Douglas Caddy

Valerie Plame: Edward Snowden Deserves Thanks, 'Will Be Abused,' Clapper Should Resign (VIDEO) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/valerie-plame_n_3466824.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D332293 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.garynorth.com Big Dam Buster: Snowden and the NSA. Gary North - June 19, 2013 A site member posted a link to an interview of three men who had served as whistleblowers against the NSA. They never got the kind of publicity that Edward Snowden has received. They put their careers on the line, and they suffered negative consequences. It's from USA Today, the McPaper. It is unquestionably a major media site. Its Alexa ranking is 383 worldwide, and 98 in the USA, In short, it's huge. It is bigger than Drudge. Had it not been for Snowden, they would not have received any publicity. For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media. To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime. Today, they feel vindicated. They should feel vindicated. They are like the first pilots who tried to blow up an enemy dam. They failed. He didn't. The crucial thing to understand about Snowden is that what he has done could not have been predicted. Other stories, other leakers, other concerns have been voiced repeatedly over the past decade. The mass media never picked up any of these stories. Then, without warning, Edward Snowden's story became worldwide news. This reminds us that there is no way to orchestrate events such as these. We do not know why a particular person's story gets picked up by the Internet and then becomes viral. It happens, but we do not know how it happens, and nobody is in a position, as far as I know, to orchestrate this kind of event. What Snowden has revealed is nothing new. This is the fundamental fact. What is different this time is the fact that tens of millions of people have read about this, whereas hardly anybody read about his predecessors. Q: Did Edward Snowden do the right thing in going public? William Binney: We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing and openly admit that and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends they were really after. And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or -- we couldn't get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general's office didn't pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand. Q: So Snowden did the right thing? Binney: Yes, I think he did. Q: You three wouldn't criticize him for going public from the start? J. Kirk Wiebe: Correct. These men did it by the rules. They paid a heavy price. Binney: In fact, I think he saw and read about what our experience was, and that was part of his decision-making. Wiebe: We failed, yes. Here is their lawyers' assessment. Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Tom ended up being prosecuted -- and it was for blowing the whistle. He has inflicted a lot of pain on the NSA. Thomas Drake: He's an American who has been exposed to some incredible information regarding the deepest secrets of the United States government. And we are seeing the initial outlines and contours of a very systemic, very broad, a Leviathan surveillance state and much of it is in violation of the fundamental basis for our own country -- in fact, the very reason we even had our own American Revolution. And the Fourth Amendment for all intents and purposes was revoked after 9/11. ... He is by all definitions a classic whistle-blower and by all definitions he exposed information in the public interest. We're now finally having the debate that we've never had since 9/11. So, the dam of secrecy has collapsed. Information has spilled out. This may be only the first wave of information. The government can no longer plug the leaks. He did reveal a crucial document: the FBI's order that Verizon turn over data. Q: What did you learn from the document -- the Verizon warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- that Snowden leaked? Drake: It's an extraordinary order. I mean, it's the first time we've publicly seen an actual, secret, surveillance-court order. I don't really want to call it "foreign intelligence" (court) anymore, because I think it's just become a surveillance court, OK? And we are all foreigners now. By virtue of that order, every single phone record that Verizon has is turned over each and every day to NSA. There is no probable cause. There is no indication of any kind of counterterrorism investigation or operation. It's simply: "Give us the data." ... There's really two other factors here in the order that you could get at. One is that the FBI requesting the data. And two, the order directs Verizon to pass all that data to NSA, not the FBI. Binney: What it is really saying is the NSA becomes a processing service for the FBI to use to interrogate information directly. ... The implications are that everybody's privacy is violated, and it can retroactively analyze the activity of anybody in the country back almost 12 years. Now, the other point that is important about that is the serial number of the order: 13-dash-80. That means it's the 80th order of the court in 2013. ... Those orders are issued every quarter, and this is the second quarter, so you have to divide 80 by two and you get 40. If you make the assumption that all those orders have to deal with companies and the turnover of material by those companies to the government, then there are at least 40 companies involved in that transfer of information. However, if Verizon, which is Order No. 80, and the first quarter got order No. 1 -- then there can be as many as 79 companies involved. So somewhere between 40 and 79 is the number of companies, Internet and telecom companies, that are participating in this data transfer in the NSA. Radack: I consider this to be an unlawful order. While I am glad that we finally have something tangible to look at, this order came from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They have no jurisdiction to authorize domestic-to-domestic surveillance. Binney: Not surprised, but it's documentation that can't be refuted. Wiebe: It's formal proof of our suspicions. Q: Even given the senior positions that you all were in, you had never actually seen one of these? Drake: They're incredibly secret. It's a very close hold. ... It's a secret court with a secret appeals court. They are just not widely distributed, even in the government. Q: What was your first reaction when you saw it? Binney: Mine was that it's documentary evidence of what we have been saying all along, so they couldn't deny it. Drake: For me, it was material evidence of an institutional crime that we now claim is criminal. Binney: Which is still criminal. Wiebe: It's criminal. This is the spooks' problem now. If Snowden is prosecuted, he will spill more beans in front of the world. He has beans to spill. The government isn't sure how big his sack of beans is. The fact that the mainstream media picked up Snowden's story, and that the story then became viral, will help the next person who tells a similar story. Everyone with a website who wants to get traffic is going to be willing to consider the next person's story. There will be some major newspaper, somewhere in the world, which will be willing to give him publicity. The newspapers want traffic, and Snowden has proven that you can get traffic when you combine stories of cloak-and-dagger secrecy with massive Internet surveillance by the spooks. The public usually ignores these stories, but for some unknown reason, Snowden's story took off. This is now working to the advantage of those people who regard this kind of government surveillance as unconstitutional. The government is not going to be able to get a conviction for treason in this case. Too much of the information which he leaked has now entered the public domain. To prove its case against Snowden, the government is going to have to let him tell his story. He is going to be able to show that most of the information that he possesses is in the public domain. The items that he stole, assuming that he stole them, will simply make the government look bad. That is what the government fears. It does not fear budget cuts. Congress is impotent. But it does fear bad publicity. Snowden gave the NSA an enormous amount of bad publicity, and his successors will give it even more. This is why the government is trapped. If it prosecutes him, it will create sympathy for him, and the number of outlets for this kind of information will increase. The Internet works both ways. The spying organizations can gather information on individuals less expensively than ever before, but independent whistleblowers can gather larger followings, also without spending a lot of money. It is a kind of competition now, between the organizations that want to remain secret and readers who enjoy reading about a scandal. Ultimately, the NSA, FBI, and other surveillance organizations are going to do pretty much what they want. Until Congress cuts their funding, there will be no change. Nevertheless, they are now in the spotlight. Anybody with a story like Snowden's, which confirms Snowden's accusations, will find a ready audience today. This was not true a month ago. --------------------------------------------------------------

