Jeff Carter

This topic has come up several times in past months, and each time has devolved to two opposing camps effectively talking past each other. I have pointed out that an expert panel was convened for the HSCA to specifically examine the backyard photos. While not expressly endorsing their findings, I have noted that their techniques for examination were common accepted practice (I.e. not junk science), and that I am not aware of a substantive critique of their conclusions.

Re-examining this work may assist in moving forward some of the observations addressed on this forum, as it would provide a common framework for discussion - rather than a constant stream of unrelated photos trying to establish points which remain disputed.

Here, for example, can be found the panel’s discussion of shadows and the vanishing point as relates specifically to the backyard photos. The panel created reference charts, which can be referred to, and make the claim that the shadows in the photos “were determined to be directionally consistent.” If there are flaws in this claim, there is at least a common reference (the charts) which can be critiqued, and this might assist in breaking down the divergent camps.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=173&tab=page

This report in general features a lot of relevant and interesting technical discussion of the BYP. For the record, I am very critical of the HSCA’s BYP presentation, but that is directed more at the top of the panel’s hierarchy and less at the technical crew.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

 

hi David - I really don't know what to make of the cut-out image because we don't know when it was created or for exactly what purpose. Again, the HSCA totally dropped the ball when it interviewed Studebaker and failed to address important and relevant details such as the cut-out image and 133-C. It is all the more glaring as a failure when considered against the considerable effort they made examining other aspects of the BYPs, most specifically their "authenticity."

But, logically, if the cut-out image was used to assist with faking the backyard photos, then this strongly suggests the fakery was a project within the Dallas Police Dept, presumably located in their photo department. My issues with that: how did the DPD know Oswald lived at Neely St address? how did they find date-specific copies of The Militant and The Worker, or even know of Oswald's subscriptions? where did the rifle come from and how did they choose it?

28 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

Until 1977 the 133-C pose was not known to the public nor entered into any evidence within the WCR...

Turns out Roscoe White and Stovall had this other pose in their possession...   which begs the question no one seems to be able to answer

 

How would they have known to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose on Nov 29, 1963... when that photo does not surface until 1977?

Furthermore, the "found" ghost image cut-out of Oswald is also in the 1977 pose...  yet the ghost image itself shows how skewed the actual image would have been if he was left in that position...  everything in the background is off...  So while Det Brown is in a pose that no one should have had any info about... the ghosted image proves the composite nature of the final images...

And there are in fact at least 2 different "ghost" image photos... I show them at the bottom, the one has the ghost directly on the image while the other has created a shadow as if the cutout is hovering over the page slightly...

thoughts?

 

In my opinion, the deliberate posture in the November 29, 1963 recreation photo establishes that 133-C was in the possession of the Dallas Police at that time, and the existence of this third photo at that time was known to the Secret Service and, probably, the FBI. I have speculated that 133-C is the backyard photo which was seen by at least two witnesses on the evening of Friday Nov 22, 1963, and referred to by Fritz in his notes the next day - before the other two photos were officially found.

Why 133-C would be effectively "disappeared" in 1963 is not known. I have speculated that the means by which it came to the DPD was compromised somehow, and the "discovery" of the other two photos within Oswald's belongings established a far cleaner narrative. The HSCA passed up the opportunity to understand the origins of the 133-C photo during executive testimony by DPD officer Robert Lee Studebaker.

hi Douglas - thank you for the extremely interesting information about events in 1972. 

I'll just say, regarding current events - persons of recognized integrity such as Craig Murray and William Binney (and I personally would add Assange while recognizing he has been effectively villainized) insist that the core event of "Russiagate" (Russian agents hacking DNC and passing material to Wikileaks) did not happen, and that Wikileaks received the emails from a different source as the result of an internal leak. And that persons most identified with pushing the Russiagate story such as Mueller and Brennan are well known as liars, deep state coverup agents, or both.

We will see shortly the climax, perhaps. Or not. 

