Steven Gaal

Became friends with a US Vietnam Photographic Intelligence Officer. Vietnam Communists would use disguises and also be seruptisiously photographed by the US side. After capture or death of said disguised Communist a comparison was made of ear structure to previous seruptisiously made photographs. To find identity of disguised or doubles assets >> it is best to check ear structure.,gaal ....>>>>>>>> D'oh !!

Yes but he could be a sneak. Dulles and Prescott Bush went to Saudi Arabia in the early 1930s to pick off a little of the British oil deals. But yes he was mostly following orders of the elites. ,GAAL

TWO OSWALDS, the Baylor documents via Garrison investigation (of the first LHO Hernandez arrest) indicate a timeframe explained by a double LHO . ,gaal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-120825-173.html by Bill Simpich " The CIA examined Celso Hernandez as a Castro penetration agent There is an intriguing report of FPCC member Oswald being arrested with Celso Hernandez in New Orleans in late 1962 (see pp. 6-7, (follow-up at pp. 16-18) The ID of Hernandez was made years later and is admittedly shaky. The ID of Oswald is more substantive, as he id'd himself to the police as an FPCC member - but he was living in the Dallas area. The story is that the two men were picked up at the lakefront in Celso's work truck, owned by an electronics firm that was Celso's employer. The most important thing is that right about this time, Bill Harvey - who worked both the wiretapping side and the Cuban beat for the CIA during 1962 - was tipped off on 10/1/62 that Celso Hernandez might be a communist. This kicked off an investigation that revealed in the autumn of 1963 that there was a left-wing Celso and a right-wing Celso, and a brother and sister who couldn't agree on who was who. [33] Oswald and Celso Hernandez were arrested together again in August 1963. What we do know is that throughout this era, Hernandez was under close scrutiny as a possible pro-Castro infiltrator. Below, we see Oswald's interactions with Carlos and Celso. == [33] Bill Harvey - who worked both the wiretapping side and the Cuban beat for the CIA during 1962 - was tipped off on 10/1/62 that Celso Hernandez might be a communist: For the 1962 Oswald-Hernandez arrest, see memo from investigator John Volz to DA Jim Garrison, 3/1/67, pp. 6-7, (follow-up at pp. 16-18) RIF# 180-10085-10407. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/41827/rec/3 ======= "

" US troops 'have landed in Iraq to help Kurds liberate ISIS stronghold' (DIS INFO ?????????? ,gaal) 22:59, 20 August 2015 By Sam Webb http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/troops-have-landed-iraq-help-6289686 The soldiers have landed on the outskirts of terrorist stronghold Mosul, according to a Facebook page affiliated to the Kurd militants "

RELATED ================= link to below >>>>> http://govtslaves.info/anti-vaccine-activists-being-targeted-by-big-pharma-hit-squad/ " (NaturalHealth365) Mandatory vaccination bills have dominated news headlines – especially in California, where SB277 was recently signed into law, stripping parents of their rights to opt children out of the mandatory immunizations required to attend school. Anti-vaccine activists have not been silent on their opposition to the bill and their belief that big pharma profit margins are the driving force behind the bill – not concern for public health and safety. After all, drug companies have resorted to crooked and underhanded techniques in the past in an effort to hide safety information about their medications and the serious dangers they present to unknowing consumers. Now, big pharma seems to be stepping up their schemes and taking them to a whole new level of maliciousness. In fact, some outspoken anti-vaccine activists are now being targeted by big pharma hit squads intent on using intimidation tactics to silence those who would shed light on the dangers of vaccines and the injustice posed by new vaccine laws. Proof: Big pharma bullies will stop at nothing to silence ‘problem people’ On July 31st, Brandy Vaughan – a mother and anti-vaccine activist – published the following video online to document the horrible techniques big pharma has used to intimidate her into silence. Check it out – in her own words – below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuTXlCGjqMc In the video, Vaughan reveals that intruders had entered her home while she attended rallies against SB277. Despite installing a high-end security system, the intruders returned again and again, leaving subtle but disturbing messages to let Vaughan know she was being watched and listened to. "

Mr. Parker "feels" he has answers to numbers one to ten. Lets take a look outside of the Armstrong box ,so to speak. Mr. TIDD please TAKE NOTE and read THIS THREAD LINK ., gaal >>>>>> "Where was Oswald in 1962? " http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18030

Okay, so it says in the report that "Kardos" and "Weinstock" were not his relatives, just communists thrown into the mix for no known reason, and this obviated any need to decide that they were not the relatives referred to earlier. Now just point that part of the report out, sport. What "time" does the FBI report to? Kindly point it out in the report? The editor of a two-bit commie paper is a "prominent" job. I guess it is if you desperately need to it to be. But in the real world, the best you could expect by way of payment, would be having some basic living expenses recompensed to you. You know... like the caller said...."they got their money from communists". "she knew Oswald's father and uncle" ...."stated she had two names to give..." For that, and other reasons already explained, I believe she was naming the alleged father and uncle. You keep claiming that the report is clear that the names are in relation to other matters. Don't just claim it. Show me. As for Steve's claim that Gardos was not in the US "at the time"... what's your point? Show me where it specifies a time-frame as to when she knew these people. Acordint to Stevo, Gardos was deported in the 1940s. Oswald was born when... 1939 ring a bell? You can't even say he never returned. It was under the Smith Act which, if memory serves, had little success at being upheld when appealed. As for the rest of your spleen-fest,,, you are simply losing the plot in a very public setting. Again. Your attempts to turn the tables are simply sad projections, David. LINK INFO BELOW https://archive.org/stream/FBI-Operation-Solo/100-HQ-428091-Serial5916-5985_djvu.txt "CGairtel 10/24/66 entitled ^50L0._ IS-C" furnished information indicating that the imminent' return^ of the subject to the United States is anticipated* Chicago should furnish details to Milwaukee and Springfield* Milwaukee and New York should determine if the , subject has returned to the United States. Also determine whether she is working for the Communist Party an<3 in what capacity . Springfield should contact SI 131-S to determine if he has received any information concerning the subject's return but this contact must be made cost discreetly in order to protect CG 5324-S. The Bureau desires to consider some counter- intelligence action against the subject. In this connection, Milwaukee is requested to prepare a blind memorandum setting out all public source data ■ concerning the subject. Handle promptly in order that any counterintelligence action approved by the Bureau will be timely, MA <? A<0h^ £ - Cnlcago NOT Br '"ORBED .X, ig ^55 2 - New York (100-7409) 98 NOV 18 1966 ™ 1 - Springfield (100-9497) _ KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940* s for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 during which she visited her relatives in Los Angeles and Milwaukee, all of whom are active CP members. Her brother is Fred Blair, Milwaukee CP leader. Arrangements were made in late 1964 to take some counter- " )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) NO < reading the full text he ,GARDOS< never came back, the FBI would have said so. ,gaal

I thought GARDOS WAS DEPORTED FROM THE COUNTRY BEFORE 1950 ??.,gaal. http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/united-states-congress-senate-committee-on-the/communist-activities-among-aliens-and-national-groups-hearings-before-the-subco-tin/page-51-communist-activities-among-aliens-and-national-groups-hearings-before-the-subco-tin.shtml" " Emil Gardos, 217 East Eighty-sixth Street, New York, N. Y. Amalia Gardos, 217 East Eighty-sixth Street, New York, N. Y. Beatrice Smoliga, Clifton, N. J. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of August 1949 at Clifton, N. J. [seal] Loretta O. Schleich, A Notary Puhlio of New Jersey, My commission expires October 1951." ============== [PDF]Categories( click to retract ) - The Vault - FBI https://vault.fbi.gov/.../solo-part-109-of-1... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ⦁ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qm1CnU-sE3UJ:https://vault.fbi.gov/solo/solo-part-109-of-114+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us "Federal Bureau of Investigation that in regard to the negotiations concerning GRACE GARDOS' release, he had on ... band voluntarily acceptéd deportation from the United States. Up to the present ... communist newspaper, 'udE est, Her husband Emil is living in Budapest in ..." =================== https://vault.fbi.gov/solo/solo-part-109-of-114 GARDOS RETIRED IN HUNGARY 1966,gaal ========== ================= https://archive.org/stream/FBI-Operation-Solo/100-HQ-428091-Serial5916-5985_djvu.txt " CGairtel 10/24/66 entitled ^50L0._ IS-C" furnished information indicating that the imminent' return^ of the subject to the United States is anticipated* Chicago should furnish details to Milwaukee and Springfield* Milwaukee and New York should determine if the , subject has returned to the United States. Also determine whether she is working for the Communist Party an<3 in what capacity . Springfield should contact SI 131-S to determine if he has received any information concerning the subject's return but this contact must be made cost discreetly in order to protect CG 5324-S. The Bureau desires to consider some counter- intelligence action against the subject. In this connection, Milwaukee is requested to prepare a blind memorandum setting out all public source data ■ concerning the subject. Handle promptly in order that any counterintelligence action approved by the Bureau will be timely, MA <? A<0h^ £ - Cnlcago NOT Br '"ORBED .X, ig ^55 2 - New York (100-7409) 98 NOV 18 1966 ™ 1 - Springfield (100-9497) _ KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940* s for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 during which she visited her relatives in Los Angeles and Milwaukee, all of whom are active CP members. Her brother is Fred Blair, Milwaukee CP leader. Arrangements were made in late 1964 to take some counter- " ######################################################################################################################### http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19051022.html " EMIL KARDOS was born 22 October 1905, received Social Security number 090-07-2878 (indicating New York) and, Death Master File says, died February 1981. For more information, click here (free), then check Archives and PeopleSmart "

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ======================== Australians have lots of private guns (get them back) Money disappears from the BANKS (Blamed on Chinese Hackers, but really done by Australia NSA facilities) ============================================================ Evan Burton activated with others to protect against civil unrest. ================================================== please read the article which asked questions and did not make predictions. FROM ARTICLE What are your thoughts? Is Jade Helm a concern or just another conspiracy theory lacking evidence? Leave your thoughts below. If one actually read my material instead of living in a dream world ,you would know there is no action against the USA people till RUSSIA falls into the Ango/American/Globalist netwoirk. , gaal ===================== ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ old post The fall of Russia is a eschatological necessity for the future history of the Book of Revelation to become real/true = see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21247&p=287707 Post WW2 World Order: US Planned to Wipe USSR Out by Massive Nuclear Strike = http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150815/1025789574.html Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150815/1025789574.html#ixzz3jIgkW8DU

