Michael Chapman

You should be hung drawn and quartered for posting bullxxxx like this you utter clot. Or is the above intended as an ironic post, cursed as you are with that notorious monicker?

Stange how he's survived all these years isn't it? And stranger still how he got into power in the first place - just 89 men in a boat courtesy of the mob. And then weirdness upon weirdness he turns round and bites the hand that feeds him. You would have thought it a doddle for CIA trained mercenaries to do to him what he did to Batista. Apparently not. Not even after bringing the world to the brink of thermo nuclear war (except for Langley's Xmas gifts of exploding cigars and poison pens reported annually in The Guinness Book of Records 'Most Failed Assassination Atempts' category the folks on the hill have always seemed a little indifferent to him). And while all his companeros in the region were being toppled under 'Operation Condor' he felt he could safely send half his army to Angola and, for good measure, get further up the nose of the Yankee imperialist agressors perched right on his doorstep by exporting to them a human crimewave. Amazing how the old fraud kept his windbaggery up all those years (and how all those greying community college lecturers fell for it) long, long after his principal sugar buyer (sorry, ideological sponsor) went out of business. Still at least he's got the tourists now. All that crumbling colonial architecture. And the rum. And er... the tarts, the very tarts for whom he started a revolution, the tarts he wanted to make respectable. The alter ego of the liberal arts professor... Croesus Cocaine Castro never read Lincoln which is just as well. Apparently you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I don't think the Bush oligarchs are acquainted with Lincoln's home spun philosophy either. They prefer to take a leaf out of Cosa Nostra's book... 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer still and make your friends appear your enemies and your enemies your friends...'

The frustration, Peter, is born of the level playing field afforded to the enemies of truth. What I'm suggesting is anything but fair and balanced. Those in a position to know the historical truth of conspiracy in the death of JFK who nonetheless wilfully deny it are nothing more or less than targets of opportunity for us. I include in this category the sappers who, in order to infiltrate our lines, falsely claim to acknowledge conspiracy. You know who I mean: the "mob did it" and "Castro did it" squads. Et tu Drago? Another great mind befuddled by all that serge and patria o muerte rhetoric. I just love it. Whenever I fret over my shrinking hippocampus, world class presumption like the above is welcome proof that my genius is real and not mere narcissistic self delusion. PS Shame we can't post pics anymore (you mods are always trying to spoil my fun). I've always maintained that a good photo is a better aid for spotting frauds than trawling through the small print of a socialist manifesto.

C'mon on now hands up: how many of you know that there are currently four (as yet unnamed) British body guards (employed by a Canadian firm called GardaWorld) and an unnamed British logistics consultant (employed by a British firm called Bearing Point) being held captive by an unspecified group in Iraq? And how many of you can recall the date and circumstances of their abduction (29th May, in broad daylight at the Iraqi Ministry of Finance)? And since then hardly a dicky bird. In fact if it hadn't been for the sudden departure of Bahgdad's only Anglican vicar, Canon Andrew White, in early July (who was acting as a go between in this strange affair) an event which was belatedly and grudgingly referred to in a BBC 4 news report we would probably have been completely dicky birdless. Even the fact that the goodly Canon was forced to flee for his own safety (having apparently been denounced by the Mahdi Army as a spy) does not seem to have aroused the curiosity of our curiously incurious press (I aint heard him interviewed - have you?) The Reverand Andrew White - a loose canon? Rather strange don't you think when you consider that all this took off at the height of the hostage season? What with poor old hapless Alan Johnstone in Gaza and our Popeyes drifting into Iranian waters. Makes you wonder what exactly the criteria is for saturation coverage or media black outs of such events. To say nothing about who takes such decisions. And who enforces them. And what the penalty is for transgression. This lovely little quote from The Times of 23rd July suggests that the mandarins have the Beeb on a tight leash: Unlike the BBC's large-scale publicity campaign over the Alan Johnston kidnapping in Gaza, diplomats have decided that keeping the names, details and families of those kidnapped out of the media spotlight would be the best way to secure their release. Why do I get the feeling that the Foreign Office doesn't want them back?