Angelina Jolie stunt double launches News Corp phone-hacking lawsuit Eunice Huthart, who worked on Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, lodges the first hacking claim in the US against the Murdoch group By Lisa O'Carroll guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 18 June 2013 10.29 EDT http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/18/jolie-double-news-corp-phone-hacking-lawsuit?guni=Network front:network-front main-3 Main trailblock:Network front - main trailblock:Position14 Angelina Jolie: a stunt double for the star has launched a phone-hacking lawsuit in the US against News Corp. Photograph: Joanna Scheffel/DPA/Corbis News Corporation is facing its first phone-hacking lawsuit in the US after a former stunt double for Angelina Jolie launched a lawsuit alleging her mobile phone messages were intercepted by the now defunct News of the World and the Sun. The civil claim opens up a potential new frontline in News Corporation's battle to close the scandal, with the Sun accused of phone hacking for the first time. Eunice Huthart, who is British, worked with the star from 2001 on blockbuster movies including Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Salt and Mr and Mrs Smith. She had previously enjoyed TV fame in the 1990s as Blaze in the UK entertainment show Gladiators. She alleges that messages left on her phone were hacked when she was working in the US in 2005 on Mr & Mrs Smith. Eunice Huthart as Blaze in UK TV show Gladiators. Photograph: ITV/Rex Features Huthart claims in court papers filed in Los Angeles that "illegal activities were undertaken ... principally through the two newspapers, the Sun and the News of the World". She cites several stories in the two titles, including a report in the Sun that she had started a relationship with her co-star Brad Pitt on the set of Mr & Mrs Smith, something that only their bodyguards, their PAs and Huthart knew. The documents cite another story in the Sun that revealed she was wanted to go on motorbike rides with Pitt, in relation to the hacking allegations. Huthart says she arranged for a friend to teach Jolie on his farm in Kent, but the stuntman's messages in relation to the lessons were intercepted. "These messages appeared to have been hacked and deleted before she heard them," the documents say. Huthart also claims a story in the News of the World revealing that Jolie was considering giving up acting came from eavesdropping on her phone messages. Huthart says she and Jolie "developed a close friendship and often travelled and socialised together". They spent Christmas together in 2003 and 2004 and Huthart is godmother to Jolie's first biological child. She claimed she did not receive messages left by family members and that her husband complained that she had not been responding to his messages. "During one period when the plaintiff was in Los Angeles working on the film Mr & Mrs Smith, her daughter called several times to report that she was being bullied in school in Liverpool, England. Although plaintiff's daughter left messages asking her mother to call her back, plaintiff did not receive those messages and could not console her daughter." The court papers say her husband also criticised her for not returning calls and "became very insecure as a result" and suspected her of having an affair. The papers were lodged by Norman Siegal, the New York attorney who represented families of the victims of the September 11 victims. The stunt double claims Jolie told her several times she had called Huthart and left messages and that she did not receive them because they had already been listened to. On one occasion, Jolie had left a message on Huthart's phone to tell her she had checked into a hotel using the pseudonym Pocahontas but she went to the hotel not knowing what name to ask for even though Jolie had left this information on a voicemail. "Plaintiff never received it," says the documents. "Ms Jolie had communicated with plaintiff on this subject prior to the article appearing in the newspaper, and would leave messages on plaintiff's cellphone, some of which she did not receive," the court filings say. Huthart is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for violations of the Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act, the California constitution, and invasion of privacy and intrusion into private affairs. News Corporation declined to comment