I wanted to return to this pile of misunderstanding Parker once again fosters on everyone as FACT... unlike Armstrong, you can't read a report correctly. The two names you get into at your link, "WEINSTOCK" and "(edit M KARDOS"), have nothing to do with the "father" or "uncle". Weinstock as you can read, is an editor at Woman's World while Mardos is the "head of the communists"... she doesn't say that these two are the "father and uncle" she is describing at all... she claims "both were unemployed" kind of eliminates Weinstock, no? you wrote at your link: "The mystery woman mentioned two names, "Weinstock" and "Emile Kardos", said to be Oswald's father and uncle who were Hungarian Communists. She also kept mentioning, without clarification, the term, "brother-in-law"." So once again you go off half-cocked with your assumptions about what is said, when what is actually said has nothing to do with your explanation which you now will forever present as FACT... The reference to "Woman's World" is probably a resullt of two distinct memory lapses (or one memory lapse and one mishearing) Key word being "PROBABLY" as in another of your assumptions without proof. (edit M Kardos), head of the communists, could not be the one supplying these men money... right? At least in her mind? If she knew their names, can we assume she would use them when discussing these two men? Disgraceful Greg. Every time anyone looks at your "sources" or your interpretation of the actual evidence, it's a joke. You then head off into the wrong direction with more assumptions and beliefs which become your "facts to be refuted" - yet still prove nothing. Maybe this woman and the Oxnard woman are related - what with your belief in Radionics and all Assuming that the phone call has any validity at all, I believe this may have been a reference to one of John Pic's brothers-in-law, either George Clifford Parishor John Ebel. "I believe" Greg? and you then offer a silly closed loop corroboration of the info by claiming there are connections where none exist. Link your reader to the document you are paraphrasing so they can see what you are doing Greg... you don't like doing that since you are wrong every single time... Can others read this and come to the conclusion the caller is stating that these two names are the father and uncle... iow your conclusion.... ?? Guess we'll see. Davo, 1. The name of the two gentlemen were Louis Weinstock and Emil GARDOS. It was not Armstrong who discovered the ID of the second man. It was me, 2. You don't know what she said. We are both interpreting her words through the FBI. 3. Yes, I can read, I can also research. Give it a try some day! Despite what the FBI report states, Weinstock was the editor of WORKER'S WORLD not Woman's World. 4. She did use their names. Weinstock and Gardos. She then explained that they were Oswald's father and uncle.She also said the father and uncle lived in Yorkville... a Jewish enclave. Weinstock and Gardos were... what David.... Jehovah's Witnesses? 5. Yes, she claims both were unemployed. Do you believe the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of three is getting paid? What are they putting in the water in Sacramento? It's barely possible he received a small annual stipend, but I would doubt that as well. 6. You don't like qualifiers like "I believe" but then attack when you think something is presented as a fact if you disagree with it. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh, China? I guess you are going to have to phone Armstrong and give him the lecture too. "John Armstrong believes the FBI and the Warren Commission distorted..." "But it is easy to believe the FBI, through their undercover..." "time was of the essence and this material, I believe, was returned ..." "crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe that Westbrook was the person..." therealhardlyleedotnutsitenotthedoppelgangersiteputupbyparker ---------------- I take this as a concession on every other point -- otherwise I'm sure you would have had plenty to say. Not about anything of course. And certainly not directly addressing anything. Just more loud yabber. I thought GARDOS WAS DEPORTED FROM THE COUNTRY BEFORE 1950 ??.,gaal. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19360307&id=XRQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1A0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6654,896568&hl=en ============================ Patriots and Proletarians: Politicizing Hungarian ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0773511741 Carmela Patrias - 1994 - ‎History CHAPTER SEVEN 1 Recollections of Emil Gardos, Memoirs of Hungarian Communists Abroad, H-g-i84, IPH (Budapest); Munkas, 21 July 1932. 2 Puskás ... ================= https://archive.org/stream/FBI-Operation-Solo/100-HQ-428091-Serial5916-5985_djvu.txt CGairtel 10/24/66 entitled ^50L0._ IS-C" furnished information indicating that the imminent' return^ of the subject to the United States is anticipated* Chicago should furnish details to Milwaukee and Springfield* Milwaukee and New York should determine if the , subject has returned to the United States. Also determine whether she is working for the Communist Party an<3 in what capacity . Springfield should contact SI 131-S to determine if he has received any information concerning the subject's return but this contact must be made cost discreetly in order to protect CG 5324-S. The Bureau desires to consider some counter- intelligence action against the subject. In this connection, Milwaukee is requested to prepare a blind memorandum setting out all public source data ■ concerning the subject. Handle promptly in order that any counterintelligence action approved by the Bureau will be timely, MA <? A<0h^ £ - Cnlcago NOT Br '"ORBED .X, ig ^55 2 - New York (100-7409) 98 NOV 18 1966 ™ 1 - Springfield (100-9497) _ KOTK : The subject is married to Emil Gardos, a long-time CP member who was deported from the United States in the , 1940* s for communist activity* Subject was also a CP member in the United States and left to join her husband in Hungary in 1948. She has lived in Hungary since that time with the exception of a visit in 1964 during which she visited her relatives in Los Angeles and Milwaukee, all of whom are active CP members. Her brother is Fred Blair, Milwaukee CP leader. Arrangements were made in late 1964 to take some counter-

FBI Evidence Proves Innocence of Accused Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev = By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Global Research, August 18, 2015 =============================================== http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-evidence-proves-innocence-of-accused-boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/5469773 == The documents argue that on the basis of the evidence provided by the FBI, there is no basis for the indictment of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The FBI’s evidence clearly concludes that the bomb was in a black knapsack, but the photographs used to establish Dzhokhar’s presence at the marathon show him with a white knapsack. Moreover, the knapsack lacks the heavy bulging appearance that a knapsack containing a bomb would have. read more at link

