Was Ted Kaczynski Really the Unabomber?

From the 1970′s to the 1990′s, a string of mail bomb attacks gained America’s attention. The bombs were peculiar in nature, having been made of wood and sometimes adorned with carvings. Eventually, a political manifesto, said to have been written by the bomber (or bombers — the authors refer to themselves as “we”) was published in the New York Times and Washington Post. In 1995, a Montana hermit named Ted Kaczynski was apprehended by the FBI and became known as the “lone nut” solely responsible for the attacks. So many times in the cases of the high-profile mass shootings, bombings and assassinations, there is speculation about some sort of MKULTRA-style mind control of the patsy, MKULTRA generally being used as a blanket term. In the case of the Unabomber, however, Kaczynski literally was a victim of a branch of the CIA’s MKULTRA proper at Harvard University, where he had been enrolled at the age of sixteen, and yet very little has been written about it from a skeptical viewpoint. As his brother, David, explains above, Ted was abused for three years in a program disguised as graduate psychological research but which actually sought behavior modification by covert means (and sounds a lot like Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Jeremy Glick). In Ted, we have all the ingredients of a supervillainous patsy, a new model of enemy to be devoured by the wrath of Joe Public, but is he really the guy, especially since it seems like guys like him — Atta and co., McVeigh and Nichols, Harris and Klebold, etc. — never really are, or at least that’s not the whole story? Many of the bombs, for instance, seem to have been beyond the ability of a man who lived without electricity. More information can be found here, here, here, here and here. [END] Permalink: Was Ted Kaczynski Really the Unabomber?

Evidence of Revision 4: The RFK Assassination

This is part four of six of “Evidence of Revision,” an eight-hour video collection which covers many a taboo subject in American history including the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, the causes of the Vietnam war, the social uprisings of the 1960s and ’70s, the Jonestown massacre, government mind control programs such as MKULTRA, and vote rigging and political corruption at the highest levels. The first half of this installment highlights the bid for the Democratic Party nomination for President undertaken by then-Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968 which, along with his life, was cut short by gunfire in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in June of that year. The second half focuses on evidence that Sirhan Sirhan, a busboy at the hotel who is officially Kennedy’s lone assassin, is, in fact, anything but, and that a much larger plot was in effect on the night in question. [END] Permalink: Evidence of Revision 4: The RFK Assassination

Evidence of Revision 3: LBJ, Hoover and Others

This is part three of six of “Evidence of Revision,” an eight-hour video collection which covers many a taboo subject in American history including the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, the causes of the Vietnam war, the social uprisings of the 1960s and ’70s, the Jonestown massacre, government mind control programs such as MKULTRA, and vote rigging and political corruption at the highest levels. Coming on the heels of part two’s in-depth discussion of the corruption of the Johnson administration, this installment shifts the focus onto the blackmailing of FBI head J. Edgar Hoover, who for years denied the existence of organized crime, and then returns to LBJ’s possible connections to the JFK assassination. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the President’s brother, made it clear that it was his ambition to relentlessly pursue the mafia and found no friend at all in Hoover in this. Perhaps we can find some insight in Hoover’s statement that “Justice is merely incidental to law and order. Law and order is what covers the whole picture.” [END] Permalink: Evidence of Revision 3: LBJ, Hoover and Others

Evidence of Revision 1: The Assassinations of Kennedy and Oswald

Above is part one of six of “Evidence of Revision,” an eight-hour video collection which covers many a taboo subject in American history including the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, the causes of the Vietnam war, the social uprisings of the 1960s and ’70s, the Jonestown massacre, government mind control programs such as MKULTRA, and vote rigging and political corruption at the highest levels. This installment, which opens with an excellent video collage on “conspiracy theory,” focuses on the highly suspicious assassination of U. S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. From a long and rambling introduction from a news commentator upon Kennedy’s arrival concerning the assassination of William McKinley to reports and video of two rifles and two different types of ammunition having been found in the Texas School Book Depository from where Kennedy was officially shot to the arrest and assassination of presumed killer Lee Oswald, himself, “Evidence of Revision” is a moving overview of the many questions which still remain concerning this watershed event. [END] Permalink: Evidence of Revision 1: The Assassinations of Kennedy and Oswald

The Beltway Snipers

From Dave McGowan’s Center for an Informed America Newsletter #20 comes a special bulletin on the DC Snipers, who weaved a trail of terror roughly concurrent with the Anthrax attacks in October of 2001 during the “modernization” of the U. S. intelligence and police services beginning on 9/11/01. Excerpts:

