Peter McKenna
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Peter McKenna
-
-
Bump, hopefully the other post made it.
Peter
I wonder if Mark is going to now claim that you are an “aggressive, impatient” “knucklehead” motivated by “hubris” because you bumped this thread a minute after your previous post. No I imagine he’ll rationalize a difference between our ‘bumps’. LOL
Len
Len, I don't know what that castigation was all about. It seemed almost tongue in cheek. Mark probably had a laugh over that. At least I hope that was his intent (vs. implying hidden agenda over bumping).
Peter
-
Duplicate post. Edited to remove repeated content.
-
Little is known? I disagree.
Evan
Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?
Sid,
Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.
I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).
By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.
There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.
barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.
I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.
Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).
I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.
I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?
Thank you, Peter McKenna
Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES
OF WTC 1 and 2.
Go to
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding
the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be
calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take
a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the
buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7
FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete
below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from
falling at free fall speed.
Jack
Jack,
I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway).
I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request.
I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others.
I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract.
If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time.
-
Part 10
I now want to look in more detail at the evidence that suggests that Churchill and Hitler were carrying out peace negotiations in 1940 and 1941. So far I have provided the following information that suggests peace talks were taking place:
(1) On 10th September 1940, Karl Haushofer sent a letter to his son Albrecht. The letter discussed secret peace talks going on with Britain. Karl talked about “middlemen” such as Ian Hamilton (head of the British Legion), the Duke of Hamilton and Violet Roberts, the widow of Walter Roberts. The Roberts were very close to Stewart Menzies (Walter and Stewart had gone to school together). Violet Roberts was living in Lisbon in 1940. Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland were the four main places where these secret negotiations were taking place. Karl and Albrecht Haushofer were close friends of both Rudolf Hess and the Duke of Hamilton.
(2) Karl Haushofer was arrested and interrogated by the Allies in October 1945. The British government has never released the documents that include details of these interviews. However, these interviews are in the OSS archive. Karl told his interviewers that Germany was involved in peace negotiations with Britain in 1940-41. In 1941 Albrecht was sent to Switzerland to meet Lord Templewood (Samuel Hoare) the British ambassador to Spain. This peace proposal included a willingness to “relinquish Norway, Denmark and France”. Karl goes onto say: “A larger meeting was to be held in Madrid. When my son returned, he was immediately called to Augsburg by Hess. A few days later Hess flew to England.”
(3) Goebbels recorded in his diary in June 1940 that Hitler told him that peace talks with Britain were taking place in Sweden. The intermediary was Marcus Wallenberg, a Swedish banker.
(4) According to Lieutenant-Colonel Malcolm Scott, Hess had told one of his guards that “members of the government” had known about his proposed trip to Scotland. Hess also asked to see George VI as he had been assured before he left Germany that he had the “King’s protection”.
(5) In 1959, Heinrich Stahmer, Albrecht Haushofer’s agent in Spain, claimed that meetings between Samuel Hoare, Lord Halifax and Rudolf Hess took place in Spain and Portugal between February and April 1941. The Vichy press reported that Hess was in Spain on the weekend of 20/22 of April 1941. The correspondence between British Embassies and the Foreign Office are routinely released to the Public Record Office. However, all documents relating to the weekend of 20/22 April, 1941 at the Madrid Embassy are being held back and will not be released until 2017.
(6) Kim Philby, a KGB agent working for the SOE, sent a report to the Soviets in 1941 that Hess had arrived in the UK “to confirm a compromise peace”. This makes it clear that these negotiations had been going on for sometime and suggests that the visit of Hess signals the last move in the peace plan rather than the first.
(7) Colonel Frantisek Moravec, chief of the Czech military intelligence based in London, was also a KGB spy. In October 1942 Moravec sent a detailed report on the Hess affair to the NKVD. Moravec claimed that the Duke of Hamilton had been negotiating with Hitler via Hess for some time before May 1941.
(8) According to Philby, soon after arriving in Scotland, Hess was visited by both Anthony Eden and Lord Beaverbrook. We also know from official sources that on the 12th May 1941, Churchill had meetings with the Duke of Hamilton, Sir Stewart Menzies and Lord Beaverbrook. These three men were three of the most important figures in the appeasement movement.
(9) Sergeant Daniel McBride, one of the soldiers who detained Hess, claimed in an interview in the Hongkong Telegraph (6th March, 1947). “The purpose of the former Deputy Fuhrer’s visit to Britain is still a mystery to the general public, but I can say, and with confidence too, that high-ranking Government officials were aware of his coming.” The reason that McBride gives for this opinion is that: “No air-raid warning was given that night, although the plane must have been distinguished during his flight over the city of Glasgow. Nor was the plane plotted at the anti-aircraft control room for the west of Scotland.” McBride concludes from this evidence that someone with great power ordered that Hess should be allowed to land in Scotland. The fact that attempts were made to silence McBride as late as 1974 suggests that he had information that was deeply worrying to the establishment.
(10) Evidence that the Duke of Kent was with the Duke of Hamilton at Dungavel House on the day Hess arrived in Scotland. If Hamilton and Kent were traitors, surely Churchill would not have been promoted by Churchill. In July 1941 Hamilton became a Group Captain and Kent became an Air Commodore. After the war the Duke of Hamilton told his son that he was forced to take the blame for Hess arriving in Scotland in order to protect people who were more powerful than him.
I have also argued that there were signs in the summer of 1940 that Hitler made a gesture of good will to get negotiations underway. On 22nd May 1940 some 250 German tanks were advancing along the French coast towards Dunkirk, threatening to seal off the British escape route. Then, just six miles from the town, at around 11.30 a.m., they abruptly stopped. Hitler had personally ordered all German forces to hold their positions for three days. This order was uncoded and was picked up by the British. They therefore knew they were going to get away. German generals begged to be able to move forward in order to destroy the British army but Hitler insisted that they held back so that the British troops could leave mainland Europe. After the war, General Gunther Blumentritt, the Army Chief of Staff, told military historian Basil Liddell Hart that Hitler had decided that Germany would make peace with Britain. Another German general told Liddell Hart that Hitler aimed to make peace with Britain “on a basis that was compatible with her honour to accept”. (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948, pages 139-41)
It is therefore important to examine if there were other signs of Hitler’s good will in the summer of 1941. On the very night that Rudolf Hess arrived in Scotland, London experienced its heaviest German bomb attack: 1,436 people were killed and some 12,000 made homeless. (Martin Gilbert, The Second World War, page 182) Many historic landmarks including the Houses of Parliament were hit. The Commons debating chamber – the main symbol of British democracy – was destroyed. American war correspondents based in London such as Walter Lippmann and Vincent Sheean, suggested that Britain was on the verge of surrender. (Walter Lippman, US War Aims, 1944, page 12) and (Vincent Sheean, Between the Thunder and the Sun, 1943, page 245)
Yet, the 10th May marked the end of the London Blitz. It was the last time the Nazis would attempt a major raid on the capital. Foreign journalist based in London at the time wrote articles that highlighted this strange fact. James Murphy even suggested that there might be a connection between the arrival of Hess and the last major bombing raid on London. (James Murphy, Who Sent Rudolf Hess, 1941 page 7)
This becomes even more interesting when one realizes at the same time as Hitler ordered the cessation of the Blitz, Churchill was instructing Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, to reduce bombing attacks on Germany. Portal was surprised and wrote a memorandum to Churchill asking why the strategy had changed: “Since the Fall of France the bombing offensive had been a fundamental principle of our strategy.” Churchill replied that he had changed his mind and now believed “it is very disputable whether bombing by itself will be a decisive factor in the present war”. (John Terraine, The Right Line: The RAF in the European War 1939-45, 1985 page 295)
Is it possible that Hitler and Churchill had called off these air attacks as part of their peace negotiations? Is this the reason why Hess decided to come to the UK on 10th May, 1941? The date of this arrival is of prime importance. Hitler was no doubt concerned about the length of time these negotiations were taking. We now know that he was desperate to order the invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) in early Spring. According to Richard Sorge of the Red Orchestra spy network, Hitler planned to launch this attack in May 1941. (Leopold Trepper, The Great Game, 1977, page 126)
However, for some reason the invasion was delayed. I suspect that Hitler was desperate to conclude a peace with Churchill before heading East. It was hoped that the arrival in the UK by Hess would force Churchill to sign an agreement. After all, Churchill would have difficulty explaining what Hess was doing in Scotland. In fact, later, Anthony Eden was to admit that Hess had indeed arrived with peace proposals. (Anthony Eden, statement in the House of Commons, 5th September, 1943) By this time the British people had been convinced that Hess had a mental breakdown and that he had not arrived in the UK with the prior approval of the British government. That of course is the story that is commonly believed today.
Hitler eventually ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22nd June, 1941. It would therefore seem that peace negotiations between Germany and Britain had come to an end. However, is this true? One would have expected Churchill to order to resume mass bombing of Germany. This was definitely the advice he was getting from Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff. Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris also took a similar view. In June 1943, Harris was briefing American journalists about his disagreement with Churchill’s policy. ((John Terraine, The Right Line: The RAF in the European War 1939-45, 1985 page 295)
Douglas Reed, a British journalist with a good relationship with Portal and Churchill, wrote in 1943: “The long delay in bombing Germany is already chief among the causes of the undue prolongation of the war.” (Douglas Reed, Lest we Regret, 1943, page 331). One senior army figure told a journalist after the war that Hess’s arrival brought about a “virtual armistice” between Germany and Britain. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001, page 324)
Is it possible that Churchill did not order the bombing of Germany because he had arranged with Hitler not to do anything that would hinder the defeat of the Soviet Union? That Churchill had resurrected the British foreign objective of the 1930s – the destruction of communism in Europe.
What we do know is that Churchill changed his mind completely about the wisdom of carpet bombing when the Soviet Union had successfully halted the German invasion. It was now Churchill who was urging the complete destruction of German cities, even those like Dresden that posed no threat to the British. Churchill realized that he could longer rely on Nazi Germany to destroy communism in Europe. In fact, the position had been reversed. The Red Army was now in a position to impose communism on Eastern Europe. The policy had to change. It was now vitally important that Allied forces arrived in mainland Europe in order to “liberate” German occupied countries in Western Europe.
Part 13
Hopefully I have proved that peace negotiations between the British and Hitler were going on between 1940 and 1941. In fact, historians no longer reject the claim that these negotiations took place. However, some argue that Churchill was unaware of these talks. Could this be true? For example, the key figure in these talks is Sir Samuel Hoare. Supporters of Churchill point out that as soon as he gained office he removed Hoare from the cabinet. It is often argued that Churchill purged the government of appeasers and add that Lord Halifax also lost his job as foreign secretary in May 1940. They usually ignore the fact that Churchill brought in arch-appeaser Lord Beaverbrook into the cabinet at the same time. Officially, he was Minister without Portfolio, in reality he was deputy prime minister. Churchill also brought in Archibald Sinclair as Minister of Air. Sinclair, who had served under Churchill on the Western Front in 1915 was another one who had been a strong supporter of appeasement. Beaverbrook and Sinclair were both to play important roles in these peace negotiations and the cover-up of the Hess affair.
It also has to be remembered what happened to Hoare after he was removed from the cabinet. Churchill appointed him as Ambassador to Madrid. This was an extremely important post in 1940. It was the epicenter of secret negotiations that were taking place between Britain and Germany. He also took part in important talks with Franco while in Madrid. If Hoare was being punished for his appeasement views why was he sent to Madrid instead of some outpost in the British Empire? The only possible explanation is that Hoare was under the control of Churchill. Some historians have accepted this point and have argued that the Hoare negotiations were part of “sting” operation to fool Hitler. That of course is a possibility but other events that took place after 1945 suggest that this was not the case.
There are several pieces of evidence that have emerged over the last few years that suggest that Churchill was fully in control of these peace negotiations. That rather than working for a group within the government who intended to overthrow Churchill, Hoare was loyally carrying out Churchill’s orders. That in fact, there was no plot to remove Churchill because in reality he shared their right-wing philosophy that the primary objective was to destroy the Soviet Union rather than Nazi Germany.
Just before Hess arrived in Scotland on 10th May 1941, there was an important meeting held at the Special Operations Executive (SOE) at Woburn Abbey. At the meeting were senior figures of the SOE, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Economic Warfare. This included Hugh Dalton, head of the SOE at the time and Anthony Eden, Churchill’s foreign secretary. Eden had resigned in protest because of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy and so it was highly symbolic for Churchill to appoint him as his foreign secretary.
The minutes of this meeting was recently declassified. The minutes reveal that members were very depressed by the situation that the UK found itself in during May 1941. Members spoke of how it seemed that the UK was on the verge of losing Malta, Crete and Cyprus. The meeting also mourned the loss of Greece and recent defeats in the Middle East. Leonard St Clair Ingrams pointed out that Russian oil could now be sent to Nazi Germany via the Black Sea and Greece. The most interesting comments in the minutes comes from an unidentified speaker who says that the situation is so serious that: “We should therefore encourage the Germans to attack Russia by misleading Hitler and by hinting that the large sections both in Britain and the United States, who preferred to see the overthrow of the Russian rather than the German regime, might be prepared to force through a compromise peace between Britain and Germany and combine to destroy the common enemy, Communism” (Doc. FO 898/00009 – Public Records Office, Kew).
Of course, the speaker is right, unless the British could persuade Hitler to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, the war would be lost. This had been known since May 1940 and it is why Churchill began negotiations with Hitler as soon as he gained power. These negotiations were taking place via Hoare in Madrid.
Before the meeting took place, Anthony Eden had a private session with Robert Bruce Lockhart. He is an extremely interesting character and worked very closely with Churchill during the war. Lockhart was Acting British Consul-General in Moscow when the first Russian Revolution broke out in early 1917, but left shortly before the Bolshevik Revolution of October that year.
Bruce Lockhart became an undercover agent for MI5 and with fellow British agent, Sidney Reilly, was implicated in a plot to assassinate Lenin. He was accused of plotting against the Bolshevik regime and, for a time during 1918, was confined in the Kremlin as a prisoner and condemned to death. However, his life was spared in an exchange for the Russian diplomat Maksim Maksimovich Litvinov. During the Second World War he became director-general of the Political Warfare Executive, co-ordinating all British propaganda against the enemy. Bruce Lockhart was also for a time the British liaison officer to the Czechoslovak Government in Exile under President Eduard Benes.
Bruce Lockhart recorded some of what was said at this meeting in his diary (published after his death in 1974). Eden asked Lockhart about Eduard Benes. What we know about these peace negotiations is that Churchill was willing to let Hitler keep Czechoslovakia and Poland in exchange for changes in the occupation of France, Belgium, Holland, etc. Benes and General Sikorski, the head of the Polish government in exile, would obviously become a problem if such a deal was done.
Bruce Lockhart wrote in his dairy that he told Eden that “he (Benes) had taken knocks better than anyone I know”. Eden agreed and said: “He’s had enough too”. Bruce Lockhart then adds: “I went on to say I was sorry meeting was postponed, coz (sic) I considered matter urgent lest Germans forestall. Eden told me he would have meeting earliest possible day next week.” (Robert Bruce Lockhart, The Diaries of Robert Bruce Lockhart, 1974 page 98)
It is not clear what this meeting with the Germans was all about it seems to be connected with Benes and the fate of Czechoslovakia. It is probably a reference to the peace negotiations being carried out by Samuel Hoare. If so, it is clear that Churchill was fully aware of what was taking place.
Another important released document provides further evidence that Churchill was aware of these negotiations. William Strang was assistant Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. In the 1930s Strang had banded together the anti-appeasement faction headed by Churchill. Strang was therefore a trusted member of Churchill’s inner-circle. This was reflected in Strang being given the key job of the Foreign Office liaison officer to the SOE.
On 28th April 1941 Strang wrote to Sir Alexander Cadogan, his boss at the Foreign Office. “Further to our discussion concerning the H matter (the name given to the secret peace talks being conducted by Samuel Hoare) last week. I attended a meeting with HRH the Duke of Kent last Friday. After I explained a little of the situation he seemed most willing to assist in this most delicate affair.” Strang goes on to say that the Duke of Kent is concerned about the “extreme sensitivity and potential political hazards of the task he had been asked to perform, and the jeopardy it would place himself in”. Kent pointed out that he would need to meet with Cadogan to ask further questions about this secret operation. What is more, he insisted that his friend, the Duke of Buccleuch, should attend this meeting. Buccleuch was one of the leading figures of the pro-Nazi group in the UK. We now know that he was a member of the secret Right Club that was responsible for supplying secret information to Nazi Germany during the war. Kent’s request for the attendance of Buccleuch is interesting. He clearly feared that he was being set-up by Churchill and wanted a witness to what was being said at the meeting. However, there was a clear danger that by inviting Buccleuch, this information would get back to Hitler. (Doc FO 794/19 Public Records Office, Kew)
This document shows that the Duke of Kent was involved in these peace negotiations. This makes sense. Other documents show that Samuel Hoare was having difficulty persuading the German government to believe that Churchill was genuine in his peace talks. Hoare requested that a representative from the royal family should become involved. The Duke of Kent was the perfect choice. He had negotiated with the Germans before the war started on behalf of the Duke of Windsor and George VI. Hitler knew he held pro-Nazi views. Kent’s reaction to this invitation is also understandable. The presence of the Duke of Buccleuch would help to assure the Germans that these peace talks were genuine.
There is also firm evidence that the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Buccleuch were at the Duke of Hamilton’s home (Dungavel House) when Hess arrived on the night of the 10th May. On the morning of the 11th May the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Buccleuch were involved in a car crash while driving along the Douglas to Lanark road. The Duke of Kent’s car hit a coal lorry. The scene of the accident was very close to Dungavel House.
The following day a memorandum marked top secret was sent by a man named S. Voigt to Rex Leeper of the Political Intelligence Department and a key figure in the peace negotiations with Germany. “I can confirm that neither the Duke, or his passenger, Buccleuch, were injured, and in view of Lanark’s close proximity to the events of last weekend, steps have been taken to ensure the accident remains unreported by the press”. (Doc. FO 898/14 – Public Records Office, Kew)
Of course, if we look at this document in isolation, it makes sense to keep this story out of the press in order to stop speculation about possible conspiracies. However, when you put it together with the William Strang document, it does suggest that the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Buccleuch were in Scotland to meet Hess. This is confirmed by the testimony of the housekeeper at Dungavel House. She told the authors of Double Standards (page 269) that the Duke of Hamilton was at the house on the night of the 10th May 1941 with someone with a foreign accent. This is almost certainly Baron de Ropp, who was involved in the German-British peace talks.