FROM LOCKED THREAD on this "EDUCATION" forum. ,gaal --- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21189&p=286753 -- A New Book Transforms Our Understanding of What the Vietnam War Actually WasCross-posted with TomDispatch.com For half a century we have been arguing about “the Vietnam War.” Is it possible that we didn’t know what we were talking about? After all that has been written (some 30,000 books and counting), it scarcely seems possible, but such, it turns out, has literally been the case. Now, in Kill Anything that Moves, Nick Turse has for the first time put together a comprehensive picture, written with mastery and dignity, of what American forces actually were doing in Vietnam. The findings disclose an almost unspeakable truth. Meticulously piecing together newly released classified information, court-martial records, Pentagon reports, and firsthand interviews in Vietnam and the United States, as well as contemporaneous press accounts and secondary literature, Turse discovers that episodes of devastation, murder, massacre, rape, and torture once considered isolated atrocities were in fact the norm, adding up to a continuous stream of atrocity, unfolding, year after year, throughout that country. It has been Turse’s great achievement to see that, thanks to the special character of the war, its prime reality -- an accurate overall picture of what physically was occurring on the ground -- had never been assembled; that with imagination and years of dogged work this could be done; and that even a half-century after the beginning of the war it still should be done. Turse acknowledges that, even now, not enough is known to present this picture in statistical terms. To be sure, he offers plenty of numbers -- for instance the mind-boggling estimates that during the war there were some two million civilians killed and some five million wounded, that the United States flew 3.4 million aircraft sorties, and that it expended 30 billion pounds of munitions, releasing the equivalent in explosive force of 640 Hiroshima bombs. Yet it would not have been enough to simply accumulate anecdotal evidence of abuses. Therefore, while providing an abundance of firsthand accounts, he has supplemented this approach. Like a fabric, a social reality -- a town, a university, a revolution, a war -- has a pattern and a texture. No fact is an island. Each one is rich in implications, which, so to speak, reach out toward the wider area of the surrounding facts. When some of these other facts are confirmed, they begin to reveal the pattern and texture in question. Turse repeatedly invites us to ask what sort of larger picture each story implies. For example, he writes: “If one man and his tiny team could claim more KIAs [killed in action] than an entire battalion without raising red flags among superiors; if a brigade commander could up the body count by picking off civilians from his helicopter with impunity; if a top general could institutionalize atrocities through the profligate use of heavy firepower in areas packed with civilians -- then what could be expected down the line, especially among heavily armed young infantrymen operating in the field for weeks, angry, tired, and scared, often unable to locate the enemy and yet relentlessly pressed for kills?” Like a tightening net, the web of stories and reports drawn from myriad sources coalesces into a convincing, inescapable portrait of this war -- a portrait that, as an American, you do not wish to see; that, having seen, you wish you could forget, but that you should not forget; and that the facts force you to see and remember and take into account when you ask yourself what the United States has done and been in the last half century, and what it still is doing and still is. Scorched Earth in I Corps My angle of vision on these matters is a highly particular one. In early August 1967, I arrived in I Corps, the northernmost district of American military operations in what was then South Vietnam. I was there to report for the New Yorker on the “air war.” The phrase was a misnomer. The Vietnamese foe, of course, had no assets in the air in the South, and so there was no “war” of that description. There was only the unilateral bombardment of the land and people by the fantastic array of aircraft assembled by the United States in Vietnam. These ranged from the B-52, which laid down a pattern of destruction a mile long and several football fields wide; to fighter bombers capable of dropping, along with much else, 500-pound bombs and canisters of napalm; to the reconfigured DC-3 equipped with a cannon capable of firing 100 rounds per second; to the ubiquitous fleets of helicopters, large and small, that crowded the skies. All this was abetted by continuous artillery fire into “free-fire” zones and naval bombardment from ships just off the coast. By the time I arrived, the destruction of the villages in the region and the removal of their people to squalid refugee camps was approaching completion. (However, they often returned to their blasted villages, now subject to indiscriminate artillery fire.) Only a few pockets of villages survived. I witnessed the destruction of many of these in Quang Ngai and Quang Tinh provinces from the back seat of small Cessnas called Forward Air Control planes. As we floated overhead day after day, I would watch long lines of houses burst into flames one after another as troops moved through the area of operation. In the meantime, the Forward Air Controllers were calling in air strikes as requested by radio from troops on the ground. In past operations, the villagers had been herded out of the area into the camps. But this time, no evacuation had been ordered, and the population was being subjected to the full fury of a ground and air assault. A rural society was being torn to pieces before my eyes. The broad results of American actions in I Corps were thus visible and measurable from the air. No scorched earth policy had been announced but scorched earth had been the result. Still, a huge piece was missing from the puzzle. I was not able to witness most of the significant operations on the ground firsthand. I sought to interview some soldiers but they would not talk, though one did hint at dark deeds. “You wouldn’t believe it so I’m not going to tell you,” he said to me. “No one’s ever going to find out about some things, and after this war is over, and we’ve all gone home, no one is ever going to know.” In other words, like so many reporters in Vietnam, I saw mainly one aspect of one corner of the war. What I had seen was ghastly, but it was not enough to serve as a basis for generalizations about the conduct of the war as a whole. Just a few years later, in 1969, thanks to the determined efforts of a courageous soldier, Ron Ridenhour, and the persistence of a reporter, Seymour Hersh, one piece of the hidden truth about ground operations in I Corp came to light. It was the My Lai massacre, in which more than 500 civilians were murdered in cold blood by Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry, of the Americal Division. In subsequent years, news of other atrocities in the area filtered into the press, often many years after the fact. For example, in 2003 the Toledo Blade disclosed a campaign of torture and murder over a period of months, including the summary execution of two blind men by a “reconnaissance” squad called Tiger Force. Still, no comprehensive picture of the generality of ground operations in the area emerged. It has not been until the publication of Turse’s book that the everyday reality of which these atrocities were a part has been brought so fully to light. Almost immediately after the American troops arrived in I Corps, a pattern of savagery was established. My Lai, it turns out, was exceptional only in the numbers killed. Turse offers a massacre at a village called Trieu Ai in October 1967 as a paradigm. A marine company suffered the loss of a man to a booby trap near the village, which had in fact had been mostly burned down by other American forces a few days earlier. Some villagers had, however, returned for their belongings. Now, the Marine company, enraged by its loss but unable to find the enemy, entered the village firing their M-16s, setting fire to any intact houses, and tossing grenades into bomb shelters. A Marine marched a woman into a field and shot her. Another reported that there were children in the shelters that were being blown up. His superior replied, “Tough xxxx, they grow up to be VC [Vietcong].” Five or ten people rushed out of a shelter when a grenade was thrown into it. They were cut down in a hail of fire. Turse comments: “In the story of Trieu Ai one can see virtually the entire war writ small. Here was the repeated aerial bombing and artillery fire… Here was the deliberate burning of peasant homes and the relocation of villagers to refugee camps... Angry troops primed to lash out, often following losses within the unit; civilians trapped in their paths; and officers in the field issuing ambiguous or illegal orders to young men conditioned to obey -- that was the basic recipe for many of the mass killings carried out by army soldiers and marines over the years.” The savagery often extended to the utmost depravity: gratuitous torture, killing for target practice, slaughter of children and babies, gang rape. Consider the following all-too-typical actions of Company B, 1st Battalion, 35th infantry beginning in October 1967: “The company stumbled upon an unarmed young boy. 'Someone caught him up on a hill, and they brought him down and the lieutenant asked who wanted to kill him...' medic Jamie Henry later told army investigators. A radioman and another medic volunteered for the job. The radioman... ’kicked the boy in the stomach and the medic took him around behind a rock and I heard one magazine go off complete on automatic...’ “A few days after this incident, members of that same unit brutalized an elderly man to the point of collapse and then threw him off a cliff without even knowing whether he was dead or alive... “A couple of days after that, they used an unarmed man for target practice... “And less than two weeks later, members of Company B reportedly killed five unarmed women... “Unit members rattled off a litany of other brutal acts committed by the company... [including] a living woman who had an ear cut off while her baby was thrown to the ground and stomped on...” Pumping Up the Body Count Turse’s findings completed the picture of the war in I Corps for me. Whatever the policymight have been in theory, the reality, on the ground as in the air, was the scorched earth I had witnessed from the Forward Air Control planes. Whatever the United States thoughtit was doing in I Corps, it was actuallywaging systematic war against the people of the region. And so it was, as Turse voluminously documents, throughout the country. Details differed from area to area but the broad picture was the same as the one in I Corps. A case in point is the war in the Mekong Delta, home to some five to six million people in an area of less than 15,000 square miles laced with rivers and canals. In February 1968, General Julian Ewell, soon to be known by Vietnamese and Americans alike as “the Butcher of the Delta,” was placed in charge of the 9th Infantry Division. In December 1968, he launched Operation Speedy Express. His specialty, amounting to obsession, was increasing “the body count,” ordained by the high command as the key measure of progress in defeating the enemy. Theoretically, only slain soldiers were to be included in that count but -- as anyone, soldier or reporter, who spent a half-hour in the field quickly learned -- virtually all slain Vietnamese, most of them clearly civilians, were included in the total. The higher an officer’s body count, the more likely his promotion. Privates who turned in high counts were rewarded with mini-vacations. Ewell set out to increase the ratio of supposed enemy soldiers killed to American soldiers killed. Pressure to do so was ratcheted up at all levels in the 9th Division. One of his chiefs of staff “went berserk,” in the words of a later chief of staff. The means were simple: immensely increase the already staggering firepower being used and loosen the already highly permissive “rules of engagement” by, for example, ordering more night raids. In a typical night episode, Cobra gunships strafed a herd of water buffalo and seven children tending them. All died, and the children were reported as enemy soldiers killed in action. The kill ratios duly rose from an already suspiciously high 24 “Vietcong” for every dead American to a completely surreal 134 Vietcong per American. The unreality, however, did not simply lie in the inflated kill numbers but in the identities of the corpses. Overwhelmingly, they were not enemy soldiers but civilians. A “Concerned Sergeant” who protested the operation in an anonymous letter to the high command at the time described the results as he witnessed them: “A battalion would kill maybe 15 to 20 a day. With 4 battalions in the Brigade that would be maybe 40 to 50 a day or 1200 a month 1500, easy. (One battalion claimed almost 1000 body counts one month!) If I am only 10% right, and believe me its lots more, then I am trying to tell you about 120-150 murders, or a My Lay [My Lai] each month for over a year.” This range of estimates was confirmed in later analyses. Operations in I Corp perhaps depended more on infantry attacks supported by air strikes, while Speedy Express depended more on helicopter raids and demands for high body counts, but the results were the same: indiscriminate warfare, unrestrained by calculation or humanity, on the population of South Vietnam. Turse reminds us that off the battlefield, too, casual violence -- such as the use of military trucks to run over Vietnamese on the roads, seemingly for entertainment -- was widespread. The commonest terms for Vietnamese were the racist epithets “gooks,” “dinks,” and “slopes.” And the U.S. military machine was supplemented by an equally brutal American-South Vietnamese prison system in which torture was standard procedure and extrajudicial executions common. How did it happen? How did a country that believes itself to be guided by principles of decency permit such savagery to break out and then allow it to continue for more than a decade? Why, when the first Marines arrived in I Corps in early 1965, did so many of them almost immediately cast aside the rules of war as well as all ordinary scruples and sink to the lowest levels of barbarism? What chains of cause and effect linked “the best and the brightest” of America’s top universities and corporations who were running the war with the murder of those buffalo boys in the Mekong Delta? How did the gates of hell open? This is a different question from the often-asked one of how the United States got into the war. I cannot pretend to begin to do it justice here. The moral and cognitive seasickness that has attended the Vietnam War from the beginning afflicts us still. Yet Kill Anything that Moves permits us, finally, to at least formulate the question in light of the actual facts of the case. Reflections would certainly seem in order for a country that, since Vietnam, has done its best to unlearn even such lessons as were learned from that debacle in preparation for other misbegotten wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, however, are a few thoughts, offered in a spirit of thinking aloud. The Fictitious War and the Real One Roughly since the massacre at My Lai was revealed, people have debated whether the atrocities of the war were the product of decisions by troops on the ground or of high policy, of orders issued from above -- whether they were “aberrations” or “operations.” The first school obviously lends itself to bad-apple-in-a-healthy-barrel thinking, blaming individual units for unacceptable behavior while exonerating the higher ups; the second tends to exonerate the troops while pinning the blame on their superiors. Turse’s book shows that the barrel was rotten through and through. It discredits the “aberration” school once and for all. Yet it does not exactly offer support for the orders-from-the-top school either. Perhaps the problem always was that these alternatives framed the situation inaccurately. The relationship between policy and practice in Vietnam was, it turns out, far more peculiar than the two choices suggest. It’s often said that truth is the first casualty of war. In Vietnam, however, it was not just that the United States was doing one thing while saying another (for example, destroying villages while claiming to protect them), true as that was. Rather, from its inception the war’s structure was shaped by an attempt to superimpose a false official narrative on a reality of a wholly different character. In the official war, the people of South Vietnam were resisting the attempts of the North Vietnamese to conquer them in the name of world communism. The United States was simply assisting them in their patriotic resistance. In reality, most people in South Vietnam, insofar as they were politically minded, were nationalists who sought to push out foreign conquerors: first, the French, then the Japanese, and next the Americans, along with their client state, the South Vietnamese government which was never able to develop any independent strength in a land supposedly its own. This fictitious official narrative was not added on later to disguise unpalatable facts; it was baked into the enterprise from the outset. Accordingly, the collision of policy and reality first took place on the ground in Trieu Ai village and its like. The American forces, including their local commanders, were confronted with a reality that the policymakers had not faced and would not face for many long years. Expecting to be welcomed as saviors, the troops found themselves in a sea of nearly universal hostility. No manual was handed out in Washington to deal with the unexpected situation. It was left to the soldiers to decide what to do. Throughout the country, they started to improvise. To this extent, policy was indeed being made in the field. Yet it was not within the troops’ power to reverse basic policy; they could not, for instance, have withdrawn themselves from the whole misconceived exercise. They could only respond to the unexpected circumstances in which they found themselves. The result would combine an incomprehensible and impossible mission dictated from above (to win the “hearts and minds” of a population already overwhelmingly hostile, while pulverizing their society) and locally conceived illegal but sometimes vague orders that left plenty of room for spontaneous, rage-driven improvisation on the ground. In this gap between the fiction of high policy and the actuality of the real war was born the futile, abhorrent assault on the people of Vietnam. The improvisatory character of all this, as Turse emphasizes, can be seen in the fact that while the abuses of civilians were pervasive they were not consistent. As he summarizes what a villager in one brutalized area told him decades later, “Sometimes U.S. troops handed out candies. Sometimes they shot at people. Sometimes they passed through a village hardly touching a thing. Sometimes they burned all the homes. ‘We didn’t understand the reasons why the acted in the way they did.’” Alongside the imaginary official war, then, there grew up the real war on the ground, the one that Turse has, for the first time, adequately described. It is no defense of what happened to point out that, for the troops, it was not so much their orders from on high as their circumstances -- what Robert J. Lifton has called “atrocity-producing situations” -- that generated their degraded behavior. Neither does such an account provide escape from accountability for the war’s architects without whose blind and misguided policies these infernal situations never would have arisen. In one further bitter irony, this real war came at a certain point to be partially codified at ever higher levels of command into policies that did translate into orders from the top. In effect, the generals gradually -- if absurdly, in light of the supposed goals of the war -- sanctioned and promoted the de facto war on the population. Enter General Ewell and his body counts. In other words, the improvising moved up the chain of command until the soldiers were following orders when they killed civilians, though, as in the case of Ewell, those orders rarely took exactly that form. Nonetheless, the generals sometimes went quite far in formulating these new rules, even when they flagrantly contradicted official policies. To give one example supplied by Turse, in 1965, General William Westmoreland, who was made commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam in 1964, implicitly declared war on the peasantry of South Vietnam. He said: “Until now the war has been characterized by a substantial majority of the population remaining neutral. In the past year we have seen an escalation to a higher intensity in the war. This will bring about a moment of decision for the peasant farmer. He will have to choose if he stays alive.” Like his underlings, Westmoreland, was improvising. This new policy of, in effect, terrorizing the peasantry into submission was utterly inconsistent with the Washington narrative of winning hearts and minds, but it was fully consistent with everything his forces were actually doing and about to do in I Corps and throughout the country. A Skyscraper of Lies One more level of the conflict needs to be mentioned in this context. Documents show that, as early as the mid-1960s, the key mistaken assumptions of the war -- that the Vietnamese foe was a tentacle of world communism, that the war was a front in the Cold War rather than an episode in the long decolonization movement of the twentieth century, that the South Vietnamese were eager for rescue by the United States -- were widely suspected to be mistaken in official Washington. But one other assumption was not found to be mistaken: that whichever administration “lost” Vietnam would likely lose the next election. Rightly or wrongly, presidents lived in terror of losing the war and so being politically destroyed by a movement of the kind Senator Joe McCarthy launched after the American “loss” of China in 1949. Later, McGeorge Bundy, Lyndon Johnson’s national security advisor, would describe his understanding of the president’s frame of mind at the time this way: "LBJ isn't deeply concerned about who governs Laos, or who governs South Vietnam -- he's deeply concerned with what the average American voter is going to think about how he did in the ball game of the Cold War. The great Cold War championship gets played in the largest stadium in the United States and he, Lyndon Johnson, is the quarterback, and if he loses, how does he do in the next election? So don't lose. Now that's too simple, but it's where he is. He's living with his own political survival every time he looks at these questions.” In this context, domestic political considerations trumped the substantive reasoning that, once the futility and horror of the enterprise had been revealed, might have led to an end to the war. More and more it was understood to be a murderous farce, but politics dictated that it must continue. As long as this remained the case, no news from Vietnam could lead to a reversal of the war policies. This was the top floor of the skyscraper of lies that was the Vietnam War. Domestic politics was the largest and most fact-proof of the atrocity-producing situations. Do we imagine that this has changed? Jonathan Schell is a Fellow at The Nation Institute, and the peace and disarmament correspondent for the Nation magazine. Among many other works, he is the author of The Real War, a collection of his New Yorker reportage on the Vietnam War. [Under review in this essay: Nick Turse, Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (Metropolitan Books, 2013). Jonathan Schell’s classic Vietnam books, The Village of Ben Suc and The Military Half, are now collected in The Real War (Da Capo Press).] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Vietnam War Memorial in Vietnam Would Be 20 to 50 Times Larger Than OursBy Global Research News Global Research, February 04, 2013 Alternet Imagine if we could bridge the empathy gap that separates us from the Vietnamese and our war with them and against them. When I was on active duty in the Air Force, I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. I was moved to tears as I encountered the names of more than 58,000 of my fellow Americans etched in stone. What a waste, I thought, but at least they died for their country, and at least we didn’t forget their sacrifice. To be honest, I don’t recall thinking about the Vietnamese dead. The memorial, famously designed by Maya Lin, captures an American tragedy, not a Vietnamese one. But imagine, for a moment, if we could bridge the empathy gap that separates us from the Vietnamese and our war with them and against them. How might their suffering compare to ours? Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Christian Carollo America first sent ground combat units to Vietnam in March of 1965. If we count the Linebacker II air offensive against North Vietnam in December of 1972 (the infamous Christmas bombing) as the end of major combat operations, the U.S. military waged war in Vietnam for roughly 93 months. Now, let’s consider the number of Vietnamese killed, to include soldiers and civilians, regardless of their political allegiance or lack thereof. No one knows for sure how many Vietnamese died over this period; the “low” estimate is roughly one million Vietnamese, while the “high” estimate is in the vicinity of three million. Even using the low estimate, that’s more than ten thousand dead per month, for 93 months. How can we bring meaning to such mind-numbing statistics? To imagine the impact of this war on the Vietnamese people, Americans have to think not of one tragic wall containing 58,000 names, but of twenty (or perhaps even fifty) tragic walls, adding up to millions of names, a high percentage of them being noncombatants, innocent men, women and children. Difficult as that is to imagine, we must also recognize that the impact of the American war in Vietnam was not limited to killing. The U.S. military bombed and blasted and napalmed and defoliated the landscape as well. So along with twenty or more Maya Lin-type memorials to list all of the Vietnamese war dead, we’d have to imagine scores of “Super Fund” sites in Vietnam, land poisoned by Agent Orange and similar powerful chemicals, tortured terrain that is still occasionally deadly to the Vietnamese who live there. How did so many Vietnamese come to die? How did Vietnam itself become a blasted and poisoned landscape? And how did the United States come largely to forget its complicity in the killing and blasting? The reasons are not easy to contemplate, but Nick Turse’s harrowing new study, Kill Anything that Moves, forces us to confront what he terms “the real American war in Vietnam.” In A Rumor of War (1977), a classic memoir of the Vietnam War, U.S. Marine Lieutenant Philip Caputo recounts how the U.S. strategy of “search and destroy” and the obsession with enemy body count led to “orgiastic violence” in which the goal, in his words, was “to kill Communists and to kill as many of them as possible. Stack ’em like cordwood. Victory was a high body-count … war a matter of arithmetic. The pressure [from the top] on unit commanders to produce enemy corpses was intense, and they in turn communicated it to their troops. This led to such practices as counting civilians as Viet Cong. ‘If it’s dead and Vietnamese, it’s VC,’ was a rule of thumb in the bush. It is not surprising, therefore, that some men acquired a contempt for human life and a predilection for taking it.” The horrific reality that Caputo wrote of more than 35 years ago is now fully fleshed out in Turse’s new study. The obsession with body count—starting with General William Westmoreland, the commanding general in Vietnam—led to, in Turse’s words, “the indiscriminate killing of South Vietnamese noncombatants—the endless slaughter that wiped out civilians day after day, month after month, year after year.” The enormity of the crime was “neither accidental nor unforeseeable,” but rather “the inevitable outcome of deliberate policies, dictated at the highest levels of the military,” Turse concludes. The evidence he amasses – of “murder, torture, rape, abuse, forced displacement, home burnings, specious arrests, imprisonment without due process”—is irrefutable. Indeed, much of the evidence he relies upon was gathered secretly by the U.S. military at the time, only to be suppressed, consigned to archives, and forgotten. It’s hardly surprising that senior U.S. military officials sought to suppress evidence of atrocities on a mass-scale, since they themselves were both complicit and culpable. A line that has always stayed with me from Caputo’s memoir came from one of his NCOs, a Sergeant Colby, who in 1965 told then-Lieutenant Caputo that, “Before you leave here, sir, you’re going to learn that one of the most brutal things in the world is your average nineteen-year-old American boy.” Turse’s study plumbs the depths of such brutality, to include a racist subculture (dehumanizing the Vietnamese as “gooks” and “slopes”) within the U.S. military that facilitated it. Draft an American teenager, teach him to kill, send him to an utterly foreign land in which he can’t distinguish friend from foe, give him power over life and death against a dehumanized enemy, and reward him for generating a high body count in which “If it’s dead and Vietnamese, it’s VC,” and you have an ineluctable recipe for murderous violence. Contrast the brutal honesty of Sergeant Colby with the patent dishonesty of an American political scene that to this day fosters a very different interpretation of the Vietnam War. For many Americans, the true victims of the war are not the millions of Vietnamese who died, or the millions who continue to suffer to this day. No—the true victims are the American veterans who were allegedly spat upon by unwashed anti-war protesters, or a U.S. military that was allegedly betrayed by back-stabbers at the home front, denying the troops the victory they had so justly earned. In this narrative, even the infamous slaughter at My Lai becomes the exception that proves the rule, the rule being that with few exceptions the American military fought honorably and cleanly. For these Americans, the war remains a combination of the Rambo myth mixed with the “noble cause” rhetoric of Ronald Reagan—history as Hollywood fairy tale—a concerted rewriting of the historical record and a rewiring of American culture consistent with feel-good militarism and confectionary war. To confront the truth, we must abandon the confection. The truth is that, rather than confronting our nation’s inner heart of darkness during and after Vietnam, the military and our government collectively whitewashed the past. America’s true “Vietnam Syndrome” was not an allergy to using military power after Vietnam but an allergy to facing the destruction our nation caused there. And that allergy has only exacerbated our national predilection for military adventurism, warrior glorification, and endless war. It’s time our nation found the courage to face those twenty (or fifty) walls of Vietnamese dead. It’s time we faced them with the same sorrow and same regret we reserve for our own wall of dead. Only after we do so can our nation stop glorifying war. Only after we do so can our nation fully heal. William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), now teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. His books and articles focus primarily on military history and include Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism (Potomac Press, 2005). He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.blacklistednews.com/A_Whistleblower_Was_Murdered_In_NYC_%E2%80%93_The_NYPD_Covered_It_Up_And_The_Media_Won%E2%80%99t_Get_Near_It/45745/0/38/38/Y/M.html == A Whistleblower Was Murdered In NYC – The NYPD Covered It Up And The Media Won’t Get Near It

