I have no control over whether advertisements are shown on this site or not:
About These Ads
The site you just visited is part of WordPress.com. There are two reasons why you might see ads on a WordPress.com site

Liberty is not an invention of revolution. Liberty is the discovery of enlightened reasoning.

HybridRogue1blog is a personal journal, and not a forum oriented blog space. I have several close friends who have been vetted to make commentary here. Otherwise it is rare to get accepted for the privilege of posting commentary here. But if you wish to comment, do so and I will consider adding you to the list.

My main impetus in writing this blog is to make an investigation into the systemic nature of the architecture of modern political power. As well as to give my forensic analysis of history.

I do understand that this blog has an unusual format as the main feature and title of each page is just a preview in most instances – while the main content is in the editorial commentary made below that. This is why I wish to point out that it is in the comments section, that the majority of the work is presented.

Government is a racket.

These pages are presented under the Rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, with the understanding that such a Right, as are all of them, are mine by the simple fact of my birth as a human being. No “government”, no ‘majority’, no power of this Earth can revoke or grant the Rights of Liberty. Liberty is not an invention of revolution – Liberty is the discovery of enlightened reason.

Also, I wish to sarcastically Welcome You to The New World Order.
You are on the doorstep now as the final fruition is at hand.

The greatest sin against ones own self interests is obedience to authority.

~Willy Whitten – \\][//

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


JFK Assassination















Moon Landing Hoax


Propaganda & Social Engineering











Moles, Agents (& Other Assholes)






NOTE: For miscellaneous & other topics see: HOME 

98 thoughts on “About

    • NOTICE

      Due to irreconcilable differences between Craig McKee and myself, I am no longer participating on Truth & Shadows.

      I get replies there from some who may not understand that I am not there. I get notices from WordPress when such comments are made. There will be no replies from me on T&S. If you wish to make a comment here, be my guest.

      Moderation and publication are not guaranteed however.

    • The term “Blog”
      The term “weblog” was coined by Jorn Barger in December 1997. The shorter version, “blog,” was coined by Peter Merholz, who, in April or May of 1999, broke the word weblog into the phrase “we blog” in the sidebar of his weblog [1] (http://www.peterme.com/archives/00000205.html). This was interpreted as a short form of the noun [2] (http://www.bradlands.com/weblog/1999-09.shtml#September%2010,%201999) and also as a verb, to blog, meaning “to edit one’s weblog or a post to one’s weblog.”

      ‘Web Log’

      The post about shortened form “blog” > http://www.peterme.com/archives/00000205.html

  1. I have often offered the advice to my adversaries in debate to acquire this handy little jewel:

    A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston

    Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
    P.O. Box 44937
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0967

  2. As I have explained before a few times; I did not intend for this blog to be a “public forum”, it is more a journal of my own thoughts and ideas. I have allowed a few people that I consider trusted friends posting privileges here. I have had exchanges with them for a good many years, and know that they will abide by my wishes not to overwhelm any of the threads with huge verbose arguments.
    If anyone wishes to debate, another site that is specifically designed as a forum must be the venue. Not here in my living room.
    Thank you, Willy Whitten – \\][//

  3. Was Extra Equipment Attached To Flight 175? (The plane that struck the south Twin Tower on 9/11)

    This is a good question. I am not convinced there was not an extra piece of equipment attached to the underside of that plane. I won’t speculate on what it might have been, but it appears to be more than a trick of shadows. If it can be proven conclusively, that certainly would prove that was not a commercial aircraft; and I am already convinced that it was NOT a commercial aircraft for many other reasons

  4. Interview 1088 – Black Op Radio: 9/11 Research
    JamesCorbett and Len Osanic of Black Op Radio talk about the 9/11 false flag. They discuss the psyop aspects of the attacks as well as those pieces of evidence that directly contradict the narrative of the attacks.


    • NSPD-9: Combating Terrorism
      October 25, 2001

      [Text Not Available]

      On April 1, 2004, the White House released the following characterization of this otherwise classified document:

      The NSPD called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics.” The NSPD also called for plans “against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities.”
      In testimony before the 9-11 Commission on March 23, 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld presented this description of the strategy contained in NSPD-9:
      “The objectives of the new strategy were:
      To eliminate the al-Qaeda network;
      To use all elements of national power to do so — diplomatic, military, economic, intelligence, information and law enforcement;
      To eliminate sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks — and if diplomatic efforts to do so failed, to consider additional measures.
      The essence of this strategy was contained in NSPD-9. It was the first major substantive national security decision directive issued by this Administration. It was presented for decision by principals on September 4, 2001 — 7 days before September 11th. The directive was signed by the President, with minor changes, and a preamble to reflect the events of 9/11, on October 25, 2001.”
      . . . . . .
      President Bush signed this NSPD almost a month BEFORE the events of 9/11.

  5. 911research.wtc7.net649 × 452Search by image
    Fig. 27 and 28: Spheres extracted from WTC dust” and “XEDS spectrum from a sphere found in the WTC dust showing elemental aluminum:
    Two graphs; Upper: Red material of red-gray chips — Lower: Primer paint from actual WTC Steel: High Zinc, Calcium, Mg peaks/

    BELOW: Fig. 29, labeled “DSC trace of sample 1 (blue line) compared with DSC of xerogel Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite (from Tillotson et al. [28]):
    DSC trace sample

    • Based on the Law of Conservation of Mass, which states that matter is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction, every chemical reaction has the same elements in its reactants and products, though the elements they are paired up with often change in a reaction. Displaying each element is important when using the chemical equation to convert between elements.

    • Millette study fails to refute crucial findings by Harrit et al
      Accelerant is on the chips, not in them


      The study by Dr. Jim Millette has confirmed that the red/gray chips found in the dust associated with the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) are paint chips. The WTC steel featured several different primer paints, with Tnemec used for the perimeter columns, and Laclede – which contains no zinc – for the floor trusses. However, this does not mean that the paper by Harrit et al is useless. On the contrary, the Harrit study did find physical evidence of accelerants. The paint chips are certainly not thermitic; they contain no elemental aluminum. But they were contaminated by a small amount of accelerants, with elemental Al part of the composition. The most likely source is fireproofing that was directly adjacent to the primer and was “upgraded” between 1996 and 1998. For WTC1, there is an exact match between the five floors of the impact zone (94-98) and the five contiguous floors with upgraded SFRM of a high density compared to SFRM on other upgraded floors. When Harrit’s chips were heated to 700 °C, the primary exotherm seen in differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) traces denotes combustion of the paint’s organic material, which is probably Laclede primer’s epoxy binder. The yield from thermite – or from aluminum reacting with iron oxide in the paint – was up to five orders of magnitude lower than the yield from organic material. This would explain the absence of a secondary peak from thermite, although the Intermont curve has an interesting trough at 640 °C and then gradually goes into positive territory at 700 °C. The MacKinlay samples’ 395 °C peaks are consistent with polyisobutylene (BR), used as a binding agent in plastic explosives. Millette found no elemental Al after an MEK soak, and no evidence of thermite. Harrit et al not only found elemental Al after an MEK soak, but also iron-rich spheres in the residue after chips were subjected to heating in a DSC – evidence that a thermite reaction had occurred. The conflicting results may be due to the fact that Millette’s chips were “washed in clean water” prior to analysis, whereas Harrit’s “samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified”. Elemental aluminum and oxidizer(s) from the accelerant weren’t in the chips; they were on the outer surface of the red layer, which corresponds to the left-hand side of Harrit’s Figures (12) (b) and (15) (c). Information contained within this page not only proves beyond all doubt that OBL and KSM did not orchestrate 9/11, but identifies the principal perpetrators.

