Peter McKenna
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Peter McKenna
-
-
McKenna CLEARLY has not read a single one of the excellent books concerning 911.
All he knows is shallow hearsay of bits and pieces.
Jack
Of course, that is your patent claim, since I do not believe the entire conspiracy theory as put forth by you, and those you advocate, then I have only been exposed to “shallow hearsay, of bits and pieces”. This is your standard mode of ad hominem refutation for those who choose to disbelieve the maven of 9/11 conspiracy.
Let me ask you, Jack, were World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 the object of a controlled demolition? Was thermate used, or were WTC 1 and 2 felled by a ‘Star Wars’ type weapon? If thermate was used, or a ‘Star Wars’ type weapon, why were there reported explosions? Neither of these demolition methods should have caused explosions. Different theories for causes for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 have been offered, at different conspiracy sites, and at different times, many of which you have advocated at one time or another.
Is the basic tenet of your position, that the WTC 1 and 2 buildings collapsed for reason(s) other than being struck by a passenger jet, that the speed of collapse (“near free fall”) and the arrangement of the debris following the collapse indicates to you that the cause is other than the passenger jet?
I understand that the argument is more complex than that. Since there are no overwhelming individual proofs, theorists cling to the aggregate of many individual observations, aspects from second hand reports from people on hand, extrapolations made from applied sciences and engineering such as that the melting point of the structural steel was far above the heat capability of jet fuel, and that the ‘pancaking’ of Tower floors, in concert with the observed speed of collapse, is in direct conflict with conservation of momentum.
Most of these facets of the overall theory are really just bad engineering and have been debunked (on this site and many others, and by studies and computer modeling performed by the NIST).
My opinion is that a conspiracy theory such as the ‘9/11 conspiracy’ should prove at least one incontrovertible fact that is indicative of a conspiracy (an example would be to prove that WTC Building 7 was the subject of a controlled demolition, and that the demolition was planned and prepared prior to 9/11, this means to PROVE it and not that it just appears to be a controlled demolition) from which it is reasonable to assume that other facts of conspiracy will follow in the same or a similar vein.
But, as you have vigorously demonstrated in prior posts, suspicion of just one facet of 9/11 is unacceptable. This conspiracy theory must be fleshed out completely and swallowed whole, or not at all. The 9/11 conspiracy must be as Jack White proclaims it (of course I’m sure this in keeping with the 9/11 camp from which you hail).
That is my major problem with the 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists. There are aspects of which I am suspicious (as I have said previously) but of course that is completely unacceptable to you. I must believe the entire conspiracy theory as proclaimed by you, or I am a disinformationist, or I am the victim of hearsay, etc., (ad homs and so forth).
In reality, this mindset probably has done more harm than good for your side of this argument, and has done much to marginalize your 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement without much help. Sometimes I wonder which side you really advocate.
-
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
It is reported that you will be meeting with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico at Montebello, P.Q., August 20-21, 2007, to discussthe Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). I would like to offer you a briefing paper so that there is no doubt in your mind about who it is you are negotiating with when you negotiate with Mr. Bush.
<snip by Mod to reduce size of post>
The fate of Canada rests with you, sir. History will know the facts. They cannot be
hidden. Please defend our country from the designs
of the Bush administration.
Jack White has posted a diatribe written by a guy named Steve Beckow supposedly as a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister, as an advisory on the surreptitious agenda of President George Bush, in preparation for the Security and Prosperity Partnership Meeting, to be held with the US, Canadian, and Mexican heads of state in Monticello, P. Q.
As proof of this agenda Mr. Beckow identifies that all of the acts of destruction which occurred on 9/11/2001, at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, occurred by the design of the US administration.
Steve Beckow is identified as a former Canadian Official, which is supposed to give him credentials, even though the letter is little more than a repetition of the conspiracy theories advanced by numerous 9/11 conspiracy sites. This particular conspiracy theory (i.e. the letter and conspiracy sites) is advanced as one cogent theory, that supposedly the acts of destruction blamed on Al-Qaeda were really a huge false flag operation designed by the US Administration and executed by the US Military.
Facets of this conspiracy theory, such as the cause of the World trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapses, differ from site to site. One conspiracy theorist assigns the collapses to a ‘Star Wars Weapon’, while another identifies ‘Thermate’ as facilitating the ‘controlled demolition’ of these buildings. Details vary, but there is general agreement that the agency responsible, which carried out the actual acts of destruction, is the United States Executive office.
The posting of this letter is another in giant pile of pronouncements concerning 9/11 made by the conspiracy theorists who post here. These pronouncements are very similar in one regard. They all advance the theory that 9/11 was done at the hands of the US Government, but none offer absolute proof of this pronouncement.
For every statement of supposed proof, there is a rebuttal. While some observations are made which may concentrate suspicion or which may seem to further the argument, there has been no real proof that the US Government is the hand behind the screen. You can wade through the mounds of claims and rebuttals until your nostrils are filled with the stench, but as long as claims of each side is pursued with equal vigor, you will find that there is no absolute proof of this conspiracy.
One point of this dichotomy seems very strange. Typically in a case of conspiracy, especially one as large as 9/11, the case for proving a conspiracy should be accomplished point by point, one item at a time. If one individual item is proven to be the work of ‘X’ then from that point forward a case is built. Watergate was proven in this way, by following the trail of money, the payoffs, to the Watergate plumbers (ever see the movie, ‘All the President’s Men’?). If a single point is proven, then the rest of the case follows in step right behind.
The 9/11 conspiracy does not follow this pattern. Instead of saying ‘proving this one point proves the involvement of an inside man, hence it is proven that 9/11 was not the responsibility of Al Qaeda’, the whole tangled mess is offered as a whole, ‘take it or leave it’. To doubt one facet of this tangled mess of conspiracy theory results in being labeled a disinformationist or agent provocateur. This behavior is not consistent with the plodding, anal retentive, ‘devil is in the details’, detective work that is required to piece together a giant conspiracy theory like 9/11.
Piece after piece is posted, offering the same tired unsubstantiated information. The same arguments, to debunk these items, are also repeated time and again. Ad hominems are thrown, frustration sets in.
Sometimes it can be entertaining to see what preposterous new claims have been made recently, or to what extreme an argument has descended.
One thing is true. The dichotomy of 9/11 conspiracy has consumed an enormous amount of time. If measured in total man-hours, the number must be staggering. So what has been accomplished to this point? What has been proven? How many people believe the unsubstantiated claims of pieces like ‘Loose Change’, et al? If anything the theories have bogged down a large number of people in argument; Is that an accomplishment in and of itself?
-
"Correct me if I have any facts wrong here. "
You have not presented any FACTS...only uninformed opinion.
You are not even aware of the facts.
Jack
Actually, Jack, in the referenced post, what I presented were 'Facts'.
Unforutantely you seem to have trouble distinguishing reality from fabrication.
-
Correct me if I have any facts wrong here.