KATHY PLEASE READ START OF POST (BELOW in RED) KATHY PLEASE READ TEXT WERE I INTERJECT WITH OTHER RELEVANT INFO AND WRITE MY NAME (Marguerite Oswald does not know if her husband was right or left handed...strange "family" (in quotes) no ?? ,gaal ) SAID FAMILY DOES NOT KNOW SIMPLE INFORMATION ABOUT ITSELF (MY POINT). Robert Oswald link dead above post # 1285 edited. ,gaal Oswalds Mother BlogSpot

I can out do you sir !! . gaal ========================= WERNER VON BRAUN & THE HOAXED ALIEN INVASION FROM SPACE von Braun: Beware Fake Alien Threat from Space by L C Vincent Dr. Wernher von Braun was a top ranking SS officer who was also the head of the Nazi rocket program during WWII. Von Braun was brought to America after the war because our government considered his knowledge and expertise too vital to fall into the hands of our enemies. Dr. von Braun and his colleagues brought with them a wealth of information gleaned from other top Nazi scientists like his boss, SS General Hans Kammler. Von Braun may have been privy to work on anti gravity propulsion vehicles reputedly under development during the last days of The Third Reich. Over the years of his tenure, von Braun may also have enjoyed access to NASA’s secret programs. It certainly does seem this way, as von Braun apparently began to see the “big picture” regarding the true goals of America’s space program and how the military-industrial complex was manipulating it according to a secret, hidden agenda during the latter years of his life. Dr. Carol Rosin first met Dr. Wernher von Braun in February of 1974. It was at this time, shortly before his death in 1977, that von Braun confided to Dr. Rosin the details of this secret space agenda. Inviting her into his office, Von Braun stunned Dr. Rosin by describing this plan, point for point, as well as describing in detail exactly where it was all leading: planetary control under an oppressive One World Government. According to Dr. Rosin, ( ) von Braun then gave her one supreme assignment to thwart this plan: to stop the weaponization of space. Failure to do so would lead to calamity for the human race as a secretive trans-national powe r, already in existence, would move to permanently take control of this planet thru a hoaxed alien invasion from outer space.According to von Braun, space based weapons, later known as the “Star Wars” program, were to be publicly promoted as our space “shield” against the evil Russians. Then they would be promoted as our defense against terrorists from Third World countries (‘rogue’ nations or ‘nations of concern’). Then their necessity would be justified as protection against asteroids and meteors, and the “last card,” the final justification according to von Braun, would be their installation in orbit against an extraterrestrial threat from outer space. Von Braun told Dr. Rosin that she would begin to notice a certain “spin” on the news, which would illustrate the need to build space-based weaponry because our enemies “might” have these weapons, so our intelligence community would proceed on the assumption that they DO have these weapons. As we now know, this is exactly how the Star Wars program transpired. According to Wernher von Braun, all of these publicly announced threats were lies. Von Braun cited the reality of nuclear suitcase bombs being available even then, as well as chemical, viral, bacterial and biological terror weapons against which these space based weapons would be useless. More importantly, von Braun told Dr. Rosin in 1974 that we already had the technology to build anti gravity vehicles and entire transportation systems which did not require so-called ‘fossil’ fuels but instead used “beams” of energy, thereby eliminating all pollution from these sources permanently. Perhaps Dr. von Braun had seen anti gravity vehicles with his own eyes in Germany before the end of the war, as wel l as their continued development at other secret technology sites afterwards. Von Braun further told Dr. Rosin that we had the ability to transform our “war” based military/industrial complex into a space and energy industry for the benefit of all of humanity, and that we had the capability of building entirely nonpolluting transportation technologies using this same limitless energy, while ending the arms race without dislocating the jobs associated with it. Mankind could transition to a new industrial paradigm and usher in an era of peace, plenty and prosperity for everyone on Earth. Of course, what is equally interesting is what Dr. von Braun left unsaid. If space based weapons technologies are not really being developed to protect the U.S. and its allies against rogue nations and their weapons; if, indeed, such weapons are useless against suit case nuclear bombs, as well as chemical, biological and viral weapons, then exactly why are they being developed? Could select populations of resistors, whether nation-states or isolated groups opposed to the coming New World Order, be singled out and eliminated? That is certainly one possibility. Yet another possibility is that such space based weapons will be part of the “smoke and mirrors” light show designed to terrify the population of the Earth when “Project Blue Beam” debuts, with its false, projected presentation of an alien invasion. According to Dr. Steven Greer, the head of the “Disclosure Project,” “….the prospect that a shadowy, para-governmental and transnational entity exists that has kept UFO’s secret — and is planning a deception that will dwarf the events of 9/11…” is a scenario that more people within the depths of our government have begun to reveal. If Dr. Werhner von Braun already knew that anti-gravitic technology existed in 1974, then we must also conclude that part of the coming alien “light show” and invasion scenario scheduled to frighten us into the arms of a One World Government, utilizing the technology described in Project Blue Beam, is based on anti-gravitic “alien” craft under the planetary control of the unseen Illuminati hand which silently moves under the radar of the world’s staged media. Even Dr. Greer, who had brought Dr. Rosin to Washington D. C. to publicly testify about Dr. von Braun’s warning and concern for the future of humanity based upon the nefarious plans he had uncovered during his tenure at NASA, admits that he was at first skeptical of the reality behind this proposal. Dr. Greer writes: “Since 1992 I have seen this script unveiled to me by at least a dozen well-placed insiders. Of course, initially I laughed, thinking this just too absurd and far-fetched…. and yet others told me explicitly that things that looked like UFOs, but that are built and under the control of deeply secretive ´black´ projects, were being used to simulate – hoax – ET-appearing events, including some abductions and cattle mutilations, to sow the early seeds of cultural fear regarding life in outer space. And that at some point after global terrorism, events would unfold that would utilize the now-revealed Alien Reproduction Vehicles (ARVs, or reversed-engineered UFOs made by humans by studying actual ET craft) to hoax an attack on Earth.” The goal of this hoaxed space alien invasion was simple: control thru fear, to drive governments of all nations to submit and unite under one central authority, a One World Government, and as Dr. Greer said: “…to justify eventually spending trillions on space weapons… th us uniting the world in fear, in militarism and war.” Of course, we have been purposely conditioned over the years to view any space aliens as threatening and predatory. Such films as “Independence Day,” “Alien”, “War of the Worlds” and others produced by Hollywood studios have had their effect on the subconscious mind of the general public. As Dr. Greer states: “…this mental conditioning to fear ET has been subtly reinforced for decades, in preparation for future deceptions.” The essence of the plan is simple: create an anonymous enemy “out there” in the limitless void of space. As Dr. Greer explains: “By commingling fact with fiction, and by hoaxing UFO events that can look terrifying, The Plan is to eventually crate a new, sustainable, off-planet enemy… Wernher von Braun warned of such a hoax, as a pretext for putting war in space.” Dr. Carol Rosin revealed this information before the national press in Washington, D.C. where she also said that she was willing to make the exact same statement under oath to Congress. Of course, the official main stream media never saw fit to make mention of this startling pronouncement by Dr. Rosin. The possibility of an “off planet” space fleet already in existence was given even more credence recently when a young Scottish hacker by the name of Gary McKinnon recently broke into the Pentagon’s computers and reputedly came up the names of some of our “off-world” U.S. space fleet (identified under the abbreviation: USSS), two specific space ships, (the USSS LeMay and the USSS Hillenkoetter), the names of the various crews, their ranks, and transfer assignments between various “off Earth” space ships. Apparently, this computer security breach so enraged the brass at the Pentagon that The U.S. Government is currently seeking to extradite McKinnon from the U.K. to face charges of computer hacking with a punishment of LIFE IN PRISON! Certainly this is one way to permanently silence an embarrassing discoverer of forbidden information. Wernher von Braun, his assistant Dr. Carol Rosin, and Dr. Steven Greer of The Disclosure Project have done their best to warn the world at large of this coming deception based on secret energy technology, new visual projection technology and the continued demonization of space aliens by our media and our military/industrial complex. Dr. Greer concludes: “Space based weapons are already in place – part of a secret parallel space program that has been operating since the 1960s. ARVs are built and ready to go. Space holographic deception technologies are in place, tested and ready to fire. And the Big Media is a pawn…” But we do not have to be. Now that we know what The Illuminati and their minions have planned, we can prepare for the greatest deception in human history by warning others, taking stock of our present set of circumstances, and deciding how we might deal with a hoaxed space-alien invasion scenario. The knowledge that technology may exist today which would end the need for mining, drilling, refinement and distribution of oil, gas, and coal, as well as traditional nuclear energy; which could usher in a new age for the entire human race while eliminating the pretexts for the endless wars which have roiled our planet for the last two hundred years, must give us pause to ponder. This alternate scenario, that of free energy, of peace, plenty and prosperity and the elimination of pollution forces us to face the dark core of evil wherein the ironically named “Illuminati” reside. For despite the potential of creating a revolutionary leap forward in the history of Mankind, this insidious group continues to plot to keep our world mired in poverty, fear, war, and ignorance while moving to make their dark desire for total control permanent upon this planet. It is time to choose which destiny we truly desire. Nothing worthwhile in life ever comes without struggle. The Illuminati have given us the challenge of our lives. May we be prepared for the coming battle.

