This posting has been added to section 5) of "The Theory Of Stationary Space".
Just have a look at this. Here is something that I cannot see has ever been pointed out about Relativity. There is a simple connection between Relativity and ordinary trigonometry that again verifies everything that my theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space" in the posting on this blog by that name, has claimed.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity stipulates that the mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. This increase is known as "relativistic mass". When the object reaches the speed of light, it's mass would be infinite. To accelerate the object to a higher speed would require an infinite amount of energy which is, of course, impossible. That is why the speed of light is the highest possible speed that anything can travel.
The increase in relativistic mass with velocity proceeds slowly. At half the speed of light the relativistic mass would still be only 1.155 of the mass at rest, an increase of only fifteen and a half percent.
According to my cosmology theory, detailed in the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", we actually inhabit four-dimensional space. Particles of matter, such as electrons, are really one-dimensional strings in this four-dimensional space. We perceive them as particles, rather than strings, because the direction in which the strings are primarily aligned is what we perceive as time. We can move at will in only the other three spatial dimensions.
Our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings that comprise our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, which is why we see that as the maximum possible speed. What we perceive as speed or velocity is actually the angle between the alignment of different bundles of strings, which we perceive as objects. If another bundle of strings is perfectly parallel to the bundle that comprises our bodies and brains, we will perceive it as an object at rest.
The reason for relativistic mass increase is that, when a line which is the bundle of strings of an object is at an angle to us, there is more of it interfacing our bundle of strings along the dimension in which our strings are aligned. This is simply because the diagonal (or hypotenuse) of a right triangle has to be longer than the X-axis or line of it's base. When a bundle of strings is bent at a right angle to our bundle, we pass all of it's remaining length in a moment so we perceive it as moving at the speed of light and having infinite mass.
The strings and bundles of strings comprising the universe are actually at rest, hence the name of the theory "The Theory Of Stationary Space". Electromagnetic radiation is really stationary ripples in the space that is composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges. The only "new" motion is that produced by us and other living things.
What we always have to remember, that is the essence of my theory, is that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
Everything is ultimately composed of infinitesimal electric charges. Space is composed of a perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges. Waves are perceived as electromagnetic because they disturb this perfect balance of underlying electric charges. Matter is defined as any concentration of like charges and, since like charges repel, matter must be held together against like-charge electric repulsion by energy. This is why any mass is equivalent to a given amount of energy, which we refer to as the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.
Apparently, the only way to release the energy in mass is to react equal amounts of matter and antimatter together. Antimatter is simply matter with the electric charges reversed so that negatively-charged electrons in orbitals are replaced with positively-charged positrons. Upon being brought into contact, the energy in the Mass-Energy Equivalence that was holding like charges together in both the matter and the antimatter is released, as a fantastic burst of energy, and the electric charges in both rearrange back into the alternating negative and positive charges of empty space.
But yet we experience the universe as having only three spatial dimensions, as well as one-dimensional time. I am trying to convince everyone that we are really in four-dimensional space, time is a dimension of space because the strings comprising our bodies and brains are aligned in it, and that is why see matter as composed of particles rather than strings. In no way does this mean that there are only four dimensions of space, there could well be an infinite number, but the matter from the Big Bang of which we and our familiar universe are composed was scattered over only our four dimensions.
All right now here is what is so interesting that I cannot see has ever been noticed.
The relativistic mass at half the speed of light is 1.155. The reciprocal of this is .866. If you have studied mathematics, does this number sound familiar? If it does, it is because it is the trigonometric cosine of a 30 degree angle, or the sine of a 60 degree angle because the sine and cosine are inverse functions. A 30 degree angle is an important angle because it is 1 / 3 of a right angle, a 90 degree angle, and .866 is it's cosine. In trigonometry, the reciprocal of the cosine is called the secant so that 1.155 is the secant of a 30 degree angle.
Just a quick review of trigonometry. The functions are simply ratios of the sides of a right triangle, which is a triangle with one right angle which is 90 degrees. The other two angles have to add up to 90 degrees, because the three angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions#/media/File:Trigonometry_triangle.svg
Sometimes the horizontal side is referred to as the X-axis and the vertical side as the Y-axis, with the hypotenuse as the diagonal side. The trigonometric functions refer to the lengths of sides in the triangle with various angles. The hypotenuse, or diagonal, always has to be longer than either the X or Y axis. The diagonal is sometimes referred to as R, for radius. The three primary trigonometric functions are as follows:
Sine (sin) = Y / R
Cosine (cos) = X / R
Tangent (tan) = Y / X
Since the diagonal, R, must always be longer than either the X or Y axis, the values of the sine and cosine must always be less than 1. Since the two angles other than the right angle in the right triangle must always add to 90 degrees, that means that the sine of one angle must be equal to the cosine of the other.
There are three other, lesser-used, trigonometric functions that we get simply by taking the reciprocals of the above functions. Three of the six total functions have the prefix co-. This means that the value gets smaller as the angle gets larger. Unlike the sine and cosine, the values of the cosecant and secant must always be greater than 1.
Cosecant (csc) reciprocal of sine = R / Y
Secant (sec) reciprocal of cosine = R / X
Cotangent (cot) reciprocal of tangent = X / Y
In my cosmology theory, the X-axis (horizontal) can represent the dimension in which our strings are primarily aligned. We perceive this dimension as time, and the other three as space, because our consciousnesses are moving along the strings of the time dimension, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we cannot move at will in this direction.
Velocity is actually an angle relative to the alignment of our bundle of strings. The greater the angle, the greater the apparent velocity. 90 degrees represents the speed of light because that is the greatest possible angle and the speed of light is the greatest possible speed that an object can move at. This means that what we perceive as an object moving at the speed of light would actually be a bundle of strings bent at a 90 degree angle.
So the fact that the relativistic mass increase at half the speed of light is exactly equal to the trigonometric functions for a 30 degree angle, 1 / 3 of a right angle, shows a definite link between Relativity and ordinary trigonometry.
But then a question arises. In my cosmology theory, an object at rest is represented by a zero angle and an object moving at the speed of light is represented by a 90 degree angle. This means that an object moving at half the speed of light is actually a 45 degree angle, which is half of 90 degrees. So then why is the relativistic mass of an object moving at half the speed of light equal to the secant or cosine of a 30 degree angle, rather than a 45 degree angle?
The answer actually confirms what we saw in section 5) of "The Theory Of Stationary Space". When I wrote all of that, I had not noticed this simple trigonometric connection that verifies it.
We saw in section 5) that, if an amount of energy equivalent to the energy of the mass-energy equivalence in an object were applied to accelerate the object, it would accelerate it to 2 / 3 the speed of light. There is a reason that it would only accelerate to 2 / 3 the speed of light, and not all the way to the speed of light. The reason involves the electric charges of which everything is composed.
I won't go into detail here because it is explained in section 5) of "The Theory Of Stationary Space" but we saw how space is composed of a perfectly alternating checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges but matter is a concentration of like charges, held together by energy, and this energy is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence.
The explanation that my theory has for gravity is that if the two electric charges, negative and positive, are equal then the two basic rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, must also be equal. The energy of the Mass-Energy Equivalence enables matter to form by overcoming the repulsion between like charges so that matter is defined as a concentration of like charges. But that means that there must be a net attractive force associated with matter, and that is what we refer to as gravity.
An interface between two like electric charges has three times as much energy as an interface between two opposite charges. But only 2 / 5 of all the interfaces between electric charges in matter are between like charges, either negative to negative or positive to positive. The other 3 / 5 are between opposite, positive to negative, charges. There is energy between opposite charges but obviously it requires more energy to hold like charges together because they mutually repel, according to the basic electrical rules that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
But this still means that there is exactly twice as much energy within matter in interfaces between like charges as there is in interfaces between opposite charges. This then means that 2 / 3 of all the energy within matter is in the interfaces between like charges, holding them together against electrical repulsion. In a matter-antimatter reaction, this energy would be released.
Notice that number, 2 / 3.
In the cosmology theory, since a 90 degree angle represents velocity at the speed of light a 45 degree angle would be half the speed of light. But yet the relativistic mass increase of an object moving at half the speed of light is identical to the trigonometric secant-cosine of a 30 degree angle.
But 30 degrees is 2 / 3 of 45 degrees.
What happens, and the reason for this difference, is simple. The relativistic mass increase, of an object made of matter, applies only to the mass-energy of the interfaces between like electric charges, and not to those between opposite electric charges. My cosmology theory defines matter as a concentration of like charges, held together by energy, so that the interfaces between opposite charges, even though within the matter, do not count.
The reason that the interfaces between opposite charges within the matter do not count is that space is defined as a perfect checkerboard pattern of opposite charges in multiple dimensions. If the object made of matter was not there then it would just be empty space, and so the interfaces between opposite charges which are the same as those in empty space do not factor in to relativistic mass.
The increase in relativistic mass from 0 degrees, at rest, to 90 degrees, the speed of light, is not linear. It starts slowly and then increases rapidly as the velocity gets near the speed of light. So it is as half the speed of light where this 2 / 3 relationship between the energy in like-charge interfaces compared to those in opposite-charge interfaces shows up.
Half the speed of light is really a bundle of strings bent at a 45 degree angle but the relativistic mass increase, which is actually the increase in the length of the diagonal, R, relative to the X-axis, is actually equal to the trigonometric functions, secant-cosine, of a 30 degree angle, which is 2 / 3 of the 45 degree angle.
Why else would the numbers for relativistic mass increase and trigonometric functions of a primary angle match perfectly? The relativistic mass of an object moving at one-half the speed of light, which in my theory is really one-half of a right angle, is identical to the trigonometric functions (secant and cosine) of a 30 degree angle, which is one-third of a right angle.
The workings of the 30 degree angle being one-third of a right angle and two-thirds of the 45 degree angle which is half the speed of light can be seen as reflected in the operation of quarks, which combine to form protons and neutrons. An up quark has a charge of +2 / 3 and a down quark of -1 / 3. Two up quarks and one down quark give a net charge of +1 to form a proton. Two down quarks and one up quark give a net charge of zero to form a neutron.
At this most basic level of physical reality we are dealing with things defined by low integral numbers. The length of a line at a 45 degree angle, the hypotenuse or diagonal in a right triangle, is the square root of 2, which is 1.414, times the horizontal line or X-axis. The length of a line at 30 degrees is 2 / the square root of 3. And this 45 and 30 degrees is where the relativistic mass and the trigonometric functions intersect. Just the fact that the square root is so involved shows that velocity must really involve another dimension, and that is the fourth spatial dimension of my cosmology theory that we perceive as time.
It has baffled the world for over a hundred years how these bizarre effects of Relativity can occur which are impossible to explain by the rules of ordinary physics. The way my "Theory Of Stationary Space" explains it is that relativistic effects, such as the mass increase that we have dealt with here, require a fourth dimension of space and matter to be seen as strings aligned primarily in that dimension. Ordinary physics is "three-dimensional physics" that work fine for most things but cannot explain realms such as Relativity and Quantum Physics.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Saturday, December 8, 2018
The Interpretations Of Quantum Physics*
This posting has been added to "The Theory Of Stationary Space", on this blog. Never has there been a topic that is so simple but that we have so over-complicated as Quantum Physics.
THREE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHYSICS
We could say that there are three separate classifications of physics. The most familiar is "classical physics". This is the everyday physics of how the physical universe operates that is found in an ordinary physics textbook.
But there are also two other classifications of physics. These are commonly referred to as Relativity and Quantum Physics (or Quantum Mechanics). The reason that these two are separate classifications is that they are about mechanisms and realities that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. Relativity tends to involve large scales, on the astronomical level, with objects traveling at a significant portion of the speed of light. Quantum Physics, in contrast, involves small scales such as electrons in their orbitals in atoms. These two are also incompatible with each other.
What makes Relativity different is the speed of light. Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, published in 1905, explained how the speed of light is the only absolute constant, nothing can ever travel faster than it, and everything else is variable, or relative, hence the name "Relativity".
When an object travels at a significant portion of the speed of light, changes take place that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. Time slows down and the length of the object shortens. At the speed of light, time would stop and the object would have no length at all. But the speed of light itself never changes. It sounds strange but has been proven repeatedly, in many different ways. The GPS satellites, for example, have to take relativistic effects into account to work properly.
But when we come to Quantum Physics, it has it's own set of rules that are beyond explanation by ordinary physics, as well as being completely different from those of Relativity.
In Quantum Physics, the observer is very important. When we observe or measure a quantum interaction, the observation itself becomes a part of the interaction. The quantum interaction will turn out differently according to whether it is being observed, or not being observed. This is completely alien to both "classical" physics and to relativity.
Another important factor in Quantum Physics is uncertainty. For example, we can express probabilities of where an electron is likely to be found in it's orbital within an atom, but can never predict with certainty. This is also completely different from "classical" physics, as well as Relativity.
But in Quantum Physics, the speed of light that is all-important in Relativity is not even a factor at all. It has been shown that information moves absolutely instantaneously between two entangled photons, no matter how far apart they are.
Three concepts that are central to an understanding of Quantum Physics are wave function, wave-particle duality and, of course, uncertainty. Another concept is that of superposition, two quantum states can be combined to create a third state. "Entanglement" refers to sharing a quantum state, usually two photons.
The central experiment of Quantum Physics is the famous Two-Slit Experiment. It is similar in nature to a diffraction grating, that splits white light into it's component colors, but it involves the all-important observation. If a photon, a single particle of light, is passed through one of the two parallel slits but it is not observed, we can tell by the interference pattern that will be produced on a screen behind the two slits that a photon also passed through the other slit at the same time.
But if we observe or measure the experiment in any way, a photon will have passed through only one of the two slits and there will be no interference pattern on the screen. This shows how the observation is a vital part of Quantum Physics.
In "classical physics", or in Relativity, light or any electromagnetic radiation is a wave. But in Quantum Physics, there is the wave-particle duality where light has the properties of both waves and particles. The "particles" of light are referred to as photons.
The idea of quantum computing, by the way, is to make use of the greater information in quantum bits, referred to as "qubits". An ordinary computer bit must be either a 1 or a 0, for on and off, and this is how all data is stored. But a qubit, in a superposition of multiple quantum states, has many more possibilities and can thus hold much more information.
INTERPRETATIONS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Quantum Physics, also called Quantum Mechanics, unlike Relativity or "classical" physics, has different ways to interpret a quantum interaction. These possible interpretations can be divided into two broad categories, the "collapse" or the "non-collapse" interpretations.
The most popular interpretation of quantum interactions seems to be the Copenhagen Interpretation. A quantum system will be in a superposition of all possible quantum states, referred to as eigenstates, at once. But when it is observed, it will "collapse" into only one eigenstate, or quantum state. The "collapse" may be due to observation or to other factors. This one state is the one that we will see or measure.
The leading "non-collapse" interpretation is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which used to be called the Everett Interpretation. In this interpretation of a quantum interaction, every possible outcome must exist, with each event acting as a branch. In this interpretation, it is decoherence that causes us to see only one outcome instead of all of them. It is not the same as a "collapse" of a wave function because all other outcomes must still exist somewhere. Coherence is where two quantum systems share a quantum state, decoherence is loss of coherence and a breaking into two quantum states.
Albert Einstein, the author of Relativity, was also involved with Quantum Physics. He actually won his Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect, which is quantum in nature, not for Relativity. It was Einstein who developed the concept of the photon, or single particle of light. But he was convinced of the absolute invariability of the speed of light and referred to the instantaneous transmission of information as "spooky action at a distance". Of the uncertainty principle that is central to quantum physics, he is reported to have said "God does not play dice".
The place that my cosmology theory takes in all of this is simple, and it makes Quantum Physics simple. Imagine a one-dimensional string in space, which is what an electron actually is. Now imagine a two-dimensional wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. That is all that we need to know.
Waves are actually two-dimensional. They seem to us to fill three-dimensional space because our eyes are so large in comparison with the wavelengths of light. We can tell this because, if light is interacting with electrons, a higher-frequency (shorter wavelength) light, which contains more energy, will push each electron with more force but will not push any more electrons than the lower-frequency light. If we apply a brighter light, but at the same wavelength, the light will push more electrons but will not push each one with any more force.
This shows that light consists of individual two-dimensional waves that do not completely fill three-dimensional space. A wave has to be of at least two dimensions. Light seems to get dimmer as we get further from it's source because we are receiving fewer of the waves, in accordance with the Inverse Square Law. But each individual wave that we receive is not actually dimmer.
In contrast with other matter, when we start dealing with electrons is when things start to "get quantum" in nature. Each electron in an orbital has a four-part quantum "address" and no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum "address".
The Four Principal Quantum Numbers and energy levels of electrons in orbitals are expressed in integral numbers, or integers, showing that this is the most basic of energy levels. That is what "quanta" means, the most basic of quantities.
Ordinary nuclear physics, involving the nucleus of the atom, does not involve the rules of Quantum Physics, only the electrons do. The essential quantum interaction is a two-dimensional wave of light interacting with a one-dimensional electron which, in my theory, is a string with the wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. For us to measure or see anything, light must impart some of it's energy to matter. Since matter is made of atoms and electrons are on the outsides of atoms, this means interacting with electrons.
If a material has it's outer electrons only loosely attached to it's atoms, so that the energy in light can knock electrons out of their orbitals, the light will cause a chemical reaction or an electric current to flow. That means that we can see, or measure, or photograph light.
The simple basis of Quantum Physics is that when a two-dimensional wave interacts with the one-dimensional string of an electron, it must impart the energy of one of it's two dimensions to the electron. That is how we see or measure anything to do with light, and is known as the photoelectric effect. The other dimension must be left but, since the electron is a one-dimensional string, this one remaining dimension of the light will appear to us to be a particle, and that is what we refer to as a photon.
The "collapse" of a quantum wave function from all possible quantum states into only one, when it is observed or measured, that is the Copenhagen Interpretation and all other "collapse" interpretations, has a very simple explanation. The electrons in our eyes or measuring devices that the two-dimensional wave of light must interact with are really, according to my cosmology theory, one-dimensional strings in space, which we perceive as particles because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains and we see only a moment at a time, at right angles to the direction of our movement.
The energy of one dimension of the wave is absorbed by the electron, which is necessary for us to be able to measure of see it, and the other dimension remains. Since only one dimension of light cannot still be a wave, that is where photons come from, the one-dimensional remains of a two-dimensional wave which now resembles a particle like an electron in nature.
The many points on the wave represent all possible states of the information carried by the wave and, depending on the point on the wave that contacts the electron, always at a right angle, the wave function appears to "collapse" into only one state, which is defined by the point on the wave that contacts the electron.
Imagine a two-dimensional circle being reduced to a one-dimensional line, but the state of the "collapse" to one dimension would depend on which of the infinity of diameters on the circle we took away to leave only a line perpendicular to that remaining as the one-dimensional line.
This is all that a "wave function collapse" amounts to, our vision or observation by interaction with a one-dimensional electron, taking away one dimension of the energy of the wave so that it "collapses" into a one-dimensional photon. All possible eignestates (quantum states) are every point of the wave before the collapse. The one remaining after the collapse is a line of light, a photon, that was perpendicular to the point on the wave that encountered the electron.
That is why the observer is so important in Quantum Physics, the observation which is usually the wave function encountering an electron string that is perpendicular to it and absorbs one of it's two dimensions. A photon resembles an electron in form because both are one-dimensional strings, except that the photon has no electric charge.
THE MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION
Aside from the "collapse" interpretations of Quantum Physics", of which the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most popular, there is also the "non-collapse", of which the Many Worlds Interpretation is the most popular.
The Many Worlds Interpretation, as the name implies, states that, when a wave function is observed, it does not collapse because the other possible states still must exist somewhere. Rather than a "collapse", it is decoherence that causes one state to become separated from the others. Decoherence is defined as the loss of unity of a quantum state, so that it splits in two. Entangled photons, as we saw above, share a quantum state so that information is instantaneously passed from one to another. But that can be lost due to environmental factors.
But isn't "collapse" and decoherence really the same thing, the absorption of one dimension of a two-dimensional wave function by an electron that it encounters? According to our observation, the wave seems to "collapse" into a one-dimensional photon. But we could also say that there was a decoherence of the two dimensions of the wave, so that they were separated by the electron.
The Many Worlds Interpretation considers each event as a "branch". The quantum system seems to go in one direction, but the other directions that it could have gone in must still exist somewhere, maybe in another universe. There is not a "collapse", so that the other directions or quantum states no longer exist, but only a decoherence as our observation separates the one quantum state that we see from the others.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is something that we can spend hours pondering, as I am sure many others have. But I see it as us seeing the universe in our own terms and from our own perspective. The solution to this interpretation is just as simple as for the "collapse" interpretations, and that solution is to see that everything is really information.
Suppose that we throw a ball, and it bounces off a wall. But the ball could have kept on going if the wall hadn't been there. That means that there must be another universe where the ball keeps going, and doesn't bounce off the wall.
But we can easily measure the acceleration of the ball to determine it's course if the wall hadn't been there. That information is there whether the ball bounces off the wall or not. And the ball itself is just information. According to my cosmology theory, everything is composed of infinitesimal electric charges with space being a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating charges and matter being any concentration of these charges.
So it really isn't necessary to have a multitude of universes, with a ball in each, going through every single course of events that it possibly could have. If everything is really just information, then all we need to know is the original acceleration of the ball and the information of all possible courses of events that the ball could have taken are still there, all within our one universe. We see ourselves made of matter so we presume that there must be a ball made of matter like us in each possible universe but matter, like space, is just information.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is similar in nature to the pattern of information that I call "The One And The Many". The one is what is, the many are what possibly could have been but weren't. Addresses are an ideal example. Something is defined by what it is not.
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
What about the "Uncertainty Principle" in Quantum Physics? That is simple too. Consider radio triangulation. If we receive, with a directional antenna, only a momentary signal from a radio source, we can tell what direction the source is in but cannot tell how far away it is or whether it is moving. For that, we would need more than one measurement. In time, to see if the source is moving, and from another location, to determine how far away the source was.
This is why we have two eyes, to be able to estimate how far away things are.
In the same way, since the electrons in our measuring devices can absorb only one dimension of a two-dimensional wave we can, for example, predict where a given electron might be found in an orbital, but can never say with absolute certainty because all we have is an instantaneous one-dimensional measurement.
HIDDEN VARIABLE INTERPRETATIONS
Some other interpretations of Quantum Physics can be described as "hidden variable" interpretations. This means that we can never tell for sure what is happening in a quantum interaction because we are not capable of seeing all of the variables. My theory accommodates that because what we perceive as time is actually a fourth dimension of space that we cannot access at will because the particles of our bodies are actually one-dimensional strings that are aligned primarily in this dimension. The other three we can move in at will.
The reason that two photons can remain entangled, after a single photon is split in two by passing it through a crystal, is that the crystal adds it's spatial dimensions to it so that a one-dimensional photon takes on a "V" forms with the point of the "V" being the place where it was split by the crystal and the two points of the "V" representing the two entangled photons, between which information passes instantaneously. But the point of the "V" is in the past dimension of the dimension of space that we perceive as time from the points of the "V".
THE GREAT SIMPLICITY OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Can you see how simple Quantum Physics really is? In my cosmology theory, it is fully explained as being even simpler than Relativity.
All that we need to know is that when a two-dimensional wave encounters a one-dimensional electron, which is the only way we can see or measure the wave, it must necessarily absorb the energy of one dimension of the wave. The remaining dimension of the wave is what we refer to as a photon, which behaves as a one-dimensional particle. This is why light is said to have the nature of both a wave and a particle.
The wave function, representing a multitude of all quantum states, thus appears to "collapse" into only one such state when we observe it. There is always the uncertainty factor in quantum measurements because we are observing a two-dimensional wave function, light being how we receive information, in only one dimension.
Picture a one-dimensional line in space. That is an electron, but the motion of an electron in it's atomic orbital resembles a wave. The direction of the line is the dimension of four-dimensional space that we perceive as time.
Now picture a two-dimensional wave contacting the electron line at a perpendicular angle. One of the dimensions of the wave is the direction in which it is traveling and the other is perpendicular to it. Both of the dimensions of the wave are perpendicular to that of the electron. The electron absorbs the dimension of the wave that is the direction in which the wave is moving, the remaining dimension of the wave then exists as a one-dimensional photon that is perpendicular to the line of the electron.
In the four-dimensional space of my cosmology theory, that still leaves one dimension because, so far, we have the two dimensions of the wave and the one of the electron. But light waves are two-dimensional in three-dimensional space. That is why light waves are said to have a certain polarity in space, like the hands on a clock. A polarizing filter only allows light waves with a certain polarity through.
Remember that this cosmology theory does not make the universe more complicated. It takes what looks complicated, because we over-complicate it, and makes it simple. There is the principle in physics known as Occam's Razor. This well-established principle is that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation.
This cosmology theory can get long, but that is only because it explains so much that is otherwise unexplained. The essence of this theory can be described in two paragraphs. Following is the brief abstract that I use for the cosmology theory.
"My cosmological theory has the universe as not-quite-parallel strings of matter aligned mostly in one direction in four-dimensional space, although there could be many more than these four dimensions. The direction in which these strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one that we perceive as time, along which our consciousnesses move at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can only see perpendicular to the bundles of strings of matter comprising our bodies and brains. The original two-dimensional sheet of space, amidst the multi-dimensional background space, disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact. Due to charge migration, to seek a lower energy state, one side was positive in charge and the other was negative. This brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang. The energy in the disintegrating dimension, from the tension between adjacent opposite electric charges, was released. The remaining dimension then consisted of very long strings of infinitesimal cross-section, that we perceive as the particles of matter today. Some of the energy released by the disintegrating dimension went into "welding" the charges of the remaining dimension together as strings of matter. We perceive these strings as particles because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see at right angles to our strings.
So, the basics of my theory is a two-dimensional sheet of space, which formed amidst the multi-dimensional background space by the same kind of opposite charge induction, disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact to create the matter-antimatter explosive mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe, and which scattered the remaining one-dimensional strings of matter out across space to form the universe that we see today. The strings of matter from the original two-dimensional sheet were scattered across four dimensions of the background space".
Ever since developing this simple theory, I have been adding all of the cosmic mysteries that it neatly explains. These explanations are in the posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", which is the name of the theory, and in the earlier part of the theory on the cosmology blog, www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com .
In Relativity, the reason that the speed of light is so absolutely constant is that it is the speed at which our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. We see Quantum Physics due to the nature of our vision, using one-dimensional electrons to interact with two-dimensional light wave forms.
All that we really need to know about the greatly over-complicated topic of Quantum Physics is that an electron is a one-dimensional string aligned in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. When a two-dimensional light wave encounters the electron from a perpendicular angle the electron will, under the right conditions, absorb one dimension of the two dimensions of the wave. The remaining dimension of the wave now has the nature of a particle like the electron, and is what we refer to as a photon.
The right conditions for the electron absorbing a dimension of the wave is described in section 10) of "The Theory Of Stationary Space" as "THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT". This is why, when light encounters an electron, the electron will absorb it only one out of every 137 times.
THREE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHYSICS
We could say that there are three separate classifications of physics. The most familiar is "classical physics". This is the everyday physics of how the physical universe operates that is found in an ordinary physics textbook.
But there are also two other classifications of physics. These are commonly referred to as Relativity and Quantum Physics (or Quantum Mechanics). The reason that these two are separate classifications is that they are about mechanisms and realities that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. Relativity tends to involve large scales, on the astronomical level, with objects traveling at a significant portion of the speed of light. Quantum Physics, in contrast, involves small scales such as electrons in their orbitals in atoms. These two are also incompatible with each other.
What makes Relativity different is the speed of light. Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, published in 1905, explained how the speed of light is the only absolute constant, nothing can ever travel faster than it, and everything else is variable, or relative, hence the name "Relativity".
When an object travels at a significant portion of the speed of light, changes take place that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. Time slows down and the length of the object shortens. At the speed of light, time would stop and the object would have no length at all. But the speed of light itself never changes. It sounds strange but has been proven repeatedly, in many different ways. The GPS satellites, for example, have to take relativistic effects into account to work properly.
But when we come to Quantum Physics, it has it's own set of rules that are beyond explanation by ordinary physics, as well as being completely different from those of Relativity.
In Quantum Physics, the observer is very important. When we observe or measure a quantum interaction, the observation itself becomes a part of the interaction. The quantum interaction will turn out differently according to whether it is being observed, or not being observed. This is completely alien to both "classical" physics and to relativity.
Another important factor in Quantum Physics is uncertainty. For example, we can express probabilities of where an electron is likely to be found in it's orbital within an atom, but can never predict with certainty. This is also completely different from "classical" physics, as well as Relativity.
But in Quantum Physics, the speed of light that is all-important in Relativity is not even a factor at all. It has been shown that information moves absolutely instantaneously between two entangled photons, no matter how far apart they are.
Three concepts that are central to an understanding of Quantum Physics are wave function, wave-particle duality and, of course, uncertainty. Another concept is that of superposition, two quantum states can be combined to create a third state. "Entanglement" refers to sharing a quantum state, usually two photons.
The central experiment of Quantum Physics is the famous Two-Slit Experiment. It is similar in nature to a diffraction grating, that splits white light into it's component colors, but it involves the all-important observation. If a photon, a single particle of light, is passed through one of the two parallel slits but it is not observed, we can tell by the interference pattern that will be produced on a screen behind the two slits that a photon also passed through the other slit at the same time.
But if we observe or measure the experiment in any way, a photon will have passed through only one of the two slits and there will be no interference pattern on the screen. This shows how the observation is a vital part of Quantum Physics.
In "classical physics", or in Relativity, light or any electromagnetic radiation is a wave. But in Quantum Physics, there is the wave-particle duality where light has the properties of both waves and particles. The "particles" of light are referred to as photons.
The idea of quantum computing, by the way, is to make use of the greater information in quantum bits, referred to as "qubits". An ordinary computer bit must be either a 1 or a 0, for on and off, and this is how all data is stored. But a qubit, in a superposition of multiple quantum states, has many more possibilities and can thus hold much more information.
Quantum Physics, also called Quantum Mechanics, unlike Relativity or "classical" physics, has different ways to interpret a quantum interaction. These possible interpretations can be divided into two broad categories, the "collapse" or the "non-collapse" interpretations.
The most popular interpretation of quantum interactions seems to be the Copenhagen Interpretation. A quantum system will be in a superposition of all possible quantum states, referred to as eigenstates, at once. But when it is observed, it will "collapse" into only one eigenstate, or quantum state. The "collapse" may be due to observation or to other factors. This one state is the one that we will see or measure.
The leading "non-collapse" interpretation is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which used to be called the Everett Interpretation. In this interpretation of a quantum interaction, every possible outcome must exist, with each event acting as a branch. In this interpretation, it is decoherence that causes us to see only one outcome instead of all of them. It is not the same as a "collapse" of a wave function because all other outcomes must still exist somewhere. Coherence is where two quantum systems share a quantum state, decoherence is loss of coherence and a breaking into two quantum states.
Albert Einstein, the author of Relativity, was also involved with Quantum Physics. He actually won his Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect, which is quantum in nature, not for Relativity. It was Einstein who developed the concept of the photon, or single particle of light. But he was convinced of the absolute invariability of the speed of light and referred to the instantaneous transmission of information as "spooky action at a distance". Of the uncertainty principle that is central to quantum physics, he is reported to have said "God does not play dice".
The place that my cosmology theory takes in all of this is simple, and it makes Quantum Physics simple. Imagine a one-dimensional string in space, which is what an electron actually is. Now imagine a two-dimensional wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. That is all that we need to know.
Waves are actually two-dimensional. They seem to us to fill three-dimensional space because our eyes are so large in comparison with the wavelengths of light. We can tell this because, if light is interacting with electrons, a higher-frequency (shorter wavelength) light, which contains more energy, will push each electron with more force but will not push any more electrons than the lower-frequency light. If we apply a brighter light, but at the same wavelength, the light will push more electrons but will not push each one with any more force.
This shows that light consists of individual two-dimensional waves that do not completely fill three-dimensional space. A wave has to be of at least two dimensions. Light seems to get dimmer as we get further from it's source because we are receiving fewer of the waves, in accordance with the Inverse Square Law. But each individual wave that we receive is not actually dimmer.
In contrast with other matter, when we start dealing with electrons is when things start to "get quantum" in nature. Each electron in an orbital has a four-part quantum "address" and no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum "address".
The Four Principal Quantum Numbers and energy levels of electrons in orbitals are expressed in integral numbers, or integers, showing that this is the most basic of energy levels. That is what "quanta" means, the most basic of quantities.
Ordinary nuclear physics, involving the nucleus of the atom, does not involve the rules of Quantum Physics, only the electrons do. The essential quantum interaction is a two-dimensional wave of light interacting with a one-dimensional electron which, in my theory, is a string with the wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. For us to measure or see anything, light must impart some of it's energy to matter. Since matter is made of atoms and electrons are on the outsides of atoms, this means interacting with electrons.
If a material has it's outer electrons only loosely attached to it's atoms, so that the energy in light can knock electrons out of their orbitals, the light will cause a chemical reaction or an electric current to flow. That means that we can see, or measure, or photograph light.
The simple basis of Quantum Physics is that when a two-dimensional wave interacts with the one-dimensional string of an electron, it must impart the energy of one of it's two dimensions to the electron. That is how we see or measure anything to do with light, and is known as the photoelectric effect. The other dimension must be left but, since the electron is a one-dimensional string, this one remaining dimension of the light will appear to us to be a particle, and that is what we refer to as a photon.
The "collapse" of a quantum wave function from all possible quantum states into only one, when it is observed or measured, that is the Copenhagen Interpretation and all other "collapse" interpretations, has a very simple explanation. The electrons in our eyes or measuring devices that the two-dimensional wave of light must interact with are really, according to my cosmology theory, one-dimensional strings in space, which we perceive as particles because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains and we see only a moment at a time, at right angles to the direction of our movement.
The energy of one dimension of the wave is absorbed by the electron, which is necessary for us to be able to measure of see it, and the other dimension remains. Since only one dimension of light cannot still be a wave, that is where photons come from, the one-dimensional remains of a two-dimensional wave which now resembles a particle like an electron in nature.
The many points on the wave represent all possible states of the information carried by the wave and, depending on the point on the wave that contacts the electron, always at a right angle, the wave function appears to "collapse" into only one state, which is defined by the point on the wave that contacts the electron.
Imagine a two-dimensional circle being reduced to a one-dimensional line, but the state of the "collapse" to one dimension would depend on which of the infinity of diameters on the circle we took away to leave only a line perpendicular to that remaining as the one-dimensional line.
This is all that a "wave function collapse" amounts to, our vision or observation by interaction with a one-dimensional electron, taking away one dimension of the energy of the wave so that it "collapses" into a one-dimensional photon. All possible eignestates (quantum states) are every point of the wave before the collapse. The one remaining after the collapse is a line of light, a photon, that was perpendicular to the point on the wave that encountered the electron.
That is why the observer is so important in Quantum Physics, the observation which is usually the wave function encountering an electron string that is perpendicular to it and absorbs one of it's two dimensions. A photon resembles an electron in form because both are one-dimensional strings, except that the photon has no electric charge.
THE MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION
Aside from the "collapse" interpretations of Quantum Physics", of which the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most popular, there is also the "non-collapse", of which the Many Worlds Interpretation is the most popular.
The Many Worlds Interpretation, as the name implies, states that, when a wave function is observed, it does not collapse because the other possible states still must exist somewhere. Rather than a "collapse", it is decoherence that causes one state to become separated from the others. Decoherence is defined as the loss of unity of a quantum state, so that it splits in two. Entangled photons, as we saw above, share a quantum state so that information is instantaneously passed from one to another. But that can be lost due to environmental factors.
But isn't "collapse" and decoherence really the same thing, the absorption of one dimension of a two-dimensional wave function by an electron that it encounters? According to our observation, the wave seems to "collapse" into a one-dimensional photon. But we could also say that there was a decoherence of the two dimensions of the wave, so that they were separated by the electron.
The Many Worlds Interpretation considers each event as a "branch". The quantum system seems to go in one direction, but the other directions that it could have gone in must still exist somewhere, maybe in another universe. There is not a "collapse", so that the other directions or quantum states no longer exist, but only a decoherence as our observation separates the one quantum state that we see from the others.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is something that we can spend hours pondering, as I am sure many others have. But I see it as us seeing the universe in our own terms and from our own perspective. The solution to this interpretation is just as simple as for the "collapse" interpretations, and that solution is to see that everything is really information.
Suppose that we throw a ball, and it bounces off a wall. But the ball could have kept on going if the wall hadn't been there. That means that there must be another universe where the ball keeps going, and doesn't bounce off the wall.
But we can easily measure the acceleration of the ball to determine it's course if the wall hadn't been there. That information is there whether the ball bounces off the wall or not. And the ball itself is just information. According to my cosmology theory, everything is composed of infinitesimal electric charges with space being a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating charges and matter being any concentration of these charges.
So it really isn't necessary to have a multitude of universes, with a ball in each, going through every single course of events that it possibly could have. If everything is really just information, then all we need to know is the original acceleration of the ball and the information of all possible courses of events that the ball could have taken are still there, all within our one universe. We see ourselves made of matter so we presume that there must be a ball made of matter like us in each possible universe but matter, like space, is just information.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is similar in nature to the pattern of information that I call "The One And The Many". The one is what is, the many are what possibly could have been but weren't. Addresses are an ideal example. Something is defined by what it is not.
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
What about the "Uncertainty Principle" in Quantum Physics? That is simple too. Consider radio triangulation. If we receive, with a directional antenna, only a momentary signal from a radio source, we can tell what direction the source is in but cannot tell how far away it is or whether it is moving. For that, we would need more than one measurement. In time, to see if the source is moving, and from another location, to determine how far away the source was.
This is why we have two eyes, to be able to estimate how far away things are.
In the same way, since the electrons in our measuring devices can absorb only one dimension of a two-dimensional wave we can, for example, predict where a given electron might be found in an orbital, but can never say with absolute certainty because all we have is an instantaneous one-dimensional measurement.
HIDDEN VARIABLE INTERPRETATIONS
Some other interpretations of Quantum Physics can be described as "hidden variable" interpretations. This means that we can never tell for sure what is happening in a quantum interaction because we are not capable of seeing all of the variables. My theory accommodates that because what we perceive as time is actually a fourth dimension of space that we cannot access at will because the particles of our bodies are actually one-dimensional strings that are aligned primarily in this dimension. The other three we can move in at will.
The reason that two photons can remain entangled, after a single photon is split in two by passing it through a crystal, is that the crystal adds it's spatial dimensions to it so that a one-dimensional photon takes on a "V" forms with the point of the "V" being the place where it was split by the crystal and the two points of the "V" representing the two entangled photons, between which information passes instantaneously. But the point of the "V" is in the past dimension of the dimension of space that we perceive as time from the points of the "V".
THE GREAT SIMPLICITY OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Can you see how simple Quantum Physics really is? In my cosmology theory, it is fully explained as being even simpler than Relativity.
All that we need to know is that when a two-dimensional wave encounters a one-dimensional electron, which is the only way we can see or measure the wave, it must necessarily absorb the energy of one dimension of the wave. The remaining dimension of the wave is what we refer to as a photon, which behaves as a one-dimensional particle. This is why light is said to have the nature of both a wave and a particle.
The wave function, representing a multitude of all quantum states, thus appears to "collapse" into only one such state when we observe it. There is always the uncertainty factor in quantum measurements because we are observing a two-dimensional wave function, light being how we receive information, in only one dimension.
Picture a one-dimensional line in space. That is an electron, but the motion of an electron in it's atomic orbital resembles a wave. The direction of the line is the dimension of four-dimensional space that we perceive as time.
Now picture a two-dimensional wave contacting the electron line at a perpendicular angle. One of the dimensions of the wave is the direction in which it is traveling and the other is perpendicular to it. Both of the dimensions of the wave are perpendicular to that of the electron. The electron absorbs the dimension of the wave that is the direction in which the wave is moving, the remaining dimension of the wave then exists as a one-dimensional photon that is perpendicular to the line of the electron.
In the four-dimensional space of my cosmology theory, that still leaves one dimension because, so far, we have the two dimensions of the wave and the one of the electron. But light waves are two-dimensional in three-dimensional space. That is why light waves are said to have a certain polarity in space, like the hands on a clock. A polarizing filter only allows light waves with a certain polarity through.
Remember that this cosmology theory does not make the universe more complicated. It takes what looks complicated, because we over-complicate it, and makes it simple. There is the principle in physics known as Occam's Razor. This well-established principle is that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation.
This cosmology theory can get long, but that is only because it explains so much that is otherwise unexplained. The essence of this theory can be described in two paragraphs. Following is the brief abstract that I use for the cosmology theory.
"My cosmological theory has the universe as not-quite-parallel strings of matter aligned mostly in one direction in four-dimensional space, although there could be many more than these four dimensions. The direction in which these strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one that we perceive as time, along which our consciousnesses move at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can only see perpendicular to the bundles of strings of matter comprising our bodies and brains. The original two-dimensional sheet of space, amidst the multi-dimensional background space, disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact. Due to charge migration, to seek a lower energy state, one side was positive in charge and the other was negative. This brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang. The energy in the disintegrating dimension, from the tension between adjacent opposite electric charges, was released. The remaining dimension then consisted of very long strings of infinitesimal cross-section, that we perceive as the particles of matter today. Some of the energy released by the disintegrating dimension went into "welding" the charges of the remaining dimension together as strings of matter. We perceive these strings as particles because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see at right angles to our strings.
So, the basics of my theory is a two-dimensional sheet of space, which formed amidst the multi-dimensional background space by the same kind of opposite charge induction, disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact to create the matter-antimatter explosive mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe, and which scattered the remaining one-dimensional strings of matter out across space to form the universe that we see today. The strings of matter from the original two-dimensional sheet were scattered across four dimensions of the background space".
Ever since developing this simple theory, I have been adding all of the cosmic mysteries that it neatly explains. These explanations are in the posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", which is the name of the theory, and in the earlier part of the theory on the cosmology blog, www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com .
In Relativity, the reason that the speed of light is so absolutely constant is that it is the speed at which our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. We see Quantum Physics due to the nature of our vision, using one-dimensional electrons to interact with two-dimensional light wave forms.
All that we really need to know about the greatly over-complicated topic of Quantum Physics is that an electron is a one-dimensional string aligned in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. When a two-dimensional light wave encounters the electron from a perpendicular angle the electron will, under the right conditions, absorb one dimension of the two dimensions of the wave. The remaining dimension of the wave now has the nature of a particle like the electron, and is what we refer to as a photon.
The right conditions for the electron absorbing a dimension of the wave is described in section 10) of "The Theory Of Stationary Space" as "THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT". This is why, when light encounters an electron, the electron will absorb it only one out of every 137 times.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Investigations
I have put the postings about investigations into one compound posting. The individual postings listed below have been removed. I do not mean anything against the Catholic Church by number 13, but people like conspiracy theories and it has succeeded in getting people to read the Bible, which is the objective of it.
1) DID THE SON OF SAM WANT TO GET CAUGHT?
2) THE REAL STORY OF OSIRAK
3) THE MYSTERY OF USTICA
4) QUESTIONS ABOUT D-DAY
5) THE REAL STORY OF GALLIPOLI
6) THE WORLD OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
7) NIAGARA FALLS AND THE MOON LANDINGS
8) INSIGHT INTO 9/11
9) THE REAL BATMAN
10) AMERICA'S 75-YEAR MYSTERY
11) SYMBOLISM THEORY OF THE VATICAN AND THE HAGIA SOPHIA
12) THE PALACE ALLIANCE
13) THE VATICAN AND ST. PETER
14) ARYAN IDEOLOGY
15) MADE IN INDIA
16) THE ENDURING MYSTERY OF THE CINEMA REX
17) AMERICA'S WAR IN VIETNAM
18) THE REAL STORY OF HUE
19) THE VIENNA CAFE SCENE
20) THE UNIVERSITY RECRUITING DRIVE THAT REALLY CHANGED THE WORLD
21) THE WAY TO SAN JOSE
22) THE EXONERATION OF AIMEE SEMPLE MCPHERSON
23) THE COLOSSEUM AND THE VATICAN
24) THE HOUSE OF THE REVOLUTION
25) MAYBE O.J. SIMPSON REALLY DIDN'T DO IT
26) THE NORWAY PLAN
27) THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
28) THE ASSASSINATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
29) THE GLASSES OF JOHN HINCKLEY JR.
30) MARIJUANA
31) THE FLIGHT OF RUDOLF HESS
32) THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF FIDEL CASTRO
33) THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS
34) SUITCASE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
35) AMERICA'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE
36) RICHARD NIXON'S LIST OF ENEMIES
37) THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALAMO
38) CANADA'S AVRO ARROW
39) THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE
40) THE FIRE AT NOTRE DAME
41) U.S. PRESIDENTS AND THE APOCALYPSE
42) THE REAL STORY OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI
1) DID THE SON OF SAM WANT TO GET CAUGHT?
In 1976 and '77, there was a serial killer in New York City called "The Son of Sam". This was the name that he gave himself in letters sent to newspapers. He killed six people and wounded seven, using a .44 caliber handgun.
Residents of New York State remember the summer of 1977 as "The Summer of the Son of Sam". I was a teenager at the time. He targeted young women with long, dark hair, usually shooting them when they were sitting in parked cars after dark. The only males that were shot were boyfriends that were with them. It was in the news every day. Hair salons did a brisk business with girls having their hair cut short or dyed blond. But his final victim was blond.
The Son of Sam wrote bizarre letters to the news that caused all of the printed copies to sell out. One letter was left with the body of one of his victims. New York City underwent possibly the largest manhunt the world had ever seen. He never killed anyone on Manhattan, all of the victims were in the Bronx, Queens and, Brooklyn.
The shootings were clearly ethnically targeted. Despite the demographics of New York City, none of the victims was black or Hispanic or foreign-born.
I walked into the house one day, August 11, and my mother gave me the news, "They've got him".
On May 30, 1977, a letter was received by Jimmy Breslin of the New York Daily News. In the letter, the Son of Sam gave some clues, "Here are some names to help you along. Forward them to the inspector". Many tips continuously came in, and the killer was caught on August 10, but the clues, consisting of four names, was never solved.
His capture was assisted by a parking ticket. He parked too close to a fire hydrant in Brooklyn, and then aimed shots at a woman but missed. She had seen him walking toward her from the direction of the car, and that the police had shortly before ticketed the car. That soon led to his being caught.
Upon capture, he quickly admitted to the killings and pleaded guilty.
I think I have solved the four names that the Son of Sam sent as clues to the New York Daily News. The names are as follows:
"The Duke of Death"
"The Wicked King Wicker"
"The Twenty Two Disciples Of Hell"
"John Wheaties"
The Son of Sam was giving a clue as to where he lived and worked. He lived in an apartment building, on Pine Street in Yonkers. He was arrested at night as he entered his car parked outside, apparently on his way out to another shooting.
The name that he gave himself in the letters, "The Son of Sam", is itself part of the clue. "Sam" turned out to be a neighbor named Sam Carr who had a dog in his yard. The killer's first story upon capture is that he took the barking of the dog as demonic instructions to kill. He had once wounded the dog with a bullet.
As for "John Wheaties", Sam Carr had a son named John and a daughter named Wheat. It was Wheat Carr who was the police dispatcher in Yonkers at the time. "Wheaties" was the name of a popular breakfast cereal.
The short side street that ran alongside Sam Carr's house, and ended on the street just behind the apartment building where the Son of Sam lived, was Wicker Street. That explains "The Wicked King Wicker".
The names that the Son of Sam gave as clues contain two titles of royalty and nobility, king and duke. The name of New York comes from England's King Charles II granting the lands to his brother, the Duke of York.
Pine Street, on which the Son of Sam lived, was a short street. At the end of the street, which he would have passed on his way into the city, was another large apartment building. The actual address of the building is on the main road, North Broadway. But the back was facing Pine Street.
This building is built in what is known as the Tudor Revival Style, which typically features the half-timbering that was popular in England centuries ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_Revival_architecture#/media/File:Beaney_Institute_002.jpg
If the apartment building at the end of Pine Street had been built in the Tudor era as a palace, a duke, or even a king, might have lived there.
The large building with the black roof right in the center of the following image is the apartment building where the Son of Sam lived. Wicker Street is the short east-west street to the left. The large house on Warburton Ave., just north of Wicker Street, with the rust-colored roof is where Sam lived. His dog would bark in the area behind the house. The building in the lower center, with the light blue roof, is the Tudor Revival-style apartment building.
You may have to close the search window, to the left, to see it.
If you enter a search into the satellite imagery for 22 Pine Street, you can see that it points to this Tudor Revival apartment building. Although it's front, which would be the address, faces North Broadway. But if it's address was on Pine Street, it would be 22 Pine Street. if Wicker Street extended to Pine Street this is where it would intersect.
But since no address was posted at the back the only people who would know that, in the days before Google Maps, would be those who worked at the Post Office, and that is exactly where it turned out that the Son of Sam worked.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yonkers,+NY/@40.9464375,-73.8950244,287m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c2c0080943afa1:0xbe967384a4d8daa2!8m2!3d40.9312099!4d-73.8987469
So this explains where the king in "The Wicked King Wicker", as well as "The Duke of Death", comes from. The address of the rear of the apartment building shows where "The Twenty Two Disciples of Hell" comes from. This Tudor Revival-style apartment building was not the one that the Son of Sam lived in, but was the other apartment building on the street. But this is where Wicker Street would intersect if it extended to Pine Street.
If someone would have put all of this together, they would have zeroed right in on where the Son of Sam lived, as well as worked. If all of this had been run through the crude computers of the time, it might have noted that there was a family with a Sam, a John and, a Wheat living at the intersection of a Wicker Street.
In an earlier letter, left at the scene of a shooting, the killer wrote that "Sam sometimes locks me in the attic, where I watch the world going by through the window". He also wrote that "Sam sometimes locks me in the garage". But the "Son of Sam" did not live in this house, it was a clue as to where he did live.
The house in the following image is "Sam's" house, with two attic windows facing out to the main road, and the dual garage in front. Behind the house was where the dog was barking that he initially said was what was telling him to kill. The apartment building where he lived can be seen behind that. Image from Google Street View.
The following image, from Google Earth, shows behind the house, where the dog would bark.
The announced purpose of turning off the falls was for examination of the underlying rock strata. But it had a devastating effect on the Canadian Niagara tourist season. Instead, it brought tourists to the American side to see the dry falls up close.
This was around the same time that the U.S. broke diplomatic relations with Sweden over it's criticism of the Vietnam War.
But Nixon and Trudeau soon patched things up. In 1972, Richard Nixon visited Pierre Trudeau in Ottawa and famously predicted that Trudeau's then-infant son would someday be Canadian Prime Minister.
8) INSIGHT INTO 9/11
There is something about the attacks of 9/11 that I have never seen documented anywhere.
After the 1967 Six-Day War, many Palestinians moved into Jordan. In fact, they came to outnumber the native Jordanians. In September, 1970, a group of these Palestinians in Jordan launched an operation in an effort to secure the release of comrades who were in prison. This operation became known as the Dawson Field Hijackings.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palesting, the PFLP, hijacked four jet airliners, from various airports in Europe and the Middle East. The operation was not deadly, but they wanted to get the world's attention. Three of the airliners landed at an airfield in Jordan, known as Dawson Field. The hijackers invited the media from around the world to watch, and then destroyed the planes with explosives after the passengers and crews had gotten off the aircraft.
The fourth airliner landed at Cairo because it was one of the new Boeing 747s, and could not land at the small airfield in Jordan. That plane was also destroyed with explosives, as soon as the passengers had been released. These hijackers were arrested by the Egyptians.
This must have been the prototype for 9/11. This incident is not remembered well in the west because no one, except one of the hijackers, was killed.
How much of a coincidence can it be that four jet airliners were hijacked and destroyed, and the passengers were released on September 11? The planes were destroyed the next day, after all of the media had arrived to watch. Who could have imagined that, thirty-one years later, there would be a much deadlier attack by crashing the planes into buildings, with the passengers still inside?
9) THE REAL BATMAN
The presidency of Richard Nixon, of 1969-74, has been very much analyzed and discussed ever since. Today, I would like to add my view, and I see it as the one of the most fantastic untold stories in American and world political history.
Nixon had been the vice-president of Dwight Eisenhower, but had narrowly lost the 1960 presidential election to John F. Kennedy. That conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, had tried to win back the presidency for the Republicans in the 1964 election, but was soundly defeated by Democrat Lyndon Johnson, who had been Kennedy's vice-president, and then became president after the 1963 assassination of Kennedy.
After the devastating defeat of Goldwater, Republicans began searching for the best candidate to win back the presidency in the 1968 election. Nixon's loss to Kennedy had been due to the new medium of television. In the Nixon-Kennedy debates, those listening on the radio actually thought that Nixon had won. But Nixon looked somewhat worn, and had neglected to shave, and those watching on television thought that the young and telegenic Kennedy had won the debate.
After the defeat of Goldwater, Nixon again emerged as the Republican that was most likely to win back the presidency. But how could he be made more television-friendly? The realization by Republicans of how important television was going to be in the future ultimately led to the presidency of a former movie star named Ronald Reagan.
Television was filled with heroes, such as Superman, who used their super powers to battle villains. In the popular Superman television series of the late 1950s, the hero used his extraordinary powers in the quest for "Truth, Justice and, The American Way".
What if Nixon could get some help from such a superhero to win the presidency in the 1968 election?
In the late 1930s an earlier hero named Batman, with his assistant named Robin, had been popular in comics. Batman was an ordinary human, with no special powers, but hid his identity with a mask that resembled a bat. He accomplished his mission with great ingenuity and knowledge, physical fitness, wisdom and, a large array of special and ingenious tools.
It turns out that Richard Nixon, with his black hair combed backward, bore a resemblance to the cowl worn by Batman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#/media/File:Nixon%27s_the_One!_(Portrait)_1968.png
Batman wore a cape,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series)#/media/File:1966_Batman_titlecard.JPG
and Nixon had this gesture of spreading his arms wide with peace signs, which evoked Batman's cape, which I cannot see that he used in any earlier campaigns,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968#/media/File:NIXONcampaigns.jpg
Incredibly, the televised Batman of the late 1960s, the 1966-68 series and the accompanying 1966 movie, was to be a pre-enactment of Nixon's future presidency. The show was made to hold the interest of children, but was really aimed at the parents watching with their children. Batman represented Nixon and the actor chosen to play Batman, Adam West, was of the same height and similar build as Nixon. This is the reason that the Batman of the late 1960s couldn't be too muscular, because then he wouldn't resemble Nixon.
Nixon was a Republican, but was not elected for economics. He was a very moderate Republican. He added to the Great Society programs of his Democrat predecessor, and started the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, to protect workers while on the job, actions that most Americans of today would not expect from a Republican.
What Nixon was elected for is simply law and order. To the generation before the Baby Boomers, the 1960s was an unfamiliar new world. Moral standards were dropping just as fast as crime was rising. Young people were taking drugs and engaging in mass protests against the bizarre war in a jungle on the other side of the world. Black people were rioting, for equal rights, and American cities were in flames. Time Magazine summarized 1967 as "that long, strange year".
Batman was like a throwback to the world that the children's parents knew, or at least thought that they knew. There were scenes on Batman that emphasized the importance of diligently doing one's homework, and eating a balanced diet. There was cool technology on Batman that would get the interest of most children, and encourage them to prepare for the future, particularly the Bat-mobile with it's rocket-like engine and the Bat-computer in the Bat-cave.
Batman's real identity was Bruce Wayne, a very wealthy man who lived in a mansion called Wayne Manor. But, unlike the image that Democrats present of the wealthy of seeking out tax shelters and finding ways to squeeze more money out of the less-fortunate, and finally crashing the economy with their greed, Bruce Wayne uses his wealth to start the Wayne Foundation to try to make it a better world for everyone. More importantly, he uses his wealth to set himself up as Batman, joined by his nephew as Robin, to risk his life on a regular basis to battle the criminals who prey on society.
The thing that I want to point out here is that Batman stood for exactly the same set of principles that Richard Nixon campaigned on.
If voters would just elect Republicans like Nixon to office, there would be generous and benevolent wealthy people like Bruce Wayne, a throwback to the wealthy philanthropists of old, and society would be a much better place once these Democrats, who had let things descend into the mad world of the 1960s, were out of the way.
Without being too forward about it, Batman's costume of black and grey, and sometimes blue, are the same colors as a police uniform. This is to sub-consciously convey that the Republican "establishment", that was so reviled during the 1960s, was really on your side.
The logo on the much-admired Bat-mobile also sub-consciously evokes a police car, and the fins on the vehicle evoke the decade before, the 1950s, the "good old days" before the crazy 1960s, when Nixon was vice-president, and which he would bring back if elected as president. But at the same time, the car had a most definite "cool factor", which would keep children and teenagers watching.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batmobile#/media/File:1960s_Batmobile_(FMC).jpg
The bat symbol, which represented everything about Batman, was easily rendered on t-shirts and other items. Everyone could wear or have something with the bat symbol on it. But, at the same time, it was sub-consciously reminiscent of the eagle that was the symbol of America without, once again, being too forward about it in the anti-establishment 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle#/media/File:Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg
Also notice how Batman in his cape resembles the symbol of America,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series)#/media/File:1966_Batman_titlecard.JPG
The whole subliminal message was to ignore what the "liberal media" tells you, "the establishment", the Republicans, are on your side. Get some law and order into this mess by getting them back in charge of the country by voting for Nixon.
Batman's costume, with it's serious gray and dark colors, evoked that of a police uniform. But this was also the era of color television, and Batman had to have some color. This was accomplished by the colorful uniform of Batman's assistant, Robin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#/media/File:Batman_%26_Robin_(Batman_vol._1_-9_Feb._1942).jpg
Some of the troubling aspects of the late 1960s are conspicuous on Batman by their absence. There are no guns. The modern era of senseless mass shootings began in the same year as the first season of the Batman television series, 1966, with the University of Texas Tower Shootings. But Batman brings parents, watching with their children, back to the "good old days" when such things didn't happen, or at least not in our country.
One thing that also must be said about Batman is that there do not seem to be any black people, even though it was filmed as race riots were taking place across the country. In the final season of the show, Eartha Kitt did come in, but as the villain Cat-woman.
Neither does there seem to be many ethnic names. The real identity of Batman is Bruce Wayne, and Robin is Dick Grayson. The police commissioner is Gordon, all nice, traditional Anglo names.
In the heyday of rock music while the series is being filmed, there appear to be no references to any such music on Batman, at least until the final season. Once again, bringing back the "good old days" to parents watching with their children.
One thing that many people found unusual about this show is that it was a half-hour show, but each episode was shown in two separate parts within one week. Often Batman was in a dire situation, or about to be killed, and readers were implored to tune into the second half, shown a few days later, at the "same bat time, same bat channel".
But if this entire show was a pre-enactment of the Nixon presidency, then the second half would represent Nixon's future second term as president. U.S. presidents serve four-year terms, and are allowed to be reelected to a second term. It also represents Nixon's "coming back from political near-death". A few years earlier, he had resigned from politics stating that "You will not have Nixon to kick around anymore". But that was only the end of the first half of Nixon's show, he was still to come back for the second half.
Batman involved a lot of actors and it is difficult to keep all of them together year after year. In the third season, 1968, many of the cast had moved on to other things and had been replaced. The show was less successful than it had been in the first two seasons, and was cancelled. But the reruns would seemingly last forever. The show just happened to conclude just as Nixon took the presidency.
One great mystery about the Batman television show is why the filming set, which had cost a lot of money to construct, was almost immediately destroyed when the show was cancelled. It could have been preserved as a Bat-museum. ABC owned the rights to the show. Upon learning that it was being cancelled, rival NBC offered to buy and continue it, but withdrew the offer upon learning that the set had already been destroyed. The iconic Batcave had been put to the bulldozers.
But if the show was really a pre-enactment of the Nixon presidency, then this makes sense. The Republican sympathizers who came up with the idea of Batman as Nixon didn't want anyone else taking over, and possibly changing the meaning of the show, in the mind of the public. They might even make Batman into a Democrat. Neither did they want the show to continue if it wasn't going to be as popular. It had already accomplished it's mission.
Batman had four major arch-enemies, as well as several minor ones. These villains represented the social ills in the late 1960s that Richard Nixon was campaigning against.
The Riddler had a maniacal laugh and wore a green suit covered with question marks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddler#/media/File:Detective140.JPG
He was played on Batman, in the first two seasons, by Frank Gorshin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddler#/media/File:Frank_Gorshin_Riddler_1967.jpg
The Riddler stood for several issues. The first was drugs. Even though illegal drugs were not referenced on the show, the first thought of an adult upon seeing the Riddler would be to question how much LSD it would take to get a person to walk around in a costume like that and to laugh like that. Hippies were questioning the entire social order, and this is what the Riddler's question marks could have represented. Part of the anti-establishment movement of the late 1960s was environmentalism, and this is reflected in the Riddler's green costume.
Another issue was feminism, the disruptive advance of women out of their traditional roles. This was represented on Batman by another villain, Cat-woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Newmar#/media/File:Julie_Newmar_Catwoman_Batman_1966.JPG
The gaudiness of the late 1960s fashion, tye-dyed t-shirts and striped bell-bottom pants, was represented by the gaudy colors of another villain, The Joker. At left in the following photo was yet another villain, The Penguin. By the 1960s, it was being understood how bad it was for the health to smoke cigarettes. The Penguin, usually seen with a cigarette in a cigarette-holder, thus stood for smoking. The top hat worn by The Penguin could have conveyed that, unlike Bruce Wayne who was a good wealthy man The Penguin, in sharp contrast, was an old-style robber baron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(character)#/media/File:Batman_villains_The_Penguin_The_Riddler_The_Joker_1967.JPG
If everything else on this show was so loaded with political and sociological meaning then what about Robin, Batman's assistant and Bruce Wayne's nephew?
Voters would, at this time, still remember Nixon's loss in the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy. It would be wise to incorporate a sub-conscious representation of Kennedy into this scenario. Assassinated in 1963, he was still very popular, and so could not be a villain. But he could come back, this time as Nixon's (Batman's) junior partner. Kennedy would be sub-consciously represented in the series by Robin.
Look at the way Robin (left) has his hair combed in this photo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series)#/media/File:Batman_and_Robin_1966.JPG
Compare it to the way Kennedy combed his hair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#/media/File:John_F_Kennedy_2017_Dedication-forever.jpg
You can also see in this image of Robin how he tries to have his hair combed like Kennedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_(comics)#/media/File:Robin_Earth_2.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#/media/File:John_F._Kennedy,_White_House_photo_portrait,_looking_up.jpg
Robin is clearly Batman's junior partner. Batman is the older and wiser of the two. The two are referred to as "Batman and Robin", never as "Robin and Batman". Robin is also significantly shorter than Batman. This, with Robin representing Kennedy and Batman representing Nixon, is to portray the late Kennedy as living on but this time as Batman's (Nixon's) junior partner.
The famed Batmobile, Batman and Robin's very special car, has a flame exhaust like a rocket. When "taking off" in the Batmobile, Robin would first recite "Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed". As if the two were about to take off in a rocket.
Now, why would a car have to resemble and be handled like a rocket in such a way? Also, if Batman was in command of the two, why would Robin recite the launching checklist rather than Batman?
Because it was Kennedy, during his presidency, who initiated the Apollo Space program of the time by making a speech with the goal of putting a man on the moon, and bringing him safely back, by 1970, a goal which was achieved. This design of the Batmobile, and Robin's recitation of the "takeoff" checklist as if it were a rocket takeoff countdown, reinforces the image of Robin representing Kennedy as Nixon's (Batman's) junior partner, even though Kennedy had defeated Nixon in the 1960 election.
One thing about the Batman television show that didn't seem to make sense was the Batman movie that was released after the first season, in 1966. The movie certainly harmed, rather than helped, the television series. The movie was too long for many children, and much of the content would be beyond their understanding. The movie was less-than-successful, and the show began to fade in popularity.
I saw the movie when I was a young child, but was used to seeing Batman in half-hour intervals. The movie was too long, and I didn't watch all of it. But I did like it when I saw it again, a few years later.
But now I realize that the Batman movie of 1966 was made not so much for children, but for voting parents who were watching it with their children. While the series focused on domestic social issues and crime, the movie brought Batman onto the international stage. The four major villains had joined forces, and the Penguin had a submarine which could fire missiles. Nuclear technology was introduced with the nuclear reactor in Batman's Batcave. Cat-woman, masquerading as a Russian journalist in the movie, brought international politics and espionage into Batman.
But remember that Batman represents Nixon, and the show was a pre-enaction of his future presidency. Nixon was not campaigning only on domestic issues and crime, which was portrayed in the series, but also on international relations, which had to be conveyed by this movie.
Nixon indeed turned out to be a renowned master of foreign policy during his presidency. He visited China, and then Russia, in 1972. His opening of relations with China certainly changed the course of the world. Nixon visited Pierre Trudeau in Ottawa, and predicted that Trudeau's four-month-old son, Justin, would one day be prime minister of Canada.
One of Kennedy's campaign points against Nixon in the 1960 campaign was the so-called "Missile Gap". This was the allegation that the Eisenhower Administration, in which Nixon had been vice-president, had allowed the Soviet Union to close the "missile gap" with the United States, and thus give away America's former lead in nuclear missiles.
Nuclear missiles may be fired from submarines, and this movie showed that the public had nothing to worry about that Batman (Nixon) was very capable of dealing with a world of nuclear missiles and submarines.
Kennedy had handled the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis a few year before. The U.S. Navy had dropped a depth charge, which forced a Soviet submarine to surface. It wasn't a real depth charge, which could crush the hull of a submarine, just one with a small explosive charge that was used for training, but would send powerful sound waves through the water.
In the movie, circling the Penguin's submarine in the Bat-boat, Robin uses a "sonic weapon" that he fires like a bazooka, to force the submarine to surface. This, and the missile that the submarine fires, evokes the Missile Crisis of 1962. This is to sub-consciously convey to the public that Nixon (Batman) could have handled such a crisis also. The fact that Robin, rather than Batman, is the one that handles the sonic weapon further links him as representing Kennedy, who is now resurrected as Batman's junior partner.
So that explains why this apparently unproductive movie was made. Batman was representing Nixon. The series showed him battling domestic social issues and crime, but he had to be shown on the international stage as well, and Nixon indeed turned out to be best-known for his foreign-policy accomplishments.
One mystery about the Nixon presidency is his choice of running mate and vice-president. Spiro Agnew had been governor of Maryland, and was initially popular. But his relationship with Nixon soon began to deteriorate, he resigned the vice-presidency due to tax-evasion charges, after which he and Nixon never spoke again, and was even disbarred from practicing law.
But this scenario here explains it. Ten years before the Batman series and movie, there had been another hero in Superman. The introduction to each episode described Superman as battling for "truth, justice and, the American way". The Superman television series was from the 1950s, when Nixon had been vice-president, and the good times that he would take the voting public back to, if he were elected. Like Batman, Superman had worn a cape and had a logo, while he did battle with a nasty array of villains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman#/media/File:Superman_S_symbol.svg
Batman was already rallying the voters in support of Nixon, it would be a very good thing if Superman could be brought in too.
Spiro Agnew, it turns out, bore a striking resemblance to Superman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew#/media/File:Spiro_Agnew.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Reeves#/media/File:Stamp_Day_for_Superman.jpg
How could America go wrong with the team of Batman and Superman running the country?
But the real mystery of the Nixon presidency is Watergate. If you have never heard of Watergate, it was a massive scandal in the United States during the second Nixon presidential term, after he was reelected in 1972. During the 1972 campaign, against Democrat George McGovern, a team of burglars broke into the Watergate Building in Washington. They were looking for incriminating evidence against Democrats, to help to get Nixon re-elected. My understand is that were looking, in particular, for documentation that Democrats had received funding from Communist Cuba.
The burglars had entered the building during the day, while it was open. There were doors that had latches which could be opened from the inside, but not from the outside. They put tape over a latch, so that they could come back at night and enter the building. A security guard in the building noticed the tape and called police. The burglars were caught and the ensuing scandal brought about the resignation of Nixon, the only such time in American history that a president has resigned. Spiro Agnew had been replaced with Gerald Ford when he earlier resigned, due to the tax evasion charges, and Ford took over as president when Nixon resigned.
Nixon easily won re-election in 1972, it was one of the most one-sided elections in American history. Out of fifty states, McGovern won the vote in only one, the Democrat bastion of Massachusetts. But yet this ridiculous and absurd burglary would destroy that presidency. It was like a sports team that was ahead in score 49-1 cheating to be sure that it would win, and then getting disqualified for cheating. It did not make the slightest bit of sense.
But remember that we are dealing with Batman here. Nixon's was the presidency of Batman, and just couldn't help reenacting Batman. Batman did not have super powers, like the ability to fly, he relied on ingenuity and some special devices. This cleverly putting tape over a door latch sounds like something right out of Batman. Never before or since has anything like this happened in any other presidency. Scotch Tape even sells a line of tape called Bat-Tape, with the logo of Batman on it. It is easy to imagine Batman telling Robin to "Put a piece of Bat-Tape over the door latches so we can get back into the building later".
This tape over the door-latch fits perfectly with the secretiveness of the Bat-Cave. There is a hidden button in Wayne Manor, which slides away a bookcase, revealing the elevator to the Bat-Cave. When the Bat-Mobile enters or leaves the Bat-Cave, a wooden traffic entrance barrier temporarily drops down.
Nixon's notorious tape recordings of conversations are also like something out of Batman, who had a Bat-Tape Reader, and a special Bat-device to analyze sounds on tape recordings.
