Steven Gaal

The Harper Fragment Revisited - and JFK's Head Wounds:
A Final Synthesis - Appendices

By David W. Mantik

=

http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper4.html

==

But the situation is even more complex than that. The X-ray trail does not fit with several other fundamental facts:
•It cannot explain the large posterior hole that was widely reported, both at Parkland and at Bethesda. The debris trail is far too superior to explain that hole. (Likewise, the EOP shot is an unlikely cause of this hole.)
•It cannot explain the location of the 7x2 mm metal fragment above JFK’s right orbit (the fragment that Humes removed). This 7x2 mm fragment also lies well off the debris trail. (However, this fragment might derive from the EOP shot.)
•It cannot explain the solitary metal fragment in the left scalp (easily visible on the actual X-rays and even visible on most prints in the public domain—see Figure 10, vertical violet arrow). That fragment also lies well off the debris trail. (The EOP shot cannot explain this either.)

A third headshot could resolve this impasse (see Figure 36).[185] What follows next here is a discussion of these three headshots.

Headshot #1. (Yellow in Figure 36).[186] That someone fired a weapon from the rear is nearly universally accepted—after all, James Tague was hit by something. A shot from the rear (e.g., from a lower story of the Dal-Tex building) may have entered at the pathologists’ EOP site. My reconstruction of the Harper fragment, with the lead deposit precisely at the pathologists’ site, may be considered to be an objective proof of their honesty and accuracy on this issue. If additional metal fragments had been deposited inside the skull with this shot, they must have been removed before the official autopsy began (except for the two small particles above JFK’s right orbit).[187]

The autopsy report describes a fragment trail from the EOP to the right parietal bone. Such a trail is not seen in the extant X-rays, but perhaps such a trail did once exist—before these fragments were removed, i.e., perhaps Humes even told the truth in his autopsy report. It is even possible, if not likely, that the 7x2 mm metal fragment (and its very tiny companion) above the right orbit was part of that trail.[188] There is also eye witness evidence for a successful posterior headshot: early viewers of the film described a brief and abrupt leftward “jerk” of JFK’s head (no longer seen in the film).[189] Such a rotation could have been induced by a shot striking the right rear of the skull (the torque would have been appropriately counterclockwise).[190] That fits with the EOP shot.

It is quite possible that early viewers of the film took this jerking motion as evidence for a successful shot.[191] On the other hand, a shot from the South Knoll (i.e., opposite the Grassy Knoll) could not have caused such a rotation unless it struck the left skull, e.g., behind the left ear, but no evidence supports such a shot.

Another posterior shot (one that first struck the street) is strongly implied—by four clues: (a) the metallic fragment in the left scalp, ( the metallic fragment in the posterior scalp (visible on the lateral skull X-ray—see Figure 14, orange arrow), © an unknown projectile that caused the superficial back wound, and (d) five witnesses (including three cited by the WC) who recalled a shot that struck the street (an event that may have produced ricochet fragments that hit JFK).[192] Another argument for a successful posterior shot is the presence of debris on the inside of the windshield and on the hood ornament.[193] (The chrome strip that surrounded the windshield was also dented.) Forward spatter from a posterior shot might explain this debris, but a frontal shot almost certainly cannot. In other words, a posterior shot is required to explain this debris. According to Fiester,[194] debris from a frontal shot cannot travel more than 3-4 feet; the hood ornament is well beyond that distance.[195] In short, the evidence for a posterior shot does not rely only on the word of the pathologists. On the contrary, several lines of evidence support such a shot—but the strongest and most objective evidence is the debris on the hood ornament. Also recall that the limousine was traveling into a head wind of 15-20 mph, which would have further decreased the probability that a frontal shot could have deposited debris that far forward (from backspatter).

Headshot #2. (Red in Figure 36). A frontal (forehead) shot most likely produced the particle trail now seen in the X-rays. (Even if the debris is attributed to a posterior shot, this trail must still count as a separate shot; it is far too high to derive from a posterior EOP shot.) This bullet entered high on the right forehead, near the hairline (where the incision is seen in the autopsy photographs—an incision that was not seen at Parkland). The metallic trail on the AP X-ray goes nearly straight back; therefore this shot should not be called “tangential,” as some writers have mistakenly done.[196]

For a shot from anywhere on the triple overpass, the observed particle trail is really only possible when JFK’s head is nearly erect, i.e., it cannot occur with the forward head orientation seen in Z-312 (or in Z-313).[197] If JFK’s head had been rotated far enough to the left, then this particle trail might derive from a South Knoll shot, although not too close to Z-312. On the other hand, since the moment of this shot is not precisely known, so also is JFK’s head orientation unknown at this moment. That leaves open the possibility that this shot might have come from elsewhere, e.g., the north side of the overpass (e.g., the storm drain there). However—and this is critical—this shot cannot explain the large hole at JFK’s right rear (the one that so many witnesses recalled)—after all, the particle trail is far superior to that large defect.

Robert McClelland, MD, who believes the (single frontal) headshot came from the Grassy Knoll, said the president had been struck "…around the hairline near the middle of his forehead."[198] Like many others, though, McClelland has conflated the forehead shot (#2) with the temple shot (#3); the Grassy Knoll shot was #3, not #2. The forehead shot (#2) produced the metallic trail on the X-rays, but not the occipital blowout. Another possible example of this confusion shows Dennis David pointing to his right lateral eyebrow and Malcolm Kilduff pointing (vaguely) toward his right forehead.[199]

However, at least one other Parkland witness, Charles Crenshaw, MD, has recalled (on video) a bullet entry in the high right forehead, near the hairline.[200]

About a week after the assassination, Robert Knudsen (a White House photographer) showed JFK photographs to Joe O’Donnell; one showed a hole in the right forehead, above the right eye. This was round and about 3/8” in diameter; O’Donnell interpreted this as a gunshot wound.[201]

Jerrol Custer, the radiology technologist recalls an entry wound above the mid-right eyebrow.[202] And Dennis David (also at the autopsy) made this statement:

But there was a small hole that looked like an entry wound. It was about the size of the tip of my finger. Maybe a little over a quarter of an inch [6 mm], 5/16 of an inch in diameter. It was located right in this area here (LAW: indicates a point at the hairline above the pupil of the right eye).[203]

Tom Robinson, the embalmer (while before the HSCA) also recalled a small wound in the right forehead, near the hairline:[204]

Purdy: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body…?
Robinson: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn’t have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably [was] a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound.
Robinson: Yes.

Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.

Purdy: On his right side?
Robinson: That’s an anatomical right, yes.

Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?
Robinson: Yes.

Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
Robinson: Somewhere around the temples.

Purdy: Approximately what size?
Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch [6 mm].

Purdy: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
Robinson: No, he didn’t have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it.

In the final inning of this essay (which was written during the baseball playoffs), an astounding witness (for this right forehead shot) emerged. After he heard my interview on Black Op Radio (October 8, 2014),[205] he telephoned and e-mailed me. See Appendix L for details and for his sketch of the entry site (in the high right forehead). He had seen an apparent JFK autopsy photograph (not present in the Archives). His entry site matches the metallic trail on the X-rays very closely indeed, and also matches the recollections of Crenshaw, O’Donnell, David and Robinson. McClelland’s recollection is only modestly different, and Custer may even be in the ballpark.

Headshot #3. (Green in Figure 36). Another frontal bullet struck obliquely[206] (possibly from the Grassy Knoll),[207] entered anterior to the right ear, and then exited to produce the large hole at the right rear. Witnesses to a wound near the right ear have already been cited: both Newmans, Zapruder, Kellerman, Thomas Robinson, and James Jenkins. The Belmont report (discussed below) may also be an echo of this wound. There is, in fact, a very old tradition for such a wound near the right ear; Josiah Thompson lists several important witnesses.[208] These include Herschel Jacks[209] (“it appeared the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple”); Seth Kantor[210] (“intered [sic] right temple”); the early NBC broadcast (“the President was struck in the right temple…”); an NBC broadcast 30 minutes later (“…the right temple…”); and the New York Times (“…a massive gaping wound in the back and one on the right side of the head”). Douglas Jackson (the motorcycle cop at the right rear) also stated: “…hit just above the right ear [and] the top of his head flew off away from me.”[211]

This oblique shot could not have deposited the metallic trail seen on the X-rays; this trail extends too far forward, and also too superior. In addition, though, it is quite unlikely that such an oblique headshot could have deposited the 7x2 mm fragment (above the right orbit). Such an oblique shot would have entered too far posterior (as well as too far inferior) to leave that fragment behind. On the other hand, this shot (#3) could well have produced the spatter that Hargis encountered. However, shot #2 (i.e., the one that deposited the metallic trail) is an unlikely candidate for the Hargis spatter (because those bullet remnants mostly—or completely— stopped inside the skull). But if shot #2 had come from the rear, and deposited the metallic trail (not my belief), then it is even less likely that it could account for the Hargis spatter. (That would require a remarkably energetic backspatter.) And if shot #2 had come from the South Knoll, then that forward spatter should have gone to the right rear, which does not match the witness reports. Another key point is Clint Hill’s recollection[212] which implies that this shot (that produced the large posterior hole, i.e., #3) was the last shot.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that this oblique shot cannot explain the trail of metallic debris seen on the skull X-rays—that trail is much too anterior for such an oblique shot. For far too long now, this oblique shot has been conflated with the (forehead) shot that produced the metallic trail. After 50 years, this muddle must stop.