      • beachcomber2008 says, “Objects fall free with an ACCELERATION of G, or 9.81 m/sec/sec or 32.2 ft/sec/sec. That’s NOT A SPEED.”
        Beachcomber quibbles; Yes it IS a speed, acceleration has both vector quantity & scalar quantity.
        As far as his calculations are concerned, Gordon Ross disagrees, He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University.
        In Ross’ Reply to Dr. Greening, he notes:
        “Energy sources
        Kinetic energy from initial freefall 2105MJ

        58Ktonnes * g * [Dr. Greening’s safety factor of 2] moving through 555mm deflection of
        impacted storey * [29/30]
        Elastic strain energy in remainder of impacting section 26MJ effective mass of 58Ktonnes * g *
        2 * [(11/2)/16] moving through a proportion of 11 affected storeys’ full elastic deflection of
        Elastic strain energy in remainder of impacted section 104MJ effective mass of half of
        58Ktonnes * g * 2 * [17+(4/2)/16] moving through half of 4 affected storeys’ full elastic
        deflection of 7.4mm
        Total Energy demands 2816MJ
        Energy deficit 2816 – 2700 = 116MJ

        This shows that by using the same reasoning and analysis as Dr. Greening and by adopting the figures proposed by him, the upper section can be shown to have been exhausted at a point in time prior to completion of the shortening phase of the buckle failures induced in only those columns identified by Dr.Greening as being the first affected by the collapse. This analysis shows that the collapse would progress for a further 50 milliseconds, beyond the point that was predicted in my article, before suffering arrest.”


      • Momentum: Vectors/Scalars
        Vectors have magnitude and direction, scalars only have magnitude. The fact that magnitude occurs for both scalars and vectors can lead to some confusion. There are some quantities, like speed, which have very special definitions for scientists. By definition, speed is the scalar magnitude of a velocity vector.
        [See: 5th paragraph under “DON’T PANIC!”]

      • “The specific objectives were: (1) determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed…” They did NOT determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed.
        Finding 59: “NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.” Why didn’t NIST find evidence for explosives Tony? BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T INVESTIGATE FOR EXPLOSIVES. “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” — How could NIST rule out a demolition hypothesis when they never tested for it? NIST failed to follow their own guidelines for fire investigations and ignored all the evidence and testimony that went against their predetermined conclusions. See: NFPA 921 GUIDELINES National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
        NIST was not a scientific investigation of 9/11; NIST was a political whitewash of 9/11.

        “N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.” NFPA 921 requires testing for explosives whenever such “high order damage” is present. National standards were not followed by NIST in it’s “investigation” of the destruction of the WTC.

      • $ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION (January, 2002)

        “For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

        “Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”

        “Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything.”

    • David Chandler, B.S., physics ,M.S., mathematics; also disagrees with Tony the Beachcomber
      The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a “pile driver.” The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.

      The vertical component of velocity was computed using a symmetric difference numerical
      differentiation algorithm [see page]
      A graph of velocity vs. time (Figure 2) shows near uniformity of the downward acceleration from the 6th computed velocity point onward. When the roof line begins to fall, it quickly transitions to nearly uniform downward acceleration.

      Our data shows that from the sixth computed velocity data point onward, the upper block is
      accelerating uniformly (with an R2 value of 0.997) at a = -6.31 m/s2, or in other words, 64% of the acceleration of gravity. For this value of a, N mg mg mg = − = 0.64 0.36 (4) Therefore the upward-acting normal force is 36% of the weight of the upper block.
      Consider the upper section of the building to be a block of weight mg. Since the acceleration of the block is measured to be downward at 0.64g, the net force acting on it must be 0.64mg. The gravitational force is mg, so the upward normal force must be 0.36mg. The upper and lower sections of the building exert equal but opposite forces on each other, so the load on the lower section of the building is 36% of the weight of the upper block.

      Explicitly invoking Newton’s Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed “pile driver,” suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.”~Chandler

      Click to access ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf


  6. “There was also recorded a magnetic field shift on earth at the time the tower got the road runner effect. It all leads to DEW’s im afraid.”~This is a claim constantly made by supporters of Judy Wood’s DEW story. It is as baseless as any of their other so-called “proofs”:

    “The Earth’s magnetic field shifts constantly, the field surrounding the Earth changes over time, with shifts occurring most prominently in low latitudes in the Western Hemisphere. The fast-moving magnetic patches that occur near the equator drift approximately 10 miles (20 kilometers) per year. These changes are driven by intense regions of activity in the core, the cause of which scientists have been at a loss to explain.Relying on more than 400 years of data, including more than a decade’s worth of continuous global satellite observations, Aubert’s team was able to create the first model to explain the westward drift.Gravity aligns the inner core and the mantle, the layer between the core and the outer crust, forcing liquid metal in the outer core into enormous rotating vortexes known as gyres. These gyres can reach as large as 1,700 miles (2,700 km) deep within the mantle, while smaller gyres occur closer to the surface. As these gyres are concentrated at low latitudes, core convection expels them and pushes them westward, the model shows.”

  7. Global Web Conference on 9/11

    Except for the very first speaker here, I am extremely disappointed with this panel. Especially the speaker (shown as the title page of the video) who defined the meme of “Truth Reality” rather than “Truth Movement”. He is a frantic jitterbug who seems like he is about to jump out of his skin. He sputters, and chit chats, like a nervous ninny. And he seems to have infected those who follow with his infectious twitch.

  8. Surrealpolitik
    George Orwell wrote: “Political language-and with variations this is true of all political parties from Conservative to Anarchists is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” [Essay on Politics and the English Language, 1946]

  9. The Terror Factory
    The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terror shows how the FBI has, under the guise of engaging in counterterrorism since 9/11, built a network of more than 15,000 informants whose primary purpose is to infiltrate Muslim communities to create and facilitate phony terrorist plots so that the bureau can then claim victory in the war on terror.

    An outgrowth of Trevor Aaronson’s work as an investigative reporting fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, which culminated in an award-winning cover story in Mother Jones magazine, The Terror Factory reveals shocking information about the criminals, conmen and liars the FBI uses as paid informants, as well as documents the extreme methods the FBI uses to ensnare Muslims in phony terrorist plots—which are in reality conceived and financed by the FBI.

    The book offers unprecedented detail into how the FBI has transformed from a reactive law enforcement agency to a proactive counterterrorism organization–including the full story of an accused murderer who became one of the FBI’s most prolific terrorism informants–and how the FBI has used phony terrorist plots to justify spending $3 billion every year on counterterrorism.

  10. “What is ‘Truth’? said jesting Pilate”

    “History is written by the winner”

    The question then is; “what did the historians of the accepted official history taught in the US win? These historians are winners in various contexts, and investigating what conflicts they were winners of, and who the losers in these conflicts were, can do a great deal of clarifying the popular myths that have become officially sanctified ‘HISTORY’.

    Zelikow’s record gets really interesting when we consider that he went on to write the 9/11 Commission Report. He earned a law degree from the University of Houston Law School and a Ph. D. from Tufts University. He wrote books too. He wrote a book on The Kennedy Tapes, and another on Why People Don’t Trust Government. One of his areas of expertise is PUBLIC MYTHOLOGY. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

    While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

  11. Do you know the distinction between the concept of “experts” and “authorities”? The words are often used interchangeably, but there is an an important difference:
    noun, plural authorities.

    1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

    2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization :
    Who has the authority to grant permission?

    3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency: The housing authority provides rental assistance payments to low-income residents.
    The bridges and piers are built and maintained by the Port Authority.

    4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government
    . . . . .
    An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study.

    So you may make an appeal to authority as you just have, which is a common logical fallacy, but you can be assured that there are many experts who are not beholding to authority ie; government who agree with me.

    • The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute
      Thursday, September 17, 2009

      If the scientific fight over the World Trade Center was not so hugely important, it might be viewed as simply ridiculous that core elements of an event could be so severely disputed by people equally pledged to the scientific method. But with the stakes so immense, the vastness of the gap is far from ridiculous and is, in fact, of such magnitude that it is almost certainly going to take wide public understanding of the elements of the dispute to force re-examination of the evidence in a manner that would win the trust of both the public and the experts.

      For the record, here is a summary of just some of the technical areas in dispute and what the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and its building trade and science allies on one side and its equally credentialed science, professional and licensed critics (building and structural engineers, architects, physicists, chemists) on the other side, put forward as their cases. It was compiled from NIST’s official report and from analysis that included papers and reports by independent professionals or members of groups representing each side of the argument, as well as from some other independent technical experts who have not taken sides.

      The dispute takes place in a context that no other high-rise steel buildings ever collapsed in such a manner without the use of explosives. NIST alleges that in this special-circumstances case the buildings, like the “unsinkable” Titanic, did just that. NIST’s independent critics believe that what is “titanic” here are NIST’s scientific mistakes, evasions and willful refusal to examine all evidence.
      As the NIST report itself concedes, “It [the report] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” The critics insist that such an admission itself invalidates the report.