I think that we can conclude that Batman, in his greatest quest of all, came to the rescue and, with a little bit of help from Superman, saved the presidency for the Republicans.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+batman&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ09bZq9LUAhXLbD4KHbI4BxcQsAQIKQ&biw=1012&bih=636#imgrc=l26P_BOsAhEILM:
10) AMERICA'S 75-YEAR MYSTERY
How about a spy story, that might provide the answer to an enduring mystery? Even in these days, when hacking has largely replaced traditional spying, spy stories are still popular.
THE DEADLY DOUBLE
Every anniversary of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, we are reminded of a bizarre mystery that has yet to be solved.
Two weeks before the attack, an ad was placed in a magazine called The New Yorker. The ad was for sales of a game involving dice, made by a company called Monarch Publishing. The game was called "The Deadly Double".
The image in the ad featured a pair of dice, with the numbers 12 and 7 prominently displayed. According to one account that I read, this was unusual because no dice at the time featured the numbers 12 or 7. The ad also had the words for "warning" in three languages, and was about the dice game as something to do in an air raid shelter.
As it turns out the attack on Pearl Harbor soon took place, as an air raid on the 7th day of the 12th month.
There is no Wikipedia article about the "Deadly Double", but there are numerous other articles about it online. You can see an image of the ad by going to Google, searching for "Deadly Double" and bringing up all of the "Images For deadly Double". The ad has "Warning" in three languages at the top, "Achtung", "Warning", "Alerte".
After the attack, the U.S. Government launched an investigation into the ad. It was soon found that neither the game nor Monarch Publishing existed. A man had come to the offices of the magazine, paid for the ad in cash without giving his name, and had the type for the ad all set up. He handed the clerk the set of type, and insisted that it be used to print the ad. The man was not Japanese.
According to another account of the Deadly Double that I read, investigators managed to find the man who placed the ad, but he had recently died in a mysterious accident.
It does not seem possible that the ad was a coded warning to any Japanese agents that the attack was about to take place because there were Japanese diplomats in the U.S. at the time of the attack, who clearly did not know that the attack was going to take place. Adolf Hitler was officially an ally of Japan, but was reportedly just as shocked as anyone at news of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The "Deadly Double" remains a much-pondered mystery to this day. Even if the game did exist, why would a company market a game as something to do while in an air raid shelter, when the country wasn't even at war?
RICHARD SORGE
Now, let's go to another spy story. In fact, the story of Richard Sorge has got to be the greatest spy story there ever was.
Richard Sorge's father was German, and his mother Russian. While recuperating from wounds suffered while serving in the German Army during the First World War, he became a devout convert to Communism. By the Second World War, he was a journalist reporting from Tokyo, seeming to be a Nazi, but actually spying for the Soviet Union.
Sorge reportedly found out about the imminent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and warned his NKVD contacts (the NKVD was the predecessor to the KGB, which is the predecessor to the present FSB, the state security organization), but Josef Stalin apparently didn't believe him.
After Imperial Japan occupied Manchuria, transforming it into a client state called Manchukuo, a dispute arose over the border between that state and the Soviet Union. Several battles were fought, in which the Soviets secured their territory. These are known as the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. There was also, of course, the major naval battle in the area between Japan and Russia, in 1905.
After the Nazis, allies of Japan, invaded the Soviet Union in the west, the Soviet leadership was very concerned that Japan would join in by attacking from the east. A large military force was stationed in the Soviet far east, even though it was very much needed to oppose the invasion in the west.
This was where Richard Sorge came into the picture. His job was to pretend to be a Nazi, reporting as a journalist on events in ally Japan, but actually finding out and reporting to the Soviet Union what Japan's military plans were.
The Wikipedia article on Richard Sorge states that he was a master spy who relayed to the Soviets, through secret radio transmissions, that Japan had no intention of joining the war against the Soviet Union any time soon. The reason was that there were other military plans in the works. This must have been a great relief to the Soviets, and the bulk of the large military force in the far east was moved westward, where it reportedly played vital roles in the Battles of Moscow and Stalingrad.
It is not in the Wikipedia article, but I have seen information that Sorge not only managed to relay that there were "other military plans" in the works, but exactly what those plans were. The military of Japan was, of course, planning the attack on Pearl Harbor.
As one example, my father had an old set of books about the Second World War. I recall that a book titled "Barbarossa", by John Keegan, stated that Sorge had actually informed the NKVD that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Japan was not necessarily seeking a full-scale war with the U.S, but only wanted to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet so that it could not interfere with Japan's conquests in Asia.
The conclusion was that Stalin was delighted, and did not warn America about the pending attack, not because of anything against the U.S., but because the U.S. would surely respond to such an attack, and this would keep the forces of Japan preoccupied so that they could not invade the Soviet far east. The bulk of the large military force guarding the Soviet far east could then be moved westward to join the battle against the Nazis.
THE SOLUTION TO "THE DEADLY DOUBLE"
Now, let's go back to the mysterious ad for the "Deadly Double", that was placed just before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Even though the U.S. and the Soviet Union were on the same side in the Second World War, it was no secret that there were any number of NKVD spies in the U.S. They knew all about the Manhattan Project, and what they really wanted was the plans for the atomic bomb. They would achieve their goal by getting Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to give them those plans.
As soon as I first became aware of this ad for "The Deadly Double", my thought was that this was a technique of communication that Communists around this time might have used.
The Soviets knew that there was an impending attack on the U.S., and that it would likely open up an entirely new dimension to the war. But they may not have known exactly what the coming Japanese military action might entail, whether it would be Pearl Harbor or the U.S. forces in the Philippines that might be attacked. It was actually part of a wider military action that included attacks on Malaya, Hong Kong and, the Philippines. They did not know how the coming attack would play out, how successful it would be, or how the U.S. and other countries would react to it.
By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Soviet Union had been at war with the Nazis and their allies for nearly six months. They may have been unsure whether the leadership of Germany and Italy knew about the upcoming attack, if they had plans to join in some coordinated action if they did know, and how they might react if they didn't.
The following image is of a Communist pamphlet that was widely circulated in the U.S. during the late 1930s. There was plenty of Communist sympathy in the U.S. at the time, due to the stock market crash and the following Great Depression. Every Communist in the U.S., some of which were active NKVD agents, would likely be familiar with this pamphlet.
Notice how the number 4 and the name of July are prominently displayed, in exactly the same way as the 12 and the 7 in the ad for "The Deadly Double".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Browder#/media/File:37-howard-this4thofjuly.jpg
It was done this way because spies had been instructed to read The New Yorker magazine, to find out how to get further instructions as the Communist leadership watched events unfold after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The 12 and the 7, the day of the attack, were rendered in such a way as to be reminiscent of the above pamphlet, so that they wouldn't miss the ad. In fact, this ad for "The Deadly Double" might have been put together by the same source as the pamphlet.
There was also a double-headed eagle, which looked a lot like the Nazi eagle, as well as XX which is 20 in Roman numerals. This was further intended to catch the attention of agents who had been instructed to read the magazine to find out where to get further instructions. This likely stood for Germany and Italy, the Soviets' two Axis enemies, as did the name of "The Deadly Double".
The 12 and the 7, the date of the attack, are the numbers most prominently displayed on the dice in the ad. But what about the four other numbers? The ad also displays, on the dice, the numbers 0, 5, XX (20) and, 24.
Remember that this is a notice for agents to access further instructions. Without these further instructions, all that the ad would accomplish was to let the agents know when the attack would occur, which they would find out anyway by listening to the news on the radio. There is not much that any secret agent could have done to make the attack any more devastating than it was. There is no sign that any secret agent had anything at all to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor. The ad would really not accomplish much if all it did was to let a few people know when the attack was going to take place.
The ad was instructions on how to listen to further instructions after the attack had taken place, as the Communist leadership watched unfolding events and decided on any possible new course of action.
Shortwave radio had become popular by this time. The wavelength band used in shortwave radio has the property of bouncing off the ionosphere, which is a layer of the earth's atmosphere that holds charged particles due to the effect of the sun. Short-wavelength radio waves travel in straight lines, and are not reflected by the ionosphere. But the shortwave band can be transmitted literally around the world by "bouncing" between the ionosphere and the earth's surface one or more times.
In more recent times, satellites relay shorter wavelengths of radio and television signals that would not bounce off the ionosphere at all, making propagation by way of the ionosphere unnecessary for these wavelengths.
Several years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the aviator Amelia Earhart had disappeared while attempting a flight around the world. The plane had a shortwave transmitter. Numerous shortwave listeners claimed to have heard her calls for help, claiming that she had crash-landed on an atoll but couldn't describe exactly where she was. I recall reading of a teenage girl in Florida, who listened to her father's shortwave receiver, and received a signal that kept fading in and out with a voice calling for help and claiming to be Amelia Earhart, that kept repeating the words "New York City".
The girl knew that her plane would be over the Pacific, so why would she be saying "New York City"?
It turns out that a British cargo ship named "Norwich City" had run aground on an atoll during a storm. The crew had been rescued, but the ship abandoned. The name of the ship would have been clearly visible to anyone who was on the atoll, and many people believe that this was where Amelia Earhart was calling from and was referring to the name of the beached ship. The plane could later have been pushed back out into the water by a storm, where it would have sank.
Anyway, shortwave radio was a staple means of communication for Communist spies. I remember reading stories of spies in North America, during the Cold War, who were instructed to get set up away from any high-tension power lines that might interfere with radio communications.
In the Wikipedia article on Earl Browder, who was leader of the U.S. Communist Party at the time, in the last paragraph of the section "Leader of the Popular Front", you can see that he arranged for shortwave radio communication in case international conflict made direct communication impossible. We also read in this paragraph that shortwave communication began in 1939 to convey the party's political line on the changing situation after the war began. This communication method would thus be in place in the days before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
One issue with shortwave radio communication is that conditions change. It requires bouncing signals off the ionosphere, which is very much affected by the sun. You may have noticed that very distant radio stations can be received on an AM radio, called long-wave outside of North America, at night that cannot be received during the day, and that cannot be received on much shorter wavelengths, such as FM, at all. That is because those much shorter wavelengths pass right through the ionosphere, and are not reflected.
There are also several layers to the ionosphere, each of which reflects radio waves under it's own conditions. Reflection of radio waves certainly varies between day and night, but also by the seasons. Put simply, a wavelength used for shortwave communications may be unreliable at any given time, although completely reliable at other times.
The solution is that shortwave stations usually broadcast on several different wavelengths, bringing the likelihood that at least one will be reliable at any given time. Notice on the pair of dice in the mysterious ad that the two low numbers, 0 and 5, are on the black dice, and the two high numbers, 20 (XX) and 24, are on the white dice. That could be an instruction to listen to the low channels at night and the high ones during the day, when the conditions of the ionosphere are different. Notice also how the exclamation point in the ad for "The Deadly Double" is extended, so that it looks a lot like a radio antenna.
The shortwave part of the radio spectrum runs from about 2 MHz (megahertz) to about 26 MHz. Thus, the other numbers, with the exception of the 0, could refer to shortwave frequencies, expressed in MHz.
The 0 could, of course, be a reference to not only the "rising sun" symbol that would be on the warplanes, but also to the name of the legendary carrier-based plane, the Zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A6M3_Zero_N712Z_1.jpg
The ad was not so much to warn that the attack was to take place, but as instructions on what to do to listen for further instructions, after it had taken place. An agent would see that the 12, the 7 and the 0 meant, and would conclude that the other three numbers were shortwave frequencies to be listened to, depending on whether listening was done during the day or at night, by which agents in the U.S. can get further instructions and updates on the official party line concerning the events which would unfold after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Japan was no ally of the Soviet Union, and the United States was not an enemy, but it must have been really good news that Japan was planning an attack on the U.S. because that would keep Japan occupied, unable to invade the Soviet far east, and the large military force that the Soviets kept guarding that region could be moved westward to join the battle against the invading Nazis.
I think this solves the mystery that has perplexed America for 75 years. The reason that it was not solved sooner is that the story of Richard Sorge is not widely known in the U.S., and did not get a lot of attention, but is necessary to solve this mystery.
Most of the ships that were in the attack on Pearl Harbor were at least partially salvaged. The exception is the battleship U.S.S. Arizona. The ship was not hit by torpedoes, but a bomb penetrated into the ship and detonated either the powder magazine, or the fuel tank, there are differing theories. The result was a massive explosion, and about half of the casualties in the attack were on board the Arizona.
One military advantage that the Allies had is that the Axis nations still believed in battleships, the ships with massive guns that were being made irrelevant by aircraft carriers. The attack got some of America's battleships, but took place when the aircraft carriers were away at sea. No aircraft carriers were damaged in the attack. The attack would have been much more devastating, in strategic terms, if it had been scheduled when the aircraft carriers were in port.
11) SYMBOLISM THEORY OF THE VATICAN AND THE HAGIA SOPHIA
One popular topic to write about nowadays is conspiracy theories. Many writers have claimed to uncovered the identity of the supposed "second gunman", who really shot John F. Kennedy. Others have identified the "real" Jack the Ripper, the serial killer in the Whitechapel district of London in the Autumn of 1888. So today, we have dozens of people who "really" shot John F. Kennedy, and a whole gallery of Jack the Rippers. Another popular topic for writers is the supposedly "hidden" meanings of artwork in the Vatican.
I would like to present my theory, involving symbolism and secret societies. Unlike many theories involving secretiveness, hidden meanings, and the Vatican, this theory is not fictional and can be seen in photos. However I intend it only for educational, making history a little bit more interesting, and entertainment purposes.
THE FREEMASONS
Let's begin with the semi-secret society that most readers would probably have some familiarity with, the Freemasons. The Freemasons are not directly involved with my theory here, but I want to use them to illustrate the power of secret societies and the symbolism that they typically use.
A so-called "secret society" actually cannot be completely secret simply because it has to have new members joining. No one will seek to join it if they have never heard of it. My understanding of Freemasonry is that it began in either England or Scotland, in the time before the Reformation. Like many secret societies, it's activity revolves around secret rites and symbolism.
A central legend of Freemasonry is that of Hiram Abiff, believed to be the architect of Solomon's Temple who was murdered for refusing to divulge masonic secrets. Other legend has Freemasonry going back to ancient Egypt, before being taken to countries like England and France.
Freemasonry began, as the name implies, in medieval guilds of stone workers. It's main symbol is the compass and the square, around the "G", which stands for the Grand Architect of the Universe, which is God. Freemasonry is not believed to be primarily a religious organization, but it's members are supposed to express belief in a supreme being. This may not be a requirement of all Masonic Lodges, such as for those in France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#/media/File:Square_compasses.svg
One important image associated with the Freemasons is the Eye of Providence, a reminder to Masons that God was watching everything that they did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence#/media/File:MasonicEyeOfProvidence.gif
The Eye of Providence is a very important symbol to the United States, being on the country's Great Seal, and is seen today on the U.S. one-dollar bill, atop a pyramid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence#/media/File:Dollarnote_siegel_hq.jpg
One thing that no one doubts about the Freemasons is their power. We won't go into all of the influential persons known to be Freemasons here, but many of the founders of the United States and every significant figure in the French Revolution are believed to have been Freemasons. Lists of prominent Freemasons read like a who's who of much of the world. Five British kings, as well as Winston Churchill, were supposedly among them, as were many U.S. presidents.
Here is George Washington in his Masonic Lodge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#/media/File:Washington_Masonic_print.jpg
James Hoban, the designer of the White House, was a Freemason. Frederic Bartholdi, designer of the Statue of Liberty, was another Freemason.
One of the most prominent pieces of architecture in Washington D.C. is it's Masonic Lodge, The House of the Temple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_the_Temple#/media/File:House_of_the_Temple.JPG
The reaction against Freemasonry shows the power that it had. The Catholic and Anglican Churches were very concerned about their influence. The Nazis thought that they had to eliminate them. There was once an anti-Masonry political party in the U.S., intending to curb their power.
Batavia, New York, between Buffalo and Rochester, is my one-time sales territory and as nice of a place as there is anywhere. It once gained national attention, with regard to Freemasonry, when a local resident, William Morgan, who claimed to have belonged to other lodges, was denied admission to the Masonic Lodge in Batavia. Morgan then threatened to write a book detailing the secret activity of the Masons. He was soon arrested, on questionable criminal charges. Shortly afterward, he vanished and was presumed murdered. These events around Batavia set off a national backlash against the power of Freemasonry.
Do you want another example of a powerful "secret society" that, in this case, wasn't so secret? Tammany Hall, otherwise known as the Columbian Order, virtually controlled all politics in New York City for 150 years. Regardless of the processes of democracy, little could be done in New York without the approval of the reigning "boss" of Tammany Hall.
This cartoon from 1899 illustrates, in astronomical terms, how the operation of New York City really revolves around the "boss" of Tammany Hall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall#/media/File:New_York%27s_New_Solar_System2.jpg
THE VATICAN
Let's move on to another place where symbolism is very important, the Vatican. It is centers of power that tend to also become centers of conspiracy theories. Much has been written about the supposedly "hidden" meanings of Catholic artwork in the Vatican, but we do not need to get into that here.
The Vatican itself is designed around the shape of a key. In the Gospels, Jesus told St. Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom of God, meaning that he would be the leader of the church. St. Peter was a leader of the apostles, and was eventually martyred in Rome.
The Jewish religion was protected under Roman rule, Jews were exempt from both otherwise-mandatory emperor worship and military service. But when the early Christians became distinct from Judaism, the same protection did not apply to them. The Romans were concerned about the religious conflict within the empire between Christians and Jews and, according to another theory, the Emperor Nero set fire to part of the city of Rome himself, because he wanted to rebuild it as something else, and then blamed the fire on the Christians.
The grave of the martyred St. Peter was said to have been marked by a red stone. When the Roman Empire later became Christian, a church was built over St. Peter's Tomb. When that church fell into disrepair, the present St. Peter's Basilica was built on the spot.
St. Peter's Basilica and the adjoining St. Peter's Square are in the form of a key, with St. Peter's Square being the handle of the key:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(lock)#/media/File:Standard-lock-key.jpg
This is starting in St. Peter's Basilica, and around the Vatican. Remember that the Vatican is actually an independent country, and the buildings in the gardens behind St. Peter's Basilica are the administration buildings:
There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >. After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9003853,12.4529437,3a,75y,295.55h,92.3t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-9nfe69UJ5RM%2FVej4Ct1xD_I%2FAAAAAAAAF10%2FB2Lo3rH-Ld8!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-9nfe69UJ5RM%2FVej4Ct1xD_I%2FAAAAAAAAF10%2FB2Lo3rH-Ld8%2Fw203-h101-n-k-no%2F!7i8704!8i4352
One popular theory about the alleged symbolism in the Vatican concerns the interior paintings of the adjoining Sistine Chapel, where new popes are chosen by ballot. The Sistine Chapel was constructed as a copy of the inner chamber of Solomon's Temple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel#/media/File:Sistina-interno.jpg
Beginning in 1508, the artist Michelangelo spent several years painting the interior of the chapel. The popular conspiracy theory is that Michelangelo did not want the job of painting the chapel. He had earlier completed sculptures, like the Pieta, and would rather be doing sculpture than painting. After completing a sculpture like the Pieta, spending several years on scaffolding painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel must have seemed like some kind of punishment.
According to the theory, Michelangelo got revenge on Pope Julius by subtly painting hidden meanings into the scenes in the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo supposedly was a practitioner of the Jewish Kabbala, and a close look reveals Kabbalastic symbolism in the paintings. Jewish rabbis on a visit once noted that, while the paintings are of biblical scenes, the shapes formed by various figures and cloaks in the paintings form letters of the Hebrew alphabet, standing for concepts in Kabbala, as well as other symbolic shapes such as the right hemisphere of the human brain.
Michelangelo was from Florence, which he supposedly believed to be culturally superior to Rome. In the Sistine Chapel painting of the Great Flood it has been noted that, on one side of the painting, the head of a donkey or mule is seen against the background of red and golden yellow, which were the colors representing Rome at the time. One the opposite side of the painting, two of the antediluvian sinners have washed ashore, and both are wearing the same red and golden yellow colors of Rome.
ORDERS OF KNIGHTS
In the Middle Ages, orders of knights were formed to protect and assist Catholic pilgrims to the Holy Land. Some of these orders of knights ended up gaining great power and influence and becoming, in effect, the world's first multi-national corporations. Some of these orders remain in existence today. But as with all secret, and semi-secret, societies, the question is about how much of their activity is of a social and charitable and medical nature, and how much is about exerting unseen influence and control?
There is the Knights Templar, also known as the Order of Solomon's Temple. Solomon's Temple is, of course, also very important to Freemasons, with the legendary Hiram Abiff being it's architect. Coincidentally, the Sistine Chapel that we have seen was based on the inner sanctuary of Solomon's Temple. So, we can see that Solomon's Temple is something that tends to be held in common among secret societies. Knights Templar, aside from being an organization, is also the name of an order of Masonry of the York Rite.
The Knights Templar are so named because when they reached Jerusalem, they renamed the Moslem buildings on the Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock which is the former site of Solomon's Temple, as Solomon's Temple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar#/media/File:Temple_mount.JPG
Another order of knights, The Knights Hospitaller now headquartered in Rome, is also known as the Soveriegn Military Order of Malta, and is an international medical organization. They are known as the Order of St. John and as the Knights of Malta. They used to own the island of Malta, and are recognized as a landless sovereign state. So great was their influence that today, across the world, a building in which the sick and injured are cared for is referred to as a hospital.
These are only two of the orders of knights which formed in medieval times primarily to protect and assist pilgrims to the Holy Land. Many of these orders gained tremendous power, money and, influence, and still exist, in some form, today. These orders were Catholic, often formed with the blessings of the pope. Their heyday was the time of the Crusades, in the Thirteenth Century, the attempt to regain the Holy Land from the Moslems.
BRIDGING THE REFORMATION
My theory is that, when the Reformation happened, beginning in 1517, these Catholic societies suffered a great loss of territory and influence as Europe was split into Catholic and Protestant. They were not able to stop the Reformation, but they did what they could to bridge the gulf between the two halves of Europe, and we can see evidence of that in the symbolism of important places today. If they would react to the loss of the Holy Land to the Moslems, wouldn't they also react to the loss of much of Catholic territory to the Protestants?
In the article "Knights Hospitaller", on www.wikipedia.org , it is made clear how the organization was affected by the loss of influence and territory brought on by the Reformation. I find the Freemasons to be significant in this bridge because they were based primarily in the part of Europe that split away and became Protestant.
The de-facto "flag" of the crusaders, and the orders of knights, was the red cross on a white background. I find this to be the symbol of the attempt to bridge the gap brought about by the Reformation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar#/media/File:HPIM3597.JPG
The red and white cross of St. George is named for the widely-revered saint of that name. St. George was believed to be a commander in a Roman legion, who was martyred for his Christian faith. The flag of England (but not of all of Britain) is the George Cross:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George%27s_Cross#/media/File:Flag_of_England.svg
This red cross on a white background, dating from the days of the Crusades, is to be seen in many places associated with England, such as the Order of the Garter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter
Why did the cross of a Catholic saint remain the flag of a country like England, which went overwhelmingly Protestant in the Reformation?
Scotland joined England, along with Wales, to form modern Britain in 1707, mainly because the two countries had ended up on the same side during the Reformation. The fiery sermons of John Knox turned his native Scotland from a bastion of Catholicism into one of the most Protestant of nations. Scotland's Cross of St. Andrew was superimposed onto England's Cross of St. George, in a process that resembles the Scottish tartan method, to create the flag of Britain, known commonly as the Union Jack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan#/media/File:Flag_of_Scotland.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#/media/File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#/media/File:Union_Flag_and_St_Georges_Cross.jpg
But have you ever noticed that there is a perfect British flag imposed on the very center of Catholicism, St. Peter's Square? The Basilica of St. Peter is included in the following image. If you press the (-) button, to go up a step in altitude, you can see how the dome and the transepts of the basilica form the shape of a key, with St. Peter's Square being the handle of the key:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9023136,12.4571096,271m/data=!3m1!1e3
Could this British flag in St. Peter's Square represent, at least to the influential secret societies who lost such influence in the Reformation, an attempt to pull the former domain of Catholicism, where they had such great influence, back together? Along with the fact that the symbol of a Catholic saint remained the flag of England, despite the split during the Reformation? This location of the British flag in St. Peter's Square fits perfectly with the symbolism of the surrounding Collonades representing the all-embracing "arms" of the Catholic Church.
Considering how important symbolism is to the Vatican, as well as how vital symbolism is to secret societies, I consider this as very plausible. I cannot see that the lines which form the British flag in St. Peter's Square serve any essential purpose and, seen from the surface of the square, the British flag is not apparent unless viewed from above. The obelisk in the middle of St. Peter's Square acts as a sundial, but the time is indicated by markers on the Collonades, and does not involve the lines which form the British flag.
As a parallel example of this use of a pattern of lines in a prominent square in Italy to signify some kind of alliance, look at the pattern of interlocking squares and rectangles in Piazza San Marco, in Venice. Remember that Marco Polo, who visited China, was from Venice. This pattern is commonly seen in China, and I have seen it at a number of Chinese restaurants.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4339152,12.3384387,133m/data=!3m1!1e3
Much has been written about how secret societies like to link themselves, not only to Solomon's Temple, but also to ancient Egypt. This Egyptian obelisk, in the center of St. Peter's Square, brings the Vatican into the link also.
There was plenty of effort to stop the split of the Reformation or, failing that, at least to bridge it. Considering their power and what they had to lose by the Reformation, secret societies must have had a hand in this effort. The Catholic Queen Mary I of England tried to bring the country back by force. When her successor, Elizabeth I created the Anglican Church, the pope had the Catholic King Phillip of Spain dispatch his armada. The Anglican Church does happen to be one of the branches of Protestantism that retained much of the Catholic liturgy.
I am surprised that no one has noticed this, but a Google search of "British flag St. Peter's Square Rome" turns up nothing. Remember that there is a place called St. Peter's Square in London also.
Isn't it interesting that the symbol of the Knights Hospitaller is the Maltese Cross?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Hospitaller#/media/File:Cross_of_the_Knights_Hospitaller.svg
While the flag of Malta today has the George Cross, on a red and white background. Remember that Malta was once owned by the Knights Hospitaller and that red and white is the primary colors of the orders of knights which protected and assisted pilgrims to the Holy Land. The George Cross is Britain's highest award for valor, after the Victoria Cross. Malta was a British island in the wartime and it was awarded to it's people for their resistance to relentless air raids and naval blockade. The George Cross is named, of course, after the red and white Cross of St. George which is England's flag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cross#/media/File:Flag_of_Malta.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cross#/media/File:George_Cross_Malta_P1440218.jpg
As far as red crosses on white backgrounds go, today we have the International Red Cross which undergoes humanitarian missions across the world. This makes it a direct descendant of the medieval orders of knights which provided protection and medical assistance to pilgrims visiting the Holy Land. The Red Cross certainly does not engage in any violence, but the principle is the same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#/media/File:Flag_of_the_Red_Cross.svg
SYMBOLISM AND THE HAGIA SOPHIA
In 1453, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine Empire city of Constantinople, which was renamed Istanbul. Byzantium had been weakened by the earlier conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders, who apparently digressed from their stated mission of liberating the Holy Land from Moslem control.
The very old Hagia Sophia, the House of Holy Wisdom, which had been the largest church in the world for nearly a thousand years, was re-purposed into a mosque and four minarets were built around it. To show that they too were capable of such a building, the Ottomans built the Blue Mosque, facing the Hagia Sophia.
The Ottomans were responsible for a lot of important building that remains today. They built the wall around the Old City of Jerusalem, which has some really attractive gates, particularly the Damascus Gate and the Jaffa Gate. This does not include the retaining walls of the Temple Mount (or Noble Sanctuary to Moslems), which is within the Old City. The Ottomans also built the minaret at the Tower of David, within the Old City of Jerusalem.
But look at the Hagia Sophia. Three of the four minarets are made of white stone, while the other is made of red brick.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia#/media/File:Hagia_Sophia_Mars_2013.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia#/media/File:Hagia_Sophia_2017.jpg
Whoever heard of a mosque with four minarets, one at each corner, but where one was a different color than the others, particularly one of the most historic and famous buildings in the world? I can find no satisfactory answer as to why three of the minarets at the Hagia Sophia are white, while the fourth is red. I can see no other examples of important mosques, with four minarets, where one is a different color than the others.
This brings us back to the red and white flags of the Crusaders and the medieval orders of knights. The Ottomans would be considered as a rival, but perhaps there were other factors that brought the red and white symbolism of some kind of alliance.
It was the weakening of Byzantium by the attack of the Crusaders which made it possible, or at least easier, for the Ottomans to conquer it.
Maybe the red minaret among the white ones represented some kind of agreement to allow Christian pilgrims to visit the Holy Land, which would come under Ottoman control.
The worst thing that ever happened to the Islamic religion took place around the time of the Crusades. But it wasn't the Crusades, it was the Mongol siege and destruction of Baghdad in 1258. The vast library, containing the records of the knowledge that the Abassid Caliphate had built up, during what is known as the Golden Age of Islam, was destroyed.
During the Golden Age, Moslems made great advances in knowledge. About 70% of the stars in the sky now have Arabic names for this reason. The numbers that we use: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, are referred to as Arabic numerals (although the vital concept of zero is an Indian invention). According to many accounts, Moslems ever since then have been seeking to regain what was lost in the destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate capital of Baghdad, and this Golden Age is what IS is seeking to bring back.
The Mongols would slaughter the inhabitants of any city that resisted them, Moslem or Catholic. The Mongols had passed by the time the Ottomans took over, although they had earlier inflicted a nasty defeat on the Ottomans in the Battle of Ankara. But could this red minaret among the white ones represent a "secret society" agreement with the Catholic orders of knights to join together if another threat from the east, such as the Mongols, reappeared? How much of a coincidence is it that the primary symbolism of the all-powerful medieval orders of knights was red on white, and these minarets are three white, and one red?
Once again, this theory is intended for education and entertainment purposes.
12) THE PALACE ALLIANCE
We have seen a theory about secret societies and architectural symbolism in the posting on this blog, "Symbolism Theory of The Vatican And Hagia Sophia". How about another theory about such architectural symbolism? Has anyone ever noticed the following?
In 1904, the agreement called the "Entente Cordiale" was signed between Britain and France, which had previously had a history of rivalry. This very much changed to balance of power in Europe and the world.
What I would like to point out here, that I have never seen documented and that was never publicly announced, is how this agreement was expressed in the form of architecture, particularly that of Buckingham Palace.
To begin, let's go to Place Concorde in Paris. The two identical buildings on the north side of Place Concorde, along with the building at the end of the short street that runs between them, are prominent symbols of the previous French hostility to Britain.
The building on the left is where Ben Franklin first gained diplomatic recognition for the new United States, which had declared independence from Britain. France then helped the U.S. gain independence, in ultimate retaliation for Britain giving support to the Protestant (Huguenot) side in France during the Reformation.
The identical building on the right is the headquarters of the French Navy, which had been primarily occupied with conflict with the British Navy.
The building at the end of the short street between the two, Rue Royale, is La Madeleine. This was built by Napoleon as a temple dedicated to the glory of his army. Napoleon was, of course, one of the greatest rivals of Britain. The temple was later made into a Catholic church, which was the other great point of rivalry between the two countries, following the Reformation, with Britain joining the Protestant side but France remaining Catholic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B4tel_de_Crillon#/media/File:Fontaine-place-de-la-concorde-paris.jpg
But eventually, the Entente Cordiale was signed between the two countries, and they became close allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale#/media/File:Scouts-entente-cordiale.jpg
The year after that photo was taken, 1913, Buckingham Palace in London was remodeled. At the time of the remodeling, tension was building in Europe and the two countries would soon be on the same side in the First World War. What I have concluded is that the remodeling of the palace was done to reflect the new alliance, relative to the former symbols of hostility in Place Concorde.
The 1913 remodeling of Buckingham Palace was done by Sir Aston Webb, who also designed the French Protestant Church of London. Many French Protestants (Huguenots) sought refuge in Britain when the Catholic side of the Reformation eventually triumphed in France. (See the posting on this blog "Christmas In Paris").
It is absolutely striking how Buckingham Palace resembles the two buildings in Place Concorde, not as the palace appeared originally but how it was remodeled in 1913, after the Entente Cordiale had been signed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace#/media/File:Buckingham_Palace_from_side,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg
Here is an old photo of the headquarters of the French Navy, one of the two buildings facing Place Concorde. The resemblance with Buckingham Palace, following the renovation of the palace in 1913, is unmistakable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune#/media/File:Barricades_pres_de_Ministere_de_la_Marine_et_l%27H%C3%B6tel_Crillon.jpg
The difference is that the front of Buckingham Palace has pillars on the central section of the palace, but not on the sections with the windows, as do the two identical buildings in Place Concorde. The pillars in the central section of the front of Buckingham Palace could be interpreted as standing for an accord with La Madeleine, the building at the end of the short street between the two buildings in Place Concorde. La Madeleine was constructed by Napoleon, a great rival of Britain, as a temple dedicated to the glory of his army.
There are pillars all around La Madeleine. All of the buildings discussed, including La Madeleine, have the "ancient temple" form of a peaked triangular section supported by pillars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Madeleine,_Paris#/media/File:Madeleine_Paris.jpg
The fact that Buckingham Palace was remodeled into a form that is virtually identical with the buildings in Place Concorde, except with the pillars along the front window sections missing, could be interpreted as a sign that the previous barrier between the two countries, represented by the pillars, had now been removed.
This alliance began with the buildings in Place Concorde, and when Britain and France developed a supersonic transport plane together, it was named the Concorde. It had originally been named Place Concorde in the name of reconciliation after the French Revolution, and so was an apt beginning and name for the new alliance between France and Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#/media/File:British_Airways_Concorde_G-BOAC_03.jpg
Buckingham Palace also has a very similar design to the easy-facing side of the Louvre, although without the pillars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre_Palace#/media/File:3888ParigiLouvre.JPG
Also, notice the traffic across the bridge over the Seine River, Pont du Carrousel, goes through a triple arch into the Louvre, in a way very similar to traffic going through the triple-arched Admiralty Arch to Buckingham Palace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre_Palace#/media/File:Palais_du_Louvre_-_Paris.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_Arch#/media/File:Arco_del_Almirantazgo,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-11,_DD_186.JPG
At the time the Entente Cordiale was signed, in 1904, Britain had a close alliance with Japan. In fact, it was negotiated by Lord Lansdowne, who had also negotiated the Entente Cordiale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#/media/File:Anglo_Japanese_Alliance_30_January_1902.jpg
It was around this time that Akasaka Palace was built in Tokyo, used today as a royal guest palace. We saw Akasaka Palace during our visit to Tokyo, on this blog. Akasaka Palace is not an identical copy of Buckingham Palace, but bears an absolutely striking resemblance to it.
Here is Akasaka Palace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akasaka_Palace#/media/File:State_Guest_House_Akasaka_Palace_main_entrance.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akasaka_Palace#/media/File:State_Guest-House_Akasaka_Palace.JPG
Here is the front and back of Buckingham Palace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace#/media/File:Buckingham_Palace,_London_-_April_2009.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace#/media/File:West_facade_of_Buckingham_Palace.JPG
Akasaka Palace was actually built a few years before Buckingham Palace underwent it's 1913 renovation. I see the two palaces as standing for the alliance, which brought Japan into the First World War on the Allied side.
The U.S. was in on this architecturally-symbolized alliance also. An exact copy of the two identical buildings, as they face Place Concorde, was built in Philadelphia's Logan Square.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Circle_(Philadelphia)#/media/File:Logan_Square.JPG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Circle_(Philadelphia)#/media/File:Paris_Place_de_la_Concorde_N_Rue_de_Rivoli_02.jpg
These four countries, France, Britain, Japan and, the U.S., have been the closest of allies ever since. The only major exception is Japan during the Second World War. Although it was never announced, and I cannot see it documented anywhere, this alliance was expressed not only on paper but also in the design of palaces and important buildings. Since we can see that this is clearly so here, it is safe to presume that this "palace alliance" was based on the historical precedent of the symbolism discussed in the posting on this blog "Symbolism Theory Of The Vatican And Hagia Sophia".
I think we can refer to the alliance between the U.S., Britain, France and, Japan as The Palace Alliance.
13) THE VATICAN AND ST. PETER
Vatican conspiracy theories are always popular. Any place that becomes a great center of power will inevitably be surrounded by conspiracy theories.
There is one possible Vatican conspiracy theory that I thought was somewhat obvious, but that I had never seen pointed out. I consider it as the most fundamental Vatican conspiracy theory of all, and it is one that anyone can investigate for themselves. It concerns the very foundation on which the power of the Vatican is based, the statement made by Jesus to St. Peter, declaring him to be "The Rock" upon which the church will be built and giving him the "keys" to Heaven, meaning that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in Heaven.
My main reason for writing this is to get people reading the Bible, by giving them a Vatican conspiracy theory to investigate so that they can come to their own conclusions.
The Gospel of Matthew is where we find Jesus' well-known declaration about St. Peter, who was one of the twelve apostles. Jesus in effect proclaimed Peter as the leader of the apostles, and the "rock" upon which the church would be built. The name of Peter means "rock". (Matthew 16:13). Jesus told Peter, "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven".
God had already spoken and proclaimed Jesus as his only begotten son, to whom everyone must listen, and it seemed as if Jesus was now making a similar proclamation about Peter.
Peter indeed was an important apostle. At the end of the Gospel of Mark, the statement "including Peter" was made when referring to all twelve of the apostles (Mark 16:7). In some versions of the Bible there is the statement "The women went to Peter and his friends" (Mark 16:9), thus seeming to indicate Peter's importance among the apostles. Near the close of the Gospel of Luke, Peter is described as being amazed at Jesus' empty tomb (Luke 24:12).
Peter was a good speaker. In other biblical descriptions of his activities, in the Acts of the Apostles after the Ascension of Jesus, we see his speech at Pentecost (Acts 2), and his speech in the Temple after a crippled man was healed (Acts 3:11). Peter later rebukes Simon for thinking that the Holy Spirit can be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). Peter raised Dorcas (or Tabitha) from the dead (Acts 9:39). Chapter 10 of the Acts of the Apostles is all about Peter. Acts 11:5 describes Peter's understanding that Gentiles, as well as Jews, are to receive the Holy Spirit. Finally, Peter is miraculously set free after being imprisoned (Acts 12:16).
It is clear that St. Peter was a prominent apostle. He, along with the apostle St. Paul, are believed to have ultimately been martyred in Rome around the year 64.
The Vatican has claimed to have the skulls of both Peter and Paul, and to have identified St. Peter's bones. The obelisk that now stands in St. Peter's Square, in Rome, is supposedly near where he was crucified. There is a story that Peter is buried directly below the alter in his namesake basilica, adjacent to his namesake square, in the Vatican. The present St. Peter's Basilica, which is the largest church on earth, was built in the Sixteenth Century. The original St. Peter's on the site was begun by the Roman emperor Constantine, in the Fourth Century.
It is true that there is a Roman-era graveyard directly under the Vatican. But, of course, it cannot be proven whether any set of bones actually belonged to St. Peter. The basilica and adjoining square of St. Peter are built in the form of a key, with the square representing the handle of the key, and the dome and transepts of the basilica representing the elements of the key.
This is based on Jesus statement to Peter that he was the "rock" upon which the church would be built, the rock being Peter's grave as well as his name meaning "rock", and on Jesus' words that Peter would be given the keys to Heaven, and whatever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven. This is represented by the Basilica and the adjoining Square of St. Peter being in the form of a key.
This must mean that the Vatican is the center of, and is to have absolute rule over, God's church on earth. There is no other way to interpret it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(lock)#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_Holy_See.svg
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9022829,12.4555641,282m/data=!3m1!1e3
But have you ever wondered if all of this is just too convenient? This one passage in the Bible, which is not repeated or referred to anywhere else, of St. Peter being the "rock", and the Keys of Heaven being given to him, essentially gives the Vatican authority over the world. Doesn't it look like God's earlier declaration of Jesus as his Son was taken and applied to Peter and, since the Vatican was built over Peter's grave, that would mean that it had God's endorsement of supreme authority?
In the early days of the church, the only ones who read and copied the Bible were the members of the church. Other people did not read or handle the Bible themselves. Copies of the Bible were handwritten, mostly by monks in monasteries. A monk might spend his life making a copy of the Bible. The later Protestant curtailment of monasteries is mostly explained by the invention of the printing press making such handwritten copying no longer necessary.
Many books of the Bible were pieced together from separate writings. The Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, are believed to have been woven together from four sources that are now referred to as the Documentary Hypothesis, rather than being presented separately. The Book of Isaiah, the longest book in the Bible, is believed to actually be three separate books with a short historical section also that was borrowed from elsewhere in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is considered unlikely that Jesus' famed "Sermon on the Mount", in Chapters 5,6 and, 7, was given all at once. It is believed to have been written together at a later date.
A Gospel, the word means "good news", is an independent account of the events of Jesus' life. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and, John, are widely believed today to have been redacted from two original written accounts of the Life of Jesus. This is referred to as the Two-Source Hypothesis. It was long noticed that many passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have nearly identical wording, relating events that are not included in the shorter Gospel of St. Mark.
One of these two original sources is the Gospel of St. Mark. The other is referred to as Q, for the German word for "source". Q is now lost. This does not mean that anything has been lost from the Bible because the content of Q has been woven into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is considered to actually be based on the words of St. Peter being written down by St. Mark, because Peter could not read or write.
The Gospel of Mark was the first to be written, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used Q to include stories that were not in the short Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Matthew seems to be written more for Jews, while that of Luke is more for Gentiles. These first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and, Luke, are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because of their similarity to one another. Several decades later, the fourth Gospel of St. John was written. In a similar way to Matthew and Luke, the Gospel of St. John includes stories that were omitted by the other three, and is more about who Jesus was as opposed to what he does.
What concerns us here is that, unlike the Gospel of Matthew, that of Mark does not include Jesus' declaration of Peter being "The Rock with the keys to Heaven". This mean that it must have been written in Q, but Q has been conveniently "lost".
It is also concerning that the Gospel of Mark does not include this declaration about Peter being "The Rock with the keys to Heaven", because this Gospel is considered to have been the words of Peter, written down by Mark, because Peter was not able to write.
How is it that the many letters to the churches from the apostles were collected from far and wide, to be included in the New Testament, but one of the two original written sources on Jesus' life and teachings, right in the middle of where the Bible story took place, was "lost"? Even though it, like the Gospel of St. Mark which was the other original source in the Two-Source Hypothesis, must have been copied any number of times.
It is true that there may be some other letters written by St. Paul that have been lost, but these were written between remote locations during his missionary travels. Once again, this loss of Q does not mean that anything was actually lost from the Bible because it's content, that was not also included in the Gospel of Mark, has been written into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
What all of this means is that Jesus' declaration of Peter being "The Rock with the keys to Heaven", which essentially gives the Vatican rule over the world, is told in only one of the four Gospels, is not referred to anywhere else in the Bible, and was copied from an original source that was subsequently "lost".
But if the early church indeed slipped this passage into the Bible to justify it's authority, why would it have to do such a thing?
The Vatican had a long and difficult struggle to exert and consolidate it's authority. The position of the Bishop of Rome emerged around the send of the Second Century. But it's first claim of primacy was rejected by other bishops. Innocent I, beginning in 401, is generally considered as the first pope. His preoccupation was consolidation of authority near the end of the Roman Empire. There were five centers of the new religion of Christianity that emerged, Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and, Constantinople, over which Rome sought supremacy.
Early in church history, the primacy of any one church was far from certain. There was always division between the eastern and western churches, just as there had been division between the eastern and western Roman Empire. There was plenty of doctrines that were considered as heretical that the young church was trying to suppress. The dispute among Christians over christology, the nature of the interaction between the divine and human natures of Jesus, was far from resolved. The church was also embroiled in continuous power struggles with secular rulers.
It took a long time for Rome to become recognized as having primacy over other churches. It's primacy began with it being the site of a council to resolve theological disputes. During this challenging time, having a passage in the Bible about the body of St. Peter, which Rome did have because he had been martyred there, being "The Rock" upon which the church would be built and having the keys to Heaven, would have been extremely useful.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, which has shaped so much of western history, is based on this one passage about Peter being commissioned by Jesus as "The Rock, upon which the church will be built, with the keys to Heaven". Today, the church has charismatic popes to spread it's influence, but there was no mass media in those days.
There are just so many questions about this one passage of the Bible concerning Peter being "The Rock" upon which the church will be built, and being given the keys to Heaven.
An interesting question is why the Gospel of John, which was written several decades after the others, did not reiterate such an important declaration. That one of the apostles was to be the leader over the others, and be the "The Rock" on which the church was to be built, with the keys to Heaven. Peter does not even have a significant role in this later Gospel. The only place that this is stated is in the Gospel of St. Matthew. I have also wondered why the Gospel of Matthew, containing this declaration, is placed first in the New Testament even though the Gospel of St. Mark, the shortest Gospel, was written first.
St. Peter, if he was to be the leader of the apostles, wrote or dictated or had his name put on only two short books of the New Testament. The apostle St. Paul wrote far more.
In the second of the short Books of Peter, 2 Peter 1:16, the verbal commission that God gave Jesus is referred to. But neither of these books makes any reference at all to Peter's supposed commission by Jesus. One of the books is of disputed authorship, being written by someone else who then put Peter's name on it, but that would be all the more reason to include it if Peter himself had left it out due to modesty.
Many believe St. Paul to have been martyred in Rome also. Although the Acts of the Apostles simply ends with him in a prison cell. But Paul and Jesus never met on earth and it would appear more questionable for Jesus to suddenly appear to someone who was persecuting the church, and tell him that he would be the rock upon which the church would be built. Another reason that Peter, not Paul, was this rock is that Paul may not even have been martyred in Rome, or his bones may have been lost.
Peter was known as the apostle to the Jews, while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Would Peter thus be the logical "rock" upon which the mostly-Gentile church would be built, or was it just convenient that the church had, or was at least believed to have, his bones so that a church could be built over them?
Another question concerns the use of the word "church". The passage in the Gospel of St. Matthew about Peter being the rock with the keys to Heaven is one of only two places in the Gospels that this word is used. A little bit further on in the Gospel of Matthew is the only other place that the word "church" is used. Not even when Jesus, near the close of each of the Gospels, sent his apostles out into the world did he mention the "church". The second mention of the word in the Gospel of Matthew must have originally come from Q which is, of course, "lost". Doesn't it make it seem as if it was written after the fact? After the church had already been established, and was looking to boost it's authority?
Another factor in the supposed choice of Peter over Paul is that Peter, while a good speaker, was illiterate. The message about Jesus was spread mostly by the written word, which we have today as the Bible. Wouldn't the highly-educated Paul, who was also a great speaker as well, have been a better choice as "The Rock" upon which the church would be built?
From the time that St. Peter was martyred, it must have been about three hundred years before any kind of church could have been built on the site. The Lateran Basilica, which is actually the center of the Catholic Church and not the larger St. Peter's Basilica, was built by the Emperor Constantine before the First St. Peter's Basilica. If Jesus had indeed said that Peter was "The Rock" upon which the church was to be built, then why wasn't the Lateran Basilica built over his grave?
How necessary was it anyway to assign one of the apostles as the leader of the others when they were all to go off in different directions after the Ascension of Jesus? Nowhere else, other than this one passage in question, is there mention of one apostle being the leader. Indeed, they are all told that they would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was critical of the apostles, although he did sincerely pray for them. Jesus' declaration of Peter as "The Rock" stands in sharp contrast and would be the only time that Jesus ever gave such praise to any of the apostles.
The Catholic Church ruled that priests must be celibate. But it's supposed "rock", St. Peter, was married because Jesus is recorded as having healed his mother-in-law.
As far as keys in the Bible go, the Book of Revelation 3:7 is the message to the church in Philadelphia. It refers to "The key that once belonged to David". "When it opens a door, no one can close it, and when it closes a door, no one can open it". But no reference is made to Peter.
When Peter and Paul had a public disagreement over the necessity of new converts following the Jewish rituals (Galatians 2), in which Paul prevailed over Peter, why didn't Peter just "pull rank" on Paul if Jesus had really said that he was "The Rock", with the keys to Heaven, on which the church was to be built?
If this were indeed an act of deception, that this passage of Jesus' declaration about Peter is something that he never said but was slipped into the Bible at a later date, which would give the church in Rome authority essentially over the world, it wouldn't be the only instance in the early church when something like this had happened. The so-called "Donation of Constantine" was a forged deed of the Roman Emperor Constantine, the first emperor to become a Christian, signing over all authority of the Roman Empire to the pope. There had been legitimate donations to the church, among them the lands that became the Papal States.
An interesting parallel to the issue of the Vatican drawing it's authority from the bones of St. Peter can be seen in the case of Venice and St. Mark. Remember that it was to St. Mark that Peter is believed to have verbally recited the story of Jesus' life, which Mark wrote down as the Gospel that bears his name.
St. Mark was another of the apostles, and was martyred in Alexandria. In the Ninth Century two Venetian merchants, looking for a theological foundation for their newly-powerful city-state, went to Egypt and procured the bones of St. Mark. Few places have ever been as closely linked to their patron saint like the Republic of Venice was to St. Mark.
The symbol of St. Mark in Venice is a winged lion with a book open to the Gospel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Saint_Mark#/media/File:Lion_of_Saint_Mark.svg
I leave it up to you to come to your own conclusions about this passage in the Bible, which would give so much authority to the church. With recent popes like John Paul, Benedict and Francis, the Catholic Church does not need to add anything to the Bible to give it authority. I am not Catholic myself, but have been a great admirer of these popes.
Hopefully, this will get a lot of people reading the Bible.
14) ARYAN IDEOLOGY
With racism and "Aryan" ideology being so much in the news again, and with the Second World War generation rapidly passing on, here is a story of that time that should definitely be told.
Before the Twentieth Century, there arose a European fascination with eastern mysticism. The German author Herman Hesse wrote the widely popular book "Siddharta". The Beatles later visited Goa, and converted to Hinduism. The term "Aryan" came into use. There was the legend of a "pure" Aryan homeland, in the far north of Europe, with names like Thule and Hyperborea.
But "Aryan" originally referred not to race, but to language. There were two branches of Aryans, East and West. The so-called "Indo-European" languages include Hindi, Urdu, Farsi and, Sanskrit. These languages are related to Germanic languages, even though the Germanic (northern European) languages have since adopted the Latin script.
The name of Iran literally means "Land of the Aryans". The Pahlavi Dynasty, the one that was overthrown in the 1979 revolution, changed the name from the historic "Persia", to Iran, in 1935. The name of Eire (Ireland) is believed by some to mean "Aryan".
The swastika that was used by the Nazis as their symbol is a very old symbol that was widely used by early Hindus. The name of the swastika comes from a Sanskrit word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:A_Hindu_Swastika_at_Goa_Lawah_Temple_Bali_Indonesia.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:Jaipur_03-2016_38_Garh_Ganesh_Temple.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:Flag_of_the_German_Reich_(1935%E2%80%931945).svg
This is an Iranian swastika necklace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:Swastika_iran.jpg
The eastern Aryans invaded India, bringing with them the Sanskrit language, forcing the original inhabitants, the Dravidians, southward. The dominance of the Aryans over other people in India (see the visit "Where India Began", on this blog) is what brought about the Caste System. (Although it is not recognized in the Indian constitution of today). This is apparently where the term of "Aryan" begins to be associated with racism.
In 1938, an SS officer led a German expedition to Tibet, with the purpose of finding out if the people were distant Aryan relatives. In the days before DNA testing, they actually measured the bodies of the Tibetans to help determine if they were related, with the Germans being the western branch of the Aryans, and the Tibetans part of the eastern Branch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938%E2%80%9339_German_expedition_to_Tibet#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_135-KB-15-089,_Tibetexpediton,_Anthropometrische_Untersuchungen.jpg
Heinrich Himmler, of the Gestapo, was the top Nazi that was most interested in eastern mysticism. He reportedly always carried a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, part of the Hindu scriptures, and closely followed the progress of the expedition to Tibet. He made a point of visiting occupied Norway, which could have been a part of the Aryan interpretation of Thule or Hyperborea. The conquest of Europe was the Nazis, the western branch of the Aryans, trying to set themselves over conquered people in the same way that the eastern branch had done with the Caste System. The logic was that, if the eastern branch of the Aryans had done it, then the western branch, the Nazis, should do it also.
This is certainly not all that there was to the origin of Nazi ideology. Babylon also seems to have been a part of it. German archeologists had been at the center of the excavation of Babylon. The reassembled Ishtar Gate is today on Museum Island, in the Spree River.
But what did the Babylonians do? They rose up and conquered those, the Assyrians, who had earlier conquered them. The Babylonians regained their former greatness, and became greater than before. They ruled a great empire, and they took the Jews captive. The original Babylon had been that of the famous king Hammurabi, and his law code. The Babylonians who overthrew Assyria, representing the Allies who had defeated Germany in the First World War, were known as the Neo-Babylonians. Just as the Nazis were the "Third Reich", while Charlemagne had been the First Reich.
Was this why the Nazis were so fond of making movies? Just as the archeologists found images of great leaders, like Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylon, and relics were put on display in Germany, so people in the future would look back at these movies of the great founders of the "Thousand-Year Reich".
There is certainly also an element of the French Revolution in the Nazis. The tower of the destroyed Kaiser Wilhelm Church, in Berlin, was left standing in the same way as the tower of the St. Jacques Church, in Paris. Hitler replaced the Weimar Republic in the same way as Napoleon had replaced the Directory. The Nazis replaced Christianity with their "Positive Christianity", in the same way that the French Revolution had replaced it with the "Cult of the Supreme Being".
The overthrowing of the Kaiser (king) in the 1919 socialist revolution, which brought about the Weimar Republic, until power was seized by Hitler, is a mirror image of the overthrowing of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette by the French Revolution, which brought about the series of provisional governments, from the Committee of General Defense to the Directory, until power was seized by Napoleon. Hitler recognized this parallel, as he made a special point of visiting Napoleon's tomb, and his field of conquest was almost identical to Napoleon's.
Then there was the Holy Roman Empire, of which Germany had been at the center. The Holy Roman Empire, as we saw in the posting on this blog "The Far-Reaching Legacy Of The Holy Roman Empire", was created by the pope to be a political entity that would be under his control. It backfired, because the leaders of the empire became stronger than the pope had anticipated, but the objective was western unity against the growing differences with the church in the east, which would ultimately break away to become the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Nazis, with Hitler in the role of Charlemagne, were gathering western Europe together, under their command, before going after their ultimate objective which was conquest of the Soviet Union. The difference being that, by this time, Catholicism against Eastern Orthodoxy had been secularized into National Socialism against Communism.
The Franks contributed to Nazi ideology. The Franks, as we saw in the posting on this blog "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris", are the people for whom France is named. Both France and Germany originated as part of their empire, and the German word for France is still "Frankreich". Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, was a Frank. The Nazis referred to their empire as the "Third Reich", Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire was considered as the First Reich. The Second Reich was considered as the time of the Kaisers, in Germany. When Hitler conquered France, as when Napoleon had earlier conquered what is now Germany, it was a putting of the Franks back together.
There was economics behind the Nazis. The crash of 1929 had devastated Germany. The Nazis very effectively used the simple tricks of absorbing unemployment by drastically expanding the military forces, and getting factories back to full production by making armaments for them. That gets the economy rolling again, as Ronald Reagan would later notice, but it doesn't really make sense unless we can have a war for that army.
But the most important element of Nazi ideology I believe to be this conviction that they were the western branch of the Aryans.
To illustrate how important was this concept that they were the western branch of the Aryans, I would like to cite the example of Subhas Chandra Bose. This was an Indian independence leader that is not well-known in the west. Bose left India, and embarked on a fantastic journey that would lead him around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose#/media/File:Netaji_Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg
Bose sought help in freeing India from British rule. He ultimately found himself in Germany, after being assisted by the Nazi intelligence service. Hitler is usually considered as the ultimate name in racism against people with dark skin. But he was delighted to meet Bose, seeming to consider him as his counterpart of the eastern branch of the Aryans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose#/media/File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose_meeting_Adolf_Hitler.jpg
Heinrich Himmler brought Bose to meetings of the top officials of the Gestapo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Alber-064-04,_Subhas_Chandra_Bose_bei_Heinrich_Himmler.jpg
But even the German who first publicized the relationship between the Indo-European languages, Max Muller, did not think that the relationship went any further than language. The concept has been twisted by racists to make the northern Europeans the western branch of the Aryans, who have the historical right to subjugate others just as the eastern branch of the Aryans did.
15) MADE IN INDIA
In the west, the economy of India is thought of as specializing in intellectual work, such as tech support by phone and IT work. But have you ever wonder why, when shopping in stores, you rarely see anything that has a label of "Made In India"?
Prime Minister Narenda Modi has launched a campaign to drastically increase manufacturing in India. The name of the campaign is simply "Make In India"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_in_India#/media/File:Make_In_India.png
But why is this campaign even necessary? India would seem like the natural place to manufacture anything. The only way to explain why it isn't is that there must be some strong bias against manufacturing.
This bias against manufacturing in India, which the present government is trying to reverse with the "Make In India" campaign is very simple to explain. In fact, it can be explained in one word. That word is Bhopal.
On December 2, 1984, at a Union Carbide insecticide plant in the city of Bhopal, a large amount of water was poured into a tank that contained a chemical used in making insecticide. The water caused a chemical reaction that burst the tank and released a deadly cloud of very poisonous fumes. About eight thousand people died in Bhopal, with possibly many thousands more dying as a result afterward. It remains the worst industrial accident that the world has ever seen.
This disaster changed the economy of the world. India, quite understandably, developed a severe bias against manufacturing. No one wants a factory down the street after something like this has happened. Products that might have been manufactured in India were instead made elsewhere, and India's economy went on the course that it has.
I remember when this happened. I lived near a Union Carbide factory also, and remember when a cloud of fumes once escaped from it. The fumes got into the ventilation system of a department store some distance away (K-Mart), and sickened a number of people, but it was nothing deadly.
I read a book about the Bhopal Disaster that was in print the year after it happened. My agreement was with the Government of India that Union Carbide had been negligent in safety at the factory, and then had tried to blame the disaster on sabotage by an employee in order to evade responsibility.
But later I happened across some more information about it and, living around factories at the time and having worked in several myself, as well as living close to where the Love Canal (the most misnamed place in the world) disaster had taken place, decided to read some more about it.
My opinion shifted very much to the point of view that the Bhopal Disaster had been the result of sabotage. Water could not have gotten into that tank in error. Someone in the factory knew exactly what would happen if a large amount of water mixed with the chemical in that tank. A meter that was supposed to be attached to the tank was later found to have been removed. There was some industrial washing going on nearby but, going by what information I could find, it does not seem possible that this could have gotten water into the tank.
My reason for writing this is that it would now be a lot better for India to acknowledge that this was sabotage, rather than an accident, because that could begin the elimination of the bias against industry that is hindering the "Make In India" campaign from achieving it's maximum potential.
Remember that India, before this disaster, did not have a significant history of major industrial accidents. There was the explosion of a munitions ship at Bombay, similar to what happened in Halifax during the First World War, but that was during wartime.
The next question is why anyone would commit such an act of sabotage.
Consider the following sequence of events.
In June, 1984, the Indian Army raided the holy place of the Sikh religion, the Golden Temple in Amritsar. The purpose was to capture a militant Sikh religious leader and his followers, who were seeking an independent nation for Sikhs.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had ordered the raid, had two Sikh soldiers among her bodyguards. At the end of October, they assassinated her with their guns in revenge for the attack on their religious sanctuary.
Crowds of Hindus, particularly supporters of Indira Gandhi's Congress party, attack Sikhs across India, killing maybe 8,000 people.
The next thing that happens, barely a month after Indira Gandhi had been killed, is this disastrous release of chemical fumes in Bhopal that also kill maybe 8,000 people, almost all Hindus as there are few Sikhs in that city.
The company insists that this could not have happened, aside from sabotage by an employee of the factory who knew just what would happen. The team of investigators that the company sent said that the Indian Government did not even want to hear anything about sabotage, insisting that it must be an accident caused by the negligence of the company in implementing safety standards.
The following year saw the bombing of Air India flight 182, in retaliation for the operation against the Sikh holy place and the subsequent killing of Sikhs.
But if it had been announced that the Bhopal Disaster had been the result of sabotage, with the intent of killing Hindus to avenge the killing of Sikhs, it would almost certainly have brought India to civil war and meant the killing of thousands more people. It looks very much like the Indian Government was doing it's best to avoid civil war. This is much more realistic than suspecting that an employee sabotaged the plant because he felt underpaid.
Decades later, India has moved far past the climate that brought about this disaster. But now it is faced with the necessity of overcoming the bias against industry that it created.
The best thing now would be to acknowledge that this was the result of terrorism. If this had been an accident, people in India would naturally be strongly biased against having industry around them, in case it might happen again. But this would not be the case if it was sabotage.
Consider that the attacks of 9-11 brought about no lasting bias against aircraft because it was known that it happened as a result of terrorism. But supposed instead that four aircraft had malfunctioned, and had killed thousands of people. Then it would definitely have created a strong bias against the airline industry.
Consider also that the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, in contrast with 9-11, did bring about a bias against nuclear energy because it was the result of an accident, meaning that it could very likely happen again.
At the time it was better that the disaster at Bhopal be the result of an accident, in the interest of avoiding civil war. But today, with that era long past, it is better that it be the result of sabotage, so that the "Make In India" campaign can reach it's full potential by eliminating the bias against industry that this disaster brought about, and without which the "Make In India" campaign would not have been necessary in the first place.
16) THE ENDURING MYSTERY OF THE CINEMA REX
One more thing about the Iranian Revolution, in fact the most horrific thing of all.
I remember the first that I heard about the budding revolution. I had arrived back in my native England after completing high school in the U.S., and was getting to know my native country again. One pleasant summer day, there was some mind-boggling news.
A team of arsonists in Iran had blocked the doors and torched a crowded theater, killing over four hundred people. The presumed reason was that the theater showed foreign moves that they didn't like and which offended their religious sensibilities.
I remember this so well because it got me thinking about how different I was from the world as a whole. There were a lot of people around from other cultures that might think completely differently than me. Compared with the world as a whole, I was very individualistic, with a "to each his own" attitude and whatever movies other people watched was none of my business. The idea of killing four hundred people because someone didn't like the movie that they were watching was totally over my head.
This event wouldn't define the Iranian Revolution, because it wasn't established who was behind it. The Shah's government and the Islamic revolutionaries blamed each other for it. After the revolution, one man would be convicted and executed for it, insisting that he acted alone, but it seems certain that there was a team, who blocked the doors and ignited gasoline. They certainly wanted a high death toll.
But why?
Uprisings had begun earlier in 1978, and would ultimately be successful in overthrowing the Shah, but there was nothing else like this done by either side during the revolution.
The Islamic revolutionaries generally claimed that the forces of the Shah, alarmed by the protests and uprisings, had started the fire in order to make the revolutionaries look like a bunch of murderous fanatics who had started the fire.
We have to remember that the revolution against the Shah started out as multi-faceted. It became an Islamic Revolution when that factor predominated over the others. But it seems that it was "Black Friday", September 8, 1978 three weeks after the Cinema Rex Fire, when the Shah's soldiers opened fire on religious demonstrators that began it's definition as an "Islamic Revolution". Black Friday turned out to be the "tipping point" of the revolution, after which no concordance between the two sides was possible. The Revolution would either succeed or it would fail. It succeeded.
No one who wanted the support of the people would do anything like this. No one claimed responsibility for it. One thing that seems certain is that one of the factions lit the fire to make it look as if someone else had done it.
There were two obvious precedents for this. The first is the Reichstag Fire. The difference between the Communist Russian Revolution and the parallel German Revolution is that the Germans had a parliament, which met in the Reichstag. This could be interpreted that the Weimar Republic was socialist, but not Communist like the Soviets.
Communists, for which there was a lot of sympathy after the 1929 economic crash, might try to bring Germany into line by torching the Reichstag. A new party, the Nazis, took the Reichstag Fire as an attack on their country which left them no choice but to take control in order to ensure security.
In fact, the Nazis gained so much from the Reichstag Fire that it is widely believed that they were behind it.
The second precedent is the so-called "Great Fire of Smyrna", in 1922. Smyrna is now the Turkish city of Izmir. The Greek and Armenian sections of the city were set ablaze, apparently by uniformed Turkish soldiers. It was claimed that they had lit the fire themselves, to make the world have sympathy for them and to file claims for it, and the truth has never been satisfactorily established.
One thing that is interesting is that the fire occurred on the 25th anniversary of the coup that put the Shah in power. Mohammad Mossadegh was Iran's democratically-elected prime minister but he had strong leftward sympathies, raising taxes and planning to nationalize the country's oil industry. He was deposed, with the help of the CIA and British Intelligence.
The fire also took place in Khuzestan province, where there was a significant Arab population that at least wanted some autonomy from the ruling Persians. But I cannot see what they would gain by a fire in a crowded theater in which many of their own people would certainly be among the victims.
The fire was in the city of Abadan, which is on the border with Iraq. The theater was within walking distance of the river that serves as the Iraqi border. Abadan is the largest city on the Iranian side of the border.
Ayatollah Khomeini, who would end up as leader of the Iranian Revolution, was still in exile in Iraq at the time of the fire, living in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. In a bizarre twist, Iranian spies in Iraq discovered a Communist plot against effective leader Saddam Hussein and informed him. As a return favor to the Shah's government, Saddam expelled Khomeini from Iraq, from where he was stirring up dissent back in Iran. Khomeini went to Kuwait but was turned away at the border. He ended up in exile in a suburb of Paris.
Khomeini arrived in Paris on October 8, a month after Black Friday. It was a grave mistake for the Shah. From Paris, Khomeini would meet with the western press and run the budding revolution in Iran by telephone. He made cassette tapes of his sermons which sold in Iran as if he were a rock star. The Shah would blame the BBC for giving Khomeini legitimacy.
Could the fire have been lit in Abadan to make it look as if Khomeini had sent a team of assassins from Iraq, just across the border, to light the fire against unislamic foreign movies?
But the movie that was playing at the time of the fire was an Iranian movie, "The Deer". As far as I know, it was not what would be considered as unislamic. It was actually about poorer Iranians, among the many who had been left behind by the Shah's economic reforms and lavish expenditures. In 1967, the Shah had himself crowned as Shahinshah, "King of Kings", in an extravagant ceremony. In 1971, the Shah had thrown perhaps the greatest party the world had ever seen to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of the Peacock Throne.
If anyone was cast in a bad light by the movie that was playing at the time of the fire, it was the Shah. The theater was in a working-class neighborhood.
If the forces of the Shah did light the fire, it very badly backfired. This is what really gave impetus to the revolution, even though there was never any proof or claim of who started it. It was only a few protests before this. A modern religious revolution wasn't really in the world's vocabulary in 1978. Revolution meant either Communism or the overthrow of Communism.
Why would the Islamic revolutionaries target a theater that was showing an Iranian movie that, if anything, was against the Shah? Islamic terrorists are very rarely known to attack a target without claiming responsibility.
The movie was about those left behind economically by the Shah's reforms and the theater was in a working class neighborhood. If a Communist uprising was going to start, the neighborhood of the fire would be one of the logical places. But if the Shah's forces lit the fire here, what point could there possibly be? It would only inflame the protests.
The government of the Shah and the revolutionaries insisted that the other was to blame.
Maybe that was the point of the fire.
Of course, I do not have a certain answer as to who lit the fire. But remember that there was a third major party involved in revolutionary Iran. There was the Shah and the Islamic revolutionaries, who vociferously blamed each other for the fire. And then there were the Communists, with a strong party in Iran which appealed to the many who were left behind by the Shah's business-friendly economic reforms.
The revolution would soon be about the Islamic revolutionaries against the Shah. The Communists would fall into third place. But that was not true at the time of the fire. It would really be "Black Friday", three weeks later, that, in the opinion of many, would turn it into an Islamic Revolution when the Shah's soldiers fired on a religious demonstration.
At the time of the fire, Communist sympathizers had a definite chance to gain control of the country if only they could somehow turn the other two factions against each other. Khomeini, in exile in neighboring Iraq, might have sent a team to start the fire so that it looked as if the forces of the Shah had set the fire to make them look like murderous terrorists. Or the forces of the Shah might have lit the fire to make it look as if that was what Khomeini had done.
But both the movie that was playing at the time and the economics of the neighborhood that it was in are more about the Communists against the Shah's government than the Islamic revolutionaries. The dead were some of the most likely people in the country to sympathize with Communism. The Shah was concerned about Communism too but, given that it is usually some kind of atrocity committed by the establishment side that turns ordinary protests into a full-fledged revolution, he would have had everything to lose and nothing to gain by lighting this fire.
Why would the Shah have the fire lit on the 25th anniversary of the coup that brought him to power by deposing the democratically-elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who thoroughly alarmed the western powers by promising to nationalize Iran's oil industry?
In this process of eliminating parties who would gain by lighting this fire, there is thus one party that is left out. That party is the Communists. They were the "third party" of the budding revolution and this fire caused the other two parties to vociferously blame each other.
17) AMERICA'S WAR IN VIETNAM
This was originally posted as "Understanding The Direction Of Postwar America".
There is a series on television here about America's Vietnam War. I would like to give my own version of it, and it includes all of what we could call postwar America, and much about the Cold War.
To understand the generation of America that followed the end of the Second World War, there is one thing that we always have to keep in mind. The leaders of this generation all came of age during the Great Depression of the 1930s. We cannot understand their actions without understanding that.