Nick Page, Sun Foreign Correspondent, Charged In News Corp. Bribery Probe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/sun-nick-page-bribery-news-corp_n_3460276.html

Congratulations on the publication of your novel, David/J.T. I have always maintained that the Education Forum contains a treasure trove of information that could be used for fiction or non-fiction works as well as scripts for films. You were wise to employ some of the information here for your new novel of high intrigue. Here's hoping it catches on big time with the public. St. John Hunt's book, Bond of Secrecy, contains insightful information about Dorothy Hunt, some of it not known before.

One source for research on this matter may be "Bond of Secrecy: My Life with CIA Spy and Watergate Conspirator E. Howard Hunt" by Saint John Hunt. There are interesting bits and pieces on this issue scattered throughout the work. For example, on pages 125-126 there is a quote from a handwritten memo to St. John from his father in which Hunt describes his conversations with Frank Sturgis when they were both incarcerated in Danbury Federal Prison after Watergate. In the paragraph before the quote Eric Hamburg, who wrote the Afterword, prefaces the quote by saying in connection with the audio tape that accompanied the handwritten memo, "Of course, Hunt could have been minimizing his role [in the JFK assassination], as might be expected of a career spook." In his handwritten memo to St. John that accompanies his audio tape, Hunt added this: "Like the rest of the country, NADA [Hunt] is stunned at JFKs death and realizes how lucky he is not to have a direct role. In Danbury federal prison [after Watergate], Epsilon [sturgis] and NADA [Hunt] reflect on the 'Big Event.' Oswald is dead so the feds have nobody to prosecute. Epsilon [sturgis] speculates that Jack Ruby was selected to kill Oswald by the mob. Epsilon [sturgis] reveals that one of the Dallas shooters was a foreigner." Hamburg goes on to write that "Hunt informed St. John and me that the foreigner was a French Corsican gunman named Sarti. This could have only been Lucien Sarti, as Hunt suggests in American Spy."

I, for one, and I am unanimous in my opinion, am finding it a relief to go on the JFK Assassination topic without fear that Jim D. or Tom S. will be lurking here engaged in their never ending abuses of other members. At age 75, I like less drama and more searching for the truth.Time has become the most valuable commodity as more and more sand in my hour glass can be found in the bottom half.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits?guni=Network front:network-front main-3 Main trailblock:Network front - main trailblock:Position2

The topic here is "The Future of the JFK Forum." It was started by founder John Simkin. Posts to date have dealt with the future of this forum, so no member should feel refrained about expressing an opinion about it.

John Simkin is a man of strong convictions, a character trait for which he is justly admired. For him now to reverse his decisions regarding Jim D. and Tom S. would show indecisiveness, something for which he is not known. If Jim D. and Tom S. were allowed back in, they would take the decision to do so as an open invitation to carry on as before only this time their abusive actions would increase exponentially because they would have good reason to believe that if they were kicked off again they would later be invited back. It would become a never ending drama/trauma for forum members.