Surprisingly many witnesses recall a left [sic] temple entry. Horne cites the Parkland physicians—Marion Jenkins, Robert McClelland, Ronald Jones, and Lito Puerto (aka Porto)[213]—who reported a small wound in the left temple. Others include Dr. Adolph Giesecke,[214] Dr. David Stewart,[215] Father Oscar Huber,[216] photographers Altgens[217] and Similas[218] and, more recently, Hugh Huggins (aka Hugh Howell),[219] who was RFK’s emissary to the autopsy. This is one of the stranger facets of the JFK assassination; after all, no one at Bethesda saw such a left temple wound. I can only conclude that each of them had reversed left for right, an error that I myself have made often enough in this case—and I have definitely seen others, including Robert Blakey on television, do it as well. (For another, rather striking, example, see footnote 36 here.) On the other hand, I am quite struck by the persistent reports of a temple wound, which I interpret as lying on the right side rather than on the left.

Finally, most witnesses quite specifically recall that JFK’s last movement was to “slump” forward.[220] (Virtually none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses recalled a posterior “head snap.” Early viewers of the Z-film, including Dan Rather and Deke DeLoach,[221] also agreed with this.)

In summary, no single headshot can encompass all of the data. Even a two-headshot scenario fails to do so (as in Thompson’s scenario—see footnote 127). Also note, however, that even the three-headshot scenario does not explain the solitary left scalp particle. (Actually, even more metallic debris is visible than that one—see Figure 9, where I have sketched several more such particles.) Most likely at least one more (posterior) shot is required to explain these odd particles (i.e., the EOP headshot by itself is not enough). Such an additional posterior shot might explain the following items: (1) the left scalp fragment, (2) the fragment on the back of the head on the lateral skull X-ray, (3) the superficial back wound, and (4) additional small particles visible in Figure 9. These four items may have arisen from a shot that struck Houston Street (as recalled by at least five witnesses) and then ricocheted upwards.
During the AARC meeting in Washington, DC (September 26-28, 2014), Robert Groden introduced more evidence for precisely such a ricochet shot. At Z-143 and Z-144 a small white spot suddenly appears in the street, near the south curb of Elm St. As further corroboration, Groden recalls that several witnesses, including Jean Newman, reported seeing a shot strike at that same site.[222]

I told SAC Shanklin that Secret Service had one of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and that the other is lodged behind the President’s ear [DM: emphasis added] and we are arranging to get both of these.[227]

.........

Table 1. Summary of three headshots and at least one ricochet shot. Forward flying debris could have arisen from forward spatter from #1 as well as backspatter from #3. Humes may have removed bullet fragments from both shots #1 and #3. Figure 10 shows the metal fragment in the left scalp (violet arrow). For the metal fragment on the back of the head, see Figure 14 (orange arrow). See the text just above for a discussion of Z-143 and Z-144; cf. footnote 222.

100’s Of Mall Stores Closing As April Sales Fall Flat

=

http://govtslaves.info/100s-of-mall-stores-closing-as-april-sales-fall-flat/

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

=

Dispatcher Proof: Cop that Shot Dog and Lied Knew There Wasn't an Emergency

=

By Amanda Warren

=

Last week reported on the "dog that broke the internet" who was tragically and senselessly shot by a Wyckoff, NJ police officer after the officer entered the unlocked gate of a yard at the wrong home. Lots of track covering and convolution ensued to manage the impression that the officer didn't commit the horror that people suspected - shooting someone's pet to death "just because." However, as tempers still flare, more and more proof becomes available that the officer and chief are tangling themselves in a web of lies.

================

see link for more

=

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/05/dispatcher-proof-cop-that-shot-dog-and.html

A Nation of Snitches

Posted on May 10, 2015

By Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_nation_of_snitches_20150510

I'll provide some much-needed common sense (and raw facts) // DVP

==========================================================

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3184
Speer
Posted 12 February 2005 - 02:36 AM
At the urging of Larry Hancock, I've decided to come forward with something I've been thinking about.

In 1997, the CIA declassified a number of documents related to the 1954 coup in Guatemala. I've recently spent some time pouring through these documents, Among them are redacted lists of purported communists who were to be assassinated (how do we know they weren't?) after the coup took place. On the cover note on one of these lists is the name Rip, which is listed as being illegible on the National Security Archive, but which is clearly a reference to Rip Robertson. On an earlier report, most likely prepared by Albert Haney, co-ordinated with Tracy Barnes, there is a logistics list including a mention of 21 .22 caliber rifles with silencers. Also included in the documents is a CIA STUDY of ASSASSINATION, found in the training file of the Guatemalan operation. This is the manual one would have to assume was used by Robertson and David Sanchez Morales while training the exile army of Carlos Castillo-Armas. The manual says, in part:

f) Silent Firearms

The sound of the explosion of the proponent in a firearm can be effectively silenced by appropriate attachments. However, the sound of the projective passing through the air cannot, since this sound is generated outside the weapon. In cases w here the velocity of the bullet greatly exceeds that of sound, the noise so generated is much louder than that of the explosion. Since all powerful rifles have muzzle velocities of over 2000 feet per second, they cannot be silenced.

Pistol bullets, on the other hand, usually travel slower than sound and the sound of their flight is negligible. Therefore, pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenc ed. The user should not forget that the sound of the operation of a repeating action is considerable, and that the sound of bullet strike, particularly in bone is quite loud.

Silent firearms are only occasionally useful to the assassin, though they have been widely publicized in this connection. Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons, while with pistols, silent or otherwise,

are most efficient just beyond arms length. The silent feature attempts to provide a degree of safety to the assassin, but mere possession of a silent firearm is likely to create enough hazard to counter the advantage of its silence. The silent pisto l combines the disadvantages of any pistol with the added one of its obviously clandestine purpose.

A telescopically sighted, closed-action carbine shooting a low velocity bullet of great weight, and built for accuracy, could be very useful to an assassin in certain situations. At the time of writing, no such weapon is known to exist.

END QUOTE

This is significant in that the CIA is asserting that rifles firing a sub-sonic charge are still accurate up to 100 yards. More importantly, on the logistics list they specifically request .22 caliber rifles, when they have their pick of rifles with a much-larger caliber. This indicates that there were advantages to a .22. Since the .22 was the rifle requested and was given to the Guatemalans along with the Study in Asssassination, it only makes sense that the "100 yards" comment apllies to the .22. This is in direct contradiction to the writings of Al Carrier, who insisted a .22 firing a sub-sonic charge would be essentially worthless as a sniper rifle. While Carrier may have been right, the CIA undoubtedly led their assassins-in-training to believe otherwise.

Shockingly, elsewhere in the assassination manual it states "public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value may be very high."

This brings up the question of who in the CIA were the propaganda specialists for the Guatemalan operation. And we have our answers in the names of E. Howard Hunt and David A Phillips. So here we have Robertson, Morales, Hunt, Phillips, and Barnes all tied up in this. J.C. King proposed assassinations as part of his original plan PBFORTUNE. so he's tied up in it as well.

On the CIA's own historical review of the assassination plots, declassified in 1997, it notes that "According to (a four letter name's) draft memorandum, after creating a story that BLANK (obviously Arbenz) was trying to oust the communists, he could be eliminated."

Since this was in 1953, this could have been King, who in 1953 was still over-seeing the project, but it could also be Hunt, since he was admittedly involved in seeking out support for Armas' upcoming coup around this time. Intriguingly, Castillo-Armas himself was assassinated by someone who was immediately identified as a communist, but with evidence so flimsy even Allen Dulles was skeptical. While the real story was never unveiled, the man who rose to power shortly thereafter, Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes, was the U.S.'s main ally in the training of the Bay of Pigs, an operation run by the same CIA men involved in the 1954 coup and the CIA study in assassination. Jake Esterline, the operational planner for the Bay of Pigs, told a CIA interviewer in 1977, when discussing Carlos Alejos' suggestion that the CIA deal with the growing unrest in the training camps by either shipping them or shooting them, "and if you shoot them, bury them deep," said "that is how Ydigoras controlled his position for forty years, so he must have buried them deep. I think he buried that piece of paper, too, along with (word missed--Basset's barking.)" If the word purportedly missing is Castillo-Armas, then we have a CIA agent with extensive experience in Guatemala stating his belief that Ydigoras Fuentes killed Castillo-Armas. That Castillo-Armas was in the process of throwing the gambling interests ouf of Guatemala when he was killed, and that he was killed in a manner that would implicate the communists, along the lines of a CIA plan to kill his predecessor, and that the co-ordinated message of the U.S. media and the Guatemalan military was that his assassin was a communist, makes this whole incident disturbing. One might rightfully wonder if a rogue element of the CIA in league with the gambling interests didn't help Fuentes gain power.