The era after the end of the First World War was a great time in America. The industrial process that had supplied the war effort was transformed into the production of consumer goods. The assembly line manufacturing process had been perfected and all manner of goods, from cars to radios to appliances, rolled out of the factories. The possibilities seemed endless, ordinary people could soon live at a standard at which only the very wealthy had lived not long before.
The times were referred to as "The Roaring Twenties".
But there was trouble on the horizon. Companies were naturally trying to maximize their profits by paying their workers as little as possible. These workers, the majority of the population, were thus unable to afford much of the many goods that were being produced. Most of the manufactured goods were just piling up in warehouses, because people were not earning enough money to buy them. Factories began cutting back on production, meaning that workers had even less money, and it spiraled into a devastating economic crash. it didn't make sense to produce anything, because few people would have enough money to buy it.
The following decade, the 1930s, were a terrible time, known as the Great Depression. Millions of people were out of work, standing in long lines at soup kitchens for a meal. Businesses could not get started because no one had enough money to buy what they were selling, and people had no money to buy anything because businesses could not get started that would employ them.
The U.S. Government stepped in, implementing various "make work" projects, to start the economy rolling again by giving people paychecks that they would spend. Much of the work undertaken by these projects, under the Works Projects Administration (WPA). Well-known dams, such as Hoover (Boulder) Dam and those of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), were built during this time.
In Europe, Germany was afflicted even worse by the Great Depression. It would mean the end of the Weimar Republic, the government that had emerged from the socialist revolution that had ended the rule of the kaisers after the First World War. Government efforts to get the economy rolling again in Germany included the building of the Autobahn, the national system of highways.
But what happened there is that a party, known as the Nazis emerged. They had the apparently logical idea of absorbing unemployment by drastically increasing the size of the armed forces, and getting factories back to full production by making armaments for them. The popularity of the Nazis can be explained very simply, after the terrible time of the 1930s, at least they got everybody working and earning money again.
The Great Depression did not truly end until the Second World War. One thing that must be said about war is that at least it gets everyone working. The attitude in a deep economic depression is that "We have got to get people working again, no matter what it takes. If it has to mean a war, then so be it".
With that brief background, we begin our understanding of postwar America in 1945, at the end of the Second World War.
Millions of soldiers would soon be returning home. These former soldiers would need jobs, but the production of massive volumes of war equipment was no longer needed. What would they do to earn a living? Now that the war was over, the specter of millions of unemployed must have been foremost in the minds of the leaders of time, who had vivid memories of the Great Depression. It had been the war that had really ended the Great Depression, and now that the war was over it could very easily return.
Part of the solution was the G.I. Bill. This was a wide-ranging program, the main intent of which was to pay for returning veterans to attend college or receive technical training. This would delay those veterans from seeking employment, so that there would not be so many millions of former soldiers looking for jobs all at once. Some considered the G.I. Bill as "too socialistic", but it proved to be highly successful in bringing about the next generation of technological advancements.
There was a simple and obvious solution as to what to do with the now-closed armaments industries, particularly those around Detroit. We would build new housing developments, where the returning veterans would live and start families. But those housing developments, and the postwar suburbs that grew up around them, would be based on cars, rather than being easily walkable.
Every family would have a car. That would keep the wartime armaments industries going, now producing civilian cars, and would provide many millions of jobs. While this strategy would ultimately lead to global warming, and wars to keep the supply of oil flowing, as well as all of the other maladies of a society based on cars, it also may have kept the Great Depression from returning, and that was what was on the minds of the leaders who remembered that time only too well.
The Nazis had earlier tried to alleviate the economic depression with the production of cars for everyone. The result was the Volkswagen (the "People's Car"), with which to drive on the Autobahn.
What about the industries that had produced aircraft for the war? How can we keep those operating? Let's get people flying. The airline industry that we know today would soon emerge. Planes would take passengers on visits and vacations. That would bring about a nationwide tourism industry, which would provide millions of more jobs.
The Korean War (1950-53) came along at just the right time. Conscription of those who had not been old enough for the Second World War eased the employment concerns of the leadership but, most importantly, was the production of war equipment. Nothing gets an economy rolling like the combination of easing unemployment by conscription, and then getting factories making military equipment for them.
Many nations joined in on each side of the Korean War, both in the combat and then the rebuilding afterward. Remember that the Communist countries also had millions of people that they had to keep employed. We thus can see that the Cold War, despite it's hostile rhetoric and proxy wars, was at least a partly symbiotic relationship. When the economy needs a boost, just provoke the other side a little bit and then use the threat of war as a reason to both build up the military forces and the industries that produce for them and also research new technology, which will provide future jobs, in order to avoid "falling behind" the potential enemy.
After the end of the Korean War, the U.S. began the massive national project of building highways, known as the Eisenhower Interstate System. This was a sensible step, considering that the concept of building the postwar society around cars was succeeding, and would, most importantly, keep millions of people working. No matter what, we must never have millions of people unemployed again, like in the Great Depression.
Toward the end of the 1950s, the leaders who remembered the Great Depression so well saw trouble up ahead. When soldiers return from war, they tend to start families. The millions upon millions of soldiers returning from the war led to what is referred to as the "Baby Boom". If the first of the Baby Boom generation was born in 1946, that meant that they would be finishing high school, and looking for a job, beginning in 1964.
If there were not enough jobs for them, this could be catastrophic. What were we to do?
First, the leaders' old friends, the Communists (in the guise of enemies, of course) came to the rescue. The rocket communities of countries like the U.S. and Britain didn't really think that the 1957 launch of Sputnik into orbit was a big deal. Prior to Sputnik, the U.S. had actually weighed a high-flying rocket down with sand, so that it wouldn't go into orbit.
But the leadership whose real concern was, as always, the potential of a return to the Great Depression with millions of unemployed, seized on the launch of Sputnik to issue dire warnings that America was "falling behind" it's potential enemies. We have to increase education in subjects like mathematics and science, because that is what our potential rivals are doing.
As we know, it is mathematics and science, the STEM classes, as it is now called for Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics, which really create jobs. I wrote in "The Sputnik Vector", on the world and economics blog, www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com , that there has been a price to pay for the shift to emphasis on science and mathematics in that it takes away from the geography, history and, foreign languages that are required to understand the world that we have to deal with. But, in our scenario here, it is the science and technology which creates more jobs, and that is what will prevent the Great Depression from returning.
An important postwar event in America was the 1964 World's Fair, held in New York City. The purpose of the fair was to promote futuristic technology. In the late 1960s, and into the 1970s, there was a feeling of confidence in technology and the bright future that it could bring. But what we really needed was not so much the technology, but the jobs in the entire new industries that it would bring about. The greatest dread of leaders who had come of age in the 1930s is millions of unemployed looking for jobs, and the bulge in the population of the Baby Boom led them to spend their careers scrambling for solutions.
If it requires six people to do a job, and a way is developed to do it with only three people, that is considered as making progress. But the great conundrum of a modern economy is the question of what the other three people are then supposed to do. If they are not earning money then they cannot buy whatever it is the three employed workers are producing. It will then not make any sense to keep producing it, and the economy will crash.
How many times have you heard a conservative politician say something like "Elect me and I will run the country like a business"? But a country is not a business. A business can hire and let people go, as need be, while a country can't. A country has to make sure that all of it's people have a way to get the necessities of life. Too much efficiency means fewer people are needed, and that means more unemployed. It was supreme efficiency in manufacturing that brought about the Economic Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, which led to the rise of the Nazis and the Second World War, and the emergence of Communism as a major world system.
What a country has to do is first to get people working, even if it is on "make work" projects, or jobs that are not really essential, and then worry about efficiency from there. To keep the three workers working who were let go, in the above example, requires the creation of new industries. That is what a modern economy is, a never-ending race to keep finding something for workers to do, and hopefully bringing about benefits from what they do, but getting them doing something, to earn and keep spending, comes first.
The crisis point, 1964, arrived. This is when the first of the Baby Boomers finished high school, and began looking for jobs. America had more high school graduates in one year than it ever had before. How much of a coincidence do you think it is that this was also the year in which America's involvement in the Vietnam War began?
The U.S. Government certainly did not want to sent it's teenagers off to war but, remembering the 1930s, they knew that this could be a disaster. It was not the war itself that they wanted, it was the factory production that was sought, there is nothing like a war to keep millions of people working. I live near where a lot of the U.S. Army's iconic "Huey" helicopters were made, and I realize now that factories like these were where the "real" Vietnam war was being fought.
In Vietnam, the U.S. was confronting Communism. But the confrontation on the battlefield was secondary. What America was really confronting Communism with was a booming economy, the booming economy that was brought about by war production. The actual bombs and bullets of the war were a sideshow.
The U.S. never advanced into North Vietnam, like it did into North Korea during the Korean War. The usual explanation was that it did not want to widen the war. The Allied advance into North Korea during the Korean War brought China into the war.
But, in Vietnam, the situation was different. While China had been an ally of North Korea, it was not an ally of North Vietnam. After the end of the Vietnam War, China and Vietnam actually fought their own brief war, because Vietnam had invaded China's ally, the Khmer Rouge. Vietnam was long ruled by China, it successfully resisted the Mongols, and didn't want Chinese soldiers there any more than it wanted American soldiers.
Could it be that the war was allowed to drag on because the U.S. economy still needed the war, to make sure that millions of unemployed Baby Boomers would not bring back the Great Depression, which would be much worse than having the Vietnam War?
The U.S. Government eventually negotiated a truce, and withdrew from the war, early in 1973. But what about the Communist Tet Offensive, five years before? In early 1968, the Communists suddenly attacked targets all across South Vietnam. While it startled and alarmed the American public, the truth is that the Tet Offensive was a military failure. The Communists suffered heavy losses, with the VC (South Vietnamese Communists or Viet Cong) being virtually destroyed.
The U.S. Government was in a position of strength after the Tet Offensive, so why didn't it take that opportunity to negotiate an end to the war, which was so unpopular at home? Could it be that the economy still needed the war, to avoid that dreaded specter of millions of unemployed Baby Boomers bringing back the Great Depression? It did not exit the war until it was sure that the economy was safe because enough new industry had been created to employ the Baby Boom generation.
What about the Apollo Space Program, which was going on at the same time as the Vietnam War? It began almost exactly when the war began, and ended almost exactly when it ended. It wasn't just about exploring space, which we are still doing, it was about putting people on the moon, and then bringing them back safely.
Part of it was certainly Cold War propaganda, showing what our society is capable of, just as the Soviets had detonated a fantastic hydrogen bomb in the Arctic, the Tsar Bomba, for the world to see, in 1961. But why, so many questioned, was it necessary to put humans in space? The Apollo missions, while a great success, really did not add much to our knowledge of the moon, that wasn't already known.
But, as with the Vietnam War, that was not the real objective. The Apollo program brought about a vast number of spin-off developments that were necessary to the program, from super-tough glass to powdered orange juice. The new industries which would provide new industries that would, as always, provide jobs was what the U.S. Government was really after. The program itself provided a lot of jobs and made use of the knowledge that the veterans returning from the Second World War, and going to college by way of the G.I. Bill, had gained.
The process worked so well that Ronald Reagan repeated it in the 1980s. The Iran Hostage Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were used to justify a drastic increase in military spending. Instead of the Apollo Space Program, the Reagan era had a high-tech missile defense system, the Strategic Defense Initiative, STI popularly known as "Star Wars", to bring about spin-off industries.
Finally the development of new industries, that would provide millions of jobs, paid off. The development of the personal computer industry, with widespread use of the internet, along with the mobile phone and then smartphone industries seem to have created enough jobs to have alleviated the need for creation of jobs by way of military spending. Demographics have also helped, there is no bulge in the population which brought millions of Baby Boomers suddenly into the job market.
Remember that a modern economy is a never-ending race to develop new industries to find something for workers to do, who have otherwise been made redundant by the never-ending progress that has drastically reduced the number of workers that are needed, first in agriculture and then in industry.
Factory workers in the postwar period were much better-paid than before. In fact they were being paid more than their labor, according to the economic laws of supply and demand, was really worth. This led to inflation, which was a word that was very often heard in the postwar period. How much of a coincidence can it be that inflation peaked in the U.S. in 1979, and the number of people working in industry also peaked in 1979?
But remember, once again, that the Economic Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, was brought about by workers not being paid enough. They could not afford to buy the fantastic number of goods that the factories were producing, and those goods were just piling up in warehouses. Factories began cutting back on production, meaning that workers had even less money, and it spiraled into the devastating crash.
Postwar America somewhat over-compensated, by paying factory workers too much, which led to inflation. But that was preferable to the millions of unemployed in the 1930s.
Why do you suppose that Americans, unlike every other western country, do not have automatic health care coverage? The country spends about twice as much per person on health care than countries like Canada, but ends up with a lower life expectancy. Surely the health care industry could be made more efficient.
But, in economics, efficiency is not always a good thing. It is efficiency, and the people that it put out of work, that brought about the Economic Crash of 1929. Heath care is big business, and if it was suddenly too "efficient" it might mean millions of people out of work.
To understand postwar America, as well as it's controversial war in Vietnam, we have to understand the long shadow of the Great Depression.
18) THE REAL STORY OF HUE
In early 1968 the Communist side in the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese regular Army and the Viet Cong, a guerrilla force in South Vietnam, launched a major military offensive against targets across U.S. ally South Vietnam. It was called the Tet Offensive because it coincided with the Vietnamese holiday of that name.
Militarily, the Tet Offensive was not a success. The Communists suffered heavy losses and the combat only continued for long in one place. The greatest effect of the offensive was that it turned the American public more against the war.
The one place that extended combat took place in during the Tet Offensive was also the largest single land battle of the war for the U.S. It was the city of Hue, pronounced like "Hway", in the middle latitudes of the country. The Communists were eventually dislodged, and the city recaptured, but the combat destroyed most of the Imperial City of Hue, in which the Communists had set up fortified positions. The Imperial City was intensely bombed and shelled by the U.S. forces. That is what I want to write about here because we should take a closer look at this.
Why would the Communist offensive, which struck all across South Vietnam, focus so particularly on Hue? The most important U.S. base was at Da Nang, south of Hue. The major base near the border between North and South Vietnam was at Khe Sanh. The population center of South Vietnam was Saigon. These were attacked as well, the objective was to bring about an uprising in South Vietnam against the government and their U.S. allies.
It just does not seem to make sense that Hue would be such an important target, even though it was fairly close to the border between North and South Vietnam. It did not have the military presence, political importance or population of the above targets. Yet it was clearly the focus of the Tet Offensive.
I can see the answer but we have to delve into the history of Vietnam. The Imperial City at Hue, which was devastated by the combat, had been the capital of Vietnam. Hanoi was the capital of Communist North Vietnam and had been the capital of Vietnam for most of the time since it's founding a millennium ago, except during the time that the Nguyen Dynasty ( The very common Vietnamese name "Nguyen" is pronounced like "Na-wen") had it's capital at Hue.
The Nguyen Dynasty started as the Nguyen Lords, ruling only southern Vietnam. Northern Vietnam was ruled by the rival Trinh Lords. There was a long Seventeenth-Century civil war between the two, of which the Twentieth-Century war between North and South Vietnam can be considered as a reenactment. But the Nguyen Dynasty eventually ruled all of Vietnam, including the north, from their Imperial City at Hue. They ruled from 1802-1945.
The president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem who had been assassinated in 1963 after an unsuccessful coup attempt against him the year before, had been of the Nguyen Dynasty. Emperor Bao Dai, who had been deposed by Ngo Dinh Diem, then his appointed prime minister, was also from Nguyen Dynasty, to which the Communists were opposed, and which had ruled from the Imperial City at Hue.
So what this means is that, while the Imperial City was important to Vietnamese history, it was more important to the south of the country than to the north. It was from where the Nguyen Lords of the south had managed to extend their rule over the north as well, ruling as the Nguyen Dynasty. Vietnam was divided again and the Communists now ruled the north. The southern elite with which they were now at war had their roots in the Nguyen Dynasty, which had ruled from the Imperial City at Hue.
The Communists knew that the Imperial City was important to the people of the south, but to them it represented being ruled by a southern dynasty and having their capital of Hanoi being displaced as capital of the country by this Imperial City.
So if the Communists wanted to inspire an uprising against the Government of South Vietnam and their American allies, what might they do? The Communists were an effective guerrilla and combat force, but the U.S. had the advantage in large-scale firepower such as artillery and the Communists were effectively without an air force. But maybe there was a way for the Communists to use their enemies' advantages against them.
They came up with a plan. What if they could lure U.S. forces into bombing the Imperial City of Hue into ruins?
They didn't really care about it themselves but they knew that the people of South Vietnam did. That would show the people of South Vietnam how little their government, which was already beyond legendary for it's corruption, really cared about the country and it's history. Wouldn't all of Vietnam be much better off being ruled by the Communists, who would never think of bombing such a historical site as this?
Why else would the city of Hue, and it's historic Imperial City, be the focal point of the Tet Offensive? The Communists sent a strong force to hold the Imperial City so that U.S. forces decided to devastate it with bombs and naval guns, and that was exactly what the Communists wanted them to do.
It was a tactic intended to turn the South Vietnamese people against their government and it's American ally. The Imperial City wasn't strategically or tactically important at all, but it was historically very important. Then, after victory, the Communists could rebuild something dedicated to their triumph on the site, just as they had razed Diem's damaged former palace in Saigon and built the Reunification Palace after the end of the war.
19) THE VIENNA CAFE SCENE
Vienna is known for it's cafes. These are not just the cafes where one can stop for lunch that are found everywhere. The cafes of Vienna have a history of being hubs of conversation that brings about changes in the world.
The most famous cafe in the world today is probably the Cafe Riche, in Cairo. In many countries, discussions in cafes are where political movements get started. Governments try to monitor the conversation in such cafes, wary that the topic of discussion will turn to overthrowing the government.
Vienna doesn't seem to have a single cafe as well-known as the Cafe Riche. But it's cafes have long been known as a place where one can go to either read, many periodicals being available in the cafes, or to get in a discussion. Vienna is also a place where people in exile from their home countries seemed to gravitate to.
In the years before the First World War, which began in 1914, it is known that the following characters all lived in close proximity to one another, in central Vienna, and were regulars at discussions in the cafes.
Vladimir Lenin, initiator of the October Revolution of 1917 which began Communism in the Soviet Union.
Josef Stalin, ally of and successor of Lenin who would consolidate Communism in the Soviet Union and lead it during the Second World War.
Leon Trotsky, along with Lenin and Stalin one of the three founders of Communism in the Soviet Union after the Romanov Dynasty was overthrown.
Josef Broz Tito, a young autoworker who would lead the Communist Party in the new nation of Yugoslavia which would be founded from territory of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the end of the First World War.
Adolf Hitler, a young painter and native of Austria who was trying unsuccessfully to be admitted to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts.
Sigmund Freud, the originator of psychoanalysis who, unlike the others listed here, was already known at the time.
Theodor Herzl, the Jewish founder of modern Zionism which was the movement that ultimately got the nation of Israel reestablished in Palestine.
Ironically, within walking distance lived the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, the long-reigning Franz Joseph and his nephew and heir-apparent, Franz Ferdinand. It would be the 1914 assassination of Franz Ferdinand that would bring about the First World War. This, or the even worse war that resulted from and followed it, would be what brought all of the above, with the exception of Freud, to their ultimate destinies.
The big question about this era in the cafes of Vienna is what meetings and acquaintances might have taken place between these not-yet-famous characters who all, at least for some period of time, lived within walking distances of one another?
The only meeting to have taken place between any of the above, that is known with certainty, is between Trotsky and Stalin, who actually came to Vienna to see Trotsky.
Vienna was not where the meeting to determine the course of Communism took place between Lenin, Stalin and, Trotsky. That took place in a church in London in 1907, as we saw in the posting on this blog "Happy St. George's Day". There is was decided that the course of coming to power had to be violent revolution, not a peaceful process. Ten years after this meeting came the October Revolution of 1917.
An intriguing possibility involves chess. One Vienna cafe, then known as the Cafe Central, was also a haven for chess players. There is a persistent story that Hitler and Lenin played chess in 1909. A lot of information online states that both were avid chess players. One source claims that Lenin and Hitler were among the best players in Europe.
Lenin was 19 years older than Hitler and would never see who Hitler was. Lenin died before Hitler became known. Hitler, leader of the Nazis which promised security against Communism, would have no reason to make it known that he had played chess with Lenin years before.
What is interesting here is not the potential alliances that might have formed between the above cast of characters, but the rivalries. With the exception of Freud, who was not primarily a political figure, all of the above were more or less rivals of one another.
Stalin came to Vienna to see Trotsky. But, after the death of Lenin, the two would become intense rivals over the course of Communism. Trotsky would go into exile, ultimately to Mexico City, where he was found dead with an ice pick buried in his skull.
Also after the death of Lenin, Stalin would eliminate most of Lenin's "Old Bolshevik" allies. The Bolsheviks were the faction that won the 1907 debate in London about implementing violent revolution. The "Old Bolsheviks" are the ones who were Communists before the October Revolution of 1917.
Josef Broz Tito would lead the partisans of Yugoslavia against Hitler's occupation in the Second World War. Ruling Yugoslavia after the war, Tito was a Communist but not the kind of Communist that Stalin would like him to be. Tito was very independently-minded and did not submit his country to being a client state of Stalin. It was no secret that Stalin put quite a bit of effort into spying on the Yugoslav Government, and relations were chilly for quite some time.
The Zionism, the reestablishment of Israel, of Theodor Herzl would ultimately be brought about by the Holocaust inflicted by his former Vienna neighbor, Adolf Hitler.
As for Stalin and Hitler, who very likely saw each other or even met in Vienna, they would engage in the greatest conflict that the world has ever seen, the Eastern Front of the Second World War. But yet Hitler wrote letters to Stalin, assuring him that he had no intention whatsoever of going to war with the Soviet Union.
Then there was the great mystery of Stalin's state of denial before Hitler's invasion of his country in 1941. Even when Stalin was repeatedly given intelligence warnings like "There are three million soldiers, with hundreds of tanks and aircraft, assembling against your western border", he didn't want to believe it. When, shortly before the invasion, Nazi reconnaissance aircraft began openly flying over Soviet territory, Stalin gave orders not to shoot at them.
It seemed very much as if Stalin remembered meeting Hitler and couldn't believe that he would do any such thing.
20) THE UNIVERSITY RECRUITING DRIVE THAT REALLY CHANGED THE WORLD
A world-changing event in history really requires some analysis. It is the U.S. naval mission to Japan in 1852. It was intended to force Japan open to trade with the U.S. But there are just so many questions about it.
First, unlike European nations, the United States was not a colonial power. It opposed colonialism. The Philippines would become a quasi-colony of the U.S., after it was inherited following the Spanish-American War, but that was nearly fifty years later.
Second, Japan was an isolated and feudal country, or at least that was the way it was usually perceived, and it wanted to keep it that way. What would Japan have to trade, in 1852, that would interest the U.S.so much? It didn't have significant manufacturing of goods to export, and it wasn't known for resources that could be traded for imports. Neither was it known for spices or any specialized agricultural products, such as tea or cacao, that could be exported.
Third, as far as the situation in the U.S., this did not take place during the "Gilded Age" when there were wealthy industrialists seeking either markets, resources or, labor. That era was decades away. In 1852, the Civil War was still ahead and it was not even certain that the union would hold together. It becomes difficult to understand what sense this adventure to the other side of the world could make.
Fourth, The U.S. had just gained, by way of the Mexican War, the vast territories of the west. With all of that to be explored and settled, and all of the resources that it contained, why would the U.S. need to send this expensive mission to the other side of the world to force a feudal country open to trade? It could not be a need for laborers from Asia because there were settlers from China, which was much more populous than Japan. In 1882 a law was actually passed actually banning immigration from China.
Japan was closed because, with all of the foreign ships seen passing by, it considered outsiders as barbarians and was wary of being made into a colony. It had the historical memories of two attempted invasions by the Mongols. But it didn't want to be completely isolated. There was one thing that it had a voracious appetite for from the outside world. That one thing was knowledge.
The leaders of Japan knew that the outside world was making progress. They realized that cutting Japan off from that progress would only make it more vulnerable. There had been a policy of acquiring knowledge for quite some time, known as Rangaku. The only westerners that were allowed to land by ship were the Dutch, and they were only allowed one trip per year. Actually, there was a law that no foreign ships could land in Japan at all but an artificial island, called Dejima, was created at Nagasaki for them to land on.
The Japanese sought all the knowledge that they could get from their Dutch visitors. They had many Dutch books about science, technology and, world geography translated. The Dutch brought all manner of technical devices to Japan, from machines and clocks, to telescopes and microscopes.
As a result of this naval mission, Japan did open up and set about modernization but it would bring very wide-reaching and unexpected changes to the world.
In Japan the change would bring the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate and restore the emperor to full power. This is known as the Meiji Restoration. Kyoto had been the capital of Japan for a thousand years but, in the sign of the new era the emperor chose to move the capital to Tokyo, where the shogunate which held the real power had been based although the emperor ruled from Kyoto, and that is why Tokyo is the great city that it is today.
Russia had the potential to be a great naval power but was hindered in that it lacked a port that was free of ice all year. Before the development of modern China, in the final years of the Qing Dynasty, Russia leased a naval base from China. But nearby Japan felt threatened by the arrangement and a naval battle ended up being fought over this location that changed the course of the world. The naval battle in 1905 between Japan and Russia, as well as a great battle on land, would bring major changes to the world.
It led to the rise of Japan as a world power. But this would put it technologically ahead of it's Asian neighbors. The Second World War in the Pacific, as well as the far-reaching changes that followed the war, would not have happened. There would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor and no dropping of atomic bombs. This battle can also be considered as the beginning of modern naval warfare.
It weakened the Romanov Dynasty in Russia, opening the way for the October Revolution to succeed twelve years later. The immediate result of this lost battle was the 1905 Revolution. It didn't topple the Romanov Dynasty but two years after that, Lenin, Stalin and, Trotsky met in London to plan the coming revolution.
Without this battle, the October Revolution likely would not have succeeded even if it had happened. This would probably have meant no Communism and the very different course of the Twentieth Century that would have brought about.
We can scarcely imagine what the world might be like today had there not been this 1905 battle that is really not well-known, and wouldn't have happened without Japan being forced open by this U.S. naval mission, after which it set about modernization. Without Germany and Austria-Hungary taking this battle as a sign of the weakness of the Romanov position, the First World War might never have happened.
Since the Second World War sprang from the First, that wouldn't have happened either. Since the development of nuclear weapons was spurred by the Second World War we might not have those, or nuclear power at all. Since it was the changes brought about by the world wars that ended the colonial era, there seems to be no reason why it wouldn't have continued until today.
The relationship between the races would be different. The white race had largely convinced the world, as well as itself, that it was the superior race. But the hideous slaughter of World War One, which almost exclusively involved the white race, began to cast doubt on that. All races have shown themselves to be capable of barbarity but this was unlike anything the world had seen before.
But that brings us back to why the forcing of Japan open in the first place was necessary or how it could really be beneficial to the U.S. The mission had been ordered by a little-known U.S. president named Millard Fillmore. He had been vice-president and became president upon the death of Zachary Taylor. He did not even get the nomination of his party for the following election. Millard Fillmore is remembered today primarily around Buffalo, where a hospital and a main avenue are named for him.
The Buffalo connection can be seen in that Commodore Matthew Perry was chosen to lead the naval mission to Japan. He was the younger brother of Oliver Hazard Perry, who was a hero of the War of 1812 in the Buffalo area and today has a housing development named for him.
The opening of Japan would likely have eventually happened in time anyway but Millard Fillmore completely changed the world by sending this mission, if only it was clearer why.
But maybe a look at what Millard Fillmore did before he became president might provide an answer. We know that while it might have been difficult to see a basis for trade with Japan that would justify the naval mission that was sent, what Japan had long sought from the outside world was knowledge. Just as soon as it was opened up by force it began sending students abroad to study, although not to America as it was by then preoccupied with it's Civil War.
Before becoming president, Millard Fillmore had founded a university. He had been the chancellor of the university, and a teacher there. The only conclusion that I can come to is that filling his university with eager Japanese students is at least a major part of the reason for this mission to Japan in 1852. That makes more sense than any other reason. It was the university recruiting drive that really changed the world.
This is Millard Fillmore's university today, the University of Buffalo known in local parlance simply as UB. There are actually two separate campuses. This is the older South Campus. There is also the larger North Campus, in Amherst NY.
There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >, After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.953268,-78.8177583,3a,75y,174.99h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sr9yQstw_4m88LPib8_m6Pg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dr9yQstw_4m88LPib8_m6Pg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D176.32672%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
21) THE WAY TO SAN JOSE
1) DID THE SON OF SAM WANT TO GET CAUGHT?
2) THE REAL STORY OF OSIRAK
3) THE MYSTERY OF USTICA
4) QUESTIONS ABOUT D-DAY
5) THE REAL STORY OF GALLIPOLI
6) THE WORLD OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
7) NIAGARA FALLS AND THE MOON LANDINGS
8) INSIGHT INTO 9/11
9) THE REAL BATMAN
10) AMERICA'S 75-YEAR MYSTERY
11) SYMBOLISM THEORY OF THE VATICAN AND THE HAGIA SOPHIA
12) THE PALACE ALLIANCE
13) THE VATICAN AND ST. PETER
14) ARYAN IDEOLOGY
15) MADE IN INDIA
16) THE ENDURING MYSTERY OF THE CINEMA REX
17) AMERICA'S WAR IN VIETNAM
18) THE REAL STORY OF HUE
19) THE VIENNA CAFE SCENE
20) THE UNIVERSITY RECRUITING DRIVE THAT REALLY CHANGED THE WORLD
21) THE WAY TO SAN JOSE
22) THE EXONERATION OF AIMEE SEMPLE MCPHERSON
23) THE COLOSSEUM AND THE VATICAN
24) THE HOUSE OF THE REVOLUTION
25) MAYBE O.J. SIMPSON REALLY DIDN'T DO IT
26) THE NORWAY PLAN
27) THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
28) THE ASSASSINATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
29) THE GLASSES OF JOHN HINCKLEY JR.
30) MARIJUANA
31) THE FLIGHT OF RUDOLF HESS
32) THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF FIDEL CASTRO
33) THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS
34) SUITCASE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
35) AMERICA'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE
36) RICHARD NIXON'S LIST OF ENEMIES
37) THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALAMO
38) CANADA'S AVRO ARROW
39) THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE
40) THE FIRE AT NOTRE DAME
41) U.S. PRESIDENTS AND THE APOCALYPSE
42) THE REAL STORY OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI
43) MORE RELIABLE CARS
44) THE MCDONALD'S CLUSTER
45) THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT ZIA
46) AMERICA'S WAR ON DRUGS
47) RONALD REAGAN AND THE IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS
48) THE REAL STORY OF AMERICA'S ELECTRIC CHAIR
49) THE BUFFALO NY CONNECTION TO WATERGATE
50) THE UNDERLYING STORY OF NEW YORK STATE'S GREAT PRISON ESCAPE
51) EXPLAINING THE VELA INCIDENT
52) THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY MADE REALLY SIMPLE
53) DID BORIS YELTSIN STAGE THE 1991 COUP?
54) THE OVALS OF WASHINGTON D.C.
55) THE REAL STORY OF THE 2022 ALABAMA PRISON ESCAPE
56) A FURTHER LOOK AT THE KENT STATE SHOOTINGS
57) THE UNABOMBER AND THE ZODIAC KILLER
58) INOCCULATION AGAINST COMMUNISM
59) THE LONG-TERM PLAN OF CHAIRMAN MAO
1) DID THE SON OF SAM WANT TO GET CAUGHT?
In 1976 and '77, there was a serial killer in New York City called "The Son of Sam". This was the name that he gave himself in letters sent to newspapers. He killed six people and wounded seven, using a .44 caliber handgun.
Residents of New York State remember the summer of 1977 as "The Summer of the Son of Sam". I was a teenager at the time. He targeted young women with long, dark hair, usually shooting them when they were sitting in parked cars after dark. The only males that were shot were boyfriends that were with them. It was in the news every day. Hair salons did a brisk business with girls having their hair cut short or dyed blond. But his final victim was blond.
The Son of Sam wrote bizarre letters to the news that caused all of the printed copies to sell out. One letter was left with the body of one of his victims. New York City underwent possibly the largest manhunt the world had ever seen. He never killed anyone on Manhattan, all of the victims were in the Bronx, Queens and, Brooklyn.
The shootings were clearly ethnically targeted. Despite the demographics of New York City, none of the victims was black or Hispanic or foreign-born.
I walked into the house one day, August 11, and my mother gave me the news, "They've got him".
On May 30, 1977, a letter was received by Jimmy Breslin of the New York Daily News. In the letter, the Son of Sam gave some clues, "Here are some names to help you along. Forward them to the inspector". Many tips continuously came in, and the killer was caught on August 10, but the clues, consisting of four names, was never solved.
His capture was assisted by a parking ticket. He parked too close to a fire hydrant in Brooklyn, and then aimed shots at a woman but missed. She had seen him walking toward her from the direction of the car, and that the police had shortly before ticketed the car. That soon led to his being caught.
Upon capture, he quickly admitted to the killings and pleaded guilty.
I think I have solved the four names that the Son of Sam sent as clues to the New York Daily News. The names are as follows:
"The Duke of Death"
"The Wicked King Wicker"
"The Twenty Two Disciples Of Hell"
"John Wheaties"
The Son of Sam was giving a clue as to where he lived and worked. He lived in an apartment building, on Pine Street in Yonkers. He was arrested at night as he entered his car parked outside, apparently on his way out to another shooting.
The name that he gave himself in the letters, "The Son of Sam", is itself part of the clue. "Sam" turned out to be a neighbor named Sam Carr who had a dog in his yard. The killer's first story upon capture is that he took the barking of the dog as demonic instructions to kill. He had once wounded the dog with a bullet.
As for "John Wheaties", Sam Carr had a son named John and a daughter named Wheat. It was Wheat Carr who was the police dispatcher in Yonkers at the time. "Wheaties" was the name of a popular breakfast cereal.
The short side street that ran alongside Sam Carr's house, and ended on the street just behind the apartment building where the Son of Sam lived, was Wicker Street. That explains "The Wicked King Wicker".
The names that the Son of Sam gave as clues contain two titles of royalty and nobility, king and duke. The name of New York comes from England's King Charles II granting the lands to his brother, the Duke of York.
Pine Street, on which the Son of Sam lived, was a short street. At the end of the street, which he would have passed on his way into the city, was another large apartment building. The actual address of the building is on the main road, North Broadway. But the back was facing Pine Street.
This building is built in what is known as the Tudor Revival Style, which typically features the half-timbering that was popular in England centuries ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_Revival_architecture#/media/File:Beaney_Institute_002.jpg
If the apartment building at the end of Pine Street had been built in the Tudor era as a palace, a duke, or even a king, might have lived there.
The large building with the black roof right in the center of the following image is the apartment building where the Son of Sam lived. Wicker Street is the short east-west street to the left. The large house on Warburton Ave., just north of Wicker Street, with the rust-colored roof is where Sam lived. His dog would bark in the area behind the house. The building in the lower center, with the light blue roof, is the Tudor Revival-style apartment building.
You may have to close the search window, to the left, to see it.
If you enter a search into the satellite imagery for 22 Pine Street, you can see that it points to this Tudor Revival apartment building. Although it's front, which would be the address, faces North Broadway. But if it's address was on Pine Street, it would be 22 Pine Street. if Wicker Street extended to Pine Street this is where it would intersect.
But since no address was posted at the back the only people who would know that, in the days before Google Maps, would be those who worked at the Post Office, and that is exactly where it turned out that the Son of Sam worked.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yonkers,+NY/@40.9464375,-73.8950244,287m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c2c0080943afa1:0xbe967384a4d8daa2!8m2!3d40.9312099!4d-73.8987469
So this explains where the king in "The Wicked King Wicker", as well as "The Duke of Death", comes from. The address of the rear of the apartment building shows where "The Twenty Two Disciples of Hell" comes from. This Tudor Revival-style apartment building was not the one that the Son of Sam lived in, but was the other apartment building on the street. But this is where Wicker Street would intersect if it extended to Pine Street.
If someone would have put all of this together, they would have zeroed right in on where the Son of Sam lived, as well as worked. If all of this had been run through the crude computers of the time, it might have noted that there was a family with a Sam, a John and, a Wheat living at the intersection of a Wicker Street.
In an earlier letter, left at the scene of a shooting, the killer wrote that "Sam sometimes locks me in the attic, where I watch the world going by through the window". He also wrote that "Sam sometimes locks me in the garage". But the "Son of Sam" did not live in this house, it was a clue as to where he did live.
The house in the following image is "Sam's" house, with two attic windows facing out to the main road, and the dual garage in front. Behind the house was where the dog was barking that he initially said was what was telling him to kill. The apartment building where he lived can be seen behind that. Image from Google Street View.
The following image, from Google Earth, shows behind the house, where the dog would bark.
The letter had been postmarked from Englewood, New Jersey, which is just about directly across the Hudson River from Yonkers.
When the police located his car, outside his apartment building, they noticed a rifle in the car. If a serial killer, the subject of probably the largest manhunt in history, really didn't want to get caught then would he not only give away these clues of where he lived and worked, but also leave a rifle visible in his car? The killings were done with a handgun and not with a rifle.
The Son of Sam made no effort to escape from the police, quickly confessed to the crimes, and pleaded guilty.
The subject of a possible satanic cult sacrificial killings later arose, of which David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam. had been a member but not the only one who committed the killings. It was pointed out that some of the police sketches of suspects in the early killings did not look like him.
The two sons of Sam Carr, Michael and John who both died under mysterious circumstances after all of this was over, were supposedly involved. There is a park and public garden 2 km from where the Son of Sam lived that was known as a gathering place for satanists in the 1970s but, in prison interviews, he did take full responsibility for the killings.
2) THE REAL STORY OF OSIRAK
On June 7, 1981, the Israeli Air Force launched a surprise long-range mission which bombed and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Iraq had originally purchased the reactor technology from France. The purported reason for the raid was to prevent Iraq from gaining a nuclear weapon which could well be used against Israel.
The raid was condemned across the world. Even Iran, which was at war with Iraq, condemned the raid. But much of the condemnation seemed to be somewhat half-hearted. While one nation should not be allowed to launch an air raid against another, much of the world also felt that it would be a more dangerous place if Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Iran, in the course of the ongoing war with Iraq, had earlier bombed the reactor itself, in what was known as Operation Scorch Sword. But the reactor had not been seriously damaged in that raid. The first thing that is confusing about it is that there is information online that Iran actually supplied Israel with aerial photo reconnaissance of the site, yet Iran condemned the raid when it was bombed.
My conclusion is that the Israeli bombing mission was really directed at Iran.
The Iran Hostage Crisis, where Americans from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had been held for 444 days, had recently ended with the hostages being released. On April 24, 1980, a rescue attempt had been made to free the hostages. The mission was aborted when it was decided that there were not enough serviceable helicopters left to ensure a successful mission. The tragic accident occurred after the mission had been aborted when the rotor blade of a helicopter struck an aircraft.
Two months before the Israeli air attack on Osirak, Iran had undertaken an extremely complex aerial mission against Iraq. On the far side of Iraq, near the border with Jordan and Syria, was a complex of airfields known as H3 to guard Iraq's western border area. A large number of military aircraft were parked there, some seemingly recently imported, out of the reach of the Iranian Air Force which would like to destroy the planes on the ground.
A fleet of Iranian planes flew all the way there on a very long-range mission. The planes had to refuel in the air several times. They flew at low altitude, to avoid radar detection, right along the borders between Turkey and Iraq, and between Syria and Iraq. That way, if they were picked up on radar, each country would conclude that they were just patrolling the border of the other country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-3_airstrike#/media/File:Operation_H3_map.png
Syria was supportive of Iran during the war and we have to wonder if the government of Syria was aware of the mission. Since H3 is not far from the border between Iraq and Syria, did it even inform Iran about the planes?
Two Boeing 747 planes were involved in the Iranian mission. One was an aerial command post and the other was a refueling plane. Both of these took off from Turkey, which was unaware of their mission, and joined the other planes. At the time of the operation, another Iranian air operation was launched elsewhere, to divert the attention of the Iraqi Air Force.
The mission was a great success and, as far as I can see, the Iranians suffered no losses and made it back home with no mishaps. They claimed to have destroyed 48 Iraqi planes on the ground. The Iraqis scoffed at the claims and said that only one plane was damaged in the raid. The data gained by the U.S. is that the raid was a success, but it was likely somewhat fewer than 48 Iraqi planes that were destroyed.
This complex Iranian mission was virtually a mirror image of the U.S. attempt to rescue it's hostages the year before. Except that the mission was to destroy planes rather than rescue hostages. The mission was, as much as anything, a jab at the United States. Iran wanted to show that it could pull off perfectly a mission that was just about as complex as the one that the U.S. attempted, Operation Eagle Claw.
But the successful Iranian bombing mission came uncomfortably close to Israel. The planes had flown a very long distance to get there, and the H3 complex was within 375 km (250 miles) of Jerusalem. It was closer to Jerusalem than it was to Baghdad. Israel was closely watching the Iran-Iraq War just as it is watching the war in Syria now.
Could this be what really prompted the Israeli bombing mission against Osirak? To remind Iran of Israel's capabilities in destroying a reactor that a similar Iranian raid had failed to destroy?
Israel surely knew that the world would condemn the raid. France was actively involved in operating the reactor that it had sold to Iraq and had assured Israel that it could not produce a nuclear weapon. But Israel thought it imperative to launch the raid anyway. Israel seemed to see that the Iranian raid on H3 was to show up America, so Israel followed the same formula and showed up Iran by a long-distance air mission that succeeded in destroying the reactor that an Iranian mission had been unable to.
But then this brings us to something else. Exactly three weeks after the Israeli bombing of Osirak, a massive bomb exploded during a meeting of Iran's ruling party. 73 of the most important people in the government were killed. The event is known as the Hafte Tir Bombing. It is really a credit to Iran's Revolution that it survived this.
My understanding is that a sound technician was setting up speakers. The speakers were brought in on a cart, and the bomb was hidden in the cart.
The blame fell on the organization known as the Mujahedin e Khalq. The organization, advocating a kind of blend of Islam and Marxist principles, had long been opposed to the Shah of Iran. They sided with Ayatollah Khomeini, and helped him overthrow the Shah, but the alliance didn't last long, and they had been vigorously opposing the Revolution, eventually siding with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.
But there is a persistent story that the Mossad, Israel's intelligence service encouraged the bombing, and possibly supplied the bomb.
I do not really believe that Israel had anything to do with the bombing. But here is what I do believe.
In early 2018 Mossad agents broke into a warehouse in Tehran. They removed a vast archive of documentation about Iran's nuclear program. Benjamin Netanyahu went on television to denounce Iran for lying in claiming that it was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
But that was not what it was really about.
The real message was, going back to 1981, to show Iran up again. The operation to get those nuclear records is reminiscent of the U.S. attempt to get in, get it's people being held hostage, and get safely out. It was also reminiscent of the Israeli hostage rescue mission at Entebbe in 1976.
The message to Iran was to be very careful because Israeli agents can operate in Iran without getting caught. Also, whether or not Israel had anything to do with it, don't forget the Hafte Tir Bombing, which wiped out much of the Iranian Government, because it could happen again.
3) THE MYSTERY OF USTICA
On June 27, 1980, an Italian passenger jet crashed into the sea north of Sicily, near the island of Ustica, killing all 81 passengers and crew on board.
The news reports were that there had been some kind of encounter between NATO aircraft and a Libyan jet, and that the passenger plane may have been shot down in the crossfire. The plane had been late in taking off from Bologna, on it's way to Palermo, and it was after nightfall. After the plane disappeared from radar, two Italian Air Force jets were sent to investigate and look for possible wreckage.
I remember when this happened and it caught my attention because I had just finished a semester of school and was to fly to Europe myself in a few weeks.
Libya had been confronting foreign warplanes that flew near it's coast. But this incident took place more than 500 miles, about 750 km, from Libya, far to the north of Sicily, and stories began to emerge that something far more mysterious had actually taken place.
As a brief background, Flight 870 was lost at a time when the Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution, and the accompanying Hostage Crisis, was going on. Two months before the disappearance of the flight the U.S. attempt to rescue it's hostages in Iran, Operation Eagle Claw, had ended in failure.
Libya, across the Mediterranean from Italy, was led by Moammar Gaddafi, who had come to power eleven years before by overthrowing the king of the former Italian colony. Gaddafi was, of course, a Moslem, but was more along the lines of Saddam Hussein than of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. Gaddafi was in the process of turning Libya into a socialist society. His philosophy of mixing Islam and socialism was detailed in his "Green Book", which had seemingly been inspired by Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book".
Gaddafi was a close ally of the Soviet Union and, considering that the Soviets had invaded the Moslem country of Afghanistan a few months previously, before anyone in Europe knew it there might be Soviet bases just across the Mediterranean.
But Libyan socialism was not a grassroots movement, as socialist movements typically are. It was being imposed from the top down, and at that top was Gaddafi. Wouldn't the west be safer if Gaddafi could be eliminated? As it turns out, he would be at a meeting in Europe in late June, after which he would be flying back home in his Soviet-made Tupolev.
Assassination while flying was not unusual at all. It was no secret that the Israeli Air Force was hoping to track Yasir Arafat to a flight in a private plane. U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold had been killed in a mysterious plane crash, after allegedly upsetting powerful interests while trying to bring peace in the Congo. Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, died in a plane crash that many had suspicions about. Mohammad Khatami, former chief of the Iranian Air Force, died in another suspicious crash. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama, died mysteriously in a plane crash a year after the Ustica crash. Later, of course, there was the death of Pakistani president Muhammad Zia ul Haq.
Neither was intervention in other countries to preclude Communism unusual at the time. Probably the most familiar example is the CIA-supported coup against the Communist government of Salvador Allende that had come to power in Chile.
NATO jets could shoot down Gaddafi's plane with a missile. Since they knew that it would be escorted by a Libyan Air Force jet, and that Libya had been confronting foreign military planes that flew near it's coast, they could say that the Libyan jet had fired first, at NATO jets on a routine patrol or training exercise, and that Gaddafi's plane had been shot down in the crossfire.
The story quickly emerged that the loss of Flight 870 was actually an attempt to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi, by shooting down his plane, that had gone horribly wrong. Gaddafi himself must have suspected such a plot which is why a Libyan jet flew across the Mediterranean to escort his plane home. Radio silence must have been in effect and the Libyan pilot mistook the late-flying passenger jet for Gaddafi's plane, and flew along with it. That then prompted the NATO jets that were going to shoot down Gaddafi's plane to mistake the passenger jet for it.
Flight 870 was shot down by a missile. No trace of the Libyan jet was found and it was presumed that it crashed into the Tyrrhenian Sea. It would have had to cross Sicily to get back home, where it would have been detected. It didn't take long to find out that it was the passenger jet that had been shot down, not Gaddafi's plane, and a planeload of innocent people had been killed.
Considering the background of the times that we saw above, releasing the facts about the tragedy, that jets from one NATO member had shot down a passenger jet of an allied nation, would risk fracturing NATO, and possibly the European Union, at a critical time in the confrontation with both Communism and the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Since the disastrous assassination attempt had taken place well within Italian airspace, permission must have been given by Italy although it does not seem that Italian planes were involved. This would, if it became known, certainly drive Libya into the Communist orbit if it wasn't already there.
The tape of the radar activity, which would have shown what actually happened, was found to have been somehow erased. A number of air traffic controllers that were on duty at the time are reputed to have mysteriously died. Most of the plane was eventually recovered from the seafloor.
Francesco Cossiga, Italian Prime Minister at the time, blamed a French Navy jet for shooting down the plane. Many people, including four Italian generals, were tried for obstructing justice in the investigation of the crash, but none actually convicted.
It is not beyond possibility that some kind of technical failure caused the plane to crash, as with the Air France jet flying from Brazil in 2009, but air traffic controllers were in contact with the crew right up until the plane disappeared from radar. Everything was fine, the pilots expressed surprise at something, and then the plane vanished from radar. But the recovered black box of the plane apparently showed nothing that would indicate structural or mechanical failure.
Italians themselves refer to it as the "Ustica Massacre", meaning that it was no accident.
There is also a bomb theory, that the plane was destroyed by a bomb that was planted on it, and not by a missile from outside. This crash did take place during northern Italy's "Years of Lead" when there was political violence, including bombings, from both the right and the left. A British expert on terrorism involving planes, Frank Taylor, insisted that the plane was brought down by a bomb that exploded in a rear lavatory, even exploding a bomb in a retired DC-9 to display the results in comparison to those recovered from the wreckage.
But the bomb theory quickly became a minority opinion. Neither side during the "Years of Lead" ever targeted planes. The most likely place to conceal a bomb on plane is in the luggage, either overhead or the baggage compartment, certainly not in a lavatory. No one claimed responsibility for any such bombing of the plane.
Further investigation, after most of the pieces of the plane were recovered, focused on a missing piece of the fuselage just above the starboard engine. This area of the fuselage seemed to have disintegrated when an explosion took place just outside the plane. A heat-seeking missile would home in on the plane's engine, and then explode when it reached the source of heat, the starboard engine. The lavatory, where some believe a bomb to have exploded that brought the plane down, is on the inside of this section.
(Note-The Malaysian passenger jet that was shot down over Ukraine in 2014 was targeted by a radar-guided missile that exploded just outside the plane).
This is the starboard side of plane that crashed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870#/media/File:Itavia_DC-9_I-TIGI.jpg
The plane was heading south, toward Palermo, when this happened. That means that it's starboard side would have been facing west. This is the direction from where we would expect NATO jets to come from if they were going to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi by air, not from the other direction which would be closer to Italy from where it would have more chance of being witnessed.
There was a nearly full moon on the night of the disaster but the moon rises in the east, and the moon would have been in the eastern sky when it took place. If the NATO jets came from the west, the bright moonlight would have had the effect of blinding the NATO pilots to the name of the airline on the late-flying passenger jet, leading them to mistake it for Gaddafi's plane especially since it was being escorted by the Libyan jet.
The following month, July 1980, the wreckage of a Libyan military jet was found in a remote area of southern Italy. There had indeed been a Libyan jet but it had not crashed into the sea. Not much information was released about the crashed jet, except that the body of the pilot was still in the cockpit and that it may have crashed because it ran out of fuel.
But if evidence had been found that this Libyan jet had shot down the passenger jet, or had initiated action that caused the passenger jet to be shot down or to crash, there certainly would have been retaliatory action against Libya, as there was in 1986 in the bombing of Tripoli for the bombing of a Berlin disco. Yet there was no retaliation at all against Libya.
Furthermore, Italy was the European nation that was most friendly to Libya. Certainly, Gaddafi would rather strike at the U.S. or Britain than at an Italian plane.
Gaddafi himself seemed certain that this was an assassination attempt and became much more hostile to the west. He would become Ronald Reagan's arch-enemy, culminating in the bombing of Tripoli in 1986. There would also be the hostage situation involving the Libyan Embassy in London.
The next thing that happened is the bombing of the train station in Bologna, the northern Italian city from where Flight 870 had departed. The bombing killed 85 people, more than had died in the plane crash.
A phone call was made to a newspaper claiming responsibility for the bombing on behalf of NAR, an organization that was a rightward component of the country's "Years of Lead".
In 1980, it took some time to trace a phone call, a brief phone call was usually untraceable. But they did manage to trace the call and found, incredibly, that it had come from an office of the Italian Secret Service. Other than that, there was no claim of responsibility for the bombing. NAR members were convicted of the bombing, but denied having anything to do with it.
The city and timing of the bombing of the Bologna Train Station, following the shooting down of the plane and then the discovery of the wreckage of the Libyan jet which apparently yielded no evidence that it shot down the plane, began speculation that either the government itself had bombed the train station, in an effort to save NATO and the European Union at a critical time by making it look as if it were a bomb that brought the plane down, and not that the jet of one NATO country had shot down the passenger plane of another in a misguided assassination attempt, or that a terrorist organization that wanted to bring down the government had seized the opportunity to bomb the train station in order to make it look as if the government had really bombed the train station.
Following the bombing of the Bologna Train Station, a bomb was placed on a train in Bologna but was set so that it would not explode. It was found to actually have been planted by the Italian Secret Service, and contained the same type of explosive that had been used in the bombing of the train station. Those who planted the non-explosive bomb wanted it to be found and it also contained identifying information on two foreign right-wing extremists.
But this also looks like a definite attempt to make it look as if the plane had been destroyed by a bomb, and not in error by a missile from a NATO ally during a bizarre assassination attempt on a foreign leader. It was made to appear that a right-wing terrorist was on the way to another bombing around Bologna, a city that was known for it's leftward sympathies, and had lost or forgotten his briefcase with the explosives.
Another thing that is questionable is the British expert, Frank Taylor, insisting that the plane was brought down by a bomb that was placed in the lavatory, rather than by a missile. He even detonated a bomb in a retired DC-9 to show how the damage would match that which was pieced together from the recovered pieces of the plane.
But it seemed that he was trying too hard to convince the public that it was not a missile, and thus not a disastrous assassination attempt on Moammar Gaddafi, that had brought down the plane. It was as if the people did not trust the explanation given by their own government so they got a foreign terrorism specialist to agree with them.
There would be another benefit of pinning both the crash of the passenger jet and the Bologna Train Station bombing on political terrorists in that it would discredit them, and help to bring the "Years of Lead" to an end.
Finally there is information online, although I cannot see it in any mainstream information outlets, of something that is truly incredible. Eight years after all of this happened, there would be another tragedy. Two Italian jets collided during an air show at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, killing both pilots and dozens of people on the ground.
What is so incredible, if it is accurate, is that the two Italian pilots that collided at Ramstein are the same two pilots who had been sent out to investigate the missing plane on June 27, 1980.
THE CASE OF ITALO BALBO
Here is something extremely interesting with regard to the crash of Flight 870 in 1980.
Exactly forty years, minus one day, before the crash of Flight 870 there was another incident involving Libya and the fatal crash of an Italian plane. The chief of Benito Mussolini's air force was Italo Balbo. He was among the few top people in Mussolini's government and had a good chance of being next in line to rule.
The trouble was that he had openly opposed the alliance with the Nazis, as well as their anti-Semitic policies, and had expressed the opinion that Italy should side with Britain, as it had in the First World War.
While coming in to land at a base in Libya, his plane was shot down by friendly fire and he was killed. The base had reportedly just been attacked by British aircraft, and Balbo's aircraft was mistaken for one of them.
I won't get into the actual death of Italo Balbo here. He died just before the beginning of the Battle of Britain and it is tempting to think that the Nazis might have been uneasy with their ally's air force being led by a general who had opposed their alliance with them and advocated siding with Britain. But anyway, the issue was resolved when he was "accidentally" killed by "friendly fire".
What is so interesting is, if the crash of Flight 870 at Ustica was an assassination attempt on Moammar Gaddafi gone very wrong, is that it is virtually a reenactment of the "friendly fire" incident that killed Italo Balbo. In 1940, after a combat incident with British planes, Italo Balbo's plane was shot down as well. In 1980, after a combat incident with a Libyan plane, Moammar Gaddafi's plane would be shot down as well.
Italo Balbo was ironically Gaddafi's predecessor as governor of Libya. He constructed an elaborate memorial arch, which Gaddafi demolished upon coming to power.
I think most people would say that all of this is just too much coincidence. The death of Italo Balbo, whether it was an accident or not, looks like it is where the idea came from to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi forty years, minus one day, later, and to have it look like an accident. It was indeed an accident, but not in the way intended, and the target turned out to be a planeload of innocent people.
AERODYNAMICS AT NIAGARA
(Note-There is something to think about at Niagara Falls, which is a site of frequent airshows. A similar crash happened, between two Blue Angels, in 1985. There was a crowd of about 20,000 people. Fortunately, the crash occurred at high altitude and directly over the airfield, so that neither plane landed in the crowd. The collision occurred high enough to parachute and one of the pilots escaped by parachute. The other plane seemed to fall upside-down so that it fell straight down onto the airfield, where it exploded.
In such a crash, it is rare for the plane to fall upside down. If it would have fallen right-side-up, the flow of the air over the wings would have provided lift and the plane would have glided for some distance rather than falling straight down. Instead, the negative lift of the wings in the upside-down plane caused it to fall straight down onto the airfield, where it missed the crowds. But if it would have glided before crashing, it may have landed in the crowd and a lot of people could have been killed.
But this is not why I named my autobiography "Right-Side-Up").
4) QUESTIONS ABOUT D-DAY
It's time to take a closer look at the official version of D-Day, the Allied landing in northern France in 1944.
The landings took place on the coast of Normandy on June 6. Such a massive amphibious landing was not expected to be easy, the Nazis were anticipating the landing but did not know exactly where it would come. The Allies had the advantage of overwhelming air superiority.
The traditional story is that the Allies went to great lengths to deceive the Nazis as to where the landings would come. A fake army was assembled in southern England opposite Calais to make the Nazis think that this is where the invasion would come, at the narrowest width of the English Channel. Radio traffic was arranged to make it look as if the center of Allied operations was opposite Calais. Known enemy agents were not arrested so that they could be fed disinformation that D-Day was to come at Calais.
But the landings were planned for Normandy, about 240 km or 150 miles southwest of Calais. The goal of the Allies was to give the soldiers who had landed at Normandy the maximum amount of time possible to bring in supplies and fortify their positions before the Nazis brought the full weight of their forces in a counterattack. The way to do this was to trick the Nazis into keeping the bulk of their forces around Calais, in anticipation that D-Day would come there.
Even after the landings at Normandy began, the Allies did what they could to deceive the Nazis into thinking that this attack was just a diversion, to get them to pull their forces away from Calais. The real landing was still to come at Calais. By the time the Nazis realized that the landings in Normandy was the real invasion, there would be no landings at Calais, the Allied soldiers had had the maximum amount of time to offload supplies and to fortify their position before the Nazis could counterattack.
The official story is that the invasion had not been planned for June 6, but for some weeks later when the weather became better. The reason that the Allies were so concerned about weather is that their advantage was overwhelming air superiority. But to make use of this advantage required good weather. Poor weather would thus favor the Nazis.
The decision was made to take advantage of a one-day period of good weather that was coming, in the midst of otherwise poor weather. That is why D-Day was on June 6.
With all due respect to the "Greatest Generation" that fought the war, this explanation is not remotely near believable.
Part of the official story is that the Nazi general in charge of opposing the D-Day landings, Erwin Rommel, was confident that the invasion would not be coming any time soon because "The Allies have always before attacked in good weather". The Nazis could relax. Many of the soldiers were on leave and top Nazi officers involved in the defense against D-Day were off at war games. Rommel himself was back home for his wife's birthday, which happened to be on June 6, and that is when the invasion came unexpectedly.
But let's consider Rommel's supposed observation that "the Allies had always before attacked in good weather". D-Day was to be the first large-scale combat in northern Europe since the tide of the war had turned and the Allies had been on the offensive. All of the combat between the two before that had been in north Africa and the Mediterranean, where sunny days are the rule rather than the exception.
It was clear that the Allies were waiting for summer weather to launch D-Day, so why would they let half the summer be gone by waiting for several more weeks. The autumn weather would be even worse for the side that was trying to use it's air superiority. Around June 6 actually was the ideal time to launch it.
The Nazis, of all people, had demonstrated that, in 1941, by feeling it necessary to invade Yugoslavia and Greece before invading the Soviet Union. They realized the importance of good weather, to make maximum use of their air superiority, but didn't get around to invading the Soviet Union until June 22. This did not leave them enough time ti finish the Soviets before the severe winter set in, presuming that they could have done, that the Nazis were not prepared for, and which gave the Soviets a chance to recover.
The weather around the English Channel is simply unpredictable. The prevailing wind is from the west, stratus clouds come in off the ocean, and you get that light drizzly rain. Waiting for an extended period of nice weather while the summer is going by is just plain folly. The weather can quickly change from sunny to rainy and back to sunny again. Just launch the invasion when summer arrives, and deal with the weather as it comes. The reason that the Mediterranean is more sunny is that the prevailing wind is from the east.
Likewise, the story about the Allies waiting for the full moon and the tides to be right before launching the invasion just does not make sense. The side with air superiority, which in this case was the Allies, would be the ones to benefit from a full moon, so that pilots can see what is on the ground below them at night. An amphibious assault, which D-Day would be, is best done at high tide so that the soldiers will have less beach to cross while under enemy fire. But waiting for weeks until the moon is just right is letting the summer weather go by, knowing that the following autumn weather will generally be worse for the side with air superiority.
Also, the Nazis were well aware that Allied fliers would like a full moon, and that would be when they would most anticipate the attack to come. It would be better for the Allies to just launch D-Day before the full moon, to have more of an element of surprise. Besides the Allies who landed at D-Day would require just as much air support in the following days, when the Nazis would certainly counterattack, as they would during D-Day itself.
D-Day is actually a two-part story. The first part is the successful Allied landing. The second part is the so-called "Breakout". The Nazis brought all of the forces that they could spare to counter the Allied landings. For about six weeks after D-Day, there was a stalemate. The Nazi forces could not drive the invaders back into the sea, but they could stop them from advancing any further. Until the Allies managed to breakout of this stalemate, it was by no means certain that D-Day would be a success.
But after the Allies began to really advance into occupied France, the situation changed dramatically. The Nazis had already been fighting two full-scale wars at once, on the Eastern Front and in Italy, and were in retreat in both, now they had a third frontal war.
The next thing that happened, on July 20, was the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. A plan by many of his own officers to kill him with a bomb had already been in the works, but the attempt was not made until it seemed that, more than ever, the war was lost. That way, whoever took over after the assassination would likely have the support of the majority of the German population. If Hitler had been assassinated but the war still seemed winnable, he might have just been replaced by another of the top Nazis.
But the assassination attempt on Hitler did not succeed.
As it turned out, Rommel had been in on the plot to assassinate Hitler. He had been in hospital after being wounded when his staff car had been shot at by a plane. (Brits, Americans and, Canadians each claim that it was one of their planes that got Rommel and the truth has never been satisfactorily resolved).
The trouble was that Rommel was widely popular in Germany and it would certainly be damaging to morale to have him involved in this plot. Rommel was quietly arrested and, after being assured that his family would not in any way be punished, was given the opportunity to commit suicide. It was announced that he had died as a result from the wounds suffered in his staff car, and only after the war did the truth become known.
But let's consider the Nazi strategy at countering D-Day. If they did successfully repel the invasion, what would happen then? By this time, the Soviet advance from the east against the Nazis was unstoppable. If western Europe could not be liberated by the Allies, how long would it before it was conquered by the Soviets?
Since Rommel wanted to kill Hitler, but the attempt was not made until it became clear that the post-D-Day breakout was successful and the war looked less winnable than ever, that means that Rommel actually had quite a bit to gain by the Allies' success. In fact, maybe never before in history has a general had so much to potentially gain by the success of the enemies that he was opposing.
Rommel was in on the plot to assassinate Hitler, but was not a central figure in it. The plotters planned to make peace with the Allies and had it planned who of their number would be the leader of postwar Germany.
Rommel was actually well-respected by the Allies. As a general, he had an almost uncanny ability to predict what his enemies were likely to do next. The war in eastern north Africa, with Rommel and his Italian allies on one side, and the British and Commonwealth forces on the other side, had been a relatively "civilized" war, if any war can be so-described. They killed each other, of course, but the war, in complete contrast with the Eastern Front, was not unnecessarily barbaric. Rommel was considered by his Allied enemies as not really a Nazi, but simply a loyal soldier following orders.
Could it be that, if the assassination attempt on Hitler had succeeded, Rommel, with the support of the western Allies, would have stepped in as the leader of postwar Germany, making peace with the western Allies and joining with them in the Cold War with the Soviets, that many on both sides felt would likely begin as soon as this war ended which, it turns out, it did?
But first it was necessary to bring about the climate in Germany where the war was no longer winnable, and an alternative to the Nazis would be welcomed. For that, D-Day would have to be succeed and Rommel, more than anyone else, was in a position to make that happen.
Could that be why, when D-Day came, many of Rommel's soldiers were on leave, many of his officers were away attending war games, and Rommel himself was back home for his wife's birthday? It was explained as "The Allies have always before attacked in good weather". So that the Allies had the maximum amount of time to offload supplies and to fortify their positions before the Nazis could get their forces together and counterattack.
Could that be why Rommel kept the bulk of his forces around Calais, even after the Allied landings began in Normandy? How could the fabled "Desert Fox" be so outwitted by the Allies? Could it be that he knew the landings were not going to come at Calais but felt that the best thing for his country was not to repel the Allied landings, but to be rid of Hitler and bring peace to his people, with him as their likely postwar leader?
I am not sure if he knew the landings would be at Normandy, the Allies may or may not have been willing to put that much trust in him. But I think it likely that there was communication between Rommel and the Allies, at some level, and he did what he could to let the landings succeed.
Making a deal with an enemy general is not as out of the ordinary as we might think. General Friedrich Von Paulus, the commander of the Nazis' Sixth Army who eventually surrendered at Stalingrad, actually later became a Communist himself. Then there was the mysterious flight, earlier in the war, of Rudolf Hess, the third-ranking Nazi, to Scotland. To this day, no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for this flight. Then, of course, was the story of Ataturk, which we saw in the section "The Real Story Of Gallipoli".
With the war over and Rommel dead, the few top Allied leaders who knew about whatever communication might have gone on between the two would have no reason to publicize it. Eisenhower would end up successfully campaigning to be U.S. president. Churchill would be voted out as prime minister almost as soon as the war had ended, but would make a successful comeback to another term as prime minister in the 1950s.
Both of these Allied heroes supposedly had thoroughly outwitted the fabled "Desert Fox", General Rommel, and that is why D-Day was a success. But what actually happened is that these two, together with Rommel, had outwitted Hitler. The planned replacement of Hitler with Rommel as the leader of a peaceful postwar Germany never came to be because the assassination attempt on Hitler did not succeed and Rommel was arrested by the Gestapo.
5) THE REAL STORY OF GALLIPOLI
There is something about the Gallipoli campaign of the First World War that just does not make sense, and I would like to have a closer look at it.
Gallipoli is the name of a peninsula near Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire entered World War One on the side of the Central Powers, allied with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The British and French, with Australians and New Zealanders, made an amphibious landing at Gallipoli, in 1915. The ostensible reason was to secure the Dardanelles and the Bosporus Strait so that supplies could be shipped to Russia, which was at war with the Central Powers on their Eastern Front. If the operation went well, of course, it could potentially lead to the Allied capture of the Ottoman capital and force them out of the war.
The operation turned into a stalemate that lasted nearly a year. The Ottomans were unable to dislodge the Allies from their beachhead, but the Ottomans held on to the higher ground and the Allies were unable to capture the entire peninsula. Finally it was decided that it was not possible to secure the area so that ships would be able to safely pass through, and the Allied soldiers were withdrawn. It goes down in history as an Ottoman victory.
One of the most maligned aspects of the First World War against the Ottomans is the so-called Sykes-Picot Agreement. During the war diplomats from Britain and France, Sykes and Picot, got together over a map of the Middle East and divided up Ottoman Empire territory between them. The agreement between the two Allied countries was supposed to be kept secret. Some blame it for being the foundation of so much trouble in the region today, although no one seems to have come up with what would have been a better plan.
But here is what is interesting and puzzling. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was drawn up in the closing days of the Gallipoli Campaign, before the Allied soldiers were withdrawn. It was formally signed by the two countries soon after the campaign was over.
So here are the questions that we are dealing with today.
1) Why would the British and French begin drafting an agreement to divide up Ottoman territory after the war at a time when it was becoming more apparent every day that a major military campaign against the Ottomans was not going to achieve it's objective?
2) Why would the British and French governments put their final signatures on an agreement to divide up Ottoman territory between them after they had apparently just suffered a serious defeat at the hands of the Ottomans? Before dividing up their territory, isn't it necessary to win the war first?
But there are also so many other questions about this Gallipoli Campaign.
What about the supposed objective of the campaign, to secure the waterway through Turkey, into the Black Sea, in order to deliver supplies to ally Russia?
This appears to have been absurd, unless Turkey changed sides and joined the Allies. Even if the Dardanelles and Bosporus Strait had been secured, Allied ships passing through would be extremely vulnerable to mines and shots from hidden artillery on shore. The Allied supply ships would have also been vulnerable to warships and submarines that the Central Powers could have deployed in the Black Sea, in order to cut the supply line.
Why would such a supply line through hostile Ottoman territory have even been necessary? The Allies sent supplies to the Soviet Union during the Second World War by three routes, and this was not one of them, even though Turkey was a neutral country by this time. One route was by ship convoys from Britain around the coast of Norway, the second route was a land route to Russia across Iran, the third supply route was by ship from the U.S. to Vladivostok in the Russian Far East.
Any of those routes of supply to Russia could have been used in the First World War, making it difficult to understand why the Gallipoli Campaign was even necessary. Japan could potentially hinder the sea route to Vladivostok, but it was on the Allied side in the First World War.
Another question about the Gallipoli Campaign itself is why, if the landing had turned into a stalemate, not just abandon the beachhead land somewhere else that was not as well defended. At D-Day, in the Second World War, the Allies actually landed at five separate beaches. The landing at Omaha Beach was running into especially difficult opposition, and there was discussion of just abandoning that beach and concentrating U.S. forces on Utah Beach, where there was less opposition.
By the time the First World War began, the Ottoman Empire was over five hundred years old. It had been one of the greatest empires that the world had ever seen, but was now in it's twilight days. Some even referred to the Ottoman Empire as "The sick man of Europe". In the Nineteenth Century, the Ottoman leadership had nearly been overthrown by one of it's own generals, the founder of the Pasha Dynasty in Egypt, but had been saved with Allied assistance.