Been waiting and waiting . I will order now. IMHO DULLES THE CEO OF DALLAS . gaal

see for full article http://www.salon.com/2015/04/17/the_ivy_leagues_favorite_war_criminal_why_the_atrocities_of_henry_kissinger_should_be_mandatory_reading/ golly POTUS NIXON brought in Henry K. gaal 1. Sabotaging U.S. Government Diplomacy Five days before the 1968 election, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a bombing halt of North Vietnam to begin negotiating an end to the Vietnam War. Johnson needed to keep this decision a secret; any leak could jeopardize the peace he was seeking. Kissinger, who had been an adviser to the negotiators, called the Nixon campaign and said, “I’ve got some information. They’re breaking out the champagne in Paris.” In his own memoirs, Richard Nixon says that he had received advanced word of the negotiation “through a highly unusual channel.” Three days before the election, the South Vietnamese pulled out of the talks because a Nixon confidant named Anna Chennault informed them that they would get a better deal under a Republican administration. The number of Vietnamese and Americans killed because of Kissinger and Nixon’s sabotage of the Paris negotiations remain unaccounted. 2. Illegal War in Cambodia Nixon-Kissinger expanded the Vietnam War to include carpet bombings of Laos and Cambodia. “It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” is how Kissinger relayed his boss’s order. Nearly 3 million tons of bombs were dropped on Cambodia alone, more than the 2 million tons dropped during all of World War Two. Between 4,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed in carpet bombings codenamed Breakfast, Lunch, Snack, Dinner, Supper, and Dessert. The unintended consequence of this illegal expansion of the Vietnam War was the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, a genocidal cult that killed between 1.5 and 3 million people. Kissinger, in a conversation with the Thai Foreign Minister in 1975, said, “You should tell the Cambodians (i.e., Khmer Rouge) that we will be friends with them.” This was not realpolitik but accessory to murder. 3. Complicity in Pakistan’s Genocide in Bangladesh In 1971, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) declared independence from Pakistan after winning a democratic election that was not honored by the military dictatorship in power. The Pakistani junta attempted to suppress the victors by mass-raping women, shooting indiscriminately, and murdering children. Bangladesh’s Hindu minority was specifically targeted. In one especially gruesome episode, Pakistani soldiers went room-to-room in Dhaka University, murdering every student and staff member in sight. Up to three million people were killed and 400,000 women mass-raped in the 1971 genocide. The top American diplomat in Dhaka, Archer Blood, sent a telegram to Nixon and Kissinger that began: “Our government had failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak[istan] dominated government.” As Professor Gary Bass recounts in his magnificent book, “The Blood Telegram,” this was not mere realism in international affairs: There was a certain emotional relish Nixon and Kissinger felt in mocking massacred Bengalis. Kissinger congratulated Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan for his “delicacy and tact.” Nixon said Indians needed “a mass famine.” Kissinger ridiculed those who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.” advertisement If presented with the content of such statements, with the names redacted, one would think that these were criminals speaking, not American statesmen. 4. More crimes in Chile, Iraq, East Timor, Cyprus Kissinger aided the violent overthrow of Chile’s government by the war criminal Augosto Pinochet in 1973. “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people,” he said. He encouraged Iraqi Kurds to rebel in 1975 only to abandon them when Saddam Hussein struck a deal with the Shah of Iran, and he gave the U.S.’s blessings to Indonesian strongman Suharto’s invasion of East Timor. Kissinger knew of plans to overthrow Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus and later of Turkey’s planned invasion of the island and yet did nothing. 180,000 Greek Cypriots had to flee their homes, 10,000 Turkish Cypriots were forced to relocate, and Turkey still has an undetermined number of settlers in Cyprus. The capital of Cyprus, Nicosia, remains divided. The bitter irony of all of this is that Henry Kissinger spoke at Yale Law School — the institution I currently attend, and one with a long history of progressive thought and a commitment to educating public-minded lawyers. Kissinger should not be barred from giving lectures. Rather, his invitations—like all invitations to government officials—should come with an understanding that he will field challenging questions. Public officials are servants of the public first, and we must not allow them to be turned into demigods without protesting their past crimes and holding them to account. The nameless victims of Henry Kissinger’s policies will never see justice. They will not be lavished with praise or given large contracts for consulting services or given ample space in major newspapers to correct the record. They will never see a courtroom. They will remain the anonymous dead, and those of us who stay silent or jump up like Pavlovian dogs to mindlessly clap for every grey-haired former official who comes into town regardless of their record, we too will be complicit in their fates.

Almost all scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.[7] It was written by authors far removed from the times it depicts,[8] and was intended to illustrate a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[9] The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[10] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[11] The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua lies behind the judgement of archaeologist William G. Dever that the battle of Jericho "seems invented out of whole cloth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho Just wiki not look at info. It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal == Bones, Stones, and the Scriptures: Has Archaeology Helped or Hurt the Bible? By: Joel B. Groat posted in fair use Of the areas of study related to the Bible's history, few are as exciting as archaeology. Digging for articles buried thousands of years ago, uncovering pottery, tools, lamps and other treasures, excavating ancient cities and houses; all these stir the imagination and narrow the gap between then and now. But how have archaeological studies affected our knowledge of the Bible and its credibility as authentic, ancient Scripture? Has archaeology helped or hurt the Bible? "Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity." This is an important question because the Bible's historical and spiritual messages are intertwined. For example, the Bible uses the miraculous capture of Jericho as an example of God's power and provision on behalf of those who trust Him. If this incident never occurred, the principles derived from it have no ties to reality, and our reason for believing evaporates. Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity. As a result, we who accept the Bible as historical Scripture consider the findings of archaeology relevant to our faith. If the biblical narrative is comprised of factual accounts there should be evidence to support the stories. So what kind of evidence do we have? How has archaeology impacted the credibility of the Bible? Jericho: Did "The Walls Come Tumblin' Down"? The Old Testament story of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:1-25) is a good example of a specific biblical event for which archaeology has provided striking confirmation. The Bible relates God's dramatic intervention for His people after they enter the land of Canaan. The Israelites storm the city of Jericho after its fortified walls miraculously collapse allowing them to march straight up into the city. In the past, many critics relegated this story to the genre of faith-promoting myth. However, excavations done at the site have revealed a number of interesting details which support this biblical story. The archaeological evidence is summarized by scholar Bryant G. Wood in the March/April 1990 Biblical Archaeology Review. Dr. Wood comments: "The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative is substantial: the city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20); the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10); the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1); the siege was short (Joshua 6:15); the walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20); the city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18); the city was burned (Joshua 6:24)." 1 Of course there are limits to what archaeology can confirm. It cannot prove a miracle caused the walls of Jericho to fall, but by verifying specific details of Joshua 6, it strengthens the credibility of the Bible as an authentic ancient record. Solomon's Lavish Empire For years critics considered the Bible's lavish descriptions of Solomon's empire to be greatly embellished. Today most of those critics have been silenced as a result of archaeological discoveries which substantiate a number of specific details of the Solomonic era, including: His use of a naval fleet to gather wealth (1 Kings 10:22). The existence of copper mining and ore refineries for smelting copper and manufacturing bronze (1 Kings 7:13, 14, 45-46). The specific towns and cities that comprised much of his empire (1 Kings 9:15-17).2 Real People And Places Archaeologists have sometimes discovered evidence for small details in the Bible which previously seemed inconsequential. For example, the writer of 1 Kings 9:15-17 mentions in passing Solomon's construction work on the towns of Jerusalem, Hazor and Megiddo and the rebuilding of the town of Gezer after its destruction by an Egyptian Pharaoh. Prof. William G. Dever, though disdainful of biblical Christianity, has noted that this passage was considered of little significance: " ... until modern archaeologists uncovered similar Solomonic city gates and walls at Hazor and Megiddo, and then discovered an Egyptian destruction and nearly identical city walls and gate at Gezer." Prof. Dever goes on to say, "Here we have confirmation of a neglected, rather laconic footnote to biblical history, the more dramatic because it was totally unexpected: No one had set out to prove the historicity of this text."3 Though not as dramatic as the discoveries at Jericho, in their own way such details offer important support for the authenticity and accuracy of the biblical record. This reaffirms that the Bible is not talking about unsubstantiated places and unverifiable events, but real people and places in real history. In addition to the examples described above, all of the following places, names and objects and many more besides, are historically confirmed parts of the biblical narrative: Jehu, king of Israel - name inscribed on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (1 Kings 19:16-19; 2 Kings 9-10).4 Hezekiah's Tunnel - cut through solid rock and discovered in 1880 (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30)5 Heshbon - city mentioned 38 times in the Bible. The site is known today as Hisban and pottery found there dates back to 900 B.C. (Numbers 21:25 ff; Joshua 13:17).6 Darius, Persian monarch - ancient texts dating to 498 B.C. confirm both his existence and identity as described in Ezra 4-6.7 Claudius, Roman emperor - Two literary archaeological discoveries link him to the New Testament, where he is mentioned in Acts 11:28, and 18:28 daric, drachma, denarius - Persian and Roman coins mentioned in the Bible, now verified by archaeology.9 Asherah, Baal - Prominent Canaanite gods attested to by mythical literary materials discovered at Ugarit dating to biblical times, as well as a figure of Baal carved in limestone dated at least to 1650 B.C. The morally depraved practices associated with these gods are in keeping with Old Testament condemnations of anyone associating with them (e.g., Judges 3:7, 1 Kings 18).10 Because of the vast amount of one-to-one correspondence, the Bible has earned widespread respect among archaeologists. Prof. William G. Dever of the University of Arizona has stated: "The Bible is no longer an isolated relic from antiquity, without provenance and thus without credibility. Archaeology may not have proven the specific historical existence of certain biblical personalities such as Abraham or Moses, but it has for all time demolished the notion that the Bible is pure mythology. (OOPS,gaal) The Bible is about real, flesh-and-blood people, in a particular time and place ... "11 Likewise, Millar Burrows of Yale University writes: "The more we find that items in the picture of the past presented by the Bible, even though not directly attested, are compatible with what we know from archaeology, the stronger is our impression of general authenticity. Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronisms and incongruities."12 Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck could write: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."13 The Bible is trustworthy and true. Archaeological studies continue to verify that the events and people portrayed in the biblical record are historically accurate, and textual studies have confirmed the precision and accuracy of our copies of the Bible, divinely preserved by God through centuries of translation and transmission.14 With renewed confidence in the Bible, we too can say with the psalmist, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:105, 160). Notes 1. Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho; A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1990, pp. 44-58. 2. Edward M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, editors, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp. 419-422. While the exact dating of the smelting sites is debated, there is incontestable evidence that metallurgy was practiced during biblical times. 3. William G. Dever, "Archaeology And The Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship," adapted from Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, by the editors of Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1990, p. 56. 4. Blaiklock & Harrison, p. 409. 5. Ibid, p. 237. 6. Ibid, p. 236. 7. Ibid, p. 149 ff. 8. Ibid, p. 131. 9. Ibid, p. 134-135. 10. Ibid, p. 460-461. Note: King James Version uses "groves" for what now is translated "Asherah(s)." 11. William G. Dever, p. 55. 12. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), p. 42. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 267. 13. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: History of the Negev (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969), p. 31. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 65. 14. For a thorough treatment of the textual reliability of the Bible and the accuracy of today's translations see Heart and Mind series "Can We Trust the Bible?", parts 1-4 (Spring 1990, Summer 1990, Winter 1991, Summer 1991). ======================================================================================= bumped see http://creation.com/calibrating-carbon-dating == This article will explain how carbon dating is supposed to work and then show you the serious flaws with this process. It is derived from a transcript of Dr. Hovind’s video, which you can see above. (His videos and materials are not copyrighted.) Carbon dating was not invented until 1949. When the schools started to teach that the earth is billions of years old, back in 1830, the reasoning was not because of carbon dating. Carbon dating had not even been thought of yet. So why were they teaching that the earth was billions of years old back in the 1800’s? Billions of years are needed to make the evolution theory look good. Without billions of years to hide in, the theory looks absolutely ridiculous. The geologic column is where it all started. The earth was divided up into layers. Each layer was assigned a name, an age, and an index fossil. The ages were chosen without any scientific reasoning: they were picked out of the clear blue sky! Now any dating technique that comes along, like carbon dating, has to match the geologic column: or it is rejected. This is only because the geologic column has been taught for so long now and is assumed to be true. Just because something has been taught for a long time does not make it true. However, this is the logic most scientists have. They might have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until they get the age that they want. How would you know any of the dates given are right if you are getting a different one every time? “Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. ” They do not date fossils by carbon dating. Fossils are dated by their geological position. And as we mentioned earlier the dates on the geologic column were chosen out of the clear blue sky with no scientific basis. So their entire dating method for dating rocks and fossils is based off of circular reasoning. The earth’s atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. The atmosphere has very distinctive layers to it. The earth’s atmosphere contains: 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .06% carbon dioxide, and .0000765% radioactive carbon. This radioactive carbon 14 is different from regular carbon. It is produced by radiation striking the atmosphere. In essence, sunlight strikes the atmosphere, slaps the nitrogen around, and turns it into carbon 14. So it all starts by the sunlight striking the atmosphere. About 21 pounds of carbon 14 is produced every year; and that is spread out all over the world. If you look at a periodic table you will notice that Carbon and Nitrogen are right next to each other. Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14 and Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. If the sunlight slaps the nitrogen around, like talked about earlier, it will knock a few things off of it and it becomes Carbon 14. It still weighs as much as nitrogen, but it is now considered carbon. It is called radioactive because it is unstable and will eventually break apart. On average half of it will break down every 5,730 years. While it is Carbon 14 it is floating around in the atmosphere and latches onto oxygen becoming carbon dioxide. During photosynthesis plants breathe in carbon dioxide and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat plants and make it part of their bodies as well. This is how Carbon 14 gets into the living world. It gets produced in the atmosphere from the sun, the plants breathe it in, and the animals eat the plants. We have all either eaten plants or eaten animals that have eaten plants. The plants are breathing in this carbon dioxide and some of the carbon is radioactive. If the atmosphere contains .0000765% radioactive carbon, it is assumed that the plants also have .0000765% radioactive carbon as well. So, you probably have .0000765% carbon 14 in you because you have been eating these plants or eating the animals that have eaten the plants. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in carbon 14 and whatever it had starts to decay. It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing coming in to replace it. So what they do is compare the amount of carbon 14 in the fossil to the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. If the fossil only contains half as much carbon 14 as the atmosphere, it is assumed to have been dead for one half-life, or 5,730 years. While it was alive it should have had .0000765% carbon 14. If a fossil only has .00003825% of carbon 14 it has been dead for one half-life. In theory the amount of carbon 14 never goes to zero. However, for practical purposes we cannot measure passed a certain amount. There should be no measurable carbon 14 after about 40,000 – 50,000 years. “With their short 5,700 year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980’s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. [ii]” Now think for a minute of what this means. The textbooks say that coal formed 250 million years ago. However, when coal is tested it still has carbon 14. How is that possible? If all of the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared at a maximum of 250,000 years, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal? Obviously it is not 250 million years old. Also diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds? Again it is obvious that they are not millions of years old. The carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. The earth’s atmosphere is gaining 21 pounds of carbon 14 every year. It is also losing carbon 14 through decay. The question is how long would it take the atmosphere to reach a stage called equilibrium? The people who invented carbon 14 dating in the 1940’s did a lot of studies on this matter. They wanted to figure out how long it would take the atmosphere to reach a point where the construction rate and the destruction rate of carbon 14 was the same. They determined that it would take about 30,000 years to reach this equilibrium state. They made two bad assumptions after they came up with this calculation. They assumed that the earth was millions of years old and then assumed that they could ignore the equilibrium problem. It has been discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. “Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying. [iii]” Now think about that for a minute. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30,000 years old. It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time. It simply does not work. If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon 14 can be measured and the rate of decay can be determined. However, that is all that can be determined. It is impossible to know how much carbon 14 was in it at death and it is impossible to know if carbon 14 has always decayed at the same rate. If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would have blocked out a lot of the radiation from the sun. This would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. Animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. There may have been none at all, but the amount would certainly be less than what we have today. “If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it. [iv]” So does this mean that they simply choose any numbers that they want? That is exactly correct. If the number doesn’t fit what they expected, they throw the number out. Here are some things to consider about carbon dating. When something of known age is dated: it doesn’t work. When something of unknown age is dated: carbon dating is assumed to work. That is not science! O’Rourke, J. E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54 [ii] www.ICR.org [iii] R.E. Taylor et al., “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,” American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140 [iv] T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p. 35

