Mark Stapleton

Can't wait to get my hands on it. I agree with J Raymond Carroll--Vince Palamara is a pioneering researcher who's work regarding the Secret Service should be read by all.

Sadly, I agree with you, Mark. Unfortunately the average citizen doesn't share our determination to see this matter comprehensively resolved. The public mostly doesn't care, and if they do, it's not one of their main priorities in life. As I see it, again it comes down to the Government. It's probably a pipe dream, but maybe the Iraq fiasco will result in widespread public dissillusionment and distrust of Government, resulting in a reappraisal of the behavior of Governments past and present. That would be the right time for the research community, with some effort, to push the issue up the ladder of public concerns.

Charlie, I agree with your thoughts. Basically only a Government investigation, conducted by either a special investigator or a panel of appointees, will have a chance of success. The major problem would be bureaucratic resistance to the investigation from within the agencies (and possibly from the mainstream media). This problem would need to be addressed by determining what the powers of those conducting the investigation will be, right from the start. From this one could ascertain whether the investigation was real or a sham. It would require a very determined President to see it through, but it's possible. The most interesting aspect, IMO, is the question of what the Government would do if the findings incriminated past Presidents, close allies, the JCS or any longstanding American institutions.

I don't think my predictions were too bad. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that's some mighty fine predictin'. I predict Australia will regroup and win the fourth test. England's failure to win in Manchester will come back to haunt them. Australia escaped with a moral victory ie. they were outplayed, but salvaged a draw. John and Steve, what do you predict?

Well put, Terry. Things might come to a head sooner than we think anyway. I think the looming oil price crisis has the potential to wreak havoc in western economies. The price shocks in the early seventies caused by OPEC making cuts to production caused inflation to temporarily run out of control here in Australia although the overall oil price rise was only about 20%. Today, some experts predict the price may double over the next 12-18 months. If this occurs, questions need to asked: 1. Why haven't preparations been underway for the widespread alternative use of biomass fuels? 2. Have the oil companies bribed western politicians into ignoring the looming oil crisis? 3. Why have our leaders allowed our economic health to become wholly dependent on a dwindling non-renewable resource? I was listening to a doco about oil on the radio last week. One thing really shocked me. An oil expert from Texas who has been in the oil import/export business for 30 years said that, based on all relevant factors such as supply, demand, replaceability etc, the price of a barrel of crude should be $500--not $65 as it is currently. If, as I suspect, the oil crisis causes major dislocation in western countries then we'll get the political changes you were discussing. Under the current system, political leaders are only accountable to their sponsors--those who provide them with funds--but a major economic crisis caused by oil would be rightly seen as an inexcusable breach of trust by those entrusted to run the economy. It would require a change to the political system to ensure transparency and accountability.

All square with two tests left. England are entitled to feel confident about their prospects, given their mastery of the new bowling paradigm: reverse swing. Terry Aldermen was given credit for swing bowling the Ashes back to Australia in 1989. Andy Flintoff and Simon Jones are attempting to "reverse swing" them back to England.

Politics in the early 1960s was very different to the late 1960s. It was Richard Nixon who really developed the idea of “black propaganda” in American politics (I would have thought you would have remembered that Tim). Of course lots of journalists knew about JFK’s affairs but they also knew that no newspaper would publish these stories. This includes those newspapers that hated JFK. It was an agreement that held until Nixon. It was an arrangement that suited both parties. The Republicans had not published stories about the sexual activities of F. D. Roosevelt and the Democrats had not written about Dwight Eisenhower. Nor did they write about Nixon’s homosexual relationship with Bebe Rebozo. Dorothy Kilgallen was a close friend of Florence Smith, who had been having an affair with JFK since 1944. A friend asked her why she did not write an article about JFK’s love life (Kilgallen held right-wing views and was the country’s leading gossip columnist at the time). Kilgallen replied that journalists did not do that kind of thing. Anyway, if they did write such stories, the papers would never print these stories. You should read Seymour Hersh’s book, The Dark Side of Camelot, to see how this worked. This is why JFK was so reckless with his sexual activities. For example, the FBI had evidence of him making regular visits to Cuba in the 1950s in order to carry on his affair with the ambassador’s wife. In the 1950s and early 1960s it was information about financial corruption that most worried politicians. People like Lyndon Johnson used this information to blackmail politicians. If the politician did not play ball, the story would be leaked to people like Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson. They would publish stories about corruption but as far as I am aware, they never went with stories about sex. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, Nixon was a fudgepacker? That's new. Are you sure about that?