June 13, 2013 The New York Times Rupert Murdoch Files for Divorce After 14 Years of Marriage By AMY CHOZICK Rupert Murdoch has filed for divorce from his wife of 14 years, Wendi Deng Murdoch, with whom he has two daughters, according to a filing with New York State Supreme Court. A spokeswoman for Mr. Murdoch’s media company, News Corporation, confirmed that Mr. Murdoch had made the filing, which said that the “relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably.” Mrs. Murdoch was informed in advance of Mr. Murdoch’s decision, according to a person close to the family. Ira E. Garr of the law firm Garr Silpe is representing Mr. Murdoch in the divorce. The filing — which was first reported by Deadline Hollywood — comes after years of whispered comments that the couple had largely grown apart, pursuing separate interests, often from different coasts. Mr. Murdoch, 82, first met Wendi Deng, 44, on a business trip to China when she was a young executive at his company’s Star TV division in Hong Kong. They wed in front of 82 guests in 1999 aboard Mr. Murdoch’s 155-foot yacht, the Morning Glory, in New York Harbor. A year before they were married, Mr. Murdoch left his wife, Anna, to whom he had been married for 31 years. That divorce is reported to have cost Mr. Murdoch $1.7 billion, including $110 million in cash. He and Anna had three children — Lachlan, James and Elisabeth. Mr. Murdoch divorced his first wife, Patricia, in 1967. They had one daughter, Prudence. The divorce from Wendi Murdoch and decisions about the place the couple’s daughters, Grace, 11, and Chloe, 9, will have in Mr. Murdoch’s media empire are expected to be contentious. In 2006, a battle broke out when Mr. Murdoch said in an interview with Charlie Rose that Grace and Chloe would have an equal economic interest in the family’s trust, but would not have the same voting rights as his children from his previous two marriages. The couple worked out a more mutually acceptable agreement. In recent years, Mrs. Murdoch, who was born to humble beginnings as Deng Wen Di in Jiangsu Province in eastern China, has taken on a wider range of professional endeavors, including producing the movie “Snow Flower and the Secret Fan.” The movie was released by News Corporation’s Fox Searchlight division in July 2011 and was eclipsed when news surfaced that Mr. Murdoch’s British tabloid News of the World tabloid had hacked into the voice mail of Milly Dowler, a kidnapped and murdered teenager. Mrs. Murdoch became a viral sensation during the phone hacking crisis when Mr. Murdoch testified in front of a British parliamentary subcommittee about the scandal. Wearing a pink blazer, Mrs. Murdoch, a former volleyball player, instinctively lurched toward a protester to protect her husband from a pie attack. The News Corporation spokeswoman said the divorce would have no impact on the company. On June 28, the corporation will complete the split of its publishing and entertainment assetsinto two separate companies, to be called News Corp and 21st Century Fox, respectively.

Hollywood’s Creepy Love Affair With Adolf Hitler, in Explosive New Detail Uncovered: new evidence of Jewish movie moguls’ extensive collaboration with Nazis in the 1930s http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/134503/hollywood-nazi-urwand?all=1 A different opinion here: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-16392-7/hollywood-and-hitler-19331939 Both books published recently by University presses

Exactly. I've long thought that the Kennedy enemies tried to frame them with the Monroe murder. Then when that failed they took the next step. Much like they later framed Teddy Kennedy with the Chappaquiddick arranged accident to neutralize him. Does anyone know anything about this Fred Otash character? Whatever his story is I don't think it's a coincidence that we're in the run up to a major JFK anniversary and this propaganda is launched at the public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Otash Thanks Douglas. I was really hoping for input from a trusted source. ------------------------------------------------------- http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1370

Exactly. I've long thought that the Kennedy enemies tried to frame them with the Monroe murder. Then when that failed they took the next step. Much like they later framed Teddy Kennedy with the Chappaquiddick arranged accident to neutralize him. Does anyone know anything about this Fred Otash character? Whatever his story is I don't think it's a coincidence that we're in the run up to a major JFK anniversary and this propaganda is launched at the public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Otash