“Although [suspect John Allen] Muhammad is generally portrayed by the media as a chronically unemployed drifter who made a habit of staying at homeless shelters, he doesn’t appear to have had money problems. Consider all of the following facts which have emerged in various press accounts: Before kidnapping his children, Muhammad was ordered to pay nearly $900 per month in child support ($869, by one account), indicating that the court had reason to believe that he had a fairly substantial income at the time. He has reportedly owned, or co-owned, a number of businesses, including a karate school, an auto repair shop, and something that he called, strangely enough, “Reality Enterprises.” A number of witnesses have commented on the incongruity of an allegedly homeless man who always had money to spend. The L.A. Times reported that a former girlfriend told her family that Muhammad’s “story didn’t make any sense … He was a hard-luck drifter with money, a man who could pick up and fly to the Caribbean whenever he got the inclination.” The same Times report added that “She wasn’t the only one asking questions … The director of the shelter has said [of Muhammad] … ‘He was rather secretive about his past and present … He was closed-mouthed. He didn’t have a visible source of income, but he was able to travel at a moment’s notice.’” The Independent Online noted that with “no apparent means of support, Muhammad and companion John Lee Malvo traveled from the Caribbean to the north-western United States, and points in between, over the past year and a half. How they financed their activities remains a mystery.” The man who runs the homeless mission where Muhammad last stayed in Washington state, Reverend Alan Archer, was reportedly “amazed to see Muhammad getting phone calls from a travel agent.” Archer recalled that Muhammad flew off on ski trips to both Denver and Salt Lake City. While living in Antigua, with no visible means of support, Muhammad nevertheless was able to send all three of his children to an exclusive, private school. [...] Clearly there was someone, or some entity, bankrolling Muhammad’s activities. Who were his hidden benefactors? The media will likely either avoid the issue entirely or attempt to link Muhammad to some sort of ‘terrorist’ organization, although it isn’t likely that many fingers will be pointed at his most likely benefactor: that world-wide terrorist organization that we all know and love as the CIA. [Update: former investigative reporter Jim Rarey has looked into Muhammad's criminal history and discovered that none of the alleged sniper's past arrests appear in the FBI's national database. Rarey has also raised questions about the ease with which Muhammad has avoided prosecution for his crimes. The obvious inference is that "the government for some reason was protecting Muhammad."

Additional stories on the gun shop which allegedly sold the sniper rifle, as well as the guns in several other shootings of a similarly questionable nature: ATF Would Pull Dealer´s License in DC Sniper Case Feds Pull License of Shop That Stocked Sniper Rifle Gun Shop´s New Operator Gets License [END] Permalink: The Beltway Snipers

Why the Facts of 9/11 Are Suppressed

John McMurtry’s lecture, “Why the Facts of 9/11 Are Suppressed: Understanding the Ruling Group Mind Behind the War Without End,” is an incisive critique of the mass schizophrenia gripping the U. S. and its allies in their waging of the so-called “War on Terror” with the 9/11 attacks as their justification. The “big disconnection,” according to McMurtry: “What, before 9/11, was a world slowly coming under universal norms of life protection and understanding of the destructive life-blindness of the global market system was, after 9/11, a monoculture of one enemy which was disconnected from every real problem humanity faces.” [END] Permalink: Why the Facts of 9/11 Are Suppressed

Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist

This presentation by The Corbett Report details the secret history of the Mujahadeen which, after a series of mutations, gave rise to what is known today as “Al Qaeda.” According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, an advisor to U. S. President Jimmy Carter, a directive signed by Carter in July 1973 gave secret funding to Muslim religious extremists in Afghanistan, the subsequent organization of whom contributed to a decision by the USSR to invade that mountainous country. In response, the U. S. gave more aid, arms and training to the Afghanis, among whom were counted Saudi exile Osama bin Laden and his followers, to help them combat the Soviets. In this way, the seed was planted, fed and watered, and this aid from the U. S. continued through the 1990′s. [END] Permalink: Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist

The Corporation

“The Corporation” is one of the best criticial overviews of the modern industrial corporation to date. Businesses fashioned in the model of a corporation have been granted legal personhood in the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and all of the Constitutional rights which go along with that. Multinational corporations, operating across borders in what this film argues is a pathological manner, has had intense impacts on global ecology and society. From efforts to privatize Bolivia’s rainwater to sweatshop labor in China, “The Corporation” takes a look at the many consequences of the corporate directive to earn maximum profit with no inherent regard for anything else. [END] Permalink: The Corporation