The historians, Martin Allen (The Hitler/Hess Deception) and Peter Padfield (Hess) argue that Churchill was involved in carrying out false negotiations with Hitler that were so successful that it encouraged Hitler to invade the Soviet Union. If this is the case, why did Churchill not take credit for this highly successful operation that saved Britain from being defeated by Nazi Germany? Martin Allen argues that Churchill was unable to do this because this disclosure “would have given Britain’s enemies an opportunity to decry British perfidy, tainting her post-war standing in the world of foreign affairs.” (page 285)
I do not find this argument convincing. Everyone was aware that Churchill was guilty of “perfidy”. How else do you explain that Churchill was willing to hand over Poland and Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union in 1945? Remember we had apparently gone to war against Nazi Germany in order to bring freedom and democracy to these two countries. Churchill might have promised these two countries to Hitler in 1941, he actually gave them to Stalin in 1945.
Stalin of course already knew about Churchill’s negotiations with Hitler as he had spies in the British Foreign Office, MI5/MI6 and the SOE. On 6th November, 1944, Churchill made a visit to Moscow. At a supper in the Kremlin, Stalin raised his glass and proposed a toast to the British Intelligence Services, which he said had “inveigled Hess into coming to England.” Churchill immediately protested that he and the intelligence services knew nothing about the proposed visit. Stalin smiled and said maybe the intelligence services had failed to tell him about the operation. (Doc PREM 3 434/7 Public Records Office, Kew)
What Stalin was doing was to make it clear to Churchill that he intended to take over Poland and Czechoslovakia and that Churchill was in no position to resist this process. Churchill was being blackmailed into submission.
The next post will explain why Churchill had to order the assassinations of the Duke of Kent and General Sikorski.
Mr. Simkin,
These are very intersting and enlightening posts on the possible actions and motives behind the behavior of Churchill and other high ranking or otherwise influential British Autocrats and Aristocrats.
Being from America, the history lessons from my youth painted Churchill as an absolute Hawk, anti Nazi and anti Hitler, with no middle ground.
Your series of posts paints a possible (or likely) alternate POV, in which Churchill has played both sides of maybe the most dangerous game of his, and Britain's 20th Century history.
I remember hearing Chrchill's rallying speeches from the radio, when he had galvanized the English populace together against the impending doom of National Socialism and its politics. Its very hard to question this portrait of him, but you have made many compelling points.
My question is this. Considering that there was a group of highly placed German officers and politicians, who, as early as 1940, may have seen the writing on the wall, which is that Hitler's war policies were dooming Germany, saw that a separate peace should be negotiated, and if successful, may have led to a Coup de tat or at least Hitler's assassination, is it possible that Hess had traveled to England to negotiate this possibility (which may have seemed more than possibility at the time).
From Hitler's secretary's diary, over the past several years of the war (possibly as far back as 1940), his military tactics and those of many of his highest staff officers were not in agreement.
Is there a possibility that secret negotiations were sought by Churchill with possible successors to Hitler, to assist in this tack, help their resolve, and ensure a peaceful transition out of War should Hitler be assassinated?
Just a question.
Thank you.
-
Little is known? I disagree.
Evan
Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?
Sid,
Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.
I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).
By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.
There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.
barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.
I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.
Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).
I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.
I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?
Thank you, Peter McKenna
-
you[/i] really saying that the 'inflationary' tactics of the Third Reich led to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, - as well the predictable sacking (?) of groups within its own population - and in turn led unavoidably to War with the West?
What do you mean by 'inflationary' in this context?
The following is taken from Hitler’s Volkstaad, published in Germany, note that this was most immediate of items I have read on this topic. There have been many, identifying that Hitler had oversold bonds to raise capitol, which, when called in, could not have been paid, however as Hitler was planning for inevitable war, the overselling of bonds was not an issue. If I'm not mistaken, this was part of Goering's (Schaap's) four year plan. Also Germany was printing money at an hyper-inflationary rate, which means that, unchecked, with too much money floating around, prices would rise at an hyperinflationary rate. Market pricing was controlled by heavy handed oppression, as were the trade union labor rates. I remember reading this information in several sources, although it would take days to cursorily re-read the tremendous volume of materials to find this particular piece of information. I understood it to be common knowledge. Why do you think that Germany sacked Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, the netherlands, scandinavia, etc.? Do you really think that germany had a self sufficient economy capable of funding their own rearmament after the treaty of Versailles and the Great depression, and the sanctions preventing overt arming of their populace?
"When Götz Aly's book Hitlers Volksstaat (Hitler's Volksstaat) was published in Germany a year ago, it apparently struck a nerve among German historians as well as the general reading public. But unlike movies such as Der Untergang (The Downfall) or television features about Albert Speer which were enjoying popularity at the time, Aly's research does not concentrate on the personalities of individual perpetrators during the Nazi dictatorship. Instead, it focuses on the benefits that an average, non-Jewish German wage-earner reaped owing to the policies of the National Socialist regime. Aly's study touches only marginally upon the extent to which the beneficiaries realized the source of their relative prosperity, namely, the rapacious looting of the occupied countries and of Jews who had been deported and murdered. The author leaves it to his readers to draw their own conclusions from the material he presents.
With painstaking diligence the author perused archives and sifted through the records on tax and financial legislation. What were the details of taxation policy during the various phases of Nazi rule? Which income groups were increasingly enlisted to foot the bill for social policies on the one hand and war policies on the other, and at which junctures? How did Hitler's financial policy-makers manage to keep domestic inflation at bay and offload it to the occupied countries?
Aly develops a highly suspenseful approach to examining such supposedly dry questions as financial policy. He scrutinizes the populistic social reforms during the first years of Nazi rule and provides documentation that the broad social safety net for the population exceeded by far the regime's financial resources and therefore soon resulted in excessive debt. The search for new sources of revenue within the country itself led to increased financial repression of the Jewish population, culminating initially in a one billion Reichsmark surcharge, an "atonement payment," that was imposed on Jewish citizens (following the pogrom night of November 9, 1938). As early as December of the same year, however, Göring formulated very concrete steps for converting the assets of German Jews - calculated at some eight billion Reichsmarks - into German State Bonds. The sweep of the plan becomes clear when one considers that even one billion Reichsmarks would already have increased the Reich's revenues by 6 percent.
The author shows how the occupied countries, with the help of well-contrived systems, were saddled with the costs of the occupation and in part also with providing for the German population "within the Reich," thereby wrecking their national economies. Soldiers were issued a type of artificial currency that they could use as tender, for example, in French or Belgian shops. These credit notes were then submitted to the respective national central banks for the ultimate purpose of being redeemed in Germany. Special clearing houses were set up in Berlin which would issue credits for these costs to the occupied countries after the Germans had been victorious. Even young soldiers whose morals were relatively intact found their sense of justice undermined and were corrupted by this system of obfuscation, as Aly demonstrates using the letters that a young Heinrich Böll sent home to his family from France, telling of his hoarding purchases.
Aly researches the various means of financing the national budget that were employed over the entire Nazi period. In addition to the taxation policies mentioned above, he examines the gradually proceeding expropriation and subsequent deportation and annihilation of the Jews, as well as the ransacking of the occupied countries. He proves that the well-known figures such as Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and Himmler were not the only ones to plot and implement the destruction of European Jewry; the regime's financial policy-makers were equally cold-blooded and calculating, as they not only took millions of deaths into account but viewed them as a legitimate means of acquiring additional revenue.
If growing numbers of Jews were deported to Poland shortly after heavy bombing runs on Hamburg, then a clear connection emerges between bombed out non-Jewish citizens and the fully furnished apartments of Jews which now became "vacancies." It is hardly conceivable that no one asked where all the beautiful things came from. It appears more readily believable, however, that average citizens didn't question where the money for expanding social services might have originated. After all, there was no concurrent rise in their tax burden.
Aly's book has been criticized for its central proposition, namely, that the vast majority of average German citizens profited in a personal sense from the crimes of the Nazis. It is said that the author overrates greed as the driving force behind the genocide and thereby assigns too minor a role to the motive of racial hatred. Still, this is not the historian's first book on the National Socialist regime, and he enjoys honing provocative arguments. Since the early nineties he has been publishing works on many different aspects of the Nazi regime, the annihilation of European Jews, and the continuity of certain social elites in German history.
It is no longer necessary to declare that historical explanations must never be one-dimensional. But the ability to portray history, and financial history in particular, in such a suspenseful manner is immeasurably valuable."
Ah, you meant Volksstaat (not Volksstaad).
Thanks for clarifying that.
I guess a spell-checker doesn't help with typos of that kind?
I imagine, Peter, that you are not be fluent in German? It's a disadvantage when researching this field, isn't it? I find it so.
However, this first-order disadvantage does not appear to faze some ‘scholars’, such as Debeorah Lipstadt, who purport to be experts in an area of historical knowledge where quite clearly lack of German language skills is a crucial disadvantage. Without it, people like myself and Deborah Lipstadt are forced to rely entirely on secondary sources.
Yet she is an ‘expert’ and I'm not. She makes categorical statements and I don't. How come? Chutzpah? Careerism? Connections? Dishonesty? All of the above? Who knows?
Now, which are you to be? Peter?
A non-expert like me who’s trying to find out the truth? Or a non-expert like Ms Lipstadt who not only purports to know the truth, but proclaims it with a latter day bugle?
If the latter, I fear we may continue to cross swords.
If the former, then let's work together to try to find out what really did happen in that important yet poorly understood historical period (the 1930s and 40s).
If finding out the truth is indeed our common goal, then I suggest fewer definitive statements about what's 'obvious' and 'well known' - and more willingness to consider different ideas and demand documentation for ALL claims about the period (not only claims that are controversial in mainstream discourse).
In your last post, you indicated that you have used, as a key reference for your position, Hitler’s Volkstaad by Götz Aly
Now, Götz's book is an interesting contribution to a historical debate that's now more than half a century old. But I'm not aware it's a consensus view of the period, as you seem to imply.
Actually, I'm not sure really what you are implying when you say: "I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant."
What does that mean, Peter? Plain English please.
If Hitler’s Volkstaad IS a consensus view, I imagine that will come as a surprise to Adam Tooze, who wrote a very clear and well referenced critique of this book in late 2005.
These are complex matters, IMO. It is unhelpful to real analysis when people make strident claims and assert them as "obvious", then shy away when asked for detailed documentation. Part of the reason we know the period so poorly, IMO, is because the very act of discussing it has been so politically loaded to an unprecedented extent from the outset.
In that regard, I return to the point I made elsewhere. WW2 is, arguably, a war that’s still in progress - in the sense that we are still at pains to discuss it rationally. Apparently interests that won out in WW2 still have a lot to gain from trying to enforce their view of that period. That's the main reason, IMO, why we are still so hazy about what really took place. No-one goes to jail - or loses their job - for taking an unpopular view about WW1.
I look forward to the time - very soon - when the same applies to WW2 and we all can approach the task of discovering what happened without fear or favour.
The continued persecution – including incarceration - of people over their historical views is so unacceptable in a civilized society that I shall not miss this opportunity to highlight my utter disgust with those who carry out this abuse.
The simple fact that I do not speak German (I had three years of German, am half German, and unfortunately I cannot speak or read the language fluently). However, this is irrelevant. The book, Hitler’s Volkstaat, was quoted in articles that I had read in the past and discusses the economics of WW II, unfortunately, when I attempted to Google for passages that I had read, I could not find much, and I am not going to spend days searching or rereading books I read years ago to find them.
This information (that Germany overextended their finances preparing for war, fully expecting to gain via the spoils of war) is, I’m sure, contained in several books. This information is contained in the four year plan of 1936 (have you read it? It outlines Germany’s preparation for war) and expanded upon in books such as the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and the book Hitler’s Volkstaat (if I got the spelling right), whether or not I have directly read this book is irrelevant, I have read translated quotes and pertinent critical articles.
Germany went into deep into debt between 1936 and 1939. Do you dispute this? The purpose of the four year plan and the indebtedness that Germany wrought to finance it seem obvious. This has been documented. Has it not? The reason for this is documented in the four year plan, to prepare for war. Do you contend this? This seems obvious to me, maybe you have a different opinion of what 1936 Nazi four year plan did. If so than we will have to agree to disagree.
I won’t be sucked into discussion over ancillary issues, such as Hitler’s morality, the Holocaust, or any Nazi apologist positions. Those topics have nothing to do with what I said.
-
How did it go? Hmmmmmmm...
You are very welcome to promulgate your post war leftist mythos but it seems fairly apparent that you have done very little research or reading in support of your opinion.
The goal, I believe, was for Germany and Russia to pummel each other into the ground, thereby rendering them economically and militarily impotent as a force for the next x number of years decades. Don't get to fixated on the "baddie" communist threat in this respect. The west financed the Bolsheviks too.
I would argue that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense and in sensitive matters such as these we can be pretty damn sure that an awful lot of evidence is designedly absent.
But even so, there is ample evidence for the west funding Hitler (not to mention the Bolsheviks earlier too) and no one seriously doubts it either. Nor was it "dark forces" but was done quite openly by some of the most well known banks, companies and well known individuals in the USA and UK. Look at the Bush family's involvement in Hitler financing, for example.
Also check out Prof. Antony Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and also "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and ""The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" to name just three). Tony sadly died a few years ago but earlier in his life, back during WWII, he was an NCO in the British Intelligence Corp hunting Bormann at Wars end. His four thin volumes on the Skull and Bones were seminal and revealed, for the first time, so far as I am aware anyway, the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a means of covertly manipulating a desired outcome. He also was able to demonstrate that Skull and Bones were linked to the Oxford All Souls set of Milner, Rhodes and co as well as with a German secret society. Meanwhile, it is well established that the Rhodes-Milner Chatham House, are the originating sister organisation of your Council of Foreign Relations, which Tony states has a secret inner core group in exactly the same manner that the Rhodes-Milner was set up. Especially revelavnt to this discussion is his book "How the Order Creates War and Revolution".
Other exceptional authors on the subject are Charles Higham and his books "Trading with the Enemy". He has some other corkers too. For a background on the Rhodes-Milner Group the best beginning source is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy & Hope" and the "Anglo-American Establishment", but there are a number of books on Milner and the Round Table. What made Quigley's contribution significant was that he was permitted unfettered access to the secret archives of the "Group" and was honest enough (unusually for an insider) to publish some of what he discovered, for which he was thereafter punished -- his publisher refused to publish more than the original print run (2,000 I think it was) despite a high demand, and even went so far as to destroy the printing plates.
There are any number of other books and articles that relate to these subjects.
David
PS, in regard to leaning towards either what is politically "left" or "right" it is as well to remember that both are extremes and their manipulation - individually or collectively - form part of the technical formulae of the mysteries of the occult. You would need to read some of the more obscure books on this subject and they are by no means easily explicated. The best bet, in my view, would be to read Carl Jung's Collected Works with an emphasis on what he has written about the Collective Unconscious. It is heady and difficult stuff but may be of benefit to marshalling greater clarity. That post war US military and intelligence circles undertook such an examination - in all its ramifications it seems - should be cause for the very greatest alarm.
David
I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread.
Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal.
When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence.
It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition.
Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len.
How about bringing on the punchline?
Well, sorry to digress, but I cannot let this one item go...
Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West?
Where isn't this documented? Try the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Volkstaad, etc., I'm sure any of the books referenced above would provide suitable evidence. As far as written documentation where Hitler had cozied up to the West to allay the West's abhorrance at the Third Reich's political practices while preparing for the inevitable war with the West, as there have been many sources for this (try the Unauthorized Biography of Prescott Bush or americanheritage.com, amoung many locations). This seemed to me to be common knowledge.
As Len asked ... all of the above.
Anyway I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant.
Well, re-assured by John that's he's not annoyed at what might have been perceived as a diversion from the thread's main topic, I'll respond in brief.
In general, Peter, you have a very curious way of providing references.
Why not find exact quotations that back your points and cite them, with sufficient detail about where they come from so an interested reader can follow up the original source?
You take a different approach, something like: "it's all in "The Rise & Fall..." or it's all at the americanheritage.com website... go find it yourself!"
I am disinclined to do that, Peter. If you wish to back up points that you claim are 'obvious' or 'well-known', it should be very easy for you to provide specific references.
It is unhelpful not to do so - and can give rise to the suspicion that they may not exist at all. I've been on enough wild goose chases seeking out non-existent source information to be wary of investing too much time on someone else's vague say-so.
What is "Hitler's Volkstaad", by the way? (excuse my ignorance)
You wrote: "Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West? "
It's an odd question, Peter. I'm, not entirely sure I understand it - or that it really makes sense.
I'll turn it round to try to clarify your claim.
Are you really saying that the 'inflationary' tactics of the Third Reich led to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, - as well the predictable sacking (?) of groups within its own population - and in turn led unavoidably to War with the West?
What do you mean by 'inflationary' in this context?
The following is taken from Hitler’s Volkstaad, published in Germany, note that this was most immediate of items I have read on this topic. There have been many, identifying that Hitler had oversold bonds to raise capitol, which, when called in, could not have been paid, however as Hitler was planning for inevitable war, the overselling of bonds was not an issue. If I'm not mistaken, this was part of Goering's (Schaap's) four year plan. Also Germany was printing money at an hyper-inflationary rate, which means that, unchecked, with too much money floating around, prices would rise at an hyperinflationary rate. Market pricing was controlled by heavy handed oppression, as were the trade union labor rates. I remember reading this information in several sources, although it would take days to cursorily re-read the tremendous volume of materials to find this particular piece of information. I understood it to be common knowledge. Why do you think that Germany sacked Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, the netherlands, scandinavia, etc.? Do you really think that germany had a self sufficient economy capable of funding their own rearmament after the treaty of Versailles and the Great depression, and the sanctions preventing overt arming of their populace?
"When Götz Aly's book Hitlers Volksstaat (Hitler's Volksstaat) was published in Germany a year ago, it apparently struck a nerve among German historians as well as the general reading public. But unlike movies such as Der Untergang (The Downfall) or television features about Albert Speer which were enjoying popularity at the time, Aly's research does not concentrate on the personalities of individual perpetrators during the Nazi dictatorship. Instead, it focuses on the benefits that an average, non-Jewish German wage-earner reaped owing to the policies of the National Socialist regime. Aly's study touches only marginally upon the extent to which the beneficiaries realized the source of their relative prosperity, namely, the rapacious looting of the occupied countries and of Jews who had been deported and murdered. The author leaves it to his readers to draw their own conclusions from the material he presents.