Depends what type of dirt you're after David old boy. If you're hoping for the box kind of dirt you might be a tad disappointed. On the other hand if you're into sniffing out dirty rats, dirty tricks and dirty double crossers there will be more than enough of that sort of dirt to go round. A Dirty Rat A Dirt B...er the Wrong Kind of Dirt (in the WWII context)

I recently read Archer's book, and as I recall the conspirators presented the plot to Butler as an attempt to help out the veterans and also to help out Roosevelt, by giving him an "assistant" to take care of things that were taking so much of Roosevelt's time. This assistant, of course, was going to be America's dictator. If the BBC is saying that the plotters felt Hitler or Mussolini tactics were needed to help end the depression, that is basically BS. They wanted fascism, all right, but they wanted it to save their fortunes, which they felt were threatened by Roosevelt policies. One of the plotters stated that he was willing to spend half of his fortune on the plot if it would save the other half. The motive of the conspiracy's OUTER core. The INNER core had an altogether different agenda Ah c'mon Michael, surely you've something a little more substantive than this. To date, you've to finish the Litivenenko piece, Woolmer, the one about cannibalism (Churchill init) as well as offering the vast number of rebuttals to John's theory, now this. I eagerly await something in each of these, but not too long please. Well at least someone's been reading my stuff (ogling my SKY harem more likely) though no one seems to want to come down from the stands and have a kick about with my timelines. Don't worry Gazzer you'll get the low down on Smedley Butler in my 'great theory of everything.' All I'll say for the moment is don't fall into the PNAC 9/11 trap.

I recently read Archer's book, and as I recall the conspirators presented the plot to Butler as an attempt to help out the veterans and also to help out Roosevelt, by giving him an "assistant" to take care of things that were taking so much of Roosevelt's time. This assistant, of course, was going to be America's dictator. If the BBC is saying that the plotters felt Hitler or Mussolini tactics were needed to help end the depression, that is basically BS. They wanted fascism, all right, but they wanted it to save their fortunes, which they felt were threatened by Roosevelt policies. One of the plotters stated that he was willing to spend half of his fortune on the plot if it would save the other half. The motive of the conspiracy's OUTER core. The INNER core had an altogether different agenda

Up until now everything that has ever been written about the Smedley Butler affair has been designed to obscure and deceive. Until now. But Chappers won't let you down - watch this space!

UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE.. I will devote most of August to completing this thread. UK members of this board will be aware of the profound political and economic consequences flowing from this incident. But as I have stated all along there is nothing that is straightforward about this case. There are a number of high profile Litvinenko blogs and forums out there with dedicated Litvinenko threads. They are all, without exception, absolute sh*te. Either they are wildly speculative or take official statements at face value. Everyone appears to 'know' what 'really' happened without having done all that dull, time consuming, timelining. Gosh! I wish someone would cut me a slice of that 'vision thing!' Take it from me all ye truth seekers - if you want to get to the bottom of this affair this thread is the only place to be. UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE..

Even if I say so myself, I think that I have presented strong evidence that calls into question the key findings of the official autopsies performed on Bob Woolmer by Dr Nat Carey (Home Office Pathologist), Professor Lorna Martin (South Africa) and Dr Michael Pollanen (Canada) because: (i) their examinations cannot be considered proper autopsies at all (they only reviewed Dr Seshiah Ere’s post mortem report and photographs of the cadaver); (ii) their opinion that ‘natural’ myocardial infarction was the cause of death stands diametrically opposed to Ere’s own conclusion about the (healthy) condition of Woolmer’s heart at the time of death as reported by another respected local pathologist, Dr Jepthah Ford, who, within a fortnight of his pronouncement, was duly beaten to within an inch of his life (by Jamaican police posing as security guards at his night club) before being arraigned on trumped up charges of illegal gun ownership; (iii) Jamaican police secretly had Woolmer’s body embalmed on the afternoon immediately following the ‘first’ post mortem in the full knowledge that this would virtually render impossible a proper forensic re examination of the cadaver (though curiously it didn’t seem to prevent them from calling for another autopsy on the very next day). The pretext for these multiple ‘autopsies’ appears to have been Ere’s (ill considered) use of the word ‘inconclusive’ early on in his report which then went on to deliver an unequivocal opinion on the cause of death (manual strangulation). We will probably never know exactly what it was that Ere thought had eluded him in his examination. But there is one thing that we can be certain that Ere could not have definitively identified DURING the autopsy: the toxic residue in Woolmer’s stomach. Which brings me nicely to this weeks quiz question: Was the number of Woolly’s toxicology test ‘findings’ a) higher than b ) lower than or c) the same as the number of his post mortems? This toxicologist is happy because she has been informed of the result of her test in advance thus preventing an inconclusive finding. Myocardial Infarction Update (No 6) I strongly suspect that ‘The Face’ of Sky News could prove to be a bit of a handful in a non fnarr fnarr type way… Paula Middllehurst: was it Bob's sudden realisation that he would encounter stiff competition for ‘The Face’s’ attentions from her very narcissistic self that addled his aorta?