JFK was not the only prominent victim targeted by LBJ: -------------------------------------------- Son of Dr. King Asserts L.B.J. Role in Plot By KEVIN SACK Published: June 20, 1997 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/20/us/son-of-dr-king-asserts-lbj-role-in-plot.html Three months ago, Dexter Scott King declared that he and his family believed that James Earl Ray was not guilty of the murder of his father, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tonight, in a televised interview, Mr. King asserted that President Lyndon B. Johnson must have been part of a military and governmental conspiracy to kill Dr. King. ''Based on the evidence that I've been shown, I would think that it would be very difficult for something of that magnitude to occur on his watch and he not be privy to it,'' Mr. King said on the ABC News program ''Turning Point.'' Mr. King, who heads the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, suggested that the Army and Federal intelligence agencies were involved in his father's assassination, in Memphis on April 4, 1968. ''I am told that it was part and parcel Army intelligence, C.I.A., F.B.I.,'' he said in the Mr. King's older brother, Martin Luther King 3d, said in the television interview that Mr. Ray had ''basically nothing to do with this assassination.'' Mr. Ray, 69, is dying of liver disease in a state prison hospital in Nashville. He originally confessed to the killing and was sentenced to 99 years in prison. Several days later, he recanted, saying that his lawyers had encouraged him to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty. A Congressional inquiry and studies by several historians have concluded that Mr. Ray was almost certainly involved in the killing, although others may have played a part in a conspiracy. The notion of a conspiracy by the Army and intelligence agencies to kill Dr. King has long been expounded by William F. Pepper, Mr. Ray's lawyer, who is seeking a trial for his client. In recent months, Mr. King, his three siblings, and their mother, Coretta Scott King, have apparently embraced Mr. Pepper's theories. In the broadcast, Forrest Sawyer of ABC undermined at least part of Mr. Pepper's theory by introducing Mr. Pepper to Billy Eidson. Mr. Eidson is a retired Army officer whom Mr. Pepper has described as the leader of a unit that was ready to kill Dr. King if the assassin did not succeed. Mr. Pepper has asserted that Mr. Eidson was himself later assassinated. After being presented with Mr. Eidson, Mr. Pepper said, ''I acknowledge that maybe I was provided with wrong information.'' In March, Dexter King traveled to Nashville to meet with Mr. Ray, and told him face to face that he and his family believed Mr. Ray's declarations of innocence. With the King family's support, Mr. Pepper has won court approval for new ballistics tests on the rifle linked to Mr. Ray and the killing of Dr. King. Mr. Pepper hopes that new forensic methods will prove that the rifle did not fire the fatal shot. The tests have been completed, but a hearing has yet to be held on the results. In the ABC program, Mrs. King and Andrew Young, formerly a top aide to Dr. King as well as a former chief delegate to the United Nations and Mayor of Atlanta, called on President Clinton to appoint a commission to investigate the killing again. Mrs. King proposed that anyone with information about the assassination be granted amnesty. Neither Mr. Young nor any of the Kings could be reached for comment today.