Almost all scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.[7] It was written by authors far removed from the times it depicts,[8] and was intended to illustrate a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[9] The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[10] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[11] The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua lies behind the judgement of archaeologist William G. Dever that the battle of Jericho "seems invented out of whole cloth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho Just wiki not look at info. It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal == Bones, Stones, and the Scriptures: Has Archaeology Helped or Hurt the Bible? By: Joel B. Groat posted in fair use Of the areas of study related to the Bible's history, few are as exciting as archaeology. Digging for articles buried thousands of years ago, uncovering pottery, tools, lamps and other treasures, excavating ancient cities and houses; all these stir the imagination and narrow the gap between then and now. But how have archaeological studies affected our knowledge of the Bible and its credibility as authentic, ancient Scripture? Has archaeology helped or hurt the Bible? "Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity." This is an important question because the Bible's historical and spiritual messages are intertwined. For example, the Bible uses the miraculous capture of Jericho as an example of God's power and provision on behalf of those who trust Him. If this incident never occurred, the principles derived from it have no ties to reality, and our reason for believing evaporates. Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity. As a result, we who accept the Bible as historical Scripture consider the findings of archaeology relevant to our faith. If the biblical narrative is comprised of factual accounts there should be evidence to support the stories. So what kind of evidence do we have? How has archaeology impacted the credibility of the Bible? Jericho: Did "The Walls Come Tumblin' Down"? The Old Testament story of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:1-25) is a good example of a specific biblical event for which archaeology has provided striking confirmation. The Bible relates God's dramatic intervention for His people after they enter the land of Canaan. The Israelites storm the city of Jericho after its fortified walls miraculously collapse allowing them to march straight up into the city. In the past, many critics relegated this story to the genre of faith-promoting myth. However, excavations done at the site have revealed a number of interesting details which support this biblical story. The archaeological evidence is summarized by scholar Bryant G. Wood in the March/April 1990 Biblical Archaeology Review. Dr. Wood comments: "The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative is substantial: the city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20); the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10); the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1); the siege was short (Joshua 6:15); the walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20); the city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18); the city was burned (Joshua 6:24)." 1 Of course there are limits to what archaeology can confirm. It cannot prove a miracle caused the walls of Jericho to fall, but by verifying specific details of Joshua 6, it strengthens the credibility of the Bible as an authentic ancient record. Solomon's Lavish Empire For years critics considered the Bible's lavish descriptions of Solomon's empire to be greatly embellished. Today most of those critics have been silenced as a result of archaeological discoveries which substantiate a number of specific details of the Solomonic era, including: His use of a naval fleet to gather wealth (1 Kings 10:22). The existence of copper mining and ore refineries for smelting copper and manufacturing bronze (1 Kings 7:13, 14, 45-46). The specific towns and cities that comprised much of his empire (1 Kings 9:15-17).2 Real People And Places Archaeologists have sometimes discovered evidence for small details in the Bible which previously seemed inconsequential. For example, the writer of 1 Kings 9:15-17 mentions in passing Solomon's construction work on the towns of Jerusalem, Hazor and Megiddo and the rebuilding of the town of Gezer after its destruction by an Egyptian Pharaoh. Prof. William G. Dever, though disdainful of biblical Christianity, has noted that this passage was considered of little significance: " ... until modern archaeologists uncovered similar Solomonic city gates and walls at Hazor and Megiddo, and then discovered an Egyptian destruction and nearly identical city walls and gate at Gezer." Prof. Dever goes on to say, "Here we have confirmation of a neglected, rather laconic footnote to biblical history, the more dramatic because it was totally unexpected: No one had set out to prove the historicity of this text."3 Though not as dramatic as the discoveries at Jericho, in their own way such details offer important support for the authenticity and accuracy of the biblical record. This reaffirms that the Bible is not talking about unsubstantiated places and unverifiable events, but real people and places in real history. In addition to the examples described above, all of the following places, names and objects and many more besides, are historically confirmed parts of the biblical narrative: Jehu, king of Israel - name inscribed on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (1 Kings 19:16-19; 2 Kings 9-10).4 Hezekiah's Tunnel - cut through solid rock and discovered in 1880 (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30)5 Heshbon - city mentioned 38 times in the Bible. The site is known today as Hisban and pottery found there dates back to 900 B.C. (Numbers 21:25 ff; Joshua 13:17).6 Darius, Persian monarch - ancient texts dating to 498 B.C. confirm both his existence and identity as described in Ezra 4-6.7 Claudius, Roman emperor - Two literary archaeological discoveries link him to the New Testament, where he is mentioned in Acts 11:28, and 18:28 daric, drachma, denarius - Persian and Roman coins mentioned in the Bible, now verified by archaeology.9 Asherah, Baal - Prominent Canaanite gods attested to by mythical literary materials discovered at Ugarit dating to biblical times, as well as a figure of Baal carved in limestone dated at least to 1650 B.C. The morally depraved practices associated with these gods are in keeping with Old Testament condemnations of anyone associating with them (e.g., Judges 3:7, 1 Kings 18).10 Because of the vast amount of one-to-one correspondence, the Bible has earned widespread respect among archaeologists. Prof. William G. Dever of the University of Arizona has stated: "The Bible is no longer an isolated relic from antiquity, without provenance and thus without credibility. Archaeology may not have proven the specific historical existence of certain biblical personalities such as Abraham or Moses, but it has for all time demolished the notion that the Bible is pure mythology. (OOPS,gaal) The Bible is about real, flesh-and-blood people, in a particular time and place ... "11 Likewise, Millar Burrows of Yale University writes: "The more we find that items in the picture of the past presented by the Bible, even though not directly attested, are compatible with what we know from archaeology, the stronger is our impression of general authenticity. Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronisms and incongruities."12 Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck could write: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."13 The Bible is trustworthy and true. Archaeological studies continue to verify that the events and people portrayed in the biblical record are historically accurate, and textual studies have confirmed the precision and accuracy of our copies of the Bible, divinely preserved by God through centuries of translation and transmission.14 With renewed confidence in the Bible, we too can say with the psalmist, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:105, 160). Notes 1. Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho; A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1990, pp. 44-58. 2. Edward M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, editors, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp. 419-422. While the exact dating of the smelting sites is debated, there is incontestable evidence that metallurgy was practiced during biblical times. 3. William G. Dever, "Archaeology And The Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship," adapted from Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, by the editors of Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1990, p. 56. 4. Blaiklock & Harrison, p. 409. 5. Ibid, p. 237. 6. Ibid, p. 236. 7. Ibid, p. 149 ff. 8. Ibid, p. 131. 9. Ibid, p. 134-135. 10. Ibid, p. 460-461. Note: King James Version uses "groves" for what now is translated "Asherah(s)." 11. William G. Dever, p. 55. 12. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), p. 42. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 267. 13. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: History of the Negev (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969), p. 31. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 65. 14. For a thorough treatment of the textual reliability of the Bible and the accuracy of today's translations see Heart and Mind series "Can We Trust the Bible?", parts 1-4 (Spring 1990, Summer 1990, Winter 1991, Summer 1991). =======================================================================================

AS ARMSTRONG PRESENTS IT. = the History of the world --- AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT. // Parker ==================================================================================== The Walls of Jericho - Excerpt Jericho was once thought to be a “Bible problem” because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified... see (article & 54 minute video) --------------------------- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx#Article