Columbine Shooting Witnesses Speak Out

A little while ago, I managed to get in contact with a number of witnesses to the Columbine shooting who had reported in their interviews with government “investigators” events which contradicted the official narrative. Their accounts variously described additional gunmen, for instance, whom they were able to name by name and who, they insisted to police over repeated interviews, were absolutely on-scene as perpetrators. Many of these “alternative” accounts were independently corroborated by other witnesses, sometimes by the dozen. There were six of these witnesses who communicated to me in all, all of whom wish to remain anonymous for now. In contacting them, I sent a link to my video, “The Columbine Cause,” and asked them if they had any comments on the version I portrayed, which had been based off of their recorded testimonies and others’, versus the official version. Below is what they told me, in which I have removed all details which could be used to identify them. 1) Witness A confirmed that he was who I was looking for but did not reply further. 2) Witness B confirmed that he was who I was looking for but would only comment if paid:
I apologize, but I don’t do FREE interviews on this subject. Best of luck to you with this project.

I was therefore not certain that he would be giving reliable information and did not pursue the matter further. 3) Witness C replied,

“I will need sometime to think about this question Evan. It has been ten years and at some point in your life, you think about how to move on. I will be in touch after I watch the video and think about how to respond”

He did not send any further correspondence and did not reply to follow-up inquiries. 4) Witness D initially replied and then no response was given to a follow-up. Upon receiving a second follow-up, he gave the following response:

“I am so sorry Evan. I was thinking about it and then a lot was going on and I forgot that you wanted to talk with me. Honestly, it has taken me a very long time to get over my fears (only within the last couple of years) and I have blocked out most of the details of what happened as it helped me cope not to remember. I have only read bits and pieces of what was released to the public and only within the last year have I seen the photo of Eric and Dylan deceased on the floor. I don’t think that I want to bring up any of those memories when my life is normal again. I really hope that you understand.”

5) When I told Witness E who I was, sent him my video, and specifically asked about his testimony as reflected in the government documents, he replied by sending me his phone number and telling me,

“I’m interested in what you have found, i’m willing to talk.”

I don’t know what he had in mind to tell me when he wrote this but once I had him on the line, things turned difficult quickly. After greetings were exchanged, the conversation, which lasted approximately fifteen minutes, proceeded as follows:

WE: I’m really hesitant about talking. I’m kind of curious as to what you have. I don’t want my name in any book or anything like that. I’m happy to give you information but I don’t want my name on anything. EL: Sure. WE: So as long as you can guarantee me my name’s not going to be on anything, I’m okay with giving you any information I have. I mean, it was ten years ago, so… EL: Well, absolutely, I will not use your name if you don’t want me to. You’re the first person I’ve talked to so I’m kinda new at this. I’ll give you a little background on me and why I’m doing this and where I’m coming from? WE: Okay. EL: Basically, I’m a researcher is how this all started. When the “War on Terror” started, I was alarmed by it and I also thought that there was probably more to what was going with that than we were told so I started researching the background of that and along the way, I started tuning into alternative media and came across Columbine researchers talking about these government files where witnesses, lots of them, were talking about other shooters. So, I became really interested and decided to, well, I read the files and then decided to put something together to kind of present this publicly and see if anybody was interested in, if there was a cover-up, which it seemed there was, in breaking that. The primary interest is in having these things not happen anymore, obviously. So basically, we have this one story of why Columbine, you know, why the shootings happened. I’m not sure that that’s really the right story and if we’re trying to get to the root of why these things happen, I think that we probably have to go another route. So that’s where, I guess, that’s where you come in. I made this video two years ago and did a couple of interviews and articles to promote it and a lot of people are interested now. A lot of people watched it and said, gee, that was a lot of witnesses who said Robert Perry was there, or that Chris Morris was there, or Brian Sargent or whatever. And people are going, okay, so what really happened? All we really have are these government files which are five or six page interview summaries with people so I figure, enough time has gone by and people are interested in this; why don’t I contact some of the people who were there and see if you have anything to add to what we read in the interviews. I don’t suppose you’ve ever read your files from the police reports? WE: I started to. I just became less interested. EL: Okay, basically what they have you as saying is that you were — and if this is upsetting or anything just tell me to — WE: You’ve given me two reasons as to why you’re doing that. You’ve — that’s two different things as to why you’re doing it. What’s the reason you’re doing this? Is it to uncover something; is it the public interest? EL: Yeah, it’s public interest, basically. I mean, these acts of terrorism — I’m skeptical that we’re getting the full story and I think it is in the public interest that we get the full story. That’s about it. I mean, as far as why I picked up on Columbine in particular, it seemed like there’s so much evidence and nobody was covering it. So that’s why I got into it. But yeah, it’s a public interest thing. I don’t personally know anybody there or anything like that. WE: Okay. In that case, I’m more willing to promote the survival of the victims and the victims’ families as opposed to public interest. I don’t believe in harping on the negative as to what happened. I believe that the media keeps doing that; it’s going to keep focusing on the negative facts and I’m sure there’s a lot that’s untold to the public but there’s probably a reason for that. I’m involved in a very government, you know, family. I have a [government employee] as a [family member] and et cetera. My [other family member's] in [a government job] so I believe in what they do. I’m not saying it’s right; I’m just saying there’s probably a reason, whether it’s for our best judgement or not, it’s their judgement. If you’re doing this, I firmly believe you should do it to show what good came out of this. To show the bad and what was covered up isn’t going to help anybody. Yeah, it’s going to grab the media’s attention for a minute and society’s going to look at it for a little bit but that’s just wrong. That’s gonna hurt a lot of people and I’m not willing to help that. EL: All right, well, can I ask you, in your statement, it said that you were almost positive that there was another, at least another person involved, shooting that day, as did [...] other people who said the same guy. I mean, that — WE: The cops actually have a timeline of the exact moment where he was that day so that was my mistake. EL: So you would say then, there were people who were very insistent who also knew this guy. It said [...] you also were acquaintances with Harris and Klebold and you were pretty sure it wasn’t them whereas his alibis were [... weak]. WE: Yeah, that would be my alibis, too. Who would be yours? EL: Well, I don’t know but again, the interest here was that so many people put him there and some of them were adamant that it was neither of the two official accused. He wasn’t the only one that people said. WE: I’m not willing to hurt my fellow classmates reliving this. I would happily do this if you were there to say, “Hey, this was covered up but hey, this is the good that came out of it. This is ten years later; this is how society improved,” but you’re not and I’m not willing to help you. I don’t think that’s right and you’re going to make people and families of the victims, of survivors relive so much that they don’t have to and you can retell me my statement — trust me, I know it word for word; I had to give it a few times. EL: I don’t understand what you’re saying. Could you — WE: If you make this book and if you’re going to do it, do it but people are gonna read this and be like, “Oh, there’s a cover-up.” Okay, fine; the general society doesn’t understand. The average person has not been through a horrific event like that but you know, whether it be Columbine, whether it be the friggin’ Trade Center, they’re gonna look at this and be, like, reliving it ten years later. That’s not awesome; that’s terrible. I was very hesitant in talking to you but knowing the victims, I thought, “Hey, this may bring something awesome out of this. He may make this amazing book showing that, yeah, there was this cover-up, this could happen but there’s a conspiracy theory to everything. To suppress what could be this journalistic expedition for you is, you’re focusing on the wrong aspect; you’re focusing on fifteen minutes of fame and I’m not willing to help with that and whoever one of my classmates are is ashamed. EL: Well, what would you suggest — I mean, you’re saying, “what good came of it.” What would you suggest? WE: I, what good came of this? Law enforcement so much is more adept to look for red flags and yes, sometimes will go to extremes of looking at every single red flag but you know what? Sometimes, it needs to be done. [... Teachers are more likely to say,] “What students need help; what ones don’t?” Parents are probably more adept to what their students are feeling. Not every parent but maybe one parent changed. People are a lot more aware. It brought me closer to my family in general. I mean, I was a high-schooler who thought [I] knew everything, obviously, at [that age]. It brought me a lot closer to my family at the time. I mean, you view society a little bit differently. It made the whole town look a little bit differently at each other and kind of open your arms to each other. It made this town a little bit tighter. It made society look at what was wrong and how to fix it. Yeah, it may not be fixed but there’s options and there’s people that are aware of this. [...] There’s a lot that came out of it and that’s just off the top of my head; I had long work day [...]. So, there’s a lot that came out of this and if you’re just focusing on the cover-up of this, I’m not willing to incriminate people that I have absolutely no proof as to where they were that day, I — it’s something that was ten years ago in fifteen minutes of gunfire. I, as I told the sheriff that day, I can’t be a hundred percent as to what I saw but here’s what I feel I saw. I trust my eyes, I trust my judgement but they’ve proven me wrong before and I’m not willing to incriminate people or have people intervene in their lives for ten years later. They’ve moved past this and if they’re guilty, karma will come around; due day will come; punishment will come. It’s not me to put that on. So, that’s my feelings; I’m sorry I couldn’t help. I thought this was different. EL: No, that’s okay. My concern was that, also in looking at this, was that if this was the kind of cover-up that I and some of my colleagues suspect it was, this might not have been an isolated incident and that some of the other large events might have been arranged in a similar kind of way. In other words, if there was something bigger behind what happened, and that the reason why it was blamed on just the two kids who wouldn’t be talking and that the others were excluded to protect the truly guilty behind it — WE: Why would somebody protect the guilty? What’s the point of that? What comes of that? What good comes of protecting the guilty? EL: Well, that’s a good question. Again, I’m looking at it and asking questions where things look suspicious. It looked to me and to others like if that were the case, this might not be the only event of its kind and that there may be more in the future. Virginia Tech, for example, had a lot of questions around that, too, and so people are looking for — WE: Of course it was similar. He studied the case on Columbine so yeah, just like any serial killer, they’ve studied other criminals. They’re gonna have similarities. EL: Well, more than that, suspicious as to how the authorities acted with regard to the case and more of that type of question. There was another incident in Australia in 1996 where there’s also very serious questions about whether there was a larger group involved in that and if that is the case, are these people still operating and capable of doing another one. That’s where, I mean, this is not an angle that gets pursued in the media pretty much ever but it is something that was going around the alternative media and among some independent researchers whose work I studied and thought it was worth some merit at least considering. Like I said, you’re the first I’ve spoken to from the situation so I honestly am not very up on how people feel about it or if everyone believes there are people who were guilty but got off or not; I don’t know. I do know that some of the witnesses refused to say, no, to say that they were unsure. They were absolutely positive that most of the rest of those trench coat kids were involved in it, plus an adult. There were several witnesses in the science areas who all described — one girl produced a sketch — an older guy. So again, looking at it, I’m an outsider just looking at it through the window of these police interviews but that’s serious if there were other people involved that either got away through ineptness or if someone deliberately covered that up. Were the people covering that up knowingly working on the behalf of that group, and I guess that’s where the really serious questions start and that’s ultimately, I would say, my aim and where the real public interest is, is, “Is there a powerful group of criminals orchestrating these crimes for some gain?” Now, that’s not something you hear often and you know what, it might not be the case. But I guess that’s my ultimate thesis in this situation and I’m glad that you have taken the time to talk to me and give me your thoughts about this. WE: Well, I’m sorry I couldn’t help. Thank you. EL: All right. WE: Bye. EL: Bye.