During the Second World War there was lots of intelligence of the Holocaust, but those in power in the US and England chose to keep to the fiction that it was fiction...even despite the pleas of one famous escaped concentration camp victim with evidence. The truth is the truth no matter how many times you deny it or pretend not to see the Emperor's 'New' Clothes. Much information repeats and many persons [myself included] are alarmed
to the maximum at
what we feel is clear evidence of a false-flag operation a la the Reichstag fire or Gulf of Tonkin or Guernica or supposed Polish attack on Germany, Trojan Horse.....etc. Belieeve what you want and make-believe all you want because it is perhaps too frightening for you to even conte
m
plate. I think history will
show 9-11 offical version as much a fiction as the 11-22-63 official version and sharing many features as to motivation and general forces behind them. So, I say SAY IT AGAIN AND LOUDER....EVERY SHOUT COUNTS! Thanks Jack. Sorry, you Peter haven't seen the light yet on 9-11. May you soon. The other thing this 'repeat' shows is the fear all around the world at what is going on in the US. I'm in Europe and I hear it every day...and meet more and more Americans hunting for a new place to live....out of fear and disgust. If only those valiant efforts to convince those who pretended not to see the Holocaust had been moved...or the warnings on Dallas....or some who say another 9-11 is coming if this is all not dealt with
IMMEDIATELY! It is time to sound the alarm and not put one's head in the sand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I can not accept the hypothesis that the Government willingly and premeditatively murdered thousands of US citizens. Even if the intent had existed, I do not believe that a conspricay on such a scale (my own brother saw the plane hit WTC 2) could have been accomplished, in secrecy, and involving so many. I do believe that facets of 9/11 are extremely suspicious and some sort of coverup was involved, but I do not subscribe to the 'inside job' POV.
Not only do I believe using the 9/11 events as grounds for impeachment as ludicrous, I resent that a Canadian citizen is 'stumping' (via openly camaigning on the internet) for the impeachment of a US President. I guess I must remain relegated to the ranks of the oblivious.
-
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
It is reported that you will be meeting with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico at Montebello, P.Q., August 20-21, 2007, to discuss the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). I would like to offer you a briefing paper so that there is no doubt in your mind about who it is you are negotiating with when you negotiate with Mr. Bush.
<snip by mod - no need to repeat verbatim quotes, especially when they are very long>
The fate of Canada rests with you, sir. History will know the facts. They cannot be hidden. Please defend our country from the designs of the Bush administration.
This is just a rehash of the same 9/11 Truther claims which can be found on any of the 'Truther' sites on the internet.
Is this diatribe suddenly credible because it comes from a 'Former Canadian Official'?
I googled Steve Beckow and found the 'ImpeachSpace' site which (stated in the tagline) he started. It is dedicated to impeaching Bush. My guess is he is a Canadian citizen. So this former Canadian 'official' is corresponding to the Canadian Prime Minister, identifying that the US government murdered thousands of it's citizens (via 9/11), citing as his proof the evidence currently espoused at many (most if not all) existing 'Truther' sites on the Internet, and is hosting a site calling for the impeachment of the US President.
Is that correct? Correct me if I have any facts wrong here.
-
Peter McKenna's post (#69) is excellent, full of information and well presented. One of the points is how many resources are available for "government agents" to monitor so much of what seems vast on the web? COINTELPROs against the Klan and Martin Luther King, Jr. involved informant types, but much of the disruptive stuff was in the form of anonymous letters/packages in the mail. These types of indirect pressures would be more what a security service would be able to conduct depending on number of agents available. To monitor the web, the numbers would have to be huge, which sounds unrealistic.
Kevin West's response was good. He was right to criticize my simplistic "stupid or dishonest" assertion. In fact, "stupid" was too harsh and unfair. It deserved criticism, as it was produced on the spur of the moment in reaction to some things I'd just read. Always a bad idea to post anything immediately around here. I apologize for my own stupidity in making an either/or assertion. And no, Kevin, I'm not interested in getting into yet another online forum fight........it's way too time-consuming considering how often it takes to keep logging in just to post anything
Thank you Daniel,
Peter Lemkin's posts expanded with great detail (and by way of citations) the likely extent of Web exploitation. While I am somewhat reserved in my feelings still, Peter presents a compelling argument (and somewhat frighteneing).
I still don't belive that disnformists populate this site. But, the intrusion into our thoughts and words (and privacy) by the government is noteworthy. 'I maybe paranoid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong'.
-
Impressive Peter.
My undertsanding of the NSA filtering approached what you have identified and cited.
I hadn't thought of the fact that This forum is from 'overseas' (conveniently forgotten?).
Maybe one individiual might come to mind, but I'm just not quite that paranoid (yet), but???
Thanks for the cites.
I need coffee now.
In fact it doesn't matter at all if the site, computer or phone is in USA or not now....the whole world is being montored now....I can prove that and the Bush Admin has even said so.....obliquely. Even the EU report sites as an example the NSA bot working on a NY site! And all the recent revelations of domestic phone filtering - not taps....filitering ALL phone calls in USA. 1984=2007
See my new post on 'Look at these sites at your own risk' Last URL has full text I extracted above from....and that is what is public...the real story [part I know, but will NOT put on internet!] is much worse...much worse...forget the coffee...you need a whiskey. The whole reality is sickening and out of control.
The early Postal Service (1776-1900) is probably one of the primary reasons that the United States was able to unify and survive the hardships of extreme isolation and frontier life.
The early Postal Service was, in many ways, similar to the onset of the World Wide Web.
Tampering or interfering with the mail has always been considered not only a criminal act, but a gross violation of personal privacy. The rules of etiquette demanded that personal letters be respected as a measure of a person's own private domain.
Although the parallels are not addressed much openly today, many feel that communications over the internet deserve the same measure of personal privacy that is given the mail. Barring an imminent threat to the country or people, mail is an extension of one's own home, and a reasonable expectation of privacy is manifest. More-so than communications via the telephone, which have also been provided the expectation of privacy tantamount to an extension of one's own home.
So why is the internet, the device of choice for interpersonal communication between so many, so exploited?
Some interesting items from the history of the US mail:
"Today it is difficult to envision the isolation that was the lot of farm families in early America. In the days before telephones, radios, or televisions were common, the farmer's main links to the outside world were the mail and the newspapers that came by mail to the nearest post office. Since the mail had to be picked up, this meant a trip to the post office, often involving a day's travel, round-trip. The farmer might delay picking up mail for days, weeks, or even months until the trip could be coupled with one for supplies, food, or equipment.
John Wanamaker of Pennsylvania was the first Postmaster General to advocate rural free delivery (RFD). Although funds were appropriated a month before he left office in 1893, subsequent Postmasters General dragged their feet on inaugurating the new service so that it was 1896 before the first experimental rural delivery routes began in West Virginia, with carriers working out of post offices in Charlestown, Halltown, and Uvilla.
Many transportation events in postal history were marked by great demonstrations: the Pony Express, for example, and scheduled airmail service in 1918. The West Virginia experiment with rural free delivery, however, was launched in relative obscurity and in an atmosphere of hostility. Critics of the plan claimed it was impractical and too expensive to have a postal carrier trudge over rutted roads and through forests trying to deliver mail in all kinds of weather.
However, the farmers, without exception, were delighted with the new service and the new world open to them. After receiving free delivery for a few months, one observed that it would take away part of life to give it up. A Missouri farmer looked back on his life and calculated that, in 15 years, he had traveled 12,000 miles going to and from his post office to get the mail.
A byproduct of rural free delivery was the stimulation it provided to the development of the great American system of roads and highways. A prerequisite for rural delivery was good roads. After hundreds of petitions for rural delivery were turned down by the Post Office because of unserviceable and inaccessible roads, responsible local governments began to extend and improve existing highways. Between 1897 and 1908, these local governments spent an estimated $72 million on bridges, culverts, and other improvements. In one county in Indiana, farmers themselves paid over $2,600 to grade and gravel a road in order to qualify for RFD.