Much like the debate over the JFK assassination and conspiracy, the issue of “Russian collusion” and an alleged conspiracy to influence the 2016 US election produces two diametrically opposed points of view working from essentially the same set of “facts”. I believe the Salon writer will be left disappointed and that the circle presumedly being drawn by Mueller’s investigation will never be closed because the circle, as defined, does not in fact exist. I believe the phantom event in this case - much like the phantom of LHO sneaking up to the 6th floor, assembling his rifle, and firing three shots at the presidential motorcade - will remain spectral because it did not in fact happen. Russian agents did not hack the DNC servers to steal emails to pass to Wikileaks in concert with the Trump campaign. This much can be determined simply by a close reading of the available assembled information.  We will see what happens, but I suspect, like what happened with the JFK conspiracy, the alleged circle will be inferred but never proved and there will be a longstanding division between those who fervently still believe the circle exists and those who point out there never was a circle in the first place.

Here’s David Stockman on the Stone arrest and indictment:

https://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2019/01/29/mueller-mugs-again-the-roger-stone-farce/

“…the entire Russia collusion hoax is really nothing more than a dimwitted attempt to conjure up a Russian assault on American democracy that absolutely did not happen; and to cover-up the most egregious breach of constitutional government that has ever been endured by what remains of the American Republic.”

Certainly the Kennedy assassination and coverup was a more egregious breach of constitutional government, but one of its lessons is that the breach needs to be addressed or it will happen again, and again… Very unfortunate that partisan emotion is clouding clear thinking and analysis.

Another take on the Stone arrest:

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/01/muellers-desperate-roger-stone-gambit-by-larry-johnson.html

Julia Postal seems to infer that Callahan would have seen “Oswald”:

”He, perhaps I said, he passed Oswald. At that time I didn't know it was Oswald. Had to bypass him, because as he went through this way, Oswald went through this way and ducked into the theatre there.” (WC testimony)

Despite this there doesn’t appear to be any statement from or interview with Callahan.

Walter Cronkite, citing Julia Postal as a source, reported early evening Nov 22 that Oswald on the main floor of the theater “moved from seat to seat.”  What cop-killer on the run calls attention to himself like that?

So Westbrook and other DPD members, with military intelligence connections, operate with apparent foreknowledge of the assassination and Oswald. In Washington, the FBI holds a high-level meeting approx 3-3:30 PM (2-2:30 Dallas time) and afterwards Hoover contacts RFK to tell him the assassin is Oswald and he acted alone, while in Dallas Hosty drives to DPD HQ and announces that JFK was killed by “a communist” (Oswald). Do you think the FBI (Hoover) also had foreknowledge, or were they suddenly privy to information revealed from another source (i.e. connected to the military) which drives the conclusion reached during that meeting?

The meeting with Marina Oswald, arranged by Dick Russell, occurred in November 1993.  The NE article is referring to an article republished in Russell's "On The Trail of the JFK Assassins". 

McDonald discussed how the skin between his thumb and forefinger prevented the gun from firing during the CBS segment.

I did not transcribe the entire segments, and I now realize that DVP has maintained these videos on his YouTube channel. Both segments are worth watching, and each are just a few minutes in duration.

So, courtesy of DVP, the WFAA segment can be viewed here, starting at 2:07:25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy4Fv4xsM4Y&list=PL0O5WNzrZqIOp-NaY1P1TIr-zWKPVBL9Q&index=2

The CBS segment is found here, starting at 1:19:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI8Vp9Zyfp8

Just ahead of the sequence in the Texas Theater, the CBS program interviews Johnny Brewer, who offers some interesting body language as he describes how he, in the theater,  pointed Oswald out to the police.

Digging into my archive I realize that two separate broadcast events got combined into one memory, so I should immediately clarify that Dallas police officers Bentley and McDonald were interviewed at WFAA studios in Dallas on the afternoon of November 23, 1963, but the segment in the Texas Theater was filmed with McDonald for the CBS Warren Report special which was broadcast later - in September 1964, the night the Warren Report was released.

Here is what McDonald said on WFAA:

“There was one person sitting back there alone in the rear of the theater and as I approached him about one foot from him he jumped out of his seat and held his hands up and said ‘this is it’ and he hit me in the face with his fist blooding my nose and I immediately grabbed him, and he went for his gun which was in his waist and I went at the same time struggling in there and I received a scratch on my cheek evidently from the hammer of the gun as it came out of his belt. And as it was coming out he snapped the trigger of the pistol which misfired, luckily.”

Asked about Oswald’s mental state:  “He was cool and calm up until that time he made that jump for me. The whole time I watched him as I approached he was calm. He didn’t flinch.”