So far this has been a history lesson. Now comes my application of these facts to the JFK mystery.

For those familiar with my seminar, it should not be a shock that I believe a bullet striking Kennedy in his hairline at 224 went down his neck and quite possibly hit Connally after its exit. It struck me that both of Kennedy's wounds, the wound in the hairline as measured by the autopsists, and the neck wound as measured by Dr. Perry in Dallas, were smaller than should be expected for a 6.5 mm bullet traveling at 1800 fps. It occurred to me that perhaps this was in fact a sub-sonic
.22 bullet fired from a similar trajectory as the TSBD, most probably from the roof or upper floors of the Dal-Tex. It occurred to me as well that such a bullet would lack the energy to create both JFK's and Connally's wounds. So I decided to look into .22 automatic rifles available in 1963, as a silenced burst of gunfire could account for both wounds, and found that the only one widely used, by the U.S. Special Forces in Vietnam, no less, was the M-16.

In reading about the M-16 and silencers I came across the creepy coincidence that much of the early research on M-16's and silencers took place at Edgewood Arsenal, the home of both the Warren Commission's ballistics expert Alfred Olivier and the HSCA's ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan. The bullet wound expert present at the autopsy, Dr. Pierre Finck, was also an Edgewood employee, although his stint there seems to have come shortly after the assassination.

Even creepier, when reading about the history of the M-16 in Mortal Error, I came across a photo of the exhibit list of Sturdivan's HSCA testimony and it showed that exhibit number 114 was of an "m-193 bullet at 800 fps velocity." M-193 is the cartridge used in M-16s. Since Sturdivan testifed that exhibit 113 was of an m-16 bullet travelling at 3000 feet, which would be the speed of an M-16 bullet upon impact with Kennedy, it seems clear that an 800 fps bullet would be a test of a subsonic m-16 bullet striking Kennedy after being fired around 1000 fps, just under the sound barrier.

My paranoia set in however when I realized that the official list of this exhibit lists it as 800 MPS, not fps, and that Sturdivan's testimony is 800 mps, not fps. Mps would be meters per second, a reference neither Sturdivan nor his predecessor Olivier ever use anywhere else in their testimony. Combined, they make well over 30 references to fps, however. I then noticed that the exhibit list on the McAdams website mislabels both 113 and 114 and completely disguises that they represent gelatin blocks fired into by an m-16. Upon studying the wound ballistics of an M-16, I found that it does the most damage after becoming instable and that this usually occurs at 2700 fps, and that bullets travelling in the range of 2500-2700 fps may or may not become instable. Since 800 mps is 2625 fps, I momentarily thought it was all just a misunderstanding. But, after staring at 113 and 114, I found myself unable to accept that 113 represented a bullet releasing only 20 percent more energy. (Since energy is mass X speed squared and the mass is the same between the two then the only difference is the percentage difference in speed being squared .) It looks to me more like the 15 times or so more energy that would be the difference between a 3000 fps and an 800 fps bullet.

Anyhow, I've come to suspect a silenced automatic weapon was fired at Kennedy from the DAL-TEX and that our government for purposes of National Security has been covering it up, perhaps unwittingly. The book Silencer History and Performance by Alan C Paulson makes note that there are many things associated with silencers which are still considered classified information bv the government. Perhaps Sturdivan unwittingly entered something into evidence whic was "classified." Or perhaps someone knew the significance of the 800 fps M-16 bullet and "silenced" it from his testimony.

I'll come back and edit this and maybe add some links but I just wanted to get the word out before I get side-tracked. I think this could be an important area of research. Maybe John Ritchson or Al Carrier can chime in with their impressions of 113 vs. 114? // SPEER
=======================================================================
Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA
http://www.ctka.net/pr1195-hewett.html
====================================
Cubela was now put in touch with Manuel Artime. They met for the first time on 27th December, 1964. At the Madrid meeting Cubela again asked for a FAL rifle and silencer. A CIA report suggests that a "Belgian FAL rifle with silencer" was given to Cubela on 11th February, 1965.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2835&p=18210

#################################################################

#################################################################

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21126&p=287834

As you can tell from my bio, I work at Southern Methodist University ("SMU"). When I moved to Dallas in 1999 I got a job at SMU's Center for Media & Instructional Technology ("CMIT"). The CMIT media librarian at the time (introduced to me as "Judy Childs") was in fact Judy Chiles, wife of Bill Chiles, part owner of Jaggars Chiles Stovall.

Well, you know, when I found that out I just went through the roof! So at one of our Chritmas parties, I approached Bill (who is a sweet guy) and I asked him point blank about Lee Harvey Oswald working for his company.

Bill stated that Oswald was generally a crappy employee, that we wore thick black military-type boots, was surly, and to the concern of Bill at least, walked around speaking in Russian.

Since they did some work for the US Government, Bill was concerned about this guy enough to call the FBI. Bill told the FBI that this guy named Oswald was clunking around in military boots, speaking in Russian and making a nuisance of himself. Bill said the FBI put him on hold, and then came back with (and I am paraphrasing here) "...yeah, we know about Oswald, he's okay."

For what it's worth.

Rob

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

Pardon me DVP .......case closed GAAL

New UK Law Could Criminalize ‘Politically Incorrect’ Opinions

=

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/new-uk-law-could-criminalize-politically-incorrect-opinions/

A chilling comment by British Prime Minister David Cameron suggests that even people who obey the law won’t be “left alone” by the state if they engage in anything the government deems to be “hate speech,” including “bigotry” and potentially criticism of homosexuality and feminism.

Preparing to introduce a new counter-terrorism bill later this month, Cameron laid the groundwork for the measures by remarking that the state not interfering with people’s lives if they “obey the law” was a “failed approach.”

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach,” Cameron stated.

The London Independent branded the quote, “the creepiest thing David Cameron has ever said.”

According to BBC News, the new anti-radicalization laws could even ensnare those who voice politically incorrect opinions.

“Would those who oppose homosexuality or multiculturalism or feminism be accused of threatening values of tolerance and equality?” asks the BBC’s Mark Easton. “Could Russell Brand’s argument against voting be regarded as threatening democracy?”

Sorry for the misunderstanding Ron.

==============================

EDIT POST # 29 for error in thread ref. and added link RE ANGLO influence.

==============================

• (1950). Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, James Warburg (CFR), son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, prophesies: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it — by conquest or consent.”

Then what was Operation Northwoods all about? Or what was the benefit of trying to assassinate Castro? // ECKER

=================================

No one ever said there wasn't an argument in the MIC/State/POTUS but the AngloAmerican view won out. I posted a video in Trejo threads showing the British PM say he approved of sale to arms to Castro to prevent Castro getting too close to Russian orbit.

• Operation Northwoods never happened
• 620 plus assassination attempts CASTRO (golly who is tipping him off ??? .....NSA .....NSAs very very British very !!!!!)
• ANGLOAMERICAN ELITE WANTED A COMMUNIST CUBA

• JFK: The Ruby Connection, Gary Mack's Follies Continued
  Part Two
  By James DiEugenio
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  As I proved in Part One, the title to this documentary is a misnomer. Since it deliberately shears off all the possible connections Jack Ruby could have to the Kennedy assassination i.e., to the Cosa Nostra, to the CIA, to Oswald, and finally to the Dallas Police. In Part One, I presented only a précis of the multitude of connections Jack Ruby had to those three entities and to Oswald. Other authors, like Jim Marrs and John Armstrong, have done longer and fuller examinations of what those ties were. For instance, Armstrong traces Ruby's gun-running activities with the CIA back to the late fifties. But how could that be if Castro was not in power at the time? Because, as it often does, the CIA was playing both sides in the Batista/Castro struggle. So they were actually sending some aid to Castro at the time. And Ruby appears to have been part of it. (See John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pgs. 177, 586)
  ====================================================================
  In other words -- why would Alan Dulles back the Cuban Exiles to murder JFK, but then support the Lone Nut theory that Oswald acted alone -- knowing that this depoliticized Oswald and the JFK murder itself? It seems like a mismatch
  Best regards,
  --Paul Trejo
  =====================
  (GAAL)
  "Alan Dulles back the Cuban Exiles to murder JFK, but then support the Lone Nut theory that Oswald acted alone" ///// TREJO = Dulles dosent care who he motivates to kill JFK. If you read the material I presented you understand that DULLES family represented ,at times, British interests who wanted the survival of a Communist Cuba. The existence of Cuba is like the sand and the oyster, it's a creative irritant,creating a militant interventionist globalist USA. If at one time Dulles wanted Cuba gone he changed his mind as his Anglo betters directed. (see above thread post - # 51 http://www.history-m...vietnam1963.htmand http://www.thenation...not-speculation

On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism… must be joined… with strength and determination."[174]

[174] Karnow 1997, p. 339.