Also in the Nineteenth Century, there had been a great and successful series of reforms across the empire, known as the Tanzimat. The Ottoman Empire had been relatively liberal and there had been many French-run missionary schools within it.
In 1908, a movement known as the "Young Turks" had deposed the ruling sultan and restored rule by the constitution that he had suspended. In 1913, the year before the war began, there was a coup in which three military leaders rose to power. These would become known to history as the "Three Pashas", and would guide the empire through the war. A primary reason for siding with the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary, in the war was that Britain and France had been taking Ottoman territories as the empire declined.
We saw in our visit to "Algiers" how, during an argument, the ruling Ottoman dey had struck the French consul with a flyswatter. The French considered it as an act of war and took over the country.
Being on the losing side in the First World War marked the end of the Ottoman Empire. The leader that emerged, Mustafa Kemal, became known as Ataturk. He successfully undertook one of the most far-reaching national reform programs that the world has ever seen.
Turkey gave up the Ottoman Empire and became a republic. The modern country was secular and progressive. The Islamic religion was left in the mosques. Education was coed and emphasized science and technology. The country adopted western-style laws, and there were several women among the members of parliament. Turks began wearing western clothes. Ataturk himself was sometimes seen in a top hat, and sometimes in a panama hat.
But the two most prominent of Ataturk's reforms was the abolition of the caliphate, which had been based in the Ottoman Empire and was widely accepted as the leader of all Moslems, and the use of the Latin script for Turkish writing, in place of the Arabic script.
The reforms of Ataturk must be considered as so revolutionary as to be even greater in scope than those of the French Revolution, which opened the modern political era in the world. But, unlike much of the French Revolution, the reform program of Ataturk was a success.
While it is true that the Middle East has not really settled into a new equilibrium following the end of the Ottoman Empire, it is also true that the great reforms of Ataturk have had far-reaching effects on other countries. Reza Shah, the founder of Iran's Pahlavi Dynasty and father of the shah that was overthrown in 1979, was a friend of Ataturk and undertook modernizing reforms in his own country. But they ultimately ended in his son being overthrown in the 1979 revolution.
THE REAL STORY OF GALLIPOLI
But what I just could not help wondering about is the connection between Gallipoli and the later rise of Ataturk, and how much the British and French who had lost at Gallipoli had just gained so much from all of this. They partitioned the vast territories of the former Ottoman Empire after Ataturk had come to power in Turkey itself, but had drafted the agreement to divide those territories while apparently losing at Gallipoli.
Could there be more to the Gallipoli Campaign than we have been told?
A British company had found oil in the Middle East, in Iran in 1908. This resulted in the formation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which later took a share in a company that tried to find oil in the Ottoman Empire. The British Government seemed to realize how important oil was going to be and put considerable resources into the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
When the boundaries were drawn after the war, and the end of the Ottoman Empire as first approached in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Turkey itself was left without any significant oil. An observer once commented that "Turkey begins where the oil ends".
Doesn't it look like the British authorities, who seemed to have been the first to realize how important the oil in the Middle East was going to be, wanted the Iranians to see their Turkish neighbors enjoying the great prosperity brought about by Ataturk's reforms, but without any oil, so that they would be more willing to just let the British handle the oil? Turkey would be a model for all countries in the region to become modern and western, but without any oil.
This touchiness about the oil in Iran explains the 1953 coup that the British and the CIA engineered when newly-elected Mossadegh announced nationalization of the oil industry.
What about Ataturk? He ended up as such a shining star amid the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, as one of the most important figures of the century. There are streets and other places across the world named for Ataturk.
Ataturk had been an Ottoman general in the war. In fact, he had been the Ottoman general who had successfully opposed the Allied landing at Gallipoli. It amazed people that he seemed to have anticipated where the Allies would attack.
Before the war, Ataturk had been in favor of reform in the Ottoman Empire. He had been a prominent figure in the "Young Turks" movement of 1908, which deposed the sultan of the empire and restored constitutional rule.
After the "Young Turks" movement, but before the beginning of the First World War, Ataturk had visited France, where he observed the military maneuvers at Picardie. During the war, he visited the German side of the Western Front, and was very open with his opinion that the Germans would lose.
The battle at Gallipoli, unlike the other Allied military campaigns against the Ottomans, was not fought out in the desert. It was close to home where the Turkish people could witness their great hero in action.
After the defeat in the war, Ataturk resigned from the Ottoman Army and began his reforms. He was actually sentenced to death by the remaining Ottomans but he defeated them and brought the empire to an end. The Allies sent occupation forces into Turkey, in particular into the capital of Istanbul. These were forced to leave by Ataturk, but without serious combat.
So, what conclusion does all of this bring us to?
Before the First World War began, the British had discovered oil in Iran. They realized how valuable it was going to be. They were not thinking primarily of private cars, but of what a great improvement it would be to have the ships of it's navy running on oil, rather than coal. They also realized that there was a lot of oil in Ottoman territories, in what is now Iraq. British, French and, German archeologists had long been working in the region and, after this division of the former Ottoman Empire, the ruins of the great ancient city of Ur would be discovered in former Ottoman territory.
The Allies had met Ataturk before the war, when he visited France. They knew that he was a reformer, having had a prominent role with the Young Turks. They knew of his military abilities, having been in an Ottoman war with Italy over Libya. They later likely found out about his openly negative opinion of the German war effort.
Next, Ataturk was at Gallipoli to defend it against an Allied landing.
What if the Allies could give Ataturk a great political boost, to propel him to leadership of the defeated Ottoman Empire after the war? Victory over the Allies at Gallipoli would certainly provide such a boost, leaving him as a national hero. He would get a further boost by driving away the Allied occupation force, this time without any serious combat.
This does not necessarily mean that the Gallipoli campaign started with this intent. It could have emerged as a "Plan B" later on, after some kind of communication with Ataturk.
History is very important in this part of the world. Gallipoli had actually been the site of a hostile landing at the time of the Crusades. The Fourth Crusade, in 1203, had landed at Gallipoli and what is now Istanbul and restored control of the area to the Catholic Church, which lasted for over 50 years. Repelling this landing would evoke Ottoman history as well as that of Byzantium before it, and make Ataturk into a modern version of Saladin, the Moslem leader who had defeated the Crusaders.
After the war Ataturk repelling the Allied occupation force, particularly at Istanbul, would evoke historical memories of the Ottomans conquering Constantinople ( now Istanbul ) in 1453.
Italy had been on the Allied side in the First World War, and inviting an Italian contingent to the temporary occupation of Istanbul after the war would further evoke historical memories of the pope sending Crusaders to conquer Moslem lands, until they were driven out by great heroes like Saladin and Ataturk. There had also been contingents from Venice and Genoa among the defenders of Constantinople, trying to resist the Ottoman conquest in 1453.
Who but Ataturk could possibly be considered to lead Turkey after the end of the war?
In return Ataturk would give up the Ottoman Empire, outside of Turkey itself, and would concentrate on his reforms that would make Turkey a prosperous western nation and one of the Allies. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why the British and French mysteriously began drafting the Sykes-Picot Agreement even though they were losing at Gallipoli, and formally signed it soon after being defeated at Gallipoli, with the Allies deciding to withdraw.
Some have wondered why the Arabian Peninsula was not included in the Sykes-Picot agreement. The answer is simple. Oil had not yet been discovered there. It would not be discovered in Saudi Arabia until 1938. That was why the British colonial authorities at the time didn't care too much about it, except for it's strategic location.
The British discovered and knew that there was a lot of oil in the eastern areas of the Middle East, Iraq and Iran. They gladly let the French have the western areas of the Middle East, where there was no oil. France cared about the glory and prestige of having ancient cities like Damascus and Aleppo in it's empire, and about Ataturk carrying on the banner of the French Revolution by ending the caliphate and making modern Turkey a secular republic. Britain cared about the oil. Italy, another of the Allies in the war, could have Libya, where oil had not yet been discovered, as it's share of former Ottoman territory.
How else can we explain why a British and a French diplomat would get together to divide up Ottoman territories between them toward the end of an important military campaign against the Ottomans that they were apparently losing? The governments of the two countries would then formally sign the agreement just after the campaign had been lost. The lost campaign gives a great political boost to the victorious Ottoman general, who emerges as the post-war leader of the Ottomans, and gives up the empire in a way that is greatly beneficial to his British and French former adversaries. He publicly praises the Allied soldiers who died while opposing him at Gallipoli.
It does not make any sense unless there is more to Gallipoli than we have been told.
6) THE WORLD OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
Conspiracy theories often revolve around secret societies and centers of power. But the most successful of these can be the ones that you do not notice how much influence they really have.
The London School of Economics was founded toward the end of the Nineteenth Century by a socialist organization, known as the Fabian Society. Among it's founders was George Bernard Shaw. If Baby Boomers in the U.S. have any familiarity with the London School of Economics, it may be because Mick Jagger attended there.
The London School of Economics is one of those colleges that does not have a recognizable campus. It mostly took over existing buildings. But it's logo is in many places to be seen in central London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics#/media/File:London_school_of_economics_logo_with_name.svg
The London School of Economics is neither as old or as well-known as universities like Oxford and Cambridge. But several things stand out about it.
The first thing that stands out about it is it's curriculum. Most universities have a course of study that they specialize in, even if it is far from all that is taught there. Imperial College has an emphasis on technology. At Cambridge it is mathematics, traditionally anyone who goes through Cambridge is a mathematician. At Oxford, it was languages and classic literature.
For such a large school, the London School of Economics has a very narrow focus. As the name implies, it was founded to teach economics and politics. It is not known for athletics. Nor for medicine or literature or music or science or technology. It certainly isn't a "party school". It is not one of the schools with a broad curriculum for those who really do not know what they want to do.
But what the London School of Economics teaches is the things that really count in running the world, which are economics and politics.
The second thing that stands out about the London School of Economics is it's location. It is right in the center of London, right "in the middle of everything". One one side of the college, to the east, is the financial district. This is the area known as "The Square Mile". Near the school is the massive stone building of the Bank of England, affectionately known as "The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street".
Just to the west of the London School of Economics is the government area, known as Westminster. This is where the parliament is located, along with the residence of the prime minister at 10 Downing Street, and all of the government ministries at Whitehall. Just beyond that is Buckingham Palace.
Just south of the London School of Economics is the Temple area. This is Britain's legal center. It's highest court and the four "Inns of Court", to one of which all barristers must belong, are located there.
We can only imagine how much it must have cost to purchase the buildings in which the London School of Economics is housed. This is an area of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, both now and when the college was founded. There were a thousand other places where it could have been located, why did it have to be located here?
The third thing that stands out about the London School of Economics is the students. It educates a higher proportion of foreign students than just about any other university in the world. At any given time, around half of the students are non-British.
Now, let's add those things up and see what we get.
The reason for the narrow focus on economics and politics is that this is what counts in actually running the world. I have never heard of such a large university anywhere else that has such a narrow focus. The name of the school tells what it is about. It is not medicine or literature, or anything else like that, which actually runs the world. It is economics and politics, and as many people as possible who run the world would learn their economics and politics here.
This explains it's location, "right in the middle of everything in London". Students would not only learn how to run the world from the university, they would be within walking distance of Britain's economic center, it's legal center and, it's government center.
The Fabian Society promoted the ideals of socialism, the slant of economics that was halfway between pure communism on one side and raw capitalism on the other. It sought to bring about peaceful change, through effective democratic government, in the world, rather than violent revolution.
The way that socialism would be taught to the world was by presenting economics as a broad spectrum, with moderate socialism as the happy median. The late Nineteenth Century was a time of robber baron capitalism on one side, and proto-communist movements like the Paris Commune on the other, and the hope was for the best of both with the worst of neither.
Having gone to school "right next door" to Westminster and the financial district for several years, graduates of the London School of Economics would be the natural choices to move into to the finance, law and, government of Britain, and run the country the way that they had been taught.
Then when new students came to the university, they would not just study in textbooks how the world is run, they would actually see it being done all around them. This would not be possible if the London School of Economics was built somewhere else in the city, where real estate might have been much less expensive, certainly not in remote locations like Oxford and Cambridge.
Now we see why there is such an emphasis on foreign students. The idea was for those who would be running the world to come to Britain to learn how to do it, and then return home. This idea was a logical continuation of mission schools in many countries and also the use of the British Museum Reading Room by many students and exiles from around the world, who would someday return home and run their countries.
The influence that the London School of Economics has had on how the world is run is phenomenal. There is a Wikipedia article, "List of People Associated With The London School Of Economics".
Did you know, just for a few examples, that Lee Kuan Yew, the famed founder and prime minister of Singapore, Pierre Trudeau, the popular liberal Canadian prime minister and father of the present prime minister, the president of Colombia and, the president of Taiwan were all educated at the London School of Economics?
So many British politicians learned how to run the country there that it is impossible to count. British prime ministers tend to graduate from higher-profile schools, particularly Oxford, but below that level far more have learned here. The school educates a large proportion of the world's economists, as it is by far the most prominent school in the world with "economics" in it's name. These economists are not highly-visible politicians, but manage the "nuts and bolts" of the global economy.
Do Americans know that both Janet Yellen and Paul Volcker, past and present Chairs of the Federal Reserve Bank which sets interest rates and has far more control over the U.S. economy than any other institution, learned at the London School of Economics? Among many other influential people, several of the Kennedy family were educated there.
David Rockefeller, who made Chase Bank (now J.P. Morgan Chase) into the largest bank in the world that it is today, was educated at the London School of Economics. It has educated more billionaires than any other school in Europe, and a significant proportion of the top financial people in the world.
Just look over the Wikipedia article, "List of People Associated With The London School of Economics", if you wish. The influence that this school has on how the world is actually run is incredible, and that was what the school was planned for.
Many people around the world who learn economics and politics are what we could call "second-generation" graduates of the school, not having attended themselves but taught or influenced by those who did attend there. As one example, the current prime minister of Canada did not study at this university, but his father and predecessor did, and how much of his concepts of running the country might he have learned from his father?
Since world Communism began with the October Revolution of 1917, both left and right have moved, on the average, toward the center. This is what the Fabian Society, the founders of the London School of Economics, wanted. How much of this is the result of the influence of graduates of the school?
The main business of London has turned out to be finance. More money flows through London's financial district than anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Hong Kong. This could not have been seen when the school was founded near the end of the Nineteenth Century. How much of this is due to the influence of the school "right next door"?
Going by the Wikipedia list of prominent people that have attended the London School of Economics, it is clear that the countries that send students are more likely to be democracies. It is true that countries are more likely to send students there if they are democracies, but the reverse is also true. These countries are more likely to be democracies if they have had students at the school. It is very clear that the countries without many graduates of the school tend to have "non-western" economic systems. It is largely this school that has defined modern economics.
What about the legal influence of the Fabian Society and the school that it founded? The great difference between a country that is a democracy and one that is not is in the laws of that country. Democracies tend to have laws that are clear and well-defined. Laws that can be subjective and "open to interpretation" invite dictatorship. For example, a country with a vague law against "threatening the social order" will almost certainly become a dictatorship because the subjective law can essentially be used by the ruling powers to throw anyone in jail who opposes their authority. This was a primary goal of the Fabian Society, progress by democracy and not by violent revolution.
Being next to London's Temple area let's students see firsthand how Britain's legal system works.
The Fabian Society was also what we could call "imperialistic". It's members believed that what the world really needed was the British way of doing things. As the end of the Nineteenth Century neared, visionaries could certainly see that the imperial era would some day come to a close. Even if all British people wanted their country to rule a vast empire, which was far from the case, the empire would someday grow beyond Britain's control.
But the Fabian Society had an idea. It was not a secret society that controlled things from behind the scenes. The course of action that they took was done very openly, even if it wasn't announced. Put simply, if Britain couldn't actually rule the world it would do the next best thing. It would educate the people who were running the world. The vehicle through which that would be accomplished was the London School of Economics.
The world, in the minds of the school's founders, would be largely British without Britain having the burden of actually ruling it. The school couldn't be all foreign students because British students of Economics and politics had to learn the correct way to run the world as well, and the foreign students had to have British classmates to interact with. Support and money to do all of this must have come from beyond the limited membership of the Fabian Society.
But the thing that is so striking about all of this is that one of the world's great universities, which has had such a great influence on how the world is run, keeps such a low profile.
It seems that part of it's plan to shape the world is not to draw attention to the influence that it has. The London School of Economics has educated no less than 52 heads of state, such as presidents and prime ministers in little more than a hundred years, but does not have a readily visible campus. Unlike a university that "looks like a university", most of what can be seen of it in central London is limited to it's logo.
I do not know of any well-known societies or movements in it's name, such as the Oxford Movement or the Yale Society, that other great universities seem to have in abundance.
Students of other prominent universities are usually proud to be wearing the school's colors around town. The "U of T", for one example, is to be seen everywhere in Toronto. Maybe there are students wearing the colors or logo of the London School of Economics, but I cannot recall seeing any. Nor is there a great arena or sports stadium in it's name.
Doesn't it look like the London School of Economics, founded by the not-secret but not very well-known Fabian Society, really doesn't want the general public to stop and think about what an influence it has on the way the world is run?
The Fabian Society does not seek to exert control over the world by recruiting prominent people. Rather, it founded a university that would educate those prominent people in it's way of thinking.
It does not seek to actually control at all, but only to guide the world in the right direction. It seeks the good of everyone. If the teachings of the London School of Economics, or the philosophy of it's founders, does not seem different from the way everybody else thinks, that is because it has succeeded so well in getting the world to see things it's way.
But it is ironic that the logo of the Fabian Society is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hopefully, this makes London more interesting.
7) NIAGARA FALLS AND THE MOON LANDINGS
In 1969 the American Falls, which are one of the two main falls at Niagara, were shut off by the construction of a temporary dam. This was possible because actually less than ten percent of the water flows over the American Falls because it's base is higher in elevation than that of the Horseshoe Falls. The purpose was announced as the testing of the rock strata to possibly prevent erosion of the cliff over which the water falls. There had been major rock falls the decade before, leaving a large amount of rock at the base of the falls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Falls#/media/File:American_Falls_Niagara_Falls_USA_from_Skylon_Tower_on_2002-05-28_crop.png
https://nfpl.historicniagara.ca/s/images/item/90264
There are numerous photos and videos of the nearly dry falls online. Just do a search for "Dry Niagara Falls 1969" or "dewatered Niagara Falls 1969" if you want to see more.
Remaining traces of the dam between Goat Island and the mainland, can be seen in the satellite imagery as it disturbs the water rushing over it toward the falls. It took well over a thousand truckloads of rock and soil, dumped into the river, to build the dam.
This put Niagara Falls in the news across the world. It was my first summer in America and the area around the falls were very crowded with people wanting to see the dry riverbed and the falls up close. Many people came from the Toronto area to see it.
The Canadian side usually has the natural advantage in viewing the falls because most of the falls can be seen directly from there. The spectacle of turning off the falls made viewing from the U.S. side more popular, but harmed the tourist season overall because there was not much to be seen from the Canadian side but the bare wall of the gorge.
But why couldn't this have been done in the off-season? There was enough time between the end of the tourist season and the beginning of winter to accomplish whatever had to be done. Why tamper with the falls at all? The erosion of the base of the falls is part of the natural process, and the falls has worked it's way from it's beginning at the Niagara Escarpment at Lewiston-Queenston, at the end of the last ice age, to where it is now, by the natural process of the rushing water eroding the cliff face.
The geologists drilled holes in the riverbed, and tested the permeability of the rock layers with dye. After all of the testing was done, the decision was made that the best thing to do was to just leave the falls alone.
That is because, despite the announced purpose, this was never about the falls to begin with.
This was in no way a local idea, it originated with the U.S. Congress. The plan to shut off Niagara Falls was organized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the dam was built by a local construction company.
The shutting off of Niagara Falls in 1969 was actually an international power play by the new Richard Nixon administration. The falls were just the stage on which this play was acted out. The dam was built in the days leading up to the first attempt to land astronauts on the moon, Apollo 11. The dry riverbed was a terrestrial reflection of the surface of the moon, in this era of Cold War posturing and propaganda, for all of the tourists who came to Niagara to see what America could do.
Shortly after humans had walked on the hitherto inaccessible surface of the moon for the first time, a ladder down to a walkway was constructed so that visitors could walk on the hitherto inaccessible riverbed for the first time. They naturally waited to make sure that the moon mission would be a success first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#/media/File:Apollo_11_first_step.jpg
Just as tourists being able to walk on the dry riverbed of Niagara evoked the astronauts walking on the moon a few days before, the geologists examining the rock of the riverbed evoked the astronauts examining the rocks of the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#/media/File:Aldrin_with_experiment.jpg
Apollo 11 landed on the moon on July 20, 1969,. In November of that year, astronauts landed on the moon again, in Apollo 12. This mission was also a great success. One surprise about the moon was the variation in it's surface gravity from one place to another. Because of this, Apollo 11 actually missed it's intended landing site by several km.
This was corrected in Apollo 12. More than two years before a robot spacecraft had been landed on the moon, Surveyor 3. In an amazing feat of precision, Apollo 12 landed right next to Surveyor, removed it's camera, and brought it back to earth. The following photo is of one of the astronauts at the Surveyor craft, with their lunar module in the background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12#/media/File:Surveyor_3-Apollo_12.jpg
This was also reflected at Niagara Falls. Just as humans had their first opportunity to walk on the riverbed of Niagara just after America's astronauts had first walked on the moon, the water of Niagara was turned back on by the removal of the dam immediately after the ensuing Apollo 12 had returned from it's successful mission by splashing down in the Pacific Ocean.
The shutting off of the falls lasted from the time of Apollo 11 to the time of Apollo 12. The turning back on of the falls was also a major news event. Not only could we land men on the moon, and get them safely back, we could also turn the falls off and back on again.
Despite the expense of the project, nothing was done to change anything about the falls. That is because it was never about the falls in the first place. I think that this history makes Niagara Falls, NY more interesting.
What actually happened is that Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was incessantly critical of the conduct of America's Vietnam War. He even came to Niagara Falls to personally welcome American draft dodgers to refuge in Canada. The new U.S. administration of Richard Nixon didn't appreciate the criticism.
When the police located his car, outside his apartment building, they noticed a rifle in the car. If a serial killer, the subject of probably the largest manhunt in history, really didn't want to get caught then would he not only give away these clues of where he lived and worked, but also leave a rifle visible in his car? The killings were done with a handgun and not with a rifle.
The Son of Sam made no effort to escape from the police, quickly confessed to the crimes, and pleaded guilty.
The subject of a possible satanic cult sacrificial killings later arose, of which David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam. had been a member but not the only one who committed the killings. It was pointed out that some of the police sketches of suspects in the early killings did not look like him.
The two sons of Sam Carr, Michael and John who both died under mysterious circumstances after all of this was over, were supposedly involved. There is a park and public garden 2 km from where the Son of Sam lived that was known as a gathering place for satanists in the 1970s but, in prison interviews, he did take full responsibility for the killings.
2) THE REAL STORY OF OSIRAK
On June 7, 1981, the Israeli Air Force launched a surprise long-range mission which bombed and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Iraq had originally purchased the reactor technology from France. The purported reason for the raid was to prevent Iraq from gaining a nuclear weapon which could well be used against Israel.
The raid was condemned across the world. Even Iran, which was at war with Iraq, condemned the raid. But much of the condemnation seemed to be somewhat half-hearted. While one nation should not be allowed to launch an air raid against another, much of the world also felt that it would be a more dangerous place if Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Iran, in the course of the ongoing war with Iraq, had earlier bombed the reactor itself, in what was known as Operation Scorch Sword. But the reactor had not been seriously damaged in that raid. The first thing that is confusing about it is that there is information online that Iran actually supplied Israel with aerial photo reconnaissance of the site, yet Iran condemned the raid when it was bombed.
My conclusion is that the Israeli bombing mission was really directed at Iran.
The Iran Hostage Crisis, where Americans from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had been held for 444 days, had recently ended with the hostages being released. On April 24, 1980, a rescue attempt had been made to free the hostages. The mission was aborted when it was decided that there were not enough serviceable helicopters left to ensure a successful mission. The tragic accident occurred after the mission had been aborted when the rotor blade of a helicopter struck an aircraft.
Two months before the Israeli air attack on Osirak, Iran had undertaken an extremely complex aerial mission against Iraq. On the far side of Iraq, near the border with Jordan and Syria, was a complex of airfields known as H3 to guard Iraq's western border area. A large number of military aircraft were parked there, some seemingly recently imported, out of the reach of the Iranian Air Force which would like to destroy the planes on the ground.
A fleet of Iranian planes flew all the way there on a very long-range mission. The planes had to refuel in the air several times. They flew at low altitude, to avoid radar detection, right along the borders between Turkey and Iraq, and between Syria and Iraq. That way, if they were picked up on radar, each country would conclude that they were just patrolling the border of the other country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-3_airstrike#/media/File:Operation_H3_map.png
Syria was supportive of Iran during the war and we have to wonder if the government of Syria was aware of the mission. Since H3 is not far from the border between Iraq and Syria, did it even inform Iran about the planes?
Two Boeing 747 planes were involved in the Iranian mission. One was an aerial command post and the other was a refueling plane. Both of these took off from Turkey, which was unaware of their mission, and joined the other planes. At the time of the operation, another Iranian air operation was launched elsewhere, to divert the attention of the Iraqi Air Force.
The mission was a great success and, as far as I can see, the Iranians suffered no losses and made it back home with no mishaps. They claimed to have destroyed 48 Iraqi planes on the ground. The Iraqis scoffed at the claims and said that only one plane was damaged in the raid. The data gained by the U.S. is that the raid was a success, but it was likely somewhat fewer than 48 Iraqi planes that were destroyed.
This complex Iranian mission was virtually a mirror image of the U.S. attempt to rescue it's hostages the year before. Except that the mission was to destroy planes rather than rescue hostages. The mission was, as much as anything, a jab at the United States. Iran wanted to show that it could pull off perfectly a mission that was just about as complex as the one that the U.S. attempted, Operation Eagle Claw.
But the successful Iranian bombing mission came uncomfortably close to Israel. The planes had flown a very long distance to get there, and the H3 complex was within 375 km (250 miles) of Jerusalem. It was closer to Jerusalem than it was to Baghdad. Israel was closely watching the Iran-Iraq War just as it is watching the war in Syria now.
Could this be what really prompted the Israeli bombing mission against Osirak? To remind Iran of Israel's capabilities in destroying a reactor that a similar Iranian raid had failed to destroy?
Israel surely knew that the world would condemn the raid. France was actively involved in operating the reactor that it had sold to Iraq and had assured Israel that it could not produce a nuclear weapon. But Israel thought it imperative to launch the raid anyway. Israel seemed to see that the Iranian raid on H3 was to show up America, so Israel followed the same formula and showed up Iran by a long-distance air mission that succeeded in destroying the reactor that an Iranian mission had been unable to.
But then this brings us to something else. Exactly three weeks after the Israeli bombing of Osirak, a massive bomb exploded during a meeting of Iran's ruling party. 73 of the most important people in the government were killed. The event is known as the Hafte Tir Bombing. It is really a credit to Iran's Revolution that it survived this.
My understanding is that a sound technician was setting up speakers. The speakers were brought in on a cart, and the bomb was hidden in the cart.
The blame fell on the organization known as the Mujahedin e Khalq. The organization, advocating a kind of blend of Islam and Marxist principles, had long been opposed to the Shah of Iran. They sided with Ayatollah Khomeini, and helped him overthrow the Shah, but the alliance didn't last long, and they had been vigorously opposing the Revolution, eventually siding with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.
But there is a persistent story that the Mossad, Israel's intelligence service encouraged the bombing, and possibly supplied the bomb.
I do not really believe that Israel had anything to do with the bombing. But here is what I do believe.
In early 2018 Mossad agents broke into a warehouse in Tehran. They removed a vast archive of documentation about Iran's nuclear program. Benjamin Netanyahu went on television to denounce Iran for lying in claiming that it was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
But that was not what it was really about.
The real message was, going back to 1981, to show Iran up again. The operation to get those nuclear records is reminiscent of the U.S. attempt to get in, get it's people being held hostage, and get safely out. It was also reminiscent of the Israeli hostage rescue mission at Entebbe in 1976.
The message to Iran was to be very careful because Israeli agents can operate in Iran without getting caught. Also, whether or not Israel had anything to do with it, don't forget the Hafte Tir Bombing, which wiped out much of the Iranian Government, because it could happen again.
3) THE MYSTERY OF USTICA
On June 27, 1980, an Italian passenger jet crashed into the sea north of Sicily, near the island of Ustica, killing all 81 passengers and crew on board.
The news reports were that there had been some kind of encounter between NATO aircraft and a Libyan jet, and that the passenger plane may have been shot down in the crossfire. The plane had been late in taking off from Bologna, on it's way to Palermo, and it was after nightfall. After the plane disappeared from radar, two Italian Air Force jets were sent to investigate and look for possible wreckage.
I remember when this happened and it caught my attention because I had just finished a semester of school and was to fly to Europe myself in a few weeks.
Libya had been confronting foreign warplanes that flew near it's coast. But this incident took place more than 500 miles, about 750 km, from Libya, far to the north of Sicily, and stories began to emerge that something far more mysterious had actually taken place.
As a brief background, Flight 870 was lost at a time when the Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution, and the accompanying Hostage Crisis, was going on. Two months before the disappearance of the flight the U.S. attempt to rescue it's hostages in Iran, Operation Eagle Claw, had ended in failure.
Libya, across the Mediterranean from Italy, was led by Moammar Gaddafi, who had come to power eleven years before by overthrowing the king of the former Italian colony. Gaddafi was, of course, a Moslem, but was more along the lines of Saddam Hussein than of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. Gaddafi was in the process of turning Libya into a socialist society. His philosophy of mixing Islam and socialism was detailed in his "Green Book", which had seemingly been inspired by Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book".
Gaddafi was a close ally of the Soviet Union and, considering that the Soviets had invaded the Moslem country of Afghanistan a few months previously, before anyone in Europe knew it there might be Soviet bases just across the Mediterranean.
But Libyan socialism was not a grassroots movement, as socialist movements typically are. It was being imposed from the top down, and at that top was Gaddafi. Wouldn't the west be safer if Gaddafi could be eliminated? As it turns out, he would be at a meeting in Europe in late June, after which he would be flying back home in his Soviet-made Tupolev.
Assassination while flying was not unusual at all. It was no secret that the Israeli Air Force was hoping to track Yasir Arafat to a flight in a private plane. U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold had been killed in a mysterious plane crash, after allegedly upsetting powerful interests while trying to bring peace in the Congo. Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, died in a plane crash that many had suspicions about. Mohammad Khatami, former chief of the Iranian Air Force, died in another suspicious crash. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama, died mysteriously in a plane crash a year after the Ustica crash. Later, of course, there was the death of Pakistani president Muhammad Zia ul Haq.
Neither was intervention in other countries to preclude Communism unusual at the time. Probably the most familiar example is the CIA-supported coup against the Communist government of Salvador Allende that had come to power in Chile.
NATO jets could shoot down Gaddafi's plane with a missile. Since they knew that it would be escorted by a Libyan Air Force jet, and that Libya had been confronting foreign military planes that flew near it's coast, they could say that the Libyan jet had fired first, at NATO jets on a routine patrol or training exercise, and that Gaddafi's plane had been shot down in the crossfire.
The story quickly emerged that the loss of Flight 870 was actually an attempt to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi, by shooting down his plane, that had gone horribly wrong. Gaddafi himself must have suspected such a plot which is why a Libyan jet flew across the Mediterranean to escort his plane home. Radio silence must have been in effect and the Libyan pilot mistook the late-flying passenger jet for Gaddafi's plane, and flew along with it. That then prompted the NATO jets that were going to shoot down Gaddafi's plane to mistake the passenger jet for it.
Flight 870 was shot down by a missile. No trace of the Libyan jet was found and it was presumed that it crashed into the Tyrrhenian Sea. It would have had to cross Sicily to get back home, where it would have been detected. It didn't take long to find out that it was the passenger jet that had been shot down, not Gaddafi's plane, and a planeload of innocent people had been killed.
Considering the background of the times that we saw above, releasing the facts about the tragedy, that jets from one NATO member had shot down a passenger jet of an allied nation, would risk fracturing NATO, and possibly the European Union, at a critical time in the confrontation with both Communism and the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Since the disastrous assassination attempt had taken place well within Italian airspace, permission must have been given by Italy although it does not seem that Italian planes were involved. This would, if it became known, certainly drive Libya into the Communist orbit if it wasn't already there.
The tape of the radar activity, which would have shown what actually happened, was found to have been somehow erased. A number of air traffic controllers that were on duty at the time are reputed to have mysteriously died. Most of the plane was eventually recovered from the seafloor.
Francesco Cossiga, Italian Prime Minister at the time, blamed a French Navy jet for shooting down the plane. Many people, including four Italian generals, were tried for obstructing justice in the investigation of the crash, but none actually convicted.
It is not beyond possibility that some kind of technical failure caused the plane to crash, as with the Air France jet flying from Brazil in 2009, but air traffic controllers were in contact with the crew right up until the plane disappeared from radar. Everything was fine, the pilots expressed surprise at something, and then the plane vanished from radar. But the recovered black box of the plane apparently showed nothing that would indicate structural or mechanical failure.
Italians themselves refer to it as the "Ustica Massacre", meaning that it was no accident.
There is also a bomb theory, that the plane was destroyed by a bomb that was planted on it, and not by a missile from outside. This crash did take place during northern Italy's "Years of Lead" when there was political violence, including bombings, from both the right and the left. A British expert on terrorism involving planes, Frank Taylor, insisted that the plane was brought down by a bomb that exploded in a rear lavatory, even exploding a bomb in a retired DC-9 to display the results in comparison to those recovered from the wreckage.
But the bomb theory quickly became a minority opinion. Neither side during the "Years of Lead" ever targeted planes. The most likely place to conceal a bomb on plane is in the luggage, either overhead or the baggage compartment, certainly not in a lavatory. No one claimed responsibility for any such bombing of the plane.
Further investigation, after most of the pieces of the plane were recovered, focused on a missing piece of the fuselage just above the starboard engine. This area of the fuselage seemed to have disintegrated when an explosion took place just outside the plane. A heat-seeking missile would home in on the plane's engine, and then explode when it reached the source of heat, the starboard engine. The lavatory, where some believe a bomb to have exploded that brought the plane down, is on the inside of this section.
(Note-The Malaysian passenger jet that was shot down over Ukraine in 2014 was targeted by a radar-guided missile that exploded just outside the plane).
This is the starboard side of plane that crashed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870#/media/File:Itavia_DC-9_I-TIGI.jpg
The plane was heading south, toward Palermo, when this happened. That means that it's starboard side would have been facing west. This is the direction from where we would expect NATO jets to come from if they were going to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi by air, not from the other direction which would be closer to Italy from where it would have more chance of being witnessed.
There was a nearly full moon on the night of the disaster but the moon rises in the east, and the moon would have been in the eastern sky when it took place. If the NATO jets came from the west, the bright moonlight would have had the effect of blinding the NATO pilots to the name of the airline on the late-flying passenger jet, leading them to mistake it for Gaddafi's plane especially since it was being escorted by the Libyan jet.
The following month, July 1980, the wreckage of a Libyan military jet was found in a remote area of southern Italy. There had indeed been a Libyan jet but it had not crashed into the sea. Not much information was released about the crashed jet, except that the body of the pilot was still in the cockpit and that it may have crashed because it ran out of fuel.
But if evidence had been found that this Libyan jet had shot down the passenger jet, or had initiated action that caused the passenger jet to be shot down or to crash, there certainly would have been retaliatory action against Libya, as there was in 1986 in the bombing of Tripoli for the bombing of a Berlin disco. Yet there was no retaliation at all against Libya.
Furthermore, Italy was the European nation that was most friendly to Libya. Certainly, Gaddafi would rather strike at the U.S. or Britain than at an Italian plane.
Gaddafi himself seemed certain that this was an assassination attempt and became much more hostile to the west. He would become Ronald Reagan's arch-enemy, culminating in the bombing of Tripoli in 1986. There would also be the hostage situation involving the Libyan Embassy in London.
The next thing that happened is the bombing of the train station in Bologna, the northern Italian city from where Flight 870 had departed. The bombing killed 85 people, more than had died in the plane crash.
A phone call was made to a newspaper claiming responsibility for the bombing on behalf of NAR, an organization that was a rightward component of the country's "Years of Lead".
In 1980, it took some time to trace a phone call, a brief phone call was usually untraceable. But they did manage to trace the call and found, incredibly, that it had come from an office of the Italian Secret Service. Other than that, there was no claim of responsibility for the bombing. NAR members were convicted of the bombing, but denied having anything to do with it.
The city and timing of the bombing of the Bologna Train Station, following the shooting down of the plane and then the discovery of the wreckage of the Libyan jet which apparently yielded no evidence that it shot down the plane, began speculation that either the government itself had bombed the train station, in an effort to save NATO and the European Union at a critical time by making it look as if it were a bomb that brought the plane down, and not that the jet of one NATO country had shot down the passenger plane of another in a misguided assassination attempt, or that a terrorist organization that wanted to bring down the government had seized the opportunity to bomb the train station in order to make it look as if the government had really bombed the train station.
Following the bombing of the Bologna Train Station, a bomb was placed on a train in Bologna but was set so that it would not explode. It was found to actually have been planted by the Italian Secret Service, and contained the same type of explosive that had been used in the bombing of the train station. Those who planted the non-explosive bomb wanted it to be found and it also contained identifying information on two foreign right-wing extremists.
But this also looks like a definite attempt to make it look as if the plane had been destroyed by a bomb, and not in error by a missile from a NATO ally during a bizarre assassination attempt on a foreign leader. It was made to appear that a right-wing terrorist was on the way to another bombing around Bologna, a city that was known for it's leftward sympathies, and had lost or forgotten his briefcase with the explosives.
Another thing that is questionable is the British expert, Frank Taylor, insisting that the plane was brought down by a bomb that was placed in the lavatory, rather than by a missile. He even detonated a bomb in a retired DC-9 to show how the damage would match that which was pieced together from the recovered pieces of the plane.
But it seemed that he was trying too hard to convince the public that it was not a missile, and thus not a disastrous assassination attempt on Moammar Gaddafi, that had brought down the plane. It was as if the people did not trust the explanation given by their own government so they got a foreign terrorism specialist to agree with them.
There would be another benefit of pinning both the crash of the passenger jet and the Bologna Train Station bombing on political terrorists in that it would discredit them, and help to bring the "Years of Lead" to an end.
Finally there is information online, although I cannot see it in any mainstream information outlets, of something that is truly incredible. Eight years after all of this happened, there would be another tragedy. Two Italian jets collided during an air show at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, killing both pilots and dozens of people on the ground.
What is so incredible, if it is accurate, is that the two Italian pilots that collided at Ramstein are the same two pilots who had been sent out to investigate the missing plane on June 27, 1980.
THE CASE OF ITALO BALBO
Here is something extremely interesting with regard to the crash of Flight 870 in 1980.
Exactly forty years, minus one day, before the crash of Flight 870 there was another incident involving Libya and the fatal crash of an Italian plane. The chief of Benito Mussolini's air force was Italo Balbo. He was among the few top people in Mussolini's government and had a good chance of being next in line to rule.
The trouble was that he had openly opposed the alliance with the Nazis, as well as their anti-Semitic policies, and had expressed the opinion that Italy should side with Britain, as it had in the First World War.
While coming in to land at a base in Libya, his plane was shot down by friendly fire and he was killed. The base had reportedly just been attacked by British aircraft, and Balbo's aircraft was mistaken for one of them.
I won't get into the actual death of Italo Balbo here. He died just before the beginning of the Battle of Britain and it is tempting to think that the Nazis might have been uneasy with their ally's air force being led by a general who had opposed their alliance with them and advocated siding with Britain. But anyway, the issue was resolved when he was "accidentally" killed by "friendly fire".
What is so interesting is, if the crash of Flight 870 at Ustica was an assassination attempt on Moammar Gaddafi gone very wrong, is that it is virtually a reenactment of the "friendly fire" incident that killed Italo Balbo. In 1940, after a combat incident with British planes, Italo Balbo's plane was shot down as well. In 1980, after a combat incident with a Libyan plane, Moammar Gaddafi's plane would be shot down as well.
Italo Balbo was ironically Gaddafi's predecessor as governor of Libya. He constructed an elaborate memorial arch, which Gaddafi demolished upon coming to power.
I think most people would say that all of this is just too much coincidence. The death of Italo Balbo, whether it was an accident or not, looks like it is where the idea came from to assassinate Moammar Gaddafi forty years, minus one day, later, and to have it look like an accident. It was indeed an accident, but not in the way intended, and the target turned out to be a planeload of innocent people.
AERODYNAMICS AT NIAGARA
(Note-There is something to think about at Niagara Falls, which is a site of frequent airshows. A similar crash happened, between two Blue Angels, in 1985. There was a crowd of about 20,000 people. Fortunately, the crash occurred at high altitude and directly over the airfield, so that neither plane landed in the crowd. The collision occurred high enough to parachute and one of the pilots escaped by parachute. The other plane seemed to fall upside-down so that it fell straight down onto the airfield, where it exploded.
In such a crash, it is rare for the plane to fall upside down. If it would have fallen right-side-up, the flow of the air over the wings would have provided lift and the plane would have glided for some distance rather than falling straight down. Instead, the negative lift of the wings in the upside-down plane caused it to fall straight down onto the airfield, where it missed the crowds. But if it would have glided before crashing, it may have landed in the crowd and a lot of people could have been killed.
But this is not why I named my autobiography "Right-Side-Up").
4) QUESTIONS ABOUT D-DAY
It's time to take a closer look at the official version of D-Day, the Allied landing in northern France in 1944.
The landings took place on the coast of Normandy on June 6. Such a massive amphibious landing was not expected to be easy, the Nazis were anticipating the landing but did not know exactly where it would come. The Allies had the advantage of overwhelming air superiority.
The traditional story is that the Allies went to great lengths to deceive the Nazis as to where the landings would come. A fake army was assembled in southern England opposite Calais to make the Nazis think that this is where the invasion would come, at the narrowest width of the English Channel. Radio traffic was arranged to make it look as if the center of Allied operations was opposite Calais. Known enemy agents were not arrested so that they could be fed disinformation that D-Day was to come at Calais.
But the landings were planned for Normandy, about 240 km or 150 miles southwest of Calais. The goal of the Allies was to give the soldiers who had landed at Normandy the maximum amount of time possible to bring in supplies and fortify their positions before the Nazis brought the full weight of their forces in a counterattack. The way to do this was to trick the Nazis into keeping the bulk of their forces around Calais, in anticipation that D-Day would come there.
Even after the landings at Normandy began, the Allies did what they could to deceive the Nazis into thinking that this attack was just a diversion, to get them to pull their forces away from Calais. The real landing was still to come at Calais. By the time the Nazis realized that the landings in Normandy was the real invasion, there would be no landings at Calais, the Allied soldiers had had the maximum amount of time to offload supplies and to fortify their position before the Nazis could counterattack.
The official story is that the invasion had not been planned for June 6, but for some weeks later when the weather became better. The reason that the Allies were so concerned about weather is that their advantage was overwhelming air superiority. But to make use of this advantage required good weather. Poor weather would thus favor the Nazis.
The decision was made to take advantage of a one-day period of good weather that was coming, in the midst of otherwise poor weather. That is why D-Day was on June 6.
With all due respect to the "Greatest Generation" that fought the war, this explanation is not remotely near believable.
Part of the official story is that the Nazi general in charge of opposing the D-Day landings, Erwin Rommel, was confident that the invasion would not be coming any time soon because "The Allies have always before attacked in good weather". The Nazis could relax. Many of the soldiers were on leave and top Nazi officers involved in the defense against D-Day were off at war games. Rommel himself was back home for his wife's birthday, which happened to be on June 6, and that is when the invasion came unexpectedly.
But let's consider Rommel's supposed observation that "the Allies had always before attacked in good weather". D-Day was to be the first large-scale combat in northern Europe since the tide of the war had turned and the Allies had been on the offensive. All of the combat between the two before that had been in north Africa and the Mediterranean, where sunny days are the rule rather than the exception.
It was clear that the Allies were waiting for summer weather to launch D-Day, so why would they let half the summer be gone by waiting for several more weeks. The autumn weather would be even worse for the side that was trying to use it's air superiority. Around June 6 actually was the ideal time to launch it.
The Nazis, of all people, had demonstrated that, in 1941, by feeling it necessary to invade Yugoslavia and Greece before invading the Soviet Union. They realized the importance of good weather, to make maximum use of their air superiority, but didn't get around to invading the Soviet Union until June 22. This did not leave them enough time ti finish the Soviets before the severe winter set in, presuming that they could have done, that the Nazis were not prepared for, and which gave the Soviets a chance to recover.
The weather around the English Channel is simply unpredictable. The prevailing wind is from the west, stratus clouds come in off the ocean, and you get that light drizzly rain. Waiting for an extended period of nice weather while the summer is going by is just plain folly. The weather can quickly change from sunny to rainy and back to sunny again. Just launch the invasion when summer arrives, and deal with the weather as it comes. The reason that the Mediterranean is more sunny is that the prevailing wind is from the east.
Likewise, the story about the Allies waiting for the full moon and the tides to be right before launching the invasion just does not make sense. The side with air superiority, which in this case was the Allies, would be the ones to benefit from a full moon, so that pilots can see what is on the ground below them at night. An amphibious assault, which D-Day would be, is best done at high tide so that the soldiers will have less beach to cross while under enemy fire. But waiting for weeks until the moon is just right is letting the summer weather go by, knowing that the following autumn weather will generally be worse for the side with air superiority.
Also, the Nazis were well aware that Allied fliers would like a full moon, and that would be when they would most anticipate the attack to come. It would be better for the Allies to just launch D-Day before the full moon, to have more of an element of surprise. Besides the Allies who landed at D-Day would require just as much air support in the following days, when the Nazis would certainly counterattack, as they would during D-Day itself.
D-Day is actually a two-part story. The first part is the successful Allied landing. The second part is the so-called "Breakout". The Nazis brought all of the forces that they could spare to counter the Allied landings. For about six weeks after D-Day, there was a stalemate. The Nazi forces could not drive the invaders back into the sea, but they could stop them from advancing any further. Until the Allies managed to breakout of this stalemate, it was by no means certain that D-Day would be a success.
But after the Allies began to really advance into occupied France, the situation changed dramatically. The Nazis had already been fighting two full-scale wars at once, on the Eastern Front and in Italy, and were in retreat in both, now they had a third frontal war.
The next thing that happened, on July 20, was the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. A plan by many of his own officers to kill him with a bomb had already been in the works, but the attempt was not made until it seemed that, more than ever, the war was lost. That way, whoever took over after the assassination would likely have the support of the majority of the German population. If Hitler had been assassinated but the war still seemed winnable, he might have just been replaced by another of the top Nazis.
But the assassination attempt on Hitler did not succeed.
As it turned out, Rommel had been in on the plot to assassinate Hitler. He had been in hospital after being wounded when his staff car had been shot at by a plane. (Brits, Americans and, Canadians each claim that it was one of their planes that got Rommel and the truth has never been satisfactorily resolved).
The trouble was that Rommel was widely popular in Germany and it would certainly be damaging to morale to have him involved in this plot. Rommel was quietly arrested and, after being assured that his family would not in any way be punished, was given the opportunity to commit suicide. It was announced that he had died as a result from the wounds suffered in his staff car, and only after the war did the truth become known.
But let's consider the Nazi strategy at countering D-Day. If they did successfully repel the invasion, what would happen then? By this time, the Soviet advance from the east against the Nazis was unstoppable. If western Europe could not be liberated by the Allies, how long would it before it was conquered by the Soviets?
Since Rommel wanted to kill Hitler, but the attempt was not made until it became clear that the post-D-Day breakout was successful and the war looked less winnable than ever, that means that Rommel actually had quite a bit to gain by the Allies' success. In fact, maybe never before in history has a general had so much to potentially gain by the success of the enemies that he was opposing.
Rommel was in on the plot to assassinate Hitler, but was not a central figure in it. The plotters planned to make peace with the Allies and had it planned who of their number would be the leader of postwar Germany.
Rommel was actually well-respected by the Allies. As a general, he had an almost uncanny ability to predict what his enemies were likely to do next. The war in eastern north Africa, with Rommel and his Italian allies on one side, and the British and Commonwealth forces on the other side, had been a relatively "civilized" war, if any war can be so-described. They killed each other, of course, but the war, in complete contrast with the Eastern Front, was not unnecessarily barbaric. Rommel was considered by his Allied enemies as not really a Nazi, but simply a loyal soldier following orders.
Could it be that, if the assassination attempt on Hitler had succeeded, Rommel, with the support of the western Allies, would have stepped in as the leader of postwar Germany, making peace with the western Allies and joining with them in the Cold War with the Soviets, that many on both sides felt would likely begin as soon as this war ended which, it turns out, it did?
But first it was necessary to bring about the climate in Germany where the war was no longer winnable, and an alternative to the Nazis would be welcomed. For that, D-Day would have to be succeed and Rommel, more than anyone else, was in a position to make that happen.
Could that be why, when D-Day came, many of Rommel's soldiers were on leave, many of his officers were away attending war games, and Rommel himself was back home for his wife's birthday? It was explained as "The Allies have always before attacked in good weather". So that the Allies had the maximum amount of time to offload supplies and to fortify their positions before the Nazis could get their forces together and counterattack.
Could that be why Rommel kept the bulk of his forces around Calais, even after the Allied landings began in Normandy? How could the fabled "Desert Fox" be so outwitted by the Allies? Could it be that he knew the landings were not going to come at Calais but felt that the best thing for his country was not to repel the Allied landings, but to be rid of Hitler and bring peace to his people, with him as their likely postwar leader?
I am not sure if he knew the landings would be at Normandy, the Allies may or may not have been willing to put that much trust in him. But I think it likely that there was communication between Rommel and the Allies, at some level, and he did what he could to let the landings succeed.
Making a deal with an enemy general is not as out of the ordinary as we might think. General Friedrich Von Paulus, the commander of the Nazis' Sixth Army who eventually surrendered at Stalingrad, actually later became a Communist himself. Then there was the mysterious flight, earlier in the war, of Rudolf Hess, the third-ranking Nazi, to Scotland. To this day, no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for this flight. Then, of course, was the story of Ataturk, which we saw in the section "The Real Story Of Gallipoli".
With the war over and Rommel dead, the few top Allied leaders who knew about whatever communication might have gone on between the two would have no reason to publicize it. Eisenhower would end up successfully campaigning to be U.S. president. Churchill would be voted out as prime minister almost as soon as the war had ended, but would make a successful comeback to another term as prime minister in the 1950s.
Both of these Allied heroes supposedly had thoroughly outwitted the fabled "Desert Fox", General Rommel, and that is why D-Day was a success. But what actually happened is that these two, together with Rommel, had outwitted Hitler. The planned replacement of Hitler with Rommel as the leader of a peaceful postwar Germany never came to be because the assassination attempt on Hitler did not succeed and Rommel was arrested by the Gestapo.
5) THE REAL STORY OF GALLIPOLI
There is something about the Gallipoli campaign of the First World War that just does not make sense, and I would like to have a closer look at it.
Gallipoli is the name of a peninsula near Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire entered World War One on the side of the Central Powers, allied with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The British and French, with Australians and New Zealanders, made an amphibious landing at Gallipoli, in 1915. The ostensible reason was to secure the Dardanelles and the Bosporus Strait so that supplies could be shipped to Russia, which was at war with the Central Powers on their Eastern Front. If the operation went well, of course, it could potentially lead to the Allied capture of the Ottoman capital and force them out of the war.
The operation turned into a stalemate that lasted nearly a year. The Ottomans were unable to dislodge the Allies from their beachhead, but the Ottomans held on to the higher ground and the Allies were unable to capture the entire peninsula. Finally it was decided that it was not possible to secure the area so that ships would be able to safely pass through, and the Allied soldiers were withdrawn. It goes down in history as an Ottoman victory.
One of the most maligned aspects of the First World War against the Ottomans is the so-called Sykes-Picot Agreement. During the war diplomats from Britain and France, Sykes and Picot, got together over a map of the Middle East and divided up Ottoman Empire territory between them. The agreement between the two Allied countries was supposed to be kept secret. Some blame it for being the foundation of so much trouble in the region today, although no one seems to have come up with what would have been a better plan.
But here is what is interesting and puzzling. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was drawn up in the closing days of the Gallipoli Campaign, before the Allied soldiers were withdrawn. It was formally signed by the two countries soon after the campaign was over.
So here are the questions that we are dealing with today.
1) Why would the British and French begin drafting an agreement to divide up Ottoman territory after the war at a time when it was becoming more apparent every day that a major military campaign against the Ottomans was not going to achieve it's objective?
2) Why would the British and French governments put their final signatures on an agreement to divide up Ottoman territory between them after they had apparently just suffered a serious defeat at the hands of the Ottomans? Before dividing up their territory, isn't it necessary to win the war first?
But there are also so many other questions about this Gallipoli Campaign.
What about the supposed objective of the campaign, to secure the waterway through Turkey, into the Black Sea, in order to deliver supplies to ally Russia?
This appears to have been absurd, unless Turkey changed sides and joined the Allies. Even if the Dardanelles and Bosporus Strait had been secured, Allied ships passing through would be extremely vulnerable to mines and shots from hidden artillery on shore. The Allied supply ships would have also been vulnerable to warships and submarines that the Central Powers could have deployed in the Black Sea, in order to cut the supply line.
Why would such a supply line through hostile Ottoman territory have even been necessary? The Allies sent supplies to the Soviet Union during the Second World War by three routes, and this was not one of them, even though Turkey was a neutral country by this time. One route was by ship convoys from Britain around the coast of Norway, the second route was a land route to Russia across Iran, the third supply route was by ship from the U.S. to Vladivostok in the Russian Far East.
Any of those routes of supply to Russia could have been used in the First World War, making it difficult to understand why the Gallipoli Campaign was even necessary. Japan could potentially hinder the sea route to Vladivostok, but it was on the Allied side in the First World War.
Another question about the Gallipoli Campaign itself is why, if the landing had turned into a stalemate, not just abandon the beachhead land somewhere else that was not as well defended. At D-Day, in the Second World War, the Allies actually landed at five separate beaches. The landing at Omaha Beach was running into especially difficult opposition, and there was discussion of just abandoning that beach and concentrating U.S. forces on Utah Beach, where there was less opposition.
By the time the First World War began, the Ottoman Empire was over five hundred years old. It had been one of the greatest empires that the world had ever seen, but was now in it's twilight days. Some even referred to the Ottoman Empire as "The sick man of Europe". In the Nineteenth Century, the Ottoman leadership had nearly been overthrown by one of it's own generals, the founder of the Pasha Dynasty in Egypt, but had been saved with Allied assistance.
Also in the Nineteenth Century, there had been a great and successful series of reforms across the empire, known as the Tanzimat. The Ottoman Empire had been relatively liberal and there had been many French-run missionary schools within it.
In 1908, a movement known as the "Young Turks" had deposed the ruling sultan and restored rule by the constitution that he had suspended. In 1913, the year before the war began, there was a coup in which three military leaders rose to power. These would become known to history as the "Three Pashas", and would guide the empire through the war. A primary reason for siding with the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary, in the war was that Britain and France had been taking Ottoman territories as the empire declined.
We saw in our visit to "Algiers" how, during an argument, the ruling Ottoman dey had struck the French consul with a flyswatter. The French considered it as an act of war and took over the country.
Being on the losing side in the First World War marked the end of the Ottoman Empire. The leader that emerged, Mustafa Kemal, became known as Ataturk. He successfully undertook one of the most far-reaching national reform programs that the world has ever seen.
Turkey gave up the Ottoman Empire and became a republic. The modern country was secular and progressive. The Islamic religion was left in the mosques. Education was coed and emphasized science and technology. The country adopted western-style laws, and there were several women among the members of parliament. Turks began wearing western clothes. Ataturk himself was sometimes seen in a top hat, and sometimes in a panama hat.
But the two most prominent of Ataturk's reforms was the abolition of the caliphate, which had been based in the Ottoman Empire and was widely accepted as the leader of all Moslems, and the use of the Latin script for Turkish writing, in place of the Arabic script.
The reforms of Ataturk must be considered as so revolutionary as to be even greater in scope than those of the French Revolution, which opened the modern political era in the world. But, unlike much of the French Revolution, the reform program of Ataturk was a success.
While it is true that the Middle East has not really settled into a new equilibrium following the end of the Ottoman Empire, it is also true that the great reforms of Ataturk have had far-reaching effects on other countries. Reza Shah, the founder of Iran's Pahlavi Dynasty and father of the shah that was overthrown in 1979, was a friend of Ataturk and undertook modernizing reforms in his own country. But they ultimately ended in his son being overthrown in the 1979 revolution.
THE REAL STORY OF GALLIPOLI
But what I just could not help wondering about is the connection between Gallipoli and the later rise of Ataturk, and how much the British and French who had lost at Gallipoli had just gained so much from all of this. They partitioned the vast territories of the former Ottoman Empire after Ataturk had come to power in Turkey itself, but had drafted the agreement to divide those territories while apparently losing at Gallipoli.
Could there be more to the Gallipoli Campaign than we have been told?
A British company had found oil in the Middle East, in Iran in 1908. This resulted in the formation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which later took a share in a company that tried to find oil in the Ottoman Empire. The British Government seemed to realize how important oil was going to be and put considerable resources into the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
When the boundaries were drawn after the war, and the end of the Ottoman Empire as first approached in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Turkey itself was left without any significant oil. An observer once commented that "Turkey begins where the oil ends".
Doesn't it look like the British authorities, who seemed to have been the first to realize how important the oil in the Middle East was going to be, wanted the Iranians to see their Turkish neighbors enjoying the great prosperity brought about by Ataturk's reforms, but without any oil, so that they would be more willing to just let the British handle the oil? Turkey would be a model for all countries in the region to become modern and western, but without any oil.
This touchiness about the oil in Iran explains the 1953 coup that the British and the CIA engineered when newly-elected Mossadegh announced nationalization of the oil industry.
What about Ataturk? He ended up as such a shining star amid the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, as one of the most important figures of the century. There are streets and other places across the world named for Ataturk.
Ataturk had been an Ottoman general in the war. In fact, he had been the Ottoman general who had successfully opposed the Allied landing at Gallipoli. It amazed people that he seemed to have anticipated where the Allies would attack.
Before the war, Ataturk had been in favor of reform in the Ottoman Empire. He had been a prominent figure in the "Young Turks" movement of 1908, which deposed the sultan of the empire and restored constitutional rule.
After the "Young Turks" movement, but before the beginning of the First World War, Ataturk had visited France, where he observed the military maneuvers at Picardie. During the war, he visited the German side of the Western Front, and was very open with his opinion that the Germans would lose.
The battle at Gallipoli, unlike the other Allied military campaigns against the Ottomans, was not fought out in the desert. It was close to home where the Turkish people could witness their great hero in action.
After the defeat in the war, Ataturk resigned from the Ottoman Army and began his reforms. He was actually sentenced to death by the remaining Ottomans but he defeated them and brought the empire to an end. The Allies sent occupation forces into Turkey, in particular into the capital of Istanbul. These were forced to leave by Ataturk, but without serious combat.
So, what conclusion does all of this bring us to?
Before the First World War began, the British had discovered oil in Iran. They realized how valuable it was going to be. They were not thinking primarily of private cars, but of what a great improvement it would be to have the ships of it's navy running on oil, rather than coal. They also realized that there was a lot of oil in Ottoman territories, in what is now Iraq. British, French and, German archeologists had long been working in the region and, after this division of the former Ottoman Empire, the ruins of the great ancient city of Ur would be discovered in former Ottoman territory.
The Allies had met Ataturk before the war, when he visited France. They knew that he was a reformer, having had a prominent role with the Young Turks. They knew of his military abilities, having been in an Ottoman war with Italy over Libya. They later likely found out about his openly negative opinion of the German war effort.
Next, Ataturk was at Gallipoli to defend it against an Allied landing.
What if the Allies could give Ataturk a great political boost, to propel him to leadership of the defeated Ottoman Empire after the war? Victory over the Allies at Gallipoli would certainly provide such a boost, leaving him as a national hero. He would get a further boost by driving away the Allied occupation force, this time without any serious combat.
This does not necessarily mean that the Gallipoli campaign started with this intent. It could have emerged as a "Plan B" later on, after some kind of communication with Ataturk.
History is very important in this part of the world. Gallipoli had actually been the site of a hostile landing at the time of the Crusades. The Fourth Crusade, in 1203, had landed at Gallipoli and what is now Istanbul and restored control of the area to the Catholic Church, which lasted for over 50 years. Repelling this landing would evoke Ottoman history as well as that of Byzantium before it, and make Ataturk into a modern version of Saladin, the Moslem leader who had defeated the Crusaders.
After the war Ataturk repelling the Allied occupation force, particularly at Istanbul, would evoke historical memories of the Ottomans conquering Constantinople ( now Istanbul ) in 1453.
Italy had been on the Allied side in the First World War, and inviting an Italian contingent to the temporary occupation of Istanbul after the war would further evoke historical memories of the pope sending Crusaders to conquer Moslem lands, until they were driven out by great heroes like Saladin and Ataturk. There had also been contingents from Venice and Genoa among the defenders of Constantinople, trying to resist the Ottoman conquest in 1453.
Who but Ataturk could possibly be considered to lead Turkey after the end of the war?
In return Ataturk would give up the Ottoman Empire, outside of Turkey itself, and would concentrate on his reforms that would make Turkey a prosperous western nation and one of the Allies. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why the British and French mysteriously began drafting the Sykes-Picot Agreement even though they were losing at Gallipoli, and formally signed it soon after being defeated at Gallipoli, with the Allies deciding to withdraw.
Some have wondered why the Arabian Peninsula was not included in the Sykes-Picot agreement. The answer is simple. Oil had not yet been discovered there. It would not be discovered in Saudi Arabia until 1938. That was why the British colonial authorities at the time didn't care too much about it, except for it's strategic location.
The British discovered and knew that there was a lot of oil in the eastern areas of the Middle East, Iraq and Iran. They gladly let the French have the western areas of the Middle East, where there was no oil. France cared about the glory and prestige of having ancient cities like Damascus and Aleppo in it's empire, and about Ataturk carrying on the banner of the French Revolution by ending the caliphate and making modern Turkey a secular republic. Britain cared about the oil. Italy, another of the Allies in the war, could have Libya, where oil had not yet been discovered, as it's share of former Ottoman territory.
How else can we explain why a British and a French diplomat would get together to divide up Ottoman territories between them toward the end of an important military campaign against the Ottomans that they were apparently losing? The governments of the two countries would then formally sign the agreement just after the campaign had been lost. The lost campaign gives a great political boost to the victorious Ottoman general, who emerges as the post-war leader of the Ottomans, and gives up the empire in a way that is greatly beneficial to his British and French former adversaries. He publicly praises the Allied soldiers who died while opposing him at Gallipoli.
It does not make any sense unless there is more to Gallipoli than we have been told.
6) THE WORLD OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
Conspiracy theories often revolve around secret societies and centers of power. But the most successful of these can be the ones that you do not notice how much influence they really have.
The London School of Economics was founded toward the end of the Nineteenth Century by a socialist organization, known as the Fabian Society. Among it's founders was George Bernard Shaw. If Baby Boomers in the U.S. have any familiarity with the London School of Economics, it may be because Mick Jagger attended there.
The London School of Economics is one of those colleges that does not have a recognizable campus. It mostly took over existing buildings. But it's logo is in many places to be seen in central London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics#/media/File:London_school_of_economics_logo_with_name.svg
The London School of Economics is neither as old or as well-known as universities like Oxford and Cambridge. But several things stand out about it.
The first thing that stands out about it is it's curriculum. Most universities have a course of study that they specialize in, even if it is far from all that is taught there. Imperial College has an emphasis on technology. At Cambridge it is mathematics, traditionally anyone who goes through Cambridge is a mathematician. At Oxford, it was languages and classic literature.
For such a large school, the London School of Economics has a very narrow focus. As the name implies, it was founded to teach economics and politics. It is not known for athletics. Nor for medicine or literature or music or science or technology. It certainly isn't a "party school". It is not one of the schools with a broad curriculum for those who really do not know what they want to do.
But what the London School of Economics teaches is the things that really count in running the world, which are economics and politics.
The second thing that stands out about the London School of Economics is it's location. It is right in the center of London, right "in the middle of everything". One one side of the college, to the east, is the financial district. This is the area known as "The Square Mile". Near the school is the massive stone building of the Bank of England, affectionately known as "The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street".
Just to the west of the London School of Economics is the government area, known as Westminster. This is where the parliament is located, along with the residence of the prime minister at 10 Downing Street, and all of the government ministries at Whitehall. Just beyond that is Buckingham Palace.
Just south of the London School of Economics is the Temple area. This is Britain's legal center. It's highest court and the four "Inns of Court", to one of which all barristers must belong, are located there.
We can only imagine how much it must have cost to purchase the buildings in which the London School of Economics is housed. This is an area of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, both now and when the college was founded. There were a thousand other places where it could have been located, why did it have to be located here?
The third thing that stands out about the London School of Economics is the students. It educates a higher proportion of foreign students than just about any other university in the world. At any given time, around half of the students are non-British.
Now, let's add those things up and see what we get.
The reason for the narrow focus on economics and politics is that this is what counts in actually running the world. I have never heard of such a large university anywhere else that has such a narrow focus. The name of the school tells what it is about. It is not medicine or literature, or anything else like that, which actually runs the world. It is economics and politics, and as many people as possible who run the world would learn their economics and politics here.
This explains it's location, "right in the middle of everything in London". Students would not only learn how to run the world from the university, they would be within walking distance of Britain's economic center, it's legal center and, it's government center.
The Fabian Society promoted the ideals of socialism, the slant of economics that was halfway between pure communism on one side and raw capitalism on the other. It sought to bring about peaceful change, through effective democratic government, in the world, rather than violent revolution.
The way that socialism would be taught to the world was by presenting economics as a broad spectrum, with moderate socialism as the happy median. The late Nineteenth Century was a time of robber baron capitalism on one side, and proto-communist movements like the Paris Commune on the other, and the hope was for the best of both with the worst of neither.
Having gone to school "right next door" to Westminster and the financial district for several years, graduates of the London School of Economics would be the natural choices to move into to the finance, law and, government of Britain, and run the country the way that they had been taught.
Then when new students came to the university, they would not just study in textbooks how the world is run, they would actually see it being done all around them. This would not be possible if the London School of Economics was built somewhere else in the city, where real estate might have been much less expensive, certainly not in remote locations like Oxford and Cambridge.
Now we see why there is such an emphasis on foreign students. The idea was for those who would be running the world to come to Britain to learn how to do it, and then return home. This idea was a logical continuation of mission schools in many countries and also the use of the British Museum Reading Room by many students and exiles from around the world, who would someday return home and run their countries.
The influence that the London School of Economics has had on how the world is run is phenomenal. There is a Wikipedia article, "List of People Associated With The London School Of Economics".
Did you know, just for a few examples, that Lee Kuan Yew, the famed founder and prime minister of Singapore, Pierre Trudeau, the popular liberal Canadian prime minister and father of the present prime minister, the president of Colombia and, the president of Taiwan were all educated at the London School of Economics?
So many British politicians learned how to run the country there that it is impossible to count. British prime ministers tend to graduate from higher-profile schools, particularly Oxford, but below that level far more have learned here. The school educates a large proportion of the world's economists, as it is by far the most prominent school in the world with "economics" in it's name. These economists are not highly-visible politicians, but manage the "nuts and bolts" of the global economy.
Do Americans know that both Janet Yellen and Paul Volcker, past and present Chairs of the Federal Reserve Bank which sets interest rates and has far more control over the U.S. economy than any other institution, learned at the London School of Economics? Among many other influential people, several of the Kennedy family were educated there.
David Rockefeller, who made Chase Bank (now J.P. Morgan Chase) into the largest bank in the world that it is today, was educated at the London School of Economics. It has educated more billionaires than any other school in Europe, and a significant proportion of the top financial people in the world.
Just look over the Wikipedia article, "List of People Associated With The London School of Economics", if you wish. The influence that this school has on how the world is actually run is incredible, and that was what the school was planned for.
Many people around the world who learn economics and politics are what we could call "second-generation" graduates of the school, not having attended themselves but taught or influenced by those who did attend there. As one example, the current prime minister of Canada did not study at this university, but his father and predecessor did, and how much of his concepts of running the country might he have learned from his father?
Since world Communism began with the October Revolution of 1917, both left and right have moved, on the average, toward the center. This is what the Fabian Society, the founders of the London School of Economics, wanted. How much of this is the result of the influence of graduates of the school?
The main business of London has turned out to be finance. More money flows through London's financial district than anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Hong Kong. This could not have been seen when the school was founded near the end of the Nineteenth Century. How much of this is due to the influence of the school "right next door"?
Going by the Wikipedia list of prominent people that have attended the London School of Economics, it is clear that the countries that send students are more likely to be democracies. It is true that countries are more likely to send students there if they are democracies, but the reverse is also true. These countries are more likely to be democracies if they have had students at the school. It is very clear that the countries without many graduates of the school tend to have "non-western" economic systems. It is largely this school that has defined modern economics.
What about the legal influence of the Fabian Society and the school that it founded? The great difference between a country that is a democracy and one that is not is in the laws of that country. Democracies tend to have laws that are clear and well-defined. Laws that can be subjective and "open to interpretation" invite dictatorship. For example, a country with a vague law against "threatening the social order" will almost certainly become a dictatorship because the subjective law can essentially be used by the ruling powers to throw anyone in jail who opposes their authority. This was a primary goal of the Fabian Society, progress by democracy and not by violent revolution.