Never smile at a crocodile No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile Don't be taken in by his welcome grin He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin Never smile at a crocodile Never dip your hat and stop to talk awhile Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile You may very well be well bred Lots ot etiquette in your head But there's always some special case, time or place To forget etiquette For instance: Never smile at a crocodile No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile Don't be taken in by his welcome grin He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin Never smile at a crocodile Never dip your hat and stop to talk awhile Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile Remember folks, crocs dine out on communists, fascists and bleedin' heart liberals - so don't get hung up on ideologies. Remember also that the male croc is cannibalistic. There, what bigger clue could I give you about the TRUE cause of WWII?! (Sorry John, couldn't resist)

OK OK OK - so I left out the totty. I would have thought that my 'exclusive' on the recent fate of Dr Jephthah Ford and its possible connection with his unfortunate (but candid) utterances on Dr Seshaiah Ere's autopsy report on Bob Woolmer might have had a calming effect. But it seems raging hormones must be assuaged... MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION INDUCTION UPDATE (5) I plum forgot about Sky Sports News which Woolly must have tuned into. Lots of decent dolly birds there - and sport too! SSN regulars will recognize the evergreen lovely below. Clare Tomlinson: didn't flinch apparently when caught 'in delicto flagrante' with one, Brian Robson, by his less than flagrantly delictitious wife.

What’s my line? Read on! Questions are always there but I'm confident of my ability," he said. "I worked on this post mortem for two hours. I did a complete post mortem and arrived at a cause of death. Then I prepared my report and handed it over to the top police command. I did the best (sic) of my abilities and so did my team. We did our best." (Dr Sesaiah Ere, Cricinfo Website. 30/3/07) Well, he would say that wouldn’t he? Of course he wouldn't say he had to do a re examination and that his report was inconclusive and that he was a botcher an' all would he now? You know what these forensic pathologists are like... So, playing devil's advocate for a minute how exactly did word get out that Ere had botched Woolly's post mortem? Going by the Jamaica Gleaner of the 23rd March it appears that a couple of Ere's mates, a Dr Garfield Blake and Dr Jephthah Ford snitched on him. So what exactly did they think that Dr Ere had got wrong? Here's Dr Blake: Dr. Garfield Blake, president of the Jamaican Association of Clinical Pathologists, said yesterday that the assessment of the post-mortem report in the death of Pakistan cricket coach, Bob Woolmer, was obviously not handled properly. "The final conclusion of this being a manual strangulation, I would not expect the first word to be inconclusive," Dr. Blake told The Gleaner yesterday. "Maybe they just didn't handle the thing properly." Now I don’t want to play amateur forensic pathologist BUT from where I'm standing it looks like Blake was either criticising the way the autopsy report was written or, more likely, presented, rather than Ere's procedures (though he does go on to say that there should be clear cut evidence to back Ere’s conclusion of asphyxia by manual strangulation). His carefully chosen words may have been due to the fact that at that time he may only have seen a summary of Ere's findings (The Jamaica Gleaner believes that the coroner, Patrick Murphy, only received the full autopsy report from the police on the 28th March). One also has to bear in mind that his remarks are, of necessity, edited. The Jamaica Gleaner seems anxious though to ensure that Blake is seen to give Ere the benefit of the doubt: Dr. Blake, who is also a consultant pathologist at Cornwall Regional Hospital, said he was yet to speak with Government pathologist Dr. Ere Sheshiah, who conducted the autopsy on Woolmer's body on Tuesday. He, however, cautioned those who might be criticising Dr. Sheshiah for producing an inconclusive report. "Probably he (Dr. Sheshiah) has a way of how he operates. Probably he wanted everything, including the toxicology tests results, before he revealed anything," said Dr. Blake. Whilst Dr Ere’s other 'friend' Dr Jephthah Ford (remember the name!) has separate concerns (one of them being his own questionable assumption that the blood found in Woolmer's vomit should have ended speculation that his death was due to suicide) he too appears mainly troubled by the semantics and poor presentation of Ere's findings: "On Tuesday when they announced 'inconclusive', I said 'this matter is being badly handled', as there are some things they could say right away," Dr. Ford said. And what would they be pray? He continued: "There are certain conclusions that they could have announced, such as his heart was in a good condition, so heart attack is ruled out. They may not be able to say what is the cause of death, but you could say what is not the cause of death." Well, well, well! As early as the 23rd March expert witness testimony rules out myocardial infarction brought on by excessive exposure to Sky weather girls! So Ere's first hand examination (as revealed by Dr Jephthah Ford) contradicts the second hand findings of eminent home office Pathologist Dr Nat Carey, Professor Lorna Martin and Dr Michael Pollanen which, let me hasten to remind you, were later to be accepted and recorded as the official cause of death by the Jamaican police. Which brings me nicely to the answer of my 'What's my line’ quiz question: Forensic Pathologist! (who didn't think Woolly had a heart attack) Prominent medical doctor Jephthah Ford was released yesterday from the Kingston Public Hospital (KPH), following his alleged beating by police officers on Monday at his Fun Citi entertainment venue in Port Henderson, Portmore, St. Catherine, on Monday. The incident arose about 4:00 a.m. when Dr. Ford intervened to protect his sister Andrea, 57, who was allegedly being assaulted by security guards at Fun Citi, which she manages. She sustained minor injuries before he intervened and challenged the guards who identified themselves as police officers who were reportedly moonlighting as employees of the promoters of 'Wet, Wet'. The venue had been hosting that party at the time. Dr. Ford was allegedly beaten once at the venue, had his firearm taken by police and then twice handcuffed before being driven to the Greater Portmore Police Station. There, he was allegedly beaten again. He was then retrieved, unconscious, by relatives who took him to hospital. Dr. Ford is scheduled to appear at Spanish Town Gun Court on April 26 to answer charges of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and assault at common law arising from the incident. Jamaica Gleaner, Friday April 13th