The impact of RFD as a cultural and social agent for millions of Americans was even more striking, and, in this respect, rural delivery still is a vital link between industrial and rural America."
http://www.usps.com/history/his2.htm
THE SPIRIT OF THE PONY EXPRESS
"From the days of ancient Persia to dawn of modern industry, horse and rider served to bind together the provinces of monarchy, empire and republic. No state long survived its inability to promote the dissemination of knowledge and information among its people. In mid-century America, communication between St. Joseph on the fringe of western settlement and gold mining communities of California challenged the bold and made skeptical the timid. Into this picture rode the Pony Express. In rain and in snow, in sleet and in hail over moonlit prairie, down tortuous mountain path . . . pounding pony feet knitted together the ragged edges of a rising nation. From these hearty souls who toiled over plain and mountain that understanding might be more generally diffused, a nation spanning a continent was ours to inherit. In the spirit of the Pony Express it is for us to bequeath to those who shall follow, new trails in the sky uniting in thought and in deed."
- Frank S. Popplewell
"Ranked among the most remarkable feats to come out of the 1860 American West, the Pony Express was in service from April 1860 to November 1861. Its primary mission was to deliver mail and news between St. Joseph, Missouri, and San Francisco, California."
"The first mail by Pony Express reached Sacramento, April 13, 1860. At that time the company employed 300 person, 80 of them being riders whose average performance was about 75 miles. There is a record of one who rode 384 miles without stopping for meals and to change horses at stations. Prior to the advent of the Pony Express the newspapers had succeeded in having a telegraph wire run from San Francisco to Stockton and thence through the San Joaquin Valley and over the Tehachapi's to Los Angeles, the idea being to anticipate the arrival in San Francisco of the southern stage. But the endeavor failed to produce the improvements expected. The most news the local papers received through the Pony Express was their hair-breadth escapes from Indians and hold-up men. Buffalo Bill, Wild Bill Hickok and other of their calibre were among the riders."
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/c...lreportIIIh.htm
Put that in your Pony Express bag........
From your own reference site:
"The legal fears of CIA and FBI officials were firmly based, for sanctity of the mail has been a long-established principle in American jurisprudence. Fourth Amendment restrictions on first class mail opening were recognized as early as 1878, when the Supreme Court wrote in Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727,733 (1878):
Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution."
Very sad indeed.....
-
Impressive Peter.
My undertsanding of the NSA filtering approached what you have identified and cited.
I hadn't thought of the fact that This forum is from 'overseas' (conveniently forgotten?).
Maybe one individiual might come to mind, but I'm just not quite that paranoid (yet), but???
Thanks for the cites.
I need coffee now.
In fact it doesn't matter at all if the site, computer or phone is in USA or not now....the whole world is being montored now....I can prove that and the Bush Admin has even said so.....obliquely. Even the EU report sites as an example the NSA bot working on a NY site! And all the recent revelations of domestic phone filtering - not taps....filitering ALL phone calls in USA. 1984=2007
See my new post on 'Look at these sites at your own risk' Last URL has full text I extracted above from....and that is what is public...the real story [part I know, but will NOT put on internet!] is much worse...much worse...forget the coffee...you need a whiskey. The whole reality is sickening and out of control.
The early Postal Service (1776-1900) is probably one of the primary reasons that the United States was able to unify and survive the hardships of extreme isolation and frontier life.
The early Postal Service was, in many ways, similar to the onset of the World Wide Web.
Tampering or interfering with the mail has always been considered not only a criminal act, but a gross violation of personal privacy. The rules of etiquette demanded that personal letters be respected as a measure of a person's own private domain.
Although the parallels are not addressed much openly today, many feel that communications over the internet deserve the same measure of personal privacy that is given the mail. Barring an imminent threat to the country or people, mail is an extension of one's own home, and a reasonable expectation of privacy is manifest. More-so than communications via the telephone, which have also been provided the expectation of privacy tantamount to an extension of one's own home.
So why is the internet, the device of choice for interpersonal communication between so many, so exploited?
Some interesting items from the history of the US mail:
"Today it is difficult to envision the isolation that was the lot of farm families in early America. In the days before telephones, radios, or televisions were common, the farmer's main links to the outside world were the mail and the newspapers that came by mail to the nearest post office. Since the mail had to be picked up, this meant a trip to the post office, often involving a day's travel, round-trip. The farmer might delay picking up mail for days, weeks, or even months until the trip could be coupled with one for supplies, food, or equipment.
John Wanamaker of Pennsylvania was the first Postmaster General to advocate rural free delivery (RFD). Although funds were appropriated a month before he left office in 1893, subsequent Postmasters General dragged their feet on inaugurating the new service so that it was 1896 before the first experimental rural delivery routes began in West Virginia, with carriers working out of post offices in Charlestown, Halltown, and Uvilla.
Many transportation events in postal history were marked by great demonstrations: the Pony Express, for example, and scheduled airmail service in 1918. The West Virginia experiment with rural free delivery, however, was launched in relative obscurity and in an atmosphere of hostility. Critics of the plan claimed it was impractical and too expensive to have a postal carrier trudge over rutted roads and through forests trying to deliver mail in all kinds of weather.
However, the farmers, without exception, were delighted with the new service and the new world open to them. After receiving free delivery for a few months, one observed that it would take away part of life to give it up. A Missouri farmer looked back on his life and calculated that, in 15 years, he had traveled 12,000 miles going to and from his post office to get the mail.
A byproduct of rural free delivery was the stimulation it provided to the development of the great American system of roads and highways. A prerequisite for rural delivery was good roads. After hundreds of petitions for rural delivery were turned down by the Post Office because of unserviceable and inaccessible roads, responsible local governments began to extend and improve existing highways. Between 1897 and 1908, these local governments spent an estimated $72 million on bridges, culverts, and other improvements. In one county in Indiana, farmers themselves paid over $2,600 to grade and gravel a road in order to qualify for RFD.
The impact of RFD as a cultural and social agent for millions of Americans was even more striking, and, in this respect, rural delivery still is a vital link between industrial and rural America."
http://www.usps.com/history/his2.htm
THE SPIRIT OF THE PONY EXPRESS
"From the days of ancient Persia to dawn of modern industry, horse and rider served to bind together the provinces of monarchy, empire and republic. No state long survived its inability to promote the dissemination of knowledge and information among its people. In mid-century America, communication between St. Joseph on the fringe of western settlement and gold mining communities of California challenged the bold and made skeptical the timid. Into this picture rode the Pony Express. In rain and in snow, in sleet and in hail over moonlit prairie, down tortuous mountain path . . . pounding pony feet knitted together the ragged edges of a rising nation. From these hearty souls who toiled over plain and mountain that understanding might be more generally diffused, a nation spanning a continent was ours to inherit. In the spirit of the Pony Express it is for us to bequeath to those who shall follow, new trails in the sky uniting in thought and in deed."
- Frank S. Popplewell
"Ranked among the most remarkable feats to come out of the 1860 American West, the Pony Express was in service from April 1860 to November 1861. Its primary mission was to deliver mail and news between St. Joseph, Missouri, and San Francisco, California."
