Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:


Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

How Bush after 9/11 overwhelmed Al-Qaeda

Interviews with one of the planners of the September 11 attacks on the United States has revealed how the initial quick and harsh response by the Bush administration caught them off guard and prevented further attacks.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the masterminds in the 9/11 attack, said that “the ferocity and swiftness” of former U.S. President George W. Bush’s reprisal to the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil astonished Al Qaeda. The new revelation was found in psychologist James E. Mitchell’s new memoir, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America.”

Mitchell wrote, “How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down? Khalid explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.” Khalid said they were unable to re-attack because the whole al-Qaeda was stunned by the “ferocity and swiftness” of Bush’s reaction, wrote the psychologist.

These interviews also reveal indirectly why both the Bush and Obama administrations failed in later years to put these terrorists out of business. The U.S., after hitting them hard initially, then eased the attack. First Bush limited his effort to Iraq, allowing the Islamic terrorists to develop safe havens in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and other Arab countries. Then, Obama left Iraq too quickly, while focusing his entire effort only half-heartedly in Afghanistan. The result was that these groups could re-organize and rebuild, taking advantage of the power vacuums left by these weak American leaders.

The correct approach would have been a variation of what Bush did initially, which in itself was a variation of the military philosophy first demonstrated by Grant in the Civil War and followed by every American general since. You do not retreat, you do not let up, you demand total victory, and do not stop the attack until you win, entirely. Eisenhower epitomized this approach in World War II, and it worked. Had Bush been in charge in World War II he would have stopped the war effort after Normandy and the recapture of France, allowing Hitler to remain in power in Germany. And this would have failed miserably, as did the efforts of Bush and Obama have failed in the past decade.

Pioneer cover

From the press release: From the moment he is handed a possibility of making the first alien contact, Saunders Maxwell decides he will do it, even if doing so takes him through hell and back.

Unfortunately, that is exactly where that journey takes him.

The vision that Zimmerman paints of vibrant human colonies on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, and beyond, indomitably fighting the harsh lifeless environment of space to build new societies, captures perfectly the emerging space race we see today.

He also captures in Pioneer the heart of the human spirit, willing to push forward no matter the odds, no matter the cost. It is that spirit that will make the exploration of the heavens possible, forever, into the never-ending future.

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at amazon, Barnes & Noble, all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


  • ken anthony

    This lesson is lost on the current generation. We have 2 years to effectively deal with the childish left. It is the right that will prevent this.

  • Tom Billings

    I should add that not only should Bush II have kept pushing through to an end, he needed to specify the end.

    As early as 1996 there were both Salafist and Khomeinist websites laying out the same basic 3-Phase plan, albeit for competing versions of Islam, taking 50-100 years:

    Phase 1- Raid industrial society to show that the response will be weak and not sustained. That will rally the Ummah of Islam to a new Imperial Caliphate, enriched by MidEast oil.

    Phase 2-The Imperial Caliphate, protected by nuclear weapons, will provide covert bases and inspiration to “Ghazis” to make “razia” throughout industrial society, to defend and enforce the “right” of Muslims everywhere to live under Sharia Law throughout whatever society they reside within.

    Phase 3- Once Sharia Law is universally accepted, the Imperial Caliphate expands to the entire Earth, forcing conversion on all non-Muslims.

    Bush II refused to focus on the consistent desire of the fanatics for an imperial caliphate, from the formative charter of the Muslim Brotherhood onward. He instead used a word, “terror”, as the focus, from the time of his September 20th speech to Congress, setting up the enabling resolutions that were passed in Congress. Focusing on all who are imperialists would have snatched the word back from the Left. He did not do this.

    Then, he did not demand internal accountability inside the US government. He gave verbal orders at a meeting at the WH for the US State Dept. to set up the Iraqi National Congress as a Government in Exile in March of 2002. Instead, following the line of the House of Saud, our State Dept. piddled and diddled and dragged their feet, so that in May of 2003 they could claim there was no representative body to hand over charge of the Iraqi government. A colonial regime was installed instead, which gave Al Zarqawii the break he needed to drown Iraq in blood. Bush did not fire Sec.State Colin Powell when he shielded the upper State Dept. people that caused this.

    *Then* we left open the borders of Iraq by refusing to strike across those borders with ground forces in large numbers. We allowed the ME countries to continue their decades-long habit of employing various sets of caliphate revivalists in their own interests, without any real threat that we would turn on them. The invasion of Iraq was effective in getting Ghaddafi, in Libya, to give up his nuclear program. The invasion of Syria would have made it clear that anyone providing “neutral” logistical routes to Al Quaida in Iraq was asking for what Saaddam Hussein got.

    Then, as a continuation of the 2004 election campaign against Bush, the MSM felt free to ramp up hatred for Bush and Republicans, in spite of him giving in to State’s multiculturalists. So, we got Obama, whose real enemy was whoever inside the US did not bend the knee to the progressive establishment. His foreign policy was dictated by his insistence on slashing the DoD budget in the middle of WW4, while “declaring peace”.

    Now we will wade through rivers of blood to make up the mistakes that have lengthened WW4 by at least 12-16 years more than it should have taken.

  • wayne

    Good stuff!

    I lament the distinct probability we would not have won WW-2, with our current leader’s & media.
    I’m link-happy today, but a most excellent brief discussion on “Hell to Pay” the Invasion of Japan that never was.

    (He has been on the JBS show.)

  • Cotour

    I think that there are two primary questions to ask anyone in order to understand whether they truly understand our modern politics and the extent of the exercise of power.

    1. Who, how and why was JFK killed?


    2. Who, how and why was 9 – 11 executed?

    Do they unconditionally believe the narrative that is offered by their government or have they objectively looked further than that into them?

    I heard this interview the other night about one of Kennedy’s favorite mistress’s that I was not aware of, she was murdered three weeks after the release of the Warren Commission report and her diary was confiscated the next day.

    Remember the Nazi quote: “Make the lie so big that no one would dare not believe it”.

  • wayne

    Cotour– what are the answers?

  • Cotour

    The questions are for you to answer.

  • Laurie

    As long as Washington is in bed with Saudi Arabia, terrorism will continue to be a global threat.

  • wayne

    Laurie– totally on board with that thought.

    1) Lee Harvey Oswald, with a rifle, because he was a communist, & had Personality disorders.
    2) Islamic extremist jihadi’s, (primarily funded through & from Saudi Arabia), via airplanes, because they hate the West & had a more innovative plan the 2nd time around.

  • Cotour

    Oswald’s comment on your assumption / conclusion.

    A “moral” organization would never do such things, right? (you can look this stuff up yourself)

    You seem “well” informed.

  • wayne


    Referencing Oswald– your point is what? There’s film of Oswald saying all sorts of stuff, & all his interrogations were audio-taped. There’s literally 150+ different conspiracy-theories related to JFK & LHO.
    Which one do you like?