Bellingcat = nutter(((Nutters come out regarding the latest MAS crash ))),gaal ------------------------------------- Propaganda Explained: Who is the West’s Lead MH17 Investigator? = http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/propaganda-explained-who-is-the-wests-lead-mh17-investigator.html = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Ulson Gunnar = As tensions once again build in eastern Ukraine where a fragile ceasefire appears to be on the brink of collapsing and the deadly contest of wills between East and West begins anew, the West’s prize propaganda story, downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 has again taken center stage. As part of a much wider campaign to demonize Russia and justify further encroachment east, attempts to cement the narrative that Russia was responsible for the incident before long-awaited investigations present their findings is well underway. While Russia has provided all documented evidence it possesses since the incident first occurred, data including recordings and radar readouts from NATO and Ukraine have been suspiciously withheld. Instead of presenting documented evidence, the United States and its partners in NATO have worked tirelessly to stand up innuendo and baseless accusations in its place. Perhaps understanding that appealing to the emotions of the general public rather than their intelligence and reasoning seemed a better strategy to achieve the swaying of global opinion against Russia. And perhaps a lack of actual evidence, or perhaps the existence of self-incriminating evidence has forced the United States and its collaborators to opt for this alternate tack. While Russia drew upon its intelligence community and military assets to acquire and analyze information regarding the MH17 tragedy, the United States and NATO, despite their immense resources have turned instead to literally the most unqualified individual within their borders to lead its own unofficial “investigation.” Since the US and NATO have clearly decided to try Russia in the court of public opinion, it is only suitable that the investigation unfolds there as well. Meet Detective Couch Potato Leading American and NATO efforts to manage public perception regarding MH17 is professional couch-potato Eliot Higgins. Previously a laid-off government worker living in the United Kingdom, Higgins began blogging from home under the pen name “Brown Moses.” His work was not entirely malicious at first. By applying objectivity and serving as a resource compiling vast amounts of information regarding the conflict in Syria he acquired a large following. His work apparently caught the attention of corporate and state media operations, and in particular, the London Guardian. It was his association there and an apparent financial arrangement was struck alleviating his unemployment and causing Higgins to cash in his objectivity to use his somewhat unique brand of citizen journalism as a sort of Trojan Horse. The established media of the US, UK and much of Europe has consistently betrayed and subsequently lost the trust of the public. By cultivating “alternative journalists” to repeat mainstream lies disguised as alternative commentary, it is hoped that lost ground in manipulating the general public can be gained back. Despite Higgins’ complete lack of forensic, military, geopolitical and academic background he is endlessly deferred to and given column space throughout the largest Western papers, magazines and online journals. Finding “Facts” Between the Cushions When in August of 2013 chemical weapons were used in an attack near the Syrian capital of Damascus, the United States and its European allies immediately blamed the Syrian government. With unprecedented speed, the decision to topple the Syrian government through direct military intervention was made. Yet just as fast as the US declared its intents, its pretext for war was dismissed by a skeptical public. When it came time to produce evidence, it was withheld (and is to this day) under the excuse that revealing it would compromise how it was gathered and thus jeopardize future operations. Higgins, in tandem with hired defense contractor Dan Kaszeta, were tasked with building a body of lies inside the void left by the United States’ official refusal to release what they claimed they knew about the attacks. When award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh released his own report on the attack, the closest, most accurate and most credible account to date of what actually happened along the outskirts of Damascus during the summer of 2013, Higgins and his supporters throughout the establishment media shamelessly wrote Hersh off as old fashioned and out of touch. Unlike Higgins, however, Hersh’s report was based on intelligence and security professionals working in the United States government and their reports drawn from some of the best information available … not compilations of YouTube videos, Google Maps, dubious e-mail conversations with unverified anonymous individuals and amateur photographic “forensics.” Is Reading Stains on the Sofa Really Analysis? Higgins’ attention now follows wherever the Western media needs it most. Lately that has been in eastern Ukraine. He has been the star non-witness cum non-expert regarding all matters Ukraine and in particular, MH17. Since the United States and the rest of NATO refuses to release what evidence they claim they have (again), it has been up to Higgins and the growing mainstream media circus surrounding him to once again fill the void. This explains why Higgins consistently only finds faults with Russia’s side of the story. At one point Higgins accused Russia of using Photoshop to doctor satellite images it provided to better illustrate the state of the battlefield when MH17 was downed. German paper Spiegel consulted a real expert to refute Higgins and his “Bellingcat research group’s” accusations. When Jens Kriese, a researcher and professional image forensics expert, was asked what his thoughts were on Higgins’ use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com, he responded by saying: …[FotoForensic.com’s] founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat’s conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of “how to not do image analysis.” What Bellingcat is doing is nothing more than reading tea leaves. Error Level Analysis is a method used by hobbyists. Of course, the practice of “reading tea leaves” is based part on fraud, part on superstition, using one’s fears, ignorance and insecurities to gain advantage over them either socially or financially or both by claiming to hold exclusive insight into what otherwise random tea leaves are telling one about their future fortunes. And that is precisely what Higgins and his dubious methods are all about. He is compiling otherwise random and/or irrelevant facts and interpreting them under the guise of being an “expert” knowing that the general public lacks the experience or expertise to know whether he is being truthful or not. Russia’s evidence can and should be examined and scrutinized. But those that accuse Russia of downing MH17 are not even underpinning these accusations with their own evidence, but, instead, resort to the intentional misinterpretation of circumstances, events and evidence presented by others to suit an already predetermined conclusion. Like Syria in regards to claims Damascus was behind the deadly 2013 chemical attack, or before that in Iraq where the United States claimed the government in Baghdad maintained a dangerous arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction,” the US is again convicting its enemies of crimes with a suspicious lack of evidence. When the United States and Europe find their media, the voice representing their collective civilization across the rest of the globe, deferring to an unemployed couch potato to bolster baseless lies through the blatant, intentional and systematic abuse of research and analysis, new lows have been plumbed that only reflects further on the depravity and intellectual destitution the once champions of science and reason have arrived at.

It is worth noting that the FBI failed to interview a single co-worker or employer of LEE Oswald's tall-nice-looking mother when she worked for Goldrings, Kreigers, and Holmes Dept Stores in New Orleans and for Clyde Campbell's Men's Store, the City of Ft. Worth, Paul's Shoe Store, Family Publications, and Cox's Department Store in Ft. Worth from 1956 through 1961. The FBI never obtained any employment information, W-2 forms, payroll records, employment applications or anything else from any of her employers. The FBI simply didn't want to interview anyone or gather records from any employer who knew the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald. They intentionally ignored the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald after 1956, and focused their attention on the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor. ================= THE ANTI H & L CROWD WOULD HAVE EVERYONE BELIEVE THE IMPOSSIBLE : that the creator (Marguerite) of a super dangerous communist (LHO) would not have her background checked thoroughly for communist associations /connections. ,gaal IMPOSSIBLE >>>>>>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE <<<<<<<< ==========================================================================

Bill Simpich ==================== Banister was good at this kind of thing -- he had people such as his associate Don Campbell and staffer Tommy Baumler working to infiltrate left-wing college groups. [31] Someone had to spy on the New Orleans Council for Peaceful Alternatives, who invited troublemakers like Father Phil Berrigan to speak on the immorality of nuclear weapons. In May, Oswald started off by leaving FPCC fliers at the Tulane Library, a good way to flush out pro-Castro types that might try to infiltrate anti-communist groups. [32] In June, he was leafleting sailors at the USS Wasp. Using the waterfront was second nature for an ex-Marine like Oswald. No surprise that FPCC agitation at the harbor resulted in the circulation of the Oswald legend throughout military intelligence. The DRE had been thoroughly penetrated by Carlos Bringuier's relative Jorge, and was considered totally insecure by the CIA The DRE took the CIA's money but were difficult to work with. This group was young, motivated, and very dangerous. In August 1962, they shelled government buildings in Havana and then bragged about it, while Castro was infuriated at this latest act of terrorism and attempted assassination. They attracted the attention of the Cuban's government's DGI. The role of the DGI in Cuba was to penetrate counter-revolutionary organizations. Counterintelligence analyst Ray Rocca made it very clear years later that he agreed that the DRE was heavily infiltrated by Cuban government DGI agents by 1962. Several CIA officers had also concluded that the DRE was totally insecure. Officer Calvin Thomas was concerned that the DRE might have even played a role in killing Kennedy. Jorge Bringuier was the brother-in-law of New Orleans DRE leader Carlos Bringuier. (While DRE official Juan Salvat describes him as nephew, Carlos says brother-in-law.) Jorge Bringuier disgraced the family by becoming a Castro agent and betraying the Cuban wing of the DRE. After he became national coordinator in Cuba in 1962, just about all of the Cuban DRE members were arrested. There's a contemporaneous memo about this betrayal in early 1963. Jorge was pitched to defect on 12/6/63, and he sent a telegram to his mother on 12/13 saying that he was "out" and with the Americans. Jorge was a CIA agent by 1968. In late July, ten Cuban exiles traveled from Miami to New Orleans and joined an anti-Castro training camp north of New Orleans. This training camp was on the land of Michael McLaney, a friend of "gamblers in Cuba", and the new arrivals at the camp had obtained some dynamite and were planning to bomb Cuban oil refineries. The leader of the dynamite procurement was Victor Espinosa Hernandez. Espinosa's group asked New Orleans DRE leader Carlos Bringuier to assist them. Bringuier had worked for some time in the same building as Banister, serving as the press and propaganda secretary of the aforementioned CRC. On July 31, the FBI swooped into a home in the New Orleans area and seized a ton of dynamite, bomb casings, napalm material and other devices. Eleven people were arrested. Bringuier escaped arrest. Why? It looks like US intelligence forces wanted a more subtle approach to test Bringuier's loyalties. Oswald Came to Center Stage After the Arms Seizure As An Asset This arms seizure by the FBI triggered Oswald to go public, who had been working with Banister doing some quiet leafleting on behalf of the FPCC. At a minimum, Oswald was being used as an asset, defined by the House Select Committe on Assassinations as "anyone used in an operation or project, whether or not that (person) is aware that he is being used". The CIA referred to a person who did not know that he had done anything to help the CIA as an "unwilling co-optee". Whether he knew it or not, Oswald was being used as a counter-intelligence asset. 1. The main goal was to make the FPCC look bad. 2. Incidentally, an anti-FPCC operation would divert public attention from the recent terrorist plans of the anti-Castro underground. This vigilante plan to napalm Cuba did not look good. 3. Along the way, it made sense to try to determine if Carlos Bringuier might be pro-Castro, or if Jorge Bringuier could be brought back into the anti-Castro fold. Carlos may have been used by those using Oswald. === OH yeah WINK ,gaal ================ The CIA examined Celso Hernandez as a Castro penetration agent There is an intriguing report of FPCC member Oswald being arrested with Celso Hernandez in New Orleans in late 1962 (see pp. 6-7, (follow-up at pp. 16-18) The ID of Hernandez was made years later and is admittedly shaky. The ID of Oswald is more substantive, as he id'd himself to the police as an FPCC member - but he was living in the Dallas area. The story is that the two men were picked up at the lakefront in Celso's work truck, owned by an electronics firm that was Celso's employer. The most important thing is that right about this time, Bill Harvey - who worked both the wiretapping side and the Cuban beat for the CIA during 1962 - was tipped off on 10/1/62 that Celso Hernandez might be a communist. This kicked off an investigation that revealed in the autumn of 1963 that there was a left-wing Celso and a right-wing Celso, and a brother and sister who couldn't agree on who was who. [33] Oswald and Celso Hernandez were arrested together again in August 1963. What we do know is that throughout this era, Hernandez was under close scrutiny as a possible pro-Castro infiltrator. Below, we see Oswald's interactions with Carlos and Celso. == [33] Bill Harvey - who worked both the wiretapping side and the Cuban beat for the CIA during 1962 - was tipped off on 10/1/62 that Celso Hernandez might be a communist: For the 1962 Oswald-Hernandez arrest, see memo from investigator John Volz to DA Jim Garrison, 3/1/67, pp. 6-7, (follow-up at pp. 16-18) RIF# 180-10085-10407. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/41827/rec/3 =======