"The first mail by Pony Express reached Sacramento, April 13, 1860. At that time the company employed 300 person, 80 of them being riders whose average performance was about 75 miles. There is a record of one who rode 384 miles without stopping for meals and to change horses at stations. Prior to the advent of the Pony Express the newspapers had succeeded in having a telegraph wire run from San Francisco to Stockton and thence through the San Joaquin Valley and over the Tehachapi's to Los Angeles, the idea being to anticipate the arrival in San Francisco of the southern stage. But the endeavor failed to produce the improvements expected. The most news the local papers received through the Pony Express was their hair-breadth escapes from Indians and hold-up men. Buffalo Bill, Wild Bill Hickok and other of their calibre were among the riders."
-
There is no doubt that disinformation tactics exist. In certain cases, it may be prudent. I just doubt it is as widespread as some would indicate.
I don't doubt that these tactics exist either ... but I will have to disagree with you on this point ... I believe it's more widespread on internet discussion forums than most people could ever imagine .
Allright then, as a hypothetical, how many people on how many forums would you guess are agent provocateurs? Assume that chat rooms tied to the media, esp. politically centrist media, are included.
Just as an experiment.
My own guess is there have been at different times a handfull, at least, on this Forum. There are many forums on the internet that cover politics, however as John Simkin has so proudly pointed out many times on many google searches on what I'd call hot button names and topics, this forum comes up on the first page, often in the top three positions, sometimes #1. You think the NSA computers didn't find the same result? You don't think there are people in the intelligence agencies who would like to shape history to their spin on the internet and in the media....?
Peter,
I am attempting to obtain a report or census on the number of worldwide internet forums and discussion groups. There are several internet statistics reports including governance, demographics, and trends, however there appears to be a diverging abundance of information as to the actual population of these sites. There appears to be thousands, though. The dominant demographic appears to be in the educational community, followed by political, which may explain the prominence of the Education Forum.
If discussion groups, attached to political devices such as e-magazines, think tanks, advocate groups, political analysts, candidates, and political parties are included, and chat rooms which also can be either non-affiliated, or affiliated (but still diverse), the overall population should be quite large. I don't know that I could approximate the total population.
The COMMINTEL portion of the NSA is surely the largest. The NSA is rumored to have at least ten times the resources of the CIA. However my understanding of their modus operandi is to filter all electronic communications using keyword patterns in search of specific national security concerns. Of course the Patriot act and prior efforts concentrated on US to/from outside US communications of all varieties, to locate candidate risk entities for targeted surveillance. It is doubtful that the NSA would entertain intrusive methods such as inserting agents into groups either for manipulation of opinion or to spread disinformation, other than possibly foreign missions where specific individuals could be targeted in a specific operation of some sort (although I can't think of a specific example, possibly something like establishing a legend of a group or individual to support some operation, I don't really know).
Inside the US, the personality of a tactical approach seems to have been the FBI/Justice Dept. targeting groups or individuals to damage credibility, where the interests of the 'inner circle' of Washington's movers were best served. This was mindful of Hoover's MO. If extrapolated to the diverse media and many streams of internet discussion, and barring just using the keyword search/pattern program type of operation, using individuals to sit and engage in discussion to argue the 'Company Line' in the political arena would need a large population and a hefty price tag.
Not to belittle the influence of the Education Forum, I'm sure there are hundreds of other sites where such a tactic would wield more influence (such as sites that are watched closely by the Pols to gain insights, such as the Hudson Institute, Rockefeller Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The Washington Group, The Mclaughlin Group, The Capitol Gang, and the list goes on and on. The discussion groups which interact with these celebrities have some influence in providing the tenor of current thinking, more, I would think than the Education Forum. Either way I don't believe the NSA would be a party to this, it's not really their 'thing'. Unless an individual(s) in the Education Forum have been targeted, more for their ability to lead, organize, and influence critical thinking, than to express it, I really doubt that there would be an excess of resources expended on supplying disinformation, on the fly, to change anyone's opinion. For one thing, how many people on this forum are likely to alter their opinions based upon another member's input (unless concrete proof, with references, photos, and smoking gun are collected and placed on the evidence table for scrutiny)?
I just don't believe that its very likely. But stranger things have happened.
The reference I gave from the book 'KGB: the hidden hand' may have been disinformation (I don't think so but I am aware of the distinct possibility, given the virulent anti-Soviet stance of the 1980's right wing). If that was so and this book was touted as a bona fide compendium, a comprehensive study of Soviet influence in the world, on a highly visible talk show, that would (IMO) be a classic act of disinformation. The Education Forum is not a likely podium for a Deus ex Machina of this caliber (nor would many on this forum buy that one).
Anyway, to sum up, do I think the Education Forum may be scrutinized by the US Security Services? Probably. However, I doubt if they actively sit in and attempt to spread disinformation. You know that after a while, as you read an individuals contributions over the months or years, contributors' personalities seems to seep out and they become more or less somewhat predictable, and contributions therefore, take on a tinge of the author's personality. That makes it very hard and very resource intensive to become effective at that type of operation (as a blanket operation).
If a site sprang into existence, with a focus on say, establishing a Fundamentalist Islamic relief fund for Iraq, than yes, I do believe they would garner much interest from the intelligence community, and more from the intel gathering POV, than any seeding of disinfo.
Sorry to be so long, but I guess this reply is inversely proportional to the ability to actually cite references. So much of this is my opinion backed up by observation and past examples of the past modus operandi of COINTELPRO.
Of course, the NSA [and there are others...at least two others I know of] that gather electronic information - mostly illegally, but the way. They do it by computer sifting of keywords and also with private communication by phone numbers, location, timing and all sorts of other things...but lets concentrate on internet. They sift it all...and I mean ALL...the computers do....when certain key words are found that information is passed to the next rank of computers [they have the best and most powerful computers in the world..and lots of them] to see it fits whatever criteria they have to be passed on to yet another bank of computers...etc. They know which sites are of 'interest' to them and of those someone somewhere [likely not a computer] makes decisions if they should be monitored in real time by a person or computer, hacked and brought down, fed 'other information' or just trolled, etc. Of course the site you invent would be of greater interest and ala
m to them, IMO...but
it is my understanding of the world and America as it now is that the true history of assassinations, secret government overthrows, dirty tricks, lies and deceptions to the public on matters that couldn't be any more important, wars, drug and arms deals and more - is as great a threat to them [if not as acute in the temporal sense] as their new boogymen of islamofascism which is mostly of their own making. In the long run, they are more afraid of the American People learning the truth and thus will devote [and HAVE devoted] enourmous amounts of persons, time, money and energy in the cover-up. The internet now allows the whole world to learn about what only a few dedicated researchers could exchange or publish in highly suppressed books.....it is a big threat to them. IMO This Forum more than many.....this part of the Forum...I think to think otherwise is naive in the extreme.
I'd go further. Some few who post here will also be having their phones monitored because of what they post here...and computer trojans sent to look inside their computers. Some of them were being monitored anyway because they are known to be active researchers putting their noses in places those who watch us would rather not looked at in the light. Sites like McAdams site is IMO a complete and knowing disinformation site to counter sites like this...that is another technique....there are others such as intelligence/cover-up books like Case Closed et al.....all methods are used. Some of the posters who just seem to have a 'different take' than those of us who know there was a conspiracy are just honestly in disagreement and working for no one [and that is fine and they are welcome]; AND A FEW are here to disrupt and thwart progress. Of those in the last catagory there may be some who do it out of their own misguided sense of patriotism and I'd be inclined to think a few are paid to. [iMO]
From a EU Report on SINGINT Eschelon:
54. Since the early 1990s, fast and sophisticated Comint systems have been developed to collect, filter and analyse the forms of fast digital communications used by the Internet. Because most of the world's Internet capacity lies within the United States or connects to the United States, many communications in "cyberspace" will pass through intermediate sites within the United States. Communications from Europe to and from Asia, Oceania, Africa or South America normally travel via the United States.