    As for Paperclip and MK-Ultra, two different Programs.
    Paperclip brought in (primarily) German rocket scientists, some of whom weren’t entirely clean.
    MK-Ultra was all about testing hallucinogenic & further developing psychological-warfare methods, with considerably less of what we would call today, “informed -consent.”

  • wayne

    -Lee Harvey Oswald
    Fair Play for Cuba radio interview
    August 17 & 21, 1963

    1,700+ pages from MK Ultra

    Project Paperclip at the Internet Archive

  • Cotour

    Like I said, you seem well informed.

  • Cotour

    If you subscribe to R.A. Wislon’s observations then please reconcile this statement from your misplaced post:

    I believe it was the Philosopher Karl Popper (?) who formulated the idea that;
    “all mass-movements are essentially identical & the adherents of such, are ALL interchangeable.”
    The key terms, being “mass-movement’s,” and “all interchangeable.” (In part, this is why he speaks to communists/Bernie-types, and invites them to join “the movement,” and…HIM.”
    I would just tangentially opine, “When you believe in nothing, you’ll believe…. anything.”

    You believe in one but not the other? You selectively believe in one or the other?

    Its not so much the “information” that is critical but the establishment of what actually is information and then understanding what the limits / lengths that the “the powers that be” will go. To what degree will a person, an organization, whether transparent or dark, in the interests of their agenda not do to execute what they believe are in the existential interests of that agenda? CIA, Neo Cons, The Pentagon, the Military Industrial Complex, Leftists, Marxists, Anarchists, Planned parenthood etc, etc, etc. The list is long.

    This of course goes into S.O.M. theory.

    Given real power (and the nature of power) and the ability to form real and consequential agenda, what actions are too far, where is the line? (Or more pertinent to my original question, where is your line?

    Now we are back to Wilson and Popper and their observations about reality and the human mind and how reality is processed.

  • wayne

    Cotour- sorry, to clarify further–

    I’m (well) aware of R.A. Wilson’s body of work. (and a whole host of other people/ideologies/movement’s, for which I do not agree.) -I am however, a firm believer in reading my opponents “Play-Books,” as it were.

    -Personally, he was a pleasant guy & very well read, but his Illuminati-stuff, was whack. (and a lot of it was just pure Theater, and he knew that.) My friend who published the comics, he was a Freemason as well, -go figure-, I know way more than I should about all-that, as well.)

    New thought tract:
    If you are saying (in part) the CIA, et-al, has done things in our Name, that weren’t exactly Kosher. I agree. It’s not however, as “conspiratorial” as what I might ascribe, to what I hear you implying.
    –just trying to clarify from where you come, as far as “who killed JFK.”
    [I’m convinced it was Oswald. Other’s believe differently.]

  • wayne

    Cotour– referencing your Chernobyl video, in another thread (I can’t readily locate at the moment.)
    Interesting stuff– had only heard fragment’s of what they were doing. (You’re pretty handy with the video-clips yourself!)

    Pivoting slightly– “the worst reactor accident, until Chernobyl,” was the Windscale accident in the UK 1957.
    Sad story– the USA refused to share atomic technical-data with the UK after WW-2, & the British rushed a production-reactor into operation– air cooled, big mistake.
    >8 tons of Uranium burned-up.

    “Our Reactor Is On Fire”

  • Cotour

    Air as a cooling medium for a nuclear reactor, interesting choice (yikes). I will watch this tonight, thanks.


    As soon as someone knows the limits of anyone’s ability to believe something then all is possible after that point. This is not so much about conspiracy as it is strategy. The strategy however may result in conspiracy.

  • wayne

    — there’s 3-4 of these Windscale documentaries, that are all very good. I think you will enjoy it.
    (tangentially–For our “B-Reactor” at the Hanford Reservation, we used the Columbia River to keep everything cooled down.)

    tangentially– At Oak Ridge, they employed young-girls to monitor the Calutron control-panels, 24/7/365. Every Calutron had to be kept in a tight operating range, and these ladies made everything work, even though they had no clue what they were actually doing.

    History in Five: The Manhattan Project’s Secret City

    (We have zero appreciation of what “life during war-time” was like in WW-2. And our so-called “leaders,” know/appreciate even less.)

  • Mitch S.

    I have a different view of the Iraq war.
    I think it was a screw-up, a mistake to go in even though the intention was good (the road to hell….)
    Before 9/11 the idea was floated that if the US took out Saddam, the Iraqis would be grateful and we could set up a more democratic, Western friendly regime. Then when other people in the region see what a success Iraq is and how the lives of the people have improved, they would demand the same for themselves.

    A player in this was Ahmed Chalabi who claimed he had a “government in exile” ready to be slotted in once Saddam was eliminated.
    I don’t know about what Tom said regarding State blocking Chalabi’s I.N.C. but Chalabi strikes me as a con-artist rather than a statesman.

    No, 9/11 was not some plot by Bush to have an excuse to attack Iraq (if he wanted that, it could have been accomplished far more easily).
    No, the Iraq war was not a way for GWB to live up to his Daddy by doing what GHWB didn’t and killing the man who tried to kill GHWB or a scheme to enrich defense contractors and their friends (though both of those may have provided additional incentive).
    It was just a dumb move by people who didn’t understand the reality of Iraq and the area and who were blinded by the dream of what success would bring.

    It was the US attack on AQ/Taliban in Afghanistan that threw off AQ’s planning.
    And even there Bush got caught up in “nation building” (something the “conservative” candidate GWB said he wouldn’t do) which resulted in insisting on Afghan troops take Tora Bora, allowing BinLaden to escape.

    We should have adopted a far simpler policy “Attack us and we’ll crush you” period.
    If the people in Afghanistan or Iraq want to throw off their dictator or oppressive regime, fine and we’ll offer help but otherwise how you live is your business unless it affects us.
    That’s a policy that would be understood and respected in the Mid-East.

  • wodun

    Early on, the problem in Iraq were the proxies from Syria and Iran. Those proxies were mostly dealt with but not exterminated. More recently in Iraq, the problem was that we didn’t prevent the return of those groups. We are currently partnering with the Iranian proxies, which seems rather insane. Restricting our war activities to Iraq required a sustained military and diplomatic effort to keeps the wolves out of the pasteur.

    The Obama administration dropped the ball both diplomatically and militarily.

    The problem in Afghanistan is that we don’t attack the Taliban and AQ in their sanctuary. They can’t be defeated as long as they have they have a sanctuary that is off limits from the fighting. Pakistan has been a major problem.

    It is a bit of a conundrum as Pakistan was the land route for our supplies into Afghanistan and in some ways they cooperate with us. But they also encourage the Taliban and shield AQ from us. If the goal of the war is to defeat the Taliban and have a stable Afghanistan, then we need to go into Pakistan.

    Fifteen years in, the old arguments that expanding the war would make it harder or longer don’t hold up.

    It’s too bad we didn’t have an administration that views diplomacy as their greatest skill and most valuable tool because Pakistan is a problem that skilled diplomacy could tackle.