Being next to London's Temple area let's students see firsthand how Britain's legal system works.
The Fabian Society was also what we could call "imperialistic". It's members believed that what the world really needed was the British way of doing things. As the end of the Nineteenth Century neared, visionaries could certainly see that the imperial era would some day come to a close. Even if all British people wanted their country to rule a vast empire, which was far from the case, the empire would someday grow beyond Britain's control.
But the Fabian Society had an idea. It was not a secret society that controlled things from behind the scenes. The course of action that they took was done very openly, even if it wasn't announced. Put simply, if Britain couldn't actually rule the world it would do the next best thing. It would educate the people who were running the world. The vehicle through which that would be accomplished was the London School of Economics.
The world, in the minds of the school's founders, would be largely British without Britain having the burden of actually ruling it. The school couldn't be all foreign students because British students of Economics and politics had to learn the correct way to run the world as well, and the foreign students had to have British classmates to interact with. Support and money to do all of this must have come from beyond the limited membership of the Fabian Society.
But the thing that is so striking about all of this is that one of the world's great universities, which has had such a great influence on how the world is run, keeps such a low profile.
It seems that part of it's plan to shape the world is not to draw attention to the influence that it has. The London School of Economics has educated no less than 52 heads of state, such as presidents and prime ministers in little more than a hundred years, but does not have a readily visible campus. Unlike a university that "looks like a university", most of what can be seen of it in central London is limited to it's logo.
I do not know of any well-known societies or movements in it's name, such as the Oxford Movement or the Yale Society, that other great universities seem to have in abundance.
Students of other prominent universities are usually proud to be wearing the school's colors around town. The "U of T", for one example, is to be seen everywhere in Toronto. Maybe there are students wearing the colors or logo of the London School of Economics, but I cannot recall seeing any. Nor is there a great arena or sports stadium in it's name.
Doesn't it look like the London School of Economics, founded by the not-secret but not very well-known Fabian Society, really doesn't want the general public to stop and think about what an influence it has on the way the world is run?
The Fabian Society does not seek to exert control over the world by recruiting prominent people. Rather, it founded a university that would educate those prominent people in it's way of thinking.
It does not seek to actually control at all, but only to guide the world in the right direction. It seeks the good of everyone. If the teachings of the London School of Economics, or the philosophy of it's founders, does not seem different from the way everybody else thinks, that is because it has succeeded so well in getting the world to see things it's way.
But it is ironic that the logo of the Fabian Society is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hopefully, this makes London more interesting.
7) NIAGARA FALLS AND THE MOON LANDINGS
In 1969 the American Falls, which are one of the two main falls at Niagara, were shut off by the construction of a temporary dam. This was possible because actually less than ten percent of the water flows over the American Falls because it's base is higher in elevation than that of the Horseshoe Falls. The purpose was announced as the testing of the rock strata to possibly prevent erosion of the cliff over which the water falls. There had been major rock falls the decade before, leaving a large amount of rock at the base of the falls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Falls#/media/File:American_Falls_Niagara_Falls_USA_from_Skylon_Tower_on_2002-05-28_crop.png
https://nfpl.historicniagara.ca/s/images/item/90264
There are numerous photos and videos of the nearly dry falls online. Just do a search for "Dry Niagara Falls 1969" or "dewatered Niagara Falls 1969" if you want to see more.
Remaining traces of the dam between Goat Island and the mainland, can be seen in the satellite imagery as it disturbs the water rushing over it toward the falls. It took well over a thousand truckloads of rock and soil, dumped into the river, to build the dam.
This put Niagara Falls in the news across the world. It was my first summer in America and the area around the falls were very crowded with people wanting to see the dry riverbed and the falls up close. Many people came from the Toronto area to see it.
The Canadian side usually has the natural advantage in viewing the falls because most of the falls can be seen directly from there. The spectacle of turning off the falls made viewing from the U.S. side more popular, but harmed the tourist season overall because there was not much to be seen from the Canadian side but the bare wall of the gorge.
But why couldn't this have been done in the off-season? There was enough time between the end of the tourist season and the beginning of winter to accomplish whatever had to be done. Why tamper with the falls at all? The erosion of the base of the falls is part of the natural process, and the falls has worked it's way from it's beginning at the Niagara Escarpment at Lewiston-Queenston, at the end of the last ice age, to where it is now, by the natural process of the rushing water eroding the cliff face.
The geologists drilled holes in the riverbed, and tested the permeability of the rock layers with dye. After all of the testing was done, the decision was made that the best thing to do was to just leave the falls alone.
That is because, despite the announced purpose, this was never about the falls to begin with.
This was in no way a local idea, it originated with the U.S. Congress. The plan to shut off Niagara Falls was organized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the dam was built by a local construction company.
The shutting off of Niagara Falls in 1969 was actually an international power play by the new Richard Nixon administration. The falls were just the stage on which this play was acted out. The dam was built in the days leading up to the first attempt to land astronauts on the moon, Apollo 11. The dry riverbed was a terrestrial reflection of the surface of the moon, in this era of Cold War posturing and propaganda, for all of the tourists who came to Niagara to see what America could do.
Shortly after humans had walked on the hitherto inaccessible surface of the moon for the first time, a ladder down to a walkway was constructed so that visitors could walk on the hitherto inaccessible riverbed for the first time. They naturally waited to make sure that the moon mission would be a success first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#/media/File:Apollo_11_first_step.jpg
Just as tourists being able to walk on the dry riverbed of Niagara evoked the astronauts walking on the moon a few days before, the geologists examining the rock of the riverbed evoked the astronauts examining the rocks of the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#/media/File:Aldrin_with_experiment.jpg
Apollo 11 landed on the moon on July 20, 1969,. In November of that year, astronauts landed on the moon again, in Apollo 12. This mission was also a great success. One surprise about the moon was the variation in it's surface gravity from one place to another. Because of this, Apollo 11 actually missed it's intended landing site by several km.
This was corrected in Apollo 12. More than two years before a robot spacecraft had been landed on the moon, Surveyor 3. In an amazing feat of precision, Apollo 12 landed right next to Surveyor, removed it's camera, and brought it back to earth. The following photo is of one of the astronauts at the Surveyor craft, with their lunar module in the background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12#/media/File:Surveyor_3-Apollo_12.jpg
This was also reflected at Niagara Falls. Just as humans had their first opportunity to walk on the riverbed of Niagara just after America's astronauts had first walked on the moon, the water of Niagara was turned back on by the removal of the dam immediately after the ensuing Apollo 12 had returned from it's successful mission by splashing down in the Pacific Ocean.
The shutting off of the falls lasted from the time of Apollo 11 to the time of Apollo 12. The turning back on of the falls was also a major news event. Not only could we land men on the moon, and get them safely back, we could also turn the falls off and back on again.
Despite the expense of the project, nothing was done to change anything about the falls. That is because it was never about the falls in the first place. I think that this history makes Niagara Falls, NY more interesting.
What actually happened is that Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was incessantly critical of the conduct of America's Vietnam War. He even came to Niagara Falls to personally welcome American draft dodgers to refuge in Canada. The new U.S. administration of Richard Nixon didn't appreciate the criticism.
The announced purpose of turning off the falls was for examination of the underlying rock strata. But it had a devastating effect on the Canadian Niagara tourist season. Instead, it brought tourists to the American side to see the dry falls up close.
This was around the same time that the U.S. broke diplomatic relations with Sweden over it's criticism of the Vietnam War.
But Nixon and Trudeau soon patched things up. In 1972, Richard Nixon visited Pierre Trudeau in Ottawa and famously predicted that Trudeau's then-infant son would someday be Canadian Prime Minister.
8) INSIGHT INTO 9/11
There is something about the attacks of 9/11 that I have never seen documented anywhere.
After the 1967 Six-Day War, many Palestinians moved into Jordan. In fact, they came to outnumber the native Jordanians. In September, 1970, a group of these Palestinians in Jordan launched an operation in an effort to secure the release of comrades who were in prison. This operation became known as the Dawson Field Hijackings.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palesting, the PFLP, hijacked four jet airliners, from various airports in Europe and the Middle East. The operation was not deadly, but they wanted to get the world's attention. Three of the airliners landed at an airfield in Jordan, known as Dawson Field. The hijackers invited the media from around the world to watch, and then destroyed the planes with explosives after the passengers and crews had gotten off the aircraft.
The fourth airliner landed at Cairo because it was one of the new Boeing 747s, and could not land at the small airfield in Jordan. That plane was also destroyed with explosives, as soon as the passengers had been released. These hijackers were arrested by the Egyptians.
This must have been the prototype for 9/11. This incident is not remembered well in the west because no one, except one of the hijackers, was killed.
How much of a coincidence can it be that four jet airliners were hijacked and destroyed, and the passengers were released on September 11? The planes were destroyed the next day, after all of the media had arrived to watch. Who could have imagined that, thirty-one years later, there would be a much deadlier attack by crashing the planes into buildings, with the passengers still inside?
9) THE REAL BATMAN
The presidency of Richard Nixon, of 1969-74, has been very much analyzed and discussed ever since. Today, I would like to add my view, and I see it as the one of the most fantastic untold stories in American and world political history.
Nixon had been the vice-president of Dwight Eisenhower, but had narrowly lost the 1960 presidential election to John F. Kennedy. That conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, had tried to win back the presidency for the Republicans in the 1964 election, but was soundly defeated by Democrat Lyndon Johnson, who had been Kennedy's vice-president, and then became president after the 1963 assassination of Kennedy.
After the devastating defeat of Goldwater, Republicans began searching for the best candidate to win back the presidency in the 1968 election. Nixon's loss to Kennedy had been due to the new medium of television. In the Nixon-Kennedy debates, those listening on the radio actually thought that Nixon had won. But Nixon looked somewhat worn, and had neglected to shave, and those watching on television thought that the young and telegenic Kennedy had won the debate.
After the defeat of Goldwater, Nixon again emerged as the Republican that was most likely to win back the presidency. But how could he be made more television-friendly? The realization by Republicans of how important television was going to be in the future ultimately led to the presidency of a former movie star named Ronald Reagan.
Television was filled with heroes, such as Superman, who used their super powers to battle villains. In the popular Superman television series of the late 1950s, the hero used his extraordinary powers in the quest for "Truth, Justice and, The American Way".
What if Nixon could get some help from such a superhero to win the presidency in the 1968 election?
In the late 1930s an earlier hero named Batman, with his assistant named Robin, had been popular in comics. Batman was an ordinary human, with no special powers, but hid his identity with a mask that resembled a bat. He accomplished his mission with great ingenuity and knowledge, physical fitness, wisdom and, a large array of special and ingenious tools.
It turns out that Richard Nixon, with his black hair combed backward, bore a resemblance to the cowl worn by Batman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#/media/File:Nixon%27s_the_One!_(Portrait)_1968.png
_1968.png){kind=link}
Batman wore a cape,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series)#/media/File:1966_Batman_titlecard.JPG
#/media/File:1966_Batman_titlecard.JPG){kind=link}
and Nixon had this gesture of spreading his arms wide with peace signs, which evoked Batman's cape, which I cannot see that he used in any earlier campaigns,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968#/media/File:NIXONcampaigns.jpg
Incredibly, the televised Batman of the late 1960s, the 1966-68 series and the accompanying 1966 movie, was to be a pre-enactment of Nixon's future presidency. The show was made to hold the interest of children, but was really aimed at the parents watching with their children. Batman represented Nixon and the actor chosen to play Batman, Adam West, was of the same height and similar build as Nixon. This is the reason that the Batman of the late 1960s couldn't be too muscular, because then he wouldn't resemble Nixon.
Nixon was a Republican, but was not elected for economics. He was a very moderate Republican. He added to the Great Society programs of his Democrat predecessor, and started the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, to protect workers while on the job, actions that most Americans of today would not expect from a Republican.
What Nixon was elected for is simply law and order. To the generation before the Baby Boomers, the 1960s was an unfamiliar new world. Moral standards were dropping just as fast as crime was rising. Young people were taking drugs and engaging in mass protests against the bizarre war in a jungle on the other side of the world. Black people were rioting, for equal rights, and American cities were in flames. Time Magazine summarized 1967 as "that long, strange year".
Batman was like a throwback to the world that the children's parents knew, or at least thought that they knew. There were scenes on Batman that emphasized the importance of diligently doing one's homework, and eating a balanced diet. There was cool technology on Batman that would get the interest of most children, and encourage them to prepare for the future, particularly the Bat-mobile with it's rocket-like engine and the Bat-computer in the Bat-cave.
Batman's real identity was Bruce Wayne, a very wealthy man who lived in a mansion called Wayne Manor. But, unlike the image that Democrats present of the wealthy of seeking out tax shelters and finding ways to squeeze more money out of the less-fortunate, and finally crashing the economy with their greed, Bruce Wayne uses his wealth to start the Wayne Foundation to try to make it a better world for everyone. More importantly, he uses his wealth to set himself up as Batman, joined by his nephew as Robin, to risk his life on a regular basis to battle the criminals who prey on society.
The thing that I want to point out here is that Batman stood for exactly the same set of principles that Richard Nixon campaigned on.
If voters would just elect Republicans like Nixon to office, there would be generous and benevolent wealthy people like Bruce Wayne, a throwback to the wealthy philanthropists of old, and society would be a much better place once these Democrats, who had let things descend into the mad world of the 1960s, were out of the way.
Without being too forward about it, Batman's costume of black and grey, and sometimes blue, are the same colors as a police uniform. This is to sub-consciously convey that the Republican "establishment", that was so reviled during the 1960s, was really on your side.
The logo on the much-admired Bat-mobile also sub-consciously evokes a police car, and the fins on the vehicle evoke the decade before, the 1950s, the "good old days" before the crazy 1960s, when Nixon was vice-president, and which he would bring back if elected as president. But at the same time, the car had a most definite "cool factor", which would keep children and teenagers watching.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batmobile#/media/File:1960s_Batmobile_(FMC).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
The bat symbol, which represented everything about Batman, was easily rendered on t-shirts and other items. Everyone could wear or have something with the bat symbol on it. But, at the same time, it was sub-consciously reminiscent of the eagle that was the symbol of America without, once again, being too forward about it in the anti-establishment 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle#/media/File:Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svg
Also notice how Batman in his cape resembles the symbol of America,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series)#/media/File:1966_Batman_titlecard.JPG
The whole subliminal message was to ignore what the "liberal media" tells you, "the establishment", the Republicans, are on your side. Get some law and order into this mess by getting them back in charge of the country by voting for Nixon.
Batman's costume, with it's serious gray and dark colors, evoked that of a police uniform. But this was also the era of color television, and Batman had to have some color. This was accomplished by the colorful uniform of Batman's assistant, Robin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#/media/File:Batman_%26_Robin_(Batman_vol._1_-9_Feb._1942).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Some of the troubling aspects of the late 1960s are conspicuous on Batman by their absence. There are no guns. The modern era of senseless mass shootings began in the same year as the first season of the Batman television series, 1966, with the University of Texas Tower Shootings. But Batman brings parents, watching with their children, back to the "good old days" when such things didn't happen, or at least not in our country.
One thing that also must be said about Batman is that there do not seem to be any black people, even though it was filmed as race riots were taking place across the country. In the final season of the show, Eartha Kitt did come in, but as the villain Cat-woman.
Neither does there seem to be many ethnic names. The real identity of Batman is Bruce Wayne, and Robin is Dick Grayson. The police commissioner is Gordon, all nice, traditional Anglo names.
In the heyday of rock music while the series is being filmed, there appear to be no references to any such music on Batman, at least until the final season. Once again, bringing back the "good old days" to parents watching with their children.
One thing that many people found unusual about this show is that it was a half-hour show, but each episode was shown in two separate parts within one week. Often Batman was in a dire situation, or about to be killed, and readers were implored to tune into the second half, shown a few days later, at the "same bat time, same bat channel".
But if this entire show was a pre-enactment of the Nixon presidency, then the second half would represent Nixon's future second term as president. U.S. presidents serve four-year terms, and are allowed to be reelected to a second term. It also represents Nixon's "coming back from political near-death". A few years earlier, he had resigned from politics stating that "You will not have Nixon to kick around anymore". But that was only the end of the first half of Nixon's show, he was still to come back for the second half.
Batman involved a lot of actors and it is difficult to keep all of them together year after year. In the third season, 1968, many of the cast had moved on to other things and had been replaced. The show was less successful than it had been in the first two seasons, and was cancelled. But the reruns would seemingly last forever. The show just happened to conclude just as Nixon took the presidency.
One great mystery about the Batman television show is why the filming set, which had cost a lot of money to construct, was almost immediately destroyed when the show was cancelled. It could have been preserved as a Bat-museum. ABC owned the rights to the show. Upon learning that it was being cancelled, rival NBC offered to buy and continue it, but withdrew the offer upon learning that the set had already been destroyed. The iconic Batcave had been put to the bulldozers.
But if the show was really a pre-enactment of the Nixon presidency, then this makes sense. The Republican sympathizers who came up with the idea of Batman as Nixon didn't want anyone else taking over, and possibly changing the meaning of the show, in the mind of the public. They might even make Batman into a Democrat. Neither did they want the show to continue if it wasn't going to be as popular. It had already accomplished it's mission.
Batman had four major arch-enemies, as well as several minor ones. These villains represented the social ills in the late 1960s that Richard Nixon was campaigning against.
The Riddler had a maniacal laugh and wore a green suit covered with question marks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddler#/media/File:Detective140.JPG
He was played on Batman, in the first two seasons, by Frank Gorshin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddler#/media/File:Frank_Gorshin_Riddler_1967.jpg
The Riddler stood for several issues. The first was drugs. Even though illegal drugs were not referenced on the show, the first thought of an adult upon seeing the Riddler would be to question how much LSD it would take to get a person to walk around in a costume like that and to laugh like that. Hippies were questioning the entire social order, and this is what the Riddler's question marks could have represented. Part of the anti-establishment movement of the late 1960s was environmentalism, and this is reflected in the Riddler's green costume.
Another issue was feminism, the disruptive advance of women out of their traditional roles. This was represented on Batman by another villain, Cat-woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Newmar#/media/File:Julie_Newmar_Catwoman_Batman_1966.JPG
The gaudiness of the late 1960s fashion, tye-dyed t-shirts and striped bell-bottom pants, was represented by the gaudy colors of another villain, The Joker. At left in the following photo was yet another villain, The Penguin. By the 1960s, it was being understood how bad it was for the health to smoke cigarettes. The Penguin, usually seen with a cigarette in a cigarette-holder, thus stood for smoking. The top hat worn by The Penguin could have conveyed that, unlike Bruce Wayne who was a good wealthy man The Penguin, in sharp contrast, was an old-style robber baron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(character)#/media/File:Batman_villains_The_Penguin_The_Riddler_The_Joker_1967.JPG
#/media/File:Batman_villains_The_Penguin_The_Riddler_The_Joker_1967.JPG){kind=link}
If everything else on this show was so loaded with political and sociological meaning then what about Robin, Batman's assistant and Bruce Wayne's nephew?
Voters would, at this time, still remember Nixon's loss in the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy. It would be wise to incorporate a sub-conscious representation of Kennedy into this scenario. Assassinated in 1963, he was still very popular, and so could not be a villain. But he could come back, this time as Nixon's (Batman's) junior partner. Kennedy would be sub-consciously represented in the series by Robin.
Look at the way Robin (left) has his hair combed in this photo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series)#/media/File:Batman_and_Robin_1966.JPG
#/media/File:Batman_and_Robin_1966.JPG){kind=link}
Compare it to the way Kennedy combed his hair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#/media/File:John_F_Kennedy_2017_Dedication-forever.jpg
You can also see in this image of Robin how he tries to have his hair combed like Kennedy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_(comics)#/media/File:Robin_Earth_2.jpg
#/media/File:Robin_Earth_2.jpg){kind=link}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#/media/File:John_F._Kennedy,_White_House_photo_portrait,_looking_up.jpg
Robin is clearly Batman's junior partner. Batman is the older and wiser of the two. The two are referred to as "Batman and Robin", never as "Robin and Batman". Robin is also significantly shorter than Batman. This, with Robin representing Kennedy and Batman representing Nixon, is to portray the late Kennedy as living on but this time as Batman's (Nixon's) junior partner.
The famed Batmobile, Batman and Robin's very special car, has a flame exhaust like a rocket. When "taking off" in the Batmobile, Robin would first recite "Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed". As if the two were about to take off in a rocket.
Now, why would a car have to resemble and be handled like a rocket in such a way? Also, if Batman was in command of the two, why would Robin recite the launching checklist rather than Batman?
Because it was Kennedy, during his presidency, who initiated the Apollo Space program of the time by making a speech with the goal of putting a man on the moon, and bringing him safely back, by 1970, a goal which was achieved. This design of the Batmobile, and Robin's recitation of the "takeoff" checklist as if it were a rocket takeoff countdown, reinforces the image of Robin representing Kennedy as Nixon's (Batman's) junior partner, even though Kennedy had defeated Nixon in the 1960 election.
One thing about the Batman television show that didn't seem to make sense was the Batman movie that was released after the first season, in 1966. The movie certainly harmed, rather than helped, the television series. The movie was too long for many children, and much of the content would be beyond their understanding. The movie was less-than-successful, and the show began to fade in popularity.
I saw the movie when I was a young child, but was used to seeing Batman in half-hour intervals. The movie was too long, and I didn't watch all of it. But I did like it when I saw it again, a few years later.
But now I realize that the Batman movie of 1966 was made not so much for children, but for voting parents who were watching it with their children. While the series focused on domestic social issues and crime, the movie brought Batman onto the international stage. The four major villains had joined forces, and the Penguin had a submarine which could fire missiles. Nuclear technology was introduced with the nuclear reactor in Batman's Batcave. Cat-woman, masquerading as a Russian journalist in the movie, brought international politics and espionage into Batman.
But remember that Batman represents Nixon, and the show was a pre-enaction of his future presidency. Nixon was not campaigning only on domestic issues and crime, which was portrayed in the series, but also on international relations, which had to be conveyed by this movie.
Nixon indeed turned out to be a renowned master of foreign policy during his presidency. He visited China, and then Russia, in 1972. His opening of relations with China certainly changed the course of the world. Nixon visited Pierre Trudeau in Ottawa, and predicted that Trudeau's four-month-old son, Justin, would one day be prime minister of Canada.
One of Kennedy's campaign points against Nixon in the 1960 campaign was the so-called "Missile Gap". This was the allegation that the Eisenhower Administration, in which Nixon had been vice-president, had allowed the Soviet Union to close the "missile gap" with the United States, and thus give away America's former lead in nuclear missiles.
Nuclear missiles may be fired from submarines, and this movie showed that the public had nothing to worry about that Batman (Nixon) was very capable of dealing with a world of nuclear missiles and submarines.
Kennedy had handled the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis a few year before. The U.S. Navy had dropped a depth charge, which forced a Soviet submarine to surface. It wasn't a real depth charge, which could crush the hull of a submarine, just one with a small explosive charge that was used for training, but would send powerful sound waves through the water.
In the movie, circling the Penguin's submarine in the Bat-boat, Robin uses a "sonic weapon" that he fires like a bazooka, to force the submarine to surface. This, and the missile that the submarine fires, evokes the Missile Crisis of 1962. This is to sub-consciously convey to the public that Nixon (Batman) could have handled such a crisis also. The fact that Robin, rather than Batman, is the one that handles the sonic weapon further links him as representing Kennedy, who is now resurrected as Batman's junior partner.
So that explains why this apparently unproductive movie was made. Batman was representing Nixon. The series showed him battling domestic social issues and crime, but he had to be shown on the international stage as well, and Nixon indeed turned out to be best-known for his foreign-policy accomplishments.
One mystery about the Nixon presidency is his choice of running mate and vice-president. Spiro Agnew had been governor of Maryland, and was initially popular. But his relationship with Nixon soon began to deteriorate, he resigned the vice-presidency due to tax-evasion charges, after which he and Nixon never spoke again, and was even disbarred from practicing law.
But this scenario here explains it. Ten years before the Batman series and movie, there had been another hero in Superman. The introduction to each episode described Superman as battling for "truth, justice and, the American way". The Superman television series was from the 1950s, when Nixon had been vice-president, and the good times that he would take the voting public back to, if he were elected. Like Batman, Superman had worn a cape and had a logo, while he did battle with a nasty array of villains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman#/media/File:Superman_S_symbol.svg
Batman was already rallying the voters in support of Nixon, it would be a very good thing if Superman could be brought in too.
Spiro Agnew, it turns out, bore a striking resemblance to Superman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew#/media/File:Spiro_Agnew.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Reeves#/media/File:Stamp_Day_for_Superman.jpg
How could America go wrong with the team of Batman and Superman running the country?
But the real mystery of the Nixon presidency is Watergate. If you have never heard of Watergate, it was a massive scandal in the United States during the second Nixon presidential term, after he was reelected in 1972. During the 1972 campaign, against Democrat George McGovern, a team of burglars broke into the Watergate Building in Washington. They were looking for incriminating evidence against Democrats, to help to get Nixon re-elected. My understand is that were looking, in particular, for documentation that Democrats had received funding from Communist Cuba.
The burglars had entered the building during the day, while it was open. There were doors that had latches which could be opened from the inside, but not from the outside. They put tape over a latch, so that they could come back at night and enter the building. A security guard in the building noticed the tape and called police. The burglars were caught and the ensuing scandal brought about the resignation of Nixon, the only such time in American history that a president has resigned. Spiro Agnew had been replaced with Gerald Ford when he earlier resigned, due to the tax evasion charges, and Ford took over as president when Nixon resigned.
Nixon easily won re-election in 1972, it was one of the most one-sided elections in American history. Out of fifty states, McGovern won the vote in only one, the Democrat bastion of Massachusetts. But yet this ridiculous and absurd burglary would destroy that presidency. It was like a sports team that was ahead in score 49-1 cheating to be sure that it would win, and then getting disqualified for cheating. It did not make the slightest bit of sense.
But remember that we are dealing with Batman here. Nixon's was the presidency of Batman, and just couldn't help reenacting Batman. Batman did not have super powers, like the ability to fly, he relied on ingenuity and some special devices. This cleverly putting tape over a door latch sounds like something right out of Batman. Never before or since has anything like this happened in any other presidency. Scotch Tape even sells a line of tape called Bat-Tape, with the logo of Batman on it. It is easy to imagine Batman telling Robin to "Put a piece of Bat-Tape over the door latches so we can get back into the building later".
This tape over the door-latch fits perfectly with the secretiveness of the Bat-Cave. There is a hidden button in Wayne Manor, which slides away a bookcase, revealing the elevator to the Bat-Cave. When the Bat-Mobile enters or leaves the Bat-Cave, a wooden traffic entrance barrier temporarily drops down.
Nixon's notorious tape recordings of conversations are also like something out of Batman, who had a Bat-Tape Reader, and a special Bat-device to analyze sounds on tape recordings.
I think that we can conclude that Batman, in his greatest quest of all, came to the rescue and, with a little bit of help from Superman, saved the presidency for the Republicans.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+batman&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ09bZq9LUAhXLbD4KHbI4BxcQsAQIKQ&biw=1012&bih=636#imgrc=l26P_BOsAhEILM:
10) AMERICA'S 75-YEAR MYSTERY
How about a spy story, that might provide the answer to an enduring mystery? Even in these days, when hacking has largely replaced traditional spying, spy stories are still popular.
THE DEADLY DOUBLE
Every anniversary of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, we are reminded of a bizarre mystery that has yet to be solved.
Two weeks before the attack, an ad was placed in a magazine called The New Yorker. The ad was for sales of a game involving dice, made by a company called Monarch Publishing. The game was called "The Deadly Double".
The image in the ad featured a pair of dice, with the numbers 12 and 7 prominently displayed. According to one account that I read, this was unusual because no dice at the time featured the numbers 12 or 7. The ad also had the words for "warning" in three languages, and was about the dice game as something to do in an air raid shelter.
As it turns out the attack on Pearl Harbor soon took place, as an air raid on the 7th day of the 12th month.
There is no Wikipedia article about the "Deadly Double", but there are numerous other articles about it online. You can see an image of the ad by going to Google, searching for "Deadly Double" and bringing up all of the "Images For deadly Double". The ad has "Warning" in three languages at the top, "Achtung", "Warning", "Alerte".
After the attack, the U.S. Government launched an investigation into the ad. It was soon found that neither the game nor Monarch Publishing existed. A man had come to the offices of the magazine, paid for the ad in cash without giving his name, and had the type for the ad all set up. He handed the clerk the set of type, and insisted that it be used to print the ad. The man was not Japanese.
According to another account of the Deadly Double that I read, investigators managed to find the man who placed the ad, but he had recently died in a mysterious accident.
It does not seem possible that the ad was a coded warning to any Japanese agents that the attack was about to take place because there were Japanese diplomats in the U.S. at the time of the attack, who clearly did not know that the attack was going to take place. Adolf Hitler was officially an ally of Japan, but was reportedly just as shocked as anyone at news of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The "Deadly Double" remains a much-pondered mystery to this day. Even if the game did exist, why would a company market a game as something to do while in an air raid shelter, when the country wasn't even at war?
RICHARD SORGE
Now, let's go to another spy story. In fact, the story of Richard Sorge has got to be the greatest spy story there ever was.
Richard Sorge's father was German, and his mother Russian. While recuperating from wounds suffered while serving in the German Army during the First World War, he became a devout convert to Communism. By the Second World War, he was a journalist reporting from Tokyo, seeming to be a Nazi, but actually spying for the Soviet Union.
Sorge reportedly found out about the imminent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and warned his NKVD contacts (the NKVD was the predecessor to the KGB, which is the predecessor to the present FSB, the state security organization), but Josef Stalin apparently didn't believe him.
After Imperial Japan occupied Manchuria, transforming it into a client state called Manchukuo, a dispute arose over the border between that state and the Soviet Union. Several battles were fought, in which the Soviets secured their territory. These are known as the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. There was also, of course, the major naval battle in the area between Japan and Russia, in 1905.
After the Nazis, allies of Japan, invaded the Soviet Union in the west, the Soviet leadership was very concerned that Japan would join in by attacking from the east. A large military force was stationed in the Soviet far east, even though it was very much needed to oppose the invasion in the west.
This was where Richard Sorge came into the picture. His job was to pretend to be a Nazi, reporting as a journalist on events in ally Japan, but actually finding out and reporting to the Soviet Union what Japan's military plans were.
The Wikipedia article on Richard Sorge states that he was a master spy who relayed to the Soviets, through secret radio transmissions, that Japan had no intention of joining the war against the Soviet Union any time soon. The reason was that there were other military plans in the works. This must have been a great relief to the Soviets, and the bulk of the large military force in the far east was moved westward, where it reportedly played vital roles in the Battles of Moscow and Stalingrad.
It is not in the Wikipedia article, but I have seen information that Sorge not only managed to relay that there were "other military plans" in the works, but exactly what those plans were. The military of Japan was, of course, planning the attack on Pearl Harbor.
As one example, my father had an old set of books about the Second World War. I recall that a book titled "Barbarossa", by John Keegan, stated that Sorge had actually informed the NKVD that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Japan was not necessarily seeking a full-scale war with the U.S, but only wanted to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet so that it could not interfere with Japan's conquests in Asia.
The conclusion was that Stalin was delighted, and did not warn America about the pending attack, not because of anything against the U.S., but because the U.S. would surely respond to such an attack, and this would keep the forces of Japan preoccupied so that they could not invade the Soviet far east. The bulk of the large military force guarding the Soviet far east could then be moved westward to join the battle against the Nazis.
THE SOLUTION TO "THE DEADLY DOUBLE"
Now, let's go back to the mysterious ad for the "Deadly Double", that was placed just before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Even though the U.S. and the Soviet Union were on the same side in the Second World War, it was no secret that there were any number of NKVD spies in the U.S. They knew all about the Manhattan Project, and what they really wanted was the plans for the atomic bomb. They would achieve their goal by getting Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to give them those plans.
As soon as I first became aware of this ad for "The Deadly Double", my thought was that this was a technique of communication that Communists around this time might have used.
The Soviets knew that there was an impending attack on the U.S., and that it would likely open up an entirely new dimension to the war. But they may not have known exactly what the coming Japanese military action might entail, whether it would be Pearl Harbor or the U.S. forces in the Philippines that might be attacked. It was actually part of a wider military action that included attacks on Malaya, Hong Kong and, the Philippines. They did not know how the coming attack would play out, how successful it would be, or how the U.S. and other countries would react to it.
By the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Soviet Union had been at war with the Nazis and their allies for nearly six months. They may have been unsure whether the leadership of Germany and Italy knew about the upcoming attack, if they had plans to join in some coordinated action if they did know, and how they might react if they didn't.
The following image is of a Communist pamphlet that was widely circulated in the U.S. during the late 1930s. There was plenty of Communist sympathy in the U.S. at the time, due to the stock market crash and the following Great Depression. Every Communist in the U.S., some of which were active NKVD agents, would likely be familiar with this pamphlet.
Notice how the number 4 and the name of July are prominently displayed, in exactly the same way as the 12 and the 7 in the ad for "The Deadly Double".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Browder#/media/File:37-howard-this4thofjuly.jpg
It was done this way because spies had been instructed to read The New Yorker magazine, to find out how to get further instructions as the Communist leadership watched events unfold after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The 12 and the 7, the day of the attack, were rendered in such a way as to be reminiscent of the above pamphlet, so that they wouldn't miss the ad. In fact, this ad for "The Deadly Double" might have been put together by the same source as the pamphlet.
There was also a double-headed eagle, which looked a lot like the Nazi eagle, as well as XX which is 20 in Roman numerals. This was further intended to catch the attention of agents who had been instructed to read the magazine to find out where to get further instructions. This likely stood for Germany and Italy, the Soviets' two Axis enemies, as did the name of "The Deadly Double".
The 12 and the 7, the date of the attack, are the numbers most prominently displayed on the dice in the ad. But what about the four other numbers? The ad also displays, on the dice, the numbers 0, 5, XX (20) and, 24.
Remember that this is a notice for agents to access further instructions. Without these further instructions, all that the ad would accomplish was to let the agents know when the attack would occur, which they would find out anyway by listening to the news on the radio. There is not much that any secret agent could have done to make the attack any more devastating than it was. There is no sign that any secret agent had anything at all to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor. The ad would really not accomplish much if all it did was to let a few people know when the attack was going to take place.
The ad was instructions on how to listen to further instructions after the attack had taken place, as the Communist leadership watched unfolding events and decided on any possible new course of action.
Shortwave radio had become popular by this time. The wavelength band used in shortwave radio has the property of bouncing off the ionosphere, which is a layer of the earth's atmosphere that holds charged particles due to the effect of the sun. Short-wavelength radio waves travel in straight lines, and are not reflected by the ionosphere. But the shortwave band can be transmitted literally around the world by "bouncing" between the ionosphere and the earth's surface one or more times.
In more recent times, satellites relay shorter wavelengths of radio and television signals that would not bounce off the ionosphere at all, making propagation by way of the ionosphere unnecessary for these wavelengths.
Several years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the aviator Amelia Earhart had disappeared while attempting a flight around the world. The plane had a shortwave transmitter. Numerous shortwave listeners claimed to have heard her calls for help, claiming that she had crash-landed on an atoll but couldn't describe exactly where she was. I recall reading of a teenage girl in Florida, who listened to her father's shortwave receiver, and received a signal that kept fading in and out with a voice calling for help and claiming to be Amelia Earhart, that kept repeating the words "New York City".
The girl knew that her plane would be over the Pacific, so why would she be saying "New York City"?
It turns out that a British cargo ship named "Norwich City" had run aground on an atoll during a storm. The crew had been rescued, but the ship abandoned. The name of the ship would have been clearly visible to anyone who was on the atoll, and many people believe that this was where Amelia Earhart was calling from and was referring to the name of the beached ship. The plane could later have been pushed back out into the water by a storm, where it would have sank.
Anyway, shortwave radio was a staple means of communication for Communist spies. I remember reading stories of spies in North America, during the Cold War, who were instructed to get set up away from any high-tension power lines that might interfere with radio communications.
In the Wikipedia article on Earl Browder, who was leader of the U.S. Communist Party at the time, in the last paragraph of the section "Leader of the Popular Front", you can see that he arranged for shortwave radio communication in case international conflict made direct communication impossible. We also read in this paragraph that shortwave communication began in 1939 to convey the party's political line on the changing situation after the war began. This communication method would thus be in place in the days before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
One issue with shortwave radio communication is that conditions change. It requires bouncing signals off the ionosphere, which is very much affected by the sun. You may have noticed that very distant radio stations can be received on an AM radio, called long-wave outside of North America, at night that cannot be received during the day, and that cannot be received on much shorter wavelengths, such as FM, at all. That is because those much shorter wavelengths pass right through the ionosphere, and are not reflected.
There are also several layers to the ionosphere, each of which reflects radio waves under it's own conditions. Reflection of radio waves certainly varies between day and night, but also by the seasons. Put simply, a wavelength used for shortwave communications may be unreliable at any given time, although completely reliable at other times.
The solution is that shortwave stations usually broadcast on several different wavelengths, bringing the likelihood that at least one will be reliable at any given time. Notice on the pair of dice in the mysterious ad that the two low numbers, 0 and 5, are on the black dice, and the two high numbers, 20 (XX) and 24, are on the white dice. That could be an instruction to listen to the low channels at night and the high ones during the day, when the conditions of the ionosphere are different. Notice also how the exclamation point in the ad for "The Deadly Double" is extended, so that it looks a lot like a radio antenna.
The shortwave part of the radio spectrum runs from about 2 MHz (megahertz) to about 26 MHz. Thus, the other numbers, with the exception of the 0, could refer to shortwave frequencies, expressed in MHz.
The 0 could, of course, be a reference to not only the "rising sun" symbol that would be on the warplanes, but also to the name of the legendary carrier-based plane, the Zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A6M3_Zero_N712Z_1.jpg
The ad was not so much to warn that the attack was to take place, but as instructions on what to do to listen for further instructions, after it had taken place. An agent would see that the 12, the 7 and the 0 meant, and would conclude that the other three numbers were shortwave frequencies to be listened to, depending on whether listening was done during the day or at night, by which agents in the U.S. can get further instructions and updates on the official party line concerning the events which would unfold after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Japan was no ally of the Soviet Union, and the United States was not an enemy, but it must have been really good news that Japan was planning an attack on the U.S. because that would keep Japan occupied, unable to invade the Soviet far east, and the large military force that the Soviets kept guarding that region could be moved westward to join the battle against the invading Nazis.
I think this solves the mystery that has perplexed America for 75 years. The reason that it was not solved sooner is that the story of Richard Sorge is not widely known in the U.S., and did not get a lot of attention, but is necessary to solve this mystery.
Most of the ships that were in the attack on Pearl Harbor were at least partially salvaged. The exception is the battleship U.S.S. Arizona. The ship was not hit by torpedoes, but a bomb penetrated into the ship and detonated either the powder magazine, or the fuel tank, there are differing theories. The result was a massive explosion, and about half of the casualties in the attack were on board the Arizona.
One military advantage that the Allies had is that the Axis nations still believed in battleships, the ships with massive guns that were being made irrelevant by aircraft carriers. The attack got some of America's battleships, but took place when the aircraft carriers were away at sea. No aircraft carriers were damaged in the attack. The attack would have been much more devastating, in strategic terms, if it had been scheduled when the aircraft carriers were in port.
One popular topic to write about nowadays is conspiracy theories. Many writers have claimed to uncovered the identity of the supposed "second gunman", who really shot John F. Kennedy. Others have identified the "real" Jack the Ripper, the serial killer in the Whitechapel district of London in the Autumn of 1888. So today, we have dozens of people who "really" shot John F. Kennedy, and a whole gallery of Jack the Rippers. Another popular topic for writers is the supposedly "hidden" meanings of artwork in the Vatican.
I would like to present my theory, involving symbolism and secret societies. Unlike many theories involving secretiveness, hidden meanings, and the Vatican, this theory is not fictional and can be seen in photos. However I intend it only for educational, making history a little bit more interesting, and entertainment purposes.
THE FREEMASONS
Let's begin with the semi-secret society that most readers would probably have some familiarity with, the Freemasons. The Freemasons are not directly involved with my theory here, but I want to use them to illustrate the power of secret societies and the symbolism that they typically use.
A so-called "secret society" actually cannot be completely secret simply because it has to have new members joining. No one will seek to join it if they have never heard of it. My understanding of Freemasonry is that it began in either England or Scotland, in the time before the Reformation. Like many secret societies, it's activity revolves around secret rites and symbolism.
A central legend of Freemasonry is that of Hiram Abiff, believed to be the architect of Solomon's Temple who was murdered for refusing to divulge masonic secrets. Other legend has Freemasonry going back to ancient Egypt, before being taken to countries like England and France.
Freemasonry began, as the name implies, in medieval guilds of stone workers. It's main symbol is the compass and the square, around the "G", which stands for the Grand Architect of the Universe, which is God. Freemasonry is not believed to be primarily a religious organization, but it's members are supposed to express belief in a supreme being. This may not be a requirement of all Masonic Lodges, such as for those in France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#/media/File:Square_compasses.svg
One important image associated with the Freemasons is the Eye of Providence, a reminder to Masons that God was watching everything that they did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence#/media/File:MasonicEyeOfProvidence.gif
The Eye of Providence is a very important symbol to the United States, being on the country's Great Seal, and is seen today on the U.S. one-dollar bill, atop a pyramid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence#/media/File:Dollarnote_siegel_hq.jpg
One thing that no one doubts about the Freemasons is their power. We won't go into all of the influential persons known to be Freemasons here, but many of the founders of the United States and every significant figure in the French Revolution are believed to have been Freemasons. Lists of prominent Freemasons read like a who's who of much of the world. Five British kings, as well as Winston Churchill, were supposedly among them, as were many U.S. presidents.
Here is George Washington in his Masonic Lodge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#/media/File:Washington_Masonic_print.jpg
James Hoban, the designer of the White House, was a Freemason. Frederic Bartholdi, designer of the Statue of Liberty, was another Freemason.
One of the most prominent pieces of architecture in Washington D.C. is it's Masonic Lodge, The House of the Temple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_the_Temple#/media/File:House_of_the_Temple.JPG
The reaction against Freemasonry shows the power that it had. The Catholic and Anglican Churches were very concerned about their influence. The Nazis thought that they had to eliminate them. There was once an anti-Masonry political party in the U.S., intending to curb their power.
Batavia, New York, between Buffalo and Rochester, is my one-time sales territory and as nice of a place as there is anywhere. It once gained national attention, with regard to Freemasonry, when a local resident, William Morgan, who claimed to have belonged to other lodges, was denied admission to the Masonic Lodge in Batavia. Morgan then threatened to write a book detailing the secret activity of the Masons. He was soon arrested, on questionable criminal charges. Shortly afterward, he vanished and was presumed murdered. These events around Batavia set off a national backlash against the power of Freemasonry.
Do you want another example of a powerful "secret society" that, in this case, wasn't so secret? Tammany Hall, otherwise known as the Columbian Order, virtually controlled all politics in New York City for 150 years. Regardless of the processes of democracy, little could be done in New York without the approval of the reigning "boss" of Tammany Hall.
This cartoon from 1899 illustrates, in astronomical terms, how the operation of New York City really revolves around the "boss" of Tammany Hall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall#/media/File:New_York%27s_New_Solar_System2.jpg
THE VATICAN
Let's move on to another place where symbolism is very important, the Vatican. It is centers of power that tend to also become centers of conspiracy theories. Much has been written about the supposedly "hidden" meanings of Catholic artwork in the Vatican, but we do not need to get into that here.
The Vatican itself is designed around the shape of a key. In the Gospels, Jesus told St. Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom of God, meaning that he would be the leader of the church. St. Peter was a leader of the apostles, and was eventually martyred in Rome.
The Jewish religion was protected under Roman rule, Jews were exempt from both otherwise-mandatory emperor worship and military service. But when the early Christians became distinct from Judaism, the same protection did not apply to them. The Romans were concerned about the religious conflict within the empire between Christians and Jews and, according to another theory, the Emperor Nero set fire to part of the city of Rome himself, because he wanted to rebuild it as something else, and then blamed the fire on the Christians.
The grave of the martyred St. Peter was said to have been marked by a red stone. When the Roman Empire later became Christian, a church was built over St. Peter's Tomb. When that church fell into disrepair, the present St. Peter's Basilica was built on the spot.
St. Peter's Basilica and the adjoining St. Peter's Square are in the form of a key, with St. Peter's Square being the handle of the key:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(lock)#/media/File:Standard-lock-key.jpg
#/media/File:Standard-lock-key.jpg){kind=link}
This is starting in St. Peter's Basilica, and around the Vatican. Remember that the Vatican is actually an independent country, and the buildings in the gardens behind St. Peter's Basilica are the administration buildings:
There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >. After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9003853,12.4529437,3a,75y,295.55h,92.3t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-9nfe69UJ5RM%2FVej4Ct1xD_I%2FAAAAAAAAF10%2FB2Lo3rH-Ld8!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-9nfe69UJ5RM%2FVej4Ct1xD_I%2FAAAAAAAAF10%2FB2Lo3rH-Ld8%2Fw203-h101-n-k-no%2F!7i8704!8i4352
One popular theory about the alleged symbolism in the Vatican concerns the interior paintings of the adjoining Sistine Chapel, where new popes are chosen by ballot. The Sistine Chapel was constructed as a copy of the inner chamber of Solomon's Temple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel#/media/File:Sistina-interno.jpg
Beginning in 1508, the artist Michelangelo spent several years painting the interior of the chapel. The popular conspiracy theory is that Michelangelo did not want the job of painting the chapel. He had earlier completed sculptures, like the Pieta, and would rather be doing sculpture than painting. After completing a sculpture like the Pieta, spending several years on scaffolding painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel must have seemed like some kind of punishment.
According to the theory, Michelangelo got revenge on Pope Julius by subtly painting hidden meanings into the scenes in the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo supposedly was a practitioner of the Jewish Kabbala, and a close look reveals Kabbalastic symbolism in the paintings. Jewish rabbis on a visit once noted that, while the paintings are of biblical scenes, the shapes formed by various figures and cloaks in the paintings form letters of the Hebrew alphabet, standing for concepts in Kabbala, as well as other symbolic shapes such as the right hemisphere of the human brain.
Michelangelo was from Florence, which he supposedly believed to be culturally superior to Rome. In the Sistine Chapel painting of the Great Flood it has been noted that, on one side of the painting, the head of a donkey or mule is seen against the background of red and golden yellow, which were the colors representing Rome at the time. One the opposite side of the painting, two of the antediluvian sinners have washed ashore, and both are wearing the same red and golden yellow colors of Rome.
ORDERS OF KNIGHTS
In the Middle Ages, orders of knights were formed to protect and assist Catholic pilgrims to the Holy Land. Some of these orders of knights ended up gaining great power and influence and becoming, in effect, the world's first multi-national corporations. Some of these orders remain in existence today. But as with all secret, and semi-secret, societies, the question is about how much of their activity is of a social and charitable and medical nature, and how much is about exerting unseen influence and control?
There is the Knights Templar, also known as the Order of Solomon's Temple. Solomon's Temple is, of course, also very important to Freemasons, with the legendary Hiram Abiff being it's architect. Coincidentally, the Sistine Chapel that we have seen was based on the inner sanctuary of Solomon's Temple. So, we can see that Solomon's Temple is something that tends to be held in common among secret societies. Knights Templar, aside from being an organization, is also the name of an order of Masonry of the York Rite.
The Knights Templar are so named because when they reached Jerusalem, they renamed the Moslem buildings on the Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock which is the former site of Solomon's Temple, as Solomon's Temple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar#/media/File:Temple_mount.JPG
Another order of knights, The Knights Hospitaller now headquartered in Rome, is also known as the Soveriegn Military Order of Malta, and is an international medical organization. They are known as the Order of St. John and as the Knights of Malta. They used to own the island of Malta, and are recognized as a landless sovereign state. So great was their influence that today, across the world, a building in which the sick and injured are cared for is referred to as a hospital.
These are only two of the orders of knights which formed in medieval times primarily to protect and assist pilgrims to the Holy Land. Many of these orders gained tremendous power, money and, influence, and still exist, in some form, today. These orders were Catholic, often formed with the blessings of the pope. Their heyday was the time of the Crusades, in the Thirteenth Century, the attempt to regain the Holy Land from the Moslems.
BRIDGING THE REFORMATION
My theory is that, when the Reformation happened, beginning in 1517, these Catholic societies suffered a great loss of territory and influence as Europe was split into Catholic and Protestant. They were not able to stop the Reformation, but they did what they could to bridge the gulf between the two halves of Europe, and we can see evidence of that in the symbolism of important places today. If they would react to the loss of the Holy Land to the Moslems, wouldn't they also react to the loss of much of Catholic territory to the Protestants?
In the article "Knights Hospitaller", on www.wikipedia.org , it is made clear how the organization was affected by the loss of influence and territory brought on by the Reformation. I find the Freemasons to be significant in this bridge because they were based primarily in the part of Europe that split away and became Protestant.
The de-facto "flag" of the crusaders, and the orders of knights, was the red cross on a white background. I find this to be the symbol of the attempt to bridge the gap brought about by the Reformation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar#/media/File:HPIM3597.JPG
The red and white cross of St. George is named for the widely-revered saint of that name. St. George was believed to be a commander in a Roman legion, who was martyred for his Christian faith. The flag of England (but not of all of Britain) is the George Cross:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George%27s_Cross#/media/File:Flag_of_England.svg
This red cross on a white background, dating from the days of the Crusades, is to be seen in many places associated with England, such as the Order of the Garter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter
Why did the cross of a Catholic saint remain the flag of a country like England, which went overwhelmingly Protestant in the Reformation?
Scotland joined England, along with Wales, to form modern Britain in 1707, mainly because the two countries had ended up on the same side during the Reformation. The fiery sermons of John Knox turned his native Scotland from a bastion of Catholicism into one of the most Protestant of nations. Scotland's Cross of St. Andrew was superimposed onto England's Cross of St. George, in a process that resembles the Scottish tartan method, to create the flag of Britain, known commonly as the Union Jack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan#/media/File:Flag_of_Scotland.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#/media/File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#/media/File:Union_Flag_and_St_Georges_Cross.jpg
But have you ever noticed that there is a perfect British flag imposed on the very center of Catholicism, St. Peter's Square? The Basilica of St. Peter is included in the following image. If you press the (-) button, to go up a step in altitude, you can see how the dome and the transepts of the basilica form the shape of a key, with St. Peter's Square being the handle of the key:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9023136,12.4571096,271m/data=!3m1!1e3
Could this British flag in St. Peter's Square represent, at least to the influential secret societies who lost such influence in the Reformation, an attempt to pull the former domain of Catholicism, where they had such great influence, back together? Along with the fact that the symbol of a Catholic saint remained the flag of England, despite the split during the Reformation? This location of the British flag in St. Peter's Square fits perfectly with the symbolism of the surrounding Collonades representing the all-embracing "arms" of the Catholic Church.
Considering how important symbolism is to the Vatican, as well as how vital symbolism is to secret societies, I consider this as very plausible. I cannot see that the lines which form the British flag in St. Peter's Square serve any essential purpose and, seen from the surface of the square, the British flag is not apparent unless viewed from above. The obelisk in the middle of St. Peter's Square acts as a sundial, but the time is indicated by markers on the Collonades, and does not involve the lines which form the British flag.
As a parallel example of this use of a pattern of lines in a prominent square in Italy to signify some kind of alliance, look at the pattern of interlocking squares and rectangles in Piazza San Marco, in Venice. Remember that Marco Polo, who visited China, was from Venice. This pattern is commonly seen in China, and I have seen it at a number of Chinese restaurants.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4339152,12.3384387,133m/data=!3m1!1e3
Much has been written about how secret societies like to link themselves, not only to Solomon's Temple, but also to ancient Egypt. This Egyptian obelisk, in the center of St. Peter's Square, brings the Vatican into the link also.
There was plenty of effort to stop the split of the Reformation or, failing that, at least to bridge it. Considering their power and what they had to lose by the Reformation, secret societies must have had a hand in this effort. The Catholic Queen Mary I of England tried to bring the country back by force. When her successor, Elizabeth I created the Anglican Church, the pope had the Catholic King Phillip of Spain dispatch his armada. The Anglican Church does happen to be one of the branches of Protestantism that retained much of the Catholic liturgy.
I am surprised that no one has noticed this, but a Google search of "British flag St. Peter's Square Rome" turns up nothing. Remember that there is a place called St. Peter's Square in London also.
Isn't it interesting that the symbol of the Knights Hospitaller is the Maltese Cross?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Hospitaller#/media/File:Cross_of_the_Knights_Hospitaller.svg
While the flag of Malta today has the George Cross, on a red and white background. Remember that Malta was once owned by the Knights Hospitaller and that red and white is the primary colors of the orders of knights which protected and assisted pilgrims to the Holy Land. The George Cross is Britain's highest award for valor, after the Victoria Cross. Malta was a British island in the wartime and it was awarded to it's people for their resistance to relentless air raids and naval blockade. The George Cross is named, of course, after the red and white Cross of St. George which is England's flag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cross#/media/File:Flag_of_Malta.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cross#/media/File:George_Cross_Malta_P1440218.jpg
As far as red crosses on white backgrounds go, today we have the International Red Cross which undergoes humanitarian missions across the world. This makes it a direct descendant of the medieval orders of knights which provided protection and medical assistance to pilgrims visiting the Holy Land. The Red Cross certainly does not engage in any violence, but the principle is the same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#/media/File:Flag_of_the_Red_Cross.svg
SYMBOLISM AND THE HAGIA SOPHIA
In 1453, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine Empire city of Constantinople, which was renamed Istanbul. Byzantium had been weakened by the earlier conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders, who apparently digressed from their stated mission of liberating the Holy Land from Moslem control.
The very old Hagia Sophia, the House of Holy Wisdom, which had been the largest church in the world for nearly a thousand years, was re-purposed into a mosque and four minarets were built around it. To show that they too were capable of such a building, the Ottomans built the Blue Mosque, facing the Hagia Sophia.
The Ottomans were responsible for a lot of important building that remains today. They built the wall around the Old City of Jerusalem, which has some really attractive gates, particularly the Damascus Gate and the Jaffa Gate. This does not include the retaining walls of the Temple Mount (or Noble Sanctuary to Moslems), which is within the Old City. The Ottomans also built the minaret at the Tower of David, within the Old City of Jerusalem.
But look at the Hagia Sophia. Three of the four minarets are made of white stone, while the other is made of red brick.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia#/media/File:Hagia_Sophia_Mars_2013.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia#/media/File:Hagia_Sophia_2017.jpg
Whoever heard of a mosque with four minarets, one at each corner, but where one was a different color than the others, particularly one of the most historic and famous buildings in the world? I can find no satisfactory answer as to why three of the minarets at the Hagia Sophia are white, while the fourth is red. I can see no other examples of important mosques, with four minarets, where one is a different color than the others.
This brings us back to the red and white flags of the Crusaders and the medieval orders of knights. The Ottomans would be considered as a rival, but perhaps there were other factors that brought the red and white symbolism of some kind of alliance.
It was the weakening of Byzantium by the attack of the Crusaders which made it possible, or at least easier, for the Ottomans to conquer it.
Maybe the red minaret among the white ones represented some kind of agreement to allow Christian pilgrims to visit the Holy Land, which would come under Ottoman control.
The worst thing that ever happened to the Islamic religion took place around the time of the Crusades. But it wasn't the Crusades, it was the Mongol siege and destruction of Baghdad in 1258. The vast library, containing the records of the knowledge that the Abassid Caliphate had built up, during what is known as the Golden Age of Islam, was destroyed.
During the Golden Age, Moslems made great advances in knowledge. About 70% of the stars in the sky now have Arabic names for this reason. The numbers that we use: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, are referred to as Arabic numerals (although the vital concept of zero is an Indian invention). According to many accounts, Moslems ever since then have been seeking to regain what was lost in the destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate capital of Baghdad, and this Golden Age is what IS is seeking to bring back.
The Mongols would slaughter the inhabitants of any city that resisted them, Moslem or Catholic. The Mongols had passed by the time the Ottomans took over, although they had earlier inflicted a nasty defeat on the Ottomans in the Battle of Ankara. But could this red minaret among the white ones represent a "secret society" agreement with the Catholic orders of knights to join together if another threat from the east, such as the Mongols, reappeared? How much of a coincidence is it that the primary symbolism of the all-powerful medieval orders of knights was red on white, and these minarets are three white, and one red?
Once again, this theory is intended for education and entertainment purposes.
12) THE PALACE ALLIANCE
We have seen a theory about secret societies and architectural symbolism in the posting on this blog, "Symbolism Theory of The Vatican And Hagia Sophia". How about another theory about such architectural symbolism? Has anyone ever noticed the following?
In 1904, the agreement called the "Entente Cordiale" was signed between Britain and France, which had previously had a history of rivalry. This very much changed to balance of power in Europe and the world.
What I would like to point out here, that I have never seen documented and that was never publicly announced, is how this agreement was expressed in the form of architecture, particularly that of Buckingham Palace.
To begin, let's go to Place Concorde in Paris. The two identical buildings on the north side of Place Concorde, along with the building at the end of the short street that runs between them, are prominent symbols of the previous French hostility to Britain.
The building on the left is where Ben Franklin first gained diplomatic recognition for the new United States, which had declared independence from Britain. France then helped the U.S. gain independence, in ultimate retaliation for Britain giving support to the Protestant (Huguenot) side in France during the Reformation.
The identical building on the right is the headquarters of the French Navy, which had been primarily occupied with conflict with the British Navy.
The building at the end of the short street between the two, Rue Royale, is La Madeleine. This was built by Napoleon as a temple dedicated to the glory of his army. Napoleon was, of course, one of the greatest rivals of Britain. The temple was later made into a Catholic church, which was the other great point of rivalry between the two countries, following the Reformation, with Britain joining the Protestant side but France remaining Catholic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B4tel_de_Crillon#/media/File:Fontaine-place-de-la-concorde-paris.jpg
But eventually, the Entente Cordiale was signed between the two countries, and they became close allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale#/media/File:Scouts-entente-cordiale.jpg
The year after that photo was taken, 1913, Buckingham Palace in London was remodeled. At the time of the remodeling, tension was building in Europe and the two countries would soon be on the same side in the First World War. What I have concluded is that the remodeling of the palace was done to reflect the new alliance, relative to the former symbols of hostility in Place Concorde.
The 1913 remodeling of Buckingham Palace was done by Sir Aston Webb, who also designed the French Protestant Church of London. Many French Protestants (Huguenots) sought refuge in Britain when the Catholic side of the Reformation eventually triumphed in France. (See the posting on this blog "Christmas In Paris").
It is absolutely striking how Buckingham Palace resembles the two buildings in Place Concorde, not as the palace appeared originally but how it was remodeled in 1913, after the Entente Cordiale had been signed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace#/media/File:Buckingham_Palace_from_side,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg
Here is an old photo of the headquarters of the French Navy, one of the two buildings facing Place Concorde. The resemblance with Buckingham Palace, following the renovation of the palace in 1913, is unmistakable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune#/media/File:Barricades_pres_de_Ministere_de_la_Marine_et_l%27H%C3%B6tel_Crillon.jpg
The difference is that the front of Buckingham Palace has pillars on the central section of the palace, but not on the sections with the windows, as do the two identical buildings in Place Concorde. The pillars in the central section of the front of Buckingham Palace could be interpreted as standing for an accord with La Madeleine, the building at the end of the short street between the two buildings in Place Concorde. La Madeleine was constructed by Napoleon, a great rival of Britain, as a temple dedicated to the glory of his army.
There are pillars all around La Madeleine. All of the buildings discussed, including La Madeleine, have the "ancient temple" form of a peaked triangular section supported by pillars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Madeleine,_Paris#/media/File:Madeleine_Paris.jpg
The fact that Buckingham Palace was remodeled into a form that is virtually identical with the buildings in Place Concorde, except with the pillars along the front window sections missing, could be interpreted as a sign that the previous barrier between the two countries, represented by the pillars, had now been removed.
This alliance began with the buildings in Place Concorde, and when Britain and France developed a supersonic transport plane together, it was named the Concorde. It had originally been named Place Concorde in the name of reconciliation after the French Revolution, and so was an apt beginning and name for the new alliance between France and Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#/media/File:British_Airways_Concorde_G-BOAC_03.jpg
Buckingham Palace also has a very similar design to the easy-facing side of the Louvre, although without the pillars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre_Palace#/media/File:3888ParigiLouvre.JPG
Also, notice the traffic across the bridge over the Seine River, Pont du Carrousel, goes through a triple arch into the Louvre, in a way very similar to traffic going through the triple-arched Admiralty Arch to Buckingham Palace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre_Palace#/media/File:Palais_du_Louvre_-_Paris.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_Arch#/media/File:Arco_del_Almirantazgo,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-11,_DD_186.JPG
At the time the Entente Cordiale was signed, in 1904, Britain had a close alliance with Japan. In fact, it was negotiated by Lord Lansdowne, who had also negotiated the Entente Cordiale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#/media/File:Anglo_Japanese_Alliance_30_January_1902.jpg
It was around this time that Akasaka Palace was built in Tokyo, used today as a royal guest palace. We saw Akasaka Palace during our visit to Tokyo, on this blog. Akasaka Palace is not an identical copy of Buckingham Palace, but bears an absolutely striking resemblance to it.
Here is Akasaka Palace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akasaka_Palace#/media/File:State_Guest_House_Akasaka_Palace_main_entrance.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akasaka_Palace#/media/File:State_Guest-House_Akasaka_Palace.JPG
Here is the front and back of Buckingham Palace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace#/media/File:Buckingham_Palace,_London_-_April_2009.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace#/media/File:West_facade_of_Buckingham_Palace.JPG
Akasaka Palace was actually built a few years before Buckingham Palace underwent it's 1913 renovation. I see the two palaces as standing for the alliance, which brought Japan into the First World War on the Allied side.
The U.S. was in on this architecturally-symbolized alliance also. An exact copy of the two identical buildings, as they face Place Concorde, was built in Philadelphia's Logan Square.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Circle_(Philadelphia)#/media/File:Logan_Square.JPG
#/media/File:Logan_Square.JPG){kind=link}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Circle_(Philadelphia)#/media/File:Paris_Place_de_la_Concorde_N_Rue_de_Rivoli_02.jpg
#/media/File:Paris_Place_de_la_Concorde_N_Rue_de_Rivoli_02.jpg){kind=link}
These four countries, France, Britain, Japan and, the U.S., have been the closest of allies ever since. The only major exception is Japan during the Second World War. Although it was never announced, and I cannot see it documented anywhere, this alliance was expressed not only on paper but also in the design of palaces and important buildings. Since we can see that this is clearly so here, it is safe to presume that this "palace alliance" was based on the historical precedent of the symbolism discussed in the posting on this blog "Symbolism Theory Of The Vatican And Hagia Sophia".
I think we can refer to the alliance between the U.S., Britain, France and, Japan as The Palace Alliance.
13) THE VATICAN AND ST. PETER
Vatican conspiracy theories are always popular. Any place that becomes a great center of power will inevitably be surrounded by conspiracy theories.
There is one possible Vatican conspiracy theory that I thought was somewhat obvious, but that I had never seen pointed out. I consider it as the most fundamental Vatican conspiracy theory of all, and it is one that anyone can investigate for themselves. It concerns the very foundation on which the power of the Vatican is based, the statement made by Jesus to St. Peter, declaring him to be "The Rock" upon which the church will be built and giving him the "keys" to Heaven, meaning that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in Heaven.
My main reason for writing this is to get people reading the Bible, by giving them a Vatican conspiracy theory to investigate so that they can come to their own conclusions.
The Gospel of Matthew is where we find Jesus' well-known declaration about St. Peter, who was one of the twelve apostles. Jesus in effect proclaimed Peter as the leader of the apostles, and the "rock" upon which the church would be built. The name of Peter means "rock". (Matthew 16:13). Jesus told Peter, "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven".
God had already spoken and proclaimed Jesus as his only begotten son, to whom everyone must listen, and it seemed as if Jesus was now making a similar proclamation about Peter.
Peter indeed was an important apostle. At the end of the Gospel of Mark, the statement "including Peter" was made when referring to all twelve of the apostles (Mark 16:7). In some versions of the Bible there is the statement "The women went to Peter and his friends" (Mark 16:9), thus seeming to indicate Peter's importance among the apostles. Near the close of the Gospel of Luke, Peter is described as being amazed at Jesus' empty tomb (Luke 24:12).
Peter was a good speaker. In other biblical descriptions of his activities, in the Acts of the Apostles after the Ascension of Jesus, we see his speech at Pentecost (Acts 2), and his speech in the Temple after a crippled man was healed (Acts 3:11). Peter later rebukes Simon for thinking that the Holy Spirit can be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). Peter raised Dorcas (or Tabitha) from the dead (Acts 9:39). Chapter 10 of the Acts of the Apostles is all about Peter. Acts 11:5 describes Peter's understanding that Gentiles, as well as Jews, are to receive the Holy Spirit. Finally, Peter is miraculously set free after being imprisoned (Acts 12:16).
It is clear that St. Peter was a prominent apostle. He, along with the apostle St. Paul, are believed to have ultimately been martyred in Rome around the year 64.
The Vatican has claimed to have the skulls of both Peter and Paul, and to have identified St. Peter's bones. The obelisk that now stands in St. Peter's Square, in Rome, is supposedly near where he was crucified. There is a story that Peter is buried directly below the alter in his namesake basilica, adjacent to his namesake square, in the Vatican. The present St. Peter's Basilica, which is the largest church on earth, was built in the Sixteenth Century. The original St. Peter's on the site was begun by the Roman emperor Constantine, in the Fourth Century.
It is true that there is a Roman-era graveyard directly under the Vatican. But, of course, it cannot be proven whether any set of bones actually belonged to St. Peter. The basilica and adjoining square of St. Peter are built in the form of a key, with the square representing the handle of the key, and the dome and transepts of the basilica representing the elements of the key.
This is based on Jesus statement to Peter that he was the "rock" upon which the church would be built, the rock being Peter's grave as well as his name meaning "rock", and on Jesus' words that Peter would be given the keys to Heaven, and whatever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven. This is represented by the Basilica and the adjoining Square of St. Peter being in the form of a key.
This must mean that the Vatican is the center of, and is to have absolute rule over, God's church on earth. There is no other way to interpret it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(lock)#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_Holy_See.svg
#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_Holy_See.svg){kind=link}
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9022829,12.4555641,282m/data=!3m1!1e3
But have you ever wondered if all of this is just too convenient? This one passage in the Bible, which is not repeated or referred to anywhere else, of St. Peter being the "rock", and the Keys of Heaven being given to him, essentially gives the Vatican authority over the world. Doesn't it look like God's earlier declaration of Jesus as his Son was taken and applied to Peter and, since the Vatican was built over Peter's grave, that would mean that it had God's endorsement of supreme authority?
In the early days of the church, the only ones who read and copied the Bible were the members of the church. Other people did not read or handle the Bible themselves. Copies of the Bible were handwritten, mostly by monks in monasteries. A monk might spend his life making a copy of the Bible. The later Protestant curtailment of monasteries is mostly explained by the invention of the printing press making such handwritten copying no longer necessary.
Many books of the Bible were pieced together from separate writings. The Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, are believed to have been woven together from four sources that are now referred to as the Documentary Hypothesis, rather than being presented separately. The Book of Isaiah, the longest book in the Bible, is believed to actually be three separate books with a short historical section also that was borrowed from elsewhere in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is considered unlikely that Jesus' famed "Sermon on the Mount", in Chapters 5,6 and, 7, was given all at once. It is believed to have been written together at a later date.
A Gospel, the word means "good news", is an independent account of the events of Jesus' life. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and, John, are widely believed today to have been redacted from two original written accounts of the Life of Jesus. This is referred to as the Two-Source Hypothesis. It was long noticed that many passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have nearly identical wording, relating events that are not included in the shorter Gospel of St. Mark.
One of these two original sources is the Gospel of St. Mark. The other is referred to as Q, for the German word for "source". Q is now lost. This does not mean that anything has been lost from the Bible because the content of Q has been woven into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is considered to actually be based on the words of St. Peter being written down by St. Mark, because Peter could not read or write.
The Gospel of Mark was the first to be written, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used Q to include stories that were not in the short Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Matthew seems to be written more for Jews, while that of Luke is more for Gentiles. These first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and, Luke, are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because of their similarity to one another. Several decades later, the fourth Gospel of St. John was written. In a similar way to Matthew and Luke, the Gospel of St. John includes stories that were omitted by the other three, and is more about who Jesus was as opposed to what he does.
What concerns us here is that, unlike the Gospel of Matthew, that of Mark does not include Jesus' declaration of Peter being "The Rock with the keys to Heaven". This mean that it must have been written in Q, but Q has been conveniently "lost".
It is also concerning that the Gospel of Mark does not include this declaration about Peter being "The Rock with the keys to Heaven", because this Gospel is considered to have been the words of Peter, written down by Mark, because Peter was not able to write.
How is it that the many letters to the churches from the apostles were collected from far and wide, to be included in the New Testament, but one of the two original written sources on Jesus' life and teachings, right in the middle of where the Bible story took place, was "lost"? Even though it, like the Gospel of St. Mark which was the other original source in the Two-Source Hypothesis, must have been copied any number of times.
It is true that there may be some other letters written by St. Paul that have been lost, but these were written between remote locations during his missionary travels. Once again, this loss of Q does not mean that anything was actually lost from the Bible because it's content, that was not also included in the Gospel of Mark, has been written into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
What all of this means is that Jesus' declaration of Peter being "The Rock with the keys to Heaven", which essentially gives the Vatican rule over the world, is told in only one of the four Gospels, is not referred to anywhere else in the Bible, and was copied from an original source that was subsequently "lost".