55. Routes taken by Internet "packets" depend on the origin and destination of the data, the systems through which they enter and leaves the Internet, and a myriad of other factors including time of day. Thus, routers within the western United States are at their most idle at the time when central European traffic is reaching peak usage. It is thus possible (and reasonable) for messages travelling a short distance in a busy European network to travel instead, for example, via Internet exchanges in California. It follows that a large proportion of international communications on the Internet will by the nature of the system pass through the United States and thus be readily accessible to NSA.
56.Standard Internet messages are composed of packets called "datagrams" . Datagrams include numbers representing both their origin and their destination, called "IP addresses". The addresses are unique to each computer connected to the Internet. They are inherently easy to identify as to country and site of origin and destination. Handling, sorting and routing millions of such packets each second is fundamental to the operation of major Internet centres. The same process facilitates extraction of traffic for Comint purposes.
57. Internet traffic can be accessed either from international communications links entering the United States, or when it reaches major Internet exchanges. Both methods have advantages. Access to communications systems is likely to be remain clandestine - whereas access to Internet exchanges might be more detectable but provides easier access to more data and simpler sorting methods. Although the quantities of data involved are immense, NSA is normally legally restricted to looking only at communications that start or finish in a foreign country. Unless special warrants are issued, all other data should normally be thrown away by machine before it can be examined or recorded.
58. Much other Internet traffic (whether foreign to the US or not) is of trivial intelligence interest or can be handled in other ways. For example, messages sent to "Usenet" discussion groups amounts to about 15 Gigabytes (GB) of data per day; the rough equivalent of 10,000 books. All this data is broadcast to anyone wanting (or willing) to have it. Like other Internet users, intelligence agencies have open source access to this data and store and analyse it. In the UK, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency maintains a 1 Terabyte database containing the previous 90 days of Usenet messages.(35) A similar service, called "Deja News", is available to users of the World Wide Web (WWW). Messages for Usenet are readily distinguishable. It is pointless to collect them clandestinely.
59. Similar considerations affect the World Wide Web, most of which is openly accessible. Web sites are examined continuously by "search engines" which generate catalogues of their contents. "Alta Vista" and "Hotbot" are prominent public sites of this kind. NSA similarly employs computer "bots" (robots) to collect data of interest. For example, a New York web site known as JYA.COM (http://www.jya.com/crypto.htm) offers extensive public information on Sigint, Comint and cryptography. The site is frequently updated. Records of access to the site show that every morning it is visited by a "bot" from NSA's National Computer Security Centre, which looks for new files and makes copies of any that it finds.(36)
60. It follows that foreign Internet traffic of communications intelligence interest - consisting of e-mail, file transfers, "virtual private networks" operated over the internet, and some other messages - will form at best a few per cent of the traffic on most US Internet exchanges or backbone links. According to a former employee, NSA had by 1995 installed "sniffer" software to collect such traffic at nine major Internet exchange points (IXPs).(37) The first two such sites identified, FIX East and FIX West, are operated by US government agencies. They are closely linked to nearby commercial locations, MAE East and MAE West (see table). Three other sites listed were Network Access Points originally developed by the US National Science Foundation to provide the US Internet with its initial "backbone".
Impressive Peter.
My undertsanding of the NSA filtering approached what you have identified and cited.
I hadn't thought of the fact that This forum is from 'overseas' (conveniently forgotten?).
Maybe one individiual might come to mind, but I'm just not quite that paranoid (yet), but???
Thanks for the cites.
I need coffee now.
-
There is no doubt that disinformation tactics exist. In certain cases, it may be prudent. I just doubt it is as widespread as some would indicate.
I don't doubt that these tactics exist either ... but I will have to disagree with you on this point ... I believe it's more widespread on internet discussion forums than most people could ever imagine .
Allright then, as a hypothetical, how many people on how many forums would you guess are agent provocateurs? Assume that chat rooms tied to the media, esp. politically centrist media, are included.
Just as an experiment.
My own guess is there have been at different times a handfull, at least, on this Forum. There are many forums on the internet that cover politics, however as John Simkin has so proudly pointed out many times on many google searches on what I'd call hot button names and topics, this forum comes up on the first page, often in the top three positions, sometimes #1. You think the NSA computers didn't find the same result? You don't think there are people in the intelligence agencies who would like to shape history to their spin on the internet and in the media....?
Peter,
I am attempting to obtain a report or census on the number of worldwide internet forums and discussion groups. There are several internet statistics reports including governance, demographics, and trends, however there appears to be a diverging abundance of information as to the actual population of these sites. There appears to be thousands, though. The dominant demographic appears to be in the educational community, followed by political, which may explain the prominence of the Education Forum.
If discussion groups, attached to political devices such as e-magazines, think tanks, advocate groups, political analysts, candidates, and political parties are included, and chat rooms which also can be either non-affiliated, or affiliated (but still diverse), the overall population should be quite large. I don’t know that I could approximate the total population.
The COMMINTEL portion of the NSA is surely the largest. The NSA is rumored to have at least ten times the resources of the CIA. However my understanding of their modus operandi is to filter all electronic communications using keyword patterns in search of specific national security concerns. Of course the Patriot act and prior efforts concentrated on US to/from outside US communications of all varieties, to locate candidate risk entities for targeted surveillance. It is doubtful that the NSA would entertain intrusive methods such as inserting agents into groups either for manipulation of opinion or to spread disinformation, other than possibly foreign missions where specific individuals could be targeted in a specific operation of some sort (although I can’t think of a specific example, possibly something like establishing a legend of a group or individual to support some operation, I don’t really know).
Inside the US, the personality of a tactical approach seems to have been the FBI/Justice Dept. targeting groups or individuals to damage credibility, where the interests of the ‘inner circle’ of Washington’s movers were best served. This was mindful of Hoover’s MO. If extrapolated to the diverse media and many streams of internet discussion, and barring just using the keyword search/pattern program type of operation, using individuals to sit and engage in discussion to argue the ‘Company Line’ in the political arena would need a large population and a hefty price tag.
Not to belittle the influence of the Education Forum, I'm sure there are hundreds of other sites where such a tactic would wield more influence (such as sites that are watched closely by the Pols to gain insights, such as the Hudson Institute, Rockefeller Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The Washington Group, The Mclaughlin Group, The Capitol Gang, and the list goes on and on. The discussion groups which interact with these celebrities have some influence in providing the tenor of current thinking, more, I would think than the Education Forum. Either way I don't believe the NSA would be a party to this, it’s not really their ‘thing’. Unless an individual(s) in the Education Forum have been targeted, more for their ability to lead, organize, and influence critical thinking, than to express it, I really doubt that there would be an excess of resources expended on supplying disinformation, on the fly, to change anyone’s opinion. For one thing, how many people on this forum are likely to alter their opinions based upon another member's input (unless concrete proof, with references, photos, and smoking gun are collected and placed on the evidence table for scrutiny)?