.

Perhaps because they weren't "really an Israeli front". Oh Lenny Boy, let go! You've got to give 'em up! All those illusions about 'liberation struggles!' I can think of barely a handful of so called national liberation movements post WWII that weren't obvious proxies of the intelligence services of global or regional superpowers. And the less obvious ones were/are almost all ongoing false flag operations (eg certain ETA factions). Sid, Haniyah is MOSSAD's man in Gaza (though that doesn't mean to say its necessarily going to be plain sailing for HAMAS there) just as Abbas is MOSSAD's man on the West Bank (I can see partition coming...). HAMAS's takeover of Gaza was carefully chorographed by the three central protagonists (with a little assistance from Langley and Vauxhall Cross). Hamas was able to take over Gaza (by shooting in the air) because Fatah, with a TEN to ONE superiority in militia numbers there, stood down. Anyone who had any lingering doubts about that should have had them dispelled by Mo Dahlan's (Fatah's former Security Chief in Gaza and now, surprise, surprise, Security Minister in the Palestinian Authority) lame riposte to journalists who questioned the way in which his 'fighters' capitulated: "They were tired after fighting the Israelis for so many years' (!) Mo Dahlan: tired after fielding awkward questions for so many years... The fact that the leadersip of the Dagmush clan (Johnston's captors) were allowed to remain in Gaza after Fatah's departure clearly demonstrates they are collaborating with the new regime. And the fact that Alan Johnston was allowed to remain in Gaza after all other Western hacks had left clearly shows he was set up. Worst of all, his own employer, the spook infested BBC, was very probably a party to his abduction (how many times have we heard reports of Mark 'Labrador' Thompson, its Director General, 'consulting' with 'Foreign Office' officials in the last few days? If I were Alan Johnston I'd head for Thompson's office straight after touch down and sink my teeth into HIS biceps before handing in my notice. The Director General of the BBC PS Gazzer, still working out my Woolly contract and then I have to finish the Litvinenko epic (what an ending - don't miss it!!!). I'll let General Simkins exhaust his arguments on the Churchill front first before counter-attacking with the most extreme left field deductions.