6) Witness F was, without a doubt, the most forthcoming. He told me the following:

“I have a hard time watching your entire video. I watched 5 min. I saw too much that day, plain and simple. I have been told I could and would easily disappear if I tried to expose what happened that day. I was locked inside that building [for hours] with the teacher [Dave Sanders] that died, risked my life to save him and he still died. I lost [...] friends [...] and had many friends seriously injured. [...] I was O. C. D. trying to save myself from death at [such a young age]. I was also told by the police and investigators that I [...] was the most credible witness that day: However, I did not see [...] this and [...] that! [...] Everything I said happened in those 4 hours, the police have evidence of happening within 2 minutes of when I say it happened. They only denied my credibility after celebrating my accounts as true and belittling me and my mother to our faces! My mom taught me to “Pay attention to time, location, and description.” She taught me that it pays to pay attention. This time it didn’t pay it cost me. I am a potential threat to those guilty and still living. They cannot make up their minds of what is right and wrong, they’ve been sucked into to the evil [...]. I want to write a book, and have since it happened, but know too many reasons not to [publish it], like my family saying it risks my life. It still plagues me that my friends were forced to leave me while those sickened minds who killed them still walk [among] us. I want peace without being a martyr! I love and so I am lovable! What makes that so hard?!!! My protectors betrayed me, deeply. Would die for the truth, but want to live for the beauty of my lost friends memory and most important power of LOVE!”

To all of the witnesses I contacted, including those who may not have replied at all, I hope I presented myself in a manner that was respectful to your satisfaction. I do truly appreciate the difficulty imposed on you by the experience of the shooting, the events preceding it and its aftermath and wish you only the best in your recovery. [END] Permalink: Columbine Shooting Witnesses Speak Out

Indictment – Inside the Oklahoma City Grand Jury – The Hoppy Heidelberg Story

“Indictment: Inside the Oklahoma City Grand Jury – The Hoppy Heidelberg Story” highlights Oklahoma City Bombing Grand Juror Hoppy Heidelberg’s involvement with the effort to indict Timothy McVeigh for the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in April 1995. Heidelberg was unhappy with the way the prosecution tried to manhandle the jurors and limit their powers of inquiry and was eventually thrown off the jury for being too critical of the proceedings, which left many an important stone unturned. Like 9/11, like 7/7 and like many other high-profile acts of terrorism, the Oklahoma City Bombing has left many who’ve researched beyond the government’s convenient patsies and unlikely official version with many questions about who really committed the crime. [END] Permalink: Indictment – Inside the Oklahoma City Grand Jury – The Hoppy Heidelberg Story