But if the early church indeed slipped this passage into the Bible to justify it's authority, why would it have to do such a thing?
The Vatican had a long and difficult struggle to exert and consolidate it's authority. The position of the Bishop of Rome emerged around the send of the Second Century. But it's first claim of primacy was rejected by other bishops. Innocent I, beginning in 401, is generally considered as the first pope. His preoccupation was consolidation of authority near the end of the Roman Empire. There were five centers of the new religion of Christianity that emerged, Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and, Constantinople, over which Rome sought supremacy.
Early in church history, the primacy of any one church was far from certain. There was always division between the eastern and western churches, just as there had been division between the eastern and western Roman Empire. There was plenty of doctrines that were considered as heretical that the young church was trying to suppress. The dispute among Christians over christology, the nature of the interaction between the divine and human natures of Jesus, was far from resolved. The church was also embroiled in continuous power struggles with secular rulers.
It took a long time for Rome to become recognized as having primacy over other churches. It's primacy began with it being the site of a council to resolve theological disputes. During this challenging time, having a passage in the Bible about the body of St. Peter, which Rome did have because he had been martyred there, being "The Rock" upon which the church would be built and having the keys to Heaven, would have been extremely useful.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, which has shaped so much of western history, is based on this one passage about Peter being commissioned by Jesus as "The Rock, upon which the church will be built, with the keys to Heaven". Today, the church has charismatic popes to spread it's influence, but there was no mass media in those days.
There are just so many questions about this one passage of the Bible concerning Peter being "The Rock" upon which the church will be built, and being given the keys to Heaven.
An interesting question is why the Gospel of John, which was written several decades after the others, did not reiterate such an important declaration. That one of the apostles was to be the leader over the others, and be the "The Rock" on which the church was to be built, with the keys to Heaven. Peter does not even have a significant role in this later Gospel. The only place that this is stated is in the Gospel of St. Matthew. I have also wondered why the Gospel of Matthew, containing this declaration, is placed first in the New Testament even though the Gospel of St. Mark, the shortest Gospel, was written first.
St. Peter, if he was to be the leader of the apostles, wrote or dictated or had his name put on only two short books of the New Testament. The apostle St. Paul wrote far more.
In the second of the short Books of Peter, 2 Peter 1:16, the verbal commission that God gave Jesus is referred to. But neither of these books makes any reference at all to Peter's supposed commission by Jesus. One of the books is of disputed authorship, being written by someone else who then put Peter's name on it, but that would be all the more reason to include it if Peter himself had left it out due to modesty.
Many believe St. Paul to have been martyred in Rome also. Although the Acts of the Apostles simply ends with him in a prison cell. But Paul and Jesus never met on earth and it would appear more questionable for Jesus to suddenly appear to someone who was persecuting the church, and tell him that he would be the rock upon which the church would be built. Another reason that Peter, not Paul, was this rock is that Paul may not even have been martyred in Rome, or his bones may have been lost.
Peter was known as the apostle to the Jews, while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Would Peter thus be the logical "rock" upon which the mostly-Gentile church would be built, or was it just convenient that the church had, or was at least believed to have, his bones so that a church could be built over them?
Another question concerns the use of the word "church". The passage in the Gospel of St. Matthew about Peter being the rock with the keys to Heaven is one of only two places in the Gospels that this word is used. A little bit further on in the Gospel of Matthew is the only other place that the word "church" is used. Not even when Jesus, near the close of each of the Gospels, sent his apostles out into the world did he mention the "church". The second mention of the word in the Gospel of Matthew must have originally come from Q which is, of course, "lost". Doesn't it make it seem as if it was written after the fact? After the church had already been established, and was looking to boost it's authority?
Another factor in the supposed choice of Peter over Paul is that Peter, while a good speaker, was illiterate. The message about Jesus was spread mostly by the written word, which we have today as the Bible. Wouldn't the highly-educated Paul, who was also a great speaker as well, have been a better choice as "The Rock" upon which the church would be built?
From the time that St. Peter was martyred, it must have been about three hundred years before any kind of church could have been built on the site. The Lateran Basilica, which is actually the center of the Catholic Church and not the larger St. Peter's Basilica, was built by the Emperor Constantine before the First St. Peter's Basilica. If Jesus had indeed said that Peter was "The Rock" upon which the church was to be built, then why wasn't the Lateran Basilica built over his grave?
How necessary was it anyway to assign one of the apostles as the leader of the others when they were all to go off in different directions after the Ascension of Jesus? Nowhere else, other than this one passage in question, is there mention of one apostle being the leader. Indeed, they are all told that they would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was critical of the apostles, although he did sincerely pray for them. Jesus' declaration of Peter as "The Rock" stands in sharp contrast and would be the only time that Jesus ever gave such praise to any of the apostles.
The Catholic Church ruled that priests must be celibate. But it's supposed "rock", St. Peter, was married because Jesus is recorded as having healed his mother-in-law.
As far as keys in the Bible go, the Book of Revelation 3:7 is the message to the church in Philadelphia. It refers to "The key that once belonged to David". "When it opens a door, no one can close it, and when it closes a door, no one can open it". But no reference is made to Peter.
When Peter and Paul had a public disagreement over the necessity of new converts following the Jewish rituals (Galatians 2), in which Paul prevailed over Peter, why didn't Peter just "pull rank" on Paul if Jesus had really said that he was "The Rock", with the keys to Heaven, on which the church was to be built?
If this were indeed an act of deception, that this passage of Jesus' declaration about Peter is something that he never said but was slipped into the Bible at a later date, which would give the church in Rome authority essentially over the world, it wouldn't be the only instance in the early church when something like this had happened. The so-called "Donation of Constantine" was a forged deed of the Roman Emperor Constantine, the first emperor to become a Christian, signing over all authority of the Roman Empire to the pope. There had been legitimate donations to the church, among them the lands that became the Papal States.
An interesting parallel to the issue of the Vatican drawing it's authority from the bones of St. Peter can be seen in the case of Venice and St. Mark. Remember that it was to St. Mark that Peter is believed to have verbally recited the story of Jesus' life, which Mark wrote down as the Gospel that bears his name.
St. Mark was another of the apostles, and was martyred in Alexandria. In the Ninth Century two Venetian merchants, looking for a theological foundation for their newly-powerful city-state, went to Egypt and procured the bones of St. Mark. Few places have ever been as closely linked to their patron saint like the Republic of Venice was to St. Mark.
The symbol of St. Mark in Venice is a winged lion with a book open to the Gospel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Saint_Mark#/media/File:Lion_of_Saint_Mark.svg
I leave it up to you to come to your own conclusions about this passage in the Bible, which would give so much authority to the church. With recent popes like John Paul, Benedict and Francis, the Catholic Church does not need to add anything to the Bible to give it authority. I am not Catholic myself, but have been a great admirer of these popes.
Hopefully, this will get a lot of people reading the Bible.
14) ARYAN IDEOLOGY
With racism and "Aryan" ideology being so much in the news again, and with the Second World War generation rapidly passing on, here is a story of that time that should definitely be told.
Before the Twentieth Century, there arose a European fascination with eastern mysticism. The German author Herman Hesse wrote the widely popular book "Siddharta". The Beatles later visited Goa, and converted to Hinduism. The term "Aryan" came into use. There was the legend of a "pure" Aryan homeland, in the far north of Europe, with names like Thule and Hyperborea.
But "Aryan" originally referred not to race, but to language. There were two branches of Aryans, East and West. The so-called "Indo-European" languages include Hindi, Urdu, Farsi and, Sanskrit. These languages are related to Germanic languages, even though the Germanic (northern European) languages have since adopted the Latin script.
The name of Iran literally means "Land of the Aryans". The Pahlavi Dynasty, the one that was overthrown in the 1979 revolution, changed the name from the historic "Persia", to Iran, in 1935. The name of Eire (Ireland) is believed by some to mean "Aryan".
The swastika that was used by the Nazis as their symbol is a very old symbol that was widely used by early Hindus. The name of the swastika comes from a Sanskrit word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:A_Hindu_Swastika_at_Goa_Lawah_Temple_Bali_Indonesia.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:Jaipur_03-2016_38_Garh_Ganesh_Temple.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:Flag_of_the_German_Reich_(1935%E2%80%931945).svg
.svg){kind=link}
This is an Iranian swastika necklace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#/media/File:Swastika_iran.jpg
The eastern Aryans invaded India, bringing with them the Sanskrit language, forcing the original inhabitants, the Dravidians, southward. The dominance of the Aryans over other people in India (see the visit "Where India Began", on this blog) is what brought about the Caste System. (Although it is not recognized in the Indian constitution of today). This is apparently where the term of "Aryan" begins to be associated with racism.
In 1938, an SS officer led a German expedition to Tibet, with the purpose of finding out if the people were distant Aryan relatives. In the days before DNA testing, they actually measured the bodies of the Tibetans to help determine if they were related, with the Germans being the western branch of the Aryans, and the Tibetans part of the eastern Branch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938%E2%80%9339_German_expedition_to_Tibet#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_135-KB-15-089,_Tibetexpediton,_Anthropometrische_Untersuchungen.jpg
Heinrich Himmler, of the Gestapo, was the top Nazi that was most interested in eastern mysticism. He reportedly always carried a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, part of the Hindu scriptures, and closely followed the progress of the expedition to Tibet. He made a point of visiting occupied Norway, which could have been a part of the Aryan interpretation of Thule or Hyperborea. The conquest of Europe was the Nazis, the western branch of the Aryans, trying to set themselves over conquered people in the same way that the eastern branch had done with the Caste System. The logic was that, if the eastern branch of the Aryans had done it, then the western branch, the Nazis, should do it also.
This is certainly not all that there was to the origin of Nazi ideology. Babylon also seems to have been a part of it. German archeologists had been at the center of the excavation of Babylon. The reassembled Ishtar Gate is today on Museum Island, in the Spree River.
But what did the Babylonians do? They rose up and conquered those, the Assyrians, who had earlier conquered them. The Babylonians regained their former greatness, and became greater than before. They ruled a great empire, and they took the Jews captive. The original Babylon had been that of the famous king Hammurabi, and his law code. The Babylonians who overthrew Assyria, representing the Allies who had defeated Germany in the First World War, were known as the Neo-Babylonians. Just as the Nazis were the "Third Reich", while Charlemagne had been the First Reich.
Was this why the Nazis were so fond of making movies? Just as the archeologists found images of great leaders, like Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylon, and relics were put on display in Germany, so people in the future would look back at these movies of the great founders of the "Thousand-Year Reich".
There is certainly also an element of the French Revolution in the Nazis. The tower of the destroyed Kaiser Wilhelm Church, in Berlin, was left standing in the same way as the tower of the St. Jacques Church, in Paris. Hitler replaced the Weimar Republic in the same way as Napoleon had replaced the Directory. The Nazis replaced Christianity with their "Positive Christianity", in the same way that the French Revolution had replaced it with the "Cult of the Supreme Being".
The overthrowing of the Kaiser (king) in the 1919 socialist revolution, which brought about the Weimar Republic, until power was seized by Hitler, is a mirror image of the overthrowing of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette by the French Revolution, which brought about the series of provisional governments, from the Committee of General Defense to the Directory, until power was seized by Napoleon. Hitler recognized this parallel, as he made a special point of visiting Napoleon's tomb, and his field of conquest was almost identical to Napoleon's.
Then there was the Holy Roman Empire, of which Germany had been at the center. The Holy Roman Empire, as we saw in the posting on this blog "The Far-Reaching Legacy Of The Holy Roman Empire", was created by the pope to be a political entity that would be under his control. It backfired, because the leaders of the empire became stronger than the pope had anticipated, but the objective was western unity against the growing differences with the church in the east, which would ultimately break away to become the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Nazis, with Hitler in the role of Charlemagne, were gathering western Europe together, under their command, before going after their ultimate objective which was conquest of the Soviet Union. The difference being that, by this time, Catholicism against Eastern Orthodoxy had been secularized into National Socialism against Communism.
The Franks contributed to Nazi ideology. The Franks, as we saw in the posting on this blog "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris", are the people for whom France is named. Both France and Germany originated as part of their empire, and the German word for France is still "Frankreich". Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, was a Frank. The Nazis referred to their empire as the "Third Reich", Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire was considered as the First Reich. The Second Reich was considered as the time of the Kaisers, in Germany. When Hitler conquered France, as when Napoleon had earlier conquered what is now Germany, it was a putting of the Franks back together.
There was economics behind the Nazis. The crash of 1929 had devastated Germany. The Nazis very effectively used the simple tricks of absorbing unemployment by drastically expanding the military forces, and getting factories back to full production by making armaments for them. That gets the economy rolling again, as Ronald Reagan would later notice, but it doesn't really make sense unless we can have a war for that army.
But the most important element of Nazi ideology I believe to be this conviction that they were the western branch of the Aryans.
To illustrate how important was this concept that they were the western branch of the Aryans, I would like to cite the example of Subhas Chandra Bose. This was an Indian independence leader that is not well-known in the west. Bose left India, and embarked on a fantastic journey that would lead him around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose#/media/File:Netaji_Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg
Bose sought help in freeing India from British rule. He ultimately found himself in Germany, after being assisted by the Nazi intelligence service. Hitler is usually considered as the ultimate name in racism against people with dark skin. But he was delighted to meet Bose, seeming to consider him as his counterpart of the eastern branch of the Aryans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose#/media/File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose_meeting_Adolf_Hitler.jpg
Heinrich Himmler brought Bose to meetings of the top officials of the Gestapo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Alber-064-04,_Subhas_Chandra_Bose_bei_Heinrich_Himmler.jpg
But even the German who first publicized the relationship between the Indo-European languages, Max Muller, did not think that the relationship went any further than language. The concept has been twisted by racists to make the northern Europeans the western branch of the Aryans, who have the historical right to subjugate others just as the eastern branch of the Aryans did.
15) MADE IN INDIA
In the west, the economy of India is thought of as specializing in intellectual work, such as tech support by phone and IT work. But have you ever wonder why, when shopping in stores, you rarely see anything that has a label of "Made In India"?
Prime Minister Narenda Modi has launched a campaign to drastically increase manufacturing in India. The name of the campaign is simply "Make In India"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_in_India#/media/File:Make_In_India.png
But why is this campaign even necessary? India would seem like the natural place to manufacture anything. The only way to explain why it isn't is that there must be some strong bias against manufacturing.
This bias against manufacturing in India, which the present government is trying to reverse with the "Make In India" campaign is very simple to explain. In fact, it can be explained in one word. That word is Bhopal.
On December 2, 1984, at a Union Carbide insecticide plant in the city of Bhopal, a large amount of water was poured into a tank that contained a chemical used in making insecticide. The water caused a chemical reaction that burst the tank and released a deadly cloud of very poisonous fumes. About eight thousand people died in Bhopal, with possibly many thousands more dying as a result afterward. It remains the worst industrial accident that the world has ever seen.
This disaster changed the economy of the world. India, quite understandably, developed a severe bias against manufacturing. No one wants a factory down the street after something like this has happened. Products that might have been manufactured in India were instead made elsewhere, and India's economy went on the course that it has.
I remember when this happened. I lived near a Union Carbide factory also, and remember when a cloud of fumes once escaped from it. The fumes got into the ventilation system of a department store some distance away (K-Mart), and sickened a number of people, but it was nothing deadly.
I read a book about the Bhopal Disaster that was in print the year after it happened. My agreement was with the Government of India that Union Carbide had been negligent in safety at the factory, and then had tried to blame the disaster on sabotage by an employee in order to evade responsibility.
But later I happened across some more information about it and, living around factories at the time and having worked in several myself, as well as living close to where the Love Canal (the most misnamed place in the world) disaster had taken place, decided to read some more about it.
My opinion shifted very much to the point of view that the Bhopal Disaster had been the result of sabotage. Water could not have gotten into that tank in error. Someone in the factory knew exactly what would happen if a large amount of water mixed with the chemical in that tank. A meter that was supposed to be attached to the tank was later found to have been removed. There was some industrial washing going on nearby but, going by what information I could find, it does not seem possible that this could have gotten water into the tank.
My reason for writing this is that it would now be a lot better for India to acknowledge that this was sabotage, rather than an accident, because that could begin the elimination of the bias against industry that is hindering the "Make In India" campaign from achieving it's maximum potential.
Remember that India, before this disaster, did not have a significant history of major industrial accidents. There was the explosion of a munitions ship at Bombay, similar to what happened in Halifax during the First World War, but that was during wartime.
The next question is why anyone would commit such an act of sabotage.
Consider the following sequence of events.
In June, 1984, the Indian Army raided the holy place of the Sikh religion, the Golden Temple in Amritsar. The purpose was to capture a militant Sikh religious leader and his followers, who were seeking an independent nation for Sikhs.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had ordered the raid, had two Sikh soldiers among her bodyguards. At the end of October, they assassinated her with their guns in revenge for the attack on their religious sanctuary.
Crowds of Hindus, particularly supporters of Indira Gandhi's Congress party, attack Sikhs across India, killing maybe 8,000 people.
The next thing that happens, barely a month after Indira Gandhi had been killed, is this disastrous release of chemical fumes in Bhopal that also kill maybe 8,000 people, almost all Hindus as there are few Sikhs in that city.
The company insists that this could not have happened, aside from sabotage by an employee of the factory who knew just what would happen. The team of investigators that the company sent said that the Indian Government did not even want to hear anything about sabotage, insisting that it must be an accident caused by the negligence of the company in implementing safety standards.
The following year saw the bombing of Air India flight 182, in retaliation for the operation against the Sikh holy place and the subsequent killing of Sikhs.
But if it had been announced that the Bhopal Disaster had been the result of sabotage, with the intent of killing Hindus to avenge the killing of Sikhs, it would almost certainly have brought India to civil war and meant the killing of thousands more people. It looks very much like the Indian Government was doing it's best to avoid civil war. This is much more realistic than suspecting that an employee sabotaged the plant because he felt underpaid.
Decades later, India has moved far past the climate that brought about this disaster. But now it is faced with the necessity of overcoming the bias against industry that it created.
The best thing now would be to acknowledge that this was the result of terrorism. If this had been an accident, people in India would naturally be strongly biased against having industry around them, in case it might happen again. But this would not be the case if it was sabotage.
Consider that the attacks of 9-11 brought about no lasting bias against aircraft because it was known that it happened as a result of terrorism. But supposed instead that four aircraft had malfunctioned, and had killed thousands of people. Then it would definitely have created a strong bias against the airline industry.
Consider also that the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, in contrast with 9-11, did bring about a bias against nuclear energy because it was the result of an accident, meaning that it could very likely happen again.
At the time it was better that the disaster at Bhopal be the result of an accident, in the interest of avoiding civil war. But today, with that era long past, it is better that it be the result of sabotage, so that the "Make In India" campaign can reach it's full potential by eliminating the bias against industry that this disaster brought about, and without which the "Make In India" campaign would not have been necessary in the first place.
16) THE ENDURING MYSTERY OF THE CINEMA REX
One more thing about the Iranian Revolution, in fact the most horrific thing of all.
I remember the first that I heard about the budding revolution. I had arrived back in my native England after completing high school in the U.S., and was getting to know my native country again. One pleasant summer day, there was some mind-boggling news.
A team of arsonists in Iran had blocked the doors and torched a crowded theater, killing over four hundred people. The presumed reason was that the theater showed foreign moves that they didn't like and which offended their religious sensibilities.
I remember this so well because it got me thinking about how different I was from the world as a whole. There were a lot of people around from other cultures that might think completely differently than me. Compared with the world as a whole, I was very individualistic, with a "to each his own" attitude and whatever movies other people watched was none of my business. The idea of killing four hundred people because someone didn't like the movie that they were watching was totally over my head.
This event wouldn't define the Iranian Revolution, because it wasn't established who was behind it. The Shah's government and the Islamic revolutionaries blamed each other for it. After the revolution, one man would be convicted and executed for it, insisting that he acted alone, but it seems certain that there was a team, who blocked the doors and ignited gasoline. They certainly wanted a high death toll.
But why?
Uprisings had begun earlier in 1978, and would ultimately be successful in overthrowing the Shah, but there was nothing else like this done by either side during the revolution.
The Islamic revolutionaries generally claimed that the forces of the Shah, alarmed by the protests and uprisings, had started the fire in order to make the revolutionaries look like a bunch of murderous fanatics who had started the fire.
We have to remember that the revolution against the Shah started out as multi-faceted. It became an Islamic Revolution when that factor predominated over the others. But it seems that it was "Black Friday", September 8, 1978 three weeks after the Cinema Rex Fire, when the Shah's soldiers opened fire on religious demonstrators that began it's definition as an "Islamic Revolution". Black Friday turned out to be the "tipping point" of the revolution, after which no concordance between the two sides was possible. The Revolution would either succeed or it would fail. It succeeded.
No one who wanted the support of the people would do anything like this. No one claimed responsibility for it. One thing that seems certain is that one of the factions lit the fire to make it look as if someone else had done it.
There were two obvious precedents for this. The first is the Reichstag Fire. The difference between the Communist Russian Revolution and the parallel German Revolution is that the Germans had a parliament, which met in the Reichstag. This could be interpreted that the Weimar Republic was socialist, but not Communist like the Soviets.
Communists, for which there was a lot of sympathy after the 1929 economic crash, might try to bring Germany into line by torching the Reichstag. A new party, the Nazis, took the Reichstag Fire as an attack on their country which left them no choice but to take control in order to ensure security.
In fact, the Nazis gained so much from the Reichstag Fire that it is widely believed that they were behind it.
The second precedent is the so-called "Great Fire of Smyrna", in 1922. Smyrna is now the Turkish city of Izmir. The Greek and Armenian sections of the city were set ablaze, apparently by uniformed Turkish soldiers. It was claimed that they had lit the fire themselves, to make the world have sympathy for them and to file claims for it, and the truth has never been satisfactorily established.
One thing that is interesting is that the fire occurred on the 25th anniversary of the coup that put the Shah in power. Mohammad Mossadegh was Iran's democratically-elected prime minister but he had strong leftward sympathies, raising taxes and planning to nationalize the country's oil industry. He was deposed, with the help of the CIA and British Intelligence.
The fire also took place in Khuzestan province, where there was a significant Arab population that at least wanted some autonomy from the ruling Persians. But I cannot see what they would gain by a fire in a crowded theater in which many of their own people would certainly be among the victims.
The fire was in the city of Abadan, which is on the border with Iraq. The theater was within walking distance of the river that serves as the Iraqi border. Abadan is the largest city on the Iranian side of the border.
Ayatollah Khomeini, who would end up as leader of the Iranian Revolution, was still in exile in Iraq at the time of the fire, living in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. In a bizarre twist, Iranian spies in Iraq discovered a Communist plot against effective leader Saddam Hussein and informed him. As a return favor to the Shah's government, Saddam expelled Khomeini from Iraq, from where he was stirring up dissent back in Iran. Khomeini went to Kuwait but was turned away at the border. He ended up in exile in a suburb of Paris.
Khomeini arrived in Paris on October 8, a month after Black Friday. It was a grave mistake for the Shah. From Paris, Khomeini would meet with the western press and run the budding revolution in Iran by telephone. He made cassette tapes of his sermons which sold in Iran as if he were a rock star. The Shah would blame the BBC for giving Khomeini legitimacy.
Could the fire have been lit in Abadan to make it look as if Khomeini had sent a team of assassins from Iraq, just across the border, to light the fire against unislamic foreign movies?
But the movie that was playing at the time of the fire was an Iranian movie, "The Deer". As far as I know, it was not what would be considered as unislamic. It was actually about poorer Iranians, among the many who had been left behind by the Shah's economic reforms and lavish expenditures. In 1967, the Shah had himself crowned as Shahinshah, "King of Kings", in an extravagant ceremony. In 1971, the Shah had thrown perhaps the greatest party the world had ever seen to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of the Peacock Throne.
If anyone was cast in a bad light by the movie that was playing at the time of the fire, it was the Shah. The theater was in a working-class neighborhood.
If the forces of the Shah did light the fire, it very badly backfired. This is what really gave impetus to the revolution, even though there was never any proof or claim of who started it. It was only a few protests before this. A modern religious revolution wasn't really in the world's vocabulary in 1978. Revolution meant either Communism or the overthrow of Communism.
Why would the Islamic revolutionaries target a theater that was showing an Iranian movie that, if anything, was against the Shah? Islamic terrorists are very rarely known to attack a target without claiming responsibility.
The movie was about those left behind economically by the Shah's reforms and the theater was in a working class neighborhood. If a Communist uprising was going to start, the neighborhood of the fire would be one of the logical places. But if the Shah's forces lit the fire here, what point could there possibly be? It would only inflame the protests.
The government of the Shah and the revolutionaries insisted that the other was to blame.
Maybe that was the point of the fire.
Of course, I do not have a certain answer as to who lit the fire. But remember that there was a third major party involved in revolutionary Iran. There was the Shah and the Islamic revolutionaries, who vociferously blamed each other for the fire. And then there were the Communists, with a strong party in Iran which appealed to the many who were left behind by the Shah's business-friendly economic reforms.
The revolution would soon be about the Islamic revolutionaries against the Shah. The Communists would fall into third place. But that was not true at the time of the fire. It would really be "Black Friday", three weeks later, that, in the opinion of many, would turn it into an Islamic Revolution when the Shah's soldiers fired on a religious demonstration.
At the time of the fire, Communist sympathizers had a definite chance to gain control of the country if only they could somehow turn the other two factions against each other. Khomeini, in exile in neighboring Iraq, might have sent a team to start the fire so that it looked as if the forces of the Shah had set the fire to make them look like murderous terrorists. Or the forces of the Shah might have lit the fire to make it look as if that was what Khomeini had done.
But both the movie that was playing at the time and the economics of the neighborhood that it was in are more about the Communists against the Shah's government than the Islamic revolutionaries. The dead were some of the most likely people in the country to sympathize with Communism. The Shah was concerned about Communism too but, given that it is usually some kind of atrocity committed by the establishment side that turns ordinary protests into a full-fledged revolution, he would have had everything to lose and nothing to gain by lighting this fire.
Why would the Shah have the fire lit on the 25th anniversary of the coup that brought him to power by deposing the democratically-elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who thoroughly alarmed the western powers by promising to nationalize Iran's oil industry?
In this process of eliminating parties who would gain by lighting this fire, there is thus one party that is left out. That party is the Communists. They were the "third party" of the budding revolution and this fire caused the other two parties to vociferously blame each other.
17) AMERICA'S WAR IN VIETNAM
This was originally posted as "Understanding The Direction Of Postwar America".
There is a series on television here about America's Vietnam War. I would like to give my own version of it, and it includes all of what we could call postwar America, and much about the Cold War.
To understand the generation of America that followed the end of the Second World War, there is one thing that we always have to keep in mind. The leaders of this generation all came of age during the Great Depression of the 1930s. We cannot understand their actions without understanding that.
The era after the end of the First World War was a great time in America. The industrial process that had supplied the war effort was transformed into the production of consumer goods. The assembly line manufacturing process had been perfected and all manner of goods, from cars to radios to appliances, rolled out of the factories. The possibilities seemed endless, ordinary people could soon live at a standard at which only the very wealthy had lived not long before.
The times were referred to as "The Roaring Twenties".
But there was trouble on the horizon. Companies were naturally trying to maximize their profits by paying their workers as little as possible. These workers, the majority of the population, were thus unable to afford much of the many goods that were being produced. Most of the manufactured goods were just piling up in warehouses, because people were not earning enough money to buy them. Factories began cutting back on production, meaning that workers had even less money, and it spiraled into a devastating economic crash. it didn't make sense to produce anything, because few people would have enough money to buy it.
The following decade, the 1930s, were a terrible time, known as the Great Depression. Millions of people were out of work, standing in long lines at soup kitchens for a meal. Businesses could not get started because no one had enough money to buy what they were selling, and people had no money to buy anything because businesses could not get started that would employ them.
The U.S. Government stepped in, implementing various "make work" projects, to start the economy rolling again by giving people paychecks that they would spend. Much of the work undertaken by these projects, under the Works Projects Administration (WPA). Well-known dams, such as Hoover (Boulder) Dam and those of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), were built during this time.
In Europe, Germany was afflicted even worse by the Great Depression. It would mean the end of the Weimar Republic, the government that had emerged from the socialist revolution that had ended the rule of the kaisers after the First World War. Government efforts to get the economy rolling again in Germany included the building of the Autobahn, the national system of highways.
But what happened there is that a party, known as the Nazis emerged. They had the apparently logical idea of absorbing unemployment by drastically increasing the size of the armed forces, and getting factories back to full production by making armaments for them. The popularity of the Nazis can be explained very simply, after the terrible time of the 1930s, at least they got everybody working and earning money again.
The Great Depression did not truly end until the Second World War. One thing that must be said about war is that at least it gets everyone working. The attitude in a deep economic depression is that "We have got to get people working again, no matter what it takes. If it has to mean a war, then so be it".
With that brief background, we begin our understanding of postwar America in 1945, at the end of the Second World War.
Millions of soldiers would soon be returning home. These former soldiers would need jobs, but the production of massive volumes of war equipment was no longer needed. What would they do to earn a living? Now that the war was over, the specter of millions of unemployed must have been foremost in the minds of the leaders of time, who had vivid memories of the Great Depression. It had been the war that had really ended the Great Depression, and now that the war was over it could very easily return.
Part of the solution was the G.I. Bill. This was a wide-ranging program, the main intent of which was to pay for returning veterans to attend college or receive technical training. This would delay those veterans from seeking employment, so that there would not be so many millions of former soldiers looking for jobs all at once. Some considered the G.I. Bill as "too socialistic", but it proved to be highly successful in bringing about the next generation of technological advancements.
There was a simple and obvious solution as to what to do with the now-closed armaments industries, particularly those around Detroit. We would build new housing developments, where the returning veterans would live and start families. But those housing developments, and the postwar suburbs that grew up around them, would be based on cars, rather than being easily walkable.
Every family would have a car. That would keep the wartime armaments industries going, now producing civilian cars, and would provide many millions of jobs. While this strategy would ultimately lead to global warming, and wars to keep the supply of oil flowing, as well as all of the other maladies of a society based on cars, it also may have kept the Great Depression from returning, and that was what was on the minds of the leaders who remembered that time only too well.
The Nazis had earlier tried to alleviate the economic depression with the production of cars for everyone. The result was the Volkswagen (the "People's Car"), with which to drive on the Autobahn.
What about the industries that had produced aircraft for the war? How can we keep those operating? Let's get people flying. The airline industry that we know today would soon emerge. Planes would take passengers on visits and vacations. That would bring about a nationwide tourism industry, which would provide millions of more jobs.
The Korean War (1950-53) came along at just the right time. Conscription of those who had not been old enough for the Second World War eased the employment concerns of the leadership but, most importantly, was the production of war equipment. Nothing gets an economy rolling like the combination of easing unemployment by conscription, and then getting factories making military equipment for them.
Many nations joined in on each side of the Korean War, both in the combat and then the rebuilding afterward. Remember that the Communist countries also had millions of people that they had to keep employed. We thus can see that the Cold War, despite it's hostile rhetoric and proxy wars, was at least a partly symbiotic relationship. When the economy needs a boost, just provoke the other side a little bit and then use the threat of war as a reason to both build up the military forces and the industries that produce for them and also research new technology, which will provide future jobs, in order to avoid "falling behind" the potential enemy.
After the end of the Korean War, the U.S. began the massive national project of building highways, known as the Eisenhower Interstate System. This was a sensible step, considering that the concept of building the postwar society around cars was succeeding, and would, most importantly, keep millions of people working. No matter what, we must never have millions of people unemployed again, like in the Great Depression.
Toward the end of the 1950s, the leaders who remembered the Great Depression so well saw trouble up ahead. When soldiers return from war, they tend to start families. The millions upon millions of soldiers returning from the war led to what is referred to as the "Baby Boom". If the first of the Baby Boom generation was born in 1946, that meant that they would be finishing high school, and looking for a job, beginning in 1964.
If there were not enough jobs for them, this could be catastrophic. What were we to do?
First, the leaders' old friends, the Communists (in the guise of enemies, of course) came to the rescue. The rocket communities of countries like the U.S. and Britain didn't really think that the 1957 launch of Sputnik into orbit was a big deal. Prior to Sputnik, the U.S. had actually weighed a high-flying rocket down with sand, so that it wouldn't go into orbit.
But the leadership whose real concern was, as always, the potential of a return to the Great Depression with millions of unemployed, seized on the launch of Sputnik to issue dire warnings that America was "falling behind" it's potential enemies. We have to increase education in subjects like mathematics and science, because that is what our potential rivals are doing.
As we know, it is mathematics and science, the STEM classes, as it is now called for Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics, which really create jobs. I wrote in "The Sputnik Vector", on the world and economics blog, www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com , that there has been a price to pay for the shift to emphasis on science and mathematics in that it takes away from the geography, history and, foreign languages that are required to understand the world that we have to deal with. But, in our scenario here, it is the science and technology which creates more jobs, and that is what will prevent the Great Depression from returning.
An important postwar event in America was the 1964 World's Fair, held in New York City. The purpose of the fair was to promote futuristic technology. In the late 1960s, and into the 1970s, there was a feeling of confidence in technology and the bright future that it could bring. But what we really needed was not so much the technology, but the jobs in the entire new industries that it would bring about. The greatest dread of leaders who had come of age in the 1930s is millions of unemployed looking for jobs, and the bulge in the population of the Baby Boom led them to spend their careers scrambling for solutions.
If it requires six people to do a job, and a way is developed to do it with only three people, that is considered as making progress. But the great conundrum of a modern economy is the question of what the other three people are then supposed to do. If they are not earning money then they cannot buy whatever it is the three employed workers are producing. It will then not make any sense to keep producing it, and the economy will crash.
How many times have you heard a conservative politician say something like "Elect me and I will run the country like a business"? But a country is not a business. A business can hire and let people go, as need be, while a country can't. A country has to make sure that all of it's people have a way to get the necessities of life. Too much efficiency means fewer people are needed, and that means more unemployed. It was supreme efficiency in manufacturing that brought about the Economic Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, which led to the rise of the Nazis and the Second World War, and the emergence of Communism as a major world system.
What a country has to do is first to get people working, even if it is on "make work" projects, or jobs that are not really essential, and then worry about efficiency from there. To keep the three workers working who were let go, in the above example, requires the creation of new industries. That is what a modern economy is, a never-ending race to keep finding something for workers to do, and hopefully bringing about benefits from what they do, but getting them doing something, to earn and keep spending, comes first.
The crisis point, 1964, arrived. This is when the first of the Baby Boomers finished high school, and began looking for jobs. America had more high school graduates in one year than it ever had before. How much of a coincidence do you think it is that this was also the year in which America's involvement in the Vietnam War began?
The U.S. Government certainly did not want to sent it's teenagers off to war but, remembering the 1930s, they knew that this could be a disaster. It was not the war itself that they wanted, it was the factory production that was sought, there is nothing like a war to keep millions of people working. I live near where a lot of the U.S. Army's iconic "Huey" helicopters were made, and I realize now that factories like these were where the "real" Vietnam war was being fought.
In Vietnam, the U.S. was confronting Communism. But the confrontation on the battlefield was secondary. What America was really confronting Communism with was a booming economy, the booming economy that was brought about by war production. The actual bombs and bullets of the war were a sideshow.
The U.S. never advanced into North Vietnam, like it did into North Korea during the Korean War. The usual explanation was that it did not want to widen the war. The Allied advance into North Korea during the Korean War brought China into the war.
But, in Vietnam, the situation was different. While China had been an ally of North Korea, it was not an ally of North Vietnam. After the end of the Vietnam War, China and Vietnam actually fought their own brief war, because Vietnam had invaded China's ally, the Khmer Rouge. Vietnam was long ruled by China, it successfully resisted the Mongols, and didn't want Chinese soldiers there any more than it wanted American soldiers.
Could it be that the war was allowed to drag on because the U.S. economy still needed the war, to make sure that millions of unemployed Baby Boomers would not bring back the Great Depression, which would be much worse than having the Vietnam War?
The U.S. Government eventually negotiated a truce, and withdrew from the war, early in 1973. But what about the Communist Tet Offensive, five years before? In early 1968, the Communists suddenly attacked targets all across South Vietnam. While it startled and alarmed the American public, the truth is that the Tet Offensive was a military failure. The Communists suffered heavy losses, with the VC (South Vietnamese Communists or Viet Cong) being virtually destroyed.
The U.S. Government was in a position of strength after the Tet Offensive, so why didn't it take that opportunity to negotiate an end to the war, which was so unpopular at home? Could it be that the economy still needed the war, to avoid that dreaded specter of millions of unemployed Baby Boomers bringing back the Great Depression? It did not exit the war until it was sure that the economy was safe because enough new industry had been created to employ the Baby Boom generation.
What about the Apollo Space Program, which was going on at the same time as the Vietnam War? It began almost exactly when the war began, and ended almost exactly when it ended. It wasn't just about exploring space, which we are still doing, it was about putting people on the moon, and then bringing them back safely.
Part of it was certainly Cold War propaganda, showing what our society is capable of, just as the Soviets had detonated a fantastic hydrogen bomb in the Arctic, the Tsar Bomba, for the world to see, in 1961. But why, so many questioned, was it necessary to put humans in space? The Apollo missions, while a great success, really did not add much to our knowledge of the moon, that wasn't already known.
But, as with the Vietnam War, that was not the real objective. The Apollo program brought about a vast number of spin-off developments that were necessary to the program, from super-tough glass to powdered orange juice. The new industries which would provide new industries that would, as always, provide jobs was what the U.S. Government was really after. The program itself provided a lot of jobs and made use of the knowledge that the veterans returning from the Second World War, and going to college by way of the G.I. Bill, had gained.
The process worked so well that Ronald Reagan repeated it in the 1980s. The Iran Hostage Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were used to justify a drastic increase in military spending. Instead of the Apollo Space Program, the Reagan era had a high-tech missile defense system, the Strategic Defense Initiative, STI popularly known as "Star Wars", to bring about spin-off industries.
Finally the development of new industries, that would provide millions of jobs, paid off. The development of the personal computer industry, with widespread use of the internet, along with the mobile phone and then smartphone industries seem to have created enough jobs to have alleviated the need for creation of jobs by way of military spending. Demographics have also helped, there is no bulge in the population which brought millions of Baby Boomers suddenly into the job market.
Remember that a modern economy is a never-ending race to develop new industries to find something for workers to do, who have otherwise been made redundant by the never-ending progress that has drastically reduced the number of workers that are needed, first in agriculture and then in industry.
Factory workers in the postwar period were much better-paid than before. In fact they were being paid more than their labor, according to the economic laws of supply and demand, was really worth. This led to inflation, which was a word that was very often heard in the postwar period. How much of a coincidence can it be that inflation peaked in the U.S. in 1979, and the number of people working in industry also peaked in 1979?
But remember, once again, that the Economic Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, was brought about by workers not being paid enough. They could not afford to buy the fantastic number of goods that the factories were producing, and those goods were just piling up in warehouses. Factories began cutting back on production, meaning that workers had even less money, and it spiraled into the devastating crash.
Postwar America somewhat over-compensated, by paying factory workers too much, which led to inflation. But that was preferable to the millions of unemployed in the 1930s.
Why do you suppose that Americans, unlike every other western country, do not have automatic health care coverage? The country spends about twice as much per person on health care than countries like Canada, but ends up with a lower life expectancy. Surely the health care industry could be made more efficient.
But, in economics, efficiency is not always a good thing. It is efficiency, and the people that it put out of work, that brought about the Economic Crash of 1929. Heath care is big business, and if it was suddenly too "efficient" it might mean millions of people out of work.
To understand postwar America, as well as it's controversial war in Vietnam, we have to understand the long shadow of the Great Depression.
18) THE REAL STORY OF HUE
In early 1968 the Communist side in the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese regular Army and the Viet Cong, a guerrilla force in South Vietnam, launched a major military offensive against targets across U.S. ally South Vietnam. It was called the Tet Offensive because it coincided with the Vietnamese holiday of that name.
Militarily, the Tet Offensive was not a success. The Communists suffered heavy losses and the combat only continued for long in one place. The greatest effect of the offensive was that it turned the American public more against the war.
The one place that extended combat took place in during the Tet Offensive was also the largest single land battle of the war for the U.S. It was the city of Hue, pronounced like "Hway", in the middle latitudes of the country. The Communists were eventually dislodged, and the city recaptured, but the combat destroyed most of the Imperial City of Hue, in which the Communists had set up fortified positions. The Imperial City was intensely bombed and shelled by the U.S. forces. That is what I want to write about here because we should take a closer look at this.
Why would the Communist offensive, which struck all across South Vietnam, focus so particularly on Hue? The most important U.S. base was at Da Nang, south of Hue. The major base near the border between North and South Vietnam was at Khe Sanh. The population center of South Vietnam was Saigon. These were attacked as well, the objective was to bring about an uprising in South Vietnam against the government and their U.S. allies.
It just does not seem to make sense that Hue would be such an important target, even though it was fairly close to the border between North and South Vietnam. It did not have the military presence, political importance or population of the above targets. Yet it was clearly the focus of the Tet Offensive.
I can see the answer but we have to delve into the history of Vietnam. The Imperial City at Hue, which was devastated by the combat, had been the capital of Vietnam. Hanoi was the capital of Communist North Vietnam and had been the capital of Vietnam for most of the time since it's founding a millennium ago, except during the time that the Nguyen Dynasty ( The very common Vietnamese name "Nguyen" is pronounced like "Na-wen") had it's capital at Hue.
The Nguyen Dynasty started as the Nguyen Lords, ruling only southern Vietnam. Northern Vietnam was ruled by the rival Trinh Lords. There was a long Seventeenth-Century civil war between the two, of which the Twentieth-Century war between North and South Vietnam can be considered as a reenactment. But the Nguyen Dynasty eventually ruled all of Vietnam, including the north, from their Imperial City at Hue. They ruled from 1802-1945.
The president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem who had been assassinated in 1963 after an unsuccessful coup attempt against him the year before, had been of the Nguyen Dynasty. Emperor Bao Dai, who had been deposed by Ngo Dinh Diem, then his appointed prime minister, was also from Nguyen Dynasty, to which the Communists were opposed, and which had ruled from the Imperial City at Hue.
So what this means is that, while the Imperial City was important to Vietnamese history, it was more important to the south of the country than to the north. It was from where the Nguyen Lords of the south had managed to extend their rule over the north as well, ruling as the Nguyen Dynasty. Vietnam was divided again and the Communists now ruled the north. The southern elite with which they were now at war had their roots in the Nguyen Dynasty, which had ruled from the Imperial City at Hue.
The Communists knew that the Imperial City was important to the people of the south, but to them it represented being ruled by a southern dynasty and having their capital of Hanoi being displaced as capital of the country by this Imperial City.
So if the Communists wanted to inspire an uprising against the Government of South Vietnam and their American allies, what might they do? The Communists were an effective guerrilla and combat force, but the U.S. had the advantage in large-scale firepower such as artillery and the Communists were effectively without an air force. But maybe there was a way for the Communists to use their enemies' advantages against them.
They came up with a plan. What if they could lure U.S. forces into bombing the Imperial City of Hue into ruins?
They didn't really care about it themselves but they knew that the people of South Vietnam did. That would show the people of South Vietnam how little their government, which was already beyond legendary for it's corruption, really cared about the country and it's history. Wouldn't all of Vietnam be much better off being ruled by the Communists, who would never think of bombing such a historical site as this?
Why else would the city of Hue, and it's historic Imperial City, be the focal point of the Tet Offensive? The Communists sent a strong force to hold the Imperial City so that U.S. forces decided to devastate it with bombs and naval guns, and that was exactly what the Communists wanted them to do.
It was a tactic intended to turn the South Vietnamese people against their government and it's American ally. The Imperial City wasn't strategically or tactically important at all, but it was historically very important. Then, after victory, the Communists could rebuild something dedicated to their triumph on the site, just as they had razed Diem's damaged former palace in Saigon and built the Reunification Palace after the end of the war.
19) THE VIENNA CAFE SCENE
Vienna is known for it's cafes. These are not just the cafes where one can stop for lunch that are found everywhere. The cafes of Vienna have a history of being hubs of conversation that brings about changes in the world.
The most famous cafe in the world today is probably the Cafe Riche, in Cairo. In many countries, discussions in cafes are where political movements get started. Governments try to monitor the conversation in such cafes, wary that the topic of discussion will turn to overthrowing the government.
Vienna doesn't seem to have a single cafe as well-known as the Cafe Riche. But it's cafes have long been known as a place where one can go to either read, many periodicals being available in the cafes, or to get in a discussion. Vienna is also a place where people in exile from their home countries seemed to gravitate to.
In the years before the First World War, which began in 1914, it is known that the following characters all lived in close proximity to one another, in central Vienna, and were regulars at discussions in the cafes.
Vladimir Lenin, initiator of the October Revolution of 1917 which began Communism in the Soviet Union.
Josef Stalin, ally of and successor of Lenin who would consolidate Communism in the Soviet Union and lead it during the Second World War.
Leon Trotsky, along with Lenin and Stalin one of the three founders of Communism in the Soviet Union after the Romanov Dynasty was overthrown.
Josef Broz Tito, a young autoworker who would lead the Communist Party in the new nation of Yugoslavia which would be founded from territory of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the end of the First World War.
Adolf Hitler, a young painter and native of Austria who was trying unsuccessfully to be admitted to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts.
Sigmund Freud, the originator of psychoanalysis who, unlike the others listed here, was already known at the time.
Theodor Herzl, the Jewish founder of modern Zionism which was the movement that ultimately got the nation of Israel reestablished in Palestine.
Ironically, within walking distance lived the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, the long-reigning Franz Joseph and his nephew and heir-apparent, Franz Ferdinand. It would be the 1914 assassination of Franz Ferdinand that would bring about the First World War. This, or the even worse war that resulted from and followed it, would be what brought all of the above, with the exception of Freud, to their ultimate destinies.
The big question about this era in the cafes of Vienna is what meetings and acquaintances might have taken place between these not-yet-famous characters who all, at least for some period of time, lived within walking distances of one another?
The only meeting to have taken place between any of the above, that is known with certainty, is between Trotsky and Stalin, who actually came to Vienna to see Trotsky.
Vienna was not where the meeting to determine the course of Communism took place between Lenin, Stalin and, Trotsky. That took place in a church in London in 1907, as we saw in the posting on this blog "Happy St. George's Day". There is was decided that the course of coming to power had to be violent revolution, not a peaceful process. Ten years after this meeting came the October Revolution of 1917.
An intriguing possibility involves chess. One Vienna cafe, then known as the Cafe Central, was also a haven for chess players. There is a persistent story that Hitler and Lenin played chess in 1909. A lot of information online states that both were avid chess players. One source claims that Lenin and Hitler were among the best players in Europe.
Lenin was 19 years older than Hitler and would never see who Hitler was. Lenin died before Hitler became known. Hitler, leader of the Nazis which promised security against Communism, would have no reason to make it known that he had played chess with Lenin years before.
What is interesting here is not the potential alliances that might have formed between the above cast of characters, but the rivalries. With the exception of Freud, who was not primarily a political figure, all of the above were more or less rivals of one another.
Stalin came to Vienna to see Trotsky. But, after the death of Lenin, the two would become intense rivals over the course of Communism. Trotsky would go into exile, ultimately to Mexico City, where he was found dead with an ice pick buried in his skull.
Also after the death of Lenin, Stalin would eliminate most of Lenin's "Old Bolshevik" allies. The Bolsheviks were the faction that won the 1907 debate in London about implementing violent revolution. The "Old Bolsheviks" are the ones who were Communists before the October Revolution of 1917.
Josef Broz Tito would lead the partisans of Yugoslavia against Hitler's occupation in the Second World War. Ruling Yugoslavia after the war, Tito was a Communist but not the kind of Communist that Stalin would like him to be. Tito was very independently-minded and did not submit his country to being a client state of Stalin. It was no secret that Stalin put quite a bit of effort into spying on the Yugoslav Government, and relations were chilly for quite some time.
The Zionism, the reestablishment of Israel, of Theodor Herzl would ultimately be brought about by the Holocaust inflicted by his former Vienna neighbor, Adolf Hitler.
As for Stalin and Hitler, who very likely saw each other or even met in Vienna, they would engage in the greatest conflict that the world has ever seen, the Eastern Front of the Second World War. But yet Hitler wrote letters to Stalin, assuring him that he had no intention whatsoever of going to war with the Soviet Union.
Then there was the great mystery of Stalin's state of denial before Hitler's invasion of his country in 1941. Even when Stalin was repeatedly given intelligence warnings like "There are three million soldiers, with hundreds of tanks and aircraft, assembling against your western border", he didn't want to believe it. When, shortly before the invasion, Nazi reconnaissance aircraft began openly flying over Soviet territory, Stalin gave orders not to shoot at them.
It seemed very much as if Stalin remembered meeting Hitler and couldn't believe that he would do any such thing.
20) THE UNIVERSITY RECRUITING DRIVE THAT REALLY CHANGED THE WORLD
A world-changing event in history really requires some analysis. It is the U.S. naval mission to Japan in 1852. It was intended to force Japan open to trade with the U.S. But there are just so many questions about it.
First, unlike European nations, the United States was not a colonial power. It opposed colonialism. The Philippines would become a quasi-colony of the U.S., after it was inherited following the Spanish-American War, but that was nearly fifty years later.
Second, Japan was an isolated and feudal country, or at least that was the way it was usually perceived, and it wanted to keep it that way. What would Japan have to trade, in 1852, that would interest the U.S.so much? It didn't have significant manufacturing of goods to export, and it wasn't known for resources that could be traded for imports. Neither was it known for spices or any specialized agricultural products, such as tea or cacao, that could be exported.
Third, as far as the situation in the U.S., this did not take place during the "Gilded Age" when there were wealthy industrialists seeking either markets, resources or, labor. That era was decades away. In 1852, the Civil War was still ahead and it was not even certain that the union would hold together. It becomes difficult to understand what sense this adventure to the other side of the world could make.
Fourth, The U.S. had just gained, by way of the Mexican War, the vast territories of the west. With all of that to be explored and settled, and all of the resources that it contained, why would the U.S. need to send this expensive mission to the other side of the world to force a feudal country open to trade? It could not be a need for laborers from Asia because there were settlers from China, which was much more populous than Japan. In 1882 a law was actually passed actually banning immigration from China.
Japan was closed because, with all of the foreign ships seen passing by, it considered outsiders as barbarians and was wary of being made into a colony. It had the historical memories of two attempted invasions by the Mongols. But it didn't want to be completely isolated. There was one thing that it had a voracious appetite for from the outside world. That one thing was knowledge.
The leaders of Japan knew that the outside world was making progress. They realized that cutting Japan off from that progress would only make it more vulnerable. There had been a policy of acquiring knowledge for quite some time, known as Rangaku. The only westerners that were allowed to land by ship were the Dutch, and they were only allowed one trip per year. Actually, there was a law that no foreign ships could land in Japan at all but an artificial island, called Dejima, was created at Nagasaki for them to land on.
The Japanese sought all the knowledge that they could get from their Dutch visitors. They had many Dutch books about science, technology and, world geography translated. The Dutch brought all manner of technical devices to Japan, from machines and clocks, to telescopes and microscopes.
As a result of this naval mission, Japan did open up and set about modernization but it would bring very wide-reaching and unexpected changes to the world.
In Japan the change would bring the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate and restore the emperor to full power. This is known as the Meiji Restoration. Kyoto had been the capital of Japan for a thousand years but, in the sign of the new era the emperor chose to move the capital to Tokyo, where the shogunate which held the real power had been based although the emperor ruled from Kyoto, and that is why Tokyo is the great city that it is today.
Russia had the potential to be a great naval power but was hindered in that it lacked a port that was free of ice all year. Before the development of modern China, in the final years of the Qing Dynasty, Russia leased a naval base from China. But nearby Japan felt threatened by the arrangement and a naval battle ended up being fought over this location that changed the course of the world. The naval battle in 1905 between Japan and Russia, as well as a great battle on land, would bring major changes to the world.
It led to the rise of Japan as a world power. But this would put it technologically ahead of it's Asian neighbors. The Second World War in the Pacific, as well as the far-reaching changes that followed the war, would not have happened. There would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor and no dropping of atomic bombs. This battle can also be considered as the beginning of modern naval warfare.
It weakened the Romanov Dynasty in Russia, opening the way for the October Revolution to succeed twelve years later. The immediate result of this lost battle was the 1905 Revolution. It didn't topple the Romanov Dynasty but two years after that, Lenin, Stalin and, Trotsky met in London to plan the coming revolution.
Without this battle, the October Revolution likely would not have succeeded even if it had happened. This would probably have meant no Communism and the very different course of the Twentieth Century that would have brought about.
We can scarcely imagine what the world might be like today had there not been this 1905 battle that is really not well-known, and wouldn't have happened without Japan being forced open by this U.S. naval mission, after which it set about modernization. Without Germany and Austria-Hungary taking this battle as a sign of the weakness of the Romanov position, the First World War might never have happened.
Since the Second World War sprang from the First, that wouldn't have happened either. Since the development of nuclear weapons was spurred by the Second World War we might not have those, or nuclear power at all. Since it was the changes brought about by the world wars that ended the colonial era, there seems to be no reason why it wouldn't have continued until today.
The relationship between the races would be different. The white race had largely convinced the world, as well as itself, that it was the superior race. But the hideous slaughter of World War One, which almost exclusively involved the white race, began to cast doubt on that. All races have shown themselves to be capable of barbarity but this was unlike anything the world had seen before.
But that brings us back to why the forcing of Japan open in the first place was necessary or how it could really be beneficial to the U.S. The mission had been ordered by a little-known U.S. president named Millard Fillmore. He had been vice-president and became president upon the death of Zachary Taylor. He did not even get the nomination of his party for the following election. Millard Fillmore is remembered today primarily around Buffalo, where a hospital and a main avenue are named for him.
The Buffalo connection can be seen in that Commodore Matthew Perry was chosen to lead the naval mission to Japan. He was the younger brother of Oliver Hazard Perry, who was a hero of the War of 1812 in the Buffalo area and today has a housing development named for him.
The opening of Japan would likely have eventually happened in time anyway but Millard Fillmore completely changed the world by sending this mission, if only it was clearer why.
But maybe a look at what Millard Fillmore did before he became president might provide an answer. We know that while it might have been difficult to see a basis for trade with Japan that would justify the naval mission that was sent, what Japan had long sought from the outside world was knowledge. Just as soon as it was opened up by force it began sending students abroad to study, although not to America as it was by then preoccupied with it's Civil War.
Before becoming president, Millard Fillmore had founded a university. He had been the chancellor of the university, and a teacher there. The only conclusion that I can come to is that filling his university with eager Japanese students is at least a major part of the reason for this mission to Japan in 1852. That makes more sense than any other reason. It was the university recruiting drive that really changed the world.
This is Millard Fillmore's university today, the University of Buffalo known in local parlance simply as UB. There are actually two separate campuses. This is the older South Campus. There is also the larger North Campus, in Amherst NY.
There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >, After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.
21) THE WAY TO SAN JOSE
I have noticed what seems to me to be one of the greatest untold stories of both the rock music era and the computer age. You can read it and form your own conclusion. I have suspected this but have not seen it anywhere else.
San Jose was a rural and agricultural community at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. The city manager of San Jose, from 1950 to 1969, was A. P. "Dutch" Hamann. He really wanted San Jose to grow, and it would become a major city by the end of his tenure.
He is remembered for making the following statement in 1965: "They say that San Jose is going to become another Los Angeles. Believe me, I'm going to do everything in my power to make that come true".
In 1967 San Francisco, to the north of San Jose, had a hit song about it concerning the Hippies coming from across the country to Haight-Ashbury. The song, San Francisco, was by Scott McKenzie, and it reminded those bound to San Francisco to "remember to wear flowers in their hair".
There was a popular singer named Dionne Warwick who, a few years earlier, had a memorable hit song titled "Anyone Who Had A Heart". Dionne Warwick was from New Jersey, had no connections to San Jose and, at the time, had never been there.
But there was a songwriter who worked with Dionne Warwick named Hal David. He had been stationed at San Jose while serving in the U.S. Navy. The city manager who wanted so much for San Jose to grow had also been in the Navy.
Dionne Warwick recorded what would become an international hit song, "Do You Know The Way To San Jose"? She said that she didn't like the song, at least until it became a major hit, and that she did it at the urging of Hal David.
A lot of people were moving out to California at the time but the major destination was southern California, the Los Angeles area.
The lyrics of the song contrasted Los Angeles with San Jose. If the song was about San Jose then why should it even mention Los Angeles, which is far to the south? The basic pattern of the song is a negative view of Los Angeles and then a contrasting positive view of San Jose.
Why would she sing about "getting back to San Jose" and having been "born and raised in San Jose" when, in fact, she had never been there at the time of the song?
The song goes on: (Credit to Google for lyrics).
"L.A. is a great big freeway
Put a hundred down and buy a car
In a week, maybe two, they'll make you a star
Weeks turn into years. How quick they pass
And all the stars that never were
Are parking cars and pumping gas"
This portrays L.A., Los Angeles, as a false tinsel paradise that offers mainly empty promises of Hollywood stardom.
In contrast with the infamous smog and gridlock of Los Angeles, the song reminds us how easy it is to breathe and move in peaceful San Jose.
"You can really breathe in San Jose
They've got a lot of space. There'll be a place where I can stay
I was born and raised in San Jose
I'm going back to find some peace of mind in San Jose"
They've got a lot of space. There'll be a place where I can stay
I was born and raised in San Jose
I'm going back to find some peace of mind in San Jose"
Once again, most of what Los Angeles has to offer is empty promises of stardom.
"Fame and fortune is a magnet
It can pull you far away from home
With a dream in your heart you're never alone
Dreams turn into dust and blow away
And there you are without a friend
You pack your car and ride away"
It can pull you far away from home
With a dream in your heart you're never alone
Dreams turn into dust and blow away
And there you are without a friend
You pack your car and ride away"
In stark contrast, what a friendly place San Jose is. Dionne has so many friends there, even if she has never been there.
"I've got lots of friends in San Jose
Do you know the way to San Jose?"
Do you know the way to San Jose?"
After listening to that song, San Jose sounds like our kind of place. Let's drop our plans to settle in a horrid place like Los Angeles and go to San Jose instead. It also contrasts with the earlier song about San Francisco by portraying San Jose instead as a family-oriented place that would be good to settle down and start a business. Not like San Francisco, to the north, and it's Hippies with plenty of LSD and "flowers in their hair".
When Dionne Warwick visited San Jose, after the song had become a hit, she described it as a "little country town".
As it turns out, that "little country town" that was the subject of Dionne Warwick's hit song is now the largest city of the San Francisco Bay area. San Jose is considered as the "capital of Silicon Valley" and is one of the wealthiest cities in the world. it is certainly one of the best places to live, at least for the people that can afford to live there.
if the internet began the following year, at UCLA in Los Angeles, then how did Silicon Valley end up so far to the north, centered today on San Jose and neighboring Palo Alto? Could Dionne Warwick's song have been more successful in diverting the flow from Los Angeles to San Jose?
What I cannot help wondering is whether this song was commissioned from the beginning, by a secret deal between the city manager of San Jose and Dionne Warwick's songwriter. I also wonder if Dionne herself knew about it.
At any rate, the whole world now knows the way to San Jose.
22) THE EXONERATION OF AIMEE SEMPLE MCPHERSON
Being successful and popular is, unfortunately, a sure way to make enemies, often among the people that are closest.
The kidnapping certainly appears to have been timed to coincide with the former employee, Ken Ormiston, renting a cabin to spend time with his girlfriend. So it would have to have been planned by someone who would have known all about that and also that Aimee would be going swimming.
22) THE EXONERATION OF AIMEE SEMPLE MCPHERSON
In 1890, in the area of south-central Ontario around Brantford and Kitchener, the phenomenal evangelist whose married name would be Aimee Semple McPherson was born. During the "Roaring Twenties", when modern celebrity culture was beginning to emerge, she ministered at likely the largest church congregation in the world, the Angelus Temple in Los Angeles.
Her faith healing was astounding. While she did not succeed in healing everyone that she tried to, it was attested by the American Medical Association that she healed tens of thousands of people of all manner of ailments. Her church fed and assisted thousands of people during the economic depression of the 1930s, and she brought the Word of God to millions of people using the new medium of radio.
But this success made her enemies. Some in the Christian community didn't like that she was a divorcee. Many in her ever-growing congregation had left other churches. Proponents of the Theory of Evolution, and those who taught it in schools, resented her denunciations of it. Women had only recently been given the right to vote and traditionalists were concerned about her tremendous influence upsetting the family order. Finally, all of the attention and controversy around her was making the city of Los Angeles look bad.
On May 18, 1926, she was kidnapped from a Los Angeles beach while swimming. There were various reports of sightings and ransom demands for her return that were generally not taken seriously. She was presumed to be drowned until she emerged, on June 23, at a Mexican border town. Her story was that a couple had approached her on the beach and asked her to come to their car and do a prayer for their child. She was then forced into the car and taken to a shack, after which she claimed to have been moved to another location in what turned out to be in Mexico.
There were several captors. She had her hands bound but, one day when they were all out, cut her bindings on the jagged lid of an open can and escaped through a window. She managed to walk to a town called Agua Prieta, where she was found emaciated and transferred across the border to Arizona.
This was one of the most spectacular news stories of a spectacular decade, the "Roaring Twenties". There seemed no reason not to believe her story but she had enemies and it soon emerged that she was believed to have taken off with a male former employee named Ken Ormiston. This brought all kinds of attention-seekers out of the woodwork, claiming to have seen her at various places and times during her reported kidnapping.
Everyone seemed to have their own perspective on what really happened, Was her story of being kidnapped true or was something else going on? It was a media sensation in the days before television. Remember that the task of a newspaper is not only to report the news but also to sell newspapers, and sensationalism and scandal definitely sells newspapers. Whether the kidnapping story was true or not usually depended on whether the person being asked had been one of her admirers or detractors.
A judicial inquiry was held and the prosecutor was clearly hostile to her before deciding that there was no real evidence against her. Charges could not be brought against the supposed kidnapper if it was not known who they were.
Newspapers made a voracious effort to come up with something against Aimee Semple McPherson, which would surely have sold millions of copies. Expert examiners could find no holes in her story of being kidnapped.
Ken Ormiston, the former employee of Aimee with whom she had been close, was actually found to have rented a cabin that roughly coincided with the disappearance of Aimee Semple McPherson. Ormiston was known to have a troubled marriage It turned out that he had a girlfriend, and was likely at the cabin with her. Despite relentless effort, not a trace of Aimee Semple McPherson or her fingerprints could be found at the cabin. Ormiston's girlfriend was not her.
The shack where Aimee Semple McPherson was first taken was located, and the bathing suit that she had been wearing when abducted was found there. The location in Mexico where she had claimed to have been held was also found, and there seemed no real reason to doubt her story. Her enemies had long hired detectives to follow her and find any wrongdoing but they came up empty.
The effects of this case on the culture were very far-reaching. She was the first celebrity minister and those who followed her always had reporters looking for a hint of scandal. Her shoes that she had been wearing during the kidnapping escape became the object of much scrutiny, whether they looked as if they had the wear that would attest to this trek across the desert. This would be reflected later in the gloves in the O.J. Simpson case. The case is also reflected in the theories of whether the robbery of Kim Kardashian's jewelry in Paris might have been faked.
Aimee Semple McPherson died in 1944 of what was determined to be an accidental overdose of pills. She had various heath issues and had long had difficulties with sleep. Before losing consciousness, she tried to contact doctors to say that she felt ill from the pills. Even in death, the press wouldn't leave her alone. There were immediately stories that she had died a suicide, filled with remorse for her actions and the fraud to cover them up, eighteen years before.
The only conclusion that I can come to is completely in her favor. Times were changing. Women were gaining new power and there were the new entertainment and communications mediums of radio and movies. God used this outstanding servant of His to bring people to Him in this new era. Secularism and the belief in evolution were spreading so God countered this with the amazing faith healing of Aimee Semple McPherson.
What happened is that some of her many resentful enemies kidnapped her to coincide with her male former employee, to whom she was known to have been close, renting a cottage with his girlfriend as a refuge from his troubled marriage. The girlfriend was identified and bore a resemblance to, but definitely was not, Aimee Semple McPherson.
Her captors likely purposely allowed her escape from the location in Mexico, feeling that her story about being kidnapped would never be believed and that her ministry would be ruined.
But the trouble with trying to cut someone down is that it can backfire. That is exactly what happened here and this pathetic attempt to destroy a devoted servant of God, out of resentment of her great success, only made her more popular than ever.
She had enemies ever since coming to Los Angeles, who were always watching for some wrongdoing to catch her in, and the idea that she would abandon her ministry, at what was then it's height, pretend to be kidnapped so she could spend more than a month with a male former employee, and expect not to be caught and then to recover her ministry just strains the bounds of credulity.
I believe there is a good chance that the kidnapping originated from with the Angelus Temple itself. The following year, 1927, Aimee Semple McPherson's own mother held a "vote of no-confidence" against her, in an attempt to try to take control of the ministry for herself. At a later date, another female minister associated with the ministry tried to remove Aimee Semple McPherson in order to take control for herself. In fact, Aimee's own daughter also conspired against her.
I believe there is a good chance that the kidnapping originated from with the Angelus Temple itself. The following year, 1927, Aimee Semple McPherson's own mother held a "vote of no-confidence" against her, in an attempt to try to take control of the ministry for herself. At a later date, another female minister associated with the ministry tried to remove Aimee Semple McPherson in order to take control for herself. In fact, Aimee's own daughter also conspired against her.
Being successful and popular is, unfortunately, a sure way to make enemies, often among the people that are closest.
The kidnapping certainly appears to have been timed to coincide with the former employee, Ken Ormiston, renting a cabin to spend time with his girlfriend. So it would have to have been planned by someone who would have known all about that and also that Aimee would be going swimming.
Whoever kidnapped her no doubt thought that, no matter how it turned out, being away from her congregation for many weeks would cause them to lose interest in her. When she did escape, she was emaciated and in no physical condition to return to ministry before an extended period of recovery.
But their plans completely backfired and only ended up making her a global celebrity and one of the greatest servants of God that this world has ever seen.
23) THE COLOSSEUM AND THE VATICAN
23) THE COLOSSEUM AND THE VATICAN
The Vatican, being both a center of power as well as secretive, has always been a favorite of conspiracy theorists. Here is something that I cannot find has ever been pointed out.
Have you ever wondered why St. Peter's Square, at the Vatican, is actually shaped like an oval? Every other square that I can see, both in Italy and just about everywhere else, is literally right-angled in form. So why would this "square" actually be shaped like an oval?
As it turns out there is a simple answer. I cannot find anything about this being documented but am not quite sure whether to believe that I am the only one today that knows this.
St. Peter's Square is exactly the same size and shape as the Colosseum, which is about 3.5 km away. This is St. Peter's Square. St. Peter's Basilica is to the left so that the two together have the shape of a key, with the oval form of the "square" being the handle of the key.
Here is the Colosseum, shown from the same altitude. Although the directional alignment of the two is not the same, you can right click and select the "Measure Distance" feature to see that the dimensions of the Colosseum are exactly that of the internal diameter of the Colonnades that give St. Peter's Square it's oval form. Part of the structure of the Colosseum along it's long axis is missing but both measure about 190 meters, or 625 feet.
The oval form of both is not an extreme ellipse, the ratio of the long axis to the short axis being about 1.2 or 6 / 5.
Clearly, St. Peter's Square was constructed to exactly match the Colosseum but this has never been made public.
There is more to the relationship between St. Peter's Square and the Colosseum. By using the right click and "Measure Distance" option on Google Maps, it draws a straight line between the two points that are clicked on. If we choose the first point as the obelisk in the center of St. Peter's Square and the second point as the far side of the long axis of the Colosseum, the southeastern end, we find something else amazing that has never been made public.
The direction to St. Peter's Square from the Colosseum is exactly along the extension of the long axis of the oval form of the Colosseum.
So St. Peter's Square was not only constructed to match the dimensions of the Colosseum, it was also located to be aligned with the long axis of the Colosseum, although the directional alignment between the two is not the same. The alignment may not be perfect, down to the centimeter, if measured with a laser, but remember that this alignment was set up centuries ago.
That is not all. The original center of the Catholic Church was not the Vatican, as it is today, but the Lateran Palace. The papacy moved, for some time, to Avignon in southern France. When it returned to Rome, the Lateran Palace had been damaged by fire and was relocated to the Vatican instead. The Lateran Palace is still officially the headquarters of the church.
As it turns out the Lateran Palace is located on the opposite side of the Colosseum, which is from ancient Rome and was built before either, from the Vatican. This means that the Lateran Palace was also located on the extension of the long axis of the Colosseum, but in the opposite direction to that of the Vatican with St. Peter's Square.
The Lateran Palace is a large complex, but that means that we can draw a straight line with the Google Maps "Measure Distance" feature from the obelisk in St. Peter's Square to a point in the Lateran Palace complex, and the line will go right along the long axis of the Colosseum.
But what could these alignments mean? It is reminiscent of the Historical Axis of Paris, but that is no secret. I have searched and searched and cannot find that this alignment in Rome has ever been made public. The Colosseum is the best-known structure from ancient Rome, is the symbol of the modern city of Rome as well as it's geographical center.
It seems clear that this alignment with the Colosseum is an effort by the church to link itself with the power of the Roman Empire, but not to be made public. It could be a symbolic sympathy for those Christians who were martyred by the Roman Empire but it is not clear how many were martyred at the Colosseum, as opposed to the nearby Circus Maximus.