With painstaking diligence the author perused archives and sifted through the records on tax and financial legislation. What were the details of taxation policy during the various phases of Nazi rule? Which income groups were increasingly enlisted to foot the bill for social policies on the one hand and war policies on the other, and at which junctures? How did Hitler's financial policy-makers manage to keep domestic inflation at bay and offload it to the occupied countries?
Aly develops a highly suspenseful approach to examining such supposedly dry questions as financial policy. He scrutinizes the populistic social reforms during the first years of Nazi rule and provides documentation that the broad social safety net for the population exceeded by far the regime's financial resources and therefore soon resulted in excessive debt. The search for new sources of revenue within the country itself led to increased financial repression of the Jewish population, culminating initially in a one billion Reichsmark surcharge, an "atonement payment," that was imposed on Jewish citizens (following the pogrom night of November 9, 1938). As early as December of the same year, however, Göring formulated very concrete steps for converting the assets of German Jews - calculated at some eight billion Reichsmarks - into German State Bonds. The sweep of the plan becomes clear when one considers that even one billion Reichsmarks would already have increased the Reich's revenues by 6 percent.
The author shows how the occupied countries, with the help of well-contrived systems, were saddled with the costs of the occupation and in part also with providing for the German population "within the Reich," thereby wrecking their national economies. Soldiers were issued a type of artificial currency that they could use as tender, for example, in French or Belgian shops. These credit notes were then submitted to the respective national central banks for the ultimate purpose of being redeemed in Germany. Special clearing houses were set up in Berlin which would issue credits for these costs to the occupied countries after the Germans had been victorious. Even young soldiers whose morals were relatively intact found their sense of justice undermined and were corrupted by this system of obfuscation, as Aly demonstrates using the letters that a young Heinrich Böll sent home to his family from France, telling of his hoarding purchases.
Aly researches the various means of financing the national budget that were employed over the entire Nazi period. In addition to the taxation policies mentioned above, he examines the gradually proceeding expropriation and subsequent deportation and annihilation of the Jews, as well as the ransacking of the occupied countries. He proves that the well-known figures such as Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and Himmler were not the only ones to plot and implement the destruction of European Jewry; the regime's financial policy-makers were equally cold-blooded and calculating, as they not only took millions of deaths into account but viewed them as a legitimate means of acquiring additional revenue.
If growing numbers of Jews were deported to Poland shortly after heavy bombing runs on Hamburg, then a clear connection emerges between bombed out non-Jewish citizens and the fully furnished apartments of Jews which now became "vacancies." It is hardly conceivable that no one asked where all the beautiful things came from. It appears more readily believable, however, that average citizens didn't question where the money for expanding social services might have originated. After all, there was no concurrent rise in their tax burden.
Aly's book has been criticized for its central proposition, namely, that the vast majority of average German citizens profited in a personal sense from the crimes of the Nazis. It is said that the author overrates greed as the driving force behind the genocide and thereby assigns too minor a role to the motive of racial hatred. Still, this is not the historian's first book on the National Socialist regime, and he enjoys honing provocative arguments. Since the early nineties he has been publishing works on many different aspects of the Nazi regime, the annihilation of European Jews, and the continuity of certain social elites in German history.
It is no longer necessary to declare that historical explanations must never be one-dimensional. But the ability to portray history, and financial history in particular, in such a suspenseful manner is immeasurably valuable."
-
How did it go? Hmmmmmmm...
You are very welcome to promulgate your post war leftist mythos but it seems fairly apparent that you have done very little research or reading in support of your opinion.
The goal, I believe, was for Germany and Russia to pummel each other into the ground, thereby rendering them economically and militarily impotent as a force for the next x number of years decades. Don't get to fixated on the "baddie" communist threat in this respect. The west financed the Bolsheviks too.
I would argue that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense and in sensitive matters such as these we can be pretty damn sure that an awful lot of evidence is designedly absent.
But even so, there is ample evidence for the west funding Hitler (not to mention the Bolsheviks earlier too) and no one seriously doubts it either. Nor was it "dark forces" but was done quite openly by some of the most well known banks, companies and well known individuals in the USA and UK. Look at the Bush family's involvement in Hitler financing, for example.
Also check out Prof. Antony Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and also "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and ""The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" to name just three). Tony sadly died a few years ago but earlier in his life, back during WWII, he was an NCO in the British Intelligence Corp hunting Bormann at Wars end. His four thin volumes on the Skull and Bones were seminal and revealed, for the first time, so far as I am aware anyway, the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a means of covertly manipulating a desired outcome. He also was able to demonstrate that Skull and Bones were linked to the Oxford All Souls set of Milner, Rhodes and co as well as with a German secret society. Meanwhile, it is well established that the Rhodes-Milner Chatham House, are the originating sister organisation of your Council of Foreign Relations, which Tony states has a secret inner core group in exactly the same manner that the Rhodes-Milner was set up. Especially revelavnt to this discussion is his book "How the Order Creates War and Revolution".
Other exceptional authors on the subject are Charles Higham and his books "Trading with the Enemy". He has some other corkers too. For a background on the Rhodes-Milner Group the best beginning source is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy & Hope" and the "Anglo-American Establishment", but there are a number of books on Milner and the Round Table. What made Quigley's contribution significant was that he was permitted unfettered access to the secret archives of the "Group" and was honest enough (unusually for an insider) to publish some of what he discovered, for which he was thereafter punished -- his publisher refused to publish more than the original print run (2,000 I think it was) despite a high demand, and even went so far as to destroy the printing plates.
There are any number of other books and articles that relate to these subjects.
David
PS, in regard to leaning towards either what is politically "left" or "right" it is as well to remember that both are extremes and their manipulation - individually or collectively - form part of the technical formulae of the mysteries of the occult. You would need to read some of the more obscure books on this subject and they are by no means easily explicated. The best bet, in my view, would be to read Carl Jung's Collected Works with an emphasis on what he has written about the Collective Unconscious. It is heady and difficult stuff but may be of benefit to marshalling greater clarity. That post war US military and intelligence circles undertook such an examination - in all its ramifications it seems - should be cause for the very greatest alarm.
David
I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread.
Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal.
When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence.
It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition.
Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len.
How about bringing on the punchline?
Well, sorry to digress, but I cannot let this one item go...
Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West?
Where isn't this documented? Try the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Volkstaad, etc., I'm sure any of the books referenced above would provide suitable evidence. As far as written documentation where Hitler had cozied up to the West to allay the West's abhorrance at the Third Reich's political practices while preparing for the inevitable war with the West, as there have been many sources for this (try the Unauthorized Biography of Prescott Bush or americanheritage.com, amoung many locations). This seemed to me to be common knowledge.
As Len asked ... all of the above.
Anyway I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant.
-
"Hitler's mistake was to turn west first of all and therefore he had to go, in Churchill's view anyway."
Can anyone please explain this?
Unless the reference is intended to refer to the re-occupation of the Ruhr, in what possible sense did Hitler "turn west first"?
I assume he means Hitler moving West in 1940 (Norway, Holland, Belgium and France). Of course, he originally attacked Czechoslovakia. and Poland in 1939.
Yes. Forgive my laziness.
David
Hmmm.
But David, your initial remark, in context, was:
Hmmmmmm.I would add that it is my fuzzy view that Hitler was financed by the UK and America in order for him to develop the necessary forces and material to attack Russia. Hitler's mistake was to turn west first of all and therefore he had to go, in Churchill's view anyway.Let's role the historical tape back.
Summar 1939: Germany and Poland in conflict over Danzig corridor.
August 23, 1939: Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed
Late August: Poland refuses further negotiations and mobilizes army.
September 1: Germany invades western Poland.
September 3-10: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declare War on Germany. (Churchill is a major force in Parliament in favour of war with Germany).
mid-September: USSR invades eastern Poland
So, here's my question.
How on earth is this timeline compatible with your analysis?
If the goal of Britain and America in WW 2 was to destroy the USSR - and the survival of Nazi Germany was a relative non-issue - there was a much easier way to achieve that goal. Ally with Germany against Russia. It seems clear that Germany was keen on this too.
But that's not what happened - and I don't believe the case has been made that the 'real' purpose of the British and American power elite in WW2 was to destroy the USSR (and Germany was not really in their sights). If that was the case, the conspirators sure set about things in a highly convoluted way - and ended up failing to achieve their primary goal in quite spectacular fashion.
I think this is just a post-war myth, popular on the left in Britain and America, but with little or no basis in fact.
Regarding the funding of the Nazis by dark forces in the USA and Britain, it may have happened, but hard evidence would be nice. Do you have any?
Once in power in Germany, Hitler's understanding of Keynesian economic theory liberated him from the impact of the economic boycott imposed on Germany by international finance (especially Jewish banking interests). The German economy grew spectacularly in the five years leading to 1939 - and it's hard to make a case that under-the-carpet external funding was responsible.
However, if you have evidence for that, please bring it on.
Hello Sid,
From reading about Prescott Bush (his autobiography by Tarpley), and some posts John Simkin has included on this site, It is my understanding that while there wasn't overt financing for Germany provided by the UK or US 'Power Elite', there was quite a lot of foreign investment from the US and UK. For example, the ownership of the Upper Silesian Coal and Iron Works (did I get the name correct?), located in Poland but which provided raw materials for German Industry and re-armament, by Harriman and Co. and the Directorship of Prescott Bush.
The oppression of the trade unions by the Nazis provided a low income work force in Germany (the labor rate dropped by 25%). This would have helped IG Farbin and Zeiss Opticals, for example, to secure US investment through the mid 1930's. Ford and ITT invested in German armaments in the 1930's (www. americanheritage.com). Remington Arms Co. supplied the German SA arms during the 1930s (likely done covertly due to the Versaille Treaty. This info from the Prescott Bush Unauthorized Biography, By W. Tarpley).
Your point about Keynesian economics seems correct, as Hitler printed money in excess of any limit required to preclude hyperinflation, but was able to check inflation through other means, i.e. the oppression of the Trade Unions and in the marketplace. Germany printed and sold bonds on a massive scale to fund the purchase of raw materials during the 1930s.
During this period both the UK and the US had offical policies of appeasement (from my recollection of Rise and Fall of the Thiord Reich), although FDR was a staunch anti-nazi (as per his Quarantine speech of 1937) and predicted war with Germany was inevitable, as did Churchill (publicly). Hitler attempted to maintain an image of friendship with the US and the UK, at least until the invasion of Poland occurred (www.americanheritage.com).
So while there wasn't any public or official policy to fund Germany, nor (as far as I know) any organized effort by the US or UK 'Power Elite' to fund Hitler during the mid to late-1930s, there was quite a bit of private monies which helped (enormously-from what I've read) fund the industrialization and re-armament of Germany during this period.
Also, from my recollection, it was Germany who pulled away from the diplomatic talks with Poland, in a dispute over the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Co. I think that was discussed in John's thread on Prescott Bush (I may be wrong about the source).
RE: turning West? It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war. The recapture of territories lost in WW-I (and the treaty of Versailles) was to be a preliminary to the annexation of other lands (Poland, Czechoslovakia, France) in the south and west, needed to buffer the Western border, and to gain additional raw materials and funding. The 'Turn' West was inevitable, and IMO part of Hitler's plan from the beginning.
-
I propose that Mr. Burton be removed as a "moderator".
He has accused me of frivolity, insincerity, and dishonesty in reply
to a serious posting I made.
He is clearly using his position to threaten me in favor of his known
bias against me.
Jack
Mr. Simkin,
Sorry, but I felt that I could no longer remain silent RE: Jack White's request to sanction Mr. Burton.
Since registering at the Education Forum, I was quite enamoured of the site's (fairly) free and open dialogue, which included a variety of personalities and usually intelligent discourse. It is not often that the mix of personalities posting here could be found continuing in polite discourse, over any length of time, without descending into something less than polite conversation, given the topics discussed and the emotional attachment many seem to have.
Mr. Burton has, IMO, done very well, as he has been both moderator and an involved discussant in many of these postings. It would be a shame to remove him.
Mr. White has on more than one occasion baited threads with seemingly innocent 'questions' about images he posted, only to provoke and on occasion, insult anyone responding. The Political Conspiracy Forum has become dominated with Apollo hoax threads, which do little but descend into open warfare. Many have replied in steamed reposts, but I do sense the hand of Mr. White in provoking at least some of this.
Mr. Burton has been amoung the several (including me) who have found the pro-Apollo hoax posts to be specious and provocational, adding little more than a spiral into base arguments without any real merit.
I would not deny anyone the opportunity to express their freedom of speech. But the whole baiting, specious claims, lack of cogent defense of claims made, provocations made to anger reposters, descending into childish arguments, and then, when the fruits of such behavior results in such a request as Mr. White has made, it would seem, to me at least, that the whole 'Apollo Hoax' theme must go the way of the slide rule, for a while at least. It is a waste of good dicussion space. I read these threads (for entertainment purposes in a kind of of sensational glee, to see the repostes spiral out of control in some sort of tabloid like caricature) and have realized that the domination of this forum by this topic will certainly condemn the forum to obscurity and marginalization sooner or later.
I hope that you keep Mr. Burton as moderator and can figure out something to do concerning the Apollo Hoax threads, before the site becomes terminally infected.
Thanks.
-
This article made these claims ...
"Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. THE LUNAR SURFACE ITSELF IS RADIOACTIVE !
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "BOTH ARE WORSE ."
Thus ... Cockroach , sizzle , frying pan ... That was an analogy, not a direct quote from the article .... So go brush up on your comprehension skills Matt and Evan ...
As for Dave , it's too bad you don't moderate all of your posts ... Especially since so little of what you post is the truth .
Duane,
Hopefully you are able to benefit form this;
The CERN Laboratory has been doing considerable work in attempting to understand UHECR or Ultra High Energy Cosmic Radiation . This is the energy for that could produce what is termed Hadron upwards showers. A Hadron is a large nuclear particle that typically forms part of an atomic nucleus, such as protons or neutrons. I believe that this is the effect that was referred to in the article you pasted in. Since UHECRs occur on the frequency of only a very few per square kilometer per century, the probability of an astronaut being affected by one is incredibly slight.
http://cerncourier.com/main/article/47/3/27
Now, identifying the lunar surface as "radioactive" is entirely a misnomer. Since UHECR may strike humans on earth with far more likelyhood than an astronaut on the moon, would that human suddenly becaome radioactive, because he emitted a proton or neutron? No. For something to be radioactive it must, by universally accepted definitions, by composed of material which exhibits "radioactive activity". That is, material composed of unstable isotopes which decay, while emitting photons (electromagnetic radiation), and particles, such as gamma rays, xrays, protons (Alpha particles), electrons (beta particles), neutrinos, and the occasional neutron. The moon may contain some naturally occurring radioisotopes, but no probably no more so than the earth. UHECR's while can be attenuated by the earth's atmoshere, are not absorbed (not significantly) by the earth's atmoshere, so people on earth can be struck by the UHECR almost as likely as an astronaut on the moon.
Jim Mattehws from LSU has been conducting experiments on Earth to collect these rare collision for study, but it is very difficult and takes tremendous patience.
The terming of the moon as "Radioactive" is a misnomer. I don't care who said it.
Solar flares are a different story, and could pose a hazard, but the vehicles they inhabit provides adequate shelter, and ample warning can be provided if they are near to their vehicle. More concern would exist if much longer stay times in space were an issue, or a larger population were on the moon, without nearby shelter, and it is likely (IMO) that new studies are examining a scenario where astronauts (and other moon or mars habitants) may not have easy acess to shelter.
What Cosmic Rays are caused by, exactly, remains a mystery. They result in compton effect and scattering, neutrino streams, and a host of subatomic particle interactions due to the incredibly high energies they possess. They can cause (as a secondary ot tertiary effect) hadron upwards showers, but they are relatively rare and not a concern for the average person or astronaut.
Would it surprise you to learn that there is a great liklyhood that you have emmitted a neutron (or several) during your life? Or absorbed some? I know I have. Typically neutrons are moving at such high speeds & at such high energies that they can pass right through a person without causing damage (although the water in a human can "Thermalize" or slow down a neutron, where it could strike and be absorbed by another nucleus, it is not likely).
However, due to the rarity of High Energy Cosmic rays striking any particular location, the concern is very minimal.
I suggest reading up on Jim Matthews work and The CERN Laboratory work, to name a couple. NASA are not experts in high energy physics, although I would guess they have a few physicists specializing in this field on staff, the JPL group wouldn't be the best source for this info ( and I believe the article you referenced came form the NASA JPL lab).
Good luck in you research
-
Some other quotes from NASA SP-4001 The Apollo Spacecraft - A Chronology (the document referred to many times in Duane's post):
Volume III
1964
October 2MSC's Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO) approved a plan (put forward by the MSC Advanced Spacecraft Technology Division to verify the CM's radiation shielding. Checkout of the radiation instrumentation would be made during manned earth orbital flights. The spacecraft would then be subjected to a radiation environment during the first two unmanned Saturn V flights. These missions, 501 and 502, with apogees of about 18,520 km (10,000 nm), would verify the shielding. Gamma probe verification, using spacecraft 008, would be performed in Houston during 1966. Only Block I CM's would be used in these ground and flight tests. Radiation shielding would be unaffected by the change to Block II status.
Memorandum, Joseph F. Shea, MSC, to Assistant Chief for Space Environment, "Apollo Radiation Shielding Verification," October 5, 1964.
1965October 14In a letter to NASA Administrator James E. Webb, AC Spark Plug reported that the first Apollo guidance system completed acceptance testing and was shipped at 11:30 p.m. and arrived at Downey, California, early the following day. AC reported that in more than 2,000 hours of operation they had found the system to be "remarkably reliable, accurate and simple to operate."
Letter, to NASA Administrator Webb, from B. P. Blasingame, Manager, Milwaukee Operations, October 19, 1964.
February 3ASPO established radiation reliability goals for Apollo. These figures would be used to coordinate the radiation program, to define the allowable dosages, and to determine the effect of radiation on mission success. The crew safety goal (defined as the probability of a crewman's not suffering permanent injury or worse, nor his being incapacitated and thus no longer able to perform his duties) was set at 0.99999. The major hazard of a radiation environment, it was felt, was not the chance of fatal doses. It was, rather, the possibility of acute radiation sickness during the mission. The second reliability goal, that for success of the mission (the probability that the mission would not be aborted because of radiation environment), was placed at 0.98.