Very interesting account. Of course, the Australian government is also a supporter, along with Blair, of George Bush’s adventures in Iraq. It is not a coincidence that all these policies have been fully supported by another Australian, Rupert Murdoch. He of course has tremendous media power in the US, UK and Australia. Murdoch owns 179 newspapers worldwide. All of them supported the invasion of Iraq. Murdoch admitted in an interview in the Guardian that he had ordered all his newspapers to support this war. The main reason for this was his belief that the invasion would result in lower oil prices. This in turn would increase share prices and would help the economies of both the US and UK before Bush and Blair went to the polls. He was wrong about the price of oil and the stock market but with his help, Bush and Blair won their elections. It is no coincidence that right-wing extremists like Murdoch now supports so-called left of centre organizations like the Labour Party. This strategy began after the war when the OSS and later the CIA used Marshall Plan funds to bribe left-wing politicians in European countries. Tom Braden, who was head of a CIA fronted organization, International Organizations Division (IOD), admitted in a television interview in 1975 that it was vitally important in the fight against communism to “turn” the leaders of left of centre political parties in Europe (they were particularly active in France, Italy, Greece and the UK). In the 1980s Murdoch supported right-wing political parties such as Thatcher’s Conservative Party. By the 1990s, despite the propaganda of Murdoch’s media empire, people began to reject this right-wing agenda. By about 1996 it was clear that in the UK the British people were ready for change. Murdoch therefore had to get to Tony Blair in order to get him to follow Thatcher type policies. This has been highly successful and Blair has loyally followed Murdoch’s policies. Murdoch of course does not work on his own. He has many allies in his successful strategy of stopping governments from employing progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes that enables people like Murdoch to avoid paying any tax at all. After all, we now live in a world of global capitalism. A couple of years ago an article in the Sunday Times pointed out that the UK Labour Party was mainly funded by a small group of extremely wealthy businessmen. Apparently, they were concerned about what would happen when Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as leader. Over the years Brown had made speeches in favour of progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes. This group had been threatening to cease funding the Labour Party if Brown became leader. Murdoch, who is apparently head of this group (he does not provide money to the Labour Party but uses his newspaper empire to support its policies), had a series of meetings with Brown. It has recently been reported that Murdoch now has no problems with Brown replacing Blair. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's shameful that the British Labour Party can't independantly choose a successor to Blair without Rupert Murdoch's imprimatur. It's dazzling proof that funding of political parties must be closely regulated otherwise Governments are corrupted from the start. Of course Murdoch supported the war in Iraq. It sells newspapers and boosts ratings for his Foxtel network. Iraq and the war on terror are great moneyspinners for this global parasite. If there's harmony in the Middle East and less crime at home ("war on drugs"), then who needs to be glued to Foxnews 24/7?

Hi Steve, It's a flat pitch but by tonight will be fairly scuffed and rutted (I think our batsmen deliberately scuff it up as much as possible. As this practise appears to favor Warnie in the second innings of matches, I must commend it as an excellent innovation, although not entirely in the spirit of fair play). I think we're toast. There'll be several changes for the 4th Test. p.s. I heard a rumor that it rains a lot in Manchester. If rain intercedes on our behalf, resulting in a draw, we'll have to claim (like GWB) that God is on our side.

Hi Stan, Yes, interesting questions. Re JFK, the US military leaders must have either planned it or provided assistance--I'm guessing the latter. And the CIA, by themselves, wouldn't decide to murder JFK. They act on behalf of others, mainly oil and big banking interests, IMO. I speculate that some type of elite fraternity of the world's richest and most powerful gave the green light, urged on by Texas oil, US Banking interests, armaments manufacturers, LBJ, ex Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion and possibly Meyer Lansky. I speculate that Lyman Lemnitzer was appointed to keep the JCS informed of the plan's developments. Despite the abundance of unanswered questions in relation to the assassination, for me the most interesting is how the conspirators managed silence the US media, yet not the European media. Obviously Operation Mockingbird was employed, but could that gag stay in place for 42 years? IMO, the few who controlled the US media must have been connected to the conspiracy's core in some way. Anyway, I'm straying a bit off the thread. Back to Mattei.........