JFK and the Deferentials by Jacob G. Hornberger Future of Freedom Foundation www.lewrockwell.com June 11, 2013 http://lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger196.html Proponents of the government’s lone-nut assassination theory in the John Kennedy assassination oftentimes suggest that those who reject the official version of what happened have some sort of psychological need to place the assassination within the context of a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists, they say, simply cannot accept the idea that a lone nut succeeded in killing a president of the United States and a popular president at that. I see it a different way. When it comes to the national-security state, there are basically two groups of people, one group consisting of people with an independent and critical mindset and the other group consisting of people with a mindset of deference to and trust in authority. For ease of expression, I will refer to the first group as the independents and the second group as the deferentials. Over the years, I have read a considerable amount of literature relating to the Kennedy assassination. I have never encountered anyone who believes that there was a government conspiracy in the JFK murder who also believes that there was a government conspiracy in John Hinkley’s assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan or in Lynette Fromme’s assassination attempt against President Gerald Ford. Wouldn’t you think that if a person has a psychological need to look for government conspiracies behind presidential assassinations or assassination attempts, the need would be applied consistently to all presidential assassinations or assassination attempts? So, what’s different about the Kennedy assassination? The difference is that there are so many unusual anomalies within the Kennedy case that an independent and critical thinker feels compelled to ask, “Why?” The ability and willingness to ask that simple one-word question is what distinguishes the independents from the deferentials. For the deferential, all such anomalies are irrelevant. All that matters is the official government version of the assassination. For the deferential, questioning or challenging the official version of a major event like a presidential assassination is a shocking notion, one that violates the deference-to-authority mindset that has been inculcated within him since he was six years old. Examine carefully the criticisms that lone-nut proponents make of people in the assassination research community. Many lone-nut proponents mock conspiracy theories in the JFK case not because they feel there is a lack of evidence to support the theory. That is, they don’t say: “After carefully reviewing the evidence in the JFK case, I’ve concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone-nut assassin.” Instead, many of the lone-nut proponents subscribe to what I call the “inconceivable doctrine,” one that holds that it is simply inconceivable that the U.S. national-security state would have conspired to assassinate a U.S. president. Oh sure, for a deferential it is entirely conceivable that the national-security state would conspire to assassinate a foreign president or effect a regime-operation abroad, especially if national security is at stake. In such cases, the deferential, unable to bring himself to question or challenge the legitimacy of such operations, offers his unconditional support. But for the deferential, it is just inconceivable that the national-security state would do the same here at home, even if national security depended on it. The inconceivable doctrine, of course, dovetails perfectly with the deference-to-authority mindset. Let’s examine this difference in mindset between independents and deferentials by considering the fatal head wound in the Kennedy assassination, a matter that is detailed much more fully in Douglas P. Horne’s 5-volume series Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. Horne served on the staff of the ARRB, an agency that was created in the aftermath of the controversy over Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK.” On page 69 of Volume I of his book, Horne states: Simply put, on November 22, 1963 the Parkland hospital treatment physicians observed what they thought was an exit wound, a “blowout,” in the back of the President’s head, and described it virtually unanimously in the following way: (1) it was approximately fist sized , or baseball sized, or perhaps even a little smaller – the size of a very large egg or a small orange; (2) it was in the right rear of the head behind the right ear; (3) the wound described was an area devoid of scalp and bone; and (4) it was an avulsed wound, meaning it protruded outward as if it were an exit wound. Horne points out that this observation of the Dallas treatment physicians was reinforced by a Dallas nurse named Pat Hutton whose written statement said that Kennedy had a “massive wound in the back of the head.” (Horne, Volume I, page 69.) She and the Dallas treatment physicians weren’t the only ones. Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who ran to the back of the presidential limousine and covered the president and Mrs. Kennedy with his body and who had a very good view of the president’s head wound during the trip to Parkland Hospital, wrote in his written report: I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing … part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair lying on it lying in the seat. (Horne, Volume I, page 69.) Or consider the sworn testimony of Sandra Spencer, the Petty Officer in Charge of the Naval Photographic Center’s White House lab in Washington, D.C., before the ARRB about one of the Kennedy autopsy photographs she developed, one of the many photographs that she said never made it into the official autopsy record: Gunn [ARRB interrogator]: Did you see any photographs that focused on the head of President Kennedy? Spencer: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. Gunn: Could you describe what you mean by the “wound at the back of the head?” Spencer: It appeared to be a hole … two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here. (Horne, Volume II, pages 314-315.) *** Gunn: Ms. Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all the colored images, both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives related to the autopsy of President Kennedy. Based upon your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy that are not included in those views that we saw? Spencer: The views that we produced at the Photographic Center are not included. (Volume II, page 325.) Horne sums up one import of Spencer’s sworn testimony before the ARRB (Horne, Volume II, page 331.): The second major implication of the Sandra Spencer deposition is that the Parkland hospital medical staff written treatment reports prepared the weekend of the assassination were correct when they described an exit wound in the back of President Kennedy’s head, and damage to the cerebellum. (Italics in original.) [Note: the cerebellum is the part of the brain that is located in the lower back of the head.] So, what’s the problem? Take a look at the following rendering of the official autopsy photograph of the back of Kennedy’s head by House Select Committee on Assassinations illustrator Ida Dox in 1978: [see link to article] Do you see the problem? The photo does not show a hole in the back of Kennedy’s head. It shows the back of the head to be intact. Why is that a problem? Because the government’s official version is that that photo correctly depicts the condition of Kennedy’s head after the assassination and, therefore, directly contradicts all the people who saw a hole in the back of the head. Now, consider this testimony by FBI agent James Sibert, who attended the autopsy, before the ARRB: Gunn: Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of the head? Sibert: Well, I don’t have a recollection of it being that intact…. I don’t remember seeing anything that was like this photo. *** Gunn: But do you see anything that corresponds in photograph 42 to what you observed during the night of the autopsy? Sibert: No, I don’t recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much – well, the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared to what my recollection was.” (Horne, Volume I, pages 30-31.) Consider this testimony of FBI agent Frank O’Neill, who also attended the autopsy, before the ARRB: Gunn: ….I’d like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy. O’Neill: This looks like it’s been doctored in some way. Let me rephrase that, when I say “doctored.” Like the stuff has been pushed back in, and it looks like more towards the end than at the beginning [of the autopsy]…. *** O’Neill: Quite frankly, I thought that there was a larger opening in the back … opening in the back of the head. (Volume I, page 31.) That’s not all. Horne writes (Horne, Volume 1, page 78): My own, more nuanced characterization follows. At the time the ARRB commenced its efforts, several autopsy eyewitnesses (Tom Robinson [from Joseph Gawler’s Sons, Inc. funeral home], [FBI agent] Frank O’Neill, [FBI agent] James Sibert, John Ebersole [bethesda autopsy radiologist], Jan Gail Rudnicki [autopsy lab assistant]; x-ray technician Ed Reed; Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman; and Philip Wehle [commander of the Military District of Washington]) had given descriptions to the HSCA [House Select Committee on Assassinations] staff, or had drawn images for them, that were very reminiscent of the Dallas descriptions of the exit wound in the skull – indicating that a large portion of the back of the President’s head was missing… .(Italics in original; brackets added.] That’s not all. Soon after the assassination, a Dallas medical student named Billy Harper found a portion of Kennedy’s skull near the assassination site. He took the fragment to his uncle, Dr. Jack C. Harper, who took it to Methodist Hospital in Dallas, where it was photographed. Dr. A.B. Cairns, former chief of pathology at the hospital, told an investigator for the HSCA that the skull fragment, which became known as the Harper Fragment, was from the lower occipital area, which denotes the lower back of the head. The government later lost the fragment. (Volume II, page 392.) What does a deferential do when faced with this quandary? After all, we have lots of credible people saying one thing and an official government photograph depicting the opposite. This presents no problem for the deferential. For him, the official government photograph and the official government version of events are gospel. Any conflicting evidence is simply ignored and disregarded. For the deferential, evidence that contradicts the official story is, at worst, concocted and, at best, simply mistaken. Either way, it’s irrelevant. For the deferential, it is simply inconceivable that the government would falsify the appearance of the back of Kennedy’s head. Alternatively, if the government did falsify how the back of the head appeared, the deferential would simply assume that the government had good reason to do so, almost certainly something to do with protecting national security. Either way, the deferential says that we must simply trust the government. We mustn’t ask questions. We must defer to authority. That’s how the deferential mindset works. The independent sees things differently. His mindset causes him to ask, “What in the world is going on here?” After all, either lots of reputable people have concocted a fake story about the hole in the back of Kennedy’s head or the government’s photo falsely depicts the appearance of the back of Kennedy’s head. Since it’s highly unlikely that all those people got together to concoct such a story, that leaves but one alternative: The government’s photo falsely depicts the back of Kennedy’s head. Unlike the deferential, the independent wants to know why. Why would the government do that? Why would it try to hide an exit wound in the back of Kennedy’s head? What would be the point? Well, one point would be: to hide evidence of shots being fired from the front, given that an exit wound in the back of the head obviously connotes a shot having been fired from the front. So, the independent would ask the next logical question: Why would the government try to cover up shots having been fired from the front? Why would it want to immediately shut down the investigation by pinning the murder on a lone nut rather than exploring the possibility that other people were involved in the assassination? That’s the way the mind of an independent works. Contrary to what the lone-nut theorists suggest, it’s not that the independent has a psychological need of a conspiracy in presidential assassinations, it is simply that the independent’s critical mindset needs a logical and rational explanation for the many anomalies in the Kennedy case. That’s the conflict that will play out this year and afterward in discussions relating to the Kennedy assassination: the mindset of those who have independent, inquisitive, critical, and analytical minds versus the mindset of those who defer to authority and trust that the government is doing the right thing, especially in matters relating to national security. Reprinted from The Future of Freedom Foundation. June 11, 2013 Jacob Hornberger [send him mail] is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