      NIST counters that, to the contrary, once the collapse started, the fact that the lower floors gave way is proof enough that the initiating events were sufficient to cause them to give way. As spokesman Newman said: “In the towers we believe we understand the physics of what happened and it’s a fairly simple conclusion after that. There was no need to build computer models after that as the results were already explained.”

      One member of AE911Truth counters, “That is science by imperial fiat, reminiscent of the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo.”

  12. Supplementary report made for FEMA by Therese McAllister, Jonathan Barnett, John Gross, Ronald Hamburger, Jon Magnusson. Chapter 2 … Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

    “Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.

    Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.”

    This is evidence of Thermite Arson, however NIST never addressed this information.

    • Dr. John L. Gross is a research structural engineer in the National Fire Research Laboratory (NFRL) of the Fire Research Division (FRD) of the Engineering Laboratory (EL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Noitce that Gross is one of the names in the FEMA, Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
      There is therefore no excuse whatsoever for NIST’s claim that there was no evidence of explosives or thermite arson.

  13. The Morning of 9/11

    First and foremost I am an artist. I draw, paint, sculpt, write, compose, sing, and play keyboards. I am autodidactic and curious, I have a fairly good aptitude in physical science. I taught myself everything I know, and have researched many subjects deeply. I have been doing forensic historical research since the mid 1970’s.

    I was born in Amerika, or the USA if you like, the same year as the National Security Act was established. I am a champion of the Unalienable Rights to Liberty.

    With my background in the study of deep history, and the current events of the last 20 years I was suspicious within the first hours of the morning of 9/11. I had an interview at a special effects studio in the LA area on the morning of 9/11, having traveled up from the San Diego area the night before. I first saw the second plane strike on a television in the continental breakfast area of the hotel I had spent the night in. The sound was off on the set, and I turned to face it after pouring a cup of coffee and grabbing some rolls. On the TV, I saw one of the talking heads, and behind him the jet flying into the tower. I recognized the Trade Towers, noticed the other building was already billowing smoke. I was simply baffled at what I was looking at.

    There was another fellow sitting at a table between the TV which was mounted high up on the far wall. He was reading a newspaper. I said to him, “what is going on in the pictures on the TV? Do you know how to turn up the sound?” He looked up at me like he was surprised at my question and said. “haven’t you heard? There has been a terrorist attack in New York!” He didn’t know how to turn up the sound on the TV, so I rushed upstairs to my room and watched the TV there to a bit to get a sense of what was happening. I then called my client and asked if I should still come in for the interview. He said yes.

    I spent about an hour at the interview, and then decided to rush back to San Diego, because I wanted to get home before there was some sort of shut down, I had learned that air travel was already shut down. I didn’t want to get stuck in LA. So I rushed through the strangely empty streets to the FWY and found it utterly devoid of traffic as well. I sped back home averaging some 80 to 90 MPH, it was absolutely surreal, there was not a single car on the freeway going either way! Until I reached Orange County, where another car was going the other direction, I didn’t see another car on the road all the way to my house in Alpine, CA.

    On the drive I listened to NPR and instantly recognized the cast of usual suspects in the lineup being interviewed, they were all reading from the same script, “terrorists”, “al Qaeda”. “Homeland” (whut??) , “Al Qaeda”, “Terrorist”!!!. It was like a mantra. By the time I pulled into my driveway I was convinced that something coordinated was up with the public relations regime.

    I went inside and pulled my wife’s old B&W TV out of a closet (I wouldn’t allow a TV on in the house normally) I took it up to my studio and put it next to the computer station, and turned both on. About a half hour after I got home the first of the towers was shown “collapsing” live on TV. I was stunned, I jumped up yelling to no one there, “THAT is impossible!! That airplane couldn’t have done that! The tower literally erupted like a volcano! It OBVIOUSLY exploded.

    I started digging for real information then and there. I am still at it.

  14. “On the 11th September 2001 at 09:59 and 10:28 EDT, two enormous explosions pulverised to dust the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centrein New York. The 400 metre high towers disintegrated in a volcanic eruption of dust and rubble before the eyes of the entire world.”~William Tahil — Ground Zero Preface

    So right here at the core of Tahil’s hypothesis we find profound error. There were explosions in the sub-basements of each tower some 17 seconds BEFORE the planes impact, as shown by seismic readings from nearby stations. There continued to be intermittent explosions through out the period the buildings remained standing. At the onset of the destruction a demolition wave of hundreds of small explosions rippled down the sides of the buildings just ahead of the billowing debris. This is not only caught on video tape, but is described by hundreds of ear and eye witnesses.
    See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/

    So Tahil builds a foundation of sand with his first assertion, and all assertions built atop such a shaky foundation fall with the slightest shift of that foundation, that shift in his foundation is the proof of the false assertion itself; as provided by the visual and audio evidence of the event itself.

    • sup·po·si·tion
      an uncertain belief.
      “they were working on the supposition that his death was murder”
      synonyms: belief, surmise, idea, notion, suspicion, conjecture, speculation, inference, theory, hypothesis, postulation, guess, feeling, hunch, assumption, presumption

  15. Autism in the United States: a Perspective
    F. Edward Yazbak,M.D., F.A.A.P.

    Once rare, autism has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. The increase cannot be attributed to changes in diagnostic criteria, which have actually become more restrictive. Already a heavy burden on educational facilities, the increasing number of patients afflicted with this serious disability will have an enormous effect on the economy as the affected children reach adulthood. Studies of all possible causes of the epidemic are urgently needed. To date, studies of a potential relationship to childhood vaccines have been limited and flawed.
    Earlier in the program, cases of autism in U.S. schools were few.
    As they steadily increased, a decision was made to list autism as a separate entity starting in 1991. As shown in Figure 1, the number of children aged 6 to 21 with autism in U.S. schools rose steadily.from 5,415 in 1991-1992 to 118,602 in the latest published.Department of Education report for the 2001-2002 school year.
    So far, though the CDC does not know what causes autism and its neurological, endocrine, gastrointestinal, and immune symptoms, it appears determined, without a single clinical study of its own, to deny the potential role of MMR vaccination and mercury preservatives. The possibility that mercury may affect the immune system of certain genetically predisposed children and trigger autism upon their exposure to MMR has never been conclusively ruled out.
    The decision to remove thimerosal from pediatric vaccines in 1999 was wise. It is difficult to believe that, to assure sterility, a known poison had been added for more than 60 years to products intended for infants. Safer “preservatives” should have been used.
    Serious independent research is urgently needed. It cannot be expected from people with financial ties to the vaccine industry and the vaccine authorities.

    There has been a true and significant increase in autism in the U.S. To date, the CDC and other governmental health authorities have not given enough attention to this serious epidemic and its present and future impact. They must face their responsibility now.
    Emerging evidence suggests some relationship between MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines and regressive autism.
    Additional independent and unbiased clinical studies must be conducted in order to determine all causes involved.
    Information about the autism epidemic and its potential causes should be widely disseminated.

    F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, founded TL Autism Research, 70 Viewcrest
    Dr., Falmouth, MA 02540, tlautstudy@aol.com.

    Click to access yazbak.pdf


  16. Tequila, Painted Pearls, and Prada: How the CIA Helped Produce ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

    On April 21, 2011, Mark Boal called the CIA to tell them he was going to Afghanistan.

    The previous year, the screenwriter had been at a dinner when CIA director Leon Panetta asked Boal to alert the agency if he ever traveled to the country. At the time, Boal was working on a movie called Tora Bora, about the CIA’s failure to capture Osama bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The title referred to the region in eastern Afghanistan where the US felt it had let bin Laden slip through its fingers during a battle in December 2001.

    But less than two weeks after Boal made the call, a team of Navy SEALs raided the al Qaeda leader’s compound in Pakistan and killed him. Boal would not be going to Afghanistan after all.

    Instead, he stopped writing the script for Tora Bora and began writing a different screenplay about what one lawmaker called “the most classified mission in history” — the killing of bin Laden. That movie, which Boal would work on with director Kathryn Bigelow, would become the 2012 Oscar-winning film Zero Dark Thirty. And the CIA would play a huge role in the creation of the script.