Before a small group, including Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the new president also said, "We should stop playing cops and robbers [a reference to Diệm's failed leadership] and get back to… winning the war… tell the generals in Saigon that Lyndon Johnson intends to stand by our word…[to] win the contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."

(Gaal)

CONSPIRACY ?? YUP but it wasn't a commie one................he was pushed the commie way......

Long ago I saw on TV an interview with Ho's two OSS handlers ...HO loved the US Constitution. He could have been Tito-ized very easily. But they knew there was oil there pre 1958 ...so they wanted a compliant approved of USA dictatorship. So many millions died for war profits and big oil hopes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the U.S. ‘Lose’ Ho Chi Minh to Communism?

=

By Mark McDonald
August 28, 2012 12:14 am

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

HONG KONG — The principal architect of Vietnam’s military victories over France and the United States turned 102 the other day, and the old general, Vo Nguyen Giap, while frail, is said to be holding his own.

He had a firm handshake and a ready smile when I interviewed him 10 years ago in Hanoi, and he talked easily about the “American War,” about his legendary battles at Dien Bien Phu and Khe Sanh, and about Ho Chi Minh.

It was hard for foreign journalists to get an audience with General Giap, but he agreed when I said I brought greetings from Maj. Allison Kent Thomas — the American major who had parachuted into General Giap’s jungle camp in 1945 to help train his fledgling Viet Minh guerrilla army. The major’s younger son and I were friends from university, and I had been allowed to read his father’s diaries and personal wartime letters.

All three men — Thomas, Giap and Ho — receive detailed and scholarly attention in a new account (published last week) of the beginnings of the Vietnam War, “Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam,” by the Cornell University professor and historian Frederik Logevall.

“Both in Indochina — the French and the Americans — and now in Afghanistan, we were supporting governments that did not have broad popular support, that were riven by infighting, by intrigue, were corrupt in many respects. And it’s very, very difficult, Indochina teaches us, to succeed in that kind of environment.”

— Frederik Logevall

A review by Lawrence D. Freedman in Foreign Affairs calls the book “magisterial.”

Mr. Logevall addresses the nagging historical question: Was Ho Chi Minh a resolute communist from his very beginnings, or was he a nationalist and freedom fighter who eventually moved toward socialism? The subtext to the question, of course, is whether the United States, with some more prescient diplomacy, might have struck an alliance with Ho and avoided the horrific quagmire of the Vietnam War.

Mr. Logevall, in a recent interview with Jeff Glor of CBS, said that Ho “saw communism as the best path of development for his country, but it was always his country.” Independence from Japanese invaders and French colonialists was his original intent, highest priority and enduring goal.

“Ho emerges as an unexpected hero in this balanced book, first seen trying to buttonhole Woodrow Wilson at the Paris peace conference of 1919,” says a new review in The Economist.

“But gradually he and his fellow North Vietnamese were viewed as agents of international communism, not admirable rebels against colonialism. Mr. Logevall bemoans the fact that Ho’s admiration for American political ideals and French culture did not lead to a life-sparing compromise.”

Ho was clearly admiring of the Americans in 1945, and he actively sought their help. As a sweetener, he had allowed some of the men under General Giap to rescue downed American pilots.

Major Thomas, then working for the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the C.I.A., was the leader of a unit called the Deer Team, which helped General Giap to organize his “army” of 200 peasant recruits at their Tan Trao redoubt in northern Vietnam.

The major (who was later promoted to lieutenant colonel) got hung up in a banyan tree while parachuting into the camp, but he was quickly freed and greeted with a banner that said “Welcome to Our American Friends.” The date was July 16, 1945 — the same day that the United States tested the first atomic bomb, in New Mexico. World War II was nearly over.

Major Thomas’s private journal says he arrived to find Ho very weak and suffering from chills and fever. (The major refers to him as “Mr. Hoo” in his earliest entries. So much for that bit of intel.) A medic with the American team treated Ho for dysentery and malaria, and he quickly improved.

General Giap’s account was different. He said a local herbalist, an ethnic Tay man, had dug up a root in the forest, burned it and sprinkled the ashes into a bowl of rice soup. After Ho ate the soup, General Giap said, “the miracle occurred” and “the president emerged from his coma.”

Major Thomas, who died in 2005 after a long career as an attorney in Lansing, Michigan, radioed his O.S.S. superiors based in Kunming, in southwestern China, that they needn’t worry about Ho’s political leanings.

“Forget the Communist Bogy,” he wrote. “Viet Minh League is not Communist. Stands for freedom and reforms from French harshness.”

Mr. Logevall’s appraisal, in his book, said Major Thomas got it “wrong, or at least incomplete.”

“If the Viet Minh stood for independence and against French repression, its core leadership that summer also remained staunchly Communist. But Ho in particular among top strategists wore the ideology lightly, so much so that even Soviet officials questioned his Communist credentials. In Mao Zedong’s Chinese Communist Party, too, analysts wondered where the Viet Minh, should it win the right to rule a free Vietnam, would take the country.”

While offering the proviso that “history by analogy is a treacherous business,” Mr. Logevall also draws a political parallel between the Indochina wars of yesteryear and the current conflict in Afghanistan. From his interview with Mr. Glor:

“Both in Indochina — the French and the Americans — and now in Afghanistan, we were supporting governments that did not have broad popular support, that were riven by infighting, by intrigue, were corrupt in many respects. And it’s very, very difficult, Indochina teaches us, to succeed in that kind of environment.”

General Giap has sometimes been criticized for losing huge numbers of troops in any number of battles, including at Khe Sanh, even though the victories he directed were crucial to Vietnam’s eventual independence. Here is Mr. Logevall on the defeat of the French in 1954:

“The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was over. The Viet Minh had won. Vo Nguyen Giap had overturned history, had accomplished the unprecedented, had beaten the West at its own game. For the first time in the annals of colonial warfare, Asian troops had defeated a European army in fixed battle.”

How The US Military Is Paying NFL Teams Millions To "Honor the Troops" At Sporting Events

Published: May 12, 2015

=

http://www.blacklistednews.com/How_The_US_Military_Is_Paying_NFL_Teams_Millions_To_%22Honor_the_Troops%22_At_Sporting_Events/43898/0/38/38/Y/M.html

When the Jets paused to honor soldiers of the New Jersey Army National Guard at home games during the past four years, it was more than a heartfelt salute to the military — it was also worth a good stack of taxpayer money, records show.

The Department of Defense and the Jersey Guard paid the Jets a total of $377,000 from 2011 to 2014 for the salutes and other advertising, according to federal contracts. Overall, the Defense Department has paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million during that time, of which $5.3 million was paid by the National Guard to 11 teams under similar contracts.

The agreement includes the Hometown Hero segment, in which the Jets feature a soldier or two on the big screen, announce their names and ask the crowd to thank them for their service. The soldiers and three friends also get seats in the Coaches Club for the game.

– From the New Jersey Star Ledger article: Jets’ Salutes Honor N.J. National Guard but Cost Taxpayer

Like everything else in America, faux patriotism is also for sale.

I’ve written previously about how uncomfortable the superficial “honor the troops” displays at sporting events makes me feel. In the post, “Stop Thanking Me for My Service” – Former U.S. Army Ranger Blasts American Foreign Policy and The Corporate State, I noted:

I have to admit, whenever I find myself in the midst of a large public gathering (which fortunately isn’t that often), and the token veteran or two is called out in front of the masses to “honor” I immediately begin to cringe as a result of a massive internal conflict. On the one hand, I recognize that the veteran(s) being honored is most likely a decent human being. Either poor or extraordinarily brainwashed, the man or woman paraded in front of the crowd is nothing more than a pawn. Even if their spouse hasn’t left them; even if whatever conflict they were involved in didn’t result in a permanent disability or post traumatic stress disorder, this person has been used and abused, and thirty seconds of cheering in between ravenous bites out of a footlong hotdog from a drunk and apathetic crowd isn’t going to change that. I don’t harbor negative sentiments toward the veteran.

On the other hand, the entire spectacle makes me sick. I refuse to participate in the superficial charade for many reasons, but the primary one is that I don’t want to play any part in the crowd’s insatiable imbecility. It’s the stupidity and ignorance of the masses that the corporate-state preys upon, and that’s precisely what’s on full display at these tired and phony imperialist celebrations.

Of course, it’s not just me that finds these scenes hard to stomach. Many troops have come forward and expressed the exact same sentiment. For example, as Rory Fanning, who served in Afghanistan with the 2nd Army Ranger Battalion noted:

These two ceremonies seemed to catch a particular mood (reflected in so many similar, if more up-to-date versions of the same). They might have benefited from a little “awareness raising” when it came to what the American military has actually been doing these last years, not to say decades, beyond our borders. They certainly summed up much of the frustration I was feeling with the Concert for Valor. Plenty of thank yous, for sure, but no history when it came to what the thanks were being offered for in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, no statistics on taxpayer dollars spent or where they went, or on innocent lives lost and why.