Here is what he says for CBS, filmed at the Texas Theater:

“As I walked up the aisle Oswald was sitting in the second seat of the third row from the rear, the second seat from the right centre aisle…He was sitting with his hands in his lap. As I walked up I turned in the aisle and said ‘get on your feet.’ He stood up immediately and brought his right hand up to his chest… he brought the other one up to eye level, and he said ‘well, it’s all over now.’ At that time I was reaching this way (note-towards Oswald’s waist) and his hand got in front of mine on a pistol. And my hand grabbed the pistol… and he hit me with the left hand to the nose, and when he did I came back and hit him like this (note - McDonald tackles the Oswald stand-in into the adjacent seats) and he snapped the pistol. I turned the pistol around and got the hand on the butt, and it came over like this (note - McDonald holds the pistol away from the Oswald stand-in). I was holding him with (the other) hand, and I handed the pistol to an officer who was standing in the aisle.”

The sequence of events seems a lot clearer in the segment filmed at the theater: McDonald got very close to Oswald (“about one foot”), Oswald stood up and raised his hands, McDonald initiated contact or was about to initiate contact by reaching for Oswald’s waist, Oswald reacted (was it a “punch” or contact due to proximity?), McDonald tackled Oswald into the adjacent seats, the “scuffle” ensued and the pistol almost fired before being secured and passed to another officer (the term “scuffle” was used by Bentley during the WFAA interview).  Oswald never attempted to either point the pistol or shoot at McDonald. In my opinion, the alleged “punch” was rather a reflexive action after McDonald reached towards his waist, based on the observation that Oswald otherwise remained “cool and calm”. Previously in New Orleans Oswald was said to be cool and calm and notably non-violent during his street altercation with Bringuier.

Relevant to this thread, Bentley says during the WFAA interview that he did retrieve a wallet from Oswald in the police car as they drove away from the theater. Seeing the Elsbeth address on Oswald’s library card, Bentley asked him if that was still his address and that’s when Oswald retorted “you’re the cop, you figure it out.” No mention of a Hidell ID.

Oswald had plenty of time to panic, as the police approach toward him was slow and methodical, with the house lights of the theater switched on. It could well be that Oswald did not realize the police were coming for him until McDonald started down Oswald’s row.

The following day, DPD officers staged a recreation of the arrest for local television. The scuffle, as portrayed, did not feature anything like a shooting attempt or even a deliberate punch. It showed  officers converging on the suspect and initiating contact as the suspect rose from his seat. I would suggest that the punch and the shooting attempt were embellishments developed after the fact.

After the arrest, sarcastic comments by Oswald directed to police officers may have reflected his impression that these bumbling Barney Fife’s had idiotically mixed him up with another matter and therefore ruined whatever it was he thought he was doing in the theater. I suggest this because I agree that Oswald’s reaction to hearing he was being charged as JFK’s killer at the post-midnight press conference does appear to show “a disappointment about something he NEVER thought could happen to him…” So whatever it was on Oswald’s agenda, it was not to his understanding connected at all with the assassination until that moment.

Fletcher Prouty suggested Oswald’s role may have been as a facilitator for access into the TSBD building, without his understanding that this had anything to do with an assassination plot. The person or persons who set him up were trusted implicitly by him. The national media were identifying Oswald as the prime suspect by 5PM Dallas time, but Oswald doesn’t realize his position until after midnight. He was operating under an entirely different narrative until then.

The “cutout” figure would not necessarily represent an easy photo-editing task, certainly not as simple as the later matte cutout done by a member of the Dallas Police would have it. Tricky matte areas include the small gap between the Oswald figure’s right elbow and his waist, the pistol on his hip, the creases of the trousers, and then the thin barrel of the rifle. Any small mistake would result in an obvious matte line. Also, assuming the Oswald figure’s shadow has been added, it has been carefully overlayed as features of the ground are still visible within the shadow (more apparent in 133-B and 133-C). So not the work of someone inexperienced, and this is one of the reasons why there was an earlier consensus that any fakery would be limited to the pasting of an Oswald head onto another body.

The analysts working for the HSCA had the great advantage of working with first generation copies and the existing negative, and a 30x magnifier. Unless they are lying, and I am unaware of any direct refutation of their work, their observations should be factored into these discussions. One important factor is the “curvature of field” (see item 457 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=189&tab=page), which suggests, at a minimum, that all elements within the BYP were filmed with the Imperial Reflex camera, and the positioning of the Oswald figure -if it was to be added later to backyard background - is remarkably consistent with features of the background based on relative sharpness of the image.