  • wodun

    Also, here is an interview with Gen. Mattis that is very relevant to the discussion.

  • Mitch S.

    I don’t knock anyone for wondering about a conspiracy with JFK’s assassination.
    There were so many interesting aspects, the most obvious being Oswald’s death at the hands of Jack Ruby.
    But “who, how and why” are essential to finding the truth. If they can’t be answered then the theory fails.
    And let’s not forget Occam’s razor – on the surface Oswald getting off those shots seems to be a stretch and Ruby shooting Oswald seems to be a clear sign of a cover-up, but the conspiracy theories I’ve heard involve the cooperation of so many groups that it becomes an operational impossibility particularly regarding keeping it secret.

    And remember we are dealing with humans. So many conspiracy theories involve vast multi-generational plots carried out with genius planning and perfect loyalty. That’s not how people work.
    Most corruption and scandal is due to petty greed of a desire to satisfy urges. Nobody toils in secret for a result they’ll never benefit from, secrets are hard to keep, corrupt people are usually outed by those they conspire with.

    All this applies more strongly to 9/11.

  • wayne

    Highly interesting input/perspective/factual-bits, by all.

    Wodun– thanks for that video on Mattis. Exactly what I need to form an opinion on him.
    I know zero about him. (except for the mad-dog thing.)

  • Cotour

    You all seem very well informed.

  • Cotour

    As a follow up: What about MK Ultra, Operation Paper Clip, Operation North Woods (, The Manhattan Project and the multiple other operations that no one in the public realm knew about for 40 or 50 years?

    Do those count? Or do we not see them?

  • wayne

    Not up “conspiracy-esque” stuff, today.
    I’ll pivot with an interesting talk by Richard Feynman:

    “Los Alamos From Below”
    -personal anecdote’s from his time at Los Alamos, Manhattan Project

  • Mitch S.

    Sure there are secrets held by the gov’t and by private entities.
    But notice with the ones you mentioned we not only know about them but there are documents and credible witnesses.
    Also those secrets didn’t last 50 years. The general project usually leaks out within several years – people in the ’50’s knew there was a Manhattan Project, knew we had brought in German scientists etc.
    Some of the details took longer to ferret out.
    So if for example LBJ arranged the JFK assassination, I’d expect that to become known by the 1990’s. Perhaps details (let’s say GWH Bush was involved) might remain to be discovered.

    So i don’t think it’s impossible that an alien ship crashed at Roswell in 1947 but it’s almost impossible that it would stay secret for this long.

    Though you do underline why I think the gov’t fetish for secrecy is dangerous.
    When there are too many secrets, when the public feels they’ve been deceived too many times, trust breaks down and conspiracy theories flourish.
    Nobody is agitating for the release of serious Nat’l security secrets such as Nuc launch codes, the formula for stealth coatings, the location of our subs etc.

    That’s why I’m not part of the “execute Snowden” crowd.
    Snowden may have broken the law, but without him would we know the head of the NSA and the DNI lied to Congress? That civilian oversight – the mechanism to protect our rights was broken?
    Likewise outlets such as Wikileaks serve a purpose.

    Frankly I believe the spying during the Cold War actually enhanced security – because we and the Soviets did not have to take each other’s word. There was independent verification. Had one side’s counterintelligence succeeded it would have destabilized the balance.
    (Not that I would commend anyone spilling secrets – no the Walkers are not heroes)

  • Cotour

    The point is that these were all “conspiracies”………………until they were unbelievably found to exist, to the amazement of the public and were actually found to be true.

    Mitch S’s contention about “conspiracy” is proven to be unsustainable when the facts are revealed and understood.

  • Mitch S.

    I don’t understand your last point.
    First off, i said there are secrets later revealed but they rarely last decades (other than details).
    Was a Nuc bomb program, CIA doping people, plot to kill Castro “unbelievable” until they were revealed?

    here’s an example, Israel’s nuc program.
    It’s still a top secret, but is it? Is anyone surprised when evidence leaks out?

  • wayne

    “Conspiracy” is a Legal term.

    Mitch– good stuff.

  • Cotour

    Mitch S:

    I was responding to your 3:55 comment where you seemed to be doubtful of my, what I thought was fairly compelling evidence.

    ” but the conspiracy theories I’ve heard involve the cooperation of so many groups that it becomes an operational impossibility particularly regarding keeping it secret.” Not so impossible IMO.

    And our subsequent comments were made at the exact same time, 6:08. I can not quite tell whether you agree with me or not (?).

  • Mitch S

    As I see it, this is not a discussion of “conspiracy theories” but the broader question of how do we judge what is true.
    Contour, just because there is evidence for a theory doesn’t mean it’s true, we have to judge the various theories based on the evidence of each and compare.

    In most cases I don’t have the time or means or knowledge to directly examine evidence, I`m dependent on experts, investigators or other secondary sources. So much of my judgment is based on my understanding of human nature. Do the source(s) seem credible? If the theory involves human behaviour does it fit my understanding of human nature?
    For example Global Warming.
    I find the behavior of GW proponents doesn’t match what I expect of scientists involved in a scientific quest for facts. Though some of the theories sound plausible, the pervasiveness of the proponents and their unwillingness to debate leads me to below the don’t have compelling evidence.
    So I remain a climate agnostic.

    Wayne, you and Cotour put up tempingly interesting links but I don’t have the time!
    I did cave and watch the Windscale vid. A good example of a real cover-up.

  • Mitch S.

    “the pervasiveness of the proponents and their unwillingness to debate leads me to below the don’t have compelling evidence”
    Was supposed to be:
    “the evasiveness of the proponents and their unwillingness to debate leads me to believe they don’t have compelling evidence”
    It was late, I was typing on a tablet and not paying enough attention to auto-correct…

  • Cotour

    “In most cases I don’t have the time or means or knowledge to directly examine evidence, I`m dependent on experts, investigators or other secondary sources. So much of my judgment is based on my understanding of human nature. ”

    I think your understanding of human nature and what the effect of true power has upon it needs to be expanded. There are times when the means can be justified in order to preserve the status quo or an agenda that has been determined to be existentially essential. “First we eat, then civilization”.

    “In most cases I don’t have the time or means or knowledge to directly examine evidence, I`m dependent on experts, investigators or other secondary sources. So much of my judgment is based on my understanding of human nature. ”

    The problem is that 50 percent of these “experts” that you seem dependent on are IMO feeding you disinformation in order to promote the standard model. My conclusion? “Truth is found only in mathematics and physics, not in the words of man” JGL. Do the math and understand the physics and then discard the accepted narrative and then you will probably be closer to the truth, as unbelievable and inconceivable as it may seem. Never limit what could be by your own pedestrian level of morality. It turns out it is a very narrow slice of what can be.

    Q: Did you know that Senator Gerald Ford who controlled the Warren commission report purposefully changed the trajectory of the path of one of the bullets that struck JFK? So much for “experts” and people who you think you need to trust to be looking out for you. Do the math! Awaken from the accepted narrative fed to us all.