I do not think that Marilyn Monroe died a natural death or that she committed suicide. I also do not think any of the Kennedys were involved in her death but their enemies may have. There is no question but that her death occurred at a critical time when there was a confluence of important events in her life with disparate parties being involved. Her death should have been a wake up call to both John and Robert Kennedy that certain parties known to them would not stop at anything, even murdering one of the world's leading celebrities, in their quest for power. I found one of the Hollywood Reporter links above to be intriguing in that Howard Hughes was acting in behalf of Richard Nixon in retaining a private eye to keep tabs on the Kennedy brothers' relationship with Monroe. Hughes figures a lot in Nixon's machinations, from the attempt to kill Castro, to the Bay of Pigs and then on to Watergate where the Democratic National Committee had its offices headed by Hughes' former Washington lobbyist, Larry O'Brien.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/listened-marilyn-monroe-die-secret-files-hollywood-p-revealed-article-1.1365189?localLinksEnabled=false "I listened to Marilyn Monroe die," Otash wrote in his notes, but doesn't elaborate. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/listened-marilyn-monroe-die-secret-files-hollywood-p-revealed-article-1.1365189#ixzz2VqAQBtpK

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/marilyn-jfk-rock-hudsons-gay-562730#4-marilyn-monroe http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/marilyn-jfk-rock-hudsons-gay-562730#14-surveillance http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/marilyn-jfk-rock-hudsons-gay-562730#15-surveillance-van

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/09/u-s-finds-400-page-diary-of-nazi-leader-and-former-hitler-aide-alfred-rosenberg/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338425/Marilyn-Monroe-death-Confession-inside-diary-Hollywoods-famous-private-detective-Fred-Otash.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10108702/Idiot-Bilderberg-conspiracy-theorist-Alex-Jones-disrupts-BBC-politics-show.html

I support John Simkin's decision. I have often wondered how many members have quietly resigned from the forum or refrained from active participation because a few members have continually engaged in attacks on others that are juvenile and self-defeating in their nature.