    * * *

    The previously undisclosed detail about Boal’s phone call to the CIA was included in more than 100 pages of internal CIA documents obtained exclusively by VICE News in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The documents contain the most detailed information to date about the controversial role the CIA played in the production of Zero Dark Thirty (ZDT).

    Included in the trove of redacted agency records is a March 2014 CIA Office of Inspector General report titled “Alleged Disclosure of Classified Information by Former D/CIA” — D/CIA refers to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta — and a separate September 2013 report from the inspector general’s office titled “Potential Ethics Violations Involving Film Producers.”

    The ethics report contains remarkable details about how Bigelow and Boal gave CIA officers gifts and bought them meals at hotels and restaurants in Los Angeles and Washington, DC — much of which initially went unreported by the CIA officers — how they won unprecedented access to secret details about the bin Laden operation, and how they got agency officers and officials to review and critique the ZDT script.
    And of course anyone who knows the actual history of this affair, this is a fable made of whole-cloth. bin Laden was not killed in the raid by the Seals, he died back in December of 2001 of renal failure. This is another Zelikovesque, “Public Myth”.


  17. Dunning–Kruger Effect
    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999. Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to evaluate their own ability level accurately. Their research also suggests that conversely, highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks that are easy for them also are easy for others.[1]

    Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in the unskilled, and external misperception in the skilled: “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”[1]

  18. My combined reply to 72daystar for this morning [10AM — 10/3/2015]:
    72daystar Begins with, “The quote from the NIST report is something we find in all reports an acknowledgement of the scope of the data.” — the quote he refers to is this one by C. S. Fletcher of NIST; “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” And 72daystar is claiming that this is something “we find in all reports” Well who is “we” and what specific reports is he citing?

    72daystar continues with; “It is made seem sinister by decontextualizing it and, frankly, dishonestly, reframing it as evidence for another sinister plot. That is a fallacy called an appeal to ignorance.” — Frankly aye? The quote is totally in context, as explained that NIST did not fulfill their mandate to explain why the towers suffered global collapse, and only did their so-called analysis up to the point of “collapse initiation” and blithely asserting that once this “initiation” was reached the total collapse was “inevitable” with nothing to support such an assertion but pure conjecture. It is a fact that NIST did NOT model the total collapse. It is a fact that the original NIST mandate states; “The specific objectives were: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” — source: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

    As NIST clearly did not fulfill it’s mandate, it is clearly in breach of contract. As NIST clearly did not fulfill it’s mandate, this admission by NIST, “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” is clearly by any reasonable analysis, fully in context.

    72dastard then begins the familiar hum of disingenuous rhetorical distraction “dishonestly, reframing it as evidence for another sinister plot,” — even though his charge of “reframing” is clearly as inapplicable, as his charge of “decontextualizing.” The term “sinister plot,” is 72daystar’s own, a subliminal recognition of the inevitable conclusion of the actual facts of NIST’s obvious evasion. It is shown that in just his opening remarks, 72daystar is the party making an appeal to ignorance.

    Next There was plenty of aluminum, yes. Aluminum silicate, but not elemental aluminum. boldly asserts; “There was no evidence of explosives, and there were numerous opportunities to find such evidence.” — which is the same circular reasoning NIST itself uses to hand wave the evidence of explosives.
    These numerous opportunities to find such evidence were simply not taken advantage of, as NIST itself admits they did not test for explosives: The Report claims that NIST found no evidence of explosive while at the same time admits that NIST did no physical testing for explosives, example:
    ABEL: what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
    NEWMAN: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.”
    ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
    NEWMAN:” If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time…
    –Conversation between reporter Ann Abel from ‘CTNow’ and a NIST spokesperson, Michael Newman.

    But according to national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, any major fire must conduct tests for possible arson. As Bill Manning, editor of Fire & Engineering Magazine exclaimed in frustration; “Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”


    Now 72dastard claims, “There was plenty of aluminum, yes. Aluminum silicate, but not elemental aluminum.”
    — However, the graph illustrates a spike for elemental aluminum not bound with the spike for Silicon. Harrit a professor of molecular chemistry points this out in his own words.

    As for James Millette and the claim that “He is a prestigious award winning forensic scientist,” — his reputation has nothing to do with the matter and the facts at hand. Your claim that “he has presented this to his peers, and unlike Harritt and Jones it has stood up.” — This assertion is provably false. Millette did NOT publish the results of his findings, he in fact never completed the paper he intended to publish. I defy you to cite any journal wherein this paper Millette supposedly wrote appeared.

    You are the one disingenuously reframing the actual facts of this affair. Millette did not replicate the procedures of the Jones-Harrit experiments, and it is therefore no surprise he couldn’t repeat their results. You reframe the facts again when you claim that Bentham isn’t a legitimate scientific journal. Bentham is only defamed by one small but loudly clamoring group, those opposed to the findings of Nanothermate by Jone-Harrit et al.
    It is scurrilous to elevate Millette, who did not publish at all, while defaming Jones-Harrit. Yours are the disingenuous rhetorical tactics of a disinformant. One close inspection of your commentary we find nothing to be as you claim it to be.

    “But” 72daystar says, “just think, given the mass of the building 450,000,000 kg, that would work out to 450 metric tones of unexploded thermite when thermite normally entirely combusts when ignited.” — This statement is based on the false assumption that the entire 450,000,000 kg mass of the building was turned to dust Which was clearly not the case. Added to this is the fact that the pile of the aftermath maintained incredible heat for weeks after the event, as shown in thermal images from NASA satellite data. The source of this continued burn can be reasonably assumed that the previously unreacted THERMATE (!) which contains it;s own source of oxygen is the most likely source of the ongoing fires under the rubble pile. Thus the percentage of nanothermate remaining in the dust after the pile was disassembled would be magnitudes less than that of the original day one dust samples obtained by Jones.

    As per al Qaeda, Brzezinski himself admitted creating the mujaheddin groups that eventually became identified as al Qaeda, in the US efforts to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan; the historical record on this is crystal clear whether you can accept the facts or not. Characterization of Global Research as “just some guys blog” is typical for your jejune and ignorant hand-waving.

    This one is a real knee slapper; “I have not been “indoctrinated” that requires indoctrination. I would have noticed.”
    –Totally bloody ridiculous! The very definition of indoctrination is that the one being indoctrinated is unaware of the fact he is being indoctrinated. For a historical perspective on this matter see:

    I have read Robert J Liftons work and understand it quite well. Lifton agrees with me, Lifton has criticized the current war on terrorism as a misguided and dangerous attempt to “destroy all vulnerability”.
    It appears to me that 72daystar has read Lifton without fully comprehending Lifton – which is perfectly par for the course in reviewing 72daystar’s past interpretations of other works.

    Lastly to address 72daystar’s question; “Are you at least familiar with the phenomenon of projection?” — WTF?!! ‘Projection’ is a psychology 101 elementary concept. Let’s get past the jejune jokes hot shot. You’ve come a long way, going along to get along, and essentially treading water in the same mental state that led you to become well adapted to a pathological society. It has it’s practical perks … if you are willing to give up your soul and your capacity for independent thinking. You are the typical anemic academic, produced like widgets by the technocratic university system.

  19. Mock Aircraft 9/11
    Both the military and Dov Zakheim, Pentagon Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense had Boeing 757’s, 767’s. & 737’s. Zakheim was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.

    Zakheim then has, means, motive, MO, and Cui Bono, ei; he would benefit directly in the crime of conspiracy to commit mayhem, conspiracy to defraud the government , conspiracy to murder, and conspiracy to wage a war of aggression.

    Only with subpoena power can this most reasonable suspicion be proved conclusively. And Zakheim has impunity because of his positions of political power and finance So no court proceedings ,nor criminal charges will be filed while the present system is manifest, and longer this system remains in power, the less likely is there a chance the system can be overthrown. A grave dilemma for the human race.


  20. Copyright law does not apply to facts, data, or ideas. According to the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of copyright law is “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” If copyright could grant individuals or business exclusive control of facts and ideas, it would constrain all kinds of progress, or eliminate it altogether. That is why the second section of the US Copyright Act spells out what is not protected by copyright:

    In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

  21. What a junk carousel it is on these 9/11 sites. Stooge after stooge, one after another confronting me with their scripted bullshit. All of them anonymous entities hiding behind a mask, and oinking in chorus. Such a tired and trite refrain, like a tape loop from Purgatory, vile and demonic in intent, slanderous and scurrilous in delivery.