These values, ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea emphasized, were based on the 8.3-day reference mission and on emergency dose limits previously set forth. They were not to be included in overall reliability goals for the spacecraft, nor were they to be met by weight increases or equipment relocations.
Memorandum, Joseph F. Shea, MSC, to Assistant Director for E. and D., "Apollo Radiation Reliability Goals," February 3, 1965.
April 27ASPO announced that a LEM Test Program Requirement Review would be held at Grumman during the first week in June. The purpose of the review would be to reach agreement with Grumman on an overall Test Program Plan and to consider planned allocation of hardware, test schedules, and test logic in relationship to flight missions.
The review would result in publication of a certification document which would define and catalog the program of testing, analysis, and rationalization which would form the basis for certification of flight spacecraft as capable of meeting requirements of flight missions. It would cover all formal qualification testing above the part level being done at subcontractors or vendors, component testing at Grumman, higher level of assembly testing conducted anywhere in support of a portion of test logic, and individual system test requirements to be conducted on integrated test vehicles such as LEM test article 1.
The format for the review would consist of individual subsystem test program reviews by the respective MSC and Grumman Subsystem Managers. MSC Subsystem Managers would be supported by RASPO, ASPO, and GE personnel where appropriate. After their initial meeting, the MSC and Grumman managers would summarize their findings to a MSC Grumman review board, emphasizing deficiencies in the program (to include inadequate tests, hardware availability problems, and schedules which were inconsistent with flight support requirements).
Memorandum, Owen E. Maynard, MSC, to Distribution, "LEM Test Program Requirements Review," April 27, 1965.
May 6As a result of the Critical Design Review at North American during the previous month, Crew Systems Division (CSD) directed Hamilton Standard to fabricate an Apollo space suit with a pressure-sealing zipper. CSD would compare this concept with the current gusset design, which leaked excessively and hindered donning the suit.
TWX, Richard S. Johnston, MSC, to R. E. Breeding, Hamilton Standard Division, May 6, 1965; MSC, "ASPO Weekly Management Report, June 3-10, 1965."
During AugustGrumman completed an analysis of radiation levels that would be encountered by the LEM-3 crew during their earth orbital mission. Grumman advised that doses would not be harmful. To lessen these levels even further, the contractor recommended that during some parts of the mission the two astronauts climb back into the CM; also, the planned orbit for the LEM (556 by 2,500 km [300 by 1,350 nm]) could be changed to avoid the worst part of the Van Allen Belt.
"Monthly Progress Report No. 31," LPR-10-47, p. 40
Lots of interesting stuff in there.
Thanks Evan for the actual reports and the application of context (which I guess were embedded in the reports). The information doesn't really provide the Thread author supprt for a point or the substance of an argument, unless I am missing something, but it does provide some interesting information with respect to some of the Safety Criteria for the astronauts. Maybe that is the intent of the quotes?
Sorry to say, but Mr. Daman is correct in saying that I shouldn't really spend any more time reading these threads.
Thanks again.
-
Lord Browne, the chief executive of BP was forced to resign last night over lying in court over a homosexual relationship. Tony Blair gave him a knighthood in 1996 and a peerage in 2001. Blair also gave him a great deal of help in an oil deal in Russia in 2003. It is not known how much Browne paid Blair for these services. However, he did give a very well paid job to Blair's former girlfriend, Anji Hunter, as director of communications at BP. Blair's relationship with Hunter dates back when she was only 15 when they both stayed overnight at a party. Hunter has done very well for a woman who went to Brighton Polytechnic.
Well, while I haven't delved deeply into this scuttlebutt about Browne, nor do I intend to, but I must say I'm appalled at the little I've read.
So... Mr Browne may face charges of perjury because he allegedly lied about how he met a former lover.
Big deal.
I know little about Browne, and I'm skeptical about corporate greenwash, but I suspect Browne may be about the best of the bunch when it comes to CEOs of leading energy company's. To be persecuted over one's sexuality in 2007 is disgusting, IMO. I thought our freedom and right to privacy in that most private part of our lives was one of the reasons "they" hate us. Must cross that off the list, as well.
I'm surprised by your last remark, John. It seems a rather snobbish comment, out of character for you.
Although nepotistic lobbying and perjury are of the most unseemly acts, especially alleged homosexuality?
In today's day and age this is the stuff of tabloid sensationalism and probably creates more public awareness than either of the two allegations, simply because of the tabloid stigma.
Since Bill Clinton was caught having sex in the Oval Office and lied about it, sex and politics seems to have its own nominal category in the news, and I guess CEOs fall into this same category, although a CEO may need be held to the same standards as a Government executive. Obviously there is a different standard for people like Browne than the common man.
Willie Nelson was caught with marijuana in Louisiana last month. Louisiana is the toughest state in the US, especially for repeat offenders of Marijauna laws. Willie has had some history, actually admitting to have smoked marijuana in Jimmy Carter's White House (on the roof) once.
Louisiana once had the death penalty listed as a maximum offense for felony possession (intent to distribute, but this was many years ago). Last month they gave him a citation (like a traffic ticket), no bail, and let him go. As he walked out of court people were cheering him, shaking his hand and asking for autographs, he was treated like a hero. Regular people would be castigated. Different standards for celebrities and those highly visible. A double standard.
IMO, things aren't so different outside the US in other 'enlightened' countries. If I have my facts wrong or have this out of context here, please correct me.
-
Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?
Why does the Conspiracy section here, which usually includes controversial, informative, and possibly some of the better discussion/debtae on salient current affairs spend so much ink on the NASA hoax?
It seems that half of the recent posts on page 1 are dedicated to some issue related to the apollo program or space travel in general. The energy spent on this topic at this forum could almost power a space mission to escape velocity.
I would like to suggest that a separate section be dedicated to the apollo 'hoax'.
-
NASA's scientists .... and actually they're looking to see just exactly how did that antiquated Apollo equipment fly to and land men on the lunar surface , when no one can figure how that can even be done today !
You really need to read more of space.com insteady of nasa's Apollo fairy tale sites Dave ... Then you will be more informed as to what a quandry today's rocket scientists are really involved in at the present time .
You see, the closer they all look at technical Apollo evidence , or perhaps I should say the closer they all look at the LACK of Apollo technical evidence , the more obvious it becomes that the official version of the Apollo Program never really happened .
Obviously your understanding of cosmic rays and radiation on the moon is somewhat lacking. Cosmic rays are of the highest order energy levels of naturally occurring radiation encountered. Its radiation not particles, not the stuff of the Van Allen belts. Cosmic Rays are not shielded by Earth's atmoshere (to any significant degree) and is measured at high altitudes using water tanks (a group of physicists from the US are running an experiment in South America right now trying to quantify Cosmic Ray radiation levels amoung other things. Cosmic Rays are intemittent, limited in area and not particularly harmful (no more so than here on earth).
What makes the surface of the moon so full of radiation? Are you confusing radiation and contamination? The moon is not radioactive as your post states, but if some sort of radiation is emmitted in space, the surface of the moon may be subjected to this same radiation, to the same exposure, but it is not literally radioactive. Where does this theory come from?
Deep space radiation (other than cosmic rays) can include emmisions of high energy particles (from the sun, i.e. solar activity such as solar flares, I believe). Some of these particles can be of high orders of energy, but are again, intemittent, and typically not a problem, also astronauts should be able to be provided some advanced warning to allow them to get back in the capsule, and to relative safety (as the particles are shielded by low-Z elements, not lead, as had been pointed out by Kevin and Dave, et al in previous posts, and these are heavy particles, which are stopped by less dense materials) if a transient occurs. This info is available on multiple space exploration sites.
Although I don't want to suppress anyones free speech, students read these posts and the author should do a little futher research on radiation in space from bona fide scientific sites and not the fly by nigght conspiracy central sites pushing half baked ideas and invalid statements. FWIW.
-
This quote from Nixon is ludricrous considering what atrocities were taking place in the world at the time of the alleged manned lunar landings .. All perpetrated by the United States of America .
"This is the greatest week in the history of the world since the Creation."
—President Richard Nixon, July 1969, in the middle of the genocidal wars against our allies in Vietnams, and the genocidal secret wars in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.
"Fire-till-touchdown not feasible for the Apollo LEM Preliminary results of the "fire-till-touchdown" study by Grumman indicated that this maneuver was not feasible. The engine might be exploded by driving the shock wave into the nozzles. The base heatshield temperature would exceed 1,789K (5,000 degrees F), which was high enough to melt portions of the structure, possibly causing destruction of the foot pads. The allowable pressure on the nonstructural elements of the base heatshield would be exceeded; and the descent engine flow field would tend to cause a "POGO" effect which would cause landing instability and could prevent engine cutoff.
—NASA Special Publication-4009, astronautix.com, 1965 December 9-16
"The Secretary of Defense announced the assignment of Lt. Gen. Samuel C. Phillips (USAF), who had been serving as Apollo Program Director in the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, to be Commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO) in Los Angeles.... NASA named Rocco A. Petrone, Director of Launch Operations at KSC, to succeed Samuel C. Phillips as Director of the Apollo Program effective September 1."
—NASA Special Publication-4009, astronautix.com, "DOD Announcement of General Phillips' Air Force Assignment," July 31, 1969; NASA News Release 69-124, "Petrone Named Apollo Director," Aug. 22, 1969
"Grumman built a full-scale cardboard model of the LEM to aid in studying problems of cockpit geometry, specifically the arrangement of display panels. This mockup was reviewed by MSC astronauts and the layout of the cockpit was revised according to some of their suggestions. Also Grumman reported that a preliminary analysis showed the reaction control system plume heating of the LEM landing gear was not a severe problem (31 August 1963).
In honor of the late President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated six days earlier, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that LOC and Station No. 1 of the Atlantic Missile Range would be designated the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) (28 November 1963).
Grumman conducted manned drop tests to determine the LEM crew's ability to land the spacecraft from a standing position (17 April 1964).
All tests were run with the subject in an unpressurized suit in a "hands off" standing position with no restraint system or arm rests. A LEM ascent engine exploded during altitude firings at Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC - 1 Sept. 1965).
A LM test failed in the Grumman ascent stage manufacturing plant December 17. A window in LM-5 shattered during its initial cabin pressurization test, designed to pressurize the cabin to 3.9 newtons per square centimeter (5.65 pounds per square inch). Both inner and outer windows and the plexiglass cover of the right-hand window shattered when the pressure reached 3.5 newtons per sq cm (5.1 psi - 17 December 1967).
ASPO Manager George M. Low and others from MSC met with Grumman's LM engineering staff, headed by Thomas J. Kelly, to discuss the descent stage heatshield and thermal blanket problems associated with reduced thrust decay of the descent engine at lunar touchdown. Grumman would begin design studies of a jettisonable descent engine skirt. (7 June 1968).
The Allison descent-stage propellant tank, being redesigned at Airite Division of Sargent Industries to a "lidless" configuration, blew up during qualification test at Airite. The crew noticed loss of pressure and therefore tightened fittings and repressurized. As the pressure went up, the tank blew into several pieces (27 September 1968). 'During this period, however, there occurred a successful unmanned test of the Lunar Module and two unmanned tests of the Saturn V vehicle.' The possibility of an unmanned LM landing was discussed at NASA Hq. (11 February 1969).
The additional direct cost to the Apollo research and development program from the January 27, 1967, Apollo 1 fire was estimated at $410 million, principally for spacecraft modifications, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller testified in congressional hearings. The accident delayed the first manned flight of the spacecraft by about 18 months (11 March 1969).
Russian Luna 15 unmanned soil return mission launched coincident with Apollo 11 mission in last ditch attempt to return lunar soil to earth before United States. After completing 86 communications sessions and 52 orbits of the Moon at various inclinations and altitudes, crashed on the moon on 20 July in an attempted landing. Altitude data used in programming inaccurate or guidance system unable to cope with effect of lunar mascons (gravitational mass concentrations on Moon - 13 July 1969).
During the Apollo 11 management debriefing, the ASPO Manager noted a number of items requiring investigation. During separation from the S-IVB stage, the CSM autopilot apparently had difficulty determining direction of rotation. After the CSM hatch removal, there was a strong odor of burnt material in the tunnel. The temperature in the lunar module was too cold during sleep periods. The biological isolation garment was uncomfortably hot and its visor fogged. The crew observed flashes at the rate of about one per minute in the command module at night."
—Program: Apollo, Astronautics.com - Encyclopedia Astronautica
"The Universe is home to numerous exotic and beautiful phenomena, some of which can generate almost inconceivable amounts of energy. Supermassive black holes, merging neutron stars, streams of hot gas moving close to the speed of light ... these are but a few of the marvels that generate gamma-ray radiation, the most energetic form of radiation, billions of times more energetic than the type of light visible to our eyes."
—Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), NASA launch date 2006
I'm sorry, but I just spent twenty minutes trying to figure out this post (aligning dates to quotes and associated contextual points) before I came to the conclusion that it is just a collection of gibberish. As far as I can tell, it doesn't make or support any conclusions or establish anything in the way of a meaningful post. Maybe the author can elaborate (in a shorter but more succinct post)?
I like to read this forum as most of the contributors provide intelligent and (sometimes) controversial posts which are thought provoking. What is the intent of this post?
-
I'd like to express my thanks to Peter Lemkin and John Geraghty for taking the time to post these very important points of contention, as well as for providing links to the censored parts of Nigel Turner's series. Also, my thanks go to Rich DellaRosa for having provided me with the original series of TMWKK, five years ago. And to my good friend, Dawn Meredith for the CD she compiled for me of the remaining censored parts of the series, two years ago.
The information provided should go down in the annals of history as the truest form of research documentation on record, to be combined with the works of Prouty, Lane, Lifton, Weisberg, Gibson, DiEugenio, Pease, Oglesby, Mullen, Quigley, and LaRouche, et.al. FWIW, I am grateful for this documentation, and the dogged determination of the above mentioned pioneers in this field, to date.
********************************************************
"Try this outstanding speech for starters.....for details...."
John Armstrong's University of Minnesota Speech
Minneapolis--May 15, 1999
PART I
My presentation is based upon documentation and photographs which will be displayed on these two screens. These slides are presented as visual aids and show relevant portions of documents that are often too large to be depicted in full. They show the documentary evidence behind this presentation.
For 35 years critics have called Kennedy's assassination a conspiracy. But long before the critics, the book writers, and the various government agencies that were established to investigate Kennedy's murder, there was one man who called the assassination a conspiracy. He was the first and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald told Dallas Police Captain Fritz there was a conspiracy--months before... MONTHS BEFORE the word "conspiracy" was ever used publicly. Within 48 hours Oswald was killed--the first of over a hundred assassination related witnesses to die.
We cannot question Oswald, but we can piece together his life story from testimony, evidence, photographs, and documentation. I will begin by discussing the last 10 years of Oswald's life in chronological order. I will then show how evidence was manipulated in order to hide Oswald's true identity and conceal his connections to US intelligence.
---------. Oswald handed something to Tippit, probably his wallet. Tippit got out of the car and was shot. Oswald started to leave, then walked around to the driver's side of the squad car towards Tippit, who was lying on the pavement. Oswald then carefully and deliberately shot Tippit in the temple (LEFT-SLIDE 57).
Witnesses: Smith, Tatum, Callaway, Brock and Scoggins, who saw Tippit's killer, said the man was wearing "light colored clothing". Police dispatch's at 1:22 pm and 1:33 pm (LEFT-SLIDE 58) said the suspect was wearing a white shirt. Harvey, sitting in the theater, was wearing a brown shirt. Domingo Benavides, a few yards from Tippit's car at the time of the shooting, saw Tippits killer as he walked away. Benavides, some 15 feet from the shooting, watched as Oswald left the scene. Benavides said (LEFT- SLIDE 59) "his hairline kind of went down and square off instead of tapering off"--above the collar line. But Harvey's hair was not squared off (RIGHT-SLIDE 50)--it tapered well down his neck" and he was in need of a haircut.
Oswald passed cab driver Scoggins who told the FBI he could not be sure the person he saw in Oakland was actually identical to Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald then passed Ted Callaway, who said Oswald had on a white shirt and a white jacket. Witnesses to the Tippit shooting and witnesses who saw Oswald prior to the assassination on the 6th floor had difficulty recognizing the difference between Lee and Harvey Oswald-the same problem Laurel kitrell had when she interviewed both Oswalds at the Texas Employment Commission a month earlier.
A jacket was discarded at the Texaco station and found by police. But whose jacket was it? (LEFT-SLIDE 60) This jacket was size medium, yet all of Harvey's clothing was size small. This jacket had two laundry tags, yet the FBI could not match either tag to any of several hundred commercial laundries which they checked in the Dallas and New Orleans areas.
Police arrived at the Tippit murder scene and found the wallet left by Tippit's killer. The wallet was photographed by WFAA-TV (LEFT-SLIDE 61) and remembered by FBI Special Agent James Hosty. Hosty said the wallet contained identification for both Lee Harvey Oswald and Alex Hidell. Why would Tippit's killer leave a wallet at the scene of the murder? To identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer of Tippit and the President.
Lets suppose, for just a minute, that Oswald disappeared and was not located at the Texas Theater. When police arrived at the Tippit murder scene they found a wallet containing identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell. They now had the name of a suspect in the Tippit murder. They would soon learn that Oswald was missing from work at the Book Depository. Harvey's address from Depository employment records (RIGHT-SLIDE 51) would lead police to Ruth Paine's house. There they would find Fair Play for Cuba literature with the names of Oswald and Hidell, the same names they found in the wallet. There they would find order blanks (RIGHT-SLIDE 52) from Klein's Sporting Goods for a Mannlicher Carcano rifle, the rifle found at the Book Depository. Klein's records would show a Mannlicher Carcano rifle shipped (RIGHT-SLIDE 53) to A. Hidell of Dallas--and A. Hidell was the name on the second set of identification found in the wallet. Had Harvey not been found in the Texas Theater, a nationwide manhunt would have begun for Lee Harvey Oswald. From film footage of Oswald passing out Fair Play for Cuba literature in New Orleans and his attempt in Mexico City to obtain a visa to Cuba, his presumed destination would be Cuba. The wallet and identification left at the Tippit murder scene sealed Oswald's fate, no matter where he was found.