When Presidential Words Led to Swift Action By ADAM CLYMER The New YorkTimes June 8, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/remembering-two-seminal-kennedy-speeches.html?ref=politics&_r=0 WASHINGTON — These days it is hard to imagine a single presidential speech changing history. But two speeches, given back to back by President John F. Kennedy 50 years ago this week, are now viewed as critical turning points on the transcendent issues of the last century. The speeches, which came on consecutive days, took political risks. They sought to shift the nation’s thinking on the “inevitability” of war with the Soviet Union and to make urgent the “moral crisis” of civil rights. Beyond their considerable impact on American minds, these two speeches had something in common that oratory now often misses. They both led quickly and directly to important changes. On Monday, June 10, 1963, Kennedy announced new talks to try to curb nuclear tests, signaling a decrease in tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. Speaking at American University’s morning commencement, he urged new approaches to the cold war, saying, “In the final analysis,” he continued, “our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” The next evening, Kennedy gave an address on national television, sketching out a strong civil rights bill he promised to send to Congress. For the first time, a president made a moral case against segregation. He had previously argued publicly for obedience to court orders and had condemned violence, but not the underlying system. Kennedy said. “The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.” Action followed. An agreement to establish a hot line between Washington and Moscow came in a few days, and a limited nuclear test ban treaty in four months. In just over a year, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became the most important American law of the 20th century. Kennedy, of course, did not live to see the comprehensive civil rights legislation, a crowning achievement of his successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican leaders like Representative William M. McCulloch of Ohio and Senator Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois. Robert Dallek, Kennedy’s leading biographer, said the two speeches were “not just two of his best speeches, but two of the better presidential speeches of the 20th century.” Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and a scholar of political discourse, said the two “compelling” speeches invited the country “to see the world differently, expanding our concept of basic rights and propelling action vindicated by history.” They are underappreciated as oratory, she said, because neither had a “simple central phrase” like “Ich bin ein Berliner,” which Kennedy said later that month, or “Ask not what your country can do for you,” from his inaugural address. Though Theodore C. Sorensen, the president’s main speechwriter, was the principal writer of both speeches, they were prepared in very different ways. The American University speech was a month in the making, growing out of Kennedy’s sense that if some progress on controlling arms was to be made, it had to happen in 1963, not in the election year of 1964, and from signals from the Kremlin that new talks might be productive. But it was kept secret from the Pentagon, because of fears that generals might object to any steps toward conciliation. In contrast, the civil rights speech was written in a few hours and was almost not given. Mr. Dallek said the American University speech reflected Kennedy’s “real passion” about his presidency, the goal of building “not merely peace in our time but peace for all time,” as Kennedy put it that morning. To achieve it, Kennedy said, it was necessary to “examine our attitude toward peace itself.” “Too many of us think it is impossible,” Kennedy said. “Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable — that mankind is doomed — that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. “We need not accept that view. Our problems are man-made — therefore, they can be solved by man.” Another step was to “re-examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union.” He said that while it was “sad” to read Soviet propaganda insisting that the United States was planning many wars so it could dominate the world, “it is also a warning — a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.” He said Americans should understand that “no government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements — in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.” Reminding his audience that at least 20 million Soviet citizens died in World War II, Kennedy said, “Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war.” “Today, should total war ever break out again — no matter how — our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.” On June 11, Kennedy had planned to speak about civil rights if there was trouble in Tuscaloosa, Ala., where Gov. George C. Wallace had vowed to stand in the way to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama. But Wallace simply made a statement and then stepped aside, and the process went smoothly. The speech seemed unnecessary. Sorensen, who had labored over the Monday speech, went home, only to be summoned back at midafternoon when the president’s brother Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy persuaded Kennedy to go ahead. Sorensen finished his draft with only minutes to spare, and Kennedy ad-libbed concluding paragraphs. The president had come to the civil rights issue only “grudgingly,” as Mr. Dallek put it. He thought segregation wrong and the Southerners who defended it “hopeless.” But for more than two years in the White House, he had treated the issue as a distraction from not only foreign policy but also tough domestic issues like a tax cut to spur the economy. Moreover, Mr. Dallek said, Kennedy and his brother thought the issue would cost him the Southern states he won in 1960 and could bring his defeat in 1964. Still, by late spring in 1963 the spread of civil rights demonstrations, and the brutality used in Birmingham and elsewhere to suppress them, forced his hand. And while he had fitfully used the word “moral” in civil rights statements, he had not made it a cause. He told the nation: “One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.” Kennedy said: “If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?” He was not addressing just the South, or even just Congress. “It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another,” he said. “A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.” This “moral crisis,” he said, “cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your state and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.” In between the two speeches, another critical issue arose. At a busy intersection in South Vietnam’s capital, Saigon, a Buddhist monk named Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire. That set off the political developments that led to the ouster and murder of President Ngo Dinh Diem just three weeks before Kennedy’s own assassination.

Dawn, my only knowledge on the subject is based on a newspaper report of his death. Your question implies the press report may be inaccurate. This is the first time I have heard of this.