    Their tactics are transparent to anyone with a lick of common sense or scientific knowledge. They play to the lowest common denominator, of which they are part of. They carry the stench of sulfur about them and hoot ululations from the shadows. They attack in packs like cowardly jackals.

    Their time is short, for the corrupt system they attempt to defend is crumbling as we speak. Yes their time in the docket will come as collaborators and toadies. No amount of chanting “gawblesmurkah” will save them from their due fate.

  22. Propaganda includes: leaflets, newspapers, magazines, books, radio, and television, all of which are geared to convey the U.S. message appropriate to the region. These techniques have expanded to cover the internet as well. They may employ officers to work as journalists, recruit agents of influence, operate media platforms, plant certain stories or information in places it is hoped it will come to public attention, or seek to deny and/or discredit information that is public knowledge. In all such propaganda efforts, “black” operations denote those in which the audience is to be kept ignorant of the source; “white” efforts are those in which the originator openly acknowledges himself; and “gray” operations are those in which the source is partly but not fully acknowledged. –
    See more at: http://www.insanemedia.net/forum-shill-gets-busted-ats-and-glp-censor-n-7015a/2924#sthash.fsvsDig2.dpuf

  23. Hi Willy
    I follow your commentary on JFK Facts. My compliments for taking on the Bills, Photons, Nickersons and Bill Clarkes of this world

    Just to add to your debate with Bill Clarke and Jean Davison about any clearances Oswald might have had.

    I have been reading Anthony Summers’ book “Not in Your Lifetime.” He mentions an Air Force Intelligence officer named John Robert Glenn. He was a defector to Cuba who was investigated by HUAC in 1963. Summers writes that he had a Crypto Clearance in his job. His source for this are records at NARA. Unfortunately, these records cannot be accessed on line. However, thanks to Bill Kelly and others, you can find a brief bio on Glenn at the Mary Ferrell Website, which states that Glenn has a Crypto clearance. Ironically, Glenn was interviewed by HUAC on Nov. 18, 1963.

    Now, I am not going to Washington to look up Glenn’s file. That is what Photon would demand, isn’t it?

    What this does suggest is that the Crypto clearance did exist, no matter what Bill Clarke says. And, as you point out at JFK Facts, it is an additional clearance given for a specific task.

    Keep up the combative work at JFK Facts. There are many of us who appreciate what you have to say and how you ate on the WC defenders

  24. Greetings Paul Oryshak,

    Thank you very much! I am often amazed at our opponents intransigence in the face of so much evidence. It is almost as if they are living in an alternate universe. I suppose in a sense they are; being so utterly indoctrinated is very much an altered state of consciousness. Specifically a state of denial.
    This is pretty typical of ‘Homo Vishnu Amerikanus’, a post modern sub genera of ‘Homo Sapien Sapien’.
    It is a fascinating paradigm we inhabit, isn’t it?
    Reminds of the proverbial Chin curse-meme, “May you live in interesting times.”

    I have found this so far, after first reading your comment here:
    Sources: HUAC Hearings: 10/16/63 & 11/18/63
    Mary’s Comments: DOB: 7/26/29. POB: Evanston, Illinois. Wife: Marcia Haag Glenn. Member FPCC. Traveled to Cuba in July 1963 without passport. Studied Russian 5 years. Air Force Intelligence with Crypto Clearance and Top Secret Clearance. State Department paid his way back from Spain (??). Testified before HCUA on 11/18/63. Glenn and Lee Harvey Oswald purchased almost identical material (Internationale, etc.) from Pioneer Publishers, 116 University Place, New York, NY.
    –Thank you for the heads up on this info.

    • tendentious
      1. Having a tendency; written or spoken with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one.
      2. Implicitly or explicitly slanted

      1. keenness of mental perception and understanding; discernment; penetration.
      2. Archaic. keen vision.

    • You are welcome, Willy.
      I also notice that you were asking about Randy Robertson at JfKFacts.

      Pat Speer is quite right about the head shot and Robertson’s take on it. If you visit Walt Brown’s website, you will find an old summary of Robertson’s view of the shots.

      He essentially is saying JFK was hit in the back of the neck and the bullet did pass through JFK’s front neck. But unlike the WC, he makes no claim that this bullet then hit Connally. (Which implies that a separate bullet hit Connally – at least 4 shots – a conspiracy!)

      He also says that 2 shots hit JFK in the head: one in the lower part of the back of the skull, just as Humes et al said;’ but also a shot from the front which entered JFK’s skull from the right side and went out the back and top of the head, leaving fragments seen on the X-rays. ( again, indicative of at least 2 shooters and a conspiracy). Humes et al must have seen the wound as described in the Clark Report and the HSCA, but ignored it because it would have contradicted the fiction that there were 3 shots all from the rear.

      MacAdams is being disingenuous as usual. He makes it sound like this a new discovery or theory by Robertson, which it is not. Also, MacAdams surely is picking and choosing his sources. Robertson is right about the genuineness of the x-Rays and pictures; he is wrong about what they show or prove. MacAdams cannot have it both ways. I find the timing of this posting suspicious. It comes as David Mantik and Dr Chesser write that their studies of the x-rays prove that they are fake.
      This is the problem: LN ers use Robertson to counter Mantik or Gary Aguliar who have written extensively about the autopsy and its shortcomings and the horrific interpretations made by the medical community.
      I, for one, find the discussion of the medical evidence perplexing. Agular’s article with K Cunningham at History Matters on how government sponsored authorities got the autopsy and medical evidence wrong is eye opening and worth the read. I like Pat Speer’s work, too. But, the research community is divided about the genuineness of the X-rays and photos. (Just as it is divided on the Zapruder film – thanks for the comments you have made about this in the past).

      Keep up the great work in going after Photon/Paul May. He has to stop with the abnormal neck nonsense or that John Kirsch called him a racist/sexist.
      Paul Oryshak

      • Paul,
        Thank you for the further info on the X-ray situation!
        I am more of the opinion that CSI Fiester has it right – One shot to the temple from the front.
        But I am open to other opinions here.

  25. The 1993 WTC bomb was made by the FBI’s informant on the group, Emad Salem, using FBI supplied bomb parts. He can be heard talking to his FBI handler about his concerns about the group being given a real bomb, a bomb that had just exploded in the WTC parking garage.


  26. Week Nine of the Russian Intervention in Syria: The Empire Strikes Back
    By The Saker
    Global Research, December 07, 2015
    The Unz Review 5 December 2015

    Considering the remarkable success of the Russian intervention in Syria, at least so far, it should not have come as a surprise that the AngloZionist Empire would strike back. The only question was how and when. We now know the answer to that question.

    On November 24th the Turkish Airforce did something absolutely unprecedented in recent history: it deliberately shot down another country’s military aircraft even though it was absolutely obvious that this aircraft presented no threat whatsoever to Turkey or the Turkish people. The Russian Internet is full of more or less official leaks about how this was done. According to these versions, the Turks maintained 12 F-16 on patrol along the border ready to attack, they were guided by AWACS aircraft and “covered” by USAF F-15s in case of an immediate Russian counter-attack. Maybe. Maybe not. But this hardly matters because what is absolutely undeniable is that the USA and NATO immediately took “ownership” of this attack by giving their full support to Turkey.

    NATO went as far as to declare that it would send aircraft and ships to protect Turkey as if it had been Russia which had attacked Turkey. As for the USA, not only did it fully back Turkey, it now also categorically denies that there is any evidence that Turkey is purchasing Daesh oil. Finally, as was to be expected, the USA is now sending The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group into the eastern Mediterranean, officially to strike Daesh but, in reality, to back Turkey and threaten Russia. Even the Germans are now sending their own aircraft, but with the specific orders not to share any info with the Russians.
    * * * * * * *
    “But, if someone thinks they can commit a heinous war crime, kill our people and get away with it, suffering nothing but a ban on tomato imports, or a few restrictions in construction or other industries, they’re delusional. We’ll remind them of what they did, more than once. They’ll regret it. We know what to do.”~Vladimir Putin
    * * * * * *

  27. “If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”~Barack Hussein Obama


  28. WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse.



    Zinoviev: Global Suprasociety and Russia

    “Actual historical developments are always a combination of two processes: 1) ‘elemental’, unplanned and uncontrolled; 2) conscious-volitional, planned and controlled. Their proportions and roles vary with certain limitations. The domination of the second type will lead to a situation, when the general line of development is monitored, and only less important components may be out of control.