John, Pat, I've read this stories as well, the problem is that, as Pat mentioned there are many pages in italien but also quite a few in german. My italen is not that good that I'm able to understand everything but I'm working on a overview to this subject. Just to give you some major issues, what has to be considerted in the Mattei case: 1) There is/was no new investigation focused on Mattei's death. All the latest information were brought up through the investigation concerning the death of Aldo Moro 1991. 2) There is evidence that the explosive was put behind the plan's dashboard and was connected with its landing gear. The explosive itself was stolen from one of the "Gladio" bunkers. IMO one also has to studie Gladio to find some answers. 3) There have been to identically planes owned by ENI. Both planes were stationed in Sicily. the other one was shortly afterwards sold to the States. 4) The wrechage has been destroyed within a few days. 5)The CIA wrote a report about the crash but it is still withheld for "National Security" reasons. As I said I'll provide a much more detailed overview when finished my study on the availabel material. George <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting research, George. This thread's getting more interesting all the time. Unlike the JFK assassination where it's still undecided between the major suspects, this one looks cut and dried--the oil industry, with Texas oil the major player, had him killed by the CIA. Just my opinion, of course.

The third test has just started. The surprise news is that McGrath and Lee are playing. As far as McGrath is concerned, this seems to be a big gamble. England won the toss and are batting. Therefore McGrath has to bowl straight away. The pitch is significant. It is unlikely to take much spin (although this will not stop Warne). It looks like a batting pitch and the question is: will the bowlers be good enough to bowl out the other team twice. After 15 minutes the English openers have looked very comfortable (no swing yet). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bad day at the office for Australia. Losing the toss was the start of it. Gillespie looks like he's lost form completely and playing McGrath has backfired. McGill will play at Trent Bridge, IMO. Our batsmen will need to save this Test and there's no Steve Waugh. Hard to believe that a total of seven chances were put down by fieldsmen and keeper. I can't wait to hear what Roy and H.G. say about this.

I don't know if the term "progressive taxation" is a good term. It's got those old left wing associations with 90% tax rates. Punitive tax rates are not necessary, IMO and it allows those not paying any tax to mount a defence against change. I don't see why the top tax rate for individuals can't be capped at 50%. The important thing is that those using the corporate umbrella to shield themselves from tax obligations be brought to account. The fact that a public debate on this issue hasn't been conducted is proof that the media can just as effectively bury stories as it can expose them. I see this "tax loophole exploitation" debate as a logical component of the whole globalisation debate. While Governments and the media lecture us about the benefits of tight fiscal policy and the importance of workplace efficiency and productivity in this new world of globalised economies, corporate accountability and responsibility recieves scant attention. The Australian Government claims that "necessary" policy reforms, like the workplace relations reforms soon to be enacted, are vital for securing "economic prosperity for future generations" to which they should add "of wealthy elites". (The reforms involve placing the workforce on contracts with all conditions open to negotiation. Boiled down, it's a simple transfer of wealth (and power) from the collective bargaining structure to corporations (our new wise leaders)). My point is this: How can a Government which bestows on itself responsibility for securing future economic prosperity deliver the goods when it's own legislative foundation for revenue collection, essential for the effective discharge of it's duties, is riddled with anomalies, needless complexity and loopholes, all exploited ruthlessly by large corporations? It can't. It's inefficient, unproductive, redundant. It doesn't pass muster in the brave new world. The globalisation debate should stop right there and not move on until Governments resolve this problem. The taxation systems of many western countries require urgent changes to improve their appalling productivity levels.