  • wayne

    (again– good stuff)
    I work from home, so I (sorta, not really) have time, to consume a lot of video/audio. (and good material, is hard to find.)
    Get yourself a “download-manager” type of program.
    Mine (Internet Download Manager) enables me to capture YouTube video and download the complete-file(s).
    Then you can watch stuff at your own leisure, off-line, with no inserted adverts.

  • wayne

    I’ve read the (entire) Warren Commission Report; it’s not a “documentary,” it’s a political report. It contains error’s & inconsistencies, but not to the extent that I suspect you might be attributing them to a nebulous “conspiracy.”

    >>”Oswald (alone), with a rifle, from the book depository.”
    He already shot (and missed) before Zapruder started filming.

    (totally tangentially– if the NYT’s told me the “sky was blue,” I’d wonder what sort of scam they were running.)

  • Cotour


    Ford was forced to answer the question: Did you change the trajectory of the bullet that hit JFK? Answer: Yes.

    The trajectory changes the position of the shooter IMO.

    “Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford changed ever so slightly — the Warren Commission’s main sentence on the place where a bullet entered President John F. Kennedy’s body when he was killed in Dallas. Mr. Ford’s change strengthened the commission’s conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, — a crucial element in the commission’s finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman. Mr. Ford, who was a member of the commission, wanted a change to show that the bullet entered Kennedy ”at the back of his neck” rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission originally wrote.

    Mr. Ford said today that the change was intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.”

    A doctor knows the difference between the “upper most back” and “the back of his neck”, apparently a Senator does not?

    “The lead autopsy pathologist at the JFK autopsy, Commander James Humes, burned his notes and the first draft of the autopsy.”

    Burned is initial notes that did not jibe with the official version?

    “A second pathologist (of three performing it), Lt. Cmdr. J. Thornton Boswell, made a diagram of the wounds and scars he observed on the body. It places the bullet wound in the back at the same level, T-3, like the death certificate. Dr. Burkley signs the diagram (on the lower left side) and above his signature writes, “Verified.” Having escaped the autopsy-record flames, the original diagram containing Dr. Burkley’s signature was secreted in locked up government files. My teenage buddy George W. Burkley (both of us are now age 72) writes, “Dad never voiced much of an opinion about a conspiracy but frequently questioned why the Warren Commission never asked him to testify. Dad was [a] very close hold when it came to his professional life.””

    Whether it was with the best intentions or not these leaders of the American people have subjectively tuned the results to desired specs. Mitch S’s default dependence on “experts” needs to be adjusted. No? At the minimum it is reasonable to assume that the Official” narrative may in deed have some other agenda in mind rather than the truth.

  • wayne

    cut to the chase– tell us who you think did it!
    (slight correction–Ford was not a Senator for Michigan. > US House Rep, 5th district.)

  • Cotour

    “I think that there are two primary questions to ask anyone in order to understand whether they truly understand our modern politics and the extent of the exercise of power.

    1. Who, how and why was JFK killed? and 2. Who, how and why was 9 – 11 executed?”

    This is really about what you think and how you answer the questions, not what I think and answer the questions.

    (thank you for the correction on Ford, I was not sure)

  • Cotour


    Watched the Windscale video, terrible, terrible primitive design.

    And what did we learn? “McMillan (the Prime Minister) ordered a shortened version of the full report of the accident to be issued”. Sound familiar?

    The version of the report for the Windscale accident is massaged and shortened (read: cleaned of any incriminating or condemning or national security related information) for public consumption, we know that the Warren Commission report was also “massaged”, what are the odds that the 9-11 / NIST report was also “massaged”?

    There is a level where we all as individuals are just numbers and are potential collateral damage. So understanding this we ask : What is the truth? Not, what is the information that is released by the powers that be? But what is the TRUTH?

    I think it reasonable to default assume that we (the public) are not for the many reasons that exist given the real truth in many cases, so we operate from that point on. Why? Because it is reasonable because that is what we have learned through observation and we have evidence to support it.

    How do you answer the two questions now?

  • wayne

    Glad you found the Windscale video interesting.

    >I wasn’t so much focused on the subsequent “cover-up,” but yeah– they “kept a lid on it.” And I would differentiate between “security,” and full-blown “criminal-conspiracy.”

    We sorta “forced them” into rushing their project. (Water-cooling, like we did at B-Reactor, presented it own unique problems. But anyone who has dealt with air-cooled “anything,” I suspect would be leery of the design. –Given I’m not an engineer.)
    They just didn’t have the Geography to site this plant in the “middle-of-nowhere.”
    [and concurrently, the UK was transforming itself into a socialist-commonwealth. It was Labor for the most part that started all their atomic-projects.]
    >and… I would consider 1945-1989 to be “life during wartime,” a “Cold-War,” but a War nonetheless. Ya just don’t publicly announce your Reactor is On Fire, and engage in a bunch of self-loathing in front of your deadly enemies or the folks you want to convince that you are their equal.

    As for your initial inquiry—

    “Oswald, with a rifle, from the book-depository.”

  • wayne

    Cotour– You might find this interesting as well.

    “Prompt Critical”
    – A Short Film Based on the SL-1 Incident/Accident
    Indie film, done very well, with only a bit of “artistic-license.”

  • Cotour

    ” Ya just don’t publicly announce your Reactor is On Fire, and engage in a bunch of self-loathing in front of your deadly enemies or the folks you want to convince that you are their equal.”

    This is how we better understand S.O.M. theory, when existential threat is a concern the means can always be rationalized / justified. This is the paradox of leadership, lines must be drawn and choices must be made. Empowered leaders / administrators of governance, what ever form that may take, become “special” and can and will justifiably create the narrative to ensure the promotion of and securing of the continuance of the state / organization.

    OK, that’s the answer to the first question, and the second?

  • wayne

    “Islamic jihadi’s, primarily from Saudi Arabia, with jet aircraft, ‘cuz they hate us.”

    Cut to the chase— whom do you attribute?

  • Cotour

    You have a basic proforma, standard view of how things work as they are presented to you. It has its place.

    Remember, I was personally compelled to write S.O.M. to better explain how things at such levels operate. I remember that you had trouble attaching validity to it, now I better understand why.

    What compelled me? Mathematics and physics and the words of men and attempting to reconcile the two.

  • Mitch S

    Note that Windscale happened in 1957, by the 1990’s there were videos with people who worked there telling the whole story. As I’ve said, sure there are secrets and coverups but the significant ones usually become public in a generation.
    BTW if you look at the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield you’ll see that the official version is still floating out there. So facts do take time to spread.
    (The Wiki states ” thanks to innovative filters installed by Nobel laureate Sir John Cockcroft 95% of the material was captured.[26] As a precautionary measure, milk from surrounding farming areas was destroyed. ” No mention that radiation had been getting past the filters before the fire)
    The article linked by the Wiki footnote is worth a read:

    I do wonder if Windscale was meant to be a quick way for Britain to make plutonium and if they planned for them to be replaced with something safer. Surely by 1955 they knew the danger but perhaps like with shuttle Challenger they figured since they had got away with it this long they could keep it going longer.