    If we intend to give a scientific description of these processes, we will require quite different methodologies and sets of concepts. ‘Elemental’, natural processes are described with the concepts and postulates of dialectic. For the conscious-volitional processes we would need a different methodology, based on the knowledge of what social plans (projects) are, how and why they are created, how they are executed, and by what rules. Though this other methodology does not exclude dialectic, it implies an essentially different focus of attention while examining social objects.

    All famous theories of social evolution proceed from the explicit or implicit view on history of mankind as an ungoverned natural process, beyond human will and conscious planning. This view was formed at a time, when people knew very little about the laws of their social life and had few ways of influencing their own evolution, let alone controlling it. The powers of mankind were not enough to manage history: there were several rivaling alliances, and the idea of international unity seemed an unattainable utopia. There were regions with great autonomy and even those independent of the mainstream evolution tendencies.

    But beginning with the latter half of the 20th century the situation in the world fundamentally changed, so that the view on history as a natural process has become an anachronism. Humankind has entered an era when evolution no longer develops by its own freaks, but rather by conscious deliberate planning. In fact, planning has become the dominant factor in the range of factors conditioning history. Multitudes of people and huge resources have been involved in history; acting for the same end, they have enhanced the role of the subjective factor in history. This, coupled with the achievements in the research of social phenomena, processes and human behavior, has resulted in the situation, when the measure of control over history and the efficiency of trimming its course to plans have grown. On the pragmatic side, mass communications, manipulation technologies and means of solving problems on a large scale have become incredibly sophisticated. Immense intellectual powers and great resources have been put on to solving numerous problems, so that the percentage of unforeseen, unexpected historical developments has been drastically reduced as compared with predictable and planned ones. All the mentioned factors have combined to bring about a qualitative change in human evolution.”


  30. The excuse, “I was just following orders” was rebuked at Nuremberg. Following unlawful orders is a crime, just as giving unlawful orders is a crime. Each has a personal responsibility in the matter that cannot be passed on to another by lame and self serving purposes.

  31. Wes Fox, Your confusion is not my fault, nor is your lack of reading comprehension skills. Thermite is not the same product as Thermate, and ‘Superthermate’ is a sol-gel product created on the molecular level, and is not “mixed” ingredients like regular thermite and thermate. The distinction of thermite and thermate is that the second has the addition of sulfur to the iron and aluminum mixture of regular thermite.
    The sol-gels are a completely different kettle of fish, as they have biotic materials in the molecular matrix which produce gasses. The generation of gasses in an explosive is what creates the brisance, or ‘explosive power’ of a material.
    If you would actually read the entirety of my article you would already have learned these simple straight forward scientific facts.

  32. Hi Willy
    I was looking at Tom S and his response to you regarding Jim Garrison today.

    Just to let you know, I have emailed Joan Mellen and the author of the new biography on Clay Shaw about the issue between the Baldwins and Mrs.Garrison. I am still waiting for a reply from either one of them. Jim DiEugenio did reply to me and said the issue was a non sequitur. Deep Politics Forum and the Education Forum have gone “dark” on the issue.

    I am troubled by the silence. I find it hard to believe, though, that Garrison was somehow a cutout for the CIA or in cahoots with Shaw. Much evidence in support of a conspiracy (or at least, adding to the criticisms of the Warren Report) was produced at the trial, including an airing of the Zapruder film in public before the jury, the testimony of Finck about military brass calling the shots at the autopsy, the sightings of Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw in Clinton and Jackson, Louisiana, the use of the alias Clem or Clay Bertrand (thrown out of court on a terrible technicality) etc. Why would the CIA allow info like this to surface? Why would Harry Connick Sr wish to destroy Garrison’s files if there was nothing to see in them?

    I wish Garrison’s children might comment on this.

    What is your take on Garrison in light of Tom’ revelations? Look forward to your posts and responses on JFKFacts.
    Paul Oryshak

    • Hello Paul,

      Thank you for taking the time to comment here.

      Frankly, I am appalled at Mr Scully’s take on Garrison. It is difficult to confront the moderator as frankly and boldly as one might if they were merely another commentator.

      I am disturbed doubly because I think that much of what Tom has brought forth actually proves that Garrison had a firm case against Shaw, and by extension the CIA and his own in-laws.
      More than anything else I am simply baffled. I feel the same way about Leslie Sharp’s agreement with Tom in what I would say is ‘defamation’ of Jim Garrison.

      I am continuing to struggle with these issues going forward on JFKfacts. I hope you may eventually get answers from Ms Mellen and the new author. Can you tell me the name of that author you speak of?

      ~Willy Whitten – \\][//

      • Hi Willy
        The book is the one Tom quoted from in the threads – “Man of a Million Fragments” by Donald H. Carpenter. You will end up at Mr. Carpenter’s publisher when you try to e-mail him. I was hoping Jim DI might address the issue on Black Op Radio as he does take in questions at CTKA and often deals with them on Len Osanic’s show. My question about Garrison was not dealt with on the program, so I am doubting Jim will address it publicly.
        Yes, indeed, I, too am baffled by Tom and Leslie and by the tone of the current comment of the week, as well.
        I did bite the bullet and intervened at JFKFacts when MacAdams went after Bill Simpich about the Tippit murder. I thought I was helping Bill but it backfired – it allowed MacAdams to shout “victory.” That is why I am reluctant to participate on JFKFacts.
        Keep up the good work at JFKFacts.
        Paul Oryshak

      • Hi again Paul,

        Thank you for the book title and authors name. I read a couple reviews on Amazon. It doesn’t sound like what I am looking for in a book about Shaw.

        Jim DI doesn’t participate in the fun and games at JFKfacts anymore either, I understand that Scully and he have had a falling out.
        I can understand that. Tom has some rather strange foibles that I can’t quite figure out.

        I understand the Jeff has no problem with McAdam’s participation.. hmmm?

        There have been times when I was fairly convinced that JFKfacts is a limited hangout. Just before Scully took over moderation from Peter, I had written a scathing rebuke of the site. That just happened to be the first comment I made that was approved by Tom. A weird coincidence. I had considered that to be my swan song there. But Tom and I have gotten along quite well. At least until we started butting heads over the Garrison issue.
        I still like Tom as a moderator. But I think he is too active as a participant in the commentary, and seems to get carried away with his own perspective and the genealogical aspect of everything. That has its place, but also has its limits in usefulness.

        Anyway, I am trudging on there trying to avoid the pitfalls.

        The people that annoy me most are Photon and Bill Clarke. I can take the twattle from Jean and McAdams with a grain of salt. But Bill simply infuriates me with his little soldier boy act. Of course Photon poses as an expert on everything from medicine to legal matters…and he clearly doesn’t know squat about any of that.
        But I Think they all are under direction of McAdams as the majordomo of the group.

        Keep in touch, ya’here?

    • Tom S. — March 24, 2016 at 3:30 pm

      “Gm, the details I have presented, especially considering the bold writings of Nicholas B. Lemann accompanied both in 1974 and in 1991 with no disclosure or disclaimer, indicate it is reasonable to think the Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw was a limited hang out coordinated, presented, and covered up in cooperation with and possible sponsorship of the CIA and more openly, of the DOJ.”


      I think this is sad… I think Tom’s opinion here is misplaced.

  33. Don’t you get tired of people calling you crazy? I do, so I don’t talk about 9/11 with most people.

  34. Hi Willy
    What the hell is going on at JFKFacts?
    I noticed that you got into it with Lee Farley and the rest of the gang at ROKC. If you have looked at the website, it is not for the faint of heart when you decide to take any of them on.
    I am decidedly unsure about Tom S. He is pretty fair, most of the time, as a moderator. Jim D spoke highly of him as a researcher when I emailed him about the situation at JFK Facts. However, I think that he gets into trouble when he becomes a commentator and not just a moderator. I am familiar with all the stuff at the EF and ROKC about Scully. I must say that many of his posts are not straight forward – a major complaint over at ROKC awhile back. ( blurring the line between moderator and commentator). Posting with a phony name was another problem.