Will the “Concert for Valor” mention the trillions of dollars rung up terrorizing Muslim countries for oil, the ratcheting up of the police and surveillance state in this country since 9/11, the hundreds of thousands of lives lost thanks to the wars of George W. Bush and Barack Obama? Is anyone going to dedicate a song to Chelsea Manning, or John Kiriakou, or Edward Snowden – two of them languishing in prison and one in exile — for their service to the American people? Will the Concert for Valor raise anyone’s awareness when it comes to the fact that, to this day, veterans lack proper medical attention, particularly for mental health issues, or that there is a veteran suicide every 80 minutes in this country? Let’s hope they find time in between drum solos, but myself, I’m not counting on it.

We use the term hero in part because it makes us feel good and in part because it shuts soldiers up (which, believe me, makes the rest of us feel better). Labeled as a hero, it’s also hard to think twice about putting your weapons down. Thank yous to heroes discourage dissent, which is one reason military bureaucrats feed off the term.

Very well said, and now we learn that these spectacles are often even more phony than originally suspected. NFL teams are being paid millions of dollars to host them. From the New Jersey Star Ledger:

TRENTON — When the Jets paused to honor soldiers of the New Jersey Army National Guard at home games during the past four years, it was more than a heartfelt salute to the military — it was also worth a good stack of taxpayer money, records show.

The Department of Defense and the Jersey Guard paid the Jets a total of $377,000 from 2011 to 2014 for the salutes and other advertising, according to federal contracts. Overall, the Defense Department has paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million during that time, of which $5.3 million was paid by the National Guard to 11 teams under similar contracts.

The agreement includes the Hometown Hero segment, in which the Jets feature a soldier or two on the big screen, announce their names and ask the crowd to thank them for their service. The soldiers and three friends also get seats in the Coaches Club for the game.

Aside from the Hometown Heroes segment, the agreements also included advertising and marketing services, including a kickoff video message from the Guard, digital advertising on stadium screens, online advertising and meeting space for a meeting or events.

Flake said there was nothing wrong with the Guard using football games to recruit soldiers. The problem, he said, was spending taxpayer money on a program that, on its face, appeared to be a generous gesture by a football team.

The Daily News also covered this story, with a choice line from one of the most authoritarian members of Congress, Peter King. A man so completely insane, he makes neocons blush. He defended the spending of taxpayer money on superficial, faux patriotism:

Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.) also said “it’s money well spent.”

“People watching the NFL are generally inclined to be pro-military,” King told The News. “As far as the Jets, in addition to whatever money they’ve gotten from the (Department of Defense), I do know they are very actively engaged with veterans. The Jets do far more on balance than they get paid for.”

=======================================================

##########################################################

=

American Cops Are More Heavily Armed than Front Line U.S. Combat Soldiers In Active War Zones

Published: May 12, 2015

=

http://www.blacklistednews.com/American_Cops_Are_More_Heavily_Armed_than_Front_Line_U.S._Combat_Soldiers_In_Active_War_Zones/43905/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Police State vid: Cop Punches Female Model While in Handcuffs & Keeps Job

http://investmentwatchblog.com/police-state-vid-cop-punches-female-model-while-in-handcuffs-keeps-job/

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/police-state-vid-cop-punches-female-model-while-in-handcuffs-keeps-job/#ImRWwraE5VadqZ78.99

===============================================================================================

Trooper Arrested For Allegedly Sabotaging Case to Keep Son out of Jail

by David Rose and Steve Kiggins

OLYMPIA — A Washington State Patrol trooper who worked as a bodyguard for the governor was arrested in Olympia, accused of destroying evidence connected to his son’s criminal case.

The trooper, Daniel Tindall, is a 24-year veteran of the WSP, but now he’s on paid administrative leave after Olympia Police said he tried to conceal evidence and hide his 18-year-old son’s alleged connection to an attempted arson.

Police said the son, Wyatt Tindall, tried to set a car on fire.

Jill VanHulle said her surveillance cameras caught Wyatt red handed. Court documents said Wyatt was trying to get back at a classmate who stopped returning his messages.

VaHulle said her daughter was the target of Wyatt’s alleged vandalism and stalking.

Investigators said Wyatt’s father, Daniel Tindall, first confronted his son about the alleged arson but didn’t tell Olympia police. According to documents, Daniel then allegedly tried to destroy evidence that could have put his son behind bars.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=50836 (VIDEO)

===============================================================

Washington Police Kill Man Pointing Cell Phone at Them

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=50840

Police in Washington said they ordered Daniel Covarrubias to pull his hands out of his pocket because he was making them fear for their lives.

But when he did, they shot him anyway because they say he begin pointing a cell phone at them, “mimicking a gun,” according to Lakewood Police Chief Mark Zaro.

Not a single reporter in Monday’s press conference asked if Covarrubias was perhaps recording, an action we have seen being compared to holding a weapon by law enforcement officers throughout the country over the years.

Full Article » see link

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/ (<<<< please see site for documentation)

22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths

May 12, 2015

Here are 22 good reasons not to believe the statements made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

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

Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet.

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

According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.

Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO2, at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery.

But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list.

The 22 Inconvenient Truths

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)

3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)

7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)

8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)

9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)

11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)

12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)

13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)

14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)

16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)

18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)

19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)

20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)

21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)

22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)

Former Japan TV News Anchor: The mutations have begun in Fukushima, birds found blind, unable to fly — Magazine: “Birds in tailspin 4 years after Fukushima… the proverbial canary in a coalmine” — Professor: Birds with mutations popping up all over in contaminated areas (VIDEO)

=

http://enenews.com/former-japan-tv-news-anchor-mutations-begun-fukushima-birds-found-fly-magazine-birds-tailspin-4-years-after-fukushima-proverbial-canary-coalmine-professor-partial-albinos-popping-all-place-conta

GMO

Bermuda Bans Monsanto’s Roundup From the Island

By Staff | May 12, 2015

http://thephaser.com/2015/05/bermuda-bans-monsantos-roundup-from-the-island/

- See more at: http://thephaser.com/2015/05/bermuda-bans-monsantos-roundup-from-the-island/#sthash.dn6yVCeL.dpuf

Thank you, Steven.

But let me rephrase my question because I'm still a bit confused: Did Morrow/Talbot write the words in red exactly as they appear in your post, above? In other words, did Morrow/Talbot write "laying off [blame] on somebody else" , exactly like that, or did you slip the [blame] into it?

Thank you,

--Tommy

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

(GAAL)

The statement is in the book. Seymour Hersh:is saying that he (Hersh) believes JJA is lying to him and that Angleton really killed JFK.......whats to understand ??

HERSH instinct = CIA via JJA did it

HERSH establishment self = crazy idea (JJA crazy) ITS HERSH vs HERSH he cant accept CIA did Elm St.

THE LINK TO THE BOOK PROVIDED IN POST # 21 ALREADY >>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=wZHBjw2YRrcC&pg=PT263&lpg=PT263&dq=%22In+December+1974,+pursued+by+the+dogged+Seymour+Hersh&source=bl&ots=qiV3zaaaAL&sig=tIzCRtTbuciKivKZJSN8rvAWXgU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KmpRVfSKBYT8oAT354GIAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20December%201974%2C%20pursued%20by%20the%20dogged%20Seymour%20Hersh&f=false

Steven,

Who is the person whose email address --"g.hasan.yusuf@gmail.com" --is inside your post?

.................................LIFTON

__________________________________________
RUNS THIS WEBSITE

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/fifteen-simple-questions-for-gary-mack.html

Question:

Did you put the word "blame" there, or is in Talbot's book Brothers on page 274? I'm trying to understand that sentence.

Thank you,

--Tommy

=====

Robert Morrow , was my source via ED Forum and Morrow stated same at JFK facts.and Amazon Book comment. The statement is in the book. Seymour Hersh:is saying that he (Hersh) believes JJA is lying to him and that Angleton really killed JFK.......whats to understand ??

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3375&p=216217

https://books.google.com/books?id=wZHBjw2YRrcC&pg=PT263&lpg=PT263&dq=%22In+December+1974,+pursued+by+the+dogged+Seymour+Hersh&source=bl&ots=qiV3zaaaAL&sig=tIzCRtTbuciKivKZJSN8rvAWXgU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KmpRVfSKBYT8oAT354GIAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20December%201974%2C%20pursued%20by%20the%20dogged%20Seymour%20Hersh&f=false

Introduction to JFK’s Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder

=

By James DiEugenio

http://www.ctka.net/2014/JFKForeignPolicy.html

Posted December 22, 2014.