  • Mitch S

    Cotour, what is “S.O.M. ?

  • Cotour

    Mitch S:

    I subscribe to the general rule: “once you are committed to and invested in a particular business model you stick with it until you are forced to change it”.

    When you become committed to a business model and have executed it and it is up and running the cost of capital and redesign is always pushed down the road until the change can be financially justified / supported. If you can not get to some reasonable amount of time and level of at least a break even point there is resistance to change.

    I have personally been in this predicament and understand it well. In the real world there is never unlimited funds as in our own government. I have to assume that the Brits at the time were not awash in funding to redesign and implement a new and improved design.

  • Cotour

    S.O.M., Enjoy:



    How civilizations, governments and wars throughout history are founded, fought and must at their existential core operate.

    Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public’s morality model perspective.

    A model in which leadership can choose to formulate an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the public’s morality model. Where plausible deniability can be claimed when “immoral” acts or strategies are employed by leadership or by arms length leadership proxies.

    In this “conversation”, leadership steps “down” to the public’s level and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their “higher” level, formulates and executes “necessary” agenda and strategy where the public’s interpretation of morality is not relevant.

    CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a moral code perspective which they assume their leadership is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public, in fact leaderships core fiduciary responsibility requires that leadership is or can be selectively or necessarily void of “morality”. 

    PUBLIC: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

    LEADERSHIP: Any macro governing body concerned with the formulation and implementation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

    LEADERSHIPS CORE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES: Above all else the promotion and survival of the society, culture, boundaries, power and treasure. 

    Related questions:

    1. Who’s benevolence and self interest model would you rather live under, yours or your enemies ? 

    2. What steps will you not undertake in order for your benevolence and self interest model to prevail ?

    3. When does morality trump power and treasure ?

    4. What influences leadership and agenda ? 

    Answers and Rules of operation:

    1. You never want to live under an enemies benevolence and self interest model.

    2. You will take any steps in order to live under your benevolence and self interest model.

    3. In order for “morality” to be implemented it is initially trumped by survival and power. “First we eat, then civilization”

    4. The possessors of power and treasure always influence leadership and agenda.
    5. Leadership never willingly gives up power.

  • wayne

    You had to ask…
    (he said sarcastically but light heartedly & with a grin.)

    Ha– just goofin’ you both.

    I’m not down with SOM myself, but I must hand it to you Cotour, at least you’ve thought about “stuff like this,” and attempt to be consistent across time.

    Pivoting back to the original Post;
    On this December 7th– highly recommend a listen to FDR requesting a declaration of war against Japan. (mislabeled of course, we all know the President requests & Congress declares… I often wonder if the talking-head Media is capable of parsing that correctly.)
    Watch the whole thing– 8 minutes.

    FDR 12/8/41 –

    >clear Political Goal, “… absolute victory….”

    –I just watched that Uncommon Knowledge interview video, with General Mattis.
    He Get’s It, 100%.
    I would “sleep more soundly” with him advising Trump.

  • Cotour

    He asked.

  • wayne

    C– yeah, I understand… (I’m making a little joke, no offense intended)

  • Cotour

    None taken. I chuckled myself when he asked, I was sure I would get someone commenting on having to post it again.

    If you were to read it again and plug into it the subject matter we are discussing, The Warren Commission, The 9-11 report / NIST report, the Windscale report and what we already know about their contents as facts you might see some value and interconnected relevance in its structure.

  • wayne

    I think you are definitely on to something, referencing the UK & how they got caught up in Windscale, & what went down at NASA with the Shuttle.
    British-style, large-bureaucracy & all that entailed + limited resources & time-pressure + cutting-edge Engineering + legit fear of the USSR + non-cooperating Ally
    –And I would agree in general, most everything “gets out” in a generation or so, whether it’s leaked, investigated, researched, “exposed,” or just becomes available.

    British helped us develop the whole concept but then had to re-create everything from memory without blueprints. This was uncharted territory for them. Things went south, they made further decisions. Mistakes were made, etc. etc., etc.
    –Not a nuclear-engineer. In retrospect, it does read like a series of blunders and maybe no single decision was make-or-break, but collectively, choices intersected at a fire.
    –I believe I did see somewhere, the whole Windscale thing was highly classified & the “actual” records sealed for 40 years.

    Just as a general aside:
    Most “government records,” of a non-military/intelligence nature, are “confidential” for a set length of time. (think Census Records & your Mail Carrier’s Employee records, for example.)
    There is a constant amount of “information” the Government collects/holds, that becomes available, on a yearly basis. Somebody however, has to actually go through archives and research this stuff.
    Most records relating to WW-2 for example, didn’t become fully available, until the 80’s/90’s.

    totally tangential– at the RAND website; they have a lot of their “historic” Reports available.
    Stuff that was classified/restricted in the 1950’s but declassified in the ’90’s.
    …of course, the “really-good-stuff,” remains classified/restricted.

    more tangential–
    Aliens did not crash at Roswell.
    Oswald killed Kennedy.
    Amelia Earhart crashed in the Pacific. She did agree to report on Japanese ship movements.
    Judge Crater was not kidnapped by aliens.
    Elvis is dead.
    “Men in Black, ” is not a documentary.
    Cross Circles are fake.
    Aliens do not land in Nebraska.
    Eric Von Dannekin (chariots of the god’s fame) was a huckster.
    There is no “Bermuda Triangle.” (and no Atlantis, except the resort.)
    Bigfoot does not exist.
    D.B. Cooper did not survive the parachute-ride.
    We did land on the Moon. (O.J. Simpson did land on Mars’ but that’s a movie…he’s in prison now.)
    Robert Blake– I think he did it.
    L.R. Hubbard (scientology) — Personality Dsorders’s

  • Cotour

    Im not too sure about your Big foot statement :

    Frightening, 45 MPH! Evidence is hard to argue with.

  • wayne


    I threw in the Prompt Critical movie ‘cuz I thought you might enjoy it. .)
    Just now realized you might enjoy it on more than 1 level–
    If you were to watch as well, the “official” movie-version of the incident, put out by the Feds, it doesn’t match the “whole story,” as is presented in the Movie-version.

    Fed version:
    1961 Nuclear Reactor Meltdown :
    The SL-1 Accident –

    >”massaging reality,” yes “they” did do that on occasion.
    It’s “controlled” reality, I do not deny that.

    My general position is; there’s a whole lot of stuff “they” don’t tell us, and for dubious reason’s. Whether that morphs into actual “conspiracies,” is open to legit-debate.
    My position is not that conspiracies don’t ever exist, but rather– there are far-less conspiracies afoot than is commonly thought by folks who are into that sorta thing. Have to put myself more in Mitch’s camp on all this type of stuff.