The FBI and Warren Commission told us Oswald snuck into the Texas Theater and took a seat on the lower level. But Theater employee Julia Postal, police dispatches, and arrest reports say Oswald was in the balcony. Police officers entered the theater, ran to the balcony and began questioning theater patrons. Captain Westbrook and FBI Agent Bob Barrett, who had just arrived from the Tippit murder scene, entered from the rear of the theater. They were looking for Lee Harvey Oswald, his name obtained from identification found in the wallet. The police arrested Harvey, wearing the brown shirt, and took him out the front of the theater. They identified him by calling out his name, "Oswald" (RIGHT-SLIDE 54) to Julia Postal. They put Oswald in a squad car, and drove to Police headquarters. Detective Paul Bentley (RIGHT-SLIDE 55) then removed a wallet from Harvey's left rear pocket and found identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell. The Dallas Police now had two wallets--both containing identification for Oswald and Hidell--but they didn't share that information with reporters or the public.
Bernard Haire, who owned Bernie's Hobby Shop next to the Texas Theater, noticed as a large number of police gathered. He went out the back door of his shop and into the alley. He saw the police take an unidentified white male out the rear of the theater, place him in a police car and drive off. He described the man as 25 years of age, dark hair, and wearing a light colored pull over shirt with dark pants. For years, Bernard Haire thought he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Harvey arrived at police headquarters around 2 o'clock. Back in Oak Cliff, Mr. T.F. White saw a red Ford Falcon quickly pull into the El Chico parking lot. This is 6 blocks north of the Texas Theater. The man and car appeared to be hiding behind a large billboard sign. Curious, Mr. White walked across the street toward the car. When White was within a few yards of the car, the driver looked directly at him, the quickly sped off throwing gravel with his rear tires. White wrote down the license plate number and make and model of the car. The license plates were traced to blue 1957 Plymouth owned by Carl Mather, an employee of Collins Radio. Mather was the best friend of Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit. Mather was unknown to the Warren Commission and refused to discuss the matter with reporters. Years later Mather was granted immunity (LEFT-SLIDE 62) from prosecution and interviewed by the HSCA. Today, twenty years later, his interview was still classified (LEFT-SLIDE 63).
At 1:00 am on November 23rd, the day after the assassination, Harvey Oswald was arraigned for murder. Mary Lawrence was working the late shift at the the Lucas B & B Restaurant, next door to Jack Ruby's Vegas Club. She was the head waitress and had known Ruby for 8 years. Mary told the FBI she saw Oswald and Ruby together in her restaurant shortly after 1:00 am., November 23rd, (LEFT- SLIDE 64) at the same time Harvey was in the Dallas jail. Within days she began receiving threatening phone calls. One caller said, (LEFT-SLIDE 65) "get out of town or you will die".
Harvey Oswald, double-crossed and sitting in jail, was a very unusual suspect. Dallas Police Captain Fritz said, "you didn't have to sit there very long and listen to them talk to Oswald to realize that this guy had been trained in interrogation. By that I mean resisting interrogation." When Oswald told Fritz there was a conspiracy, he was ignored. When he remarked "now everyone will know who I am", he knew his work as a government informant was finished. When Oswald said, "I'm just a patsy", few people paid any attention to him". But following the assassination many people heard Oswald on TV say he was a patsy and insisting that he had not shot the President. One of those people was a CIA computer specialist, George O'Toole. O'Toole served with the CIA as chief of its Problem Analysis Branch. In his work he became familiar with a machine that measured stress in the human voice. When properly measured and interpreted, the Voice Stress Analyzer can accurately determine the truthfullness of statements. O'Toole obtained a tape recording of Oswald saying he did not shoot the president and ran the statement through the VSA. (RIGHT-SLIDE 56) The chart of Oswald's statement revealed no stress. Lie detection experts confirmed that Oswald was telling the truth. He had not shot the President.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission that he had questioned Oswald on Saturday at 12:35 p.m. and showed him 8 x 10 enlargements of the back yard photos. Oswald told Fritz the photographs were fakes. Captain Fritz concluded the interview and Oswald was then returned to his jail cell. Fritz then instructed Detectives Stovall, Adamcik and Rose to again search the residence of Ruth Paine in Irving, this time with a search warrant. They were met at 3:20 pm by Irving detective John McCabe. McCabe remembers that Gus Rose found the back yard photos in Oswald's seabag. (RIGHT-SLIDE 63). Rose initialed and dated the photographs for evidence. The backyard photograph was arguably the most significant piece of evidence that convicted Oswald in the minds of the public. (RIGHT-SLIDE 65) Here was Oswald with rifle...
___________________________________________________________________
All episodes of Nigel Turners 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', an excellent documentary series with credibility,
The Coup D'état
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=61...+killed+kennedy
The Foreces of darkness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=89...+killed+kennedy
The Cover-up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...+killed+kennedy
The Patsy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=34...+killed+kennedy
The Witnesses
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+killed+kennedy
The Truth shall set you free
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58...+killed+kennedy
The Smoking guns
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTeQ9ckmD8#
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM...ted&search=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmMXfBgjsh0...ted&search=
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO5PAmCsw0I...ted&search=
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMJMqbWJLQI...ted&search=
The love affair
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY...ser&search=
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLDm7YT25w...ted&search=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBbe0jexWn4...ted&search=
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGNyprupDTU...ted&search=
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZyJ1APE6Lc...ser&search=
The Guilty men
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk...ser&search=
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts...ser&search=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5fE...ser&search=
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-4QXzNBno...ser&search=
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzZGK9tNyM...ser&search=
Reply to Your Post
I have read in an earlier post, that Marina Oswald had written the name "Alek Hidell" on Oswald's selective service card.
I wonder which wallet contained this particular selective service card, that is, the card which Marina Oswald had "assisted" Oswald by writing the 'Hidell' name on. With two LHO wallets, If the wallet fortuitously dropped by LHO at the Tippet murder scene included the selective service card on which Marina Oswald had written Alek Hidell on it, Marina would have to have been complicit, no?
Can it be differentiated in the evidence which wallet contained the selective service card?
BTW, this was a fascinating post. Amazing info.
From "The Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald" Complied by Mae Brussell
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
From The 'Junie needs a new pair of shoes' thread.
"I will not say who wrote A. J. Hidell on my Selective Service card. [it was later confirmed that Marina Oswald wrote in the name Hidell.] . . . "
Bold font added for emphasis..
-
I'd like to express my thanks to Peter Lemkin and John Geraghty for taking the time to post these very important points of contention, as well as for providing links to the censored parts of Nigel Turner's series. Also, my thanks go to Rich DellaRosa for having provided me with the original series of TMWKK, five years ago. And to my good friend, Dawn Meredith for the CD she compiled for me of the remaining censored parts of the series, two years ago.
The information provided should go down in the annals of history as the truest form of research documentation on record, to be combined with the works of Prouty, Lane, Lifton, Weisberg, Gibson, DiEugenio, Pease, Oglesby, Mullen, Quigley, and LaRouche, et.al. FWIW, I am grateful for this documentation, and the dogged determination of the above mentioned pioneers in this field, to date.
********************************************************
"Try this outstanding speech for starters.....for details...."
John Armstrong's University of Minnesota Speech
Minneapolis--May 15, 1999
PART I
My presentation is based upon documentation and photographs which will be displayed on these two screens. These slides are presented as visual aids and show relevant portions of documents that are often too large to be depicted in full. They show the documentary evidence behind this presentation.
For 35 years critics have called Kennedy's assassination a conspiracy. But long before the critics, the book writers, and the various government agencies that were established to investigate Kennedy's murder, there was one man who called the assassination a conspiracy. He was the first and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald told Dallas Police Captain Fritz there was a conspiracy--months before... MONTHS BEFORE the word "conspiracy" was ever used publicly. Within 48 hours Oswald was killed--the first of over a hundred assassination related witnesses to die.
We cannot question Oswald, but we can piece together his life story from testimony, evidence, photographs, and documentation. I will begin by discussing the last 10 years of Oswald's life in chronological order. I will then show how evidence was manipulated in order to hide Oswald's true identity and conceal his connections to US intelligence.
In 1961 the British arrested Gordon Lonsdale for espionage (LEFT-SLIDE 1). Among his possessions were fake birth certificates and fake passports which gave Lonsdale dual identities. They learned that his real name was Konan Molodi, a native born Russian. Molodi spent his teenage years in California, learned to speak English fluently, and returned to Russia where he was trained in espionage. He took the name Gordon Lonsdale and posed as a businessman in England; but his real purpose was spying out British defense secrets.... Dual identities, the ability to speak Russian and English perfectly, and involvement with intelligence agencies are the tools of a spy. Lonsdale possessed these qualities at a young age... and so did Oswald.
In the early 1950's an intelligence operation began that involved two teenage boys--Lee Oswald, from Fort Worth and a Russian speaking boy who was given the name "Harvey Oswald", from New York. In 1952, these boys were brought together in New York City. They lived parallel but separate lives, often in the same city. The ultimate purpose of this operation was to switch their identities and eventually send Russian speaking Harvey Oswald into the Soviet Union. This is exactly what happened, 7 years later, when Harvey participated in a CIA sponsored defection program in 1959.
Lee and Harvey attended schools, worked at various jobs, lived in the same cities and created numerous paper trails. When the Warren Commission began piecing together "Lee Harvey Oswald's" life, they found substantial evidence of Oswald in two places at the same time--evidence which they never explained and often ignored. Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner wrote (LEFT-SLIDE 2) "our depositions and examinations of records and other data disclose there are details in Mr. Ely's memorandum concerning the Oswald's background which will require material alteration and, in some cases, omission". The evidence requiring "material alteration and omission" concerning Oswald's background is the key to understanding the lives of Harvey and Lee Oswald. Most of it was not printed in the Warren Volumes.
(RIGHT-SLIDE 1) This FBI document describes the statements of a woman who telephoned Mrs. Jack Tippit, of Westport, Connecticut the day after the assassination. The woman said she personally knew Oswald's father and uncle in New York City, who were from Hungary and promoted communism. This woman asked Mrs. Tippit to relay her information to Dallas authorities. This woman may have thought Oswald's relatives were communists, but in reality they were most likely working undercover for our government.
Lee Oswald was born in New Orleans in October 1939. His father died two months before he was born. At age 13 Lee was attending elementary school in Fort Worth, Texas. His friend and neighbor Richard Garrett described Lee as "the tallest, most dominant member of our group in grammar school" (LEFT-SLIDE 3). Lee and his mother left Ft. Worth in August, 1952 for New York. They stayed with Lee's 20 year old brother, John Pic, who was married and in the Coast Guard. Lee's other brother, Robert, was 18 years old and in the Marines.
From the time Lee arrived in New York in 1952 his life was filled with unexplained contradictions. (LEFT-SLIDE 4) John Pic told the FBI and the Warren Commission that Lee attended junior high a block from the Pic apartment, yet Warren Commission records (RIGHT-SLIDE 2) tell us Oswald attended Trinity Evangelical School in the Bronx--many miles north of the Pic apartment.
The Warren Commission tells us Oswald did not attend junior high and was placed in the Youth House for truancy. He was first seen by New York Psychiatrist Dr. Milton Kurian who described him as a very thin, short boy about 4'6" tall. Oswald was seen a few days later by Dr. Renatus Hartogs who also described Oswald (RIGHT-SLIDE 3) as "thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe after the war". These two New York psychiatrists interviewed a short, malnourished boy--Harvey Oswald. A week later (LEFT- SLIDE 5) New York School health records, Warren Commission exhibits, recorded Oswald's height at 5'4" tall-nearly a foot taller than the boy seen by the psychiatrists. Oswald told Dr. Kurian he had been placed in Youth House for truancy. He also told Kurian that his brother would occasionally substitute for him and take his place in school. But which brother? Twenty-one-year-old John Pic and 19-year-old Robert were too old to be substituting for their 13-year-old brother in the 7th grade. The "brother" who was substituting for the thin, malnourished Harvey was probably the tall, (LEFT-SLIDE 6) well built Lee Oswald from Ft. Worth, Texas. Lee Oswald's 174 days of attendance at Public School #44 is recorded on these Warren Commission and FBI exhibits (LEFT-SLIDE 7). Harvey Oswald's truancy and placement in the Youth House is recorded on this Warren Commission exhibit (RIGHT-SLIDE 4); two records for two Oswalds in the spring of 1953--both Warren Commission documents.
This is (LEFT-SLIDE 8) Lee Oswald, in the 6th grade in Ft. Worth--the boy who lived at Pic's apartment in the fall of 1952. This is a photo of short, thin, (RIGHT-SLIDE 5) Harvey Oswald taken at the Bronx Zoo. When John Pic was shown this photograph, he told the Warren Commission "Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald". The Warren Commission attorney replied "that young fellow as shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?" Pic replied "No, sir". Harvey and Lee at age 13.
In the summer of 1953, Lee Oswald and his mother were living in New York City. In July, 1953, Harvey moved to Stanley, North Dakota where he introduced himself to 12 year old William Henry Timmer as "Harvey Oswald". (RIGHT-SLIDE 6) Harvey told Timmer of gang fights in New York City where he made weapons with razor blades stuck in potatoes, and of living all over the country. He showed Timmer a pamphlet on Marxism. Timmer wondered where this young boy would get such a pamphlet? Probably from his father and his uncle in New York City, who were alleged to be Hungarians and promoting communism.
Six years later, in 1959, Harvey Oswald was interviewed by news reporter Aline Mosby in Moscow. Mosby (RIGHT-SLIDE 7) quoted Oswald as saying "we moved to North Dakota". When Oswald was arrested in August, 1963 in New Orleans, he was interviewed by Lt. Francis Martello. He told Martello that he had moved from New York to North Dakota (RIGHT-SLIDE 8). But when Harvey travelled to North Dakota, Lee remained in New York City.
In in the fall of 1953 this Warren Commission exhibit (LEFT-SLIDE 9) shows Lee Oswald attended 62 days of school in the 8th grade at Public School #44 in the Bronx. At the same time this Warren Commission exhibit (RIGHT-SLIDE 9) shows an "Oswald" attended 89 days of school in the 8th grade at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. Once again, we have two different sets of school records published in the Warren volumes: Lee in New York, Harvey in New Orleans during the Fall Semester of 1953.
That following September, Lee Oswald's height was again recorded at 5'4" by his health chart (LEFT- SLIDE 10). When Harvey entered Myra DaRouses 8th grade homeroom class in New Orleans that fall, she described him as 4'6" tall, skinny, and small for his age. He asked Myra to call him "Harvey" and to this day when Myra is asked about Oswald she always refers to him as "Harvey." Myra's description of a short, skinny boy is nearly identical with the New York Psychiatrist's description of Oswald at the Youth House several months earlier. When a piano fell on Harvey's legs in early 1954, Myra drove him to the doctor and then to his apartment on Exchange Alley.
But the Warren Commission tells us Lee and his mother (LEFT-SLIDE 11) were living on St. Marys Street at that time. Their landlord, Myrtle Evans, had known Marguerite for 25 years and lived in the apartment next door. Myrtle and her husband Julian told the Warren Commission "she was a fine woman, intelligent, soft spoken-a beautiful woman with black hair. She used to be a fashion plate." (LEFT-SLIDE 12). Marguerite Oswald is standing next to her husband, Edwin Ekdahl, who was over 6 ft. tall. When Julian Evans saw her on TV, after the assassination he said, "she looked so old and haggard, and I said, that just couldn't be Margie" (RIGHT-SLIDE 11). "There's no other way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different". Myrtle and Julian Evans knew that something was not right. The Marguerite Oswald they saw on TV (RIGHT-SLIDE 12) was very different from the woman they knew. Here's Marguerite Oswald looking up at 5'1" Marina Oswald, quite a bit shorter than the woman standing next to her 6 foot tall husband.
In New Orleans during the first half of 1954, we have Lee Oswald (LEFT-SLIDE 13) living next door to Myrtle and Julian Evans on St. Mary's Street while Harvey Oswald (RIGHT-SLIDE 12) is living 2 miles away at 126 Exchange Place. Two teenage Oswalds in New Orleans in 1954 and two mothers to look after them.
In the fall of 1954 tall, husky Lee Oswald entered the 9th grade at Beauregard. He got involved in a fight with Johnny Neumeyer. A fellow student, Ed Voebel, got some ice and attempted to patch him up. Voebel told the Warren Commission "Oswald's lip was cut and his tooth was knocked out". Voebel took this LIFE Magazine photograph of Lee Oswald (LEFT-SLIDE 14) showing the missing front tooth at age 15. In 1981, Oswald's body was exhumed from his grave in Ft. Worth. Neither x-rays (RIGHT-SLIDE 13) nor photographs (RIGHT-SLIDE 14) showed any missing or chipped teeth.
The boy in the LIFE Magazine photo with the missing front tooth was Lee Oswald. The person exhumed in 1981 with no broken or chipped teeth was Harvey, the person killed by Jack Ruby. I showed the LIFE Magazine photo to Oswald's 8th grade homeroom teacher, Myra DaRouse. Myra said this was not Harvey--not the young man in her home room. Myra was correct, the photo was of Lee.
While Ed Voebel and Lee attended Beauregard in the 9th grade in the fall of 1954, Harvey attended Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth. Harvey, remembered many Stripling students, lived across the street from the school on Thomas Place--the same house Marguerite Oswald lived in at the time of the assassination. Harvey's attendance created Stripling school records which remained in storage at Stripling until the day after the assassination.
Additional confirmation that Oswald attended Stripling came from Robert Oswald. (RIGHT-SLIDE 15) In October, 1959, when Harvey defected to Russia, Robert Oswald told the Fort Worth Star Telegram his brother had attended Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. (RIGHT-SLIDE 16) In June, 1962, when Harvey returned from Russia, Robert Oswald again told the Fort Worth Star Telegram his brother had attended Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. Two years later (RIGHT-SLIDE 17) Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that his brother had attended Stripling in Fort Worth. No one seemed to notice that records published in the Warren volumes said Oswald attended all of his junior high school years in either New York or New Orleans-never a single day at Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth. Robert Oswald knew about Harvey's Stripling Junior High School attendance. He also knew about the two Oswalds.