I just don’t believe that its very likely. But stranger things have happened.
The reference I gave from the book 'KGB: the hidden hand' may have been disinformation (I don’t think so but I am aware of the distinct possibility, given the virulent anti-Soviet stance of the 1980’s right wing). If that was so and this book was touted as a bona fide compendium, a comprehensive study of Soviet influence in the world, on a highly visible talk show, that would (IMO) be a classic act of disinformation. The Education Forum is not a likely podium for a Deus ex Machina of this caliber (nor would many on this forum buy that one).
Anyway, to sum up, do I think the Education Forum may be scrutinized by the US Security Services? Probably. However, I doubt if they actively sit in and attempt to spread disinformation. You know that after a while, as you read an individuals contributions over the months or years, contributors' personalities seems to seep out and they become more or less somewhat predictable, and contributions therefore, take on a tinge of the author's personality. That makes it very hard and very resource intensive to become effective at that type of operation (as a blanket operation).
If a site sprang into existence, with a focus on say, establishing a Fundamentalist Islamic relief fund for Iraq, than yes, I do believe they would garner much interest from the intelligence community, and more from the intel gathering POV, than any seeding of disinfo.
Sorry to be so long, but I guess this reply is inversely proportional to the ability to actually cite references. So much of this is my opinion backed up by observation and past examples of the past modus operandi of COINTELPRO.
-
There is no doubt that disinformation tactics exist. In certain cases, it may be prudent. I just doubt it is as widespread as some would indicate.
I don't doubt that these tactics exist either ... but I will have to disagree with you on this point ... I believe it's more widespread on internet discussion forums than most people could ever imagine .
Allright then, as a hypothetical, how many people on how many forums would you guess are agent provocateurs? Assume that chat rooms tied to the media, esp. politically centrist media, are included.
Just as an experiment.
-
Actually Peter, I was thinking along similar lines to Len (if I get his meaning); you have stated things quite correctly, except they apply to other than the people you had in mind - I think.The problem is that on the internet the provacateur can create a lot of havoc in a short time. I'm sure we all have certain names in mind....They ask you to document it further...and then further. Then later, to document it all over again.
I wasn't really sure about this one, exactly what you meant. I had in mind the way some people raise a proposition, have it disproven, then wait for a while and then raise it again - ignoring the challenges that were given previously.
They naysay and cast doubt.Correct. As soon as something happens, it is a CIA plot or a secret government experiment gone wrong or another example of.... something like that. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
They made attacks on the person more often than the information.This more than anything makes me think of one individual. They complain about ad homs whilst are dishing them out all the time - and rarely actually address the argument given to them.
They divert threads and which they choose is always of interest.Unsure of meaning.
They try to tempt one to spend all of one's time convincing them [when they can't be convinced...they came with fixed ideology] so the thread doesn't progress and others of good will can't interact easily.Yep, there is no changing of their opinion. My objective is to show a different opinion, provide alternative explanations, and to highlight where inaccuracies have occurred.
Speaking of the art of disinformation , the above quote would have to be a prime example of this ....There's nothing like twisting other people's words around to have the opposite meaning ... and in doing so , suit their own agenda ..... Correct me if I'm wrong Peter , but it appears that Evan missed your point entirely .
I have been reading (in my spare time) some older literature on the SDS and the Weather Underground (including works referenced by Stephen and Daniel, thanks). Some interesting information found was included in the book "KGB: The Hidden Hand", By John Barron 1983. I was given this book by a friend who lived in the USSR and came to the US in 1972 under the Helsinki Agreement. Needless to say he was a virulent anti-Soviet.
"The Hidden hand" identifies that the KGB, esp. through Cuban surrogates, supported the terrorists (Weathermen) in the antiwar movement. "The support included training, financial aid, and instructions in maintaining clandestine communications".another weatherman was in Canada being instructed by a Russian advisor on how to make bombs." "Three Soviet agents were expelled from Liberia, Africa, for inciting riots in 1979". This information was supposedly classified, but was put into public record subsequent to the trial of FBI executives W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller in 1980.
Within the organizational structure and charter of the KGB are mandates for the recruitment and use of "illegals", persons outside of the diplomatic community, whose objectives included infiltration of the US Government, penetration of its security services, and inciting civil unrest within and without the United States, in addition to gathering intelligence. These activities fell under the auspices of the 1st Chief Directorate. (Reference KGB: The Hidden hand). This is just one example of published information linking the USSR and the anti Vietnam War movement in the US.
Today, as the Soviet bogey-man has disappeared, terrorism has replaced it as the chief mission for the US security services. Slowly the public is becoming aware of the Kafkaesque apparatus that has evolved, and is still evolving within and without the US to fight terrorism. Much of it, I’m sure, is engaged and effective. Some of it, as is becoming obvious, is not.
It has been reported in the Media, that some innocents were detained at Guantanamo Bay, and although, under the new strict definitions for "Torture", they may not have been "Tortured", the experience likely left a bad impression of the American system of justice. (There's a movie out, I can't remember the name, about two of the detainees, which would be fairly frightening to middle easterners, it was to me). Citizens of other countries, once considering the US, a bastion of fairness, may no longer consider us a 'just' society, as a result of our current policies. Our foreign policy, much of it tinged with a peripheral point of agenda, in addressing terrorism, and invoking, as a result, a certain degree of 'control' in our foreign influence, has obviously drawn criticism from many would-be 'friendly nations', and many more, not-so-friendly. In the days of Soviet influence, this was part of the price of doing business and accepted by most as a necessary 'evil'. Today that mission objective is far more elliptical, and difficult to assimilate, regardless of the truth or reality of it.
To suggest that there are several agent provocateurs on this forum, engaging in disinformation tactics, is just plain silly. That would imply that resources have been applied to hundreds, maybe thousands of such forums, in an effort to 'Control' discourse, in such a way as to disrupt it and render it impotent. That really is self flattery to the point of being pedantic, especially relating to the Apollo program. I would imagine that Security Services are involved in screening the internet for National security issues, but would not have the resources to engage in much disinformation on sites where political discourse takes place. There must be thousands of such sites.
However, such accusations do take a toll. They do bog down discourse, create dichotomy, and enmity, often causing members to spend inordinate amounts of time in argument. Accusing someone of being a 'Dis-informationist' or 'Provocateur' accomplishes precisely what the accusation implies, without requiring the involvement of a de facto agent. It is a destructive comment.
Also any real act of disinformation would likely use the model "a lie should be as close to the truth as possible". Therefore the process of disproving a mountainous volume of minutia would likely controvert an act of disinformation anyway. Regardless it seems to be (IMO) a tremendous waste of time, but I guess that would hardly dissuade anyone from continuing to make such accusations.
There is no doubt that disinformation tactics exist. In certain cases, it may be prudent. I just doubt it is as widespread as some would indicate.
-
Unfortunately, the author of the video (greenmagoos) hasn't done any actual analysis of the video. He's just put up various undocumented clips and made the assertion that the behaviour of objects in the clips is as you would expect in a 1g environment.
For this to be taken seriously, he needs to analyze some of the footage on a frame by frame basis, then apply one of the equations of motion to the vertical motion:-
s=ut+1/2at2
with estimates and errors for
s (distance fallen)
u (initial velocity)
t (time taken)
and solve the equation for a.