  • Garry

    Wow, that Bigfoot guy has a bunch of related videos that are even more impressive. The most impressive thing to me is that he never cracks a smile.

  • Cotour

    Totally straight faced, I hurt myself laughing.

  • wayne

    That should be “Crop Circles are fake.”
    I must add:
    Vince Foster– He did not, commit suicide.
    Marilyn Monroe– accidental barbiturate O.D.,
    Loch Ness Monster– nope, sorry.
    Earth– it’s round.
    Space– they say, “it’s very cold.”
    Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid– both, have been, absorbed by aliens. That is 100% true. (check your basement for Pods on a regular basis)

    I’ll give bigfoot-guy the benefit of the doubt and say;
    ingenious click-bait for his Dog business website. I wonder what his conversion-rate is?

    —I do find all the alternative-stuff to be “interesting,” & I’m a fan of well-done S-F as well. I generally classify the “alternative-stuff” into the realm of Philosophy until such time as it morphs more into Science.
    I don’t discount all of this stuff off-handedly, “I Want To Believe,” but…. “not my bag.”
    (It’s all less-true than it is actually-true.)

    A moderately well done series that didn’t last, but combines history/speculation/aliens all together, and “Project Majestic.” Nice blend of real-film and period-acting, it hits “everything” that went on in the 1960’s.

    Preview for “Dark Skies” – 1996 TV Series

  • wayne

    The Beaver, did not die in Vietnam.

    Jerry Mathers discusses the urban myth of his “death in Vietnam”

  • Cotour


    Something related, getting a bit off subject, what think you?

    Is this testimony real (I think it is not in front of Congress but a private organization)?

    These seem to be credible, serious as a heart attack military officers. Is it a psyops operation that is testing security? Are all of these people hypnotized or under drug control?

    I have a friend who worked in servicing these kind of missiles and I asked him if he knew of these events, he said he did, they were real (what ever they were, I am not saying what they were).

    Does anyone else here know of or know anyone who worked these systems and have any knowledge of these events?

  • wayne

    oh yeah, this thread went off the rails, a long way back & we should probably retire it, soon-ish.
    (interesting thoughts by all on a wide variety of stuff.)

    Don’t know who these people are, but yes, not a governmental sanctioned hearing.
    Just watched the first few minutes. I’ll try to give it a fair, complete view, tonight.

    I’d pivot back to Mitch’s initial point(s) & throw in some quantum-mechanic’s (very loosely):
    Everything can happen, but most things don’t happen. The least complicated answer is often more true than not.

    tangent, and I’ll disengage…
    Majestic-12 Leadership
    (4 minutes)

  • Edward

    You wrote: “And what did we learn? ‘McMillan (the Prime Minister) ordered a shortened version of the full report of the accident to be issued’. Sound familiar?

    Apparently we learned different lessons. You learned conspiracy and I learned engineering. Must be our personality differences.

    However, you seem to have taken a reduced emphasis on the danger of radiation (did McMillan know the extent of the actual danger?) with an additional concern for national security and assumed an identical action by a different team of people on a different continent and about a different subject with different levels of national security concerns. Aren’t you comparing apples to Cadillacs? Aren’t you assuming that all people act exactly the same, even under different conditions? Should that really change our answers to your two questions?

    Should we also not be answering whether or not FDR let the Pearl Harbor attack happen so that he had an excuse to enter the war? I had a grade school teacher who insisted this was true.

    You wrote: “So understanding this we ask : What is the truth?

    A more important question is whether we would recognize the truth, especially those who assume everything is a conspiracy. Thus, a conspiracy theorist (is that the right phrase?) also would assume that the truth were only another conspiracy.

    If no one has knowledge of UFOs shutting down our nuclear missiles, is that proof that it happened? After all, if no one is talking, that is proof of the extent of the conspiracy.

    The story that I heard was that three science fiction authors were discussing what would happen if a new religion were formed. Heinlein wrote a story about it, “Stranger In A Strange Land.” Hubbard did it, Scientology.

    Also, if you get cold in space, just turn around and face the sun. That is the warm side.

    And thank you for the advice on checking my basement. I would hate to turn out like Sutherland. Or Pelosi or Reid.

  • Cotour

    I did not know McMillian was an engineer.

  • Cotour

    Agree with them or not, believe them or not, these stories are out there. Apparently serious people are willing to sit in front of cameras and tell these stories and it is curious to me what exactly they are.

    They are either actors playing out a script for the many reasons that exist to spread disinformation, or they are psychologically unbalanced and believe their own stories that they tell to others, or…………….what else?

    Its easy to just brush them off but there they are just the same.

  • wayne

    Vietnam and JFK’s Assassination
    “Dark Skies” (NBC)

    “Coast-to-Coast AM’s Art Bell was cast as a member of the Majestic-12 Board of Directors in the “We Shall Overcome” episode of the primetime NBC/Sony TV series “Dark Skies.” Bell played William S. Paley, the famous CBS network president. This clip also features the excellent Don Moss playing Hubert Humphrey.”

  • Cotour

    This site has many scientists and professional engineers, it s hard for me to believe that because something is not automatically understood that it is just dismissed and does not exist.

    The Norwegians are serious about it, what ever it is.

  • Mitch S.

    Yup I asked.
    Now that I’m reminded, i do recall it coming up before.
    In general my reaction is this:

    Seems to me many that follow such thinking were brought up believing father always knows best, the clergyman is totally moral and uncorrupt and the President is the smartest man in the world.
    Then when growing up they discover that’s not always true, are genuinely shocked and think they’ve stumbled on some hidden secret and everything they thought was true is now suspect.

    As far as truths there is no absolute. Absolute is the province of faith.
    Notice courts use standards of fact such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” or ‘preponderance of evidence”.
    When the evidence for something is very strong and generally accepted (e.g. the earth is round) we consider it “true”.
    History, politics, human intentions are a lot fuzzier.
    And “But I saw it on the internet” is fuzziest of all.
    Discovering we don’t know something that we once thought we understood is not proof of a conspiracy.
    Discovering someone lied to you does not mean they are part of a vast plot to deceive and control the world (the cause of the lie is usually far more mundane).
    I do believe in UFOs – I believe people have seen objects that appeared to be flying that have not been identified. As far as what they are I remain open minded because I don’t see enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

    BTW was that Bigfoot guy on a date with Amy Schumer? He did say “like f*cking a German woman”!

  • wayne

    Mitch– good stuff.
    I almost posted that Casablanca clip in 2 other threads. (it’s versatile & Classic!)

    I as well, believe people have seen “objects in flight which are not identified.” (by definition…)
    — I just strongly doubt they are extra-terrestrial in origin. Not “impossible,” but extremely improbable.
    In my youth, I dug a little bit deeper into all this “alternative stuff,” and while the body of literature is indeed wide, it’s not very deep. There’s no “there” there. Most of these things, collapse pretty quickly under scrutiny.