24) THE HOUSE OF THE REVOLUTION
24) THE HOUSE OF THE REVOLUTION
Most major news agencies report that the house where Ayatollah Khomeini stayed for over three months, near Paris, just prior to returning in triumph to Iran, on February 1, 1979, has been demolished. I can see only one news report, by Reuters, that the house is still there.
Khomeini, an opponent of the Shah of Iran, was exiled in 1964 to Turkey. He moved to the Shiite holy city of Najaf, where he taught and wrote. In late 1978, as he became more popular back home, the Shah put pressure on Iraq and supportive Iranian exiles rented a house for him in Neauphle le Chateau, a village that is almost close enough to Paris to be considered a suburb.
It was during the more than three months that he spent there that the budding revolution really took form. Khomeini directed the revolution back in Iran by telephone and his sermons were distributed extensively on cassette tapes.
Press conferences, with the global media, took place on a regular basis in front of the house. This photo was taken in the autumn of 1978.
Maybe the French Government didn't want the house to become a shrine. It is listed as having been demolished but nothing can be found about when that took place.
The former site of the home is listed, but if we go there on Google Street View the surrounding scenery doesn't match that in the photo above.
The fact is that the house hasn't been demolished. In the first of the following scenes of the town, it is the house on the right with the blue fence and blue and white shutters.
There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >, After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.
Possibly the most famous ordinary passenger flight on a modern jet was the return of Khomeini in triumph to Iran on a chartered Air France plane. In the following photo, the plane's captain helps the elderly ayatollah down the steps.
Has anyone noticed the symbolism?
The house where Khomeini stayed in France was near the Palace of Versailles. It was on the grounds of the palace where the first man-made flight with living beings took place, the Montgolfiers' balloon. The extravagant palace helped to bring about the French Revolution, and the execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette who had witnessed the flight.
The French Revolution had a lasting effect on the world, and there were "echos" of it in similar revolutions. Another monarchy, that had existed since ancient times, was overthrown by a popular uprising in a very similar way.
The leader of that revolution ended up planning and organizing it in a house not far from Versailles, and would be brought home in triumph on a plane that was a descendant of the balloon that flew at Versailles, after overthrowing a king who held lavish celebrations in extravagant palaces, just like the king at Versailles that had been overthrown.
25) MAYBE O.J. SIMPSON REALLY DIDN'T DO IT
25) MAYBE O.J. SIMPSON REALLY DIDN'T DO IT
While writing last week about the 1994 murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, and the ensuing chase and "Trial of the Century" of her estranged husband O.J. Simpson, I noticed an avenue that does not seem to have been explored during the investigation and trial.
O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial for her murder, but many people still think that he must have done it.
O.J. Simpson denied murdering his wife. The major question that arose was if O.J. Simpson didn't do it, then who did do it? That is where my new avenue comes in. It doesn't absolutely prove that O.J. didn't do it, but it does open up another possibility of who did it and what their motivation might have been.
TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE
Let's begin with the old saying that "If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
The trouble with the supposed evidence against O.J. Simpson is that it is just too good to be true.
Whoever stabbed and beat to death Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman outside the door of her condominium left behind a knit cap with hair from a black person inside. O.J. Simpson was black. A blood-stained glove was left at the scene and the matching glove was found behind O.J. Simpson's home. Blood was also noticed on the outside of O.J. Simpson's vehicle.
Just stop and think what a wonderful world it would be if all criminals were dumb enough to leave a glove at every crime scene, as well as the matching glove at home and a cap indicating their race by hair strands, as well as blood visible on the outside of their car.
THE NEARBY MANSON MURDERS
25 years before the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, in August of 1969, the U.S. and much of the world was horrified by two murder scenes in Los Angeles. In the first, actress Sharon Tate and several other people in a house were brutally, and apparently senslessly, murdered.
In the second, a grocery store owner and his wife were murdered at home.
The killers went out of their way to be brutal, and to leave behind evidence of that brutality. The killers wrote "PIG" on the wall in the blood of the victims. There was no evidence that anything like robbery was the motive.
It turned out that a would-be musician named Charles Manson and his followers, referred to as the "Manson Family" were behind the killings. It was a time of racial tension in the U.S. and Charles Manson decided that the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible would center around a racial war. The killings were done to make it appear that white people had been brutally murdered in their homes by black militants.
Manson was obsessed with the Beatles, and reportedly believed that their White Album was to communicate secret messages to him.
The end result would be Manson ruling over the world as Christ. In the Bible, Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "Son of Man", to emphasize His human side. Manson changed his name to Charles Willis Manson, Charles' will is man's son.
Of course it didn't happen as Manson planned. He and his core "family" members ended up spending the rest of their lives in prison. We have seen these events already. The Manson killings happened right between two momentous events, the landing of the first astronauts on the moon and the Woodstock music festival.
We saw the Manson Murders in The Aztec Prophecy", April 2018, section 27) JONESTOWN, CHARLES MANSON AND THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS.
Manson's followers were devout. The ones that were not involved in these killings were demonstrating outside the courthouse every day of his trial. When he had been convicted and sent to prison some of the followers moved near the prison to be close to him.
A woman who tried to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford, in 1975, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, was once a member of the Manson "Family", but had not been involved in these killings.
Aside from these "direct followers", Manson's "Family", there were also "indirect followers". I once read the book that Manson wrote from prison and he was greatly surprised himself at the mail he would get from people who admired and supported him.
BACK TO THE MURDER OF NICOLE BROWN-SIMPSON
25 years later, not too far from where the Manson killings had taken place, a very similar dual murder would occur that would rivet the nation and the world, if anything, even more than the Manson murders.
In June of 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered at night outside the Simpson condominium. Nicole Brown Simpson was the estranged wife of actor and former football player O.J. Simpson.
The killings had been brutal. Both had been stabbed with a large knife many times. In fact, it was like something right out of the Manson murders. It was as if Charles "Tex" Watson had come back.
Like the Manson murders there was an attempt to make it look like something it wasn't. One glove was found at the scene and the matching glove outside O.J. Simpson's home. O.J. Simpson was charged with the murders.
The thing that I find so striking about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson is just how similar it was to the killings that had happened 25 years before, not far away. I had not seen this referred to before.
COULD A MANSON FOLLOWER HAVE COMMITTED THE MURDERS?
The murder of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman took place near, and in exactly the same brutal manner, as the Manson killings 25 years before. Those killings were done to look like wealthy white people had been murdered in their homes by black militants. Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman were white, O.J. Simpson was black. The great racial uprising of 1992 in Los Angeles, very reminiscent of the time of the Manson murders, had occurred not long before.
The general consensus is that the killer of Nicole Brown-Simpson left behind the cap and glove because the murder was interrupted, maybe a person walked by or a dog started barking. But what if they were left behind to frame O.J. Simpson? By a Manson "wannabe" if not a member of the original "family".
After the Los Angeles Uprising of 1992, someone could have wanted to "pick up where Manson left off". There would be no better way to do it than this. This was a very high-profile couple and it was no secret that O.J. Simpson had been an abusive husband and that the two were separated. Charles Manson had believed that the Apocalypse would begin as a racial war in Los Angeles, which he was going to initiate.
It has been pointed out that O. J. Simpson had been working on a television program about frogmen, which involved killings with knives, and the murders of which he was accused looked like something right out of that. But that was no secret either and the killer could have known about it.
And, once again, we come back to what a wonderful world it would be if all criminals were this dumb. To be filming killing scenes and then murder someone in real life in exactly the same way. Remember the old saying about being too good to be true.
Ironically, O.J. Simpson appeared in the sports headlines right around the time that the Manson Killings took place, the 1969 U.S. football preseason. The Manson Family would almost certainly have heard of him, and now he was living not far from where the killings had taken place.
THE INVESTIGATION
The Los Angeles Police have undergone reforms, but remember that this was the bad old days of the LAPD. The days of the Rampart Scandal of planting evidence. The videotaping of police beating a black man had led to the destructive riots of 1992. Now, a high-profile black man was accused of murdering two white people.
The chief detective in the case, Mark Fuhrman, had previously been to the Simpson home on a domestic violence call. He had been recorded using racial slurs and declined to answer as to whether he had planted evidence in the case.
Nicole Brown-Simpson had reported a set of keys stolen, which were found on O.J. after the murders.
But this just doesn't sound right. Could she really be sure that the keys hadn't simply been misplaced? Why would anyone even report keys stolen, implying that she wanted the keys back after they might have been copied? Why not just change the locks? Why wouldn't O.J. have discarded the keys if he had just killed their owner?
Again we are reminded of what a wonderful world it would be if all criminals were this dumb. If something sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
THE SEEKING OF FAME
What followed was the chase of O.J. Simpson across the highways of Los Angeles, watched live on television by nearly a hundred million people. The extended trial of O.J. Simpson was rightly labeled as the "Trial of the Century".
O.J. Simpson was controversially found not guilty of murder but later ended up in jail anyway over the armed theft of athletic memorabilia that he felt was his.
But the show wasn't over yet. In fact, it was just beginning. O.J. Simpson had a long-time friend, who was a former lawyer, named Robert Kardashian. He reactivated his law license and joined the "Dream Team" of lawyers that were to defend O.J. Simpson at trial. They succeeded in getting O.J. acquitted, largely based on the corruption and racism of the lead detective and the fact that the famous glove did not fit O.J. Simpson very well.
This was the first introduction to the Kardashian Family that have become an integral part of recent American culture. The children of Robert Kardashian, three girls and one boy, would enthralling the country both in real life, with all of their relationships and other complications, and in television, with "Keeping Up With The Kardashians".
But this potential of fame and fortune for anyone connected with this case distorts it even more and makes it that much more difficult to reach the right verdict.
People come to Los Angeles, and Hollywood in particular, seeking fame and fortune. The chase of O.J. Simpson across Los Angeles was watched live by nearly a hundred million people. That opened great possibilities of fame and wealth for anyone who was connected with it or saw O.J. Simpson around the time of the murders.
When there is some kind of dispute or conflict, people naturally want to end up on the winning side. The chase of O.J. Simpson made it appear that he would be guilty. That might have biased anyone with anything to say against him.
Aside from the chase, I thought that the most damaging testimony against O.J. Simpson was that of the limousine driver, Allen Park.
On the night of the murders, Simpson had an overnight flight to Chicago, and a limousine arrived to take him to the airport. The driver testified that he saw a "shadowy figure" outside the house that went to the area where the glove was later found and then entered the house. The conclusion was that the figure had been Simpson, realizing that he had left a glove at the murder scene, so dropped the other glove outside his home to make it look like someone else had done it and was planting the glove to make it look like he did it.
But, once again, we come back to what a wonderful world it would be if all criminals were this dumb.
O.J. Simpson had ordered the limousine himself and knew that it would be there, with the waiting driver. Every home that I have ever seen has more than one entrance. Couldn't O.J. Simpson have gone in the back or side door, and so have avoided being seen by the driver?
Remember that if something seems too good to be true then it probably is.
CHARLES MANSON, O.J. SIMPSON AND NIAGARA FALLS
Considering that the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson was at least subconsciously inspired by the nearby Manson killings, Charles Manson didn't succeed at bringing about the Apocalypse with himself as the Messiah. But the killings that he was responsible for would come back 25 years later. There would be a chase through a major city like the world had never seen before, followed by what was certainly the "Trial of the Century" followed, not by the messianic reign of the Manson Family, but by the reign of the Kardashian Family.
Now, on to another murder scene. In 2002, not far from where I live, a girl named Jennifer Bolender was horribly murdered. She had been 17 years old and was murdered outside by a boy that she knew, assisted by two of his friends.
What I had never seen written about it is how, just as the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson was a descendent of the Manson killings, this was a direct descendent of the Brown-Simpson Murder that had happened over eight years before and had become part of national pop culture since. The Brown-Simpson Murder seems certain to have influenced the Jennifer Bolender murder, at least subconsciously.
Like Nicole Brown Simpson, Jennifer Bolender was believed to have been killed for relationship reasons. The two had a similar color of blond hair and were murdered at approximately the same time of the evening.
Nicole Brown-Simpson was killed at the bottom of steps leading to her condominium. Jennifer Bolender was killed near the entrance ramp to a highway overpass.
Nicole Brown-Simpson is believed to have been struck first, probably knocking her unconscious. The assailant then killed Ron Goldman, then returned to Nicole to stab her many times with a knife. Jennifer Bolender was first beaten. Her assailants later returned to be sure that she was dead, and only then was she believed to be repeatedly stabbed.
Exactly like Nicole Brown-Simpson, the most grievous wound on Jennifer Bolender was having her throat slit all the way across.
Like Nicole Brown-Simpson there was an attempt to make the killing look like something it wasn't, in this case a robbery resulting in murder.
O.J. Simpson was blamed for the murder of his estranged wife. The result was the televised chase along the highways of Los Angeles, that was watched live by nearly a hundred million people. Supporters of O.J. gathered on highway overpasses with makeshift signs, such as "GO O.J.".
A highway overpass also figured predominantly in the murder of Jennifer Bolender. Her body was dragged onto the nearby overpass, apparently after she had been killed. The overpass has since been named for her.
When Charles Manson ordered his "family" to commit their murders in the Summer of 1969 could he have imagined that a new star in football was about to start playing for the Buffalo Bills, on the other side of the country?
After retirement this player would end up living not far from where Manson's killings took place. His estranged wife would be murdered nearby in something that appeared to be something right out of Manson's scenario.
Then, on the other side of the country, near where the player had begun not long after the Manson Murders, another brutal murder would be a reflection of the estranged wife's murder.
26) THE NORWAY PLAN
26) THE NORWAY PLAN
There is something about the Second World War that I have never seen documented but should get a lot of attention. The Nazis, specifically Adolf Hitler, had a plan to continue the war from occupied Norway, but it was cancelled by Hitler's successor before ending the war.
A good trivia question is who succeeded Adolf Hitler? Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945, after appointing a successor. The Nazis surrendered a week later. Who was Hitler's successor for that week?
The answer is Admiral Donitz, who had previously led the navy. Top Nazis such as Hermann Goring and Heinrich Himmler had fallen out of favor by this point.
By the beginning of 1945 it had become absolutely impossible for the Nazis to win the war militarily. The Western Allies relentlessly advanced from the west and south, and the Soviets from the east. Sooner or later, the two would meet.
But the Nazis actually had one hope left. Adolf Hitler recognized that hope. It was that the Soviets and the Western Allies wouldn't get along when they met.
It was not an unreasonable hope at all. Hitler predicted the Cold War and it began essentially as soon as the Second World War ended.
The Nazis would fight on from occupied Norway while their enemies, the Soviets and the Western Allies, fought each other across central Europe.
Norway had been occupied by the Nazis since 1940. It was a very mountainous country and would make an ideal fortress.
According to the Wikipedia article on the Nazi occupation of Norway there was, at the end of the war, 400,000 Nazi soldiers garrisoned in Norway. Why on earth, when the Nazis' homeland itself was being overrun, would there be so many soldiers away from the combat, to the north in Norway?
This makes no sense whatsoever. This many soldiers might have made a difference in the battle to save the Nazis' homeland. It only makes sense if there was a plan to continue the war from occupied Norway.
This force couldn't have long resisted the Soviets and the Western Allies together, but it might be different if those two sides went to war with each other when they met. I can come to no other conclusion than this must have been Hitler's plan, although he wouldn't live to see it himself.
The Nazi commisar of occupied Norway was Josef Terboven. In charge of the occupation force was General Franz Bohme. Officially, Norway was a Nazi ally led by the collaborationist Vidkun Quisling.
Admiral Donitz, Hitler's successor, was thus what we could call the "Second Fuhrer". This plan to fight on from occupied Norway would have made Josef Terboven the "Third Fuhrer".
But Admiral Donitz, during the brief time that he ruled, summoned Josef Terboven and General Bohme to a meeting. He dismissed Terboven and transferred his powers to General Bohme. Donitz must have revealed the intent to surrender, and instructed General Bohme to go along with the surrender plan. The general then made a broadcast in Norway, affirming the surrender.
Josef Terboven died a suicide.
The question is, not only why there were so many soldiers out of the combat in Norway when the Nazis' homeland itself was being overrun, but why it was necessary for Admiral Donitz, in his brief time in power, to go to all this trouble when the war was over anyway.
The only possible answer is that there was a plan to continue the war from occupied Norway. This is what Josef Terboven was intending, based on the hope that the Soviets and Western Allies would not get along when they met. Hitler must have approved the plan, although he wouldn't live to see it, or there would never had been anywhere near as many soldiers away from the combat in occupied Norway.
Admiral Donitz, Hitler's brief successor, is the one who cancelled the plan, deciding to just surrender, and took away Josef Terboven's authority.
The intent of the plan was for the remaining Nazis in Norway to either wait while the Soviets and Western Allies killed each other, or join the Western Allies against the Soviets, and end up on the winning side.
Remember how we saw in "The Far-Reaching Legacy Of The Holy Roman Empire", April 2016, that the Nazis considered themselves as the "Third Reich", with the Holy Roman Empire having been the First Reich. The German Empire of the Kaisers was considered as the Second Reich.
The purpose of the Holy Roman Empire, created by the pope with Charlemagne as it's first emperor, was to rein in the eastern Christians, which would ultimately split away, in the Great Schism of 1054, to form the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Nazis' linking themselves with the Holy Roman Empire can be seen in their rallies at Nuremberg, which was essentially the center of the Holy Roman Empire, although it's stated capital was Rome.
By the time of the Nazis, the great struggle between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had been secularized into the National Socialism, of the Nazis, and Communism.
At the time of the founding of the Holy Roman Empire, before the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, what was now the Western Allies had been part of the Holy Roman Empire. So it would be fitting for the Nazis to join with the Western Allies against the Soviets.
This would fulfill the objective of the Holy Roman Empire, albeit in modern secular form, which the Nazis considered as the First Reich, with themselves as the Third Reich.
It became apparent that the Third Reich could not achieve victory by itself. But it might have been possible using occupied Norway. This is something that really gets overlooked.
27) THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
27) THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
Like many people, I used to watch "Dragnet" as a boy. But there are a couple of things about the Los Angeles Police Department, often expressed as it's acronym of LAPD, that we should address.
The police report on the arrest of O.J. Simpson in 1994, for the murder of his estranged wife and following the highway chase watched live by nearly a hundred million people, states that, upon being driven away from his home in a police car, O.J., who is black, saw a large group of his own people who had come to express support for him. His home was in the wealthy neighborhood of Brentwood.
The police report states that, upon seeing the group, O.J. said " What are all these ( racial expletives ) doing in Brentwood"?
Sorry, but I simply do not believe that O.J. Simpson said that. The only witnesses to the statement were the police officers in the car with him. I would have to hear O.J. confirm it himself before I will believe that he said that.
Why would O.J. Simpson, who was clearly going to need all the support he could get, say that about people of his own racial group who had come to support him?
It seems much more likely that, with the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 having occurred two years before, that the police were trying to separate him, in the public opinion, from his own racial group.
The Los Angeles Riots had taken place because a black man, Rodney King, was beaten by multiple police officers following a traffic stop, and it was caught on film. The four officers involved were put on trial, and the very deadly and destructive riots of 1992 began when all four were acquitted.
This statement was added to the police report, and released to the media, to alienate O.J. Simpson from black public opinion to forestall any such reaction if O.J. should be convicted in a controversial way of the murder of his estranged wife.
Remember that this was in the 1990s, when the Rampart Scandal was going on in the LAPD, involving the planting of "evidence" by certain police officers. The department has since undergone reforms, but this was a different era.
The second issue that should be addressed involves another nationally televised incident, the shootout with the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974.
The Symbionese Liberation Army, or SLA, was a violent leftist militia of the early 1970s. They had kidnapped newspaper heiress Patty Hearst. She later released a statement that she was joining her captors.
It was thought that the group was somewhere in Los Angeles but it wasn't known where or who all of the members were. The group had been involved in other crimes.
Some members of the SLA went shopping. One of them decided to shoplift but was caught by a security guard. The group managed to get away but were sure that their license plate number had been recorded. They abandoned their van but neglected to remove both a traffic ticket with an address on it as well as evidence of involvement in the SLA.
Police found the van and the result was the spectacular shootout live on national television.
Remember that Los Angeles is where Hollywood is. But, as we can see, what happens in real life equals or exceeds anything that Hollywood could come up with.
Hundreds of police officers surrounded the house. There were six members of the Symbionese Liberation Army inside. The shooting began. The SLA members were heavily armed and clearly had no intention of surrendering.
According to police statements, a canister of tear gas was fired into the house through a window. The police statement was that tear gas canisters can be hot. It set the house on fire. It didn't get the SLA members inside to surrender. Shooting continued as the house was engulfed in flames.
Two women emerged from the house and shot at police before being killed by return gunfire. Another woman was seen coming outside and pulling one of their bodies back into the house. The remaining SLA members died inside the house.
The trouble with this is that I have never heard anywhere else of a tear gas canister, fired from a gun, being hot enough to start a fire. Tear gas was widely used and many times people have picked up the canisters and thrown them back at the police. I can find no documentation of other fires being caused by tear gas canisters.
The only conclusion I can come to is that the police intentionally set the house on fire with an incendiary device, and then reported that it was caused by a tear gas canister.
Remember the police shootout with the MOVE cult, in Philadelphia in 1985. The situation bore similarity to the SLA shootout, except that there were children in the MOVE residence. A police helicopter dropped a bomb, in an effort to resolve the standstill, but the fire got out of control and about sixty homes were destroyed.
Even if it was an incendiary device that was used in Los Angeles, most people would agree that the police took the right course of action. Those in the house had no intention of surrendering. The shootout was disrupting the city and many lives were in danger. They were armed with heavy weaponry that likely outgunned the police. Setting the house on fire was the only practical way to bring the situation to a conclusion.
But, after all these years, it is time to acknowledge that it was an incendiary device that was purposefully used, and not a "hot" tear gas canister.
It turned out that Patty Hearst was not among the dead in the house. But it was really a surprise that four of the six people in the house had been women.
28) THE ASSASSINATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
There are endless conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I really do not see anything out-of-place about it. The one that really calls for more attention is the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
There is one thing that I have never seen written about the Kennedy Assassination. Not far from where the assassination took place, in Dallas, lived an eight-year-old named John Hinckley Jr. His 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan would be a virtual mirror image of the killing of Kennedy Assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, by Jack Ruby in the garage of the police station two days after the assassination.
Martin Luther King was the black civil rights leader from America's south. He was very unpopular with the white establishment. A letter was sent to him, hinting at knowledge of sexual misconduct, that is widely believed to be an attempt by the FBI to get him to commit suicide.
King was clever. The Civil Rights March, from Selma to Montgomery Alabama in 1965, gave the movement an immediate psychological advantage over the white establishment in that it evoked memories of Union general Sherman's destructive "March to the Sea" through Confederate territory a hundred years before.
Martin Luther King was staying in a second-floor room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. He was known to stand on the balcony outside his room while talking with visiting associates.
The police were observing Martin Luther King and were actually watching when he was killed on the balcony by a sniper named James Earl Ray. Yet somehow the killer was able to escape to Canada. He was eventually caught in London.
Since, as we see with the Civil Rights Marches, the patterns of history are so important, let's see if there are any that might relate to this assassination and the escape of the assassin.
Martin Luther King made his iconic "I Have A Dream" speech in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. It was Abraham Lincoln that led the Union to the defeat of the southern Confederacy.
Not long after the U.S. Civil War ended, Lincoln was shot and killed by a Confederate sympathizer. He was shot on the balcony of a theater, just as Martin Luther King would be shot on the balcony of the motel.
The Confederate President, Lincoln's Confederate counterpart, had been Jefferson Davis. He was captured and imprisoned by the Union after the end of the war.
He was released on bail but then escaped to Canada. It is widely believed that he was purposely allowed to escape in order to avoid the divisiveness that a trial would bring.
Jefferson Davis spent much of his later years living in a Memphis hotel not far from the motel where Martin Luther King had been assassinated.
The question is whether the assassin of Martin Luther King was allowed to escape to Canada, just as the former Confederate President had been allowed to escape to Canada, after he had assassinated King on the balcony of a motel, just as Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated by a Confederate sympathizer on the balcony of a theater.
29) THE GLASSES OF JOHN HINCKLEY JR.
In March of 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan in an apparent attempt to win the affection of actress Jodie Foster.
The thing that is most remembered about it is that Hinckley was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity. In the U.S. that means getting sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of to prison.
In one way of looking at it, this does not mean "getting away" with anything as, on average, it means a longer confinement in hospital than would have been spent in prison. But it is certainly more desirable than being in prison and a lot of people were upset about the verdict.
I really have to credit John Hinckley for outwitting the justice system. Presuming that he wouldn't be killed himself in the assassination attempt, he had this planned all along. It was brilliant.
Start with his glasses. Some of the photos of Hinckley that a Google Images search brings up are of him wearing glasses. But those wire-rim glasses are being worn only at his trial. He does not seem to ever be wearing glasses except at his trial.
Hinckley also lost weight in prison. On the newsclip of his arrival at the trial by helicopter I didn't even recognize him at first.
The glasses were a prop. The objective was to make him look as unthreatening as possible. Like a college kid who gets crazy ideas from reading too much, certainly not a dangerous assassin.
Sometime before the assassination attempt on Reagan, Hinckley went into one of those photo booths that used to be in malls and took a photo of himself holding a gun to his head. But why would anyone who wanted to become some kind of twisted hero leave behind such a photo?
Of course. This was the first step in setting up the insanity defense, presuming that he survived. He had been sent to psychiatrists by his parents and understood how it worked.
When imprisoned after the assassination attempt, Hinckley complained of headaches and was given Tylenol. But he told guards that he saved up the tablets and took them all at once.
But if it was a genuine suicide attempt then why would he tell anyone, unless it was continuing to build the insanity defense?
Hinckley gave an interview from prison and his reasoning was surreal. He was not worthy of Jodie Foster before but was now because he had shot the president.
He managed to get in one more ineffectual suicide attempt, this time by hanging, before his trial began.
Jodie Foster was in Paris but a statement by her was played by video at the trial. Hinckley threw a pen at the screen. That made it look like he was unable to control his emotions.
The location of the assassination attempt, the Capitol Hilton, meant that most of the jurors in Hinckley's trial would be black. Black people were less likely to have sympathy for Reagan, and they found him not guilty by reason of insanity.
He spent a long time at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, but gained increasingly more privileges. After convincing everyone that he was crazy, he eventually turned it around and convinced them that he was sane, and has since been released.
Let's congratulate John Hinckley because, if justice was a chess game, he would be it's Grandmaster. The glasses that he wore at trial should be in the National Archives.
30) MARIJUANA
All right, how much sense does this make?
We know how destructive alcohol can be. It damages the health. Many deaths are directly attributable to the destructive health effects of alcohol. Countless people are killed and injured in accidents that are directly attributable to alcohol.
Then there is the social effects of alcohol. It's overuse has destroyed endless marriages and families and careers.
Next, we have cigarettes. We do not even need to go into their destructive effects here. Cigarettes are not nicknamed "cancer sticks" for nothing. But cancer is only the beginning of their health effects. We used to be shown films in school of people dying in hospitals, pleading with young people not to start smoking.
But yet alcohol and cigarettes are perfectly legal in the western countries.
What about marijuana (cannabis)? It's health effects are generally considered as not as bad as cigarettes and it's intoxicated effect no worse than alcohol. It is also believed to be less addictive than alcohol.
So why, at least until a relatively recent relaxing of the rules in some countries, is alcohol and cigarettes acceptable while possession or use of marijuana gets one thrown in jail?
How can marijuana be treated so differently from alcohol and cigarettes when the general opinion is that it is no worse than either?
The factor that does make marijuana different from alcohol is the way it is produced. Tobacco is grown on large plantations and the commercial production of both alcohol and cigarettes are industrial processes. Marijuana, in stark contrast, can be grown on virtually any plot of ground, or even inside under special lamps.
Have you ever stopped to think that this might be why marijuana is treated so differently by the law? Since I have no personal interest in any of the three, maybe I can give an unbiased opinion.
Manufacturers of alcohol and cigarettes are industrialists who will obviously have far more political power than anyone who grows marijuana. In America, legislation against marijuana seems to date from 1906. This was during the Gilded Age when capitalists had a tremendous amount of power.
Could it be that manufacturers of alcohol and cigarettes used their political power to eliminate marijuana as a competitor by making sure that it was illegal?
But then what about the countless thousands of people who have spent time in prison for marijuana? Was it all really because of Robber Baron tactics from the Gilded Age? Wouldn't that make it just about the greatest travesty of justice that the world has ever seen?
31) THE FLIGHT OF RUDOLF HESS
One of the most bizarre and mysterious events of the Twentieth Century, as a whole, and the Second World War in particular, is the flight of Rudolf Hess.
Rudolf Hess was the Deputy Fuhrer of Nazi Germany. On May 10, 1941, he made a solo flight to Scotland and claimed to be on a mission to seek peace with Britain. The flight has been baffling ever since. Adolf Hitler was reportedly very upset upon being informed of the flight and immediately condemned Hess.
But what was really going on?
My conclusion is that it was a genuine peace attempt. The Nazis would invade the Soviet Union in six weeks, after the conquest of the Balkans and Greece, and wanted to concentrate on that.
The first thing that is convincing about it being a genuine peace effort is the timing. It had become clear that Britain wasn't going to surrender without being invaded. There was enough time for negotiations to be completed before the invasion of the Soviet Union.
The second thing that is convincing is that Hess hadn't been a pilot. He underwent training to fly a Messerschmidt before making the flight. Hess was one of the top Nazis, the Deputy Fuhrer and second in the line of succession. How could he suddenly take time off to train as a pilot without attracting attention and arousing suspicion, and why would he do so, unless the flight had actually been planned?
Hess was one of the most visible people in the country. He spent months training as a pilot. I find it to be utterly unbelievable that the leadership didn't know that he was up to something.
The third thing that is convincing is Hess' conduct in Britain. After it became apparent that the effort at peace was not going to succeed, Hess because delusional and made two ineffectual suicide attempts. But there was speculation in Britain that he was feigning insanity, to make it appear that he really was insane so that the failed peace effort wouldn't look like a sign of weakness for the Nazis.
But at the time of the flight the Nazis were in a position of strength and it wouldn't have been a sign of weakness to offer peace to Britain.
The fourth thing that is convincing is that there were people in Germany who knew that Hess was going to make the flight, including those who told him about the Duke of Hamilton. Yet I see nothing to indicate that the Nazis arrested or questioned anyone after the flight as having been in on the plot.
What I am certain was really happening was that it was all theatrics to avoid alarming the Soviet Union. Hitler denouncing and disowning Hess as crazy upon being informed of the flight, and then Hess feigning insanity in Britain if it became apparent that the peace attempt wasn't going to succeed.
What really amazes me about this is the lack of reaction from the Soviet Union. Is Hitler really trying to make peace with Britain, but trying to disguise it, because he doesn't want us to suspect that the Blitzkrieg is about to come our way?
The agent in Britain who took Hess into custody would one day have a daughter who liked to sing. Her name would be Olivia Newton-John.
32) THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF FIDEL CASTRO
When Fidel Castro and his Communist revolution took power in Cuba in 1959, he was initially popular with Americans. It was President John F. Kennedy who demonized him. But many Americans sought out the "Communist Paradise" and there were Americans going there, often by hijacking planes.
His demonization of Castro would ultimately get Kennedy killed. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had previously defected to the Soviet Union and who hoped to make a name for himself on preparation for a future in Cuba by killing Kennedy.
But before he was assassinated himself, Kennedy made no secret of the fact that he was seeking to have Castro assassinated, specifically by the use of mobsters.
Is there anyone out there who doesn't see through this? Why on earth would a U.S. President announce that there was an intention to assassinate a foreign leader, so that it would look incompetent if not successful?
There never was a U.S. attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro.
What was really happening is that Kennedy didn't want Americans leaving for the "Communist Paradise" of Cuba. Since he couldn't stop them from leaving, he tried using psychology to get the Cubans to shun them.
The way to do this was to announce an intention to assassinate Castro, not directly but by using criminals. Cuba had been a haven for American gamblers before Castro came to power.
When Americans arrived, the Cubans would be less-than-welcoming because they would not know which ones might have been sent to assassinate Castro.
33) THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS
Is there anyone who still believes that the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan were done so to end the Second World War?
The usual story is that the use of these terrible new bombs was absolutely necessary to persuade Japan to end the war.
The truth is that Japan had already offered to surrender before the bombs were dropped. But it was a less-than-unconditional surrender offer, with no Allied occupation of Japan and no war crimes trials.
Neither atomic bomb, the one on Hiroshima or the one on Nagasaki, caused anywhere near as much death and destruction as the Meetinghouse Raid on Tokyo, which used conventional bombs.
Furthermore Japan is an elongated archipelago and the two atomic bombs were targeted at cities at the far end of the archipelago, and not near the center of power.
The Second World War involved what could be called "message bombing". This means an air raid intended as a message to a place other than the one being bombed.
The first obvious example is the Nazis' devastation of the old city of Rotterdam. The bombing was strategically unnecessary, the Netherlands was not a large enough country to last long against the invasion. The bombing was a message to Paris, which also had it's historic section concentrated in the center of the city, and could just as easily be bombed.
A second example of a message bombing was that of Dresden, which came late in the war. The city was far away from the western Allies who bombed it into ruins. Dresden was actually right in the path of the Soviets advancing from the east. The war was soon to end and it was a clear warning to the Soviets against aggression after the war.
That brings us to the atomic bombings of Japan. Aside from the question of why the bombs were dropped at the far end of the archipelago, well away from the center of power, there is the question of why the second bomb, on Nagasaki, was dropped only three days after the first, on Hiroshima.
Wouldn't it have made sense to give the Japanese government at least a week to consider surrender before dropping the second bomb?
Could it be that the second bomb was dropped three days later, not to get Japan to surrender but to hurry up and drop it before Japan had the chance to surrender?
The reason being that the atomic bombs were not really about Japan at all but to demonstrate the fearsome new bombs for the benefit of the Soviets, and any other enemies that might arise after this war that was soon to end.
34) SUITCASE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
There have been articles in the news about suitcase nuclear weapons. This simply means nuclear bombs that are compact enough to be carried in a suitcase.
But a nuclear weapon must have a certain critical mass of fissile material. The chain reaction that brings about a nuclear explosion is accomplished by firing high-speed neutrons into a mass of either plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium, as these are the only two fissile materials. The neutrons, being neutral in electric charge, are not affected by the electric charges within atoms. When a nucleus is hit and split several more high-speed neutrons are released and the chain reaction continues until the energy released in the explosion blasts the mass apart.
The reason a critical mass of fissile material is necessary is that the nucleus is very small compared to the entire atom. If too many of the neutrons escape the mass altogether before splitting a nucleus then the chain reaction will die out. A certain critical mass is necessary because it is unpredictable which direction the neutrons from split nuclei will fly off in and a larger mass would have a lower surface-to-volume ratio. The fissile mass is also spherical in form because a sphere is the geometric form with the lowest surface-to-volume ratio. The goal is to allow as few neutrons as possible to escape from the mass without splitting a nucleus.
Only about one out of every 140 atoms in natural uranium is the 235 isotope. The rest are mostly the 238 isotope. Uranium has 92 protons in it's nucleus and an element is defined by the number of protons. The 235 isotope, which refers to the total number of nucleons, means that there are 143 neutrons with the 92 protons. The 238 isotope thus has 146 neutrons. The neutrally-charged neutrons hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of the positively-charged protons. The 238 isotope is not fissionable because the higher number of neutrons hold the nucleus together too tightly for the high-speed neutrons that collides with it to split it.
The one in 140 atoms of the 235 isotope must be painstakingly separated out. The ratio of 235 atoms in the mass is known as enrichment. A nuclear bomb must have a critical mass of at least 90% enrichment. A lower enrichment can be used for a nuclear reactor, to generate heat, but not for a bomb. That is why a nuclear reactor cannot cause a nuclear explosion.
Aside from the mass of fissile material, that must be of at least the critical size, the nuclear weapon must also contain the structure and the gap between the two halves of the critical mass in the uranium bomb, and also the explosive mechanism that hurls the one half into the other. The plutonium bomb uses the more complex implosion of conventional explosives to compress the critical mass.
To build a nuclear bomb of uranium- 235 or plutonium, both of which are fortunately difficult to obtain, the fissile mass must be of at least a critical size, known as the critical mass. A vital step in building the bomb is thus to calculate or find out what the critical mass must be.
I actually find it difficult to believe that a workable nuclear bomb could be carried in a suitcase at all.
But then why are there periodic references to suitcase nuclear weapons?
The answer is simple. The nations that have nuclear weapons tend to not want other nations, particularly potentially hostile nations, from having nuclear weapons. Even worse than that would be terrorist organizations building, or getting hold of, nuclear weapons.
Just after 9/11, U.S. President George W. Bush warned about the possibility of the country being attacked with suitcase nuclear weapons. But why would the president even say such a thing, which is effectively giving away a very good idea about what the critical mass would have to be?
The answer is that there is, at least at this time, no such thing as a suitcase nuclear weapon. A suitcase nuclear bomb is not possible. That announcement, and the periodic references to suitcase nuclear weapons, are made to deceive any organization that would try to build nuclear weapons as to what the critical mass would have to be. A suitcase nuclear weapon would not work.
35) AMERICA'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE
When America holds a presidential election one thing that seems to baffle most people, inside as well as outside the country, is that a candidate can win the election without winning the popular vote.
At the time of this writing there have been five presidential elections since the turn of the Millennium. It has happened in two of the five that the winner of the election actually did not win the popular vote.
The reason is a process known as the Electoral College. The choosing of the next president is actually not done by popular vote. It is a two-step process. It is the U.S. states that cast their votes for president, not individual voters.
What happens is that each U.S. state is given a certain number of electoral votes, in proportion to it's population. The voters in the state cast their votes, and the state then casts it's electoral votes for the candidate that got the most votes in that state.
But this is not representative of the popular vote because the state will cast all of it's electoral votes for a candidate even if that candidate wins the vote in that state by only one vote.
That is why a candidate can win the election without winning the popular vote, and it has happened twice since the turn of the Millennium.
A fairly close election is thus decided by the "swing" states. Most states will usually vote for either one major party or the other. New York will virtually always cast it's electoral votes for the Democrat candidate just as Arizona virtually always will for the Republican candidate. But a few "swing" states, particularly Florida, might vote either way and it is these states that decide a close election.
What is so significant, and contentious, about America's Electoral College is that the number of electoral votes that each state gets is not in strict proportion to it's population. Smaller states actually get more electoral votes, in proportion to their populations, than do larger states.
The reasoning behind this is to force presidential candidates to pay attention to the smaller states. If not for the Electoral College, so the reasoning goes, candidates might just campaign in the major cities, ignoring the more sparsely populated agricultural states, whose views may be quite different from those of the people in the major cities.
What makes the Electoral College so controversial, at least for the relatively few people who understand it at all, is that people in major cities tend to vote Democrat, while people in rural areas are more likely to vote Republican.
This comes down to America's coasts against it's "heartland". The more populous coasts mostly votes Democrat, while the more sparsely populated agricultural states of the heartland mostly vote Republican.
Despite it's great importance in deciding presidential elections, the Electoral College is rarely discussed in America. It seems to be only people like political science students that really understand it. Neither major political party seems anxious to discuss it.
It might be expected that the Republicans don't want to remind the country that they have managed to win three of the last five presidential elections, even though they only won the popular vote in one of those elections.
Maybe the Democrats don't want to discuss how they have allowed it to go on for so long that their opponents do not even have to win the popular vote, they only have to come close, because the mysterious Electoral College makes it virtually certain that any close election will be won by the Republicans.
36) RICHARD NIXON'S LIST OF ENEMIES
Richard Nixon was the U.S. President that resigned over the Watergate Scandal and was known for making a list of his enemies. I have noticed something for conspiracy theorists that I cannot see has ever been pointed out.
From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s there were three assassinations of national leaders while they were in office. The assassinations are either unsolved or, if it is known who did it, it isn't known what their motive was.
Faisal was a popular King of Saudi Arabia. He was so well-liked in Pakistan that a city was renamed Faisalabad for him. In 1975, King Faisal was assassinated by his nephew, but it is not known why.
Omar Torrijos was the "maximum leader" of Panama, who died in a mysterious 1981 plane crash. It was speculated widely from the beginning that the U.S. was behind the crash.
Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palmer was shot to death while walking on a Stockholm street with his wife in 1986. This has baffled the world ever since. It was recently announced that Swedish police have reason to believe that it was a now-deceased man who did it, but the motive remains a mystery.
These assassinations took place in the far corners of the world and couldn't possibly have anything to do with each other. Or could they? What I notice is that all three of these leaders had fallen afoul of U.S. President Richard Nixon, who was known to keep a list of his enemies. Although his enemies tended to be domestic, rather than foreign, and none of these assassinated leaders had been on the list.
Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974 and the assassinations began the year after that.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Nixon supported Israel against it's Arab enemies. Saudi King Faisal responded by cutting off America's oil supply, in what became known as the Arab Oil Embargo. I remember going to school in the dark because the clocks had been changed in an effort to save energy. When King Faisal's nephew assassinated him, the nephew had just returned from the U.S.
Panama's Omar Torrijos must have been anathema to Nixon. The two came to power at around the same time. Torrijos was a leftward proponent of land redistribution and was an ally of Chile's Salvador Allende, who Nixon had gotten overthrown and killed in a 1973 coup. He continuously demanded that the U.S. relinquish control of the Panama Canal. He was a supporter of Communist Cuba and Communist insurgencies in Central America. It has long been speculated that the U.S. was behind the mysterious plane crash that killed him.
Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme had been so relentlessly critical of America's war in Vietnam that Richard Nixon broke diplomatic relations with Sweden.
I will leave it up to conspiracy theorists to decide if these mystifying assassinations have anything to do with the animosity of Richard Nixon to all three of them. I find this to be very interesting and cannot see that it has ever been pointed out before. The investigation, in the compound posting by that name, "Niagara Falls And The Moon Landing" demonstrated Nixon's reaction to Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's constant criticism of Nixon's Vietnam War.
37) THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALAMO
The Alamo, in San Antonio, has a special place in American history. Even though Texas was in the process of declaring independence from Mexico as a republic, and would not join the United States for ten years after the famous siege of the Alamo.
The defenders of the Alamo were ultimately overcome and killed by a much larger Mexican force. But their bravery, and refusal to surrender, inspired ultimate victory for Texas, revolving around the battle cry, "Remember the Alamo".
But there is another side to this story that should get much more attention. The reason that it doesn't get the attention it deserves is that it involves the villain of the Alamo.
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was actually the president of Mexico. But his decision to centralize power led several regions of Mexico to attempt to break away, of which Texas was one. American settlers had been allowed into sparsely populated Mexican Texas, in an attempt to counterbalance hostile Indians.
Santa Anna himself led the force that overwhelmed and killed the defenders of the Alamo. Although he was later defeated and captured by the Texans, who were so inspired by the Alamo, at the Battle of San Jacinto.
The power dynamics in Mexico later changed and Santa Anna went into exile. He spent some of his later years in exile in New York City, before ultimately returning to Mexico.
Santa Anna used to chew a natural gum called chicle. He brought a large shipment of it to New York, thinking that he could make money by starting an enterprise making buggy tires out of chicle.
The idea never got far, as vulcanized rubber proved to be superior. The great story is that this ended up launching the modern version of manufactured chewing gum.
But it was Santa Anna's American assistant, Thomas Adams, who got the credit for the idea of manufactured chewing gum, originally based on chicle. It was true that Santa Anna only intended to use chicle for tires, not for gum, it never would have gotten started without Santa Anna's bringing in chicle.
It didn't help, of course, that Santa Anna was remembered for leading the force that ultimately overwhelmed, and killed, the defenders of the Alamo.
Whenever you chew gum, or are in a checkout aisle surrounded by gum, let's remember the Other Side Of The Alamo.
In fact, isn't it about time for a brand of chewing gum named for the Alamo?
38) CANADA'S AVRO ARROW
Here is an investigation especially for Toronto readers, although it involves Canada in general and the U.S. space program.
In the 1950s a Canadian company called AVRO planned what would likely be the most advanced supersonic fighter jet in the world. The plane was called the Arrow, and development began at a factory near Toronto. It was a massive project that employed many thousands of people.
Canada didn't have the facilities necessary for all the required testing of the prototype aircraft, so much of the testing was done in the U.S. The Americans who witnessed the testing of the Arrow were certainly impressed with it.
The next thing that happened was the launch of Sputnik. This was the first satellite to orbit the earth, and much of America was alarmed that their opponent in the Cold War might be pulling ahead in the arms race, and what would become the space race.
What happened next was a shock that neither Toronto, or the rest of Canada, has completely gotten over.
On February 20, 1959, remembered as "Black Friday" in Toronto, new Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker abruptly and unexpectedly ordered the cancellation of the Arrow project. Everything to do with the project, the plans and tooling and several prototype planes, were ordered to be destroyed.
Not only had it employed so many people in Toronto, the plane had become a point of national pride. There are persistent rumours that plans, scale models, or maybe at least one of the prototypes of the Arrow, were smuggled to safety. It has become a Canadian legend, particularly in Toronto.
In August 2018 came the news that a test model of the plane had been recovered from the bottom of Lake Ontario.
With this project being so important to Canadians, just why was it cancelled? Certainly it was an expensive project but the plane would also serve to highlight Canada's capabilities to the world.
Part of the rationale for the cancellation might be that the Arrow was a fighter jet, designed to shoot down incoming planes as opposed to missiles, and missiles were to become more predominant in the future. But the project was cancelled in 1959. America, at the time, had Nike bases around the country, also designed to shoot down planes rather than missiles, and these would remain operational for many years after the Arrow project was so abruptly cancelled.
What I find so interesting is that considering that the cancellation announcement came after the U.S. and Canada had a chance to consider, and discuss, their response to the launch of Sputnik, the key personnel of the AVRO Arrow project were hired almost immediately by what would become the U.S. Space Program.
Many of the important positions in Apollo, as well as other programs that came before and after, were Canadians. The prominent role of Canadians in the U.S. Space Program can be seen in how, upon the mishap on board Apollo 13 in April 1970, it was the University of Toronto that was called to do the quick calculation of just the right pressure to separate the Lunar Module from the Command Module, but without doing any damage to the hatch which would be fatal. These were the days before pocket calculators and with no time to program a computer.
Doesn't it seem obvious that there was a secret deal between the U.S. and Canadian Governments that rather than dividing their responses to Sputnik, they would effectively work together by having Canada cancel the Arrow project so that it's top people could help with what would become the space program?
The reason that there was so much emphasis on destroying everything having to do with the Arrow project was to ensure that none of it's key personnel would be able to carry on the project themselves, and would accept the offer to work on what would become America's space program. In 1958, the year before the Arrow project was cancelled, the U.S. and Canada had jointly founded the NORAD defense system.
It is known that John Diefenbaker didn't always get along with U.S. President John F. Kennedy. But this was in 1959, before Kennedy took office.
39) THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE
In one of those now-it-can-be-told stories, I think we can conclude that Ronald Reagan's much-vaunted Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s was mostly theatrics.
The system, announced in 1983, was high-tech weapons in orbit and on the surface that was designed to make nuclear weapons effectively obsolete by shooting down any and all incoming missiles.
The first sign of theatrics, remember that Reagan had been an actor before becoming a politician, was Reagan's 1984 joke that he "had passed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union and we begin bombing in five minutes". But Reagan was apparently unaware that a nearby microphone was turned on, and soon the whole world heard Reagan's joke.
The Soviets, as we might expect, didn't think it was funny.
It now seems clear that this was all calculated. Reagan knew that the microphone was on all along. He wanted the Soviets to think that he was a little bit crazy, and might actually undertake such an action. Reagan was definitely " no one to mess with".
One component of the system was small nuclear bombs in orbit with lasing rods attached. Upon a nuclear attack the bombs would detonate and, in the split second before the lasing rods were vaporized by the blast, the energy released would generate powerful laser beams that would destroy all incoming missiles.
Ronald Reagan's was soon nicknamed Ronald "Ray Gun".
The trouble is that I have never heard of anything like this working, outside of science fiction, before or since.
After growing up watching "Lost in Space", "The Jetsons", "Star Trek" and, "Star Wars", it seemed as if something like this might actually work, and work well enough to make it into a national defense system.
The Soviet Union was the world's largest oil producer, and was suffering from the steep drop in oil prices during the late 1980s. Reagan would continuously boast about how much this defensive system, which came to be nicknamed "Star Wars", cost. Communism, as it was known, was in it's final few years and it was obvious that Ronald Reagan was using this system to force the Communists into an arms race that they couldn't afford.
The 1986 summit between Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev broke down over this Strategic Defense Initiative as Gorbachev though it should be included in talks on limiting nuclear weapons, but Reagan didn't agree because it was defensive in nature.
I am not quite sure if Reagan believed this system to be actually workable. Bill Clinton terminated the program in the 1990s.
Part of the purpose of this high-tech project was certainly economic. It would have a lot of spin-off effect just as did the Apollo Space Program. Whether it was practical or not it would promote research that might have more practical applications. It would certainly create jobs, and would help to get the economy rolling again following the nasty recession of the early 1980s.
40) THE FIRE AT NOTRE DAME
On April 15, 2019, sadness swept the world as Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was seriously damaged by fire. As of this writing no cause has been found for the fire.
Renovation work was being done on the cathedral but the fire began in the early evening when that work was finished for the day. There was a rule that all electrical cords had to be unplugged when not in use.
The fire began in the attic of the cathedral and burned off the wooden roof. An alarm sounded but a reported "glitch" sent a security personnel to the wrong place, and the fire had the chance to spread before being detected.
What makes this fire seem a little bit disturbing is the timing and the background of it.
The Yellow Vest protests, that had begun months before, were paralyzing Paris and were sure to ruin the upcoming tourist season. The protests spread across France but were especially concentrated in Paris.
Suddenly, this fire happened. The world rallied around Paris. The protests that had been paralyzing the city and the rest of France virtually ceased. Notre Dame would be rebuilt and everyone was in this together.
Not only was the date timing of the fire, April 15, perfect to save the tourist season, the time that the fire began, very early evening, was ideal both for personal safety and visual effects.
The renovation workers would be gone for the day. People would be having dinner and there would be the fewest number of people in the cathedral. The initial smoke rising would draw the city's attention while it was still light, and the flames would emerge through the roof just about the time of nightfall.
The fire seems to have begun at the lead-covered wooden spire, that is where the first smoke was seen from outside. We know that a lead coating protects wood from water and weather, but not from fire because it has a low melting point.
By the time the spire collapsed, massive crowds and cameras would be gathered, and it would be reminiscent of the towers collapsing on 9 / 11. It would certainly rally the country and the world.
Notre Dame has a virtual twin in Reims Cathedral. Reims was actually the French coronation cathedral. In the First World War there was a fire that burned away the wooden roof of Reims Cathedral, which was remarkably similar to the Notre Dame fire, but Reims Cathedral was rebuilt. The vaulted ceiling of Notre Dame saved the rest of the cathedral from devastating damage.
I did not see any report that the Notre Dame fire was arson but the Yellow Vest protests were the modern incarnation of the French Revolutionaries, who damaged Notre Dame and destroyed so many other churches, and the Paris Commune, or Communards, who burned both the Tuileries Palace and the Hotel de Ville.
So the fire at Notre Dame powerfully resonates with the destructive protest movements in Paris' history. That is why it so quickly and effectively rallied the country and shut down the Yellow Vest protests.
It is probably wrong to surmise that the Notre Dame fire was deliberately set, and I hope that it is, but let's be more forthcoming about what caused the fire.
41) U.S. PRESIDENTS AND THE APOCALYPSE
41) U.S. PRESIDENTS AND THE APOCALYPSE
When holy prophecies are made there are sometimes people who may be in a position to "help the prophecy along" toward fulfillment. Jesus Himself, while being crucified, had a sip of wine that was offered to Him, in order to fulfill a prophecy that had been made in the Old Testament of the Bible.
We saw in the posting on this blog, "The End Of The World As We Know It" how we are moving toward the Apocalypse that was foretold in the Bible,
What about today? Might there be any people, in positions of power, looking to make an eternal name for themselves by helping the world along toward the Apocalypse that was prophecied in the Bible and the reign of the Antichrist that must precede it?
What about the U.S. Presidents, specifically those since 9/11?
A U.S. President could help the apocalyptic prophecies along first, obviously by provoking global conflict and, second by alienating the world from the U.S., and purposely reducing it's global influence, to promote the rise of the one-world government of the Antichrist, who we know will not be American but will be from the European Union.
Let's start with George W. Bush, the U.S. President at the time of 9/11.
After 9/11 he purposely used the word "Crusades", in a news conference, knowing that the history of the Crusades, the invasion of Moslem lands by westerners, is still a sensitive subject. The Crusades could be described as a Christian version of Jihad, or Holy War.
We saw in the posting about the Apocalypse how Iran will be a participant in the attack on Israel that will initiate the final series of wars of the world. Iran had shown no unusual signs of hostility but George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil".
Saddam Hussein had been the arch-enemy of Iran. His 1980 invasion of Iran led to an extremely deadly and destructive eight-year war. During that war, Iran expressed the goal of continuing on to liberate Jerusalem after defeating Iraq. But the Iran-Iraq War eventually ended in a stalemate.
Nothing could have done more to get Iran closer to Jerusalem than the removal of Saddam Hussein. Iran today has a considerable degree of control over Iraq and is deeply involved in the civil war in Syria, which is immediately north of Israel.
George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq damaged America's relationship with it's European allies. But maybe that would prompt the European Union to integrate closer together, which would be the political base of the Antichrist.
The world had been hopefully moving toward democracy. But we know that the reign of the Antichrist will be a worldwide dictatorship. Could the much-derided imprisonment of anyone with a slight suspicion of having any involvement in terrorism at Guantanamo Bay be a purposeful step away from democracy and toward that future dictatorship?
Barack Obama was elected as U.S. President in 2008.
The Obama presidency moved toward improving relations with Iran, eventually signing the nuclear deal. But Barack Obama continuously taunted Russian leader Vladimir Putin, such as publicly referring to him as a "spoiled kid". It was definitely during the Obama Presidency that the "New Cold War" began.
Then came Donald Trump.
The main purpose of his presidency seems to be to tear down the existing world order, in which America plays an important role. Could this be so that a new world order will arise, that of the Antichrist?
Donald Trump's erratic behavior has thoroughly alienated America's allies and diminished it's leadership in the world.
He has withdrawn America from arms control agreements with Russia and the Paris Agreement on climate change. He scrapped the nuclear agreement with Iran, withdrew America from the World Health Organization and left the G7 meeting early.
He demonized the Chinese telecom company Huawei, and essentially initiated a new cold war with China.
Donald Trump hung up on British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "weak and dishonest".
But yet he moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thoroughly upsetting Israel's potential enemies.
Isn't it time for a new world order?
42) THE REAL STORY OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI
42) THE REAL STORY OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI
It is really time to see through what actually became of Aung San Suu Kyi. This will be added to the compound posting, "Investigations" December 2018.
Aung San Suu Kyi emerged around the time of the 1988 Burmese coup that replaced one military government with another. She was an advocate for democracy in her homeland and became a hero across the world. Her father, Aung San, had been the founding father of modern postwar Burma and had been assassinated when she was an infant.
She became the nemesis of the ruling regime in her country. An election was held in 1990 which her party, the National League for Democracy, clearly won. But she was barred from taking office and would spend a total of fifteen years under house arrest. She was offered to be allowed to leave the country, if she would not return. She refused.
The first military government that had seized power in postwar Burma was in 1962. That government was more authoritarian but the one that replaced it in 1988 was more subtle and clever. The year after it came to power, 1989, would be the year of apparently great triumph for democracy as the Berlin Wall came down. The world had great faith in democracy and had made Aung San Suu Kyi it's icon.
She worked from outside the system and had no actual experience in political office. A law had been passed barring anyone from the country's presidency who had a foreign spouse or children. That made it impossible for Aung San Suu Kyi to ever be president because her late husband and children were British.
The government came up with an ingenious plan to silence it's greatest critic. To succeed the plan would have to fool the whole world. Amazingly, it succeeded.
The plan to silence the government's greatest critic was absolutely brilliant.
The government would allow a legitimate election, which Aung San Suu Kyi's party would obviously win. Unlike in 1990 she would be allowed to take office. But it was the old strategy of silencing critics of the system by inviting them inside the system.
Aung San Suu Kyi had already been barred from the presidency by the law about foreign spouses and children. A position would be created for her, that of State Counsellor. The military government has been officially dissolved but few people doubt that the military still holds a lot of power in the country.
Since actually moving inside the system, and taking a position of power, Aung San Suu Kyi has gone from being the world's hope to being the world's disappointment. The hopes for democracy that had been placed on her have fallen short of being fulfilled. Unlike when she was a hero there is mostly silence about her in the world news. The world has mostly turned against her. Her honorary Canadian citizenship has been revoked. There is talk of revoking her Nobel Prize.
Hasn't anyone stopped to think that this is what her government had been planning all along?
They managed to bar her from the presidency. A position was created for her, but with limited powers. Now that the government has her inside the system, her official position is essentially another form of house arrest. The position prevents her from saying what she wants, but doesn't give her the power to do much in the way of democratic reform.
Her government knew that the world was expecting so much from her and would be disappointed and turn against her if she didn't achieve it. They carried out the plan brilliantly. They managed to silence her criticism but did it in a legitimate way, not by arresting, exiling or, killing her. She now has an official position but has to be careful of what she says. She is probably in a position where she needs the support of the military.
Why doesn't the world see through this?
The government knew that Aung San Suu Kyi had no actual experience as a politician. She was an inspiration to the world but there is quite a bit of difference between inspiring people and handling the daily tasks of government. It might have been better to leave Aung San Suu Kyi as head of the party and let a career politician be the one to actually take office. But remember that her office is not that of the president, from which they have managed to bar her by the law against a president having a foreign spouse or children.
Part of the world's disappointment in Aung San Suu Kyi has to do with democracy itself. 1989, the year following her emergence into the global consciousness, was thought to be the year of the triumph of democracy. But it turned out to be the peak of democracy, rather than it's ultimate triumph. Too many people think of democracy as a cure-all for most of what can ail a nation. Global democracy has especially been in decline since 9/11. Russia and China, as two examples, have done away with leadership term limits.
Aung San Suu Kyi's government knew all of this. They knew that the world was placing unrealistic hopes on her, if she ever got to take office, so they let her have that office.
Why doesn't everyone see through this? The government that wanted to silence Aung San Suu Kyi's criticism has succeeded brilliantly in bringing her inside their system and turning the world against her.
43) MORE RELIABLE CARS
During my youth, postponing or changing plans because of car breakdowns was a regular occurrence. It was much more common to see cars broken down by the side of the road than it is now.
But then cars suddenly seemed to get much more reliable. Breakdowns now are much less common. Cars today are not so much "better", just last longer and are more reliable.
How can this possibly be?
Automakers want people to buy new cars. Buyers want their cars to last as long as possible. The trouble is that if automakers make cars that last a long time then people will buy fewer new cars.
If automakers made cars that lasted forever, they would be putting themselves out of business. The idea that they purposely make cars that will not last forever is not new. It is called "planned obsolescence".
But then came the rise of the Japanese auto industry. Japanese cars were lasting considerably longer, and breaking down less, than domestic models.
Could it be that "planned obsolescence" didn't translate into Japanese and domestic automakers had to drop that policy to stay in business?
How else could cars suddenly get so much more reliable?
That can only mean that, not only were automakers purposely not making cars as reliable as they could be but also, at some level, there must have been collusion among automakers that were supposed to be competing with each other to bring about better cars.
44) THE MCDONALD'S CLUSTER
No, The McDonald's Cluster is not a new item on the menu.
McDonald's is known for it's supreme sense of location. A McDonald's restaurant might be in place for nearly a century. So, having the resources of one of the few largest corporations in the world, it makes sense to spare no expense to get absolutely the best available location for each restaurant.
In the area where I live, there is a pattern that just jumps out at me. McDonald's and Burger Kings exist in pairs, always with roughly a kilometer between them. There are several such pairs.
This could not be a coincidence. It seems to me that Burger King is letting McDonald's, which came first, "do it's homework" for it, as far as choosing a location, and then locating about a kilometer away.
The next pattern that becomes apparent involves Tim Horton's. It is certainly no coincidence how often a Tim Horton's, a newcomer compared with McDonald's and Burger King, is located close to a McDonald's.
While Burger King's strategy seems to be, aside from competing with McDonald's on quality, to locate about a kilometer away so that half of McDonald's customers might choose Burger King simply because it is closer, Tim Horton's seems to be trying to locate as close as possible to McDonald's, and then top it on quality and nutrition.
Wendy's may have one strategy based on quality, locating near McDonald's and Burger Kings and then topping them on quality, and another based on location, locating away from McDonald's and Burger Kings especially near highway exits.
McDonald's has defined fast food. Many people, for several generations, had their first job at a McDonald's. Doesn't it make sense that it should also define business districts?
In a way, the gold standard of a business district is the famed "golden arches" of McDonald's. But I thought it should have a name. This also includes independent businesses and smaller chains that are influenced in their decision on location by a McDonald's.
45) THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT ZIA
A recent visit on this blog was to Pakistan. It reminds me of something that will not go away. It is a thought about the assassination of former president Zia.
Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul Haq boarded a C-130 after witnessing a demonstration of a tank that his army was thinking of buying. The date was August 17, 1988. Shortly after takeoff contact was lost with the plane. It was seen flying erratically until it crashed into the ground, killing all on board. There was no sign of an explosion before the plane crashed.
Zia was Pakistan's president. The country has since switched to the parliamentary system and is led by a prime minister.
The C-130 was in service with the Pakistani Air Force but had been made in the U.S. The U.S. conclusion was that the crash had been caused by mechanical issues. This explanation is not widely believed because the plane was seen flying erratically for a period of time before crashing and this does not explain why radio contact was also lost.
Since there was no sign of a bomb or explosion, nor disintegration of the aircraft before striking the ground, the most widely-believed explanation for the crash is that a chemical agent disabled the crew. They could neither pilot the plane nor call for help.
Endless speculation has been written about who was behind the assassination. Pakistan was, at the time, a U.S. ally during the Soviet war in neighboring Afghanistan. But attacking aircraft in this manner was not a usual tactic in the Afghan war and assassinating Zia would not end Pakistani support of the Mujahedin in the war.
There is the story of a Pakistani general, who happened to become the next Chief of Staff, that was supposed to fly back to Islamabad on the same plane as Zia, but changed his plans at the last minute and flew on another plane.
The trouble with that, aside from being too obvious, is that top members of Pakistan's military had been killed on the plane as well. Sabotaging the plane would make plenty of enemies in the military for whoever was behind it.
Zia had been promoted to Army Chief of Staff by President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He then overthrew Bhutto and took his place as president. Bhutto was later executed. Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, would later lead the country herself until she was assassinated following a return from exile.
Supposing that Bhutto supporters were behind Zia's assassination is problematic because first, many top military personnel of the country were also killed. Second, Bhutto had been a U.S. ally and the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan was also killed. Third, while Pakistan does have somewhat of a tumultuous political history, attacks on aircraft like this were not part of that history.
Two things are very clear. Whoever was behind this was very skilled in attacking aircraft, and they were fine with killing Americans. Pakistan's intelligence agency concluded that a "foreign power" was involved, but didn't give any names.
Here is what I would like to add. I do not have any kind of proof. I just want to add a direction to the assassination that I have never seen written about.
Pakistani military forces have been stationed in the Middle East, although have never been in combat with Israel. In the 1979 siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Pakistani special forces were engaged in the recapture of the mosque.
After the 1967 Six-Day War, during which Israel captured the West Bank and the original city of Jerusalem, many Palestinians moved eastward into Jordan. The Palestinians outnumbered the native Jordanians.
The Palestinians launched attacks against Israel without consulting with the Jordanian Government. In 1970 this led to what is known as the Dawson Field Hijackings. Four planes were hijacked and brought to Jordan. The passengers were released and the global press invited. Then, with the attention of the world's press, the four planes were destroyed by explosives.
We saw the Dawson Field Hijackings in the section of this posting, 8) INSIGHT INTO 9 / 11.
Following this the Government of Jordan, led by the well-known King Hussein, felt that it had no choice but to take back control of the country. This was especially because some of the Palestinians were openly calling for the overthrown of King Hussein.
The Jordanian Royal Family was recently in the news due to internal turmoil. We visited it in the visit on this blog, "Jordan And The Hashemites" January 2021.
This September 1970 conflict is referred to as the Jordanian Civil War or as "Black September". As it turns out Muhammad Zia ul-Haq was a general in Pakistan's Army who was stationed in Jordan at the time. Zia was instrumental in helping King Hussein to defeat the Palestinians, and take back control of the country.
After the conflict the organisation called "Black September" was formed to get revenge on the Jordanian Government. It assassinated the Prime Minister of Jordan. There had been earlier assassination attempts on King Hussein.
Black September also turned to attacking Israel and is best-known for the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
So my reasoning is that if an organization like Black September was formed to strike back at members of the Jordanian Government in retaliation for the war that it launched against them, and if the military leadership of Zia was so important to the conduct of that war, then isn't it logical to presume that Zia would be a target as well?
Attacking aircraft was a hallmark of organizations like Black September. There was the Dawson Field Hijackings, and any number of other attacks on aircraft. Yet I have never seen this avenue explored in the assassination.
46) AMERICA'S WAR ON DRUGS
Has anyone noticed what a fantastic success America's "War on Drugs" has been? Although it has not succeeded in eliminating drugs it has been very successful in another way.
The "War on Drugs" is generally credited to Republican president Richard Nixon, who announced it in 1971. It proscribed long prison terms for possession or use of even small amounts of illegal drugs.
In New York State this was followed by the passing of the notorious "Rockefeller Drug Laws", named for Republican former New York governor Nelson Rockefeller. These laws had penalties that were even harsher than the national laws, very long prison terms. I can remember from childhood the announcements on television that the harsh new laws are soon to take effect and drug users should seek help immediately.
In the U.S. convicted prisoners are not allowed to vote.
What I find so interesting is that virtually all of the many people who have been given long prison terms under these drug laws are from the population demographic that almost always votes Democrat. The Democrats are the political rivals of the Republicans who made the harsh drug laws.
In other words, America's Republicans have succeeded in taking millions of people who would vote against them and locked them away in prison where they can't vote. This is absolutely brilliant. We can definitely be sure that the "War on Drugs", while not succeeding at actually eliminating drugs, has meant many more Republicans in office, and more political power to Republicans, than there would have been otherwise. In this regard it has been a brilliant success, as the Republicans' war against people who would vote against them.
On another issue, what about guns? A central tenet of Republicans is the right to gun ownership, even though so many Americans are killed or wounded by gun violence every year.
But what is significant is that the vast majority of American victims of gun violence are of the population demographic that would vote Democrat. People who have been injured by being wounded will be less likely to get out and vote.
Republicans tend to favor having the death penalty, capital punishment. But once again virtually everyone who is put to death is of the population demographic that would vote against the Republicans.
I am not claiming that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a creation of Republicans. But the group is one of the best things that have ever happened to Republicans and conservatives. Jehovah's Witnesses do not get involved in politics, neither voting nor running for public office.
What this amounts to is taking people of the population demographic that would ordinarily vote Democrat, of which almost all Jehovah's Witnesses are, and telling them not to vote. Republicans and conservatives should absolutely adore the Jehovah's Witnesses.
America's Republicans are absolutely brilliant at gaining and holding on to office.
47) RONALD REAGAN AND THE IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS
Here is something that is just a little bit spooky.
On November 4, 1979, Iranian demonstrators seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. After some of the staff were released, 52 hostages were held. The demand was that the former Shah, who had recently entered the U.S. for cancer treatment, be returned to Iran to face trial.
The hostage crisis would go on for 444 days. The event that triggered their ultimate release was the beginning of war between Iran and neighboring Iraq. With Iran actually being invaded the hostages were no longer needed as a rallying point for the revolution and those guarding the hostages were needed at the battlefront.
The Iran Hostage Crisis is almost universally believed to be what ruined the chances of reelection for U.S. President Jimmy Carter. He was defeated in the 1980 election by Ronald Reagan.
But if the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War was the catalyst for the release of the hostages, the mystery is why it took another four months for them to be released. The war began on September 22, 1980 and the hostages were released on January 20, 1981. The hostages were no longer needed as a rallying point and their guards were needed at the battlefront.
As it turns out the hostages were released right on America's Inauguration Day, January 20, 1981,. Almost as soon as new president Ronald Reagan had finished his inauguration speech came the announcement from Iran that the hostages were being released. Algeria had been mediating the crisis and the hostages were flown from Tehran on Algerian planes.
This aroused the suspicion of many people. The Iran-Iraq War began on September 22. America's election day, November 7, was well over a month away. But if the hostages were released before election day it would likely have saved the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The suspicion was that Ronald Reagan's people had somehow made a deal with those holding the hostages to hold them, not only until after election day but until after Reagan's Inauguration, to be sure that Jimmy Carter's Democrats didn't get any credit for getting them released.
The U.S. Congress conducted an investigation but didn't find anything to substantiate the suspicions.
But then the next thing we know the Reagan Administration was found to be secretly selling weapons to Iran, for use in it's long war with Iraq, and using the profits to assist the Contras in Nicaragua.
Doesn't it look like Reagan's people made a deal with the Iranians holding the hostages to keep them until after Reagan's Inauguration, and then Reagan would sell urgently-needed weapons to Iran for it's war with Iraq? During the time of the Shah America had supplied weapons to Iran and, now that diplomatic relations had been broken by the Hostage Crisis, Iran was short of weapons when the unexpected war with Iraq began.
