive situation between Lee and Marina is suspect.
  11. It is not hindsight. The record from 1962-63 shows the FBI had extensive sources within the Post Office. Surveillance on Oswald and Marina (PO Box 2915) would occur because of the Soviet/ left wing activity associated with the mailbox, not because of suspicion of a "violent or a potential assassin." The future assassination does not come into play. Chapters 14-16 of Newman's "Oswald and the CIA" touches on a number of the issues associated with surveillance of Oswald and the US Postal service: "The early 1960s were tense years in the US-Soviet Cold War, and the Soviet Embassy in Washington was enemy territory as far as the FBI and CIA were concerned. That embassy would have been among the highest priority targets of the American intelligence community, and the embassy's mail would have been carefully watched - especially mail to and from Soviet citizens in America." Again: December 31, 1962 Marina writes to the Soviet Embassy and includes new mailing address PO Box 2915, Dallas.
  12. "In these circumstances, it is difficult for me to see as suspicious the fact that some informant in the Dallas post office didn't immediately scream "Lee Harvey Oswald just received a rifle!" The issue isn't exactly that. What the record indicates is that the US Post Office had a relationship with the FBI, and post office informants were a common source of information for the bureau's agents. That Oswald subscribed to left/communist literature and Soviet magazines would have/should have created attention to his P.O. Box 2915 address, especially in conservative Dallas. That this post office box was also referred to in a communication from Marina Oswald to the Soviet Embassy should also have triggered attention (Hoover testified that everything mailed to that Embassy was opened and read ahead of delivery). It seems either 1) there was no active interest in a Soviet/communist linked PO Box 2) a postal employee screwed up and missed the rifle delivery and the new name (Hidell) associated with a Soviet connected PO Box 3) activity with PO Box 2915 was routinely watched but this information was not shared with the Warren Commission, and Hidell/rifle either did not trigger investigation or such investigation was buried 4) a rifle was never actually delivered to PO 2915 In my opinion, #1 & 2 are highly unlikely.
  13. To emphasize the visibility of Oswald's Dallas postal box, Marina listed P.O. Box 2915 as her new mailing address in a letter to the Soviet Embassy December 31, 1962. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=513&tab=page I believe Hosty would claim that a source inside the Dallas Post office helped him locate the Oswalds on Neely Street. There wasn't a change-of address form created for this address that could be accessed, but Marina did map it out in a letter to Ruth Paine dated March 4, 1963. Otherwise hard to determine how informant inside Post Office could have that information: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=107&tab=page
  14. This version of the limited hangout was first promoted on the CBS program "Face The Nation" in November 2013 by Peggy Noonan and Bob Woodward. Their discussion on this program also, I believe, introduced the term "deep state" to the American mainstream media. Noonan claimed the coverup was engineered by "patriots" who avoided WWIII while also preserving the State which would eventually win the Cold War. A potted history, for sure, but also an acknowledgment the official story had withered against the 1990s document releases. But such a slow agonizing withering...
  15. Here is a very good summary of the history of the internet and issues of net neutrality which, read in conjunction with the article Douglas Caddy posted above, reveals how deceptive the remarks by the FCC chairman really are. https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/