Comparing the Ukraine and Vietnam Wars: Donbas is Recognized as a Legitimate State Under US Public Law 86-90 = posted in fair use By George Eliason Global Research, August 15, 2015 Could US Senator John McCain find North Vietnam on a map during or before the period he spent 5 years as a POW in Hanoi? Could you? The answer is no. North Vietnam only existed in Public Law 86-90. Some of the other countries we also recognize that are enshrined in the law did not exist concretely until 1991. The Vietnam War and Ukrainian war are intrinsically and inseparably tied together by Public Law 86-90. Like Cossackia (the generic western geo-political term recognizing Donbas’ legitimacy), the problem with North Vietnam is it never existed! Even Wikipedia shallowly recognizes this. “The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV; Vietnamese: Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa),[a] generally known as North Vietnam…” When we recognize North Vietnam as a country or North Vietnamese as the army we fought in Vietnam, we have no choice but to recognize “Cossackia” and the republics in Donbass. By extension, we must also recognize the right of the other regions (republics) inside Ukraine to break away like they were promised by the Ukrainian Nationalists. Following up on the Public Law 86-90 story at www.globalresearch.ca entitled “US Congress and President Obama Officially Recognize Donbas’ Freedom! “Sputnik International interviewed Frank Costigliola, University of Connecticut Professor of History and editor of the Kennan Diaries. The point of the interview was to ascertain the validity of the US recognizing Donbass on the basis of “Cossackia” according to the Captive Nations Proclamation of 1959. During the interview professor Costigliola stated The 1959 US Captive Nations Resolution was meant to antagonize the Soviet Union and has no bearing on United States policy, editor of the diaries of the leading Cold War US diplomat George Kennan, Frank Costigliola, told Sputnik…He noted that the resolution does not reach the significance of a formal recognition of the listed countries by the State Department. A decision to recognize the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lughansk “is a huge, huge step beyond the passage of this Captive Nations Resolution,” Costigliola argued. Moreover, the State Department could not have acted on the Captive Nations Resolution,.. Professor Costigliola has gone even further in a NY Times editorial giving president Obama sound foreign policy advice from the perspective of George Kennan. It’s worth the read. But is he correct to say that the Captive Nations Act has no impact on foreign policy? If Public Law 86-90 has never had an effect on foreign policy, I am in respectful agreement with the professor. If Public Law 86-90 has been acted on, I am in respectful agreement with the professor that it should never have been able to happen. The law as Stepan Bandera had it written should not have been enacted. But if it did happen, the genie is out of the bottle and I’m sure any court will agree once the precedent has been set, the law is applicable on all counts. The problem with the Sputnik interview is it started with the presumption that the law was never acted on and Donbass would be setting a precedent. I respectfully request that professor Costigliola review the abridged history found in this article that he could not have known and comment based on what would have been the correct question. If precedent had been set as early as the Vietnam War and can be shown in State Department policy affirmations, wouldn’t the same law apply to Donbass? From his New York Times editorial, Costigliola notes “In 1946-47, Mr. Kennan laid out his containment policy, intending to limit its application to the major power centers of the world, particularly Western Europe and Japan. He grew horrified as containment exploded into a global venture miring the United States in areas of marginal strategic importance, such as Vietnam.” Vietnam the pre-History of the war In this short case study of the Vietnam War, the professor’s assumptions are proven wrong. Dead wrong, to the tune of 58,220 American soldiers dead wrong. Proven, it shows Law 86-90 has unquestionable authority or at least enough for Americans to die for. In the professor’s defense, he wasn’t being disingenuous in the least. He was asked a question from the perspective of being a George Kennan scholar. Kennan stood against this happening. His “Containment” policies started being replaced by the policy of “Annihilation” as early as 1949. The story of how America got involved in Vietnam starts in 1951 when Stepan Bandera took leadership over the world’s nationalist governments in exile. He had already consolidated Eastern Europe to the point that even Wikipedia makes the links betweenall the Eastern European and Baltic States to their SS Nazi origins in the Captive Nations article. By making it a world encompassing effort Bandera knew even his OUN would eventually gain support. In 1951, Bandera set the agenda for what would eventually be “The Captive Nations.” This was reported in the January 1952 Ukrainian Weekly. From the article- On November’30, 1951 the representatives of the peoples of Eastern Europe and Asia (comprising the countries of Azerbaijan, Byelorussia, Georgia, Idel-Ural Cossackia, Crimea, North Caucasus, Turkestan and Ukraine) gathered in Munich and issued a joint appeal to the free world asking for help and support for their liberation from Soviet Russian tyranny.- link from George Mazni, former UCCA Arizona president and Ukrainian Nationalist extraordinaire Notice in the article even at that date “Russian” was interchangeable with Soviet and both had to be destroyed. By this time in WDC, the émigrés had become the darlings of the cold war. They stood behind Joe McCarthy and the China Lobby. In America by the mid-1950s, if you didn’t agree with the China Lobby foreign policy, you were unelectable. Among the leadership of the China Lobby were Marv Liebman and Yaroslav Stetsko. Causal Factors: Vietnam – Public Law 86-90 and the Foundation for War In 1954 Ngo Dim Diem became South Vietnam’s 1st President. He, along with Chiang Kai Shek (Taiwan), and Syngman Rhee (South Korea) was among Stepan Bandera and Stetsko’s closest friends and supporters. Ngo Dim Diem, true nationalist that he was,killed over 12,000 people he found disagreeable in one year. By 1958 Stetsko (Bandera’s émigré foreign minister) who had sworn allegiance to Hitler forever promised to deliver Nationalist (Nazi) states all over the world to guarantee the destruction of the Soviet Union for the United States. He was even able to make petulant threats to CIA director Dulles based on his relationship to Joseph McCarthy. Dulles didn’t want to meet with the nazi. In a letter petitioning Dulles for a meeting Stetsko closed with- “I am on and off in Washington, testifying before the House of Un-American Activities Committee and the House Committee for Foreign Affairs, and I feel assured that you, sir, will find the time to give me an audience.” The combined émigré community proved to be the ultimate political foot soldiers for McCarthyism. They wrote the questions and provided the testimony for Senator Joe McCarthy’s Un-American Committee crusade. They were literally SS Nazis deciding who was a good American. I wonder how much satisfaction the Ukrainian nationalists got out of labeling Jewish professionals “damn commies” and ruining countless lives just after World War II. Only a few short years before this they were murdering, raping, and throwing people into gas chambers at concentration camps. I guess they cooled their jets a bit to become more palatable in American society. These were the people America trusted to provide most of the intel (which was disastrous) for the Cold War. In 1959 the Captive Nations Resolution described by Bandera in 1951 was passed by a unanimous vote in Congress. Stepan Bandera lived to see this, his crowning achievement before he was assassinated. In July 1960, the nationalist émigré groups gained their first major victory in the fight to establish nationalism in America. New York City hosted the Stars and Stripes Gala Affair that punctuated the Captive Nations Week celebration. At the parade on the podium were every prominent Jewish leader, 87+ US Senators and US Congressman, New York’s mayor, the Governor, and the captive nations leaders, which included at least seven former Third Reich SS officers. The nationalist Ukrainians marching in the parade were from Banderas army in WW2. By this time the China Lobby Congress was primed for war. The McCarthy years and the threat of an accusation for being a communist sympathizer had done its job. The threat of a threat across the world in addition to all the provocative and embellished intelligence Congress was supplied took America to the brink of an ultra-nationalism it had not known since the “Business Plot” of the 1930′s. By 1960 this ultra-nationalism was so rampant in American politics that Nationalism (Nazism) was once again discussed as a virtue openly. It became the litmus test for electability. And we have also been brainwashed with another Communist basic tenet. They insist that love of country, the pride of a people in their history, their ideals and their accomplishments is wicked nationalism. Ever since the war, the Communist fronts, and the beatniks and the eggheads, have conducted a national chorus of denunciation of this wicked nationalism. Manifestly our religious organizations and our agencies for character-building in our youth are giving devoted service to halt this slump in morals. These agencies have need of every assistance. But there is a latent force in American life which could be of vital help. The nation needs a rebirth of a great spiritual force, which has been impaired by cynicism and weakened by foreign infection. You can call it nationalism if you will. - Former president Herbert Hoover 1960 Republican Convention The Vietnam War Public Law 86-90 Its Use and Ramifications In June 1954 Stetsko, Bandera’s second in command along with Marv Liebman founded the Asian People’s Anti-Communist League (APACL) in Taiwan. Its leadership was gleaned from Bandera supporters Chaing Kai Shek, Sygman Rhee, and Ngo Dim Diem among others. Liebman and Stetsko set the ideology and agenda for the group. This is important because they are the direct connection between Public Law 86-90 and the Vietnam War! In May 1964 the Asian Peoples Anti-Communist League (APACL) demanded help from the world to fight for Vietnam, for US help to bring the war to the communists: “He said this stand of the APACL represents the “unanimous wish of the Asian people… Every free nation should support the Republic of Vietnam, which is waging the war for the “freedom of the whole free world.” Its not surprising Ukraine is echoing these same words today. -Taiwan Today -May 17, 1964 article “APACL Leader Backing Up Vietnam’s Appeal For Help” Three months later the United States of America went to war against North Vietnam on August 2nd 1964. From this point onward North Vietnam existed according to its recognition as a state pursuant to Public Law 86-90. By 1968 Stetsko had increased the scope of setting up nationalist states worldwide under the umbrella of the World Anti-Communist League. The APACL was his crowning glory at this point in history. WACL’s second conference was held in Saigon, Vietnam in 1968. Public Law 86-90 Unleashed! Nestled inside the Captive Nations Proclamation is the only reference up to that point in history for the country of North Vietnam. It didn’t exist but was constantly referred to throughout the war and even today, 50 years later. This document is the only one of its kind. It recognizes a North Vietnam and a North Vietnamese people before the Vietnam War. Who were the American military fighting in Vietnam? America fought the North Vietnamese as per Public Law 86-90 showing it in play for the duration of the war through our current days. The United States Government Archives also refer to North Vietnam as a country where US soldiers died. The US Gov Archives confirm the validity of Public Law 86-90. 58,220 American soldiers fought and died fighting in a war against a country that first existed in the mind of Stepan Bandera and Yaroslav Stetsko. Why did America Fight the Vietnam War? The Real Reason Confirmed According to president Johnson who made these decisions: “I knew Harry Truman and Dean Acheson had lost their effectiveness from the day the Communists took over in China. I believed that the loss of China had played a large role in the rise of Joe McCarthy. And I knew that all these problems, taken together, were chickenxxxx compared with what might happen if we lost Vietnam.” Van Demark, Brian (1995). Into the Quagmire: Lyndon Johnson and the Escalation of the Vietnam War. Oxford University Press, p. 25 Against the backdrop of history, president Johnson’s reason for sending our troops to Vietnam was to protect Democracy. It wasn’t Vietnamese democracy, which didn’t exist in a fascist nationalist state. Our troops died in Vietnam to protect American democracy in the USA. President Johnson’s gambit was to put off the takeover or complete makeover of the United States of America and give our country a chance to step back, reflect, and hopefully choose Democracy. President Richard M. Nixon President Nixon deserves a write up of his own. Nixon at the very beginning was one of the early supporters of the China Lobby and the émigré populations. He was a friend to Chiang Kai Shek and Yaroslav Stetsko. He personally made sure the social fabric of our nation would start to embrace nationalism. With over 20 years of glad-handing and friendships with nationalist’s world-wide, once he got into office Nixon backed America away from the nationalists and ended the Vietnam war in spite of his long history with the émigrés. Nixon’s China policy infuriated them to the point he feared retribution from them. This is a sitting president of the United States fearing retribution from “anti-communist groups?!!” That alone should give you an idea of how large they have become. Over 100 countries were represented by this group led by Bandera’s Stetsko. Nixon was afraid at the next election cycle they would destroy him by supporting his opponent. The president of the United States walked on eggshells around them after supporting them for over 20 years. Cossackia Its true! Cossackia and North Vietnam only exist in Public Law 86-90. Trouble in both countries threatened the peace and stability of the entire world. Our war dead from the Vietnam War are heroes. Soldiers always are. Neither Cossackia nor North Vietnam should have been enshrined in our law for the past 56 years, but both are. Trouble in both countries was brought to our doorstep thanks to homegrown nationalists in the House and Senate listening to the émigré community. Neither country ever existed, but the people do. Because of the law both countries are recognized. If America presses on with the Ukrainian lies we will be at war with a country that didn’t want war with us. The Ukrainian émigrés will get what they always wanted which is an American body count in a war with Russia. They openly state these things, its time you believed it. The precedent has been shown in this one war. Does it need to be shown again in the one that preceded it? How about the ones that followed? It’s there. Research “the Middle East Solidarity Council.” As sure as the legal precedent has been shown in Vietnam, Donbass has been recognized by the United States of America just like North Vietnam was. Should we dishonor 58,200 families in America by telling them their loved one died fighting in a fictitious country against a people that didn’t exist? The most persuasive argument coming from the nationalists is that some people are critical of the law. The reason for this is the glass house argument. Ukraine is a country that didn’t exist before Stalin. They reject Stalin. Shown in the Global Research article, all the countries that make up Ukraine want their freedom as the payment they were promised by Bandera. The final implosion of the Ukrainian nationalists is not worth American time, lives, or tax dollars. Taking part in their war crimes by supporting them will clearly be a very costly economic mistake for those personally involved. Those that hope to duck underlengthy International Criminal Court proceedings need to take notice. The Glove Didn’t FitI don’t even need to say a word directly about what that sub-title references. You know already. When the glove didn’t fit the civil suits certainly did. But this time even the glove is a perfect match. The ICC has no business inside American law proceedings, which is much faster and has a history of dealing with large-scale class action suits. This will undoubtedly be the proper venue given the list of Federal law that has been broken. Since members of both Houses of Congress are also citizens, they may figure out the legal and political fallout fairly quickly. President Obama, it is the honor of your presidency at your own word to recognize the Cossack republics of DNR and LNR. It is as simple as honoring our war dead from Vietnam. US Public law intrinsically ties them both together. I know you didn’t have this information before this but now it’s in your hands. It’s time to stop the crimes of the Poroshenko regime and be the Americans we tell ourselves we are, once again.