Some might think that maybe the Iranians were mad at Jimmy Carter's Democrats, for allowing the exiled Shah into the country, but not Reagan's Republicans, and that is why the hostages were held until Reagan actually took office on Inauguration Day.
But that doesn't make sense because it was in the news that Jimmy Carter actually didn't want to admit the Shah to the U.S. for cancer treatment, thinking correctly that it would mean trouble. It was the Republicans who insisted that America must not abandon an "old friend", and got the Shah admitted. The U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized soon afterward.
If there was a secret alliance between the Reagan Administration and Iran it didn't last. In 1987 there were naval clashes between the two in the Persian Gulf.
But the scenario we have discussed here is just a little bit spooky, and still seems so after more than forty years.
For more about this general time and series of events remember the posting on this blog, "When The Last Forty Years Began". Here is a link to it:
https://www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/2018/09/when-last-forty-years-began.html?m=0
48) THE REAL STORY OF AMERICA'S ELECTRIC CHAIR
This is a story that is connected to the area where this blog is being written.
Countries that execute people have come up with some novel ways of getting it done. America's contribution to execution is the electric chair. The condemned person is strapped in a wooden chair, electrodes are attached to them, and they are killed by a high-voltage alternating current.
They are killed by an alternating current, rather than a direct current, and that is the part that is interesting.
A direct electric current is, as the name implies, a current that continuously flows from a negative to a positive terminal. Electricity is the flow of electrons, and always moves from a negative to a positive terminal, but in some circuits each of the two terminals alternates between being negative and positive.
This means that the current flows first in one direction, and then the other. This is known as alternating current. Whether alternating or direct current is produced depends on how a generator is wired. Magnetism is related to electricity and a current is generated by spinning a magnet or electromagnet inside a coil of wire. A generator that produces alternating current is known as an alternator. A battery always produces direct current.
Alternating current is abbreviated as AC, direct current as DC.
(Note-Have you ever wondered what the difference is between "electric" and "electronic"? I could find no satisfactory answer. My conclusion is that if the direction of the current doesn't make a difference, as in a light bulb, the device is electric. If the direction of current does make a difference, as in a transistor, the device is electronic).
Alternating current has one great advantage over direct current. A transformer will work effectively with alternating current, but not with direct current.
An electrical transformer is a soft iron core with two coils of electric wire wrapped around it. When an alternating electric current is passed through one of the coils a current of equal power is generated in the second coil.
(Note-The designation of electric charges is entirely arbitrary. We could just as easily define electrons as having a positive charge. The trouble is that the + and - signs also mean add and subtract. An atom that loses an electron thus now has a positive charge and one that gains an electron has a negative charge. It sounds like it doesn't make sense. Why don't we call the charge on an electron a positive charge)?
There is a possible disadvantage to alternating current. An alternating current must have a certain number of cycles per second, or hertz. If different countries generate current with different numbers of cycles per second then electrical equipment manufactured in one country may not work on the electricity of another country. As far as I can see all countries today use either 50 or 60 hertz.
Electrical power consists of a combination of the number of electrons moving in the current and the pressure pushing those electrons. The moving electrons is known as the current, and is measured in amperes. The pressure behind those electrons is the voltage, and is measured in volts. The total power of the current is defined as amperes x volts, and is measured in watts. One watt is one volt pushing one ampere.
It is a little bit more complex to express the power in an alternating current circuit because the value of the voltage is not consistent, unlike direct current. The voltage in alternating current starts at zero, reaches a peak in the positive direction, drops back to zero, reaches a peak in the negative direction, and again drops back to zero. This is one cycle, a hertz is a cycle per second. The overall power is .707 of the peak value, this number is the square root of 1 / 2.
The reason that the voltage pressure is necessary to move electrons is that any circuit offers some innate resistance to the flow of electricity. This resistance is measured in ohms. These basic electrical units are all related. If one volt is applied to a circuit and it pushes one ampere through the circuit then we know that the resistance of the circuit must be one ohm.
E = IR is the simple algebraic equation regarding electricity. E is voltage, I is current and, R is resistance. The formula can be rearranged to give any of the three elements, I = E / R and R = E / I.
A coulomb is a certain quantity of an electrons and an ampere is defined as the flow of one coulomb per second. But the term "coulomb" is rarely used.
(Note-Just a thought. Here is something that I just don't understand. A coulomb is a quantity of electrons, specifically 6.241 x 10 (18) of them. A mole is also a quantity, 6.02 x 10 (23), usually this quantity of atoms. A mole is a very useful quantity if we measure mass in grams because a mole of any atoms or molecules will have a mass of the atomic or molecular mass in grams. An ampere is defined as the flow of one coulomb per second. Both are extremely large numbers but there is an order of magnitude of less than ten thousand between them. Since a flow of electrons comes from atoms why on earth didn't electrical scientists and chemists get together and coordination the two units? This would have been so useful. I will get back to this later).
Now here is the great advantage of alternating current. When electricity is sent through wires, there is some loss of power due to the resistance of the wires, but the loss is much less with high voltage and low current than it is with low voltage and high current, even though the power of both is the same because power (in watts) is always equal to the voltage multiplied by the current.
As we saw above an electrical transformer is a soft iron core with two coils of wire wrapped around it. A current sent through one of the coils will generate a current of equal power in the second coil. But the number of turns of wire in each coil has an effect.
If the number of turns in the primary and secondary coils are the same then the voltage and the current in the secondary circuit will be the same as in the primary circuit. If there are twice as many turns of wire in the primary coil as in the secondary, then voltage will be halved but current doubled in the secondary circuit. If there is one-third as many turns of wire in the primary coil as in the secondary, the voltage in the secondary coil will be multiplied by three but the current divided by three.
This means that, by use of such an electrical transformer, we can either "step up" or "step down" the voltage in alternating current. This makes it possible to transmit electricity a long distance over wires, since the resistance losses are much less when the voltage is high and the current is low. The current is "stepped up" to high voltage, and then stepped back down at the destination.
Direct current cannot be transformed in the same way. If we pass direct current through a coil around and iron core we will get an electromagnet. One end of the core will be the magnetic north pole and the other the south pole. The same rule applies as with the eastward rotation of the earth. If we look down at the earth's north pole, the earth is rotating counter-clockwise. In the same way if we are looking at a pole of an electromagnet and the current is flowing counter-clockwise, we are looking at the magnetic north pole.
This means that direct current cannot effectively be transmitted long distances and must be used within about 2 km of where it is generated. Direct current came first and this is what made Niagara Falls. Industries that were dependent on inexpensive electricity rushed to build factories in Niagara Falls, where the kinetic energy of falling water could be used to generate electricity.
But there were some who believed that the future of electric generation belonged to alternating current, because it could be transformed and thus transmitted long distances. Among them was a Serbian inventor named Nikola Tesla. An engineer named George Westinghouse was also a believer in the future of alternating current.
In Niagara Falls, NY, not far from where this is being written the first large-scale alternating current generating plant went online, the Adams Power Station. It successfully transmitted alternating current over a distance to Buffalo for the 1901 Pan Am Exhibition, which really popularized electricity. This exhibition is also remembered for the assassination of U.S President William McKinley.
There was quite a public battle between the proponents of alternating current, and those of direct current, over which system would predominate. It was known as the "War of the Currents".
That is where the electric chair comes in. The electric chair had earlier been invented in Buffalo. The first person to be executed by it was a Buffalo man who had been convicted of murdering his girlfriend.
Electrocution must necessarily use alternating current, since it requires high voltage and electricity from a distance. The electric chair is, honestly, a bizarre and sometimes messy way to execute people. It became so widespread because it became a focal point in the "War of the Currents".
Some in the direct current camp, led by the famed electrical inventor Thomas Edison, had an interest in people being executed in the electric chair, which had to use alternating current. They did their best to portray alternating current as barbaric and evil. That is the real story behind the electric chair, and what led it to become a common method of execution.
49) THE BUFFALO NY CONNECTION TO WATERGATE
Here is something that I have never seen written about either the city of Buffalo, NY or the Watergate scandal. It is the connection between the two.
Watergate is the seismic scandal named for the building, in Washington D.C., where it began. It was 1972 and there would be a presidential election in a few months. The incumbent president, Republican Richard Nixon, would be running against the Democrat candidate, George McGovern.
On June 17, burglars from the Committee to Reelect President Nixon entered the Democrat National Committee headquarters, in the Watergate Office Building, and got caught. My understanding is that they were looking for evidence that the Democrats were receiving help or funding from Communist Cuba.
What was so significant is not so much this failed burglary but the Republican efforts to cover up knowing about it or having ordered it. The investigation would lead all the way up to President Nixon, who had easily won reelection. Watergate utterly dominated U.S. news for two years until, finally, Nixon made his shocking resignation speech live on national television.
I, having just entered my teens, was watching Nixon's surprise resignation speech. There was national upheaval and confusion. A president had never resigned before and no one was sure what to expect.
Nixon had appointed Gerald Ford as vice-president only a short time before, after Spiro Agnew had resigned over a tax-evasion investigation against him. Most Americans, not to mention those in other countries, knew little about the new president and how he would handle the job.
Watergate was, in a way, the fulfillment of the anti-establishment counterculture of the 1960s. Those who claimed that the establishment couldn't be trusted had been proven right.
The thing that was so utterly ridiculous about the Watergate burglary is that Nixon won reelection in 1972 in an easy landslide, without any help from anything that might have been found in the burglary. The only U.S. state that McGovern won was the Democrat bastion of Massachusetts. It was like a sports team being ahead 49-1, cheating just to make absolutely sure that they would win, and then getting disqualified for cheating.
The Cold War was going on and Watergate certainly shook the world order. Nixon had achieved peace in Vietnam, although it was only a truce that many didn't expect to last. The Communists, seeing America distracted by Watergate and gambling that it wouldn't get reinvolved in the war, launched the final offensive that would bring an end to U.S. ally South Vietnam.
Although the convulsion raised doubts about America's reliability as an ally and a democracy, Watergate also had it's positive side. It showed that in America no one is above the law, not even the president. The U.S. President has to follow the same laws as everyone else. It was impressive how quickly America moved past Watergate, pretty soon it was old news and few people were talking about it. Convulsions like this are common in the world, but usually include explosions, bullets and, blood. America got through this with no bloodshed.
Nixon wasn't entirely bad. He was moderate for a Republican, continuing the social programs of 1960s, and did the right thing by taking America off the gold standard. He visited China and the Soviet Union, opening diplomatic relations with China. After the Communist victory in Vietnam Kim Il Sung reportedly wanted to restart the Korean War. But this time, after getting to know Nixon, neither China nor the Soviet Union was supportive.
But where did the idea for the Watergate burglary come from? My conclusion is that it can be traced to Buffalo, NY. This is something that I have never seen before.
In August 1971 Vietnam War opponents in Buffalo entered the main post office, while it was open, and hid upstairs in an empty room. They had the necessary tools taped to their bodies (credit-USA Today November 24, 2016). In the days before the internet became widespread this is where the records were stored of young men who were eligible to be drafted and sent to the war. They were going to steal those records so that no more men from Buffalo would be drafted.
Five of the burglars were caught and went on trial the following year. They became known as "The Buffalo Five", or simply "The Buffalo". The case got national attention and they were found guilty.
The judge in the case was the notable federal judge, John T. Curtin, who was known for his liberal views. Instead of sending them to prison Judge Curtin suspended their sentences and gave them a year of probation. This was national news and it thrilled some people while enraging others.
This was in the national news on May 20, 1972. Judge John Curtin would later affirm me in as a U.S. citizen. I still have the booklet that he gave me.
Exactly four weeks after the verdict was in the national news a strikingly similar burglary took place, in Washington D.C. It was the Watergate burglary.
Just as with the Buffalo Five it was five burglars who entered the Watergate Building. Just as in Buffalo they entered the building when it was open so that they could do what they had to do when it was closed. Just as in Buffalo the operation involved tape. The Buffalo Five taped the necessary tools to their bodies. The Watergate burglars used tape over the door latches that could be opened from the inside, but not the outside.
It was this taping of door latches that got the Watergate burglars caught. A security guard notice tape over a door latch and removed it. But when he passed the door again on his rounds, someone had put the tape back. The guard called police and the burglars were caught.
I find it impossible to believe that the Watergate burglary was not inspired by events in Buffalo.
The main Buffalo Post Office where this took place when a new central postal facility was built on William Street. The building where it took place is now the City Campus of Erie Community College. Has anyone who attended ECC ever thought about how historic the City Campus building is? Events there inspired other events that had a monumental effect on the world.
50) THE UNDERLYING STORY OF NEW YORK STATE'S GREAT PRISON ESCAPE
There is a side to New York State's great prison escape that I did not see anywhere in the news.
New York State, along with many people across the U.S. and the world, spent the month of June, 2015 following news of the search for two prisoners who had escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in the town of Dannemora, in the far northern part of the state. The names of the prisoners was Richard Matt and David Sweat.
Their escape can only be described as brilliant, certainly matching the legendary escape from Alcatraz. With help from a prison employee, who was supposed to pick them up in a car but changed her mind at the last minute, the two made use of tools used by contractors who were working on the prison.
The two would exit their cell at night, through an opening they had made in the wall, and work on their escape route. They found a sledgehammer the contractors had brought and used it to break through a wall. They found their way to a wide steam pipe that brought steam to the prison from a steam plant some distance away. The steam was for heating but the pipe wouldn't be in use in the month of June.
The steam pipe passed under the manholes on the street and the two had found their escape route. They emerged from a manhole at night carrying supplies that they had stored up in a guitar case. The prison was in a rural area just north of the vast Adirondack State Park and, with their driver not showing up, made their way into the woods.
A vast search effort began the following morning, as soon as it was discovered that they were missing. The search turned up nothing, all reported possible sightings of the prisoners led nowhere. The prisoners had clearly planned every detail of the escape carefully and at least one of them, David Sweat, was an experienced outdoorsman. Both were skilled at burglary, to break into cabins.
According to one news report the search was costing about a million dollars a day. The governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, made a statement one day to the effect of the two escapees "might be in Mexico by now. Richard Matt had earlier fled to Mexico after committing a murder in western New York State.
At the time I wondered why the governor would say such a thing publicly, which would only be discouraging to those who were putting so much effort into searching. But now I think I know.
After the eventual capture of the escapees it was revealed that they had been listening to news of the search for them on a portable radio that they had brought from the prison. I think it was known all along about their radio and the governor said that, knowing that they would be listening, in the hope it would make them get careless.
The two escapees separated at some point. David Sweat would later say that Richard Matt was slowing him down, as well as drinking heavily after finding an alcoholic drink in a cabin. After Richard Matt had been shot and killed a news announcement was made that some large lights were being brought in to search for David Sweat at night.
I cannot see that any such lights ever materialized. My conclusion is that there never was any such lights. This was a bluff made in an effort to get David Sweat to move during the day, when he would be more visible, knowing that he was listening on the radio.
It seems to have worked because, shortly afterwards, David Sweat was shot and captured while moving during the day. Their radio was only briefly mentioned in the news reports that I saw but I believe it to have been a vital part of the search effort.
If my conclusion here is correct then I am truly surprised that David Sweat, after so carefully planning the escape, didn't see this as a bluff.
During the search there was news of a possible sighting of the two far on the opposite side of the state, in the southern tier of western New York State around the village of Friendship. Much was made on the news about the shifting of search personnel and resources to that distant area.
Maybe there was a genuine report of a possible sighting but I am sure that this was mostly a bluff made in the hope that they might get careless if they heard on the radio that the main focus of the search was being moved elsewhere.
51) EXPLAINING THE VELA INCIDENT
There is an explanation for the Vela Incident that I cannot see has ever been presented.
In the late 1970s efforts were being made to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and testing. U.S. President Jimmy Carter promoted a treaty signed by many nations limiting nuclear testing. A system of satellites was put in orbit that could detect nuclear tests. The primary reason behind nuclear tests is not to verify that the weapons work but to miniaturize and improve them.
On September 22, 1979, a brilliant flash was detected in the southern ocean, about halfway between South Africa and Antarctica, that was consistent with a nuclear test. No nation had announced that it would be testing in that area and no one claimed responsibility for a test. The U.S. investigated but found a lack of the radioactivity that can usually be detected after a nuclear test.
There was actually a window of opportunity to conduct a test in this location when none of the VELA satellites would be able to detect it, and it seems clear that whichever power conducted the test knew this. But as it turned out there was an officially retired satellite that was still collecting data, and that was the one that detected the flash. (Source-Wikipedia)
It was a minor nuclear explosion, only a few kilotons. Most nuclear tests, by nations other than the superpowers, are done openly so that the world knows that this nation has the bomb. It soon became the presumption that this had been a joint nuclear test between South Africa and Israel, which were close allies at the time.
It is true that Israel has nowhere to safety conduct a nuclear test in it's own neighborhood, and keeping a nuclear detonation a secret there would be absolutely impossible. But Israel is widely believed to have possessed nuclear technology since the 1950s, why did it suddenly decide to conduct a test in 1979, and why was it so important to keep it a secret when non-superpower nuclear powers inevitably want everyone to know that they have the bomb?
1979 was, of course, when the Iranian Revolution happened. Israel had been in the 1967 Six-Day War with neighboring countries. Six years later, in 1973, there was the Yom Kippur War. In 1979 it was six years after that and it might have seemed about time for another war.
We read a lot about the hostility between Iran and Israel today, but that was not true at the time of this nuclear test. The Iranian Revolution was far from complete. That Ayatollah Khomeini would consolidate his power over Iran was by no means certain. There was other facets to the revolution such as the Communists. It was not even certain at the time that the exiled Shah wouldn't be able to return to power someday.
At the time of this nuclear test the world had a "wait-and-see" attitude toward the Iranian Revolution. No one knew exactly how it would turn out and the test took place six weeks before revolutionaries seized the staff of the U.S. Embassy as hostages. Israel had been in plenty of danger before without, as is known for certain, testing a nuclear bomb.
There has been a Jewish community in Iran ever since the Persian Empire conquered Babylon and freed the Jews that the Babylonians had taken captive. Ayatollah Khomeini actually met with members of the Jewish community and praised Moses. Israel clandestinely supported Iran in it's war with Iraq during the 1980s. Iranian hostility against Jews and Israel would come later, but that would be well after the time of this nuclear test.
If Israel conducted such a test today we might presume that it was in preparation for a conflict with Hezbollah, which is an Iranian ally that has engaged in a lot of conflict with Israel. But this was years before Hezbollah was formed.
It thus makes no sense that the Iranian Revolution was the reason for this nuclear test.
Another major event occurred in 1979, although it got a lot less attention than the Iranian Revolution. It took place closer to Israel. What happened is that Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. Although he had already been the real power in the country for several years he officially took power on July 16.
Iraq had been in three wars with Israel, in 1948, 1967 and, 1973. It had a minor role in the 1967 war but a much larger role in 1973.
Upon taking uncontested power in Iraq Saddam Hussein immediately showed how radical he was. Saddam presided over a purge of his own political party, in which dozens were executed. Iraq maintained a large army with many Soviet-made tanks.
There was a Syrian and an Iraqi branch of Saddam's Baath Party. The purge was against those who favored a union between the two countries, as Saddam split from the Syrian branch. The father of the present embattled president of Syria, Bashar Assad, was an arch-rival of Saddam Hussein, and supported Iran in it's war with Iraq. This alliance continued thirty years later when Hezbollah, Iran's ally in Lebanon, helped Bashar Assad during Syria's civil war.
This purge took place in July of 1979, the nuclear test came on September 22.
Due to the apparent low yield of the nuclear test, and the lack of radioactivity detected afterward, it has been suggested that it was a test of a neutron bomb. A neutron bomb was a tactical, rather than a strategic, nuclear weapon that was designed for use on the battlefield, rather than against a city.
As the name implies a neutron bomb strikes by unleashing a deadly burst of neutrons, rather than by the force of an explosion. This was believed to be especially useful against tanks, since neutrons can penetrate thick armor.
Just as neutrons hold the nucleus of an atom together, against the mutual repulsion of the positively-charged protons, so a neutron must also be held together by being part of a nucleus. A neutron by itself will break down into a proton and an electron, in an average of about fifteen minutes. But neutrons, propelled at high speed, last long enough to do their damage in neutron bombs, or to bring about nuclear fission.
Saddam Hussein would turn his aggressive designs to the east, against neighbor Iran. Seeing Iraq's traditional rival cut off from it's major ally, the U.S., and certainly worried that Iran's revolution would incite his own majority Shiite population, Saddam launched a military offensive against Iran, after months of sporadic border clashes and apparently hoping that Iran's oil-rich and Arab-majority Khuzestan province would rise up and join him.
Consider the tank force that Saddam Hussein sent against Iran in 1980. This is what the Israeli defense establishment was thinking about having to confront, after Saddam officially became president of Iraq, and the reason for the neutron bomb test because neutron bombs were developed for use against tanks.
In 1981, while Iraq and Iran were at war, Israel surprised the world by launching an air raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. In 1990, during the First Gulf War, Iraq rained Scud missiles on Israel, hoping to provoke Israel to enter the conflict.
(Note-We have seen this Israeli air raid on Osirak in the compound posting, "Investigations" December 2018, in section 2) THE REAL STORY OF OSIRAK. My belief is that the raid was also a warning to Iran, although Israel certainly considered Iraq as the greater threat. Iran had earlier bombed this Iraqi reactor but had not succeeded in seriously damaging it. Iran had pulled off one of the most brilliant aerial operations in history, ironically using American planes, in an attack on airfields far on the other side of Iraq, known as H3, but that showed Iran to certainly be capable of striking Israel).
Look how closely similar the reaction times are. It was 64 days from when Iran conducted the aerial mission against H3 to when Israel conducted their aerial mission against Osirak. It had been 68 days from when Saddam Hussein officially took power in Iraq to this nuclear test in the southern ocean.
Ironically Saddam's tank offensive that was the beginning of full-scale war between Iraq and Iran began on September 22, 1980, exactly one year after the nuclear test.
Has anyone ever thought about how ironic the timing of the Iran Hostage Crisis was? The hostages were taken on November 4, 1979, which was exactly one year before the next U.S. presidential election. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, which is the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated after winning that election. The hostages were released shortly after the inauguration ceremony.
One good thing to emerge from the satellite program to detect nuclear testing is that it discovered the Gamma Ray Bursts that were taking place in space. Gamma Ray Bursts are the most powerful explosions known, far more powerful than a supernova. An average of about one Gamma Ray Burst per day seems to take place somewhere in the universe. My cosmology theory explains Gamma Ray Bursts but I won't get into it here.
52) THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY MADE REALLY SIMPLE
Surely the subject of more conspiracy theories than anything else is the November 1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald was officially determined to have acted alone as the assassin. But ever since then the majority of Americans have believed there is more to it than that. Some believe that there was more than one gunman, and that it wasn't Oswald who fired the fatal shot. Others believe that, while Oswald was the only gunman, he had support and was doing the assassination for some larger purpose.
Kennedy was being driven through Dallas in an open convertible, waving to the crowds who had lined the streets to see the popular president. The motorcade had just passed the building where school textbooks were stored and was proceeding down a slope when three rifle shots were fired from the sixth floor of the building. One shot missed, one hit both the governor of Texas and Kennedy, and then the fatal shot struck Kennedy in the head. At that point there was grass on both sides of the road, known as the "grassy knoll".
Oswald, an employee of the school textbook building, almost escaped but the owner of a shoe store, having heard about the assassination on the radio, noticed a suspicious man duck into his store as a police car went past, and then go into a nearby theater. After assassinating Kennedy, Oswald had shot and killed a police officer who attempted to question him.
I am certain that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone with regard to the actual shooting. Those stories about a "second gunman", whether on the "grassy knoll" or in the school textbook building from where Oswald fired the shots, have been thoroughly debunked. The supposed sound of gunshots in the background on an audio recording has also been explained.
Communist countries inevitably come into play in virtually any Kennedy assassination theory. Oswald had earlier defected to the Soviet Union before changing his mind and returning to the U.S., bringing his Soviet wife with him. Before the assassination Oswald had visited both the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City. There was a very anti-Communist, particularly anti-Cuba, mentality at the time in the U.S.
When I landed in the U.S. people were still talking about this assassination. Some other children at school told me "Everybody knows that the Mafia did it".
There is a theory that the Italian Mafia was behind the Kennedy Assassination but it was because his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had started an extensive campaign against organized crime, and not because of any foreign connections. In this theory Oswald's earlier defection to the Soviet Union would make it appear that Communists were behind it.
There were two groups of people for whom Fidel Castro's 1958 overthrow of the Cuban Government had been catastrophic. These were the anti-Castro Cuban exiles and the Italian Mafia.
Cuba, before Castro's revolution, had been a playground for the Mafia. The leader of the country, Fulgencio Batista, had been a close associate of theirs. If ever the Mafia had their own country it wasn't Italy or the United States, it was Cuba in the 1940s and 50s. In 1946 a great meeting of Mafia leaders was held in Havana. The location was absolutely ideal, close to America but beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. The Mafia had a vast amount of money invested in all kinds of resorts and casinos. Frank Sinatra was a regular performer.
But it all came to an end with the 1958 Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro.
Not long after the Cuban Missile Crisis Lee Harvey Oswald had started an organization called the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee". He is widely believed to have been planning to move to Cuba, leaving his wife behind, and killed Kennedy so that he would be a hero in Cuba.
Fidel Castro had overthrown the pro-U.S. government of Fulgencio Batista in 1958, driving many Cubans to leave for the U.S. These anti-Castro Cubans attempted to invade and liberate the country. The attempted invasion, known as the Bay of Pigs, was supported by the U.S. but ended in disaster.
Fidel Castro had visited the U.S. after coming to power in Cuba and had been very popular. But then Kennedy had demonized him, and had backed the Cuban exiles in their attempt to invade the island.
But why would Kennedy demonize Castro after he had been so popular?
Kennedy is known to have had friends in the Mafia. Before becoming president he visited Cuba and Mafia friends reportedly set up the married future president with prostitutes. ( Source- Smithsonian Magazine, "When The Mob Owned Cuba"). It was known that Kennedy was less than saintly in his private life but his indiscretions were with high-class women, the likes of Marilyn Monroe. These encounters, while married, with common prostitutes could be very damaging.
Is this why the Mafia set him up with prostitutes? Knowing his lustful ways and that he might be president someday, this gave the Mafia something to hold over Kennedy. At least to some extent he would have to do their bidding.
In 1963 the Cuban exiles in the U.S. and the Mafia must have been very disappointed. After the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis, Fidel Castro was firmly entrenched in power. The U.S. had supported the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, but not with it's own ground military force.
It became clear that the only way to remove the Castro government, so that the exiles and the Mafia could get their country back, was for the U.S. to actually invade Cuba. Kennedy had demonized Castro and supported the Bay of Pigs at their obvious request but, with Soviet nuclear missiles removed from the island, Cuba was no threat to the U.S. and Kennedy wasn't about to invade it, risking a world war.
But what if the exiles and the Mafia could find a pressing reason for the U.S. to invade Cuba? There was one thing that was within their power to do. What if they could have the U.S. President assassinated and make it appear that the Castro government was behind it? Kennedy had threatened to attack Cuba if the nuclear missiles were not removed.
That is where a character like Lee Harvey Oswald comes in, he described himself as a "pasty" after being arrested. He had earlier learned to speak Russian before defecting to the Soviet Union. But I cannot see that he spoke Spanish or had ever been interested in Cuba.
So why did Oswald suddenly shift his attention to Cuba? Neither his founding of the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" nor his visits to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City apparently accomplished much.
Could he have undertaken those actions to make it appear that he was getting instructions from the Castro government? Could members of the Dallas Mafia, knowing of his earlier defection to the Soviet Union, have sold him on Cuba? They could have told him how hated Kennedy was in Cuba, since many members of the Mafia had been to Cuba, and that he would be a national hero there if he killed Kennedy.
Could one or more Cuban exiles have pretended to be Communists and instructed Oswald to start the committee and go to Mexico City, making no secret of the fact that he was visiting the Cuban Embassy, so that it would later look like he had been following instructions from Cuba?
The exiles must have known that, given Oswald's erratic nature and his earlier re-defection from the Soviet Union, he would likely be denied permission to move to Cuba. When Oswald returned to Dallas they would tell him that there was one sure way that Oswald could not only get into Cuba, but also be a national hero there. It was to assassinate the U.S. President, who had demonized Fidel Castro, supported the Bay of Pigs invasion, and then confronted Cuba in the missile crisis the year before.
In April 1963, seven months before the assassination of Kennedy, a shot was fired at retired General Edwin Walker, who lived in Dallas. He was sitting at his desk by a window and the single shot hit the window frame. Oswald is widely believed to have fired the shot, although not until after the Kennedy assassination. The general was known for his outspoken right-wing views, and had in fact been relieved of his command over it.
But I find this to be a little bit strange. Oswald was clearly a very good shot with a rifle. If he could hit Kennedy's head at long range then how could he miss this shot, at much shorter range? He fired two shots at Kennedy, before the fatal third, why didn't he fire again at Walker? But the bullet fired at General Walker was the same type as Oswald's rifle would use.
Maybe Oswald didn't fire this shot, even though he told his wife that he did, or did fire it but purposely didn't hit Walker. It could have been done to build Oswald's legend as a genuine anti-fascist for his future life in Cuba after the assassination of Kennedy.
The fact that an Italian-made rifle was used in the assassination is interesting. It could be a false clue to divert attention away from the Italian Mafia. It made it look like someone, probably the Cuban exiles or someone other than the Mafia who had a grudge against Kennedy, was trying to make it look like the Mafia was behind it. If the Mafia really was behind it, but trying to keep it a secret, then why would they have Oswald use an Italian rifle?
Oswald's Soviet-born wife, Marina, was well-known in the Russian community around Dallas. Cuban exiles would have heard about Oswald's earlier defection to the Soviet Union and that he liked guns. Having been in the U.S. Marines he would be a good shot with a rifle at a distance. The following year, 1964, was an election year and Kennedy was sure to campaign in Dallas. Oswald just happened to get a job in the school textbook building that Kennedy's motorcade would pass, and from where the fatal shots would be fired.
Given Oswald's pro- Castro activities and then his escape to Cuba after the assassination would make it clear that Cuban Communists were behind the killing. The U.S. would use that as a reason to invade Cuba and depose the Castro Government, the same as it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. The Cuban exiles and the Mafia would have their country back.
Fidel Castro, according to the Wikipedia article about him, thought that Kennedy had been assassinated by a right-wing conspiracy and was concerned that Cuba would be blamed for it.
But why would the Mafia choose Oswald and what exactly were they thinking? To understand that we have to go back thirty years before the assassination and when we do it all fits together perfectly. This is the clue that investigators were supposed to notice but I cant see anywhere that they did.
In 1933 Giuseppe Zangara tried to assassinate president-elect Franklin Roosevelt. That means it was after Roosevelt had been elected but before he actually took office. Zangara was a bricklayer and had immigrated from Calabria, in southern Italy. It was this assassination attempt that the Mafia was thinking of when it set Oswald up to assassinate Kennedy with an Italian-made rifle to make it look as if Castro was behind it, but set it up to look as if the Mafia was behind it, who really were behind it.
There are so many similarities between Zangara's assassination attempt on Roosevelt and Oswald's assassination of Kennedy that it could not possibly be a coincidence. Like Oswald Zangara gained marksmanship skills in the military, having served with the Italian Army in the First World War. Like Oswald Zangara was working close to the site of the assassination attempt. Like Kennedy Roosevelt had been in an open car, with another politician, when the assassination attempt took place. Kennedy had been with Texas governor John Connolly, who was wounded. Roosevelt had been with Chicago mayor Anton Cermak, who was killed. Oswald fired from a sixth floor window, Zangara fired standing on a chair. Like Oswald Zangara was politically leftward. His final words, before execution, was to excoriate Capitalism and express solidarity with poor people.
All of these similarities could not be a coincidence. The attempted assassination of Roosevelt took place in Miami, which has always been America's Cuban center. Since an Italian leftist had tried to assassinate FDR in Miami, it would look to those investigating the Kennedy assassination like Cuban agents had set Oswald up with an Italian rifle, and so many similarities, to assassinate Kennedy but make it look like the Mafia had been behind it. Also considering that Kennedy's brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, was organizing a crackdown on organized crime.
Meanwhile the Mafia would be one step ahead of everyone else. It really would be the Mafia that was behind the assassination of Kennedy. But it would look to U.S. investigators like Cuban agents were behind it, but setting it up to look like the Mafia was behind it. The U.S. would take the assassination of it's president by a foreign government as an act of war. U.S. forces would then invade Cuba, and depose the Castro government, and the Mafia would have Cuba back.
This scenario explains Jack Ruby. The most intriguing thing about the Kennedy Assassination is that Oswald was himself shot to death two days after killing Kennedy. It was announced that Oswald was being moved from one police station to another. News reporters were waiting in the parking garage of the police station. As Oswald was escorted past them, a man among the reporters pulled out a pistol and shot Oswald to death.
The shooter was Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner with a criminal background who was heavily in debt and dying of cancer. He would die in prison for the shooting. His stated reason for killing Oswald was so that Kennedy's widow, Jackie, wouldn't have to go through his trial.
Jack Ruby is known to have been acquainted with members of the Dallas Mafia, as well as with off-duty police officers, through his nightclub. He was as strange of a character as Oswald, if not more so. Maybe he thought he would be a hero for killing the man who killed Kennedy. Maybe he thought his friendships with police officers would help him after he had killed Oswald. According to one account that I once read while being restrained and arrested after shooting Oswald Ruby shouted to the police, "Hey guys it's me, Jack". There is information online that Ruby visited Mafia friends in Cuba, in 1959.
The assassination was successful but the exiles' plan was for Oswald to escape, and later be traced to Cuba or trying to enter Cuba. Convertibles were popular during the 1960s and Kennedy would be waving to the crowds that would certainly come to see the popular president from the open car. Oswald wouldn't be in the crowd but in the school textbook building. It would take some time to determine where the shots came from, initially focusing on the crowd, and this would give Oswald the chance to escape, which he almost did.
Many people have speculated that Jack Ruby, already dying of cancer, had the job of silencing Oswald after he had fired the fatal shots because Oswald, as an ex-Marine, was a good shot with a rifle. In the same way, during the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul, the would-be assassin didn't know that there was another gunman standing near him who would shoot him after he had shot the pope, purportedly to save the pope's life but really to silence the assassin from revealing who was behind the assassination attempt.
But if Jack Ruby was to similarly silence Oswald then why wasn't it done immediately? Jack Ruby was nowhere around when the assassination took place and Oswald had already been in police custody two days when Jack Ruby managed to silence him, by pretending to be a reporter in the police station parking garage. Ruby had made a great show of grief after Kennedy had been killed, closing his nightclub, but that could have been part of the "Plan B", silencing Oswald, after he had failed to escape to Cuba and had been arrested.
The plan was for Oswald to escape and later be traced to Cuba. Oswald's home and belonging would be searched and He left behind the "backyard photos" of himself holding the rifle that would kill Kennedy, obviously so that people in Cuba would know that he was the assassin. He almost did escape but when he was caught they had to find a way to silence him before he could reveal who was really behind the assassination.
What I want to do here is to add the concept that the real reason Kennedy was assassinated was to bring about a U.S. military invasion of Cuba that would depose the Castro Government by making it appear that it was behind the assassination. Many people with influence, the Mafia and the anti-Castro Cubans, had lost so much that they could regain by bringing this about.
Has anyone ever noticed that George W. Bush, a native of Texas, would follow exactly this same pattern, except that the Kennedy Assassination would be replaced by 9/11 and Fidel Castro would be replaced by Saddam Hussein. Maybe George Bush instinctively knew what the Kennedy Assassination was really about. Fidel Castro remained in power but what might have happened was played out against Saddam Hussein instead. His country was invaded and he was deposed on the basis of his involvement in 9/11. The theories about Oswald not acting alone were reflected in Saddam's supposed "weapons of mass destruction".
One thing that I have never seen written about the Kennedy Assassination is that not far from the site of the assassination in Dallas lived an eight-year-old boy, named John Hinckley Jr. He would one day attempt a presidential assassination of his own. His assassination attempt would resemble not Oswald's sniper shots at Kennedy but Jack Ruby's waiting for Oswald, and then opening fire.
Kennedy had won the 1960 presidential election by defeating Richard Nixon, who would later be president himself. Ironically Nixon, while not assassinated, would also be brought down by the obsession with Cuba. Cuban exiles were prominent among the Watergate burglars, who were allegedly looking for evidence that the Democrats were receiving funding from Cuba.
This Mafia dynasty in Cuba, during the 1940s and 50s, doesn't get a lot of historical attention. But it was the primary reason for the Castro revolution that overthrew the Batista government, and brought the world to the edge of nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It led to the assassination of Kennedy, which inaugurated the modern era of mass shootings. Charles Whitman's sniper shootings, from the University of Texas Tower, very much resembled Oswald's firing at Kennedy which took place elsewhere in Texas. This is generally considered as the first modern mass shooting. Finally, it resulted in America being really shaken by Watergate.
53) DID BORIS YELTSIN STAGE THE 1991 COUP?
In August of 1991 there was a coup attempt against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The coup was organized by the KGB chief and attempted to replace Gorbachev with his vice-president, Gennady Yanayev.
The purported reason for the coup, by hard-line Communists who were opposed to Gorbachev's reforms, was to stop him from signing the New Union Treaty, which would decentralize the Soviet Union by replacing it's original founding treaty.
Gorbachev was placed under house arrest while on vacation. He got news of what was going on by listening to the BBC on a transistor radio. The country was to be administered by an "Emergency Committee", known as GkChP (which would make a good password because it contains a mix of caps and lower case), or sometimes as the "Gang of Eight".
Action during the coup was mostly limited to Moscow and was nearly bloodless. Three civilians were killed and three true believers in Communism died of suicide when the coup failed. The coup is almost universally considered to have been very disorganized and poorly planned. Yanayev came across as an uninspiring speaker. Some got the impression that the coup leaders were intoxicated during a press conference.
The leaders of the coup gave up after three days.
The coup did not accomplish it's objective of restoring traditional Communism and halting Gorbachev's reforms. But it destabilized the country and hastened it's breakup. The following December the Belovezha Accords were signed in Minsk, which ended the Soviet Union.
The big winner of the coup attempt was Boris Yeltsin. The best-known news image of the coup is Yeltsin standing on a tank in Moscow. Yeltsin proceeded to the Russian White House and appeared very much in control, in contrast with Gorbachev who was under house arrest far away. The west supported Yeltsin during the coup.
The coup was attempted by hard-line Communists who were opposed to Gorbachev's far-reaching reforms. Yeltsin had earlier been an ally of Gorbachev but the two split because Yeltsin wanted to go even further with reform. He had publicly destroyed his Communist Party membership card and resigned from the Politboro. Yeltsin was willing to let the Soviet Union break up altogether, whereas Gorbachev was only trying to reform it.
So many questions arise from this unsuccessful coup.
The KGB was a very capable organization. How did it manage to facilitate something that not only failed so miserably but actually brought about what it was supposedly trying to prevent?
It is very interesting that the leaders of the coup were pardoned and having tried to overthrow the government of their country didn't seem to hurt their future careers.
Boris Yeltsin ended up as the star of the show who defeated the coup, which sent Gorbachev into an irrevocable political decline. Troops involved in the coup had Boris Yeltsin surrounded, before he proceeded to the Russian White House. They could have easily arrested him, but they didn't.
Not arresting Yeltsin is likely what caused the coup to fail. It was also somewhat of a shock how the leaders of the coup suddenly gave up.
Boris Yeltsin served two terms as President of Russia. He resigned at the end of the last millennium. According to some reports he was the first leader of Russia or the Soviet Union who left voluntarily.
The next point of interest concerns Yeltsin appointing Vladimir Putin as his successor. Yeltsin had first put Putin in charge of the FSB, the state security service that is the Russian descendant of the Soviet KGB, and then named him as his successor.
What is so interesting here are how completely different Yeltsin and Putin are as leaders. The two could scarcely be more different. Putin could be described as the anti-Yeltsin. Yeltsin was about capitalism and privatization, which allowed the "oligarchs" to take control of quite a bit of the country's wealth, and who now have an arch-enemy in Putin.
Putin has lamented what a "catastrophe" the breakup of the Soviet Union was. But it was his mentor who chose him as his successor, Yeltsin, who brought about the breakup. When a leader chooses his successor it is always one who, more or less, agrees with his views and will continue his policies. How is it possible for a leader and his successor to be so completely different?
With that background here is the question of the day. Was the 1991 Coup staged. Was it all a show, organized by the head of the KGB to discredit the hard-line Communists, as well as Gorbachev, and get Yeltsin into power? Yeltsin would serve until the end of the millennium, at which point he would retire after naming the head of the KGB's successor organization as his successor.
54) THE OVALS OF WASHINGTON D.C.
This is really a time of conspiracy theories. I just thought I would help the theories along a little bit. Keep in mind that I am not trying to create my own theory here, just giving conspiracy writers something to go on.
Has anyone ever thought about all of the ovals in Washington D.C.? There are so many ovals built into the city, all around the federal government district. What could these ovals mean? I cannot see anything like this concentration of ovals in any other city.
There are organizations that link themselves to Solomon's Temple, the original Temple in the Bible. One such organization is the Freemasons. But I am just using the Freemasons as an example here, this could also apply to other organizations.
St. Peter's Square, in the Vatican, is another oval that it at a center of power.
The Colosseum, in Rome a few km from St. Peter's Square, is also in the form of an oval. In fact, I have pointed out previously here, in "Investigations" December 2018 section 23), that the Colosseum and St. Peter's Square are of exactly the same shape and dimensions. The Colonnades in St. Peter's Square are placed to make it exactly the same form as the Colosseum, an oval with a ratio of about 1.2 or 6 / 5. This could not possibly be a coincidence and I cannot see that it has been pointed out before.
Not only that, we also saw that a straight line through the long axis of the Colosseum will lead right to the obelisk in the center of St. Peter's Square. You can verify this with the "Measure Distance" feature on Google Street View.
Solomon's Temple was first destroyed by the Babylonians, and it's treasures and the Jewish people brought to Babylon. The Persians later conquered Babylon and allowed the Jews to return home with the artifacts to rebuild the Temple.
The rebuilt Temple was later destroyed by the Romans, and it was the looted wealth from the Temple that paid to build the Colosseum in Rome. That is how the Colosseum is linked to Solomon's Temple, and the Colosseum is in the form of an oval.
The Ellipse, between the White House and the Washington Monument, is the most visible oval in Washington D.C. An ellipse means an oval.
Here is Lafayette Square, just north of the White House.
Paths around the Washington Monument form three ovals.
Then there is the Second World War Monument.
The main office of the U.S. President, in the White House, is the Oval Office. Why would the office at the center of power in the United States be shaped like an oval? I don't think I have ever heard of any office anywhere else being shaped like an oval.
In fact the ratio of the long axis to the short axis in the Oval Office is just about exactly the same as that in the Colosseum, about 1.2 or 6 / 5. And the Colosseum was built with the wealth looted from the Temple.
I was just using the Freemasons as an example but George Washington, America's first president for whom it's capital city is named, was a high-ranking Freemason. Both of the lead surveyors that Washington had lay out the city, first Charles Pierre L' Enfant and then Andrew Ellicott, were both prominent Freemasons.
For Buffalo, NY area readers Andrew Ellicott's brother, Joseph was also a surveyor and set out the design of Buffalo. That is why the name of "Ellicott" is all over the area. Joseph Ellicott unfortunately suffered from mental illness.
Henry Ford was another prominent Freemason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#/media/File:Ford_logo_flat.svg
The usual symbol of the Freemasons is the Square and Compass. Connecticut Street NW, near the White House, forms angle of about 115 degrees.
This is the Square and Compass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#/media/File:Square_compasses.svg
We saw how the Temple is connected to the world through the Colosseum in the posting, " The Temple Is Still With Us" October 2020.
Hopefully this will give some conspiracy writers something to go on.
55) THE REAL STORY OF THE 2022 ALABAMA PRISON ESCAPE
For eleven days the U.S. was transfixed by the escape, from an Alabama jail, of a male prisoner with a female guard. The prisoner was Casey White and the guard was Vicky White. Despite having the same surname the two were not related.
On what was reported to be her final day of work before retirement, Vicky White said that she was transporting Casey White to a mental health evaluation, as he was awaiting trial for murder. It turned out that no such evaluation was ever scheduled. Vicky White had bought a car, a Ford Edge using an alias. She left the car in a shopping center parking lot overnight. She then drove Casey White to the parking lot. They abandoned the police car and drove off in the Ford Edge.
The two were ultimately caught in Evansville, Indiana. They had abandoned the Ford Edge, in Tennessee, and had bought a pickup truck. They then decided to abandon that, in Evansville, after buying a Cadillac. But they made the mistake of abandoning it in the bay of a car wash, where Casey White was caught on security camera with his clearly visible tattoos. Another security camera caught them driving off in the Cadillac.
In the U.S. most prisons are operated by the state, although there are also federal prisons. The local "holding centers", for people who have been arrested but not yet convicted, are operated at the county level, and run by the Sheriff's Department. Short prison terms might also be served at the local holding center, as opposed to being sent away to a prison. It was such a Sheriff's Department that Vicky White worked for, not the prison system. A sheriff's department patrols rural areas and towns that don't have their own police department.
My information about the case is solely based on what I have read in the news. The conclusions here about the case are based on the presumption that what has been reported in the news is correct.
Vicky White was supposedly on her last day at work when she escaped with prisoner Casey White. She had sold her home and had been talking, at work, about moving to "The beach". From northern Alabama "The beach" can only mean moving southward, particularly to Florida. There were no beaches to the north of where she was located.
This was a diversion. The escaping pair drove due northward, ending up in Evansville, Indiana. The talk about "moving to the beach" was set up to lead the search for them in the wrong direction.
Just before the escape Vicky White bought a car, using an alias. The car was a reddish colored Ford Edge, which is a SUV. The car was their getaway vehicle. She left the car in a plaza parking lot overnight. The following day she said she was taking Casey White for a "mental health evaluation". She drove to where the Ford Edge was parked and got into that car, abandoning the patrol car in which they had left the jail.
The reddish Ford Edge was carefully chosen as the escape vehicle, this was the second diversion. With a limited supply of money, and the price of fuel so high, why would she choose a SUV to escape in? When they were caught they were found to have camping equipment. Vicky White lived in a rural area and so would be familiar with the natural environment. The rear seats of a Ford Edge fold down, and the front seats can be moved forward. I believe that Vicky White intended for them to sleep in the car.
A Ford Edge is a smaller SUV. If she had bought a van that might make it obvious that they were planning to sleep in it. Casey White was 6 feet, 9 inches tall (205.75 cm), and who would think of someone that tall sleeping in a vehicle? It would avoid the security cameras and possible scrutiny of staying in hotels.
Surely they weren't planning on camping in the woods, where a bright red vehicle would stand out. That was why Vicky White bought a bright red vehicle, knowing full well that her purchase of the vehicle would be discovered even though she used an alias.
The car was found abandoned in Tennessee. Part of the car had been painted a dark green, the ideal color to hide in the woods. Notice that their final car, the Cadillac that they were caught in, was about the same dark green color that they had started to paint the Ford Edge. Some reports have it that the Ford Edge had developed mechanical troubles. I think it more likely that they had given up on painting the car and were worried that an amateurish partial paint job on the car would draw attention.
Their next vehicle was a pickup truck, which they apparently bought in cash in Tennessee. This was the vehicle that they abandoned in Evansville, at the car wash where they were caught on security camera. But why did they abandon the pickup truck when there was no report that it had mechanical troubles, or that police were looking for them in a pickup truck? The obvious answer is that a pickup truck isn't sleepable.
One of the mysteries of this case is why Vicky White stayed in a hotel the night before the escape. She had sold her home and had been staying with her mother. Interestingly, even though she was close to her mother she reportedly never told her of any plans to retire to "The beach". This might be the last she would ever see of her mother, so why would she spend it in a local hotel?
This was the third diversion. She wanted to make it look like she was making a "dry run" of checking into a hotel, seeing what kind of identification they ask for, where security cameras might be located, and so on. This was to deceive police into looking for them or their car at hotels. But instead of driving a red SUV and staying at hotels while moving southward they would be driving a dark green SUV and camping in the woods while moving northward.
According to some news reports the two had made a "dry run" of their escape from the jail, Vicky White leaving the building in a patrol vehicle with Casey White, but hadn't been gone for long. This was done to make investigators after the escape think that she was in the habit of making a "dry run" before actually doing something. This would make them think that her stay in a hotel, on the last night before the escape, was a "dry run" for the two staying in hotels after the escape, but she was actually planning that they would be sleeping in the car.
CASEY WHITE TAKES OVER
I believe that, as time went on, Casey White, the escaped prisoner, took more control. Vicky White had planned the escape well. Casey White had quite a criminal record but doesn't seem to have been good at avoiding getting caught.
After being caught Casey White told police that they had stopped at a motel in Evansville to "get their bearings" and decide what to do next. This reveals that the initially well-planned escape seems to have gone awry.
To stay at the motel in Evansville they found a homeless man and paid him to rent a room for them for two weeks. They had reportedly already been there one week when they were caught. Finding a homeless man to help them was awkward, time-consuming and, risky but now they only had the pickup truck, not a vehicle that they could sleep in.
While in Evansville they bought a Cadillac, paying for it in cash. The car was like a dark green that wouldn't stand out if they were camping in the woods, about the same color that they had tried to paint the Ford Edge. But now they had to dispose of the pickup truck, and that is what got them caught.
Going to a car wash and leaving the truck in one of the bays was absolutely crazy. Maybe Vicky White was getting tired and wasn't fully alert by this point.
Of course the owner of the car wash would check the security video to see who left the pickup truck. I don't know why criminals often get tattoos but there was the unmistakable image of Casey White, with the prominent tattoo on his forearm clearly visible. Security cameras at the car wash also got the car that Casey White got into, the dark green Cadillac, although not the plate number.
Police looked around Evansville and a car of that make and color was seen in a motel parking lot. The car was watched, to see who got into it and, sure enough, it was them. After a chase of about 2 miles (about 3 km) northward on Highway 41, the car ended up in a ditch.
One of the eeriest things about this escape is that, just before the end of the chase, Vicky White made a call to the 911 (emergency) line. She may have made the call inadvertently, not realizing that she made it, but what went on inside the car, both before and after the crash, was recorded.
The two drove off the highway and through an industrial parking lot. Then, surrounded by police and Marshals' cars, went across a grassy area. Vicky White's southern-accented voice can be heard twice expressing alarm, to Casey White, about the airbags in the car going off, suggesting that they "get out and run" and also a reference to "that (expletive) motel". Her words are not very intelligible but I believe what she was saying to Casey White is "We never should have stayed in that (expletive) motel".
After the crash into the ditch, with Vicky White mortally wounded from a self-inflicted gunshot, the voices of the police officers outside the car can be heard on the phone call, saying that "she has a gun", "she is still breathing" and, "her finger is on the trigger". They disarmed her, and got her out through the sunroof of the car. She died in hospital. Casey White surrendered peacefully.
56) A FURTHER LOOK AT THE KENT STATE SHOOTINGS
In 1970 America was embroiled in the Vietnam War. Since 1965 there had been racial uprisings in American cities. University campuses were the focal points of antiwar protests.
In April of 1970 U.S. President Richard Nixon widened the Vietnam War with an invasion of neighboring Cambodia. The reason was evidence that the Vietnamese Communists were using it as a sanctuary. College campuses across America erupted in protest. Nearby Buffalo State College exploded.
Each U.S. state has National Guard troops. Many fully armed National Guard troops were moved to college campuses. On May 4 what might have been inevitable happened. At Kent State University, in Ohio National Guard troops opened fire, killing four students.
It was probably America's defining event of the year. The world of rock music was quick to react, with the hit song "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash and, Young. The refrain of the song was "Four dead in Ohio".
There has been endless conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, more than six years before this, I am surprised at the lack of conspiracy theories about the Kent State shootings.
The worst year for racial uprisings was 1967. Such urban uprisings had been declining since then. What I find interesting is that there were no major racial uprisings after the Kent State shootings.
This shooting incident changed the dynamic of the people against the establishment in America, over the Vietnam War, and the racial conflict. It was no longer black against white. Now the establishment had shot down white university students. There would be no more major racial uprisings in this generation.
Here is the question. Could the Nixon Administration, knowing that this escalation of the war would provoke a massive reaction, had fully armed National Guard troops on college campuses knowing that, if such an incident did happen to take place, it would calm racial tensions?
Now I am not claiming that the National Guard troops were ordered to open fire, or anything like that. Just that with the escalation of the very divisive and controversial war the placing of fully-armed National Guard troops on college campuses would, sooner or later, likely result in something like this happening. When the establishment had gunned down a few white university students it would change the whole racial dynamic across America and, sure enough, after this there would be no more major racial uprisings for a generation.
Considering the endless conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Assassination I am really surprised not to see conspiracy theories about this.
57) THE UNABOMBER AND THE ZODIAC KILER
This is a very important day for this blog because I think we have a major mystery solved. I thought of this when the story of the Unabomber was in the news this week.
The Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, died this week in prison. "The Unabomber" wasn't a title that he gave himself. From a remote cabin in the woods of Montana he mailed homemade package bombs often to universities and airlines, and others he associated with allowing nature to be destroyed by modern technology. The name of the FBI file on him was "Unabom" with the "Una" meaning "universities and airlines".
The Unabomber was pretty smart. He received a scholarship to enter Harvard at age 16, after skipping two grades in school. After graduation from Harvard he went on to get a PhD in mathematics. He was hired as a professor at the prestigious University of California at Berkeley, in the San Francisco Bay area.
But he apparently didn't have the personality to be a teacher, and later resigned. He moved back with his parents in Illinois for a while before choosing to live a very isolated life in the cabin in the woods of Montana. It was while living there that he undertook his long campaign of sending package bombs by mail.
It reportedly resulted in the most expensive manhunt in U.S. history, but it came up completely empty. I remember reading once about someone sending a wooden package bomb, primarily to universities and airlines, on average about once a year. A sketch was made of a man wearing a hood and dark glasses, who was seen placing a package in a parking lot, which exploded when picked up.
The government had no idea who was doing it. The idea did arise that the Unabomber might have some connection to UC at Berkeley, because that was the only place that was targeted more than once. Ironically the first person to arrive to aid the person injured by the second bomb was the one who had been injured by the first bomb.
These mail bombings began in 1978. The Unabomber was finally caught in 1996. He had written a manuscript describing his views of how technology was destroying society. He wrote to newspapers and promised to cease mailing bombs if they published it. The Unabomber would write to his brother describing his ideas and his brother, and his wife, recognized his writing in the manuscript. The brother decided that he had to turn him in to save innocent lives.
After the background of the Unabomber was uncovered, something interesting became apparent. There had been a serial killer in the San Francisco Bay area that got a tremendous amount of media attention but was never caught. It was the Zodiac Killer. I know that the FBI eliminated the Unabomber as a suspect in the case of the Zodiac Killer, but the parallels between the two are just plain eerie.
The Zodiac Killer is confirmed as having killed five people, usually with a handgun and wounding others who survived. There were unconfirmed speculation of other killings and letters from the Zodiac that were determined to be hoaxes. Most of his victims were couples on dates. It seems like classic incel killings. A guy who resents not having a girlfriend kills people who are having fun on dates.
What is unusual about the Zodiac Killer, relative to other serial killers, is that the timeframe of his confirmed killings was short, actually less than a year from December 1968 to October 1969, yet he continued writing to authorities for several years afterward.
This is exactly the same timeframe that the reclusive and unsocial future Unabomber was teaching at nearby UC at Berkeley. He left California some time after resigning his position, moving in with his parents for a while before moving to the remote cabin in Montana.
The Zodiac Killer was known for the cryptograms that he sent to newspapers. Like the Unabomber would later do with his manuscript the Zodiac Killer threatened killings if they weren't published. Some of the cryptograms have not yet been solved, one required a team of mathematicians and programmers to solve. The Zodiac Killer must not only have been pretty smart, but very good with both words and mathematics. The characters in the cryptograms that the killer made up himself look like symbols used in mathematics.
The letters and cryptograms that the Zodiac Killer sent have quite a few misspellings. But how could someone who could come up with these unsolvable cryptograms not know how to spell?
When the future Unabomber was in university he amazed teachers with his ability to solve complex math problems. When he was finally arrested a diary, written in code, was found in his cabin. He was also very good with languages, I know that he could speak at least German and Spanish. Wouldn't he be just the one to come up with the very complex and difficult cryptograms of the Zodiac Killer? Two are still unsolved and one took the team of mathematicians and programmers to solve.
The FBI claimed that the fingerprints of the Unabomber and the Zodiac Killer don't match. But could they be sure that they had the Zodiac Killer's fingerprints? Someone clever enough to create these cryptograms is probably smart enough to wear gloves. A call to a police station by the killer was traced to a photo booth, and prints were found on the phone. But it could have been anyone else's prints. Maybe he waited for someone else to use the phone, so that person's prints would be on it, and then handled the phone carefully with gloves. When he killed his final confirmed victim, a taxi driver, he was seen carefully wiping the car down before leaving.
The Unabomber hunted animals in the woods while living in his remote cabin. Nowhere do I see that the Unabomber was into guns while growing up. His father did show him how to survive in the wilderness and he might have fired a gun, but nowhere in anything written about his life did I see anything about an interest in guns.
But yet he was adept enough with a gun to survive mostly by hunting by the time he moved into the wilderness. It seems that he must have gotten some hunting practice somewhere. Could it have been as the Zodiac Killer in California?
Hunting is usually done with long guns, shotguns and especially rifles, which are more powerful and accurate than pistols. A pistol is intended only for close range. Yet the Zodiac Killer killed with a pistol and, when the Unabomber was arrested he was found to have only a pistol.
Like the Unabomber the Zodiac Killer threatened bombings if what he sent to the news wasn't published. He also made a schematic diagram of a bomb. The Unabomber threatened an airliner just as the Zodiac Killer had threatened a school bus.
One parallel that I find really interesting is in the signatures of the two killers. The Zodiac Killer had his own "crosshairs" symbol, like a plus sign superimposed on a circle. The Unabomber signed his correspondence with F.C., for "Freedom Club". What is so interesting is that they both used their signatures on their correspondence in exactly the same way.
Another convincing link is letter writing. The Zodiac Killer wrote so many letters. The Unabomber was also a prolific letter writer, often to his brother. When the Unabomber was in prison he spent much of his time writing letters, some to answer those that were sent to him.
Following is a copy of the Zodiac Killer's 340 character cryptogram. Part of the "crosshairs" symbol is at bottom. Credit to the Wikipedia article "Zodiac Killer".
The clue as to how to decode it is in the second half of the last line. After that is "ZO". We know that he must be signing his name, Zodiac, but the characters must be moved around, according to some pattern.
Now consider the Unabomber's name. It was unknown why the killer called himself "Zodiac".
Theodore Kaczynski
If we start with reverse alphabetical order and take one letter, the Z, continuing in reverse alphabetical order we take two consecutive letters, the OD. Continuing in reverse alphabetical order we go back to one letter, the I, and then to the two consecutive letters, the AC, it spells "Zodiac".
Starting from the end of the name, the "i", if we take the required letters and skip the four letters between each time we end up with "The Zodiac". So there are groups of 1, 2 and, 3 letters, separated each by four letters, to get "The Zodiac".
But how would we know this? The Zodiac Killer gave us a clue in that he committed four attacks but only the first, second and third were against couples. The fourth attack was completely different in that it was against a taxi driver. Remember that everything about this is a cryptogram. The actual cryptograms don't give any real clues, they just point in this direction.
When a person signs their name to a document they sign at the end of it. Look at the last line and the second half of the second-to-last line. The capital "I" at the end has a minus sign, -, extending from it's left side. Is this a sign to start on his name in reverse order from the final "I", as described above?
This ending of the cryptogram spells his name, "Kaczynski". It has several mathematical symbols. The last line starts with MD, which means doctor. It also contains a rearranged "PhD" and the MD could be a clue that this means doctorate. Some letters are reversed so what looks like a "9" could be a reversed "P". "MI" is the abbreviation for Michigan, where he got his PhD.
It is interesting that the Zodiac Killer put a 9 in the final line because he sent in a map with his logo of a circle divided into four quadrants. The origin point was Mount Diablo, with north defined as 0, east as 3, south as 6, and west as 9. The University at Berkeley is due west of Mount Diablo. Image from Google Earth.
That explains the mystery of why he would call himself "Zodiac" but his correspondence never mentions anything to do with astrology. Being so much into cryptograms it was because the letters of his name could be rearranged to spell "Zodiac".
I believe that the misspelled words in the Zodiac Killer's letters were clues as to which letters are substituted for other letters in the cryptograms.
The Zodiac's letters state that the cryptograms reveal clues to his identity. But the two that have been decoded offer no such clues at all, just descriptions of how much he enjoys killing. Maybe that is because the clues are not within the cryptograms, rather the cryptograms themselves are the clues.
The clue in the cryptograms is that the killer is obviously very accomplished at mathematics. The first place we would think to look for a mathematician is probably a university. All of the three couples that were attacked by the Zodiac Killer were all around college age, this is another clue pointing toward a college or university.
Look at the sites where the three attacks on college age couples took place. The name of all three begin with a "B". Since the killer was a cryptographer surely this must be a clue. Theodore Kaczynski has no "B" in his name, his middle name is John. There is a "B" in the ending of the cryptogram above.
The killings of couples took place at Benicia, at Blue Rock Springs Park, and at Lake Berryessa. Two of the sites begin with "Be" and the other begins with the color blue.
If the Zodiac Killer was so adept at cryptography wouldn't it make sense that the sites of his killings would have some cryptographic significance?
So the victims were around university age and we know that a university would be the place to look for a mathematician who would be adept at such cryptography. There is a university nearby, UC at Berkeley. The name of the school begins with "Be" and it's school color is blue, along with California Gold. The university actually has it's own shade of blue, known as "Berkeley Blue".
The Zodiac Killer's final confirmed victim was a driver for the Yellow Cab Company and the taxi was a golden yellow color just like Berkeley's other color. The shooting took place very near the Golden Gate Bridge, as if to leave no doubt that the color of the cab stands for the gold that is the university's other color, blue and gold.
This means we should be looking for a mathematician at Berkeley University, whose name can be respelled as "The Zodiac".
The Zodiac Killer killed with a gun but there is one known exception. The attack at Lake Berryessa took place with a knife. Why would someone who kills with a gun suddenly decide to use a knife? Killing with a gun is so much easier and safer than with a knife. With cryptography being so important here, and the first two letters "Be" pointing to Berkeley, could it be a clue that the Zodiac Killer also has a "K" and an "N" in his name, Theodore Kaczynski?
The Zodiac Killer boasted of killing 37 people, which is generally considered as a gross exaggeration. But remember that this is all about cryptography that reveals his identity. "University of Berkeley Theodore Kaczynski" has 37 letters.
Crossword puzzles are usually square. But the cryptogram above has 17 spaces across and 20 spaces down, which adds up to the same number of people The Zodiac said that he killed. "Theodore Kaczynski" has 17 letters and University of (or at) Berkeley has 20 letters.
The solved 408 character cryptogram also has 17 spaces across. I am surprised that no one seems to have taken note that both cryptograms are 17 across. The 408 character cryptogram was divided into thirds, and each sent to a different newspaper. Each third has 8 characters down. Why would he do this? Was it because "Berkeley" has 8 letters. Also an 8 resembles a "B" and the three shootings of couples were at places that begin with a 'B".
I think this leaves no doubt that the Zodiac Killer became the Unabomber, and this hasn't been pointed out anywhere else. What I had wondered about is why he called himself "The Zodiac", but his letters never mention anything about astrology or stars, and why he took a taxi for his final known murder if he had a car, and killed the taxi driver instead of a couple. Now we know.
I am sure that there is more than this but a lot of what was sent in was sent by other people. Besides I have had enough of writing about, and thinking about, this psychopath. However it is interesting that in 1978, just before the bombings of the Unabomber began, a letter was received, from supposedly the Zodiac Killer, stating "I am back with you".
58) INOCCULATION AGAINST COMMUNISM
Here is something that I have suspected for years.
The Cold War was a global ideological confrontation between Communism and free enterprise, or Capitalism. Free Enterprise is allowing people to run their own businesses, although vital sectors are operated by the government. Pure Communism is basically having everything run by the government, including stores, farms, factories and, medical services.
The western countries were based on free enterprise but, at the height of the Cold War about a third of the world war under Communist governments and there were significant Communist movements in the western countries. The west increased social spending on it's citizens, including more on unemployment insurance, welfare, minimum wage and work safety laws, retirement benefits and, medical coverage.
In America, during the 1960s, these social reforms were known as "The Great Society". The wealth gap in America, meaning the difference between rich and poor, was at it's least in 1973, at the height of the Cold War. This helped to refute some of the accusations of Communists against free enterprise, that it was really the rich oppressing the poor and the solution was for all the people to own the means of production, through the government, as is done in Communism.
It is true that, in America for example, the end of the Cold War might sound like a victory but since then, without the ideological competition from the Communists, the wealth gap has widened very significantly with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
What I suspect is that there was another plan that the western countries put into place to deter people from falling for Communism. This plan was undocumented and probably mostly unspoken. I am not claiming that any person or people thought of this plan. But yet, at some level, there was a plan, and the plan was for the "Innoculation Against Communism".
Remember the times that you have dealt with government offices. This includes such things as applying for unemployment benefits, dealing with the Department of Motor Vehicles, applying for social services, trying to get a permit for something, challenging a traffic ticket, and so on.
Most people agree that government offices are hardly a model of efficiency. There is almost always a lot of waiting, often in a long line of people. Waiting for some kind of decision usually seems to require excessive time. Challenging a traffic ticket almost always takes most of the day.
When was the last time someone smiled at you in a government office, and seemed glad to see you and eager to help you? Even if the people working there do their jobs well the process makes people feel like they are just a number, in fact the person might have to actually take a number and be called by the number instead of their name.
Government offices, at least in some places, might be technologically backward. There might be a computer interface that looks like Windows 3.0 or 3.1. There might even be a dot matrix printer like something out of an ancient history museum. If you make any comment about it the usual attitude is "So what do you want me to do? I just work here".
What a contrast with dealing with a private company. When you call a bright and cheerful voice asks "How can I help you today"? When you order something from a company like Amazon you can be sure that, if they tell you that you will get your package by a certain day then you will get it by that day. Have you ever noticed that, if your call goes to a voicemail or you get instructions by phone, a private company almost always has a pleasant and upbeat voice while the government office has an unenthusiastic monotone drone?
While dealing with private companies is not quite perfect most people would agree that, as far as pleasantry goes, it is much preferable to government offices. The question is whether this is being done, at least at some level, on purpose, although this doesn't mean that it was specifically planned or organized.
The purpose of this contrast between dealing with government offices and dealing with private companies is as an inoculation against Communism. In pure Communism there is no private enterprise, as everything is run by the government. After seeing the difference in dealing with government offices and dealing with private companies, who would want to be Communist?
59) THE LONG-TERM PLAN OF CHAIRMAN MAO
I wonder if I am the only person in the west who has thought about this.
Today we see "Made In China" everywhere. It began with U.S. President Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972. Until then the U.S. and China didn't even have diplomatic relations. I remember from childhood watching the coverage of Nixon's meeting with Chairman Mao in the Great Hall of the People, in Beijing. No one imagined how it would change the world.
All of the information that I have ever seen about that historic meeting indicates that it was Nixon, known for foreign policy expertise, who took the initiative and reached out to China. We know that it was the President of Pakistan who set up the meeting (Pakistan has since switched to the parliamentary system), but I wonder if Chairman Mao had it planned all along although he wanted Nixon to make the first move.
Richard Nixon became U.S. President at the height of the Cold War. He was elected in 1968 and inaugurated in January 1969. The two major Communist powers were the Soviet Union and China. It was known that the two countries didn't always agree on everything, with a mild split between the two resulting from Nikita Khrushchev surprising the world upon taking office by denouncing his predecessor, Josef Stalin, and beginning the process of "Destalization".
As soon as Nixon took office the expertise in foreign policy that he would become known for became apparent. A short time after Nixon took office something else happened that took the world by surprise. Border clashes began between China and the Soviet Union. It was over some disputed islands in the Ussuri River. The Chinese side is almost universally considered as having been the aggressor.
The clashes didn't lead to a wider war and the dispute was eventually resolved, but it did get the world's attention. One thing that seemed to help resolve the dispute is that Ho Chi Minh, President of Communist North Vietnam, died in September 1969, and the foreign ministers of China and the Soviet Union met while attending his funeral.
In 1972 Richard Nixon visited both China and then the Soviet Union. The meeting in China, which didn't have diplomatic relations with the U.S., took time to set up. The primary anti-Communist strategy was to play the two major Communist powers against each other and this was Nixon's goal, at least to some degree.
It seems obvious to me that Nixon developed the strategy of playing the two major Communist powers against each other due to the border clashes between the two that began not long after he took office. The border clashes were evidence that the two countries were further apart than the west realized.
What I wonder is whether Chairman Mao had this planned all along. The border clashes let the new U.S. administration know that the two major Communist powers were further apart than they might think, and it could be possible to play them against each other. This led to Nixon reaching out to China, and establishing diplomatic relations, which would give China a vast new market as it emerged as the world's great manufacturer of consumer goods, and today "Made In China" is to be seen everywhere.
This is the statue of Chairman Mao in Changsha. Image from Google Street View.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)