Like me you underestimated England. It was indeed one of the great test matches. It is being played in the manner of the one-day game (mainly because our young players have been brought up this way). Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff in the first innings were sensational. Flintoff was even better in the second innings. Watching Flintoff driving the world's fastest bowler, Brett Lee, back over his head and on to the grandstand roof on Saturday, was one of the greatest sporting moments I have ever seen. However, the whole test was full of such incidents. What about when Warne bowled Strauss by turning the ball 35.1in. How does he do that? I still think Australia will win the series. Man for man, they are the better team. However, Flintoff is capable of anything and Strauss, Bell and Jones will all improve as the series goes on. It should be an exciting few weeks. What with West Ham being back in the premiership, my sporting life is pretty good at the moment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This was the most exciting test match I've ever seen (I didn't underestimate England too much--I did predict a draw ). With McGrath out, the sides are very even. Flintoff, Trescothick, Harmison and Pieterson are rising to the occasion and could turn the tide in England's favor. Against that is Australia's superior fielding and the tenacity of Shane Warne. Can't wait till tomorrow.

It's very interesting to see so many parallels between Britain and Sweden. In Sweden we have the same problem - the fact that we are going away from the progressive taxation and make it possible for people with higher incomes to get away from their social responsibilities is hardly ever an issue in the media (which happens to be owned to nearly 100% by the established parties that support this development (conservative, liberals and the Social Democrats)). The result of this change is less money for hospitals, schools, old care, pensions, etc... The few times this issue is brought up in media (which as I said is very rare) it's described as a healthy economical development! What was behind this development? Several of the bigger executives in the private sector had for years threaten to withdraw their companies from Sweden if the taxation rules did not change. This threat was repeated when we voted for the membership of the European union. Sweden changed their tax policies and joined the union. What happened then - Several of the companies still moved their business abroad... which once again shows how naive it is to see big private buinesses take any social responsibilities. I very much recent this development. It's an unfortunate thing that our ex. socialist party (Social Democrats) has so completely changed character and now works as a supporting party for the rich establishment. Our ancestors who build up the Swedish welfare state must rotate (or more propeller) in their graves. This is not only serious - it's a betrayal!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John and Anders, This has also occurred in Australia. Our party of the left (the Australian Labor Party) has changed character and merely supports the wealthy while professing to be the champion of the working class. It seeks friendship and funds from the big corporations while mouthing platitudes about the plight of the poor and does nothing for its original constituency when it is in power--as it was from 1983 to 1996. The ALP here in Australia is worse for the poor than the conservatives, IMO. In addition to failing to tackle the main infrastructure problems ie. funding of schools, hospitals, adequate aged care etc, the ALP has pioneered insidious new forms of predatory taxation: 1. Gambling. This is heartily encouraged by Governments (especially Labor) and people who visit Australia from abroad are amazed at the constant television and radio advertising encouraging people to paticipate in lotteries, lotto, scratchies, footytab and horse racing. Betting shops are open 7 days a week and also facilitate and encourage betting on all domestic and overseas sport eg. golf, cricket, tennis, baseball, basketball, motor racing, soccer etc. Betting shops (TABs) are also strategically placed in most drinking establishments so people who have lost their sobriety and judgement can also lose their money. It's cynicism at its worst and the practise of placing TAB's in bars was pioneered by a former Labor Premier of the state of New South Wales, Neville Wran. The TAB in NSW is run jointly by the Government and private interests. In addition to all this, almost every bar in this state has dozens of poker machines where people can watch their money disappear at any time, night or day. On top of this, all Australia's major cities have a casino. These casinos, also a joint Government/Private sector enterprise, never close. 2. Traffic and parking violation revenues. What started as a disincentive to breach road rules has blossomed into an industry of its own. Like junkies, all state Governments in Australia and many local Governments have become addicted to this revenue. Minor traffic and parking violations can bring penalties of up to $300, a real knockout punch for people on low incomes but a mosquito bite for millionaires. The problem here is one of equity. Why should a person on a low income be penalised half his/her salary for a minor offense when a person earning 5 million a year suffers no financial hardship when committing exactly the same offense? A recent proposal to make financial penalties for such offences commensurate to the offendor's financial circumstances was pilloried in the tabloid media but it seems to me that the fine structure allows mega-wealthy people to breach the rules with no financial penalty. These are examples of what Governments will resort to when starved of financial resources by those who should rightly be providing them. The income tax regime doesn't need to be harsh or overly punitive to those on high incomes--it should merely require that all should contribute, commensurate to their incomes. Allowing those at the top of Paul Samuelson's pyramid to escape their responsibilities by the use of cleverly designed discretionary family trusts and allowing the Corporations they own to avoid tax through devices such as transfer pricing and tax havens is a serious breach of a Government's responsibilities. To restsate the obvious, the mainstream media will never focus on these injustices (which are very damaging to society) because, of course, the media is owned by the very same people who employ such tax avoidance tricks. The media have forged an alliance with compliant Governments, elected by us. Most Governments discover that they must comply with this duplicity because they fear that failure to do so will result in them being destroyed by the media. In the absence of a strong willed Government, the media will control the Government and the ordinary working person will be crushed at the bottom of the pyramid.