    That being said– as long as the “alternative-science” movement/people/stuff, doesn’t impact my liberty, or cost me money —people can think whatever they want.

    Richard Feynman
    “This is the way nature works”
    QED Lecture at University of Auckland

  • Mitch S.

    I do believe this is an important discussion at this time.
    It’s striking how many people succumb to media narratives.
    Nowadays it’s my Lib/Dem friends who wake in the morning to read the NY Times then drive to work listening to the NPR station.
    These people live in an alternate reality where Hillary is a brilliant, super-qualified paragon of morality and Trump is Hitler. They are convinced that either the Russians hacked the election or a big chunk of the public has been brainwashed by Trump and the “Alt-right”.
    Therefore they think any means to stop Trump from becoming President is not only OK but vital.

    On the right I meet too many people who are susceptible to other conspiracy thinking.
    To those people I point out that if there is a vast Dem/Repub Clinton/Bush conspiracy how did Trump win the election? (Gosh if Bush and cronies can paint the World Trade Center with “nano-thermite” or use a disintegrating ray (Dr Wood) and fly holographic missile armed jetliners, surely they can keep Trump from winning).

    It’s tough to sort out what is going on.
    Consume a variety of news sources and digest with a heavy dose of common sense along with a swig of historical perspective.

    Wayne, I listened to Feynman’s Los Alamos recollections (fun stuff – note all the petty silliness even during this most secret, intense project).
    Right now I’m checking out the Mattis interview Wodun linked.
    He says GHW Bush was right to limit the 1991 Gulf War… this Mattis fellow IS a clear headed thinker.

  • wayne

    Mitch S–
    numerous excellent observations.
    The Mattis vid from Wodum is good. I’m just a civilian, but this guy understands his Role very well. (And, he fully understands the civilians are in charge.)

    Enjoy Feynman greatly, glad you liked that talk. (only our technology changes, bureaucracies’ are amazingly consistent across centuries.)

    Tangentially– Dr. Roger Penrose has a new book out and is currently on a “book-tour.”

    Roger Penrose:
    “Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe”

    descriptor blurb:
    “Penrose argues that fashion, faith, and fantasy, while sometimes productive and even essential in physics, may be leading today’s researchers astray in three of the field’s most important areas–string theory, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. Arguing that string theory has veered away from physical reality by positing six extra hidden dimensions, Penrose cautions that the fashionable nature of a theory can cloud our judgment of its plausibility. In the case of quantum mechanics, its stunning success in explaining the atomic universe has led to an uncritical faith that it must also apply to reasonably massive objects, and Penrose responds by suggesting possible changes in quantum theory. Turning to cosmology, he argues that most of the current fantastical ideas about the origins of the universe cannot be true, but that an even wilder reality may lie behind them. Finally, Penrose describes how fashion, faith, and fantasy have ironically also shaped his own work, from twistor theory, a possible alternative to string theory that is beginning to acquire a fashionable status, to “conformal cyclic cosmology,” an idea so fantastic that it could be called “conformal crazy cosmology.””

  • Steve Earle

    Mitch S said:
    “….Cotour, what is “S.O.M. ?….”

    All I could picture was “The Big Bang Theory” when an unsuspecting person asks Sheldon a seemingly innocent question and the room erupts in a chorus of “NOOOOOO’s!” LOL!

    Cotour said:
    “….What compelled me? Mathematics and physics and the words of men and attempting to reconcile the two….”

    HA! You might as well be trying to reconcile Newtonian Physics with Quantum Mechanics……. or explain why Men and Women see the exact same thing and draw completely opposite conclusions… LOL!!

    And while I am here and the Kennedy Assassination is on the table, the only “Conspiracy Theory” that I put any weight behind is that Oswald fired two shots, one that missed and ricocheted off the pavement, and a second that struck JFK in the neck.

    The third shot, the Head Shot, came from the car behind his…… which was full of hungover SS Agents and contained a single M-16 rifle with the safety off. When the first shot rang out, one of the Agents grabbed the rifle (which, being a new issue weapon, he was unfamiliar with) , stood up in the still moving car and started to look around for a shooter. There is a picture that shows this agent waving the rifle around at that moment and it was pointed in the general direction of the Presidents car….

    The theory, presented by a very skilled ballistician in the 80’s, is that the Agent had an accidental discharge of a high velocity round that violently shattered the President skull and then disintegrated into small bits, unlike the round that passed thru JFK’s neck which remained incredibly intact.

    It is a compelling theory and explains so much, even the sound of the shot bouncing off the Grassy Knoll heard by so many.

    There have been two books written about this and both are fascinating, Here is the more recent one:

    As a career cop, I agree with Mitch that stated above that the most simple explanation is almost always the correct one, and that human error is both common and often denied.

  • wayne

    (we could spend months on this particular Topic, but I don’t intend to do so.)

    I’ve seen that particular author you referenced, explain his accidental-discharge theory (and yes, he explains it all quite well I might add.) It certainly is, less-complicated, than the grassy-knoll guy, the umbrella man, the Mafia, “Cubans,” etc., but I’m not entirely satisfied with it myself. It raises more questions, in my mind, than it answers.

    Saw an Author recently propose:
    The Zapruder film– he was not sure how much film he had in his camera; he filmed a few seconds of the front of the motorcade then turned the camera off and waited briefly until he could see the car that carried JFK. When he turned the camera back on, (this theory proposes) Oswald had already fired the first shot, it was already in-flight and missed. The next 3 shots did all the damage, and those are on the Zapruder film.
    [this is the theory that the first shot was deflected by the street-light pole and/or the tree branches. First shot would have been the easiest & closest.]
    This author proposes that everyone, including the Warren Commission, “got stuck on the Zapruder film being a “complete film record of the entire assassination,”” when it isn’t actually “complete.” Zapruder thought he filmed “the entire incident,” but he did not. Then the Warren Commission proceeded from a mistaken premise and had to contort some “facts” to match up with what they thought they were seeing on film.

    I’d put up a link to this guy, but there’s like “20 million entries” at Google and I can’t readily locate it right now.

    Personally, I’m convinced it was LOH alone. (But, no matter….)

    Yo– any snow in Massachusetts? Massive artic-cold front moving into the Midwest today, and getting colder. We’re predicted to get 7 inches by Friday evening.

  • Cotour

    I must admit that I have never heard that Secret Service agent accidentally being the one that actually shot JFK in the head with a misfired round. That’s one rip roarin hell of an accidental shot. (and you have problems with S.O.M.?)

    S.O.M. is just a more concise way in somewhat of a formulaic model that represents Machiavellian observations of the various justifications in the application of power where the ends can justify the means if the ends are determined to be essential. And the mistaken moral perspective that the every day individual tends to limit themselves by. Fairly simple.

    Was the Donner party moral? When the food runs out and the snow is high, where does morality go? It becomes optional until those pressures of survival are “normalized”. “First we eat, then civilization.”