In a little over a year, I have spoken at four conferences. These were, in order: Cyril Wecht’s Passing the Torch conference in Pittsburgh in October of 2013; JFK Lancer’s 50th Anniversary conference on the death of JFK, in Dallas in November of 2013; Jim Lesar’s AARC conference in Washington on the 50th Anniversary of the Warren Commission in September of 2014; and Lancer’s Dallas conference on the 50th anniversary of the Commission in November of 2014.

At all four of these meetings, I decided to address an issue that was new and original. Yet, it should not have been so, not by a long shot. The subject I chose was President Kennedy’s foreign policy outside of Vietnam and Cuba. I noted that, up until now, most Kennedy assassination books treat Kennedy’s foreign policy as if it consisted of only discussions and reviews of Cuba and Vietnam. In fact, I myself was guilty of this in the first edition of Destiny Betrayed. My only plea is ignorance due to a then incomplete database of information. I have now come to conclude that this view of Kennedy is solipsistic. It is artificially foreshortened by the narrow viewpoint of those in the research community. And that is bad.

Why? Because this is not the way Kennedy himself viewed his foreign policy, at least judging by the time spent on various issues—and there were many different topics he addressed—or how important he considered diverse areas of the globe. Kennedy had initiated significant and revolutionary policy forays in disparate parts of the world from 1961 to 1963. It’s just that we have not discovered them.

Note that I have written “from 1961 to 1963”. Like many others, I have long admired Jim Douglass’ book JFK and the Unspeakable. But in the paperback edition of the book, it features as its selling tag, “A Cold Warrior Turns.” Today, I also think that this is a myth. John Kennedy’s unorthodox and pioneering foreign policy was pretty much formed before he entered the White House. And it goes back to Saigon in 1951 and his meeting with State Department official Edmund Gullion. Incredibly, no author in the JFK assassination field ever mentioned Gullion’s name until Douglass did. Yet, after viewing these presentations, the reader will see that perhaps no other single person had the influence Gullion did on Kennedy’s foreign policy. In a very real sense, one can argue today that it was the impact of Gullion’s ideas on young Kennedy that ultimately caused his assassination.

These presentations are both empirically based. That is, they are not tainted or colored by hero worship or nostalgia. They are grounded in new facts that have been covered up for much too long. In fact, after doing this research, I came to the conclusion that there were two cover-ups enacted upon Kennedy’s death. The first was about the circumstances of his murder. That one, as Vince Salandria noted, was designed to fall apart, leaving us with a phony debate played out between the Establishment and a small, informed minority. The second cover-up was about who Kennedy actually was. This cover-up was supposed to hold forever. And, as it happens, it held for about fifty years. But recent research by authors like Robert Rakove and Philip Muehlenbeck, taking their cue from Richard Mahoney’s landmark book, JFK: Ordeal in Africa, have shown that Kennedy was not a moderate liberal in the world of foreign policy. Far from it. When studied in its context—that is, what preceded it and what followed it—Kennedy’s foreign policy was clearly the most farsighted, visionary, and progressive since Franklin Roosevelt. And in the seventy years since FDR’s death, there is no one even in a close second place.

This is why the cover-up in this area had to be so tightly held, to the point it was institutionalized. So history became nothing but politics. Authors like Robert Dallek, Richard Reeves, and Herbert Parmet, among others, were doing the bidding of the Establishment. Which is why their deliberately censored versions of Kennedy were promoted in the press and why they got interviewed on TV. It also explains why the whole School of Scandal industry, led by people like David Heymann, prospered. It was all deliberate camouflage. As the generals, in that fine film Z, said about the liberal leader they had just murdered, Let us knock the halo off his head.

But there had to be a reason for such a monstrous exercise to take hold. And indeed there was. I try to present here the reasons behind its almost maniacal practice. An area I have singled out for special attention was the Middle East. Many liberal bystanders ask: Why is the JFK case relevant today? Well, because the mess in the Middle East now dominates both our foreign policy and the headlines, much as the Cold War did several decades ago. And the roots of the current situation lie in Kennedy’s death, whereupon President Johnson began the long process which reversed his predecessor’s policy there. I demonstrate how and why this was done, and why it was kept such a secret.

It is a literal shame this story is only coming to light today. John Kennedy was not just a good president. Nor was he just a promising president. He had all the perceptions and instincts to be a truly great president.

That is why, in my view, he was murdered. And why the dual cover-ups ensued. There is little doubt, considering all this new evidence, that the world would be a much different and better place today had he lived. Moreover, by only chasing Vietnam and Cuba, to the neglect of everything else, we have missed the bigger picture. For Kennedy’s approach in those two areas of conflict is only an extension of a larger gestalt view of the world, one that had been formed many years prior to his becoming president.

That we all missed so much for so long shows just how thoroughly and deliberately it had been concealed.

===

see top link for these below

==

JFK's Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder (2013 version)

JFK's Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder (2014 version)

The Government Employment Report: Theater Of The Absurd

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-government-employment-report-theater-of-the-absurd/

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-government-employment-report-theater-of-the-absurd/#MfHGoDKRMkrWhyTz.99

Handcuffs, Leg Shackles and Tasers: The New Face of Punishment in the Public Schools

May 11th, 2015

http://investmentwatchblog.com/handcuffs-leg-shackles-and-tasers-the-new-face-of-punishment-in-the-public-schools-2/

=============================================================

Ex-Police Chief Caught Stealing $60,000 From Christmas Toy Fund For Needy Children

Officials say a forensic analyst determined Buffis took "nearly all" of hundreds of individual donations meant for poor children to write checks to "cash," himself, various credit cards and his own bank between 1999 and 2012.

=

By AP | May 11, 2015

http://www.mintpressnews.com/ex-police-chief-caught-stealing-60000-from-needy-childrens-christmas-toy-fund/205514/

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

JFK: The Ruby Connection, Gary Mack's Follies - Part One
By James DiEugenio

------------
http://www.ctka.net/2009/ruby_mack.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JFK: The Ruby Connection, Gary Mack's Follies Continued
Part Two
By James DiEugenio

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

http://www.ctka.net/2009/ruby_mack_2.html

=============
JFK: The Ruby Connection, Gary Mack's Follies Continued
Part Three, Gary Mack Replies: Doctor Faustus Defends His Deal
By James DiEugenio

http://www.ctka.net/2009/ruby_mack_3.html

=============
Inside the Target Car, Part Three
How Gary Mack became Dan Rather
By James DiEugenio

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

=======================================

Gary Mack Strikes Again
by Jim DiEugenio
Mar. 7, 2013

http://www.ctka.net/2013/Gary_Mack_A-Z.html

================================================
Gary Mack's "Magical" Powers of Dissuasion
By Ryan Siebenthaler

Posted January 23, 2014

http://www.ctka.net/2014/mack_commentary.html

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

An Update on Gary Mack’s Power of Dissuasion over Known Facts in the JFK Assassination
And What Sort of Force is Guiding Him in This Inaccurate Research?

By Ryan Siebenthaler

http://heavensfellengazette.com/

#####################################o######################################

Saturday, 9 March 2013

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/fifteen-simple-questions-for-gary-mack.html

Fifteen simple questions for Gary Mack

Over on the CTKA.net website (here), Jim DiEugenio has posted his new article on Gary Mack entitled Gary Mack Strikes Again. In my opinion, this was a nice article for which I would like to thank Jim DiEugenio. His contribution to anything related to President Kennedy and his assassination, are always of enormous value. I think anyone interested in the truth behind the assassination (not lone gunman zealots) would agree with me.

Gary Mack is well known as the long-time curator of the 6th floor museum, located in Dealey Plaza. He is also well known for his involvement in the utterly deceitful programs; Inside the Target Car, and The Ruby connection (be sure to check out Jim DiEugenio’s reviews of these programs, here and here, if you haven’t already). As many researchers are also aware, Gary was once an ardent conspiracy advocate himself, but is now of the opinion that Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy – although he claims that he doesn’t dismiss the notion of a conspiracy altogether.

After reading through DiEugenio’s article, I have decided to publically ask Gary 15 simple questions related to the assassination of President Kennedy, and its aftermath. We all know that according to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald acting at his own behest fired three shots at the President from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Oswald then allegedly fled by Cab to his rooming house (after the bus he allegedly boarded became stuck in traffic), where he picked up “his” revolver. My discussion of Oswald’s “escape” from the TSBD can be read here.

After allegedly picking up “his” revolver, he decided for some very mysterious reason to go for a walk – instead of fleeing Dallas by bus, for example, after allegedly murdering the President in cold blood. He then allegedly encountered DPD Officer, J.D Tippit, and shot him to avoid being arrested. Oswald was then arrested at the Texas Theatre; after he allegedly tried to shoot DPD Officer, Nick McDonald (see here for my discussion of this incident).

My questions for Gary Mack are as follows:

1). If the Warren Commission had evidence that the democratically elected President of the United States was assassinated at the behest of the CIA (one of their own Government agencies), do you honestly believe that they would tell that to the American people – and the rest of the world for that matter?