    I would be interested in your take on all of this – it does not feel right to me and is symptomatic of the political infighting and clash of egos that has existed in the research community from the time of the first generation of critics.

    Paul Oryshak

    • “What the hell is going on at JFKFacts?”

      Paul…I tell ya, we are just now trying to figure that all out.

      You know Tom and I have had our differences. But what I see has happened is that there was a full court press from an organized group to attack and defame Tom Scully.

      As far as the issue of the Prayer Man. At this point I find it to be a non-issue. As I said in a still yet to be published comment there:

      “Face it. Prayer Man is all you got to break through.”~Peter Sellers

      When and more importantly IF you ever have an identifiable image, rather than a smudge, a blur, then and ONLY THEN will you have the proof you are prematurely heralding at this time.

      Until then, you are participating in hysterical hyperbole and unjust accusatory behavior.

      • Right on, Willy. Hope this will die down. Unfortunately, on ROKC, the commenters there are in full throat with the swearing and the put downs. I am curious about Prayer Man and would eagerly await anything that would confirm or deny the hypothesis put forth. With your expertise, do you think a more legible picture might emerge if originals or first generation copies were examined? Thanks, Paul O

      • Paul,

        Whether a more legible picture might emerge if originals or first generation copies were to be examined, would depend on the frame size of the original. If it is 8mm, there may be little chance of an identifiable image. If it is a 16mm format, there is a pretty good chance one may be able to get a clear enough image to ID that person.

        One problem may be that the blur is caused by camera jiggle, which I think is likely. If that is the case a reconstruction is going to be necessary and THAT can always be claimed to be manipulation of some sort; because it can be manipulated at that stage.

        If the cause of the blurring is something else, and a simple blowup gives us a clear image, that would be the moneymaker. But like I said, one cannot cash in that ticket until it is actually accomplished.

      • JFK Assassination – Dave Wiegman Film

        There is very little in this entire film that is in focus. I wouldn’t hold out much hope of identifying the so-called ‘Prayer Man’ in this sequence. You can’t even identify people in the foreground in full light the film is so jiggled and smeared.

        There is a good chance Wiegman didn’t have the lens in focus for the distance to the steps of the TBDB – in that case, there is no way to bring it into focus.
        There are extrapolation software programs that can “sharpen” images to some degree, but once you get into that, accusations of manipulation are valid.

        See: https://www.topazlabs.com/infocus


      • There are so many variables in this equation.

        1. Aperture of the shooting movie cam… Since it’s a sunny day, I am guessing it was set for the lighting conditions of the day… Which, theoretically, will reduce shadow detail, where the PM is…

        2. FIlm Processing… I think, or more like I assume, that the motion film people did the sam thing that photojournalists of the time did with their film, which is to “push” the film in order to get back the shadow detail mentioned above.

        3. Film to video transfer… Which is made by shooting rear-projection of a film off relatively small screens with a video camera.. I believe these screens were quite small, around the size of a typical film editing /cutting setup.. Which is roughly 8-16 inches diagonal.

        3B. Shooting off projection had an additional handicap. Since the projection screens were small, the giant video cameras would have to stand back and zoom in… Which is yet another quality deteriorating aspect of the process.

        4. Frame rate discrepancy…. The shooting camera is 29.97 fps, whereas film is playing at 24 fps. This could potentially reduce sharpness as well

        5. Tape… Although most tv was still broadcast live at the time, when recording they used the relatively new 2″ Ampex tapes technology, which used 4 heads and was not so great for picture quality. This can be observed in old broadcasts where they did use video recordings… There used to be a definite noticeable difference in picture quality between live and tape..

        6. Original vs. available copy… I haven’t looked into the source of the video we are discussing. It could be fair to assume that it is not a first generation, modern day film-to-video conversion.

        All in all, they a damn good chance that the original 16 mm could have enough detail to recognize or rule out the PM being Oswald.

        All this said, do I think the “museum” will digitize and share it if that person is Oswald??? I think not!!!

        In fact, even if that person is not Oswald, I would think the gatekeepers will not be willing to digitize the original, worried that some other detail of something or another will come out. Since the assasination was certainly a group effort, I’d say it is very likely that a huge number of characters at that location had tasks to perform… For example, the praying man, who is hiding in the shadow there, could very well be the one responsible of keeping an eye on Oswald… Or signaling something to someone for coordination… Or whatever…

      • So I agree with you David,

        I ain’t sayin’ yup. And I ain’t sayin’ nope.
        I’m just sayin’ maybe.

      • Still David,

        After spending quite a bit of time studying the Wiegman Film, I am convinced that the blurring is due mainly to hand held jiggle. The first consideration is that it was a drive by film capture – that means horizontal movement – image smearing. Then there is the hand held scan of the scene. Add those together and you have blurring in the original. If I am correct in this there is simply no sharpening software in the world that will correct to the point of bringing out an identifiable image of the people on those steps.

      • Perhaps… But you really do not need much detail to recognize a face… Plus, while recognition is difficult, ruling someone out when a bit more detail is available is relatively much easier.

      • We will see if and when the time comes David.
        I am convinced those images are blurred in-camera, caused by movement.


      • Circular Argument:

        They have determined that Oswald is Prayerman in that image. So then to buttress this determination they seek out “evidence” that would favor that determination. The argument being, “since it is Oswald in the image, these other “proofs” are simply “cherries on top”. Of course this is also “confirmation bias”.

        So we have two combined illustrations of false argumentation made by this group.
        Add to this the paranoid hostility that sees those who do not buy into such ludicrous argumentation, and we have a prime example of cult behavior in this gang of trolls.


  35. The physics/mechanics of ICBMs

    The entire operation depends on the launch trajectory of the main vehicle. It is put into orbit so that it will end up over the intended target. At the point it reaches that destination, the reentry capsule is fired and drops from orbit with it’s payload. As it descends it will deploy parachutes at the point it enters a thick enough atmosphere to cause friction heat. The nuclear payload is triggered to an altimeter, so when the capsule reaches a specific altitude the device explodes in air above the target. This causes an EMP (electromagnetic pulse), plus a pressure wave that hits the earth below.

    This whole reentry procedure takes near the same amount of time as it takes to read that paragraph.

  36. ROKC Website

    FORUM & BLOG WATCH > JFK Facts website

    Hasan Yusuf — April 19, 2016 at 2:10 AM
    “Let me just say that all of you people (at any forum and website) who have no interest in obtaining HD Scans of the Darnell and Weigman films make me sick to my stomach! Here is the chance to give Oswald’s descendants some closure by possibly proving beyond any doubt that he was standing on the front steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination, and you don’t give a toss. YOU ARE ALL AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE!!!”


    This is the home site of the Prayerman Cult — the group of idiots that have just attacked Tom Scully and the JFKfacts forum. They are simply fucking morons.

  37. “If you live in a community where you never encounter something that offends you, then you aren’t living in a free society.”~Kim Campbell
    – Former Prime Minister of Canada

  38. Now, I have been studying the JFK assassination for close to forty years. In that time I have come across a penumbra of datum, many rational arguments, and many irrational arguments. I have collated all of this and analyzed it all countless times and have come to my own personal conclusions.

    Most of what is being put forward today by the Prayerman enthusiasts is what I would call common knowledge and information to the larger research community. To suggest that we consider their arguments and give them a fair hearing is one thing, but for them to demand that I or any other drop our previous perspectives and conclusions in deference to their views is unreasonable.

    It is particularly egregious for them to cop the attitudes they have, and then turn around and expect us to have sympathy for their positions.

    And then to be confronted with Circular Arguments, as described below:

    They have determined that Oswald is Prayerman in that image. So then to buttress this determination they seek out “evidence” that would favor that determination. The argument being, “since it is Oswald in the image, these other “proofs” are simply “cherries on top”. Of course this is also “confirmation bias”.

    So we have two combined illustrations of false argumentation made by this group.
    Add to this the paranoid hostility that sees those who do not buy into such ludicrous argumentation, and we have a prime example of cult behavior in this gang of trolls.

    They defeat their own aims and ends by such an aggressive assault on these pages. Persuasion by the use of a big stick is doomed to failure by any who have no penalty to mete out but their own ire.

  39. George
    April 24, 2016 at 7:05 pm
    O the irony. You’re linking to a known fabricator to boost your case for a fabricated story.