It should also be kept in mind that the Imperial Reflex camera is an extremely cheap low-end camera, and its evident flaws help the analysis to the extent it can be determined which images originated with that camera.

In my opinion, it is the camera itself, along with the mysterious provenance of 133-C, which are the major issues, and if these trails were followed properly by the HSCA then certainly one faction of the conspiracy could have been exposed. Instead, questions of authenticity served as a massive diversion.

From a technical POV, asserting there are different light sources in the BYP implies the photos are composites created from three or more photos taken at differing times of day. Furthermore, it assumes the forgers managed to stitch these photos together seamlessly, so there is no visible evidence of the “joins” where one photo meets the next. That on its own would be quite a feat. The experts on the record say that simply pasting Oswald’s face onto another body would require a “skilled” technician working with high-end equipment. A seamless composite of multiple photos is another level of accomplishment. The composite argument implies that the forgers were simultaneously technical geniuses and also very sloppy in that the mis-matched shadows reveal their craft. I have a hard time with that, as I also have a hard time trying to figure what any composite work was trying to conceal or why any prospective forgers would take the time to make three forgeries instead of just one.

About a decade ago I worked with people from Framestore, one of the top digital effects companies. Achieving composite effects digitally is much easier than what could be done in 1963. Still, the attention to detail and need to precisely control the filming process was most apparent. One factor is the requirement of “plate shots”, a reference frame of a landscape or background, without actors or other similar elements (see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_control_photography). A seamless composite of a BYP utilizing photographs from differing times of day would not be achievable without the photographs matching in the same manner as plate shots (i.e. the camera sat on a tripod in the exact position for several hours). Is this a realistic scenario? I don’t think it is.

The FBI’s Shaneyfelt, the HSCA’s panel which examined the BYP, and, by the latter’s instigation,  two prominent critics who had made appearances on the CBC and BBC doubting the photo’s authenticity, all agreed that the photos have not been manipulated except for the possibility that Oswald’s face could have been pasted onto an unidentified posing figure. This is very different to claims that the photos represent some sort of composite of multiple photos taken at different times and stitched together. The argument against such a composite is that it would not be possible to achieve a seamless rendition of the backyard I.e. that the “joins” would feature obvious flaws similar to the Oswald figure’s chin. The photos do not expose such flaws.

Also, while the two magazines held by the Oswald figure do represent competing ideological factions, it is a fact that Oswald did indeed subscribe to both. This is one reason I struggle with the idea that the BYP were created some months after Oswald left Dallas, as it would require the forgers to both know Oswald’s subscriptions and acquire copies backdated to that time in late March. I also wonder how these forgers knew Oswald lived at that address, as his stay was fairly short and known to relatively few people.

On 7/26/2018 at 7:26 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Ah yes.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If one regards the National Security/Surveillance State as monolithic and hegemonic then the enemies of that Enemy are your friends -- Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

But if one regards the Bible-thumping Trump Cult as THE Enemy of Mankind, elements of the Surveillance State investigating the Trump Crime Family are your friends.

I view the Surveillance State as faction ridden and given to intense internecine warfare. 

Neither monolithic nor hegemonic.

The Boston Marathon Bombing left both the FBI and the CIA with black eyes.  The Edward Snowden Affair took both the NSA and DEA down a peg.  Both strike me as the product of competing agencies.

Given the robust presence of Bible-thumpers within the Surveillance/Security State it is imperative that the Trump Cult be resisted and eventually removed.

I don’t regard the National Security/Surveillance State as monolithic and hegemonic. Rather, leading figures within the National Security/Surveillance State regard it as such, as is confirmed by public statements they have made. During the second Obama term the codeword for a hegemonic worldview was “exceptional”, as in “I believe America as the exceptional country.”

When I think of “enemies” of the National Security/Surveillance State, neither Trump or Putin really come to mind. The only true enemies seem to be persons and organizations dedicated to Constitutional protections and open government.

The Surveillance State has a tight hierarchical structure which precludes factionalism or internal battles. However, America’s ruling class/elite/1% are precisely “faction ridden and given to intense internecine warfare.” On display these days in full intensity.

The powers of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DEA have only increased since Boston and Snowden.