Or, he could assume that he knows what the value of a is (either g or g/6), solve the equation for t, and show that it does or does not fall within the expected range given uncertainty in measurement.
In either case he needs to state what the assumed value of u (initial velocity) is. In the hammer and feather experiment, it could be assumed that this is zero. I don't think it would be correct to make this assumption in all of the clips on this video. For example, in the first clip, the astronaut moves his hand down to try and catch the bag. If his hand touched it on the way down it may have increased the velocity of the bag. In the third clip, the PLSS is bouncing up and down slightly. The bag appears to fall as the PLSS is moving downwards, possibly giving an initial velocity which would need to be taken into account.
Then we need to look at the sources of the video, and ensure they are being played at the correct speed.
The video in question hasn't attempted to do this at all, it's just a collection of clips with the implied assumption that the motion we are seeing is wrong, with no attempt at all to prove this empirically. I suppose this could reinforce someone's belief that the video is faked, who isn't prepared to actually analyse any of the footage.
The best thing about the video is the music, which I admit did take me back a few years and had me singing along!
Bravo Dave ! ... That has to be some of the best disinformation you have ever posted ! ... Did you think up those math equations all by yourself , or did you perhhaps have your leader Jay and the rest of your pals at Apollo Hoax lend you a hand with this one ?
I didn't think it up at all Duane, it's one of the equations of motion (for constant acceleration). You can look it up in a physics text book. Or you can find it on this site along with its derivation.
greenmagoos did analyse the videos and put them on YouTube just like he got them from nasa ... and what they show ( in spite of all your fancy tap dancing ) are objects which fall at 1 g speed in an allegedly 1/6 g environment ... The Apollo videos speak for themselves .... and the word they all speak , very loudly and very clearly is ... F A K E !If he analyzed the videos, why hasn't he put his analysis online? Where are his time measurements, guesstimates of heights, margins for error, assumptions?
Let's cut to the chase. I know he didn't do any analysis. You know he didn't do any analysis. He's just looked at the videos and made the assumption that the objects behave as if in normal earth g, and decided to state it as fact. That's the sum total of his analysis isn't it? He just looked at a few videos!
Does Greenmagoos or yourself actually know how long it would take an object on earth to fall, say, 1 metre? (Let's disregard air resistance or any other external influence). How long would it take to fall the same distance on the moon? Twice as long? Should it take 6 times as long to fall, since gravity is six times weaker? Or something else? How do you come to your figure?
Come back to me when you've crunched some numbers and have some hard data, or even an answer to the very simple questions I posed to you above. Until you can manage that, all you're left with is a nice music video: not proof that the footage was faked.
Wow, this is hilarious.
Duane, the overriding principal of Gravity is that acceleration occurs at an exponential (square) rate over rise. You would need to integrate to find the average velocity, but the appearance of falling, which is really the effect that you are mistaking for the 1G speed of descent (I use the term speed, since you are stuck on the time of descent) would be very similar to a 1G descent as the item accelerates as a function of the square of the initial velocity (feet per second per second). Therefore the big difference would be in the first small instant of descent, otherwise it will appear similar.
To test this, time the rate of descent, integrate in increments starting at one sixth of 32 feet per second (for the first second, then use say, four seconds for the lunar test), and then integrate for the rest of the length of descent (like the next second would be a square of the previous rate, etc). This is what Dave's formula does. It looks correct. Compare this to a (earth's) 1G rate of descent (but you have to do the integration), and then you should see a difference (but it won't be a huge difference, because of the acceleration, as the falling item continually accelerates, so it looks similar, BUT you have to do the math).
You can either test it or calculate it, but you can't just say its fake cause it looks fake.
-
Craig,
I would submit that Bill Clinton is the darling of the center/ center right, as there is nothing leftist about him.
John
John,
Respectfully, Clinton wasn't moderate or right wing with respect to foreign policy. IMO a great deal of the melee subsequent to Bosnia-Serbia (and the gencoide which took place then) occurred under Clinton's (also somewhat under George SR.'s) watch. Clinton had the liberal disease of having NO foreign policy, and when situations demanded the ad hoc policy assertion to prevent atrocities (such as those preseided over by Milosovic), Clinton did nothing. That was an earmark of the liberal pol. The moderate republican for all their gaffs typically do have and exercise foreign policy (however misguided that can be). I think that may be what Craig meant.
Domestically, no doubt Clinton played the moderate to moderate right cards.
-
yeah, yeah, yeah....
America BAD.
Islamofascism GOOD.
or was it...
America BAD.
International Communism GOOD.
errr....wait....
America BAD.
Hitlerites and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere gang GOOD.
while I don't agree with the Cowherder from Crawford's policies, and don't think we need an Imperial Dynasty that shot their way into power, the America bashing on this forum is amusing....
Sorry, but I have two sons, nineteen and sixteen years old. I fail to see how my opinion, that I wouldn't want to see my, nor anyone else's sons KIA in (the war in?) Iraq, for a stabilzing presence over the 'Arc of Crisis', or for the price of oil is America Bashing.
I love my country, and feel our constitution (and what it stands for) to be one of the greatest pieces of human achievement in all of history. To excercise our first amendment right of free speech and to voice an opinion on such matters is the polar opposite of bashing, but rather it is practicing citizenship (although I would say it is but a meager part of it).
Maybe I misundertood your post, in which case I apologize.
-
As far as I can remember, Tim Gratz was the only member of this forum who thought that the invasion of Iraq War was a good idea. What does he think now? Here is a good summary of where we are at the moment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2129453,00.html
Timothy Garton Ash (Thursday July 19, 2007)
The Guardian
A very good article John, it elucidates very well the sentiments of many people, myself included (to a large degree). It also identifies the elephant in the room, the swinging of the pendulum in the other direction, and its' unintended consequences.
-
And just a reminder that it was 38 years ago today that Buzz and Neil first set foot upon the lunar surface.
Kim Stanley Robinson, Novelist, wrote a series of Science Fiction novels about colonizing Mars. Robinson, writing in the Science Fiction Genre was also a brilliant engineer who invented a number of hypothetical engineering wonders in his books, cost efficient methods of harvesting extra-terrestrial energy sources form Mars. Robinson's hypotheticals were all based upon the premise that overcoming the gravity well of both Earth and Mars would make the harvesting of Hydrogen and Helium form Mars non-cost-effective, unless we invented inexpensive travel methods to/from orbiting satellite stations.
One idea was a placing an asteroid in geosynchronous orbit, and attaching it to the Martian surface with giant carbon fiber cables. There are apparently asteroids composed of high grade carbon, which would be perfrect troves of the material to manufature the cable systems. He esposes nanotechnology in the manufacturing process and the use of Von Neumann machines, machines which reproduce themselves until a sufficient population exists to perform whatever project they are programmed to accomplish. In this case to weave giant carbon fiber cables. Once the cable was socketed on the Martian surface and the asteroid, it would be 'reeled' in slightly to create a constant tension, then huge elevators would traffic the materials to the asteroid, just outside of the toughest portion of the gravity well.
Very good books for any engineers out there who also like Sci Fi.
-
In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all
forms of protest against the Iraq war.
President Bush enacted into US law an ‘Executive Order’ on July 17th titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization
Efforts in Iraq", and which says:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA),
and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the
United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded
in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and
Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."