2). If Oswald really did order the MC rifle using the Hidell alias – obviously in order to conceal the fact that he had ordered it, then why in God’s names did he have it delivered to his P.O box which was under his real name? (You see, doing that would have defeated the entire purpose of Oswald using an alias in the first place).

3). If Oswald really did order the MC rifle via money order, then why aren’t the stamps from the financial institutions which allegedly processed it on the order – as they must have been had it actually been processed? (See here for researcher Gil Jesus’s discussion of the money order).

4). In this press conference, when DPD chief Jesse Curry was specifically asked if Oswald had travelled to “the other side of town” by a bus, why on Earth didn’t Curry inform them that the DPD had discovered the bus transfer in Oswald’s pocket – especially in light of the fact that he had informed them that “we have heard that he [Oswald] was picked up by a Negroe, in a car”?

5). In this press conference, when DPD Chief Jesse Curry is explaining to reporters that the money order for the MC rifle had been found, and that the FBI determined Oswald’s handwriting was on the order, and that he used the name Hidell to order the rifle – why on Earth didn’t he inform them that Oswald was carrying the fake selective service card bearing the name Hidell inside his wallet when arrested? (Surely if Oswald was really carrying the card in his wallet, Curry would have told the reporters!).

6). If the DPD dispatcher, Murray Jackson, had really ordered Tippit to: “move into central Oak Cliff area” and then allegedly instructed him: “You will be at large for any emergency that comes in” after supposedly realising that the Central Oak Cliff area was being drained of Police resources, why didn’t Jackson instruct William Mentzel, the DPD Officer assigned to the central Oak Cliff area, to be at large for an emergency in his own patrol district?

7). If DPD Sgt Gerald Hill had no involvement in the assassination, why did he lie about his actions following the President’s assassination, as I demonstrated in this article?

8). If there were really three shots fired from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, then how do you explain the fact that Bonnie Ray Williams told the Dallas Sheriff’s Office on the day of the assassination, and the FBI on the following day, that he heard only TWO shots above him? (I trust you are aware of all the problems with the spent shell casing designated as Ce543).

9). Why should anyone believe that Harold Norman actually heard the bolt of the rifle being worked and the spent shell casings hitting the floor above him, when he made absolutely no mention of this during his initial interview with the FBI on the 26th of November?

10). Why did it, miraculously, take an entire two weeks for the DPD to take a statement from Johnny Brewer; the man who allegedly lead the Dallas Police to Texas Theatre, where they arrested the accused murderer of not only one of their own Officers, but also the President? (Need I add that Julia Postal, the Texas Theatre cashier who allegedly called the Police, didn’t provide an affidavit to the DPD until the 4th of December).

11). If Oswald’s lunchroom encounter with Roy Truly and DPD Officer Marrion baker did actually occur, then why didn’t Baker mention this in his affidavit on the day of the assassination – claiming instead that he encountered a man walking away from the stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor?

12). There were no DPD Officers, FBI agents, or Secret Service agents assigned to the parking lot behind the picket fence during the assassination, so who was the man whom Dallas deputy Sheriff W.W “Bo” Mabra claimed he encountered there (and whom Mabra believed was a City Officer) following the assassination?

13). If President Kennedy was really hit in the back by a MC bullet (which has a diameter of 6.8mm), then why was the wound only 7 by 4mm, as measured during his autopsy?

14). If Sergio Arcacha Smith had no involvement in the assassination, do you honestly believe it is just a coincidence that he was identified as one of Rose Cheramie’s companions at the silver slipper – and also had diagrams of the Dealey Plaza Sewer system in his apartment?

15). Why should anyone believe that Charles Givens was being truthful when he claimed that he last observed Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at approximately 11:55 am – when he made absolutely no mention of this during his initial interview with the FBI on the 23rd of November?

I could easily have asked many more questions, but I didn’t want to overwhelm Gary with too many questions. Now, if Gary is willing to answer any or all of my above questions, he can post his answers below as a comment, or alternatively, he can email me at g.hasan.yusuf@gmail.com. I think all of the above questions are important, and I would greatly appreciate reasonable answers.

I also encourage the defenders of lone gunman myth – who are certain that Oswald was the President’s assassin, to provide answers to the above questions. Let me state that I reserve the right to post any privately emailed answers to my questions on my blog, along with my responses to those answers.

If Gary Mack and others have a problem with me posting their answers to the above questions on my blog, then they should simply not provide any answers. However, if Gary is really interested in only the truth behind the assassination; as he claims, then he should have absolutely no problem with publically providing answers to my questions.

(Gaal)

Plot never brought to the stage has SDECE agent Phillipe de Vosjoli kill SDECE agent Michel Victor Mertz . James Jesus Angleton's man Phillipe de Vosjoli finds made up "evidence" linking Oswald-Mertz and Moscow communist penetrated SDECE. Additionally evidence of communist penetrated SDECE is "found' linking the SDECE to De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS is exonerated in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS gains more prominence. SDECE is taken down a peg. False hero Phillipe de Vosjoli is moved upward in SDECE hierarchy conducting a communist purge under the direction of James Jesus Angleton. (SEE POST # 16 above)

===================================================================================================

• James Jesus Angleton, former CIA chief of counterintelligence 1954-1975
• James Jesus Angleton had made many enemies at the CIA
• Mary Ferrell through FOIA suit 1977 obtained CIA document #632-796 dated April 1, 1964
• MEMO RELEASED TO STICK IT TO Angleton (why it was released)
• =====================================================

The memo, stamped “SECRET” and dated April 1, 1964, reads as follows:

Jean SOUETRE aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz – On March 5, Dr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attaché in Paris and also the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on the morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe that he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderman living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of de Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS [u.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service]. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed on to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/776,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE.
=========================================================

• James Angleton to Seymour Hersh:

Angleton is implying that the CIA murdered John Kennedy

"In December 1974, pursued by the dogged Seymour Hersh, who was then investigating the CIA’s illegal domestic operations for the New York Times, Angleton suddenly blurted to the reporter, “A mansion has many rooms … I’m not privy to who struck John.” What did the cryptic remark mean? I would be absolutely misleading you if I thought I had any xxxxing idea,” says Hersh today. “But my instinct about it is he basically was laying off [blame] on somebody else inside the CIA, and the whole purpose of the conversation was to convince me to go after somebody else and not him. And also that he was a completely crazy f__king old fart.”" [David Talbot, Brothers, p. 274]

RELATED

=====================

Voting fraud? George Galloway launches legal battle over election defeat

http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/voting-fraud-george-galloway-launches-legal-battle-over-election-defeat/

Former MP George Galloway has launched a legal challenge over his defeat at Thursday’s general election and claims to have evidence of “malpractice” in postal voting.

Galloway won the Bradford West seat in a 2012 by-election but lost it to Labour candidate Naz Shah on Thursday, who secured a majority of more than 11,000 votes.

history that never was....but could have been......

========================================================================================================
http://educationforu...=21126&p=287009
According to Neuville, « There are no coincidences in the suspicion business—just cover-ups. The case of communist infiltration of the French secret service was an appropriate cover-up to justify the presence of Colonel deLannurien at Langley, Virginia. » (653)
LHO was to die at Tippit or theater Lower level conspirators know LHO is to die (and dont like it ) and kept LHO alive hoping he would spew pro-Castro-Communist rhetoric, creating overthrow Castro. Plot never brought to the stage has SDECE agent Phillipe de Vosjoli kill SDECE agent Michel Victor Mertz . James Jesus Angleton's man Phillipe de Vosjoli finds made up "evidence" linking Oswald-Mertz and Moscow communist penetrated SDECE. Additionally evidence of communist penetrated SDECE is "found' linking the SDECE to De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS is exonerated in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS gains more prominence. SDECE is taken down a peg. False hero Phillipe de Vosjoli is moved upward in SDECE hierarchy conducting a communist purge under the direction of James Jesus Angleton.
###########################################################################################################################################################
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

=
(James Jesus Angleton is meeting with high ranking official of SDECE on 11/22/63 , Colonel deLannurien , at Langley, Virginia . JJA ready to blame "Communist Infiltrator" in SDECE if necessary. FOREKNOWLEDGE ,GAAL)