Harvey Oswald left Fort Worth and returned to New Orleans in early 1955 where he and Marguerite began work at Dolly Shoe Company in New Orleans. The store owner and employees remembered Oswald as being a very quiet and physically small child. Owner Maury Goodman identified this photograph as Marguerite Oswald (RIGHT-SLIDE 18) who worked at his store. He remembered her because she was the only employee who refused to fill out a personal information form required by the company's insurance carrier. When she continued to refuse to fill out the form, he fired her. The Wednesday following Easter, in April, 1955, Louis Marzialle was hired as store manager. Louis observed Oswald working during the morning and told Mr. Goodman he was doing a poor job. After lunch, Louis fired Oswald. Here are Beauregard Junior High school records (LEFT-SLIDE 15) showing Lee Oswald did not miss a single day during the Spring 1955 semester. How could Oswald attend Beauregard Junior High and work at Dolly Shoe in the mornings from February thru April at the same time? He couldn't. Harvey and Marguerite (RIGHT-SLIDE 19) worked at Dolly Shoe during the day, while Lee attended Beauregard and lived with his mother (LEFT-SLIDE 16) on St. Marys Street--the good-looking woman remembered by Myrtle and Julian Evans.
In July of 1955, Robert Oswald was discharged from the Marines and visited Marguerite and Lee in New Orleans for one week. Robert told the Warren Commission (LEFT-SLIDE 17) "Lee was working for an export firm there in New Orleans". The export firm was Gerard F. Tujague, Inc., and the date was July, 1955. Frank DiBenedetto was Oswald's supervisor at Tujagues. Frank told the HSCA (LEFT-SLIDE 18) Oswald had worked for Tujague's "a year to a year and a half". Gloria Callaghan, a secretary at Tujague's, remembered Oswald worked at Tujague's thru April of 1956 when she took a leave of absence to have her first child. Frank did not remember the month Oswald quit but did remember he quit to join the Marines. Lee Oswald left New Orleans in July, 1956, moved to Ft. Worth and joined the Marines in October. From Robert Oswald, Gloria Callaghan and Frank DiBenedetto we learn Lee Oswald worked at Tujague's from July, 1955 through April, 1956. The Warren Commission, however, says Oswald did not begin work at Tugagues until November.
Why? Because New Orleans school records showed that Oswald attended Warren Easton High school that September and October. This conflicted with Oswald working at Tujagues at the same time. So the Tujague employment records were changed. In October, Harvey Oswald wrote this note to the school saying (RIGHT-SLIDE 20) "we are moving to San Diego in the middle of the month." There are indications that Harvey did move to California. In early October of 1963, Harvey told Texas Employment Commission employee Laurel Kittrell that he had worked as a motor cycle delivery boy in California at age 16. (RIGHT-SLIDE 21). I'll discuss more of Laurel Kittrell's interview with Oswald later.
In the fall of 1956, "Harvey" moved to Fort Worth, Texas, and briefly attended Arlington Heights High School. Former classmate and neighbor Richard Garrett said (RIGHT-SLIDE 22) "he walked up to me in the hall at school. I remember I had to look down to talk to him and it seemed strange, because he had been the tallest, most dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was lost. He was very different from the way I remember him". Very different indeed. Garrett did not realize that the shorter and smaller Harvey (RIGHT-SLIDE 23) had replaced Lee. Two months later this Marine photo (LEFT-SLIDE 19) was taken of Lee Oswald. Harvey and Lee at age 17.
According to the Warren Commission, (LEFT-SLIDE 20) Oswald joined the Marines in October, 1956. His Marine medical examination lists a 3-inch mastoid scar behind his left ear from a 1945 operation. Lee Oswald was sent to Boot Camp and ITR training in San Diego, Aviation Fundamentals school in Jacksonville, Florida, radar school in Biloxi, Mississippi, transfered back to El Toro, California in July, and left for Japan in August, 1957.
Marine Allen Felde told the FBI a similar but different account of Oswald's activities. (RIGHT-SLIDE 24). Felde said he and Oswald were in Boot Camp and ITR training in San Diego, A & P School in Jacksonville, and Electronics School in Memphis. Felde said Oswald was constantly complaining about Eisenhower and writing leftist-type letters to senators. Felde and Harvey Oswald were still in Memphis in September, 1957, when Lee Oswald was in Japan. Felde was not interviewed by the Warren Commission and the FBI made no attempt to locate or interview fellow Marines who had served with Felde and Oswald in Memphis--while Lee was in Japan.
From Memphis, Harvey Oswald may have travelled to Columbus, Ohio where reports by the Columbus, Ohio Police Department say he briefly attended Antioch College in the fall of 1957--Ruth Paine's alma mater (RIGHT-SLIDE 25). He was asked to leave when he failed to produce high school graduation records.
In September 1957, (LEFT-SLIDE 22) Lee Oswald arrived in Japan. While overseas Lee never spoke Russian, read Russian newspapers, nor discussed Communism with anyone. He hated the name "Harvey" or "Harv", and was given the nickname "Ozzie".
Marine medical records show "Oswald" was twice treated for tonsillitis and given injections of penicillin (RIGHT-SLIDE 26). But according to this FBI report (LEFT-SLIDE 21), Dr. Philben, of Dallas, Texas had removed Lee Oswald's tonsils twelve years earlier--in January, 1945.
In October, 1957 Lee shot himself in the left arm with a .22 derringer. The entrance wound was closed with stitches and the bullet remained in his arm. Two weeks later an incision was made on the back side of his arm and the bullet removed. Two incisions--two sets of stitches--two scars. After Harvey Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby an autopsy was performed by Dr. Earl Rose. Dr. Rose noted several of Oswald's scars in his autopsy report (RIGHT-SLIDE 27)--some were as small as 1/16". But no scars were noted for the upper left arm, nor is there a notation of a 3-inch mastoid scar which was listed on Oswald's 1956 Marine medical exam. It is not likely that Dr. Rose missed three noticeable scars. Dr. Rose also took 27 color slides of Oswald's body which are now in the National Archives. No upper arm or mastoid scars are visible. Harvey Oswald was prepared for burial and emballmed by Mortician Paul Groody. Groody was twice asked about scars on Oswald's arms. Groody said he had not seen any scars on Oswald's upper left arm. It was Lee Oswald who had the three-inch mastoid scar from the 1945 operation and two upper left arm scars from the self-inflicted bullet wound. It was Harvey who was killed by Jack Ruby and had no such scars.
Lee Oswald was close with three Marines-George Wilkens, Zack Stout and Bobby Warren. This photo (LEFT-SLIDE 24) of Lee was taken by Bobby Warren in Japan in 1958. They were together on Atsugi, Corregidor and Subic Bay. Stout and other Marines said "Ozzie" was always writing letters to his mother. This 1957 telegram from the Red Cross refers to Oswald writing letters to his mother on a weekly basis. Yet no letters from Japan can be found. Why? It is doubtful the handwriting in Lee's letters from Japan would match Harvey's handwriting. The FBI interviewed Marines who knew Lee Oswald in Japan, but their investigation was very superficial. They could have interviewed a number of Marines who worked, bunked, and went on leave with Oswald, like Zack Stout, George Wilkens and Bobby Warren. Instead they intentionally interviewed only eight Marines who barely knew Oswald and were unable to describe him.
While Lee was in Japan, Harvey worked at the Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans. Palmer McBride worked with Oswald every day from October, 1957 through July, 1958. He and Oswald became close friends and often visited each other's homes where they played records and discussed astronomy. McBride probably spent as much or more time in his life with Oswald as anyone. They double dated, went to movies and attended meetings of the New Orleans Amateur Astronomy Association. McBride said that Oswald complained of President Eisenhower's not doing enough about the U.S. space program in view of the Russian's October, 1957 launch of Sputnik. Harvey quit Pfisterers in July 1958. Three months later, in November, Lee returned from Japan and was stationed at the Marine base at Tustin, California. Harvey (RIGHT-SLIDE 28) was stationed at El Toro, and assumed Lee's identity (LEFT-SLIDE 25).
Harvey used his time in El Toro to convince fellow Marines of his interest in communism and his ability to speak Russian. His proficiency with the Russian language has caused some researchers to speculate that he learned Russian at the Monterrey school of languages in California. The next time you hear someone say that Oswald learned Russian at the Monterrey Language school, ask them to name the month and year he attended? Was it during Boot Camp or Infantry training in California in 1956? In Jacksonville, Florida or Biloxi, Mississippi in the spring of 1957? In Japan with his mobile radar unit that travelled to the Philippines and Taiwan in 1957 and 1958? No. Lee Oswald never had the time to attend a Russian language school in Monterrey or anywhere else, and never spoke a word of Russian while in Japan. When Lee returned to the United States in December, 1958, Russian speaking Harvey assumed his identity. It was Harvey who took the Russian language exam in February, 1959 while in the Marines. Harvey dated Russian language student Roslyn Quinn and together they spoke fluent Russian. Fellow Marines nicknamed him "Oswaldovich". But Harvey's sudden proficiency in reading Russian newspapers, listening to Russian records and speaking Russian was just a game. In reality Harvey was preparing for his CIA sponsored "defection", while making sure fellow Marines remembered his interest in anything Russian. Harvey and Lee at age 19.
In December, Harvey's mother, Marguerite Oswald, suffered a work related injury and was treated by Dr. Milton Goldberg. During one of her visits, she told Dr. Goldberg "that her son wanted to defect to Russia". This was 10 months before Oswald's "defection".
Lee Oswald left the Marines, and moved to New Orleans, where he was registered in room "D" at the McBeth Rooming House. (LEFT-SLIDE 26) Captain Valentine Ashworth roomed with Lee and traveled with him to Ohio. In September, 1959, Lee moved to Florida and began consorting with CIA operatives. Lee and an anti-Castro Cuban named "Mexicano" visited Mrs. Gladys Davis (LEFT-SLIDE 27) at her home in Coral Gables. (LEFT-SLIDE 28) Marita Lorenz first met Oswald, whom she called "Ozzie" in a CIA safehouse in Miami in 1960. Lee Oswald's activities in the Florida Keys were well known to former Congresswoman Clare Booth Luce. Sheriff Thompson, of Key West, Florida (LEFT-SLIDE 29) remembered when Oswald's 40 ft boat ran out of gas. Oswald placed a call to Dallas, Texas and received money by wire within a few hours. The money could have come from Jack Ruby who was running guns to Cuba. Neighbors told the FBI that Ruby stored guns in a rented house in Kemah, Texas. (LEFT-SLIDE 30) On the weekends the guns were loaded onto a surplus military landing craft and Ruby piloted the vessel to Cuba.
In September, 1959 Harvey was discharged from the Marines and obtained this Department of Defense ID card (RIGHT-SLIDE 29)--a card often issued to intelligence operatives. But the photo on the ID card was only half of (LEFT-SLIDE 31) Harvey's face--the other half was Lee. This ID card could be used by either Lee or Harvey.
On September 7th Lee Oswald's photo was taken (LEFT-SLIDE 32) and used for his 1959 passport application. (RIGHT-SLIDE 30) A week later, in Ft. Worth, Robert Oswald took this photo of Harvey. In October this photo of Lee (LEFT-SLIDE 33) appeared in the Fort Worth Star Telegram when he defected. Harvey and Lee at age 20--both known to Robert Oswald. (RIGHT-SLIDE 31)
In 1959, U.S. citizen Robert Webster also "defected" to Russia. In Moscow he met Marina Prusakova. After Webster was sent by the Russians to live in Leningrad, Marina also moved to Leningrad, and just happened to move into the same apartment building as Webster. There she again met Webster and conversed him--in English. Evidence of Marina's ability to write English before the assassination is abundant at the National Archives. There are dozens of examples of her near-perfect English handwriting on the backs of dozens of photographs and of papers where Marina has corrected Ruth Paine's Russian script. There are recipes in her English handwriting and this notebook in the National Archives is filled with page after page of Marina's English handwriting.
In January of 1961 Muhamed Reggab, a Moraccan exchange student, was dating Marina Prusakova back in Moscow. After the assassination Marina spoke English with her manager, Jim Martin. Martin said Marina spoke English quite well. He also said Marina told him about meeting and entertaining foreign ambassadors in their Moscow hotel rooms (RIGHT- SLIDE 32). She bragged about her contacts and access to high level communist officials and her travels throughout the Soviet Union. Marina's repeated contacts with foreigners, communist officials and her travels from Moscow to Leningrad to Minsk while an unemployed teenager is suspicious. The ease with which she met U.S. defectors Webster and Oswald in different, very large cities, hundreds of miles apart, is more than suspicious--someone was directing her and someone was paying her way. The freedom she had to meet and marry Oswald, the ease with which she left the Soviet Union and her ability to speak and write English long before she knew Oswald are strong indications that Marina had intelligence connections.
On a recent trip to Buenos Aires, Argentina, I met Anna Zeiger whose family knew Harvey from the time he arrived in Minsk to the time he left. She said during the year and a half she knew Oswald, she never heard him speak a word of a word of Russian. Her father, who was Oswald's supervisor at the factory where they worked, spoke English and interpreted for Oswald until the day he left. Oswald did not want anyone in Russia to know that he spoke Russian. This provided him the opportunity to listen, read, and understand the conditions and events around him in secret. When he returned to the States, Oswald wrote a 50 page manuscript detailing his observations in Russia. Published in Volume 16 of the Warren volumes, it is replete with minute detail, facts and data--not the type of information recorded by a tourist or temporary resident of Russia.
LET'S THINK AGAIN ABOUT HARVEY AND MARINA. Oswald spoke Russian before he left the United States, but while in Russia pretended not to speak Russian. Marina spoke and wrote English while in Russia, but when they came to the U.S. in 1962 she pretended not to speak English. Marina lied when she told the Warren Commission that Oswald wanted her to speak Russian in order to help him maintain his proficiency in Russian. The truth is she did not want anyone to know that she spoke English because it might cause Dallas residents to wonder where she learned English. The Dallas Russian community already wondered how she was able to meet and marry Oswald in 5 weeks, and then leave Russia. If they knew Marina could speak and write English while in Russia, they just might suspect her of being a spy. It is reasonable to conclude that both Marina and Harvey were likely connected to their countries' respective intelligence agencies. From 1959 through 1962, Russian medical records, State Department Security memos, letters to Oswald, CIA and FBI memos all refer to Oswald as "Harvey". The merging of Harvey Oswald with Lee Oswald's background had been successful. Harvey was observing conditions in Russia while Lee was working in New Orleans, Texas and Florida with CIA operatives.
By June, 1960 J. Edgar Hoover was aware of an Oswald in the States and an Oswald in Russia. This FBI memo (LEFT-SLIDE 34), warning of an Oswald impostor in the U.S., should have prompted a small army of FBI agents to locate the Oswald imposter and find out who he was and what he was up to. Yet nothing was done-not a single investigation of the Oswald imposter is known to exist. This lack of investigation strongly suggests that FBI officials were informed of the Oswald defection program and called off their search for the Oswald impostor.
CIA contact Marita Lorenz (LEFT-SLIDE 35) met Lee Oswald for the 2nd time at a CIA safehouse in Miami in 1960 and several times at CIA training camps in the Florida everglades in 1961. There are FBI reports of Oswald attempting to purchase trucks from (LEFT-SLIDE 36) Bolton Ford in New Orleans in January, 1961, visiting the (LEFT-SLIDE 37) Dumas and Milnes Chevrolet Dealership in New Orleans in May, 1961 (LEFT-SLIDE 38), meeting with Robert Taber in Havana in July, with (LEFT-SLIDE 39) Ray Carnay in Dallas, Oswald's arrest in the fall of 1961 (LEFT-SLIDE 40) by Officer Charles Noto in New Orleans. In 1961 Oswald and Jack Ruby were seen boarding a plane to Cuba by Key West airport manager Nick Faraldo. In late 1961 and early 1962 (LEFT-SLIDE 41) Oswald was engaged in disruptive activities with Steve Landesberg in New York. All of these people thought they had met the person accused of shooting President Kennedy. But they were mistaken--Harvey was in Russia at that time. These well intentioned people met or came in contact with Lee Oswald--not Harvey. Even though Lee and Harvey were not identical, they looked similar enough to deceive and fool those with whom they came in contact. Look alikes are often used by the intelligence community. A perfect example are Patricio and Antonio De La Guardia (LEFT-SLIDE 42)--identical twin brothers. They were Castro's top intelligence agents.
Harvey and Marina left Russia in May, 1962 for Texas. In Ft. Worth, Oswald impressed local Russian emigrees with his near perfect command of the Russian language. George DeMohrenschildt, a native speaking Russian emigree, said Harvey preferred speaking Russian to English. They often discussed classical (RIGHT-SLIDE 33) Russian literature--in the Russian language. The Warren Commission would like us to believe this high school dropout taught himself Russian by reading Russian newspapers at age 19 in California. In reality Harvey had been speaking Russian since childhood.
When John Pic first saw "Harvey", upon his return from Russia, Pic told the Warren Commission (RIGHT-SLIDE 34) "the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November, 1962 was not the same Lee Oswald I had known 10 years previous". He was (RIGHT-SLIDE 35) "much thinner, didn't have as much hair, different facial features, his face was rounder, he seemed more slender, he had less hair, eyes seemed sunken, and he no longer had a bull neck". Oswald wrote his name in Pic's address book as "Harvey" (RIGHT-SLIDE 36). When the Warren Commission attorney asked Pic how he looked compared with when Pic had last seen him, (RIGHT-SLIDE 37) Pic replied "I would never have recognized him, sir".
In the summer of 1962, Harvey and Marina were living in Ft. Worth. Harvey was interviewed by the FBI in June, and again in August. At the same time Lee Oswald was living in New Orleans in a small apartment above the Court of Two Sisters restaurant in the French Quarter. The FBI was aware of Lee Oswald and his whereabouts. The manager of the restaurant, Gene Davis, was an FBI informant (LEFT-SLIDE 43).
Through 1962 and early 1963 the activities of Harvey and Lee had no apparent relationship to the impending assassination--still 9 months away. But by the spring of 1963 things began to change. In March, when Harvey and Marina were living on Neeley Street, a letter was found by a Memphis attorney in the mail box at the Carousel Club addressed to Jake Rubenstein. The return address was "Lee Oswald, 1106 Diceman Avenue, Dallas, Texas."