Very good article today by the excellent reporting team of Paul Fitzgerald-Elizabeth Gould, describing the deliberate manipulation of reality involving events in Afghanistan in the late 1970s, and how clusters of politicized insiders can in fact control national policy utilizing the controlled dissemination of information, with echoes of the internecine warfare of today.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/27/the-grand-illusion-of-imperial-power/

Here is Steele conceding that information in his dossier is unverified:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html

Here is CNN reporting, shortly after Clapper stated there had been no verification, that according to unnamed officials portions of the dossier had in fact been verified but they won’t say what portions or if the verified information was pertinent to the RussiaGate narrative:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/

Here is confirmation that the persons behind the Steele dossier were key sources to the Isikoff Yahoo News article. The “senior U.S. law enforcement official“ who confirms the Steele allegations to Isikoff is likely an FBI source as it was the FBI which was directly involved:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/yahoo-news-michael-isikoff-describes-crucial-meeting-cited-nunes-memo-231005733.html

This Yahoo article is directly referred to, and quoted, in Application 1 of the document released over the weekend (p21-23)

Here are some examples of Robert Parry’s excellent work on this story:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/29/the-sleazy-origins-of-russia-gate/

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/29/the-democratic-money-behind-russia-gate/

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/13/the-foundering-russia-gate-scandal/

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ty - when Buzzfeed published the dossier I read it. Unlike the press I found it believable, and it’s source credible. Since then the info therein has panned out. In order to defend against the Dossier Trump and co. chose not to argue it’s merits. Instead they chose a two pronged response - calling it fake news, and shoot the messenger. Is it the truth we are after? Ask yourself who is politicizing this. 

hi Paul - the information in the dossier has not panned out. The last official statement, by Clapper in early 2017, conceded that it remains unverified. Steele himself has been backtracking since facing a lawsuit by one of the persons named. Both Steele and persons from the FBI leaked material from the dossier to the media in September 2016, and the media reports generated were then portrayed in the FISA warrant request directed at Page as independent information corroborating the information in the dossier. (just like Cheney had his people brief reporters with phony Iraqi WMD information, and then cited the resulting news stories as further proof for his false claims).

It is my understanding that the overt move to institute a fascist political structure in the United States was the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. Douglas Valentine has discussed how this legislation codified a security architecture first developed by the CIA’s Phoenix Program, expressed in America through Homeland Security and its networks of Fusion Centres. It is common now for US police forces to meet any unsanctioned political protest with the display of heavy weaponry and armoured vehicles. The militarization of the police to the degree it is now was largely carried out during the Obama administration. As was the huge increase of use of deadly force by police agencies - well over 1000 persons killed every year for a few years now.

It has been established that the NSA and its 5-Eyes partners basically scoop up all communication on the planet, including US persons, and store it in searchable databases. This blatantly unconstitutional activity is justified by assurances the strictest procedures are in place to prevent abuse of the system. The information released over the weekend confirms such assurances mean nothing. In the case of Page, an American citizen was subjected to state-directed surveillance based solely on unverified information. More troubling, that citizen had been connected to a presidential political campaign, and the unverified information had been gathered on behest of such campaign’s political opponents with the express intent of establishing information which could damage that campaign. Furthermore, the FBI agent in charge of the FISA warrant as been revealed as extremely partisan in favour of the political opponents, and had discussed ways of using his office to support them in and around the time of developing such warrant. And, according to established procedure, the approved surveillance was not limited to the subject of interest, but the net also included any of that person’s contacts and associates. Meaning that, in effect, a presidential campaign was subjected to state surveillance based solely on unverified and possibly prejudiced information. And permission to do that was effectively rubber-stamped by the supposed gate-keepers. That is far beyond the dirty tricks squads of Watergate days.

I understand your position that Trump represents a unique danger to your republic.  I’m not sold on the fascist/racist hyperbole - I.e. that Trump’s fascist and racist character is somehow leagues beyond what already exists. The fascism/ racism problem in the U.S. has a bipartisan institutional character, and as long as people insist on viewing the issue through a binary Democrat/republican  good/evil lens , then understanding the problem in sum and what to do about will remain unclear. What is needed is clear-minded critical thinking.