    This alleged encounter with Reid took place right in front of Geneva Hine… yet Hine somehow missed it. How? Because it never happened AFTER the assassination. Reid was still outside when this was alleged to have happened. If she saw him with a coke on the 2nd floor, it was before the assassination. If Baker saw Oswald with a coke, it was on his way inside.

    Mr. BALL. Did you see Mrs. Reid come back in?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I think I felt sure that I did. I thought that there were five or six that came in together. I thought she was one of those.
    Mr. BALL. Mrs. Reid told us she came in alone and when she came in she didn’t see anybody there.
    Miss HINE. Well, it could be that she did, sir. I was talking on the phones and then came the policemen and then came the press. Everybody was wanting an outside line and then our vice president came in and he said “The next one that was clear, I have to have it and so I was busy with the phone.
    Mr. BALL. From the time you walked into the room you became immediately busy with the phone?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir; sure was.
    Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald come in?
    Miss HINE. My back would have been to the door he was supposed to have come in at.
    Mr. BALL. Were you facing the door he is supposed to have left by?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Do you recall seeing him?
    Miss HINE. No, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
    Miss HINE. No, sir; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
    Mr. BALL. Do you remember their names?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Who were they?
    Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Molina (spelling), Miss Martha Reid, Mrs. Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that’s all I recall, sir.

    Campbell was quoted in the paper the next day as saying “We saw him [Oswald] in a small storage room on the ground floor”

    This was on the way back in. Who is the “we”? Campbell, Reid and the others named by Hine as entering together…

    Once again — you need to educate yourself on all of this or you are going to get smashed from pillar to post. Your choice, Willy.
    . . . . . .
    My Reply

    Willy Whitten
    April 24, 2016 at 11:56 pm
    Hine contradicts herself three times in her testimony above, if you didn’t notice Mr Parker:
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Mr. BALL. Mrs. Reid told us she came in alone and when she came in she didn’t see anybody there.
    Miss HINE. Well, it could be that she did, sir. I was talking on the phones and then came the policemen and then came the press.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    And then two more times she contradicts that:

    Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
    Miss HINE. **No, sir**

    YOU figure out the 3rd one – it is right there in your own comment.

    YOU need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills.

    • Mr Greg “Georgieboy” Parker needs some basics in Critical Thinking 101. Just like his little ditz girlfriend, Vanessa.
      They both make the same arguments over and again, completely dismissing the answers given to them. In fact misinterpreting the answers given them. Vanessa is just stupid. But I think Parker is running a game on JFKfacts on purpose. I think he, like Fetzer and Horne, is a mole set out to disrupt reasonable discovery on the JFK assassination case.
      As such Parker should be dismissed. If I were moderator on the JFKfacts forum, He would be out. He is obviously a disingenuous prevaricator and provocateur.

      It is obvious that the whole reason these Prayerman boosters want to talk about anything but the actual image is because the image at the base of this whole argument is a big ZERO. It is proof of NOTHING. How do you make nothing into something?
      With endless piles of bullshit!


  40. Hi Willy
    Congrats on being included in Comment of the Week this week. But as usual, Tom is being opaque. I wish he would just spell out his point. What do you think is his purpose? I see he won’t let the Baldwin business alone. I told you that DiEugenio earlier said that Tom’s conclusion is “non sequitur” and then radio silence. Joan Mellon still has not responded to me at all.

    You stood up well to the gang from ROKC. I don’t get them – they have written excellent pieces on many subjects about JFK and yet the crazy personal attacks when anyone questions Prayer Man. You should see how they went after Tom before or John Armstrong about the two Oswalds. They have even criticized DiEugenio from time to time even though Jim has participated in their conference.

    Good to see Gary Aguilar commenting frequently, although there is a nasty edge that I don’t remember from previous posts.(aimed at MacA and Photon). Wow, Bill Clarke is getting tiresome, too.

    Keep up the great work
    Paul Oryshak

    • Frankly Paul,
      I haven’t the slightest idea of what Tom is thinking on his Baldwin-Garrison trip.
      I haven’t been back to the JFKfacts site since I posted my first comment on the new Comment of the Week thread…
      I will check back in here when I see what’s going on there.

      Thank you for your interest!

    • Well Paul,
      There doesn’t seem to be much interest in the new Comment of the Week.
      Likely because Tom’s “theory”? Is so obtuse oblique.
      I know I don’t get it al all, and I am pretty good friends with Tom.

      It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma with cheese…

  41. Hi Willie
    What is going on with you and Tom? It seems that the moderator is going after you and the tone is getting nasty.

    • “It seems that the moderator is going after you and the tone is getting nasty.”

      Ah, so you noticed aye Paul?
      That does seem to be the case, doesn’t it.

    • Did you see this one Paul? :

      Comment of the week
      June 28, 2016 Tom S.Assassination 4 comments

      Willy Whitten – June 25

      In reply to John McAdams

      “Do you believe the throat wound was an entrance?
      If so, what happened to the bullet?

      If you can’t answer that plausibly, you have a problem.”~McAdams

      There was no “bullet” to the throat, it was a dissolving flechette, as I so aptly proved previously.
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      See: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

      • Randy Lombard… I really have no idea. He has a particular hostility for me for some reason. Tom talked to me by email about him before allowing any of Lombard’s comments to pass. I gather some of his first comments were quite outrageous in rancor.

        I told Tom that I didn’t need to be protected, or treated in any special way. So Tom cut Lombard loose. He seems to focus most of his attention on trying to provoke me.

        It is curious as to how the whole forum is reacting to the flechette proposition. It really isn’t something I am all that invested in. I see it as a real possibility, but only one of many.

        I have also thought the 22 cal bullet a possibility as well.

        The one thing I am ‘certain’ of, is that the throat wound is one of entrance. But there are no clear X-rays of the chest, where the fragments of a bullet would be seen. THAT is the mystery; why no clear X-rays? The ONLY X-ray of the chest looks like a fifth generation xerox copy. What is being hidden?

        The half century refrain, WHAT IS BEING HIDDEN???

        This message has my seal of approval:

  42. I am going to check the Internet for Mr Lombard.
    I concur about the throat wound . I wish there were clear X-rays of the chest so we could see what kind of internal damage there was as a result. I can’t remember what Sherry F had to say about that wound.
    Go well into lions den!
    Paul Oryshak

      • Hi Willy
        I am a broken record – what is going on at JFKFacts?

        You made the comment of the week again with Bob P. Tom decided to make an example of you and then the thread was taken down or disappeared.

        It looks like Tom wants to make an example of you after dumping Photon. Look, if that is what Tom wants to do, more tha 3/4 of the comments ought not to be printed. So he is being selective. (Your friend Bill C is often a culprit)

        Bob P has had his own difficulties on other JFK sites, but he has behaved himself for the most part this time around. That is why the exchange between him and you was surprising and it got very nasty quickly.

        Paul Oryshak
        Ps have you ever written to Jeff? I have found that he does sometimes answer messages sent his way.

  43. Hi Willy
    Just to let you know – this Randy Lombard shows up nowhere – not on the Education Forum, Deep Politics Forum, MacAdams site, Amazon reviews of JFK literature, nothing. I guess he is a newbie or he is posting under an assumed name. Even the Japanese author that posts, Greg Arious and others I have seen at other sites or at Amazon. Whatever “criteria” he is using to mock you, he fails to apply to any of the other commentators who are not interested in truth about the assassination.

    I don’t get it – Tom seems to be determined to silence you or let others do it for him. The tone is deteriorating on JFKFacts as people like MacAdams are getting nastier – he calls Morley a buff on his forum but has not the guts to do so on JFKFacts, although he is getting closer to the line. I did not like what he did to John Titus – if he wanted to confront him, he should have done so privately and not publicly. It reflected badly on Tom and the website and I see there was no apology. I have no opinion about Titus one way or the other, but it was handled poorly.

    By the way, just an aside, I like Leslie Sharp and all, but I am pretty sure that it is an assumed name. I think she got into trouble on Greg Burnham’s site as “Linda O’Shea.” Double standards galore on JFKFacts. I know a moderator has a tough job and Jeff Morley is awfully busy with his lawsuit and book projects, but Jeff has to keep a closer eye on what is happening and Tom needs to calm down. All these predictions about Tom from other websites are apparently coming true like a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Keep on contributing.
    Pau Oryshak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s