In the summer 1963, while Harvey was working at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans, Lee was living in Dallas, Texas. Marshall Hicks, an employee of Western Union, delivered several telegrams to Oswald at 1501 W. 7th, in Fort Worth. Jack Ruby's girlfriend, Dorothy Marcum, remembered that Oswald worked for Ruby. Mechanic Robert Roy said Oswald drove Ruby's car to and from his garage on many occasions. In Ruby's club, Oswald struck up a conversation with Frances Hise and offered to buy her a drink. On another she noticed as Oswald came in the back door of the Carousel Club and Ruby casually said "Hi, Ozzie". Ruby later joined "Ozzie" in the back room. Ruby employees William Crowe, Wally Weston, Dixie Lynn, Kathy Kay and others claim to have seen Oswald in Ruby's club. Dozens of people (LEFT-SLIDE 44) saw Oswald and Ruby together in the summer and fall of 1963--precisely when Harvey and Marina were living on Magazine Street in New Orleans. It was Lee Oswald who knew and associated with Jack Ruby in the summer of 1963 and may have known Ruby when he was running guns to Cuba.
In August, Harvey was arrested in New Orleans while passing out "Fair Play for Cuba Literature". The Warren Commission asked John Pic (RIGHT-SLIDE 38) "Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflets?" Pic replied "No, sir, I would be unable to recognize him". For the 7th time during his Warren Commission testimony, John Pic refused to identify Harvey Oswald as his brother.
Helping Harvey pass out leaflets was Charles Hall Steele, (RIGHT-SLIDE39) an FBI informant. While Oswald was passing out leaflets he was observed by CIA Agent William Gaudet, filmed by FBI informant ??? Oquinn, a film that was later shown on national television. Oswald was confronted by three Cubans and the police were called. The arresting officer thought the leafletting incident was a staged event, designed to draw attention. (RIGHT-SLIDE 40) The officer was correct, but was unaware that two of the Cubans-Carlos Bringuier and Miguel Cruz-were FBI informants and the third, Celso Hernandez, was a CIA contact. Oswald and the Cubans were arrested and taken to jail. In jail Oswald summoned and spoke with FBI Agent John Quigley. A week later Oswald was invited to discuss his pro-Castro views on WDSU radio. Moderating the discussion was Bill Stuckey, an FBI informant. Panelists included FBI informant Carlos Bringuier and Edward Scannel Butler, head of the Information Counsel of the Americas--a CIA sponsored and funded organization.
Had we known in 1963 that everyone involved with the leaf-letting incidents and the radio discussions were connected to either the FBI or CIA, we would not so easily accepted the medias portrayal of Oswald as a supporter of Castro and Communism. We would have asked why the accused assassin of President Kennedy was surrounded by FBI and CIA people. We might have realized that Oswald was not a supporter of Castro but rather a government sponsored agitator.
But here was this ex-Russian defector, with a Russian wife, filmed and arrested while passing out literature in support of Castro and Communism on the streets of New Orleans. In the summer of 1963, the setting up of Oswald as a "patsy" began.
In September, with Harvey and Marina still in New Orleans, Cliff Shasteen cut Lee Oswald's hair in his Irving, Texas barber shop. Shasteen told the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald (LEFT-SLIDE 45) had nearly black hair and a widow's peak, but Harvey's hair was (RIGHT-SLIDE 41) medium brown and he did not have a widow's peak. Shasteen told the FBI that Oswald drove the Paine's car to his barber--but Oswald couldn't drive. Shasteen often saw Oswald at the Paines house, a few blocks away, and assumed he lived there--but Oswald was living in New Orleans. Across from Shasteen's was a grocery store owned by Leonard Hutchinson who remembered Oswald as a customer.
In early September, with Harvey and Marina still in New Orleans, Antonio Veciana observed his long time CIA contact David Atlee Phillips meeting with Oswald in Dallas. The meeting took place at the Southland Building, a few blocks from Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Why would Phillips, head of Cuban Propaganda for the CIA, meet with Lee OswaId? Because the plot to kill Kennedy depended heavily on Lee Oswald. From September through November of 1963 Lee Oswald was used to impersonate Harvey in a series of events designed to set up "Harvey as the assassin and implicate Cuba as his sponsor. It is not unreasonable to speculate that David Phillips masterminded this plan. After the assassination, Phillips received, directed and controled inquiries to the CIA station in Mexico City regarding Oswald's visits to Mexico.
Lee Oswald was sent to Houston, Texas where he attempted to purchase four high powered rifles from Robert McKeown. But Mckeown was leary of Oswald and refused his offer. McKeown told the House Select Committee "that is what puzzled me, why would he come to me to buy rifles". McKeown may have been puzzled, but it made perfect sense to those directing Oswald. McKeown had provided Castro with rifles and arms during the Cuban revolution (LEFT- SLIDE 46). McKeown was also a very close personal friend of Castro. Purchasing rifles from Castro's close friend and gunrunner and using those rifles to assassinate Kennedy would have placed the blame for Kennedy's assassination on Castro and caused a public outcry for an invasion of Cuba. The U.S. would invade Cuba, overthrow Castro, and avenge the CIA's loss at the Bay of Pigs.
But, McKeown did not sell rifles to Lee Oswald. Oswald left and continued to impersonate Harvey. In Mexico City an Oswald attempted to secure a visa to Cuba. But this Oswald, photographed in the Cuban Embassy, was unrecognized by Embassy personnel after the assassination. This Oswald visited the Russian embassy and spoke Russian so poorly, that he and the Russian embassy personnel had to speak English. When Oswald telephoned the Russian embassy, the conversation was recorded. The day after the assassination J. Edgar Hoover told Lyndon Johnson "we have up here the tape recording and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy using Oswald's name. That picture and tape recording do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, Mr. President, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there." A second Oswald in Mexico City and Hoover and Lyndon Johnson knew about it the evening of the assassination.
Placing Oswald in Mexico City was an important step in linking Oswald to Cuba. But the FBI had little evidence that Oswald was ever in Mexico City. Aware of the problem, CIA Agent David Phillips offered a Cuban embassy employee a large sum of money to say that he and his wife met Oswald in Mexico City. The attempt failed. Nine months later, in July 1964, it was Marina who conveniently provided the FBI with circumstantial evidence that placed Oswald in Mexico City. But it was the CIA, most notably through David Phillips, Frank Sturgis, and friendly media assets, who continued to try to link Oswald with Cuba.
Oswald was allegedly in Mexico from September 26 to October 3. But Mr. Price told the Warren Commission that Oswald practiced at the Sports Drome Rifle Range in Dallas on September 28. In New Orleans, an Oswald bragged about his recent trip to Cuba where he met Castro. An Oswald applied for a job with the Texas Employment Commission and the Semtner Drug Store and visited Sylvia Odio and her sister in Dallas, all at the same time an Oswald was in Mexico City.
On October 3, an Oswald left Mexico and arrived at Laredo, Texas by bus. The same day, 450 miles away in Dallas, an Oswald was interviewed by Harry Sanderson of the Texas Employment Commission. The FBI was aware of this conflict and stated, "It appears from the above information highly improbable that Oswald could have travelled from Laredo, Texas to Dallas on October 3 in time to appear personally at the Texas Employment Commission." The FBI suppressed this memo. On the evening of October 3, an Oswald registered at the YMCA in Dallas. The same evening an Oswald spent the night in Alice, Texas, a small town near Laredo. The following day, October 4, an Oswald applied for a job at radio station KOPY in Alice, Texas. He was interviewed by General Manager Laymon Stewart and engineer Robert Janca and told them he had just returned from Mexico. Both men identified Oswald as the man they had interviewed. That evening Dallas Attorney Carroll Jarnagin saw an Oswald at the Carousel Club talking with Jack Ruby. But according to Ruth Paine in these FBI reports, Oswald spent the night of October 4th, 5th and 6th at her house in Irving, Texas. (CE2124)
Former Army Intelligence Officer Richard Case Nagell knew one of the Oswalds. He was aware of an impending assassination attempt on President Kennedy and informed the FBI. Wanting no part of a conspiracy, he walked into the State National Bank in El Paso, fired shots into the ceiling, and waited to be arrested. When he was searched, the police found a photocopy of an ID card belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald. (LEFT-SLIDE 47). When Harvey Oswald was arrested after the assassination a similar ID card was found (RIGHT-SLIDE 42). The photographs and signatures on the two cards are different. Two different ID cards for two Oswalds. Also taken from Nagell was a list that contained the names of six CIA agents.
Laurel Kittrell, of the Texas Employment Commission, interviewed Harvey Oswald in early October. Two weeks later, while Harvey was working at the Book Depository, she interviewed a second Oswald. Mrs. Kittrell realized this Oswald was not the same person she had previously interviewed. She remembered they were very, very similar--but different people. (LEFT- SLIDE 48) She remembered they were "very much alike in size, shape and outline, generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner'. Mrs. Kitrell's interview of two Oswalds would have explained an Oswald in New Orleans and an Oswald in Dallas at the same time, the sightings of an Oswald in Mexico and an Oswald in the U.S. at the same time, and many of the pre-assassination sightings of Lee Oswald while Harvey was working at the Book Depository. Mrs. Kittrell gave a thirty-page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas. Her statement was hand carried to the Warren Commission by the Secret Service. But her 30-page statement and subsequent 90-page manuscript in which she discusses her interviews of the two Oswalds, were ultimately ignored and suppressed.
Harvey continued to work weekdays at the Book Depository without missing a day of work. (RIGHT-SLIDE 43) On Thursday, October 31 Lee target practiced at the Sports Drome Rifle Range-making himself known to fellow shooters. He applied for a job at the Statler Hilton Hotel, a high rise building in downtown Dallas. On Friday, November 1, Lee purchased ammunition at Morgan's Gun Shop. On November 4th, Lee visited Dial Ryders gun shop to have a scope mounted on his rifle even though the gun purchased from Klein's came with a scope already mounted. On Thursday afternoon, November 7th, Oswald, wife and child arrived at the Furniture Mart in Irving in a 1958 blue Ford. They spoke with Gertrude Hunter and Edith Whitworth about furniture for their new apartment. Oswald applied at the Salvation Army for assistance giving Ruth Paine as a reference. Oswald shopped at Hutchinson's and Minyards Grocery in Irving.
Lee continued to drive Ruth Paine's car and get his hair cut at Shasteen's Barber Shop. On November 9, Lee was at the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drove a car at excessive speeds and said he would soon have enough money to buy a car. On November 16, he applied for a job at the Southland Hotel Parking garage and asked if the building had a good view of downtown Dallas. Once again, these sightings occurred while Harvey was either working at the Book Depository or was at the Paine's house in Irving. A rifle with a scope, ammunition, target practice, tall buildings from which to shoot the President, and enough money within a few weeks to buy a new car. The framing of Harvey as the assassin was nearly complete.
A week before the assassination (LEFT-SLIDE 49) Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald were at the New Port Motel in Morgan City, La. Corrine Villard, who had known Ruby since 1947, spoke with Ruby and Oswald for a half an hour. Later, in New Orleans, (LEFT-SLIDE 50) Lee was seen with David Ferrie, Gene Davis, and three unidentified men in an apartment above the Court of Two Sisters restaurant in New Orleans. Gene Davis, the manager of the restaurant, knew Oswald and was an active FBI informant.
On November 20, Harvey arrived for work a the Book Depository at 8:00 am. An hour later Lee Oswald was eating breakfast at the Dobbs House Restaurant in Oak Cliff and was remembered by several employees. A half hour later (LEFT-SLIDE 51) Lee was picked up a mile away at the Beckley Street entrance to the R. L. Thornton Expressway while hitch hiking. He introduced himself to the driver as "Lee Harvey Oswald" and said his 4 foot long package, wrapped in brown paper, contained curtain rods. The driver, Ralph Yates, dropped Oswald off at Elm and Houston in front of the Texas School Book Depository. This was Wednesday, two days before the assassination.
(RIGHT-SLIDE 44) The same day a package was mailed from Irving, Texas to Lee Oswald at 2515 W. 5th St--the Paine's address. It was not delivered because there was $.12 postage due. The package, held at the post office and later opened by U.S. Post Office Inspector Harry Holmes, contained "a long brown bag opened at both ends"--similar to the brown bag found by the Dallas Police in the Book Depository. Had Oswald received and opened the package he would have unwittingly placed his fingerprints on the brown bag--a bag that could have been conveniently placed on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. The expected delivery of a package could have been the reason for Harvey's uncharacteristic trip to Irving on Thursday evening.
That evening Harvey spent the night at the Paine residence. Thirteen miles away, in Oak Cliff, a young man knocked on the apartment door of an SMU Professor at 223 S. Ewing. When he asked for Jack Ruby, Helen McIntosh directed the young man to Ruby's adjoining apartment. The following day Helen recognized the young man as "Lee Harvey Oswald".
On November 22, Harvey Oswald left the Paines' at 7:30 am and rode to work with Wesley Frazier, arriving at the Book Depository at 8:00 am. Harvey was seen by fellow employees in the building continuously until 12:15 pm. (RIGHT-SLIDE 45) At 7:30 am, 13 miles away in Oak Cliff, Dub Stark arrived at his Top Ten Record Store to find Lee Oswald waiting for him. News reporter Earl Golz interviewed Stark about Oswald's early morning visit. Stark said (LEFT-SLIDE 52) Oswald purchased a ticket for the Dick Clark show and then returned a short time later and purchased another ticket. This time, Officer J.D. Tippett was in the store. At 9:30 am, with Harvey working at the Book Depository, (LEFT-SLIDE 53) Lee Oswald entered the Jiffy Store on Industrial Blvd.--a mile from the Book Depository. He brought two beers to store clerk Fred Moore and was asked for identification. He produced a Texas drivers license with the name Lee Oswald. Moore remembered the birth date as October, 1939.
Minutes before the assassination several witnesses, including Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson, Richard Carr and Ron Fisher saw two men on the 6th floor-one wearing a white shirt and holding a rifle; the other wearing a dark shirt or jacket. Why would anyone intending to assassinate the President of the United States allow himself to be seen holding a rifle in a building overlooking the parade route? The only reason is so that witnesses could later describe that person to the police. It was Lee Oswald, wearing a white shirt and holding a rifle, who was seen on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. Harvey, wearing a brown shirt, was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor.
(RIGHT-SLIDE 46) Harvey, wearing a brown shirt, left the lunchroom, walked out the front door of the Book Depository, boarded a bus and then took a cab to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. Richard Randolph Carr saw two men on the 6th floor, one who walked toward Carr on Houston, got into a light colored Nash Rambler station wagon which drove north toward the book depository. Richard Worrell may have seen the second man, who he later identified as Oswald, run out the back of the Book Depository toward the railroad tracks minutes after the assassination. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig (LEFT-SLIDE 54) saw the Nash Rambler stop in front of the Book Depository. A man wearing a light colored shirt, who Craig identified as Oswald, came from the direction of the railroad tracks and got into the car. The car sped under the triple overpass and headed toward Oak Cliff. (LEFT-SLIDE 55) Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who were driving the 1st and 2nd cars behind the Nash Rambler, also saw the man wearing a light colored shirt get into the station wagon.
As Harvey and Lee left Dealey Plaza, Officer J.D. Tippit was sitting in his patrol car two miles away at the GLOCO Station watching traffic cross the bridge from Dallas. Ten minutes later, Tippit left and sped south to the Top Ten Record Store, a block west of the Texas Theater, arriving about 1 o'clock. Tippit made a telephone call from the store and then quickly left.
The Warren Commission said Oswald arrived at his rooming house around 1 o'clock. He spent a few minutes in his room and was last seen at the corner bus stop wearing a light colored jacket and brown shirt. At the same time Lee, wearing a white shirt and jacket, was walking past the 10th St. Barber shop two blocks north of Jack Ruby's apartment. Lee passed the Town and Country Cafe, Marsalis Avenue, and was headed west toward 10th & Patton--two blocks away.
Harvey entered the Texas Theater shortly after 1 o'clock and went to the balcony. A few minutes later he purchased popcorn from Butch Burroughs at the concession stand. (RIGHT-SLIDE 47) Burroughs watched Harvey as he entered the lower level of the theater. (RIGHT-SLIDE 48) Harvey walked past Dallas Evangelist Jack Davis and briefly sat next to him. Harvey got up and walked to another aisle and briefly sat down next to another man. Harvey then got up again and walked to the concession area. It appeared to Davis that Harvey was looking for someone in the theater. Harvey's movements occurred while the opening credits to the movie were running--a few minutes before 1:20 pm. Twenty four people (RIGHT-SLIDE 49) were in the theater that day who could possibly have identified Harvey and verified the time he was seen in the theater, but their names and addresses, obtained by Dallas Police, disappeared.
While Harvey was sitting in the Theater, Lee was nearing 10th & Patton when Officer Tippit called him over to the squad car. Witnesses Jimmy Burt, Helen Markham and Jack Tatum saw Oswald walk to the squad car and talk to Tippit through the "rolled down" car window. (LEFT-SLIDE 56) Tatum, who drove within a few feet of Tippit's patrol car, said Oswald was wearing a white jacket and white t-shirt. Oswald handed something to Tippit, probably his wallet. Tippit got out of the car and was shot. Oswald started to leave, then walked around to the driver's side of the squad car towards Tippit, who was lying on the pavement. Oswald then carefully and deliberately shot Tippit in the temple (LEFT-SLIDE 57).
Witnesses: Smith, Tatum, Callaway, Brock and Scoggins, who saw Tippit's killer, said the man was wearing "light colored clothing". Police dispatch's at 1:22 pm and 1:33 pm (LEFT-SLIDE 58) said the suspect was wearing a white shirt. Harvey, sitting in the theater, was wearing a brown shirt. Domingo Benavides, a few yards from Tippit's car at the time of the shooting, saw Tippits killer as he walked away. Benavides, some 15 feet from the shooting, watched as Oswald left the scene. Benavides said (LEFT- SLIDE 59) "his hairline kind of went down and square off instead of tapering off"--above the collar line. But Harvey's hair was not squared off (RIGHT-SLIDE 50)--it tapered well down his neck" and he was in need of a haircut.
Oswald passed cab driver Scoggins who told the FBI he could not be sure the person he saw in Oakland was actually identical to Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald then passed Ted Callaway, who said Oswald had on a white shirt and a white jacket. Witnesses to the Tippit shooting and witnesses who saw Oswald prior to the assassination on the 6th floor had difficulty recognizing the difference between Lee and Harvey Oswald-the same problem Laurel kitrell had when she interviewed both Oswalds at the Texas Employment Commission a month earlier.