Hi Paul - yes, for sure I can agree that Trump is a bully and that he probably is a crook to the same extent that the others in his business milieu are crooks. Totally agree that the constant focus on alleged Russian meddling is a big tactical mistake, not least because it diverts awareness from the real threats to the democratic process in your country. The corporate media’s decision to keep ratcheting anxiety and hysteria to ever higher levels, as seen this past week, risks provoking something like a psychotic break. I remember reading an observation from a historian a few months ago warning that the level of division and rancour within the federal government has not been seen since the years leading to the Civil War.

The FISA warrant issue I mentioned is back in the news cycle. The corporate media is vastly underplaying this facet and therefore many people are not aware of the issues (it is mostly discussed by people on the right, but Consortium News has also been covering it). In a nutshell, it appears that, in the Fall of 2016, politicized members of the FBI used opposition research paid for by the Democratic Party to justify and acquire access to NSA surveillance databanks directed at a member of the Trump campaign team, and using the “hops” revealed by Snowden, whereby anyone in direct contact with the targeted person is also added to the surveillance net, this seems to mean the Trump campaign was being directly spied on by agents of the government politically allied to the Democrats. After the election, Trump was briefed by the head of the NSA, Mike Rogers. After the meeting the Trump transition team abruptly moved from Trump Tower to a location in New Jersey. And inappropriate use of FISA warrants for domestic political advantage appear to stretch back at least to the start of 2016.

Here is a more detailed summary if anyone is interested:

https://themarketswork.com/2018/04/05/the-uncovering-mike-rogers-investigation-section-702-fisa-abuse-the-fbi/

And here is the late Robert Parry from Consortium News wondering if the Russian meddling narrative wasn’t merely politicized intelligence:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-gate-assessment/

This past week I’ve actually read conservative Americans who say they are prepared to disavow the Patriot Act because they now agree with the civil libertarians who argued from the start that the sweeping surveillance powers were sure to be abused. It is the perfect moment for a bi-partisan grassroots pushback against the surveillance state, but many on the liberal side of the spectrum have been convinced by a phony politicized narrative and have circled the wagons in common cause with the Intelligence agencies.

The United States supported the Indonesian coup in the mid 60s, and the CIA created lists of persons deemed as potential political opponents to the new authoritarian regime. Hundreds of thousands killed.

The CIA created the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, an effort to identify and neutralize  political opposition to the South Vietnamese dictatorship. Tens of thousands killed.

This effort morphed into the Latin American death squads of the 1970s and ‘80s - directed at the political opposition to authoritarian rule in the region. Hundreds of thousands killed.

The death squad model was later imported into Afghanistan and Iraq, where it targeted political opponents to the US occupation and, in Iraq, was used to foster a sectarian bloodbath that US planners called the “Salvador Option”. Tens of thousands killed.

Douglas Valentine has written extensively on the above.

President Obama himself approved a death-by-drone program directed at opponents of US overseas activity, and he also participated in selecting targets for these extra-judicial assassinations, expressly illegal under international law. Thousands killed, including a high number of innocent bystanders. No one calls Obama a “thug”.

The plane crashes of Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan were very suspicious. Both men could be said to have been impediments to the intentions of the W Bush administration. Maybe JFK Jr the same.

The death of the reporter Michael Hastings appears to have involved the remote control hijacking a his vehicle. He had run afoul of some top military people.

hi Kirk

you asked for names and I gave you some names…a couple of quick searches easily found material which described hawkish figures in the mix for a Clinton administration, and all of those articles anticipated that Clinton would herself be hawkish in her foreign policy. That’s just the mainstream stuff skimmed off the top. Fluornoy  was a bit beyond "prospective" for the Defense Dept job. Hillary had already destroyed Libya and encouraged the Honduras coup.

The substantive link in my post was the “rough blueprint for several crucial aspects of American foreign policy, which we believe the next occupant of the White House should adopt…”   

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

This report is from Fluornoy’s own think tank advocating US hegemony, higher military budgets, and more assertive military activity across the world utilizing “ new approaches or more consistent application of time-honored approaches.” Just read the introduction, it says enough about where these people are coming from. A lot of information at the time indicated this thinking would be informing Clinton’s foreign policy decisions. The report advocates the application of military force under the assumption that US military power was without equal and that adversaries would not choose to challenge it. If this doctrine was tested in Syria, Russia certainly would have challenged. The pressure on Clinton to escalate against that challenge coupled with her psychology…. her cackling over the death of Gaddafi was a big reveal on her character. Obama did actually resist enormous pressure to escalate in Syria i.e. intervene using all military assets, while Clinton had consistently endorsed establishing a no-fly zone. 

hi Kirk - thanks for the sarcasm. 

Here’s a name:

Michele Flournoy was slated to be Clinton’s Defense Secretary. Here’s a Guardian article which has background on her thinking and states she has “an agenda that confidently asserts American leadership in the world, backed by strong military force.”:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/17/michele-flournoy-hillary-clinton-possible-pentagon-chief-isis

The Guardian article points out Fluornoy , through the think tank  Centre For A New American Security of which she held a senior position, released a policy directive in the spring of 2016 which called for a more assertive US foreign policy relying on the use of military force.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

There were others such as Michael Vickers, Michael Morell, Matt Olsen, slated to be involved in a Clinton administration who were known outspoken hawks. As you can see by the articles below, these people are described as preferring a “muscular” approach to the world:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/08/clinton-taps-former-obama-officials-for-transition-teams-at-state-defense/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-would-differ-barack-obama-foreign-policy-n653596

The indications from these people were that Clinton, upon achieving the presidency, would move to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, which would have required a direct confrontation with the Russian military. This was openly talked about in the US press in the autumn of 2016, as can be seen above (except the confronting the Russians part was usually left out). Furthermore, Obama’s Defence Secretary Ash Carter, also a potential Clinton cabinet member, made a policy statement in autumn 2016 announcing plans to "sharpen our military edge" as the next phase of the Pivot To Asia initiative, a policy designed to contain China. This next phase would rely on a big increase of military assets in the South China Sea area and more naval patrols directed at the Chinese presence there.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/ash-carter-asia-pivot-south-china-sea/index.html

The Politico article shared by Cliff insists there is “irrefutable evidence” of Russian meddling in Election 2016. A common refrain. It should not be forgotten that there was also, or so we were assured, irrefutable evidence that Lee Oswald shot JFK. That Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction was irrefutable as well, a “slam dunk.”  Just a few months ago the British government created an international incident based on, they claimed, irrefutable evidence of which there could be “no doubt” because it was so “overwhelming.” And yet, since, every single one of their major assertions has been shown to lack any substance at all.

What I see with the Trump thing is an elected President moving forward with a policy initiative which he campaigned on. And facing furious opposition from a power nexus tied to the Intelligence community and the corporate media. The Intelligence community and the corporate media were also deeply involved with selling the lies about Oswald and Iraqi WMD. Skepticism on the Russian meddling issue is a healthy position, in my opinion.

By the way, there was a big revision to the “irrefutable evidence” published by the NY Times on Wednesday. It looks like the “collusion” angle has now been dropped, and instead Trump is portrayed as simply psychologically incapable of processing the clear irrefutable evidence which had been assembled.

The Times article is written in exactly the same slippery imprecise language - implying things without actually stating them - that one can find in the official documents and news reporting that appeared assuring Oswald’s guilt and WMD in Iraq. The holes and fault lines in the “shifting narrative” portrayed by the NY Times are obvious if one has followed this story from all sides, but otherwise it’s just more irrefutable evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

Certain Republicans, mostly in the House of Representatives, have been weaving their own Election 2016 conspiracy theory, which drops the Russians and instead focuses on politicized misuse of government surveillance power, i.e. using FISA warrants to conduct partisan opposition research illegally. This theory involves Perkins Cole, Fusion GPS, the DNC, Crowdstrike, the FBI, Steele Orbis, and GCHQ. There is a redacted document which 1) confirms the FBI was using “private contractors” to do “analysis” using the databases accessible only through the FISA warrant.  2) these private contractors were often abusing FISA restrictions on accessing information on US persons. If the redacted names of these private contractors are revealed to be DNC associated firms like Crowdstrike or Fusion GPS, then the Democrats will face serious credibility issues and the Russian influence narrative will really crumble as its origins can be linked with opposition research activity on the part of the Brits (according to the Republican theory).

Neither the RussiaGate conspiracy theory or the competing FISA Abuse conspiracy theory can be determined at this point to be correct or true by the public because the evidence to support either narrative is classified. But the House Republicans who have apparently seen the unredacted information appear confident, and certainly Trump felt secure enough to go ahead with the Putin meeting. If this blows up on the Democrats, then they would have compounded the mistake of anointing Hillary then losing the election, with the mistake of wasting two years going all in on a RussiaGate conspiracy theory.