Very important point. In fact, capitalism, because it creates so much inequality, is at hear anti-democratic. I would like to think that capitalism could be tamed and therefore could allow for a fully functioning democracy to be achieved. However, the jury is still out whether this is possible. All the signs are not good. Except in the area of mass communications, power is concentrated more and more in a small riling minority. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a very astute comment by Andy. Most take it for granted that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand but there's no reason why that should be so. Capitalism is so out of control in the west that it's become a rigid dogma itself. There's nothing democratic about it. A true democracy is probably a utopian ideal, not because Governments of all political persuasions are so corrupt, but because people are basically corrupt. Why? Because power corrupts them.

Drew, that's quite a good point. Under normal circumstances you wouldn't think trained sharpshooters aiming at JFK would hit Connally but considering the unique and difficult circumstances of this event, I think they did. Consider: 1. The target is moving and the vehicle he's sitting in is moving. 2. They're nervous. I know assassins are renowned for having ice in their veins but considering the magnitude of their assignment, they're entitled to be a bit jittery. This isn't enemy soldiers they're firing at, or the assassination of some tinpot dictator--this is the free world's top banana. Under orders not to miss, they've got to pick him off from a distance with others in the moving car, whom they don't want to hit, especially Jackie. It's a lot of pressure and they're only human--almost. If they hit the sign (very possible as it was removed within days) then either you are right (they weren't trained marksmen) or I am right (they were very nervous).

I wouldn't know who the actual shooter was but all the shooters were military trained sharpshooters, in my opinion. Despite the fact that Governor Connelly was hit, it was a cleverly executed ambush with the shooters nicely concealed.

After his strong disagreement with Adlai Stevenson in 1956 over the latter's proposal for a nuclear test ban treaty, it's interesting to speculate whether McCone's opinion of JFK changed after JFK signed such a treaty with the Soviets in August '63. In addition to the public admonishment they recieved, as outlined in John's post, influential scientists at the California Institute of Technology were outraged in 1956 by what they believed was an effort by McCone to have ten of their fellow scientists fired after they had publicly supported Stevenson's proposal. McCone was a trustee of Caltech at the time. According to Wise and Ross (Invisible Government,1964), McCone was JFK's third choice for the job as CIA director after Clark Clifford and Fowler Hamilton. The decision to appoint him shocked some in Washington. Members of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board were surprised that JFK had appointed someone with such strong ties to the Republican Party. After the BOP, both JFK and the CIA were vulnerable to political attack from the Republicans so with a conservative Republican as boss of the CIA, the President thought the political fire would be somewhat diverted. My opinion of this is that it shows that sometimes JFK was too politically astute for his own good. He may have outsmarted himself by appointing such a strong cold war advocate to such a critical post. Incidentally, the book also cites that in 1948, when McCone became special deputy to James Forrestal, the Secretary of Defense, he worked closely with Forrestal in his efforts to create the CIA.

Having read this fascinating thread from beginning to end twice, this is what I've got from it so far; 1. Captain Fritz was aware of suspicious planting of evidence re Oswald/Hidell from the beginning--though I'm not necessarily implying that he knew who was behind it. 2. The scenario put forward by Robert and backed by Ron ie. that the original plan was for LHO to vanish with all the planted evidence tracing him to Cuba is a plausible one, especially since Ruby's nervous presence seems to begin with LHO's capture. Could he have liased with a contact while he was loitering at Parkland Hospital and recieved instructions? 3. Corrupt elements within the DPD lied and obfuscated throughout the whole thing (this I already knew). Now I need aspirin.