A jacket was discarded at the Texaco station and found by police. But whose jacket was it? (LEFT-SLIDE 60) This jacket was size medium, yet all of Harvey's clothing was size small. This jacket had two laundry tags, yet the FBI could not match either tag to any of several hundred commercial laundries which they checked in the Dallas and New Orleans areas.
Police arrived at the Tippit murder scene and found the wallet left by Tippit's killer. The wallet was photographed by WFAA-TV (LEFT-SLIDE 61) and remembered by FBI Special Agent James Hosty. Hosty said the wallet contained identification for both Lee Harvey Oswald and Alex Hidell. Why would Tippit's killer leave a wallet at the scene of the murder? To identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer of Tippit and the President.
Lets suppose, for just a minute, that Oswald disappeared and was not located at the Texas Theater. When police arrived at the Tippit murder scene they found a wallet containing identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell. They now had the name of a suspect in the Tippit murder. They would soon learn that Oswald was missing from work at the Book Depository. Harvey's address from Depository employment records (RIGHT-SLIDE 51) would lead police to Ruth Paine's house. There they would find Fair Play for Cuba literature with the names of Oswald and Hidell, the same names they found in the wallet. There they would find order blanks (RIGHT-SLIDE 52) from Klein's Sporting Goods for a Mannlicher Carcano rifle, the rifle found at the Book Depository. Klein's records would show a Mannlicher Carcano rifle shipped (RIGHT-SLIDE 53) to A. Hidell of Dallas--and A. Hidell was the name on the second set of identification found in the wallet. Had Harvey not been found in the Texas Theater, a nationwide manhunt would have begun for Lee Harvey Oswald. From film footage of Oswald passing out Fair Play for Cuba literature in New Orleans and his attempt in Mexico City to obtain a visa to Cuba, his presumed destination would be Cuba. The wallet and identification left at the Tippit murder scene sealed Oswald's fate, no matter where he was found.
The FBI and Warren Commission told us Oswald snuck into the Texas Theater and took a seat on the lower level. But Theater employee Julia Postal, police dispatches, and arrest reports say Oswald was in the balcony. Police officers entered the theater, ran to the balcony and began questioning theater patrons. Captain Westbrook and FBI Agent Bob Barrett, who had just arrived from the Tippit murder scene, entered from the rear of the theater. They were looking for Lee Harvey Oswald, his name obtained from identification found in the wallet. The police arrested Harvey, wearing the brown shirt, and took him out the front of the theater. They identified him by calling out his name, "Oswald" (RIGHT-SLIDE 54) to Julia Postal. They put Oswald in a squad car, and drove to Police headquarters. Detective Paul Bentley (RIGHT-SLIDE 55) then removed a wallet from Harvey's left rear pocket and found identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell. The Dallas Police now had two wallets--both containing identification for Oswald and Hidell--but they didn't share that information with reporters or the public.
Bernard Haire, who owned Bernie's Hobby Shop next to the Texas Theater, noticed as a large number of police gathered. He went out the back door of his shop and into the alley. He saw the police take an unidentified white male out the rear of the theater, place him in a police car and drive off. He described the man as 25 years of age, dark hair, and wearing a light colored pull over shirt with dark pants. For years, Bernard Haire thought he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Harvey arrived at police headquarters around 2 o'clock. Back in Oak Cliff, Mr. T.F. White saw a red Ford Falcon quickly pull into the El Chico parking lot. This is 6 blocks north of the Texas Theater. The man and car appeared to be hiding behind a large billboard sign. Curious, Mr. White walked across the street toward the car. When White was within a few yards of the car, the driver looked directly at him, the quickly sped off throwing gravel with his rear tires. White wrote down the license plate number and make and model of the car. The license plates were traced to blue 1957 Plymouth owned by Carl Mather, an employee of Collins Radio. Mather was the best friend of Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit. Mather was unknown to the Warren Commission and refused to discuss the matter with reporters. Years later Mather was granted immunity (LEFT-SLIDE 62) from prosecution and interviewed by the HSCA. Today, twenty years later, his interview was still classified (LEFT-SLIDE 63).
At 1:00 am on November 23rd, the day after the assassination, Harvey Oswald was arraigned for murder. Mary Lawrence was working the late shift at the the Lucas B & B Restaurant, next door to Jack Ruby's Vegas Club. She was the head waitress and had known Ruby for 8 years. Mary told the FBI she saw Oswald and Ruby together in her restaurant shortly after 1:00 am., November 23rd, (LEFT- SLIDE 64) at the same time Harvey was in the Dallas jail. Within days she began receiving threatening phone calls. One caller said, (LEFT-SLIDE 65) "get out of town or you will die".
Harvey Oswald, double-crossed and sitting in jail, was a very unusual suspect. Dallas Police Captain Fritz said, "you didn't have to sit there very long and listen to them talk to Oswald to realize that this guy had been trained in interrogation. By that I mean resisting interrogation." When Oswald told Fritz there was a conspiracy, he was ignored. When he remarked "now everyone will know who I am", he knew his work as a government informant was finished. When Oswald said, "I'm just a patsy", few people paid any attention to him". But following the assassination many people heard Oswald on TV say he was a patsy and insisting that he had not shot the President. One of those people was a CIA computer specialist, George O'Toole. O'Toole served with the CIA as chief of its Problem Analysis Branch. In his work he became familiar with a machine that measured stress in the human voice. When properly measured and interpreted, the Voice Stress Analyzer can accurately determine the truthfullness of statements. O'Toole obtained a tape recording of Oswald saying he did not shoot the president and ran the statement through the VSA. (RIGHT-SLIDE 56) The chart of Oswald's statement revealed no stress. Lie detection experts confirmed that Oswald was telling the truth. He had not shot the President.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission that he had questioned Oswald on Saturday at 12:35 p.m. and showed him 8 x 10 enlargements of the back yard photos. Oswald told Fritz the photographs were fakes. Captain Fritz concluded the interview and Oswald was then returned to his jail cell. Fritz then instructed Detectives Stovall, Adamcik and Rose to again search the residence of Ruth Paine in Irving, this time with a search warrant. They were met at 3:20 pm by Irving detective John McCabe. McCabe remembers that Gus Rose found the back yard photos in Oswald's seabag. (RIGHT-SLIDE 63). Rose initialed and dated the photographs for evidence. The backyard photograph was arguably the most significant piece of evidence that convicted Oswald in the minds of the public. (RIGHT-SLIDE 65) Here was Oswald with rifle...
___________________________________________________________________
All episodes of Nigel Turners 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', an excellent documentary series with credibility,
The Coup D'état
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=61...+killed+kennedy
The Foreces of darkness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=89...+killed+kennedy
The Cover-up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...+killed+kennedy
The Patsy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=34...+killed+kennedy
The Witnesses
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+killed+kennedy
The Truth shall set you free
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58...+killed+kennedy
The Smoking guns
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTeQ9ckmD8#
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM...ted&search=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmMXfBgjsh0...ted&search=
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO5PAmCsw0I...ted&search=
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMJMqbWJLQI...ted&search=
The love affair
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY...ser&search=
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLDm7YT25w...ted&search=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBbe0jexWn4...ted&search=
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGNyprupDTU...ted&search=
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZyJ1APE6Lc...ser&search=
The Guilty men
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk...ser&search=
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts...ser&search=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5fE...ser&search=
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-4QXzNBno...ser&search=
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzZGK9tNyM...ser&search=
Reply to Your Post
I have read in an earlier post, that Marina Oswald had written the name "Alek Hidell" on Oswald's selective service card.
I wonder which wallet contained this particular selective service card, that is, the card which Marina Oswald had "assisted" Oswald by writing the 'Hidell' name on. With two LHO wallets, and the wallet fortuitously dropped by LHO at the Tippet murder scene included the selective service card on which Marina Oswald had written Alek Hidell on it, Marina would have to have been complicit, no?
Can it be differentiated in the evidence which wallet contained the selective service card?
BTW, this was a fascinating post. Amazing info.
-
I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.
John
I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?
I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.
I never got much of an answer to these questions.
They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.
There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?
I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.
They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time
Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.
Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.
Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.
I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.
“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”
Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.
It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.
This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:
“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”
And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.
Peter
If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that.
I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth.
Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)?
Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them?
As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older.
What's your point?
I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech?
That would be a whopper.
Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start.
But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”,
What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information.
Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon.
The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion.
As to your diatribe:
“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….”
I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none.
As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT.
As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs).
The symptoms which apply;
“-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”
I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here.
Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few.
There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable.
I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition?
Peter
I had taken you as someone who believed - and defended - the 9-11 official story without exceptyion. Perhaps I missed posts where you expressed doubts? If so, apologies. If not, forgive me for jumping to conclusions - but how interesting you've finally chosen to share those doubts with the rest of us.
Anyhow, I'm glad to hear there are a few more loose ends about 9/11 that interest you.
I find the subject of the interplay between individual belief and group dynamics quite fascinating. I'm quite willing to discuss it. However, I don't have much time for pop-psycology or pop-sociology. To date, most of the discussion in this forum on so-called 'Groupthink' has been fatuous, IMO. But if you find it a helpful analytical tool, well and good.
Just as honest believers in the official account of 9-11 must find it irritating when someone else asserts they are spooks, so too honest disbelievers find it nauseating when others - with little demonstrated ability to conduct a sophisticated discussion in the social sciences - take it upon themselves to 'classify' their opponents or waffle on about their supposed pecularities.
We're perhaps over-sensitive on this score, as sneering at 9-11 doubters has been de rigeur in the mainstream media ever since that unhappy day, when few found cause to celebrate (with notable exceptions).
Actually I wasn’t very familiar with the concept of Group think before reading John Dolva’s post. But it seemed to strike a chord in my anti-authoritarian personality. When a group forms ranks and defends an ideology or theory I have some kind of tendency to take an opposite tack. This is probably due to an anti authoritarian defect in my personality, and not a penchant to apply some canned psychology in order to gain any advantage.
Unfortunately, my points of view are specific to only some aspects of 9/11. I am not knowledgeable about all aspects of this event. I do feel that my beliefs are “personal” and I cannot subscribe to an overall, comprehensive, POV unless I can advocate it categorically and in its entirety. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable concerning all aspects of 9/11, and I do not accept the Conspiracy Theorists views with blind faith. I believe there are many people who feel this way.
.
I agree with you that open discourse between individual POV and Group POV to be the more rewarding. Of course I tend to defend my point of view where it is contrary to the collective’s POV. Sometimes I will argue out of vanity and believing I can “win” an argument. I do like to argue. Mostly, however, I will believe debating will help arrive at the truth.
You are correct when you say that people take offense at being categorized or stereotyped as a tactic of argument, and rightfully so (in most cases, anyway). My apologies if you feel that I did this to you, but you seem more accessible to open discourse than most, so you may be more vulnerable to stereotyping.
When I have asked questions about certain aspects of 9/11 of Conspiracy sites, I have been snubbed when I would not endorse other points of view, with out reservation, that I did not automatically agree with.
Anyway, it’s good to maintain open discourse. As G.W. Hegel maintained, the truth is far more likely to be determined through the dialectic (open polemic).
.
-
Peter's 911 position is somewhat like saying...
"I don't believe the Warren Report, but I do believe Oswald shot JFK."
Jack
Jack that is utterly ridiculous. Noty only is it a ham handed oversimplification it is absolutely wrong. To make that analogy is a gross distortion and a disservice to JFK assasination researchers as well as myself. Go back to sleep.
-
I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.
John
I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?
I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.
I never got much of an answer to these questions.
They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.
There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?
I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.
They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time
Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.
Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.
Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.
I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.
“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”
Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.
It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.
This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:
“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”
And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.
Peter
If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that.
I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth.
Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)?
Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them?
As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older.
What's your point?
I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech?
That would be a whopper.
Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start.
But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”,
What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information.
Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon.
The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion.
As to your diatribe:
“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….”
I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none.
As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT.
As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs).
The symptoms which apply;
“-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”
I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here.
Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few.
There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable.
I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition?
-
It has been reported in the British media that Scotland Yard detectives have identified the two men who murdered Alexander Litvinenko: Andrei Lugovoi and Dimitri Kovtun. Both men are former KGB officers. However, Putin has refused to extradite the men and so no charges will be brought. It seems that the Russian government has not really changed since the fall of communism in 1989. However, Putin will escape criticism from Blair and Bush because he believes in the "war on terrorism" (in reality, the death of Litvinenko is linked to this so called war). It is back to the days of the Cold War. You could be the most evil dictator in the world, but as long as you were "anti-communist" you were not criticised and allowed to continue in power. In fact, we now know that the CIA was sent to help you remain in power and to carry out your assassinations of internal critics.
In the April 6, 2007 edition of The New Republic, an article entitled “Rabble Rousers”, about Russian Oligarchs living in London, Boris Berezovsky is interviewed.
Berezovsky is convinced that the Kremlin is behind the poisoning deaths of the Russian expatriates.
The article goes on to say that “Berezovsky isn’t the only one who subscribes to that theory;”
“Putin has created a state so intolerant of opposition that it is possible to imagine that a dissident was murdered by his government in the heart of London with a radioactive isotope. He has presided over the greatest rollback of human rights since the communist era. His government has sanctioned the arrest, torture, and murder of countless Chechens, while leveling their Capitol virtually to the ground; it has rolled over the press and failed to convict anyone of the murder of at least 13 journalists since Putin came to power in 2000. He has installed KGB veterans at nearly every significant level of government and allowed the security service to become a massive corporate empire.”
Hi again Peter,
You apparently find both New Republic and Boris Berezovsky credible sources of information.
I'll leave the New Republic to stew in its reactionary juice for a moment.
My interest here is Mr Berezovsky.
Just what is it about Boris Berezovsky's evolving tales that Peter McKenna finds believeable?
Here is one of Berezovsky's earlier claims:
Berezovsky Claims Chechen Rebels Have A-bomb,
Do you believe that, Peter?
How about Berezovsky's claim that Putin was behind the Moscow appartment bombings in 1999?
On that topic, Pravda, made the following observation:
Now Berezovsky - and possibly Peter McKenna - may argue these articles are yet more proof of their allegation that Putin's Russia has become an autocratic State with a totally controlled meda regurgitating pro-Putin spin 24x7.Boris Berezovsky was staying in Russia during a wild outburst of terrorist attacks in the country, when extremists exploded several apartment buildings in Moscow and Volgodonsk, killing hundreds. The oligarch left Russia several months later and never returned to the country afterwards. Two years later, though, the oligarch in disgrace personally participated in the work on a book and a documentary, in which Russia's Federal Security Bureau (FSB) was accused of organizing the explosions in Russia. Both Russian and Western readers and viewers did not believe those stories, although Berezovsky and his accomplices managed to launch a campaign to undermine the authority of their prime enemy – the Russian government.The oligarch's name has become a direct association of all kinds of political provocations since that time. There is no direct evidence to prove Berezovsky's implication in the organization of the above-mentioned explosions, although one has to acknowledge that it was Boris Berezovsky, who needed the war in Chechnya most. There are certain witnesses who say that Berezovsky was doing his best to maintain highly unfriendly relations between Chechnya and Russia in spite of the fact that he utterly hated the two sides of the conflict.
Nevertheless, the question remains. Was Boris Berezovsky correct about that too? Was Putin's hand really behind the Moscow appartment bombings?
I'd like to hear your take on this, Peter. You clearly have a first class, analytical and independent mind when it comes to terrorism and tower-blocks - and the wisdom to distinguish between honest men and charlatans in the murky world of post-Soviet Russian politics.
First of all, the paragraph from the New Republic; “Putin has created a state so intolerant of opposition …” was not a quote of Beresovsky’s, but other critics of Putin, as per TNR article. So I was not quoting Beresovsky.
The agency behind the murder of the Russian journalists (Including Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist murdered after publishing articles critical of the Russian army’s atrocities in Chechnia), the poisoning of Putin’s critics, the apartment bombings, etc., have not, of course, either blatantly or surreptitiously confessed to being responsible. However, quite a number of Russian expatriates and Russian studies experts, including David Satter, a Senior Fellow, of the Hudson Institute, specializing in Russian studies, murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya, and Litvinenko himself, believe (or believed) that the Kremlin was responsible for atrocities against their own people:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction...ils&id=4344
I can understand skepticism of Beresovsky, and his ‘opinions’, he has plundered billions of Russian capitol. Also, it does not make sense that Litvinenko was assassinated and Beresovsky wasn’t (although Litvinenko had revealed a plot to assassinate Beresovsky). Regardless, the facts in that last paragraph have attained near universal acceptance.
I personally don’t necessarily subscribe to the theory that Putin was behind the poisonings, as this would damage his image internationally. I also don’t understand the West’s seeming reticence at protesting Russia’s behavior, especially as the poisoning of Litvinenko, a British citizen, occurred in England, and Marina Kovalenskaya, 48, and her daughter Yana, 25, both Americans, were apparently poisoned with radioactive Thallium during a visit to Russia.
As far as The New Republic, it is slightly biased for my tastes, but with the exception of the Stephen Glass articles, it is also considered to be unimpeachable. During Clinton’s presidency, it was the “official magazine of Air Force One”. But The New Republic doesn’t have near the prestige carried by such inimitable sources of objectively researched material offered by “Physics911” or Indymedia”.
Thank you, also, for your sarcastic compliments. Reading you insightful analysis of this topic confirms my faith in that touch of humanity that will temper the excesses of totalitarianism.
-
I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.
John
I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?
I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.
I never got much of an answer to these questions.
They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.
There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?
I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter.
They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time
Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make.
Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.
Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation.
I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in.
“Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.”
Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all.
It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership.
This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread:
“In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
-A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
-An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
-Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
-Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
-Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
-An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.”
And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”.
-
I would tend to agree with Mike. Personally, I feel that there are quite a few unanswered questions about 9/1 and they do not fall into the category of physical evidence. My main qualms are about the war games and who knew what and when.
John
I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training?
I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily.
I never got much of an answer to these questions.
They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence.
There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory?
Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
Jack,
Arguing over Judy Wood's input to 9/11 is totally off the point. Not only is it counterproductive to building a consensus about any pertinent matters that might be of further interest to the run of the mill, I think her theories are a few cards shy of a full deck (e.g as the theory about the WTC being attacked by star wars particle beams, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html).
Jack, you continue to waste time and energy inserting your opinion where it adds the least value. Please read my request. I do not wish to argue over WTC 1 and 2 in this context. If you wish to, please find a willing participant. I'm sure that you can find one somewhere (maybe not).
Peter