Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bernice Moore

JFK
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,556

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Bernice Moore

    Sixth Floor Museum

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    NEWS 8 EXCLUSIVE SECOND SAFE WAS TAKEN FROM 6TH FLOOR MUSEUM

    DALLAS — News 8 has learned that there was a second safe stolen from the Sixth Floor Museum in downtown Dallas last week.

    Inside that safe? Possible documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and jewelry that may have some connection to his wife, Jacqueline.

    The Dallas County Sheriff's Department told the public about one safe that was nearly stolen from the museum during the May 4 break-in. It was recovered almost immediately, dangling from a winch on the back of a stolen pickup truck.

    But during that burglary, a second safe was removed in what now appears to have been an inside job. Dallas police found it in a park in southeast Dallas.

    A police report said there were bags and keys from the museum inside that safe, but it also said that JFK documents and jewelry possibly related to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis were missing.

    http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Arrest-made...n-93316154.html

    Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Bernice Moore

    PAT...PHOTOS LHO PRACTICE RANGE..MARINES...b

    Bernice...I am glad that you saved all the photos I have posted for years.

    I am the source that originally copied all those. Two are from prints found

    by John Armstrong. The others I copied from the "company yearbook"

    of a man who was in the same marine unit as LHO.

    They really make the rounds! Thanks.

    Jack

    B..''PACK RAT '' :lol::lol:

    BUT NOT ALL , YOU HAD A FEW YEARS START ON ME ON THE WEB... B)

    BOOK A MEMOIR OF INJUSTICE

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Friends,

    No one knows Jerry Ray or the true story of James Earl Ray and the injustice of his wrongful conviction than long time COPA associate and researcher T Carter. Her new book, "A Memoir of Injustice by the Younger Brother of James Earl Ray, Alleged Assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr. as told to Tamara Carter," is the result of her meticulous historical research and her years of discussions with the brother of the patsy accused of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. She also discusses the history of our efforts since 2000 to create a Martin Luther King, Jr. Records Act with the help of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and it's current revival in Congress by Senator Kerry and Representative Lewis. Even if you are not a student of the King assassination this book is a first person history of people caught up in the machinery of injustice that marks far too much of our legal, media and political system. The book can be pre-ordered now on Amazon. Get a copy!

    http://www.amazon.com/Memoir-Injustice-You...2713&sr=8-3

    FACEBOOK'S GONE ROGUE

    in Political Conspiracies

    Posted · Edited by Bernice Moore

    whatreallyhappened.com is linking to this story:

    Facebook's new features secretly add apps to your profile

    http://www.macworld.com/article/151087/201...addingapps.html

    Quote:

    by Heather Kelly, Nick Mediati, Macworld.com

    When a piece of software is automatically installed on your computer without your knowledge, it's called malware. But what do you call it when Facebook apps are added to your profile without your knowledge? We discovered Wednesday that this is actually happening, and stopping it isn't as easy as checking a box in your privacy settings.

    If you visit certain sites while logged in to Facebook, an app for those sites will be quietly added to your Facebook profile. You don't have to have a Facebook window open, you don't need to be signed in to these sites for the apps to appear, there's no notification, and there doesn't appear to be an option to opt-out anywhere in Facebook's byzantine privacy settings.

    The apps appear to be related to Facebook's latest sharing features and tools. The sites currently leaving this trail all have Facebook integration, and the list includes heavyweights such as the Gawker network of blogs, the Washington Post, TechCrunch, CNET, New York Magazine, and formspring.me.

    It isn't entirely clear what information these apps are pulling from user profiles or feeding back to Facebook. They aren't automatically visible to friends viewing your profile page, but if you go to an application's profile page, you can see a list of your friends who also have that app installed, essentially getting a unintentional peek at their browsing habits. On the other side there are sites like the Washington Post's, which has a Facebook Network News box showing a list of your friends who have recently shared a Washington Post article on Facebook.

    How to block the apps

    Opting out of Instant Personalization does not stop these apps from appearing. Unfortunately, removing these kinds of applications requires more vigilance than just altering a setting.

    To see a list of your current Facebook applications, click Account in the top right corner of Facebook, then select Application Settings from the drop-down menu. If you click on the Edit Settings link for one of the new applications, you'll always see one tab called Additional Permissions that has a box that's unchecked by default. Checking it will give that application permission to "Publish recent activity (one line stories) to [your] wall." Sometimes there is a second tab with an option to add a bookmark for that link to your wall. And a few apps also have a Profile tab where you can add a box to your profile for that site and pick a privacy level for it.

    Clicking the X to delete an application will temporarily remove it from your applications list, but it will just be re-added as you return to that site. One work-around is to always log out of Facebook before surfing the Web. Another is to block each application after it appears. In order to permanently block an application, you have to click on the Profile link for that application in the Applications Settings window, then click Block Application in the menu on the left side of the app's page.

    What Facebook intended

    The new features in Facebook's newly rolled-out Open Graph API are supposed to be used, with permission, for things like cross posting comments and reviews on Facebook and external sites. For example, if you are logged in to a site like PC World or Macworld using Facebook Connect and you leave a comment on an article, you'll see a pop-up message asking if you'd like to publish the comment as a story to your wall. If you click Publish, the comment will show up in your friend's news feeds.

    It's already been a rough week for Facebook and privacy. Recent issues have given the impression of a disorganized and buggy platform, and raised concerns about Facebook's ability to responsibly store and manage users' private information. Hopefully this latest issue is just another bug and not a new way of operating for the social networking site.

    Facebook's Response

    After this story was published, Facebook spokesperson David Swain contacted us and confirmed that the appearance of unauthorized apps was a bug:

    In this case, there was a bug that was showing applications on a user’s Application Settings page that the user hadn’t authorized. No information was shared with those applications and the user’s list of applications was not shown to anyone but the user. This bug has been fixed.

    It does appear that unauthorized apps are no longer being added to users' pages, however any unwanted applications that were previously added will still need to be removed manually.

    I checked out facebook for a while and decided the site is itself malware. It downloaded unwanted browser plugins and even some standalone executables to my computer (spyware I'm certain), and tried to insinuate itself in the Windows registry. Plus people I once knew who are now deceased tried to "friend" me from beyond the grave. The whole thing is spyware from top to bottom.

    FACEBOOK'S GONE ROGUE

    in Political Conspiracies

    Posted · Edited by Bernice Moore

    Facebooks Gone Rogue; It's Time for an Open Alternative | http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-rogue/

    Facebook has gone rogue, drunk on founder Mark Zuckerberg’s dreams of world domination. It’s time the rest of the web ecosystem recognizes this and works to replace it with something open and distributed.

    Facebook used to be a place to share photos and thoughts with friends and family and maybe play a few stupid games that let you pretend you were a mafia don or a homesteader. It became a very useful way to connect with your friends, long-lost friends and family members. Even if you didn’t really want to keep up with them.

    Soon everybody — including your uncle Louie and that guy you hated from your last job — had a profile.

    And Facebook realized it owned the network.

    Then Facebook decided to turn “your” profile page into your identity online — figuring, rightly, that there’s money and power in being the place where people define themselves. But to do that, the folks at Facebook had to make sure that the information you give it was public.

    So in December, with the help of newly hired Beltway privacy experts, it reneged on its privacy promises and made much of your profile information public by default. That includes the city that you live in, your name, your photo, the names of your friends and the causes you’ve signed onto.

    This spring Facebook took that even further. All the items you list as things you like must become public and linked to public profile pages. If you don’t want them linked and made public, then you don’t get them — though Facebook nicely hangs onto them in its database in order to let advertisers target you.

    This includes your music preferences, employment information, reading preferences, schools, etc. All the things that make up your profile. They all must be public — and linked to public pages for each of those bits of info — or you don’t get them at all. That’s hardly a choice, and the whole system is maddeningly complex.

    Simultaneously, the company began shipping your profile information off pre-emptively to Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft — so that if you show up there while already logged into Facebook, the sites can “personalize” your experience when you show up. You can try to opt out after the fact, but you’ll need a master’s in Facebook bureaucracy to stop it permanently.

    Care to write a status update to your friends? Facebook sets the default for those messages to be published to the entire internet through direct funnels to the net’s top search engines. You can use a dropdown field to restrict your publishing, but it’s seemingly too hard for Facebook to actually remember that’s what you do. (Google Buzz, for all the criticism it has taken, remembers your setting from your last post and uses that as the new default.)

    Now, say you you write a public update, saying, “My boss had a crazy great idea for a new product!” Now, you might not know it, but there is a Facebook page for “My Crazy Boss” and because your post had all the right words, your post now shows up on that page. Include the words “FBI” or “CIA,” and you show up on the FBI or CIA page.

    Then there’s the new Facebook “Like” button littering the internet. It’s a great idea, in theory — but it’s completely tied to your Facebook account, and you have no control over how it is used. (No, you can’t like something and not have it be totally public.)

    Then there’s Facebook’s campaign against outside services. There was the Web 2.0 suicide machine that let you delete your profile by giving it your password. Facebook shut it down.

    Another company has an application that will collect all your updates from services around the web into a central portal — including from Facebook — after you give the site your password to log in to Facebook. Facebook is suing the company and alleging it is breaking criminal law by not complying with its terms of service.

    No wonder 14 privacy groups filed a unfair-trade complaint with the FTC against Facebook on Wednesday.

    Mathew Ingram at GigaOm wrote a post entitled “The Relationship Between Facebook and Privacy: It’s Really Complicated.”

    No, that’s just wrong. The relationship is simple: Facebook thinks that your notions of privacy — meaning your ability to control information about yourself — are just plain old-fashioned. Head honcho Zuckerberg told a live audience in January that Facebook is simply responding to changes in privacy mores, not changing them — a convenient, but frankly untrue, statement.

    In Facebook’s view, everything (save perhaps your e-mail address) should be public. Funny too about that e-mail address, for Facebook would prefer you to use its e-mail–like system that censors the messages sent between users.

    Ingram goes onto say, “And perhaps Facebook doesn’t make it as clear as it could what is involved, or how to fine-tune its privacy controls — but at the same time, some of the onus for doing these things has to fall to users.”

    What? How can it fall to users when most of the choices don’t’ actually exist? I’d like to make my friend list private. Cannot.

    I’d like to have my profile visible only to my friends, not my boss. Cannot.

    I’d like to support an anti-abortion group without my mother or the world knowing. Cannot.

    Setting up a decent system for controlling your privacy on a web service shouldn’t be hard. And if multiple blogs are writing posts explaining how to use your privacy system, you can take that as a sign you aren’t treating your users with respect, It means you are coercing them into choices they don’t want using design principles. That’s creepy.

    Facebook could start with a very simple page of choices: I’m a private person, I like sharing some things, I like living my life in public. Each of those would have different settings for the myriad of choices, and all of those users could then later dive into the control panel to tweak their choices. That would be respectful design - but Facebook isn’t about respect — it’s about re-configuring the world’s notion of what’s public and private.

    So what that you might be a teenager and don’t get that college-admissions offices will use your e-mail address to find possibly embarrassing information about you. Just because Facebook got to be the world’s platform for identity by promising you privacy and then later ripping it out from under you, that’s your problem. At least, according to the bevy of privacy hired guns the company brought in at high salaries to provide cover for its shenanigans.

    Clearly Facebook has taught us some lessons. We want easier ways to share photos, links and short updates with friends, family, co-workers and even, sometimes, the world.

    But that doesn’t mean the company has earned the right to own and define our identities.

    It’s time for the best of the tech community to find a way to let people control what and how they’d like to share. Facebook’s basic functions can be turned into protocols, and a whole set of interoperating software and services can flourish.

    Think of being able to buy your own domain name and use simple software such as Posterous to build a profile page in the style of your liking. You’d get to control what unknown people get to see, while the people you befriend see a different, more intimate page. They could be using a free service that’s ad-supported, which could be offered by Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, a bevy of startups or web-hosting services like Dreamhost.

    “Like” buttons around the web could be configured to do exactly what you want them to — add them to a protected profile or get added to a wish list on your site or broadcast by your micro-blogging service of choice. You’d be able to control your presentation of self — and as in the real world, compartmentalize your life.

    People who just don’t want to leave Facebook could play along as well — so long as Facebook doesn’t continue creepy data practices like turning your info over to third parties, just because one of your contacts takes the “Which Gilligan Island character are you?” quiz? (Yes, that currently happens)

    Now, it might not be likely that a loose confederation of software companies and engineers can turn Facebook’s core services into shared protocols, nor would it be easy for that loose coupling of various online services to compete with Facebook, given that it has 500 million users. Many of them may be fine having Facebook redefine their cultural norms, or just be too busy or lazy to leave.

    But in the internet I’d like to live in, we’d have that option, instead of being left with the choice of letting Facebook use us, or being left out of the conversation altogether.

    Photo: Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg gives the keynote at SXSW conference in Austin, Texas, 2009.

    Jim Merithew/Wired.com

    Read More http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/fac.../#ixzz0nJDnvyHE

    Read More http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/fac.../#ixzz0nJDnzSfs

    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-rogue/

    NEW; AT MARY FERRELL'S SITE

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    « on: Today at 11:38 PM »

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

    NEW AT MARY FERRELL'S

    ARRB Public Hearings, Press Releases, Reports

    This is a collection of public hearings transcripts, press releases, and other reports issued by the Assassination Records Review Board during its tenure in the mid 1990s.

    ARRB Public Hearings, Press Releases, Reports

    This is a collection of public hearings transcripts, press releases, and other reports issued by the Assassination Records Review Board during its tenure in the mid 1990s.

    ARRB Public Hearings, Press Releases, Reports

    This is a collection of public hearings transcripts, press releases, and other reports issued by the Assassination Records Review Board during its tenure in the mid 1990s.

    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?docSetId=1935

    C.I.A. FRONTS

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Bernice Moore

    john here are a couple of better photos of the Cabell's for you, nothing on burris...perhaps others.do..??

    Below at Love rhat's Dearie cabell wth the yellow roses...then earle with the glasses mayor of dallas...

    the generals, dulles, lansdale, cabell, twining...b

    FROM SECRECY NEWS

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    SECRECY NEWS

    from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy

    Volume 2010, Issue No. 36

    May 5, 2010

    Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

    ** EPA SAID TO HAVE SUPPRESSED, MISCLASSIFIED RECORDS

    ** AFTER A SIX YEAR DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW, A NEW FRUS VOLUME

    ** GROUPS THANK SECDEF FOR UNCLASSIFIED NPR, STOCKPILE DATA

    EPA SAID TO HAVE SUPPRESSED, MISCLASSIFIED RECORDS

    Officials of the Environmental Protection Agency intentionally stopped keeping records concerning potentially hazardous landfills in New Mexico in order to circumvent the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. They also marked unclassified records as "confidential" in order to restrict their dissemination, a report (pdf) from the EPA Inspector General found.

    One EPA official told the IG that "her section discontinued record keeping in favor of undocumented phone calls and conversations ... to prevent the production of documents.... [she] informed us that her section had discontinued record keeping... because of ... requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act" that had been filed by Citizens Action New Mexico, a public interest group investigating potential contamination of Albuquerque's groundwater.

    The Inspector General report said that failure to document agency activities is a violation of EPA policy and federal law, which require the preparation and preservation of "adequate and proper" records of agency functions, decisions and transactions.

    Another EPA official "withheld [a document] from the public by marking it Confidential, a security classification category" even though it "contained no classified information." Officials said they only meant to indicate that the document was a deliberative draft, not that it was classified. But the IG said that too is a violation of agency policy, which prohibits the use of classification markings on unclassified records.

    The Inspector General said that because of defective record keeping, it was unable to determine whether EPA oversight of the New Mexico landfills was actually satisfactory or not.

    In a response to the IG, the regional EPA office firmly "denied its staff took inappropriate steps to withhold information from the public." But the EPA response "did not address evidence presented in the report that ... staff intentionally stopped documenting discussions to avoid responding to the public's FOIA requests," the IG countered.

    The EPA also replied that "the term 'confidential' is commonly used throughout the Agency for many documents" and does not imply that the documents are classified. But if so, this practice is "in violation of EPA security policies," the IG said, since the "confidential" label is strictly reserved for classified records.

    In a lengthy reply appended to the IG report, the regional EPA office said it did not concur with the findings or the recommendations of the Inspector General, and that local EPA officials had done nothing wrong. Because of the non-concurrence and the resulting impasse, the issue will be elevated to the EPA deputy administrator for resolution. See "Region 6 Needs to Improve Oversight Practices," Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 14, 2010.

    The IG report was first reported by John Fleck of the Albuquerque Journal on April 16, and was also covered by Superfund Report on May 3.

    From a secrecy policy point of view, the new report illustrates the potential for active Inspector General oversight of agency classification practices, but also the possible limitations of such oversight. The IG pursued its mandate fearlessly and relentlessly, and presented its conclusions forthrightly, even though they were unwelcome to the agency. On the other hand, the IG investigation did not succeed in resolving the issues it raised, at least not yet. Worse, "the estimated cost of this report... is $272,846," the 28-page IG report stated, which is equivalent to an astounding and unsustainable $10,000 per page.

    AFTER A SIX YEAR DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW, A NEW FRUS VOLUME

    The latest volume of the official "Foreign Relations of the United States" (FRUS) series was published by the State Department yesterday on the topic of Korea, 1969-1972. It covers U.S. relations with the Republic of Korea as well as disputes with North Korea during the Nixon Administration.

    Remarkably, declassification of the 489-page FRUS volume (pdf) took no less than six years.

    "The declassification review of this volume, which began in 2003 and was completed in 2009, resulted in the decision to withhold 1 document in full, excise a paragraph or more in 5 documents, and make minor excisions of less than a paragraph in 17 documents," according to the Preface of the new volume. Another FRUS volume on Japan during the same period also entered declassification review in 2003, but has still not emerged into the light of day.

    This is no way to run a history program, historians and archivists agree. But without profound changes in declassification procedures the current backlog of records awaiting declassification is going to grow, not shrink, said Michael J. Kurtz of the National Archives. The Archives typically processes 11 million pages per year for declassification, Mr. Kurtz told the Public Interest Declassification Board on April 22, but it takes possession of an additional 15 million pages of classified records each year, for a net increase in classified historical files.

    In December 2009, President Obama ordered that the backlog of more than 400 million pages of 25 year old classified records must be declassified and made publicly available by the end of December 2013. Meeting that deadline will require the new National Declassification Center to increase the current declassification capacity tenfold to 100 million pages per year, Mr. Kurtz said. To achieve this ambitious goal, the Archives is subjecting its declassification practices to a "business process reengineering" review that is supposed to eliminate repetitious, wasteful or counterproductive declassification activities and improve productivity.

    GROUPS THANK SECDEF FOR UNCLASSIFIED NPR, STOCKPILE DATA

    Leaders of more than a dozen public interest organizations and professional societies wrote to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to applaud two recent achievements in nuclear weapons transparency: the publication of the Nuclear Posture Review Report for the first time in unclassified format and the disclosure of the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

    "We believe that the public release of the unclassified NPR Report is a significant and long-overdue step in the maturation of our national nuclear policy," the public interest groups wrote. "Release of the unclassified NPR Report will not resolve the continuing debate over the future of nuclear weapons policy, but it will enable it to proceed on a more informed basis."

    "Similarly, the declassification of the current nuclear stockpile is an historic milestone both in nuclear weapons policy and in classification policy.... We believe this disclosure will serve to strengthen what should be an international norm of increasing transparency on nuclear matters. By leading through example, we hope the U.S. action will elicit a response in kind from other nuclear nations."

    "We also look forward to further steps, including the Department's future implementation of the Fundamental Classification Guidance Review that was required by the President's executive order.... This initiative should help to eliminate other obsolete or unnecessary classification restrictions."

    The May 4 letter was coordinated by OpenTheGovernment.org.

    _______________________________________________

    Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists.

    The Secrecy News Blog is at:

    http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

×
×
  • Create New...