According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they
state, are written ‘so broadly’ as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war. These provisions state:
"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support
of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(
The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds,goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the
receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
© the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the
provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."
To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or
services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word ‘services’ has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that
any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the ‘enemy’ and therefore threatens the ‘stabilization of
Iraq’.
In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law
they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:
"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself,
authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security
Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them."
From 1798:
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/america...d_sedition_acts
"Passed in preparation for an anticipated war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech critical of the Government."
Um, my mistake, it was a Veteran Administration Nurse, 'Investigated for Sedition' who wrote an Albequrque Paper;
Nurse Investigated for 'Sedition' After Writing Letter to Editor By E&P StaffPublished: February 11, 2006,
http://the-morrighan.blogspot.com/2006_02_12_archive.html
Sorry, but with a little searching I believe there will be many similar situations found...
-
In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all
forms of protest against the Iraq war.
President Bush enacted into US law an ‘Executive Order’ on July 17th titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization
Efforts in Iraq", and which says:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA),
and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the
United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded
in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and
Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."
According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they
state, are written ‘so broadly’ as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war. These provisions state:
"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support
of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(
The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds,goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the
receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
© the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the
provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."
To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or
services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word ‘services’ has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that
any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the ‘enemy’ and therefore threatens the ‘stabilization of
Iraq’.
In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law
they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:
"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself,
authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security
Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them."
From 1798:
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/america...d_sedition_acts
"Passed in preparation for an anticipated war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech critical of the Government."
-
In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all
forms of protest against the Iraq war.
President Bush enacted into US law an ‘Executive Order’ on July 17th titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization
Efforts in Iraq", and which says:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA),
and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the
United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded
in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and
Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."
According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they
state, are written ‘so broadly’ as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war. These provisions state:
"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support
of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(
The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds,goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the
receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
© the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the
provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."
To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or
services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word ‘services’ has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that
any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the ‘enemy’ and therefore threatens the ‘stabilization of
Iraq’.
In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law
they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:
"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself,
authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security
Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them."
The way I read this (executive order?), it basically states that it will be illegal to provide material or financial aid to persons or groups attempting to destabilize the US position in Iraq (or Iraq's US sanctioned Government).
The wording appears sufficiently vague that a self serving interpretation, on the part of the Justice Dept., et al, by applying a definition, in the broadest sense, of the term "aid" may be contrued subjectively to include verbal protestation of the 'War' in Iraq. If so, that would be a violation of our first amendment right of free speech, and possibly of lawful assembly.
Currently the Supreme Court includes a majority of Republican appointed judges. Even so any action by the Justice dept. to abrogate our civil rights would, I'm sure, be struck down at some point. Provided, and this would be an important proviso, that we don't find ourselves in a situation similar to the Joe McCarthy Communist witchhunts of the 1950s.
I read of a government employee, a woman in a clerical position, maybe in Florida, who was fired and arrested, when she emailed a coworker, criticising the Bush administration's handling of Iraq. She was arrested for sedition. I can't remember the details exactly, but it was maybe two or three years ago. This type of behavior by our Government is frightening.
If this Executive Order is used to bolster that type of behavior by the Justice dept., et al, then we maybe in for an extremely bad turn.
Do you have any examples where this order was employed, in a manner which you would deem unconstitutional, or threatening to our civil rights?
-
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents/er/sovcom/
go to Basic Folder Search > letter S.
Get listing of some 500 odd directly SDS related documents from many different view points. I suggets reading as much as possible, as it goes from the formation of the SDS in 1962, through to various factional struggles and the last documents detailing the Weathermen and the Days of Rage.
These are a collection of official SDS publications, newspaper clippings and various reports. So, the views are divergent, but by reading them one gains a fairly good overview of the SDS, its factional struggles and names of persons involved.
Thanks John, excellent link.
I've browsed through several of the documents, they are quite enlightening. I didn't know they were founded in Michigan. Also a great deal of their early work was civil rights oriented, since it was pre Vietnam war era. Their agenda seemed to be just left of liberal, but the SDS promoted reforms of moderate and conservative positions. Many interesting documents and references there. I'll be reading for a while.
-
For some reference info.
Peter-
Good info regarding the Weathermen.
It would seem that some of the leaders of the group embraced violence on their own without help from the FBI, but you never know how that initial seed of thought was planted. Was the breakup of SDS and subsequent forming of the Weathermen a "successful" result of "dis-info" actions or an "unfortunate" result? We'll probably never know.
Not having done any research into this, I have a few questions -
First - regarding timing - just how long was SDS active, and how effective was its message before the first attempt to infiltrate it?
Also, was the initial infiltration for criminal investigation purposes (intelligence gathering) and then morphed into an attempt to manipulate the group's actions, or was the intent to manipulate the group from the start?
Thanks Steve,
As I remember, when Nixon took office in 1968-1969, one of his first orders of business was to investigate communist infiltration of student anti war organizations. Nixon believed that anti war sentiments were inserted by communists agents The SDS, who I beleive originated at the Berkely campus, had been one of the more outspoken student organizations against the Vietnam war.
Nixon, whose paranoia was the stuff of legend, ordred the FBI, Hoover, to put together a counterintel op to infiltrate radical student organizations who might be tragets of communist infiltration, likely the SDS was a prime target.
There are several threads on the origins of COINTELPRO, but I'll try and do some research in my spare time. I'm not sure of the chronology of events, but a precise chronology would likely lend a clarifying aspect
-
From the bio of Bernardine Dorn:
Living underground as a fugitive in San Francisco and Chicago for 11 years, she and her husband turned themselves in by 1980. Federal charges for conspiracy to bomb buildings had been dropped due to illegal evidence gathering by J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO-style infiltration of the Weathermen organization. Dohrn got away with it all, paying a $1500 fine for a minor bail-jumping offense and later doing a little time for refusing to testify against a cohort, Kathy Boudin. Dohrn's adopted son Chesa is the biological son of Boudin, incarcerated for armed robbery when the child was 14 months old.
Anyway, during the time of the SDS, and their much more violent offspring, the weathermen, I remember that they were self admitted revolutionaries, and were involved in robbing an armoured car, banks, and had bombed buildings.
Although COINTELPRO may have gone along with some of the more violent actions, I doubt if they needed to spark that level of reaction. The writings of the more revolutionary members at the time was pretty reactionary stuff. I was in my last years of high school at the time and can remember some of the incidents, like the time several members blew themselves up making bombs.
It was likely that although the FBI was likely rabid to contain them, they probably didn't incite the revolutionary Weather underground to armed criminal acts.
-
From the bio of Bernardine Dorn:
Living underground as a fugitive in San Francisco and Chicago for 11 years, she and her husband turned themselves in by 1980. Federal charges for conspiracy to bomb buildings had been dropped due to illegal evidence gathering by J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO-style infiltration of the Weathermen organization. Dohrn got away with it all, paying a $1500 fine for a minor bail-jumping offense and later doing a little time for refusing to testify against a cohort, Kathy Boudin. Dohrn's adopted son Chesa is the biological son of Boudin, incarcerated for armed robbery when the child was 14 months old.
The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds,
Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
I remember reading that many in the military command structure was opposed to attacking Iran, as well as the use of Nukes.
How can the VP exercise that level of command without violating separation of powers?
Only the President is allowed to use immediate war powers. If he can delegate that power where does it end?