John and Steve, You'll probably think I'm a lunatic, but I think England are a real chance. A good spell by McGrath and a few dropped catches turned the tide at Lords. Also, the Aussies are a little jittery after 7/7. Gillespie said on Melbourne radio today that the team would probably favor returning home if there was another terrorist attack. No way this will be a walkover. Watch for a few batsmen going after Warne. I'll put my head on the block and predict a draw (that way I can make a prediction and still sit on the fence) p.s. talk about famous last words.

In Diving School, we were of course issued the "diving knife". When a student would inevitably ask the purpose of the knife, he would be informed it was primarily issued for any shark attacks. And, although those who jump from airplanes and such are not necessarily known for being that smart, this reply would obtain their attention as even they knew that a small knife up against a 14-16 foot shark was perhaps futile, at best. This would be usually brought to the attention of the instructor. At which time the instructor would clarify the answer. The knife was not for attacking the shark! The knife was for stabbing your swim-buddy with. The shark would thereafter go after him due to the blood, and you could thereafter get the hell out of there while the shark ate your buddy. Tom http://www.wtcno.org/programs/2005/cunningham2-24.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tom, Remind me not to go diving with you.

Who are those officers? Has anyone talked to them? How do we know it's not Tippit's wallet? Excuse me if I sound ignorant, but I'm 95% convinced Oswald DID kill Tippit. There are several eyewitnesses to his flight. I'm particularly susceptible to the cabbie's statements (Scoggins, I believe) that the killer was talking to himself, saying "poor dumb cop." To me, this is Oswald, who killed Tippit in attempt to save his own life, and not a cold-blooded assassin. The idea that some schemers knew Oswald was in the theatre and killed a nearby cop to frame him is just WEAK WEAK WEAK, IMO. I suppose another reason why I believe the killer was Oswald is because the Tippit shooting took place on the DIRECT path to Ruby's place; this just seems like too much a coincidence, particularly if Oswald was not involved. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, What about Acquilla Clemons testimony to Mark Lane that she saw two men standing near Tippit's car just before the shooting. She describes the shooter as "kind of short, kind of heavy". Obviously not LHO. The fact that the WC failed to examine her doesn't detract from her statement, imo. Given the WC's motives, it reinforces it.

John and Andy, Good luck for Edgbaston. England can win if they do the following; 1. Try to survive the first session from Lee and McGrath, then 2. Attack Warnie. It's great being an armchair expert.

A very interesting debate, with good points made on all sides. I think the best point made so far is the suggestion that donations to political parties should be banned, or at the very least, strictly controlled via a system that is corruption-proof. Not an easy task but worth attempting. America today is ruled by a corporate oligarchy. This may have also been the case previously but has never seemed more apparent than in 2005. I have nothing against the corporate entity as a vehicle for participating in commerce with profit as the primary motive (while mitigating personal financial liability) but must societies be destroyed in the process? What we're seeing is the result of corporations pursuing profit to the exclusion of all else, with Americans being fooled into thinking that relentless greed is a good thing, a great thing, an American thing (this applies in most other countries, not just America, but I'm just using America to highlight the case as it's the starkest global example of corporate capture). Some things can be more clearly seen when you are observing from a distance and what is happening in America today is frightening. Many people require two or three jobs to survive (while the administration slashes welfare), the prison population has exploded--2.1 million--many serving long sentences for trifling offences, debt is at its highest point in history (while the rich avoid paying tax by employing tax havens), serious emerging problems such as global warming and peak oil are ignored, and the Government (as the representative of the corporate oligarchy) creates enemies worldwide with foolish military adventurism. The great irony is that its the ordinary citizens who endure all the pain while the corporations pursue the gain. It's not CEO's of global corporations who come home in bodybags. The media won't touch these problems--the War on Terror and American Idol sell much better. And the media is owned by the corporate oligarchy anyway. Serious discussions about these issues don't generate sufficient profit. At the moment there is still enough wealth around for many average Americans to remain blissfully comatose to changing circumstances---but this will soon change, IMO. So winding back all this will be very difficult. Banning political donations would at least curtail the corporations' influence on politicians. Such a proposal would create a large backlash and might well prove to be impractical but I can't see how else the political process can be de-corrupted. Sorry to be so downbeat but that's the way I see it.