    And these phenomenon that have been observed and recorded for hundreds, even thousands of years are IMO something rather than nothing. I am not stating what they are or are not, but they are, like it or not. Our ability to perceive and properly understand them may be limited related to them, but there they are.

    I know that statement tends to drive a “scientist” or “engineer” totally insane. But there it is :)

  • Mitch S.

    As I said above, i don’t knock anyone who has questions about the JFK assassination.
    Of course having questions about theory A doesn’t prove Theory B correct.

    But I never heard of the “accidental shooting” theory.
    I’ll have to check the link later but on the surface I find it interesting because if a secret service agent accidentally shot JFK it would provide a motive for a broad cover-up. The parties involved would justify bending the truth to protect the agent and agency, after all Oswald did shoot the President with intent to kill why hang the agent and embarrass the agency?
    Of course the theory must still fit known evidence.

    It could be argued JFK’s assassination and the doubts surrounding it started an erosion in the public’s trust of authority. Wouldn’t it be ironic if a seemingly minor “bending of the facts” to avoid embarrassment resulted in decades of debate and mistrust.
    Brings to mind Obama and Hillary lying about the Tripoli attack that killed Stevens being due to a spontaneous riot caused by a video.

    Stay warm! (maybe a little mushy snow predicted for the NYC metro)

  • Cotour

    1.Kennedy was bangin everything that moved, was under the influence of drugs for his back condition, may have been experimenting with LSD courtesy of his favorite lady friend who was a Timothy Leary adherent and a Left leaning / “progressive” thinker who may have been influencing him.

    2. Kennedy was at odds with the CIA, fired Dulles, who apparently ignored him and showed up at work anyway. The Dulles brothers originated and ran a lot of the CIA’s world wide activities in influencing governments after WW11 when we basically owned most of the world. Some Irish / Catholic spoiled, “idealistic” rich boy is going to tell them what they would be doing? J. Edgar must have had one hell of a file on JFK and his father.

    3. Kennedy screwed the Bay of Pigs invasion.

    4. Kennedy was not on board with the Viet Nam war and the military industrial complex’s agenda.

    5. Kennedy double crossed the Mob after they helped ensure his presidential win. And they lost a lot of money and assets when Castro took over, I think they might have wanted that back and Kennedy denied them what was theirs.

    6. A Mob member spur of the moment shoots Oswald.

    Lots of very big and pissed off interests had vested interested in the project, not to mention that JBJ hated him and probably did not shed a tear for him.

  • wayne

    Mitch- good stuff.
    And you are definitely on to something, as far as the “erosion of confidence,” concept, in Institutions. I’d push it back even further into the 50’s.
    (totally tangential –the whole alien/ufo craze in the 1950’s cinema, some speculate, were all analogies/metaphors for a fear of communism and nuclear bombs. Hollywood had( and does) a schizophrenic love/hate relationship with science & scientists.)
    (also tangentially– the whole “Camelot” thing was created/fabricated, after JFK’s death. Nobody contemporaneously ever used that Meme.)

    Cotour– seriously, there are something like 150+ separate & individual “theories” floating around on JFK.
    The accidental discharge version is relatively newer and it does have the feature of being (initially) less-complex than some others.

    I don’t entirely or flippantly disregard all these “theories,” but I have to draw the line somewhere for myself, and move on.

    Yowza– 10 degree wind-chill & snowing heavily in my zone.

  • wayne

    I’m no fan of any of the Kennedy’s and the Old-Man was a bootlegger & Nazi-lover. (I don’t mind the bootlegging so much, but the Nazi-loving was over the line.)
    That being said– you pretty much know where I stand on Oswald & JFK.

  • wayne

    I see the NSA intercepted & quashed my link (numerous comments above) to the “Leadership Vote for Majestic-12,” film-clip.

    Majestic-12 Leadership
    “Dark Skies” (NBC)

  • Steve Earle

    Cotour, I was just being funny, not slamming SOM, in fact I think the theory can explain quite a bit of historical behaviour…

    Look at it this way, I was comparing you to the brilliant Dr. Sheldon Cooper LOL

    Wayne, I initially scoffed at the Accidental Discharge theory as well, but my reading of the original book by the Ballistician, and then the subsequent book which further explored the idea, both rang true to me based on my experience and training.

    While I was assigned to our “CSI” unit for several years, I went to a ton of accidental shootings (and a lot more non-accidental…LOL), mostly hunting accidents, but also just people mishandling a weapon they were unfamilar with.

    I have never been happy with the radically different ways that JFK was wounded and a low-velocity heavy bullet to the neck, and a high velocity lighter bullet to the head answer all of those questions.

    Mitch said: “….on the surface I find it interesting because if a secret service agent accidentally shot JFK it would provide a motive for a broad cover-up. The parties involved would justify bending the truth to protect the agent and agency, after all Oswald did shoot the President with intent to kill why hang the agent and embarrass the agency?…”

    Correct, and again the behaviour of these Agents after the fact all points to them wanting to avoid any real questions. If the book is correct, they screwed up big time and naturally wanted it to all go away. Blaming the “kill” shot on Oswald was the obvious way for that to happen.

    And as the book points out, JFK would almost certainly have died just from the neck and throat wound, the head shot just made it happen a lot quicker. So Oswald was guilty of killing JFK in any case, but I believe that of all the “second gunman” theories, only this one has a chance of explaining all of the contradictory evidence.

    A quick 3 min video with an animated view of the theory:

  • Cotour

    Steve Earl, you are a wise and funny man.

  • wayne

    -I do find the accidental-discharge theory to be highly appealing. And it has the benefit of being plausible & devoid of ideological-overtones & nefarious connections.
    I could fit that theory into my belief that Oswald was actually the lone assassin. It would raise more (different) questions in my mind, but not impossible by a long shot. Highly improbable but definitely possible,….but I don’t think it actually happened that day in that situation. (but, no matter…)

    I did locate the Author who discusses the Zapruder film in context, that I referenced in another comment.
    He’s pretty damn objective & doesn’t go off on totally crazy stuff. He maintains the assassination was in-progress, seconds before the film started recording, and the resultant misunderstanding of that, led to numerous errors being made by trying to make reality fit what the film showed.

    > His Global Point is: the film isn’t security-camera video & doesn’t represent the whole event.
    Then, it goes on to become this iconic-film which “documented” the “death of Camelot,” and spawned an entire conspiracy-theory Industry. He would maintain that LHO performed the act, the 1st shot was deflected.

    “From Rorschach Test to Time Clock: The Zapruder Film”
    Max Holland
    Sixth Floor Museum presentation

    about an hour.
    -Of the thousand’s of totally whacky vids one could watch, this is not bad at all and considerably less whacky than most.
    (I am biased of course, because I believe the guy. Others will differ.)

    Cotour– the “Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza” people host a lot of researchers/authors, of all stripes. If you like this stuff–they are a good source to consider.
    –and tangentially– The Spy Museum people, they have regular lectures on “spy-stuff,” highly interesting!

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *