Steven Gaal

https://www.google.com/search?q=composite+two+peoples+photos+faces&biw=1600&bih=754&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ImGhVbPWA43hoATQg4iIBQ&ved=0CCMQsAQ http://facefacts.scot/ (Golly this could be cover for a MI6 Harvey & Lee operation) How to Blend two images and merge faces together in Photoshop =========================================== THERE ARE A GREAT DEAL OF CELEBRITY AND CELEBRITY LOOK ALIKES,JUST PUT THEM TOGETHER. gaal Colin Mochrie + Purnell I don't know how to do it ,but maybe someone can merge these twins separated at birth.

Poland And the Netherlands Are To Counter Russia’s Propaganda With Joint Efforts 08.07 17:44 Warsaw and Amsterdam are preparing a joint project to support independent Russian media and counter Russian propaganda, which is to be presented at the next meeting of the EU Council on Foreign Affairs on 20 July in Brussels. This was announced during a press conference in Warsaw by Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna and the Netherlands, and Bert Koenders, reports Ukrinform. “The infotainment and propaganda (Russia’s – ed.) should be responded to. We do not want to spread propaganda, but it’s all about modern Russian being independent. It is important that Poland and the Netherlands prepared a specific project that could be proposed at the next meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, “- said Koenders. He added that the Amsterdam welcomes Warsaw’s efforts in this direction and expressed hope that the Netherlands will help to start this project with the support of the European Endowment for Democracy. Polish Foreign Minister Schetyna stressed that both countries are “good patrons to this initiative.” “We will support these actions,” – he stated. The European Endowment for Democracy in May prepared a report entitled “Restoring balance and pluralism in the Russian information space”. It is planned to coordinate actions and support independent Russian media in the countries of the EU, the Eastern Partnership states and the independent media in Russia. For your interest, Ukraine and NATO are preparing a joint project of countering Russian propaganda.

BP Deal: Path to a ‘Cleaner Gulf’–or Guaranteed Future Disasters? = http://www.globalresearch.ca/bp-deal-path-to-a-cleaner-gulf-or-guaranteed-future-disasters/5461575 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (please SEE POST above this one)

When it Comes to GMOs We Don’t Trust BBC ‘Experts’, Public Survey Reveals = http://www.globalresearch.ca/when-it-comes-to-gmos-we-dont-trust-bbc-experts-public-survey-reveals/5461403

Experts: Plutonium levels 10,000,000 times normal in water below Fukushima reactors — Plutonium hit record high off coast in 2014 — “Has been transported relatively long distances” – Every sample taken from rivers flowing into Pacific had Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241,and Pu-242 from plant Published: July 10th, 2015 at 3:50 pm ET By ENENews=================================================== Scientists from Japan’s National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Hirosaki University, and Peking University (pdf), May 2015 (emphasis added): Pu Distribution in Seawater in the Near Coastal Area off Fukushima… the amount of Pu isotopes directly released into the marine environment remains unknown. In the high level radioactive accumulated water collected at the FDNPP after the accident, high level radioactivities of Pu isotopes (ca. 10-3 Bq/mL) were detected. These values were 6 to 7 orders of magnitudes [1,000,000 – 10,000,000 times] higher than that of the seawater in the western North Pacific. In addition, a new study on Pu isotopes… suggested there was a potential sediment-borne Pu supply from Fukushima coastal rivers to the Pacific Ocean. Thus more attention should be paid to the contamination situation of Pu isotopes in the marine environment off Fukushima since the FDNPP accident… Pu isotopes in seawater… needs to be routinely investigated… There are two sampling sites close to the FDNP… 239+240Pu concentrations in seawater were reported in 2012-2014 and the range was from detection limit to 14 mBq/m3 except 31 mBq/m3 observed at T-2-1 site on 10 April 2014. Scientists from Japan, Belgium, and French gov’t (pdf), 2015: Tracing the dispersion of contaminated sediment with plutonium isotope measurements in coastal catchments of Fukushima Prefecture — The Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident led to important releases of radionuclides into the environment, and trace levels of plutonium (Pu) were detected in northeastern Japan… In this study, we measured Pu isotopic ratios in recently deposited sediments along rivers draining the most contaminated part of the inland radioactive plume… Results showed that the entire range of measured Pu isotopes (i.e. 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu, and 242Pu) were detected in all samples, although in extremely low concentrations. The 241Pu/239Pu atom ratios measured in sediment deposits (0.0017 – 0.0884) were significantly higher than the corresponding values attributed to the global fallout (0.00113 – 0.00008 on average in the Northern Hemisphere between 31-71 N)… These results demonstrate that this radionuclide has been transported relatively long distances… and deposited in rivers representing a potential source of Pu to the ocean. See also: Plutonium-241 from Fukushima nearly 70,000 times more than atomic bomb fallout in Japan — Gov’t Labs: Large areas of oceans contaminated by plutonium from events such as Fukushima; Build-up in biosphere expected; Considerable hazard to humans

MH-17 Case Slips into Propaganda Fog By Robert Parry Global Research The Dutch investigation into the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine last July has failed to uncover conclusive proof of precisely who was responsible for the deaths of the 298 passengers and crew but is expected to point suspicions toward the ethnic Russian rebels, fitting with the West’s long-running anti-Russian propaganda campaign. A source who has been briefed on the outlines of the investigation said some U.S. intelligence analysts have reached a contrary conclusion and place the blame on “rogue” elements of the Ukrainian government operating out of a circle of hard-liners around one of Ukraine’s oligarchs. Yet, according to this source, the U.S. analysts will demur on the Dutch findings, letting them stand without public challenge. Throughout the Ukraine crisis, propaganda and “information warfare” have overridden any honest presentation of reality – and the mystery around the MH-17 disaster has now slipped into that haze of charge and counter-charge. Many investigative journalists, including myself, have been rebuffed in repeated efforts to get verifiable proof about the case or even informational briefings. In that sense, the MH-17 case stands as an outlier to the usual openness that surrounds inquiries into airline disasters. The Obama administration’s behavior has been particularly curious, with its rush to judgment five days after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down, citing sketchy social media posts to implicate the ethnic Russian rebels and indirectly the Russian government but then refusing requests for updates. But why the later secrecy? If Director of National Intelligence James Clapper decided that unverified information about the shoot-down could be released five days after the event, why would his office then decide to keep the U.S. public in the dark as more definitive data became available? Over the past 11 months, the DNI’s office has offered no updates on the initial assessment, with a DNI spokeswoman even making the absurd claim that U.S. intelligence had made no refinements of its understanding about the tragedy since July 22, 2014. I’m told that the reason for the DNI’s reversal from openness to secrecy was that U.S. intelligence analysts found no evidence that the Russian government had given the rebels sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles capable of downing an aircraft at 33,000 feet, the altitude of MH-17, and that an examination of U.S. satellite and electronic intelligence instead implicated extremists linked to Ukraine’s U.S.-backed regime, although not to Kiev’s political leadership. At that point, admitting to an erroneous rush to judgment would have embarrassed the administration and undermined the “public diplomacy” campaign around the MH-17 case. By blaming Russia and its President Vladimir Putin last summer, the Obama administration whipped Europe into an anti-Russian frenzy and helped win the European Union’s support for economic sanctions against Russia. Keeping Putin on the defensive is a top U.S. priority. As one senior U.S. government official explained to me, information warfare was the only area in the Ukraine crisis where Washington felt it had an edge over Moscow, which benefited from a host of other advantages, such as geography, economic and cultural ties, and military pressure. ‘False Flags’ It also appears that right-wing Ukrainian political forces, which seized power in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup, have understood the value of propaganda, including “false flag” operations that pin the blame for atrocities on their opponents. One of the most successful may have been the mysterious sniper attacks on Feb. 20, 2014, that slaughtered both police and protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square, with the violence immediately blamed on President Viktor Yanukovych and used to justify his overthrow two days later. Later independent investigations indicated that extreme right-wing elements seeking Yanukovych’s ouster were more likely responsible. Two European Union officials, Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, were revealed discussing in a phone call their suspicions that elements of the protesters were responsible for the shootings. “So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet told Ashton, as reported by the UK Guardian. [A worthwhile documentary on this mystery is “Maidan Massacre.”] Even U.S. officials have faulted the new regime for failing to conduct a diligent investigation to determine who was to blame for the sniper attack. During a rousing anti-Russian speech in Kiev last month, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power inserted one criticism of the post-coup regime – that “investigations into serious crimes such as the violence in the Maidan and in Odessa [where scores of ethnic Russians were burned alive] have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors – suggesting not only a lack of competence, but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable.” In other words, regarding the Maidan sniper massacre, the Kiev regime wasn’t willing to reveal evidence that might undermine the incident’s use as a valuable propaganda ploy. That attitude has been shared by the mainstream Western media which has sought to glue white hats on the post-coup regime and black hats on the ethnic Russian rebels who supported Yanukovych and have resisted the new power structure. For instance, since Yanukovych’s ouster nearly 1½ years ago, The New York Times and other mainstream outlets have treated reports about the key role played in the coup regime by neo-Nazis and other far-right nationalists as “Russian propaganda.” However, this week, the Times finally acknowledged the importance of these extremists in Kiev’s military operations. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists.”] A similar propaganda fog has enveloped the MH-17 investigation, with the lead investigators – the Dutch, British, Australians and Ukrainians – all firmly in the pro-Kiev and anti-Moscow camp. (Specialists from the United States, Russia and Malaysia have also been involved in the inquiry.) Not surprisingly, leaders in Ukraine and Australia, as well, didn’t wait for the investigation to reach a conclusion before placing the blame on Putin. Last October, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott used an Australian football term in vowing to “shirtfront” Putin about his supposed guilt in the MH-17 case. Media Fakery Keeping the later U.S. intelligence analysis secret also allows for the Putin-did-it propaganda campaigns to go forward in mainstream media outlets and various propaganda fronts. A good example was the Australian “60 Minutes” report in May presenting bogus video evidence supposedly corroborating “Russia-did-it” claims made by British blogger Eliot Higgins. While the segment appeared to be authoritative – supposedly proving that Putin was responsible for mass murder – a closer examination showed that the program had relied on video fakery to mislead its viewers. The key scene supposedly matching up a video of a getaway Buk anti-aircraft missile battery with landmarks in the rebel-controlled city of Luhansk didn’t match up at all. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “You Be the Judge.”] After I revealed the fraud by showing how the two scenes were almost entirely different, the Australian show fell back on a claim that one utility pole in the getaway video looked like a utility pole that its reporting team had found in Luhansk. It is perhaps a sign of how crazy the anti-Russian propaganda has gotten that a major news program could feel that it can make such an absurd argument and get away with it. In a rational world, matching up the two scenes would require all the landmarks to fit, when in this case none of them did. Further, to cite similarities between two utility poles as evidence ignored the fact that most utility poles look alike and there was the additional fact that none of the area around the two utility poles matched at all, including a house behind one that didn’t appear in the scene of the other. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “A Reckless Stand-upper on MH-17.”] However, as long as the U.S. government’s comprehensive intelligence information on MH-17 is kept secret, such sleights of hand can continue to work. I’m told that the Dutch report is likely to contain similar circumstantial claims, citing such things as the possible angle of the fired missile, to suggest that the ethnic Russian rebels were at fault. Last October, the Dutch Safety Board’s initial report answered very few questions, beyond confirming that MH-17 apparently was destroyed by “high-velocity objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside.” Other key questions went begging, such as what to make of the Russian military radar purporting to show a Ukrainian SU-25 jetfighter in the area, a claim that the Kiev government denied. Either the Russian radar showed the presence of a jetfighter “gaining height” as it closed to within three to five kilometers of the passenger plane – as the Russians claimed in a July 21 press conference – or it didn’t. The Kiev authorities insisted that they had no military aircraft in the area at the time. But the 34-page Dutch report was silent on the jetfighter question, although noting that the investigators had received Air Traffic Control “surveillance data from the Russian Federation.” The report also was silent on the “dog-not-barking” issue of whether the U.S. government had satellite surveillance that revealed exactly where the supposed ground-to-air missile was launched and who may have fired it. The Obama administration has asserted knowledge about those facts, but the U.S. government has withheld satellite photos and other intelligence information that could presumably corroborate the charge. Curiously, too, the Dutch report said the investigation received “satellite imagery taken in the days after the occurrence.” Obviously, the more relevant images in assessing blame would be aerial photography in the days and hours before the crash. The Dutch report’s reference to only post-crash satellite photos was also odd because the Russian military released a number of satellite images purporting to show Ukrainian government Buk missile systems north of the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk before the attack, including two batteries that purportedly were shifted 50 kilometers south of Donetsk on July 17, the day of the crash, and then removed by July 18. Russian Lt. Gen. Andrey Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian government to explain the movements of its Buk systems and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down. The Ukrainian government countered these questions by asserting that it had “evidence that the missile which struck the plane was fired by terrorists, who received arms and specialists from the Russian Federation,” according to Andrey Lysenko, spokesman for Ukraine’s Security Council, using Kiev’s preferred term for the rebels. Lysenko added: “To disown this tragedy, [Russian officials] are drawing a lot of pictures and maps. We will explore any photos and other plans produced by the Russian side.” But Ukrainian authorities have failed to address the Russian evidence except through broad denials. Where’s the Intelligence? On July 29, 2014, amid escalating rhetoric against Russia from U.S. government officials and the Western news media, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity called on President Obama to release what evidence the U.S. government had on the shoot-down, including satellite imagery. “As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information,” the group wrote. “As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear earmarks of an attempt to ‘poison the jury pool.’” However, the Obama administration has failed to make public any intelligence information that would back up its earlier suppositions or any new evidence at all. One source told me that U.S. intelligence analysts are afraid to speak out about the information that contradicts the original rush to judgment because of Obama’s aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers. If the Dutch final report emerges with carefully circumscribed circumstantial evidence implicating the pro-Russian rebels, the nuances will surely be carved away when the report is fed into the existing propaganda machinery. The conventional wisdom about “Russian guilt” will be firmed up. A sense of how that will go can be seen in a recent New York Times article by David Herszenhorn on June 29: “Pro-Russian separatist leaders in the eastern Ukrainian region of Luhansk have blocked access to Dutch law enforcement officials pursuing an investigation into the downing of a Malaysian jetliner nearly a year ago, the Netherlands Public Prosecution Office said. … “The obstruction by separatist officials prompted the investigators, from the Dutch National Police and Ministry of Defense, to cut short their field work in Ukraine without conducting research into cellphone towers and cellular networks in the region, the public prosecution office said. … “Based on preliminary analysis and intelligence, including from the United States government, the aircraft was widely believed to have been destroyed by a surface-to-air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatist forces.” While the thrust of Herszenhorn’s article made the ethnic Russian rebels look bad – and foreshadows some of the points likely to be featured in the Dutch investigative report – perhaps the most significant word in the story is “preliminary.” While it’s true that the U.S. government’s “preliminary” report on July 22, 2014, implicated the rebels, the more pertinent question – not asked by the Times – is why there has been no refinement of that “preliminary” report. The Dutch Safety Board issued a brief progress report on July 1 noting that it had submitted a draft of its final report to “accredited representatives of the participating States on … June 2,” giving them 60 days to submit comments before a “definitive final” report is published in October. Meanwhile, Dutch prosecutors handling the criminal investigation say they have no specific suspects, but lead investigator Fred Westerbeke claims the probe has a number of “persons of interest.” Westerbeke said the criminal probe will likely run through the end of the year or later.

MIT Prof Shames US for 'Fictitious and Bizarre' Idea New Nuke Could Win War© Flickr/ Sandia Labs US plans to deploy the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb are “fictitious” and “bizarre,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security Policy Theodore Postol told Sputnik. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The US Air Force and the National Nuclear Security Administration have successfully completed the first development flight test of a B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb with no warhead in Nevada. “The military capabilities of this weapon stem from a totally fictitious and bizarre idea that the United States can fight and win nuclear wars,” Postol said on Friday. Postol, 69, is one of the leading US experts on ballistic missile defense technologies and ballistic missiles. “This weapon could never be used in a real-world situation against any nuclear-armed state, as it would likely provoke an uncontrolled nuclear escalation,” he said. © East News/ USA/Science Photo Library A New Arms Race? US Nuclear Test Might Trigger Response from Russia, China The projected $11 billion upgrade program for the B61 has been described as the most expensive nuclear warhead refurbishment in history.However, the upgraded B61-12 is designed to have far greater accuracy and generate less radioactive fallout than earlier versions of the bomb. Nevertheless, Postol charged that the new moves to modernize and upgrade the gravity bomb were likely to backfire on US policymakers with unintended consequences. “This is yet another example of how the US nuclear modernization program continues to undermine the security of the United States and its allies,” the scientist said. He warned that even “against states not armed with nuclear weapons, its use could have global political consequences with very far ranging and unpredictable results.” Far from advancing US strategic security, Postol argued, developing the B61 was likely to undermine it by alarming Russia and China, and provoke them to respond by developing new strategic weapons of their own. “It is the wrong signal to send to countries like Russia, which is already on edge over continuous advances in US nuclear strike capabilities, and to China, which is trying in spite of constant provocation to maintain a sensible posture of minimum deterrence,” Postol continued. Pushing ahead with gravity bomb development also threatened to undermine already fragile prospects for arms control and for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, Postol warned. “It is the wrong message to send to the non-weapon state signatories of the Nonproliferation Treaty,” he stated. Idea of Extra US Missiles in Europe 'Stupid' - Nuclear Weapons Authority Postol suggested that the Obama administration did not appear to have thought through the potential diplomatic and strategic consequences of modernizing the gravity bomb weapon.“It is hard to understand what the Obama White House thinks it is accomplishing by pushing such a counterproductive program,” he concluded. Before joining MIT, Postol worked as an analyst at the US Office of Technology Assessment and as a science and policy adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations, the operational head of the US Navy. In 2001, Postol received the Norbert Wiener Prize from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for uncovering numerous false claims about missile defenses. Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150711/1024486957.html#ixzz3fZvqESUX

please let me add In 2001, Rex Bradford summed up the attitude of the media nicely: A thought experiment may be helpful at this point. Imagine that it is 1963, the height of the Cold War, but it is not Kennedy who has been killed. It is Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, recently humiliated by the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this thought experiment, it is Khrushchev, not Kennedy, who received a military autopsy whose results ran directly counter to the reports of the civilian doctors who first treated him. Imagine that later one of the autopsy doctors admitted that a Soviet general ran the autopsy, and that this doctor said he was ordered not to track the path of a bullet; that crucial autopsy photographs known to be taken went missing; that trained medical witnesses disputed what was shown in those that remained; that the official autopsy camera went missing after an investigation failed to match it to the photographs. Imagine it was Russia where the security services destroyed evidence linking themselves with the purported killer, who was declared to be a lone “rabid capitalist,” but who seemed to be surrounded for the last year of his life by KGB operatives; that secret evidence finally revealed that the purported killer had been impersonated in a supposed phone conversation with CIA agents. But Khrushchev’s successor, without revealing the impersonation, had led those investigating the crime to think that the alleged assassin had indeed made these disturbing calls, and there might be nuclear war with America if this got out. And so on. Take the single bullet theory, the killing of the alleged assassin while in police custody, and all the rest of the JFK assassination story, including the fact that the murder was followed by a major expansion of a war, a war that secret documents years later showed Khrushchev had ordered be wound down. Everyone in the U.S., from the New York Times to the man on the street, would have a field day with this scenario. It would be completely obvious to everyone that Khrushchev was killed by his own political enemies with the help of the KGB, for political reasons. It would be obvious that the “story” of the lone capitalist was just that, a story, propped up by phoney “evidence” that would be completely disbelieved. You wouldn’t need 1/10th of the evidence pointing toward a high–level conspiracy that is present in the JFK assassination to convince just about anybody of this. … What is fundamentally different between this thought experiment and the reality of the Kennedy assassination is not the basic facts — it is a matter of belief systems. For a great many people, it is simply not possible that an assassination of a President would be carried out by powerful domestic political figures, even though they would be perfectly willing to believe it of the Soviets or almost any other country’s leaders. Even imagining that high U.S. officials would lie and engage in cover–up in such a matter is unthinkable to many, and certainly unspeakable in the nation’s “responsible” media. (http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_5.htm) The print and broadcast media’s overwhelmingly one–sided depiction of the Kennedy assassination has reflected nothing more sinister than its standard identification with established power. Five decades after the event, however, the killing of President Kennedy is perhaps no longer considered to be part of modern history, and no longer subject to all the consequent restrictions on expression. It will be interesting to see how the media cope with the fiftieth anniversary in 2013.

https://vincepalamara.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/inside-the-assassination-industry-vol-2-harold-weisberg.pdf oh my pg 47 ...facts crypto to DVP ,gaal pg 114 explanatory footnote ,oh my ,gaal

I'll take "or something" for 200 thanks Alex! Hargrove made this post below (GAAL) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=308304 then Parker changed subject (GAAL) And again. When called on for the attempt to change tactics, go into faux condescension. Your tactics reflect the theory. An utter disgrace.// Parker

I know, Greg. Trying to stay one step ahead of the Harvey and Lee apologists here is a full time job. Just be grateful that Gaal is off at a prayer meeting or something. --Tommy ======================= This post is offensive or something. There is no balanced moderation on this forum. Your ideas RE ANTI H & L are disgusting and shameful .(allowed by moderators). 1 ) How in the world did the bad guys choose two young boys, knowing that they would grow up looking sufficiently similar to be able to fool lots and lots of people several years later? //GRAVES ============================ Bad guys ?? The intell services were fighting a Godless (like Graves) enemy bent on destroying TRUTH JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY (bring up Superman TV theme music). This has been answered before (in this forum) in that scientists have looked into projections of morphological changes in children starting in late 1920s. BTW The military did a study of its officers to see if there could be correlated body shape/height and leadership. Today computers look into morphological changes to find multiyear missing children.,gaal +++++++++++++++ GRAVES HITS WALL OF FELDE FACTS (FAILS).

Bernice Moore Bernice MooreSuper Member JFK 3,627 posts Gender:Female Location:Canada Posted 02 November 2011 - 02:40 PM Bill this was a post from William Weston some years back, fwiw..b Subject: Two Oswalds The Two Oswalds: You are the Jury by William Weston When you pick up a book with the title You are the Jury, November 22, = 1963, authored by David Belin, you may think that you have found an = impartial presentation of the evidence regarding the guilt or innocence = of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy. But as = you skim through it, you realize that the title is grossly misleading. = What you find instead is a highly selective offering of evidence and = eyewitness testimony supporting the official version: namely, that = Oswald did it and Oswald did it alone. Witnesses with a viewpoint = inconvenient to the official version are omitted.=20 Yet Belin is right about one thing, we, the people of the United States = of America, do form a jury. The assassination of President Kennedy is a = watershed case that must be resolved or else justice and freedom in this = country will perish. If the perpetrators of this crime is not exposed = and punished, an imperial form of government will replace our = constitutional government. If we deem ourselves responsible citizens and = not serfs then we should not rest until those who committed this crime = are brought to justice. Whether we like it or not, we are a jury. We = therefore must act like a jury, being open-minded and alert in seeking = the truth. We need to hear ALL the evidence, not just a part of it.=20 The process of finding the truth has been ongoing from the first hours = of the aftermath of the assassination. We have been receiving pertinent = evidence of the assassination for over forty years now, mainly through = off-mainstream books, a few of which have even reached best-seller = status. In 1966, Mark Lane published Rush to Judgment. Lane interviewed = important witnesses such as Sam Holland, who was on the Triple Underpass = and saw smoke rising from the grassy knoll, Lee Bowers, the railroad = terminal signal station man who saw a flash of light behind the fence of = the grassy knoll, Helen Markham who provided details about the Tippit = shooting that challenged the official view. In 1980 Anthony Summers did = some groundbreaking work with his book Conspiracy, interviewing = witnesses in New Orleans and establishing a connection to the = assassination through such right-wing intelligence fanatics as David = Ferrie and Guy Banister. In 1983 David Lifton wrote a book called Best = Evidence, which gave us new information about the autopsy at Bethesda = Hospital, indicating a cover-up at the highest levels of government=20 In 2003, another great book on the assassination has appeared, written = by John Armstrong, called Harvey and Lee. He presents new witnesses who = confirm what most researchers have suspected all along: that there was a = Second Oswald. Just as we, the jury, did not dismiss Lane's witnesses or = Summer's witnesses, or Lifton's witnesses as confabulating cranks, so we = must listen to Armstrong's witnesses. Armstrong's book should be read in = its entirety. However, because of its huge size, a short paper = highlighting the more prominent episodes dealing with the case for two = Oswalds can serve as an introduction. At the end of each episode, there is an evaluation regarding (1) the = data and (2) the significance in establishing the theory that there were = two Oswalds. The two evaluations will be given ratings of 1 through 3. = In the case of the data, 1 means data of the highest quality and 3 the = poorest. In the case of significance, 1 means highly significant and 3 = means of low significance. USMC (October 1956-September 1959) - Allen R. Felde enlisted in the = Marine Corps at Milwaukee, WI in October 1956. He went to the San Diego = for basic training and there met Oswald as another recruit. Both of them = were assigned to Platoon 2060, Second Battalion. In January 1957 both = Felde and Oswald were transferred to Camp Pendleton for combat training. = Felde and Oswald were assigned to the same squad of eight men, all of = whom shared the same tent. While on leave once in Tijuana, Oswald left = the squad and was not seen again until everyone returned to Camp = Pendleton. This was also true when the squad went on weekend leaves to = Los Angeles. Oswald would ride with the group to Los Angeles in a bus = but would separate from them at the bus depot and would not be seen = again until they returned to Camp Pendleton.=20 When combat training was over in May 1957, Oswald and Felde were = transferred to the A & P School at Jacksonville, Florida. In July 1957 = they were sent to Aviation Electronics School in Memphis, TN. In = September 1957 Felde transferred to the Marine Corps Air Station at Opa = Locka, Florida and did not see Oswald again. Felde recalled that Oswald = continually discussed politics. Oswald was argumentative and frequently = took the opposite side of an argument just for the sake of a debate. He = was a good talker and had an excellent vocabulary. He was also a = voracious reader spending much of his time reading in base libraries as = well as in his quarters. He became unpopular, and his company was = avoided if possible. Oswald continually wrote to Senators in Washington = about various left wing issues. One senator in particular who was in = receipt of a number of his letters was Senator Strom Thurman. Oswald = expressed dislike for people of wealth and he championed the cause of = the working man. He frequently found fault with Eisenhower and Truman = and had felt the US participation in the Korean War was wrong, because a = lot of men were killed in this war and nothing was accomplished. Oswald = also condemned Eisenhower for his poor use of armored units at the time = of the invasion of Europe. Another Marine who remembered Oswald was Sherman Cooley. October 1956 = was the month when Cooley first met Oswald at the Marine Corps boot camp = in San Diego. I interviewed Cooley and asked him what he remembered = about Oswald. One of the most memorable things about Oswald was his = inability to shoot a rifle. "He could not hit the broad side of a barn = with a twelve gauge shotgun," Cooley told me. In March 1957 he and = Oswald went to Jacksonville, Florida, where they were enrolled in the = same class at the Air Frame and Power (A&P) School. After spending two = months there, they were sent to Keesler, where they learned how to be = radar operators. They were transferred to Japan, but Cooley did not see = Oswald there, for they had been assigned to two widely separated bases. = The next time he saw him was in the Philippines towards the end of = November 1957. In fact, the picture of Oswald sitting among a group of = Marines waiting to board an LST was taken by Cooley himself. At the end = of December Cooley went back to Japan with a portion of the unit, while = Oswald stayed with the rest of the unit at Corregidor. They did not see = one another again until the beginning of January 1959, when they were = assigned to a radar unit in Santa Ana, California. Oswald had mess duty, = and Cooley used to see him every morning serving coffee to the men. I asked Cooley if he remembered Allen Felde. He said that he never heard = of him, but that is not significant, since there were hundreds of men = going through training. Then I read Felde's statement over the phone. = There was much in it that Cooley confirmed to me was correct. The = details regarding Oswald's personality and interests, he said, described = him "to a tee." Cooley also confirmed to me that the unit they were in = was the Second Recruit Battalion. So far, so good. But we start running = into problems with the platoon numbers. There were three platoons in = every company. Cooley was in platoon 1068, and Oswald was in either 1069 = or 1070. I asked him if he can explain what Felde meant, when he said = that he and Oswald were in platoon 2060. Cooley said it is possible that = Oswald had been held back and put in a platoon that was sequentially = later. The 20 series of platoons followed the 10 series of platoons by a = week. Sometimes the Marines will do that to guys who cannot get with the = program. They give them extra time in boot camp. I then asked about = Felde's statement that he and Oswald went to the A&P School in = Jacksonville from May to July. Cooley said he does not know why Felde = would say that, since he remembered Oswald at the A&P School from March = to May. He also does not understand how Oswald could have been at the = Aviation Electronics School in Memphis. Cooley is quite familiar with = that school, for he had a son who went there. It is a place where they = train jet and helicopter mechanics. But Oswald was not in Memphis, he = was at Keesler, learning radar. In fact, Cooley used to have a picture = of the graduation class at Keesler and he and Oswald were in it. (He had = loaned this photo to researcher Henry Hurt in the 1970's, when he was = writing his book Reasonable Doubt, but it has not been returned.) So there are a few anomalies in Felde's statement that do not fit the = overall picture of Oswald's career in the Marines. John Armstrong had = found a list of those who were in the Aviation Fundamentals class and = both Felde and Oswald were in that class. The time when the class = started was March, not May 1958,as stated in the FBI report of an = interview with Felde.=20 Evaluation: Allen Felde's version bears some similarity to the official = record of Oswald's military career, e.g. basic training in San Diego and = advanced training in Jacksonville, yet it verves off from the official = version in such details as the Aviation Electronics School in Memphis. = Armstrong has found corroboration for this twist in Oswald's training = path in a list of those who were in the Aviation Fundamentals. Data = rating: 1.=20 Felde's observations are strong evidence that there were two Oswalds in = the Marine Corps at the same time. Significance rating: 1.

Successful Non-Toxic Cancer Treatments: Ketogenic Diet & Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy - http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/successful-non-toxic-cancer-treatments-ketogenic-diet-hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy/ See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/successful-non-toxic-cancer-treatments-ketogenic-diet-hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy/#sthash.RmbEzM1J.dpuf

Bees Love Nicotine, Even Though It's Killing Them http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/04/bees-love-nicotine-even-though-its-killing-them ====================== Decline in birds, not just bees, linked to neonicotinoid ... - CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/decline-in-birds-not-just-bees-linked-to-neonicotinoid-pesticides-1.2706542 ====================== Aluminum contamination implicated in dementia and bee deaths https://talesfromthelou.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/aluminum-contamination-implicated-in-dementia-and-bee-deaths/ ======== Neonicotinoids Hinder Bee’s Ability to Smell Flowers http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/06/neonicotinoids-hinder-bees-ability-to-smell-flowers/============ ===================== A neonicotinoid impairs olfactory learning in Asian honey bees (Apis cerana) exposed as larvae or as adults http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150618/srep10989/full/srep10989.html ==== Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog \l " http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:trbCot2kWesJ:www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us 2 days ago - ... pregnancy and childhood to insecticides that target the nervous system, such as organophosphates ..... Neonicotinoids Hinder Bee's Ability to Smell Flowers. ================================================================================ Aluminum is in the necture of flowers Aluminum is in Flower nectar and depends on flower species. Australia flowers have probably less aluminum. (ITS ALL IN THE FOSTERS CANS),gaal

John Simkin John SimkinAdmin Posted 23 January 2009 - 09:13 AM On pages 263-274 you consider the case of Willem Oltmans and the evidence that he supplied to the House Select Committee on Assassinations on 4th January 1977. You make the comment that: “His profile at times appears less that of the typical left-leaning Dutch journalist and more suggestive of a U.S. intelligence agent. Former colleagues of Oltmans, who is deceased, described him to me as a complex and mysterious figure. As will become clear, Oltmans was a cipher to one and all, sometimes seeming to be determined to expose the truth, and sometimes to do the opposite. Perhaps he was something of a free agent, pursuing a particular course yet unhappy about it. But one thing is certain: just as de Mohrenschildt helped steer Oswald, to a lesser extent Oltmans did the same for de Mohrenschildt.” I have carried out some research into Oltman's career and would argue that his reporting of events in Indonesia, Cuba and North Vietnam suggest he reflected a consistent left-wing position. In 2000 Oltmans won his legal case against the Dutch government. The jury agreed that the government conspired to keep him out of work, for which it had to pay him 8 million guilders in damages. This dates back to reports that he was writing about Netherlands New Guinea in 1956. This upset Joseph Luns, the Dutch minister of foreign affairs. The court ruled that Oltmans was right when he claimed that Luns did what he could to sabotage his journalistic career. Luns was a close friend of the CIA and eventually was appointed Secretary General of NATO. We also know that during this period the CIA was working with Luns in an attempt to overthrow President Sukarno of Indonesia. The head of this CIA operation was Al Ulmer, who ran the agency's Far East operations. In fact, Ulmer lost his job after the failure of the CIA backed coup in May 1958. As Thomas Powers, the author of The Man Who Kept The Secrets (1979), a book about Richard Helms, points out: "The result, of course, was a humiliation for the United States, but it was a quiet humiliation. The Indonesians knew who had been behind the rebels, of course, but they elected to treat the matter calmly... and the American press somehow never got wind of the CIA's role." Oltmans, who enjoyed a good relationship with Sukarno, did know what was going on and reported this in the Dutch press. This does not sound like someone under the control of the CIA. In fact, by 1962, this journalist who was reporting on events in Cuba and North Vietnam in the early 1960s, was seen as a hero by left-wing students. It is during this period that his network was infiltrated by CIA agent Werner Verrips. Oltmans also claims that he was supplying President Kennedy with information about the situation in New Guinea. Whatever the truth of this statement, Kennedy, against CIA advice, applied pressure on the Dutch government to hand over the territory to a temporary UN administration (UNTEA). On May 1, 1963, Indonesia took control of the country. It was not only over the policy towards Cuba that the CIA was angry with Kennedy. Without the testimony of Oltmans I don’t think the story about George de Mohrenschildt claims about the assassination would have entered the public domain. Nor would much attention have been paid to his suicide three months after Oltmans’ testimony to the HSCA. What is significant is that at the time of his death he was taking part in a planned four-day interview at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach with Edward Jay Epstein on behalf of the Reader's Digest magazine. In my view, this was an attempt by the CIA to discover just how much de Mohrenschildt knew about the assassination. We now know that de Mohrenschildt had given an interview to Dick Russell in June 1976. See this thread for Dick’s comments on this: http://educationforu...h...13575&st=60 I know I would trust the evidence of Willem Oltmans and Dick Russell over that of Edward Jay Epstein. What is your view of the de Mohrenschildt’s confession he made to Oltmans? ============= SIMKIN, OLTSMANS NOT CIA,.gaal ---------------------------------------------------------- see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb6-HgBLMFo

Microsoft Lays Off Thousands While Demanding More H1-B Visas dailycaller 4634845 Tech giant Microsoft announced Wednesday that it will be laying off approximately 7,800 employees worldwide, bringing a denunciation from a federal lawmaker who says the firings expose the company’s calls for more immigration. The firings, which will eliminate about 7 percent of the company’s workforce, are concentrated in Microsoft’s troubled mobile phone business, and will eliminate most of the remaining employees from its purchase of Nokia’s phone operation in 2013. Only some of the layoffs are in the U.S., with Finland being hit especially hard with over 2,ooo jobs lost. The firings follow up on the 18,000 layoffs the company made last year, which were also concentrated in the phone business. Now, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is slamming Microsoft, saying the layoffs show it is being dishonest when it lobbies for increased immigration into the United States. “Microsoft has shed roughly 1/5th of its workforce in the past couple years,” Sessions said in a statement sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “And yet Microsoft, perhaps more than any other major U.S. company, has claimed it suffers from a shortage of capable American workers and must therefore import more H-1B foreign guest workers.” Sessions is a top GOP critic of immigration reform efforts that would offer amnesty for illegal immigrants or allow a surge of new visas for foreign workers. Microsoft, on the other hand, has lobbied intensely for more immigration. The company has endorsed the I-Squared Act of 2015, which would triple the number of H-1B temporary work visas from 65,000 to over 195,000. Microsoft claims it’s unable to fill all its job openings unless the H-1B visa program is expanded to let more skilled workers into the United States. The company is one of the three biggest H-1B employers in the country, and back in 2007 company founder Bill Gates suggested the U.S. should allow an “infinite” number of H-1Bs. Sessions says Microsoft is simply looking to use cheaper immigrants as a way to drive down labor costs and undercut American workers. “As Microsoft’s layoffs show, there is a surplus—not a shortage—of skilled, talented, and qualified Americans seeking [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] STEM employment,” he said. “Each year, universities graduate twice as many students with STEM degrees as find STEM jobs. According to the Census Bureau, more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees are not employed in STEM jobs—or three in four STEM degree holders. Among recent graduates, about 35 percent of science students, 55 percent of technology students, 20 percent of engineering students, and 30 percent of math students are now working in jobs that don’t require any four-year college degree—let alone their area of specialty.” Sessions made a similar denunciation of Microsoft last year after its first layoff wave. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/08/microsoft-lays-off-thousands-while-demanding-more-h1-b-visas/#ixzz3fS4agj3p

UK Government's surveillance plans could put citizens, economy and entire internet at risk, argue leading computing experts Proposals are 'unworkable in practice, raise enormous legal and ethical questions, and would undo progress on security at a time when internet vulnerabilities are causing extreme economic harm', leading experts argue - Andrew Griffin independent/uk - The British and US Government’s plans to weaken online security are “unworkable” and contribute to “extreme economic harm”, a group of the world’s leading computer experts have said. Authorities including David Cameron and FBI director James Comey have said that tech companies shouldn’t use end-to-end encryption, which stops messages from being snooped on. Such technology is used in apps like iMessage and WhatsApp, to ensure that messages can't be read as they pass between people. But a new report from some of the world’s leading computing experts argues that giving intelligence agencies access “will open doors through which criminals and malicious nation states can attack the very individuals law enforcement seeks to defend”. Tech companies have long argued that opening up back doors to surveillance agencies inevitably means that other actors will exploit them, weakening security. Proposals to give intelligence agencies exceptional access to communications are “unworkable in practice, raise enormous legal and ethical questions, and would undo progress on security at a time when Internet vulnerabilities are causing extreme economic harm”. read more Privacy watchdog launches 'Did GCHQ spy on you?' campaign to allow citizens to find out if they were under surveillance GCHQ spying on British citizens was unlawful GCHQ and NSA broke antivirus software so that they could spy on people“If law enforcement’s keys guaranteed access to everything, an attacker who gained access to these keys would enjoy the same privilege,” the report argues. The British and US governments’ preferred approach would also make such an attack more likely to succeed, they argue, since giving the keys needed to unlock encryption over to spying organisations would make them more likely to be lost. David Cameron and the rest of the Government have long argued that encryption is dangerous — in January, Cameron said that he didn’t want to allow any encrypted communications, and the home secretary Theresa May intends to push through legislation that will force tech companies to make their users’ data available to governments. They say that keeping communications secret helps terrorists, since they can use networks to communicate without surveillance from the authorities. The new MIT report is named ‘Keys Under Doormats’ and is written by a group of computer scientists many of whom were part of an influential report that helped stop similar legislation being passed at the beginning of the modern internet. They argue that the new challenge is “even greater today than it would have been 20 years ago”. “In the wake of the growing economic and social cost of the fundamental insecurity of today’s Internet environment, any proposals that alter the security dynamics online should be approached with caution,” they argue in the 26-page report. “. The complexity of today’s Internet environment, with millions of apps and globally connected services, means that new law enforcement requirements are likely to introduce unanticipated, hard to detect security flaws. “Beyond these and other technical vulnerabilities, the prospect of globally deployed exceptional access systems raises difficult problems about how such an environment would be governed and how to ensure that such systems would respect human rights and the rule of law.” The experts' criticisms echo the same ones made by many tech companies. Apple's Tim Cook said in June for instance that the company believes "people have a fundamental right to privacy", and Facebook said yesterday that it feels "weakening encryption presents a variety of other security issues".

The Budget: '13m Families To Lose Average Of £260' The Institute for Fiscal Studies says benefit cuts will leave three million families an average of £1,000 worse off every year. ============================= http://news.sky.com/story/1515743/the-budget-13m-families-to-lose-average-of-260

Source: Who What Why Though FBI reports are often admitted as evidence, they are sometimes so unreliable that even a federal judge once refused to be interviewed unless he could review the report first. Photo credits: WGBH News (screen capture) / YouTube, US Marshals Service / Wikimedia Matt Connolly is a former Deputy District Attorney of Norfolk County, Massachusetts How credible are the reports of interviews filed by FBI agents working a case? In fact, such reports are known to be so unreliable that in one case, a federal judge refused to be interviewed by agents unless he was allowed to review their report and make corrections. That case was more than a decade ago, but the problems raised by these FBI reports—which are often offered in evidence during criminal trials—are very much current. Indeed, the judge in the recent trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev specifically warned the jurors against giving too much credence to such a report. *** The case of the judge who insisted on fact-checking the FBI’s work is particularly instructive. This occurred during the much-watched 2002 trial of retired FBI agent John Connolly, the handler of the notorious gangster Whitey Bulger. Connolly was charged with, among other things, obstruction of justice involving a letter Connolly sent to the presiding federal judge, Mark Wolf. Wolf’s testimony was needed to prove the obstruction. As is standard practice, prosecutors asked that Wolf submit to an FBI interview in advance of any courtroom testimony. The interview reports, commonly called 302 reports, are named after the form on which they are written. The FBI’s process for handling 302s is hardly an ideal one for accurate recording and transmittal of what was said during an interview. The process is as such: two FBI agents ask questions and listen to the answers—without tape recording or obtaining a certified transcript. Instead, they return to their office and, based on their recollection and any notes they may have taken during the interview, write up a summary of what transpired. Summaries are, in most cases, written hours later, sometimes even the following day. *** This reporter sat in court listening to Judge Wolf’s testimony—which is included in my book, Don’t Embarrass The Family, based on FBI agent Connolly’s trial. Under questioning, Judge Wolf revealed that he had agreed to be interviewed, but only on the condition that he would be able to review the 302 for accuracy and to make any necessary corrections. It was clear he had little confidence the FBI agents would accurately reproduce what he said. In plain English, he did not trust them. Judge Wolf had seen his share of FBI interview reports, as he had been a federal judge since 1985 and prior to that had served as an assistant US attorney for eight years. Judge Wolf’s concern about FBI agents’ ability to accurately render interview content is made even more clear in a footnote in his 661–page decision filed on September 15, 1999 in the matter of US v. Salemme, where it was disclosed Whitey Bulger was an informant. In footnote 35, Wolf quotes Edwin O. Guthman, who once served as press secretary to Attorney General Robert Kennedy: “You can have a conversation with an agent… and when it is over he will send a memo to the files. Any relation between the memo and what was said in the conversation may be purely coincidental. You would think you were at different meetings.” Wolf says that after reviewing the 302s, he made only minor changes or corrections. Thus, in this case, at least, no substantive errors had been introduced. But then other interviewees, such defendants and key witnesses, have no right to review and correct 302s. And a presiding judge is hardly the most likely victim of misstatements by FBI agents. Based on a variety of published claims, such misstatements, tendentious or otherwise,may be distressingly common. FBI witness reports are often written the day after the interview was given. Photo credits: Justin Evans / Wikimedia, FBI / Wikimedia In Wolf’s case, his concern seems to have been anchored principally in the recognition that it is extremely difficult for people to remember what was said during an interview while making only an occasional note. Of course, the greater the delay between the end of the interview and the writing of the 302 report, the greater the possibility of errors. Judge Wolf, based on his experience, would also have known that the 302 becomes the official record of what was said during the interview. Its importance can not be overstated. FBI agents review their 302s prior to testifying at trial; the federal prosecutors will rely upon it in examining (or cross-examining) a witness. Perhaps most importantly, defendants or witnesses who contest what’s written in a 302 open themselves up to charges of “making false statements or even perjury.” That this is an ongoing problem is demonstrated by the recent trial in Boston of the Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Judge George O’Toole, having given permission to Tsarnaev’s attorneys to read FBI 302s to the jurors, felt compelled to warn them that the 302s were not “verbatim transcriptions of the conversation, but summaries, and they may be made from the agent’s notes and then put together in a report either that day or perhaps the next day.” Despite the obvious flaws in the FBI’s system of interviewing and then later dictating the gist of interviews, the Bureau harbors a gospel-like belief in the 302s. An FBI agent testifying at Connolly’s trial revealed there is a common expression amongst agents: “If it isn’t in writing it doesn’t exist.” Of course, this implies that the 302 accurately contains all the important statements the witness made. But the potential for selectivity here is obvious. If the witness said he did not get a good look at an assailant, and the FBI agent does not include that in the 302, then no one on the prosecution team will believe he said it because it is not written down. With that in mind, the FBI agents’ aphorism reads like a cynical inside joke. Solution is Obvious—But Why Does FBI Resist? It would be easy to remedy this ancient system of conducting interviews that has existed since J. Edgar Hoover became FBI director in 1924. Why not establish a rule that all interviews be electronically recorded? In this high-tech age it’s hard to conceive of valid arguments against mandatory electronic recording, except in instances where circumstances make it impracticable. Other than such exceptions, the most trustworthy evidence—the person’s voice—would be preserved. Ironically, the federal government itself does not seem to fully trust the memories of FBI agents. In 1968, Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act which gave federal law enforcement authorities and the states the ability to conduct secret interceptions through electronic means between parties who were unaware they were being listened to. However, it required that all those intercepted communications be electronically recorded. Congress did not want FBI agents to listen to the conversations and later write down what they thought they heard. Instead, they reasoned, it’s better for judges and juries to hear for themselves what is said. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, tacitly acknowledged to the need for a recording policy when on May 12, 2014 he authorized his Deputy James M. Cole to issue a memorandum allegedly changing the policy concerning electronic recording of statements. This reporter noted at times it had so many holes in it that it made little difference to the way things were done. Noted First Amendment expert and author Attorney Harvey Silverglate followed up nine days later with a similar opinion noting: ”a careful read of the missive… proves that the exception often overwhelms the rule.” The FBI did recognize the pressure to change it in 2006. Its reasons are specious, boiling down to it likes the way things are now done so why change? It also states there are no federal laws requiring it to record the conversations which allows it to refuse to do it. The issue is straight forward: do we want the best evidence—a record of the words spoken between an FBI agent and another person—or would we rather continue with the evidence the FBI agent looking to solve a case figured she heard and decides to write down. It is time that Congress acts to require federal agents to do the same thing when they interview witnesses and suspects as they do when listening to intercepted communications… which is to record them.

############################################################################################ http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-fiction-propaganda-media The raison d’être of the Warren Report was to enable an uncritical news media to “convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.3, p.472). The unreliability of much of the evidence in the case, as well as an institutional need to impose one particular interpretation of the evidence, has allowed the JFK assassination to remain the subject of fiction and propaganda. Fiction and Drama Don DeLillo, Libra (available from Amazon), from one of the finest literary stylists around, has a dénouement that comes as a surprise, not least for the main character. Norman Mailer, Oswald’s Tale (available from Amazon), is a very long fictionalised biography of Lee Oswald. It is based on some dubious sources, so the art is better than the science. Stephen King, 11.22.63 (published as 11/22/63 in the US), uses an established fictional device by sending its invented hero, Jake Epping, back in time to interact with a real historical event. King’s novel is almost as long as Mailer’s, but can probably be read in half the time. Oliver Stone, director, JFK (Warner Brothers, 1991; available from Amazon), was probably the pivotal factor in the rejuvenation of public interest in the assassination, and in the consequent governmental activity that resulted in the establishment of the Assassination Records Review Board. Although very slick and professionally made, the film attracted a wide range of criticism: Those with a stake in promoting the lone–nut interpretation seized on the film’s reliance upon questionable sources and the way it obscured the distinction between contemporary footage and reconstructions. More knowledgeable audiences questioned the film’s use of a relatively trivial aspect of the case, the investigation by Jim Garrison, as the main structural device. Given the economics of the mass media and popular film–making, however, a cliché Hollywood storyline was probably the only practical way to get critical information onto a large number of screens. In the eyes of some viewers, the director made a tactical error in placing too much dramatic weight on one speculative theory about the nature of the conspiracy, and too little on the fact of Oswald’s innocence. This allowed the print and broadcast media to misrepresent the issue as a simple choice between Stone’s theory and the lone–nut theory. The Media Fight Back The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald had anything to do with the assassination is very much a minority point of view among those with any appreciable knowledge of the subject. It is still, however, the default position in newspaper and television coverage. Media institutions surely recognise that any serious questioning of the official lone–nut explanation is an attack on the institutions which devised and originally promoted that explanation. Despite its deficiencies, the film JFK was such an attack. The press campaign against JFK began even before filming had finished, when a draft version of the script was obtained in dubious circumstances. The most pertinent and revealing criticism was aimed not at the film itself but at the Hollywood system for its failure on this occasion to keep unwelcome ideas hidden. For a brief overview of the print media’s attitude to JFK, see two articles by writers from opposite ends of the political spectrum: Sam Smith, ‘Why They Hate Oliver Stone,’ Progressive Review, February 1992; Murray Rothbard, ‘The JFK Flap,’ The Rockwell–Rothbard Report, May 1992. Gerald Posner’s Case Closed: Praise and Criticism With the Warren Report widely recognised to be the discredited product of a dishonest process, it was necessary to find a new holy book to which the media priesthood could defer. Gerald Posner, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK (Random House, 1993; ISBN 0–4000–3462–0) filled the gap. The book was heavily promoted, and achieved an enormous amount of uncritical coverage. Reviews were generally entrusted to those who could be relied on not to delve too far into the subject. As with the Warren Report, Case Closed received a serious beating from those with the motivation to look under the surface. For example: Case Closed or Posner Exposed? offers a wide range of critical reviews. Peter Dale Scott’s review sums it up: “Posner often transmits without evaluation official statements that are now known to be false, or chooses discredited but compliant witnesses who have already disowned earlier helpful stories that have been disproven. He even revives a wild allegation which the Warren Commission rejected, and reverses testimony to suggest its opposite.” David Wrone, ‘Review of Gerald Posner, Case Closed’, Journal of Southern History, 6 (February 1995), pp.186–88. See also Wrone’s The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, in which he offers more criticism of Case Closed and describes it, not without reason, as “one of the most error–ridden works ever published on the assassination.” (p.117) John Newman, ‘Case Closed Doesn’t Close the Oswald File’, Baltimore Sun, 22 September 1993, was one of the few critical reviews to appear in the corporate media. Harold Weisberg, Case Open: The Omissions, Distortions and Falsehoods of Case Closed (Carroll and Graf, 1994; ISBN 0–7867–0098–X). Weisberg provided Gerald Posner with access to his huge collection of JFK assassination files. He goes into details about Posner’s methods, and suggests that Case Closed was not entirely Posner’s own work. Although Weisberg’s book is informative, his prose style is often clumsy and occasionally almost unreadable. For example: “Posner’s parenthetical explanation of hardened jackets on military ammunition, not the only one he gives, those he does give not being consistent either with each other or with the provisions of that Geneva international agreement on this that he does not mention, if he knows about it, that it is to ‘increase its penetration’ is consistent with the need of Posner’s fabrication.” (pp.150–1) Weisberg made a huge contribution to research on the JFK assassination, but the size of his audience was severely limited by the lack of editorial restraint over his writing style. An expanded version of Case Open, entitled Hoax, is available online in PDF at the Harold Weisberg archive at Hood College, along with Weisberg’s 1000–page unpublished and probably unpublishable manuscript, Inside the Assassination Industry, which criticises Posner along with several other well–known writers on the assassination, including Mark Lane, Harrison Livingstone and David Lifton. Martin Cannon, ‘Compromised Reporting’, Lobster, 28 (December 1994), discusses Posner’s ethics, accusing him of misquoting witnesses and even inventing interviews. The final nail in the coffin of Gerald Posner’s credibility was probably the repeated accusations of plagiarism made against him. See, for example, ‘Posner Plagiarizes Again,’ Miami New Times and ‘More Posner Plagiarism,’ Slate. Rehabilitating the Lone Nut Theory Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History (W.W. Norton, 2007; ISBN 0–393–04525–0), acknowledged some of the problems with Posner’s book, and endeavoured to replace it as the definitive lone–nut account. One reviewer, Gary Aguilar, whom Bugliosi consulted when writing his book, calls Reclaiming History “an historic and important contribution. It is valuable … as a reference for the myriad facts in the case and for debunking some of the pro–conspiracy codswallop that has not elsewhere already been debunked.” But Aguilar is less enthusiastic about Bugliosi’s “arrogant condescension … [his] conclusions–driven narrative … his errors of fact and interpretation and … his snarky, self–congratulatory tone.” Reclaiming History was let down also by its length: it comprises one printed volume of 1500 pages and a CD–ROM containing a further 1000 pages. Unsurprisingly, it appears to have sold poorly, and is currently out of print. Part of the book has since been published as Four Days in November (ISBN 0–393–33215–2; also available as an ebook). There is a long and extremely informative review of Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History by James DiEugenio that has occasionally appeared on the www.ctka.net site, and a more concise one by Gaeton Fonzi. Bonar Menninger, Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK (St. Martin’s Press, 1992; ISBN 0–312–08074–3; available in abridged form as an audio book), offers the most plausible non–conspiratorial account of the assassination. Menninger is a journalist rather than a researcher. He reports the theory of a ballistics expert, Howard Donahue, that President Kennedy was killed accidentally by a Secret Service agent. Donahue seized on the fact that Kennedy’s head wound was caused by a soft–nosed bullet, a type designed to break into fragments on impact, while the non–fatal wounds were caused by metal–jacketed bullets, which were designed to remain intact on impact. All of the bullet shells discovered on the sixth floor were part of the same batch, and must have contained the same type of bullet, so the fatal shot must have come from a different source. Donahue discovered a photograph, taken a few seconds after the assassination, which shows an automatic rifle being held aloft by one of the Secret Service agents in the car behind Kennedy. That type of rifle was able to fire the correct type of bullet. Ergo, as Menninger would put it, the agent shot Kennedy. The theory fails for many reasons, not least that: of the dozens of nearby witnesses, not one saw or heard the agent fire his gun; and, more conclusively, the home movie by Charles Bronson shows that the agent’s gun did not have unobstructed access to Kennedy at the moment of the fatal shot. The Secret Service agent, George Hickey, applied to sue Menninger and the book’s publishers for libel, claiming that publication went ahead even though Menninger, Donahue and their publisher had been shown the Bronson film and were aware that it invalidated their theory. Hickey was reported to have settled for a payment out of court. Although the publishers were no doubt motivated more by the prospect of sales than by a concern with accuracy, it is the behaviour of the media that is noteworthy. As with Case Closed and Reclaiming History, reviews of Mortal Error were mostly entrusted to writers whose knowledge of the case was so weak that they were not aware that Charles Bronson’s film contradicted the whole premise of the book. The Future of the Lone–Assassin Theory To win acceptance by the media in 1964, the Warren Report only needed to clear a very low hurdle. Three decades later, the lone–nut baton had been handed to Case Closed. That book passed the same easy test, but is now too badly hamstrung to do so again. In 2001, Rex Bradford summed up the attitude of the media nicely: A thought experiment may be helpful at this point. Imagine that it is 1963, the height of the Cold War, but it is not Kennedy who has been killed. It is Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, recently humiliated by the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this thought experiment, it is Khrushchev, not Kennedy, who received a military autopsy whose results ran directly counter to the reports of the civilian doctors who first treated him. Imagine that later one of the autopsy doctors admitted that a Soviet general ran the autopsy, and that this doctor said he was ordered not to track the path of a bullet; that crucial autopsy photographs known to be taken went missing; that trained medical witnesses disputed what was shown in those that remained; that the official autopsy camera went missing after an investigation failed to match it to the photographs. Imagine it was Russia where the security services destroyed evidence linking themselves with the purported killer, who was declared to be a lone “rabid capitalist,” but who seemed to be surrounded for the last year of his life by KGB operatives; that secret evidence finally revealed that the purported killer had been impersonated in a supposed phone conversation with CIA agents. But Khrushchev’s successor, without revealing the impersonation, had led those investigating the crime to think that the alleged assassin had indeed made these disturbing calls, and there might be nuclear war with America if this got out. And so on. Take the single bullet theory, the killing of the alleged assassin while in police custody, and all the rest of the JFK assassination story, including the fact that the murder was followed by a major expansion of a war, a war that secret documents years later showed Khrushchev had ordered be wound down. Everyone in the U.S., from the New York Times to the man on the street, would have a field day with this scenario. It would be completely obvious to everyone that Khrushchev was killed by his own political enemies with the help of the KGB, for political reasons. It would be obvious that the “story” of the lone capitalist was just that, a story, propped up by phoney “evidence” that would be completely disbelieved. You wouldn’t need 1/10th of the evidence pointing toward a high–level conspiracy that is present in the JFK assassination to convince just about anybody of this. … What is fundamentally different between this thought experiment and the reality of the Kennedy assassination is not the basic facts — it is a matter of belief systems. For a great many people, it is simply not possible that an assassination of a President would be carried out by powerful domestic political figures, even though they would be perfectly willing to believe it of the Soviets or almost any other country’s leaders. Even imagining that high U.S. officials would lie and engage in cover–up in such a matter is unthinkable to many, and certainly unspeakable in the nation’s “responsible” media. (http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_5.htm) The print and broadcast media’s overwhelmingly one–sided depiction of the Kennedy assassination has reflected nothing more sinister than its standard identification with established power. Five decades after the event, however, the killing of President Kennedy is perhaps no longer considered to be part of modern history, and no longer subject to all the consequent restrictions on expression. It will be interesting to see how the media cope with the fiftieth anniversary in 2013.

Wheel invented .... CIA plot to kill JFK is based only on political bias, and not on solid evidence. That's my final word on it. (tongue in cheek) =================================================================================== http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21367&hl=political Eleven parts plus addendum. (Addendum total continuity Dulles connection Treasury Department Head Councils 1950s to past assassination) Dulles the CEO of Dallas

(BUMMPED VERY IMPORTANT STORY COVERED UP BY BURTON.gaal) Birth control goes high tech, fertility chip comes with remote control By Rhodi Lee, Tech Times | July 8, 7:42 AM Birth control goes high tech, fertility chip comes with remote control By Rhodi Lee, Tech Times | July 8, 7:42 AM A Massachusetts-based startup that specializes in long-term implantable drug delivery technology is developing an implantable birth control chip that can be switched on and off using a remote control. (Photo : Monik Markus) Women in ancient times are known to use acacia leaves, lint and honey to block sperm as a method of birth control but this rudimentary method of preventing pregnancy has gone a long way with the advent of new and more effective means of contraception available today including the use of pills, patches and intrauterine device (IUD). Yet it appears that there are still more room for improvement when it comes to contraceptives. A startup based in Lexington, Massachusetts is developing a new method of birth control that is too futuristic when compared with using leaves, lint and honey. The company is developing a contraceptive implant that is made up of a fertility chip that can be conxxxxxed using a remote control. MicroCHIPS, which specializes in long-term implantable drug delivery technology, has come up with a birth control chip that is implanted under the skin of the upper arm, abdomen or buttocks, and can be turned on and off using a wireless remote control. "Microchips' technology is based on proprietary reservoir arrays that are used to store and protect potent drugs within the body for long periods of time," MicroCHIPs explained its technology on its website. "Individual device reservoirs can be opened on demand or on a predetermined schedule to precisely control drug release or sensor activation." The device, which measures, 20 x 20 x 7 millimeters, dispenses 30 micrograms of the hormone levonorgestrel, which is also used in other contraceptive products, per day. The dosage, however, can be adjusted remotely by doctors. Unlike with women using other birth control implants such as IUD who need to see their doctor to have the device removed when they feel ready to conceive, women with the implanted fertility chip could simply turn it off using the remote control should they feel ready to have a baby. They can turn it on again if they do not wish to get pregnant. MicroCHIPS' fertility chip is also designed for long term use. While there are currently no hormonal birth control that lasts longer than five years, the device is designed to last up to 16 years after which it could be removed. Although the high tech contraceptive device is still under development, it is being readied for preclinical testing next year with the objective of making it available for public use by 2018. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supports the development of the device under its Family Planning program.

http://vaxtruth.org/2015/02/ac-vaccine-expert/ SORRY ANDERSON WRONG gaal

Argentina Rewards Programmer Who Exposed E-Voting Vulnerabilities With A Complimentary Home Police Raid https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150707/06204631571/argentina-rewards-programmer-who-exposed-e-voting-vulnerabilities-with-complimentary-home-police-raid.shtml

This cutting-edge intel program to "sheep-dip" Oswald as a nut failed tho', didn't it? I mean, it was known he was out of the country, therefore every single one of those sightings was dismissed. I don't believe Brian even believes most of what he writes. // PARKER ================================================================ every single one of those sightings was dismissed ....for one and only one scenario. The whole project gave the possibility of multiple scenarios : Montreal peace marcher, FPCC agitator, mental asylum worker or is that patient ? , gun runner, Mexico adventurer, family man with immigrant wife moving to Wisconsin or other northern state, Marxist that abuses wife , member homosexual underground ,confused repatriation bound USSR man and/or Cuban asylum seeker. GAAL =========================================== If you understand the Spiders Web ,its possible that Oswald would have been reported to have not worked at the TSBD but the airport . (was never at TSBD and shooting of the POTUS done at the airport) An airport scenario would have been given by CIA assets telling a tale. // gaal