=
To understand the role of the "French Connection" one should read Henrik Kruger's excellent book The Great Heroin Coup where he unravels Nixon's plan to develop a new drug superagency to control world heroin trade. Nixon's public declaration in June 1971 of his war on heroin promptly led to his assemblage of White House Plumbers, Cubans, and even "hit squads" with the avowed purpose of combating the international narcotics traffic. The "great heroin coup" – the "remarkable shift" from Marseilles (Corsican) to Southeast Asian and Mexican (Mafia) heroin in the United States – was a deliberate move to reconstruct and redirect the heroin trade, rather than to eliminate it. And that Cuban exiles, Santo Trafficante, the CIA, and the Nixon White House were all involved. The major points from Kruger's book are:
⦁ Edward Lansdale and Lucien Conein began the war against the Corsican mafia in southeast Asia and paved the way for the CIA and Trafficante in that area.
⦁ Lansky and Trafficante made all the necessary arrangements in southeast Asia to assume control of the opium production with the help of CIA.
⦁ In 1971 the great heroin coup was underway. Cuban exiles were involved in the White House drug operation with E.H.Hunt and Lucien Conein. The US drug enforcement agencies waged an all out war against the Corsican/Marseilles/Turkey/USA drug network, i.e. against the French Connection. The French connection network was run by CIA's arch-enemies, the French intelligence SDECE who were loyal to DeGaulle, and were competing with CIA over the control of the world heroin trade. The CIA achieved two things with the heroin coup. To take over the heroin trade from the French and second with the help of their ally, Pompidou the new French President, to crush the old Gaullist intelligence network.
⦁ The CIA faction associated with the heroin coup was the China/SE Asia/Cuba lobby, and E. H. Hunt was the main representative of that lobby.
⦁ When the French network was defeated, heroin began flowing into the USA from SE Asia and Mexico. And the man Hunt named as a shooter behind the picket fence, Lucien Sarti was one of the victims of this war when he was killed in Mexico on April 1972.
From the above, one could conclude that the CIA, in their effort to crush this Corsican and SDECE network, blamed them for the assassination of JFK, labeling them as false sponsors of the plot. This is evident in Steve Rivele's original false theory, the one that ran on the first installment of The Men Who Killed Kennedy. It may be echoed in E. H. Hunt's deathbed confession that Lucien Sarti was the shooter behind the picket fence. Lamar Waldron names Michel Victor Mertz as one of the assassins, a man who was a member of SDECE and an enemy of OAS, the organization that tried to murder Charles DeGaulle, the same man that saved DeGaulle's life. Which makes Corsi's reliance on Waldron and this idea that the Diem heroin dynasty, the American and Marseille mafia were responsible for the assassination look kind of silly.
Corsi discusses the French Connection and a CIA released document confirming that a French assassin was apprehended in Dallas on November 1963. The memo names this assassin as Jean Souetre, a.k.a. Michel Roux, a.k.a Michel Mertz. Now Corsi makes the mistake of repeatedly calling him a Corsican hit man. In reality neither of these men were Corsican, but Frenchmen from the mainland. The OAS hated JFK for supporting Algerian independence. Eugene Dinkin a US army code breaker referred to in Dick Russell's, The Man who Knew too Much, discovered a message that JFK was to be assassinated in November. Dinkin was stationed in Metz, France and one of his duties was to decipher cable traffic originating with the OAS.
Souetre gave an interview later which confused things even more. He claimed that he was in Spain that day, not Dallas, and that he could prove it. He said that a man named Michel Victor Mertz, a narcotics smuggler and SDECE agent, was actually impersonating him in order to leave a trail that could lead, not back to Mertz, but to his enemy Souetre. Of course it could have been the other way round: it was Souetre who was impersonating Mertz. Michel Victor Mertz was an agent of SDECE, the agency that was competing with the CIA for the control of drug supplies. James Jesus Angleton was in contact with SDECE and especially a man named Phillipe de Vosjoli, who many believe was spying against his country for Angleton.
A third alternative is that neither Mertz nor Souetre were involved in the assassination. And this dual confusion of two men using each other's name was deliberately designed to confuse researchers and again create a cognitive dissonance were everything is possible but nothing is certain. We recognize again the so familiar wilderness of mirrors strategy of "CIA's Magicians" at work.
+++++++++++
+++++++++++
FROM DEEP POLITICS FORUM
###################
Jan Klimkowski
01-12-2012, 07:15 PM
===============
The Angleton Connection

In regard to the second question, leads to the CIA's notorious chief of counter-intelligence, James Jesus Angleton, had emanated from the Rosal case. Specifically, inside Ambassador Rosal's pocket at the time of his arrest was the address of Stig Wennerstrom, a former Swedish military attaché to the United States, and a close friend of Philippe de Vosjoli. De Vosjoli at the time was the French intelligence service's liaison to Angleton. But more importantly, de Vosjoli was also a double-agent working for Angleton against his own country.

By de Vosjoli's account, Wennerstrom was "an associate" of several French intelligence officers stationed in Washington. De Vosjoli's charge led Angleton to believe that the Soviet intelligence service, the KGB, had penetrated the French intelligence service, SDECE. In Angleton's mind, this belief was confirmed in December 1961 by the famous KGB defector, Anatoly Golitsyn. And for this reason, Angleton, who had long been associated with Irving Brown, apparently decided to penetrate the French drug-smuggling milieu, as a way of uncovering further evidence that SDECE, which had long been involved in smuggling narcotics out of Indochina, was penetrated by the KGB. And Angleton's use of drug smugglers as counter-intelligence agents brings us back to the first question: who were Irving Brown and Carmel Offie?

Briefly, Irving Brown was a disciple of Jay Lovestone, who in the 1920s was the leader of America's Communist Party. But after a dispute with Stalin in 1929, Lovestone defected, and with Brown's help, began rooting Communists out of American labor unions. In return for his counter-espionage work, Brown was assigned as the AFL's representative to the War Production Board during World War II, and afterwards began to work for the CIA under AFL cover in Europe and Africa.
================================
Christer Forslund
01-12-2012, 08:09 PM

The Angleton Connection

=

In regard to the second question, leads to the CIA's notorious chief of counter-intelligence, James Jesus Angleton, had emanated from the Rosal case. Specifically, inside Ambassador Rosal's pocket at the time of his arrest was the address of Stig Wennerstrom, a former Swedish military attaché to the United States, and a close friend of Philippe de Vosjoli. De Vosjoli at the time was the French intelligence service's liaison to Angleton. But more importantly, de Vosjoli was also a double-agent working for Angleton against his own country.

By de Vosjoli's account, Wennerstrom was "an associate" of several French intelligence officers stationed in Washington. De Vosjoli's charge led Angleton to believe that the Soviet intelligence service, the KGB, had penetrated the French intelligence service, SDECE. In Angleton's mind, this belief was confirmed in December 1961 by the famous KGB defector, Anatoly Golitsyn.

A further note on Wennerström, (from Wikipedia):

Stig Erik Constans Wennerström (August 22, 1906 – March 22, 2006) was a colonel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel) in the Swedish Air Force (http://en.wikipedia....edish_Air_Force) who was convicted of espionage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage) in 1964.

During the 1950s, he leaked the Swedish air defence plans and the entire Saab Draken (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Saab_Draken) fighter jet project to the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia....ki/Soviet_Union). He also worked as a military attaché (http://en.wikipedia....litary_attaché) in Washington, DC (http://en.wikipedia..../Washington,_DC), where he was very useful to the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU). He also served in the same role in Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow).
====
Vasilios Vazakas
01-24-2012, 11:49 AM
We all know about the CIA ducument saying that Jean Souetre was in Fort Worth on the morning of Nov.22 1963 and in Dallas the afternoon of the same day.
There is a dispute a to wether the man in question was Jean Souetre or Michel Victor Mertz.

1. Jean Souetre
Member of the French OAS, assassination attempts against DeGaulle. The OAS hated JFK for supporting the Algeria independence.
Souetre was in conduct with Banister and E.H.Hunt, perhaps for operations against Fidel Castro, not necessarily to murder JFK, but it could be possible tha he was.
Eugene Dinkin a US army code breaker (the man who knew too much) discovered a messsage that JFK was to be assassinated in November.
Dinkin was staged in Metz France and one of his duties was to decipher cable trafficking originating with the OAS.
Souetre gave an interview later and claimed that he was in Spain and not in Dallas and that he could prove it.
He said that a man named Michel Victor Mertz, a narcotics smuggler and SDECE agent was impersonating him in order
to leave a trail that could lead not back to Mertz but to his enemy Souetre. Of course it could have been the other way round and it was Souetre
who was impersonating Mertz.

2. Michel Victor Mertz was an agent of SDECE. James Jesus Angleton was in contact with SDECE and especially a man
named Phillipe de Vosjoli that many believe that he was spying against his country for Angeton. Now most of us accept that Angleton
was one of the main facilitators of the plot specially in framing Oswald. If he was also the facilitator that organized the shooters he
might have asked Vosjoli's help to recruit shooters from the French underworld connected to either the OAS or the SDECE.

3. A third alternative is that neither Mertz or Souetre were involved in the assassination and this dual confussion of two men using its other's
name was deliberately designed to confuse researchers and again create a cognitive dissonance were everything is possible but nothing is certain.
Similar to two Z films, two autopsies two everything.

It is more likely that the shooters came from the ranks of CIA special ops soldiers staged in Laos or Vietnam with no loose ends and connections that can be
traced back to their origins, like French terrorists, heroin smugglers or French agents could be traced.

MULTI-ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LINK SITE

========================================

http://energy.xanadu-fx.com/ (give it a few moments to load up site)