Monday, September 27, 2010

Paul McCartney: The First Beatle to Pass Away?

Even though it is already common knowledge that the first Beatle to pass away was John Lennon via an assassin’s bullet, is there truth behind the rumor saying that Paul McCartney was the first Beatle to pass away?

By: Ringo Bones

As an eight-year-old back then, I am already old enough to know that the Beatles – either as a group or as solo artists - were one of the best musicians in the Western world months before John Lennon’s tragic assassination back in December 10, 1980. Fast forward to 2008 and I accidentally stumbled upon a rather “wacky” conspiracy on the Internet saying that the first of the Fab Four to have passed away was supposedly Paul McCartney. Given that this is such an extraordinary claim that truly demands extraordinary proof, is there really truth in this “conspiracy”?

According to the claim, the “real” Paul McCartney supposedly died back in 1966 and was supposedly since replaced by a very uncanny look-alike. The clues are supposedly – and blatantly – evident all over their iconic Abbey Road album. But is the truth really that self-evident or is it just a very elaborate hoax that’s very hard to either prove or disprove?

When the 40th Anniversary of the Beatles’ Abbey Road album was celebrated back in August 2009, the “Paul McCartney 1966 Death Rumor” conspiracy probably rekindled every Beatle-Maniac’s curiosity about the subject. The iconic album cover was credited to an Abbey Road Studios photographer named Ian McMillan who took the famous photo on a step ladder in the middle of Abbey Road.

McMillan took 6 photos and the one which was chosen for the iconic album cover was photo number 5, thus turning a merely utilitarian zebra crossing of the City of Westminster near the Abbey Road Studios into a prime Beatle-Mania pilgrimage site. In spite of the fact that Abbey Road Studios was more than the Beatles though, scores of other musicians – including scores of Classical Music orchestras and ensembles – had recorded there since the Golden Age of Stereo. Beatle Maniacs and “mere” tourists can even sign their “I was here” graffiti on the wall outside of the famed recording studio.

So did Beatle Paul McCartney really die in 1966 and the proof is there to see in the photos of the Abbey Road album cover? Well, it was so many years ago today that a cold case such as these will be very difficult to solve just by publicity photos used in an album cover alone. If it really is true, then Yoko Ono probably has nothing to do with the breaking up of the Beatles.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Should Wikileaks Be Taken Seriously?

The website was supposedly set up as a safe place for wistleblowers to air out their incriminating evidence for legal scrutiny, should anything posted on Wikileaks be taken seriously?

By: Ringo Bones

Even after the furor of the 90,000 or so leaked documents highlighting the shortcomings of the Bush Administration era War on Terror inexorably died down (has it?), the whistleblowing site Wikileaks had now indisputably become the conspiracy fetishists conversation piece du jour. Though it only confirmed everyone’s concerns on everything that’s wrong with the Bush Administration era War on Terror, it gained a little more air of authenticity after that inexplicably still-born rape and child molestation lawsuit against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Are rattled intelligence agency personnel resorting to Roman Polanski-style intimidation for damage control?

Ever since that incriminating Abu Ghraib Prison scandal photos have been posted on the Internet and “fall-person” US Army Specialist Lynndie England got branded the title moniker of a “sexually-depraved torturer” by the world’s major news providers, on-line whisleblowing on the irregularities of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror finally got the much-needed press attention that it deserve. Worse still, the subsequent whistleblowing incidents only confirmed the rest of the civilized world’s suspicions of the Bush-Cheney run War on Terror as a legitimizing platform of American lunatic fringe organized Christianity that sincerely believes via their religious doctrine that the United Nations and the Geneva Convention are the work of The Devil.

While the gist of the 90,000 or so Afghan theatre of the War on Terror that got Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in trouble centers around the under-reporting of civilian casualties killed by both the Coalition Forces and the Taliban. The under-reporting of incidences of IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) attack, not to mention the Taliban’s not-so-oft mentioned access to man-portable surface-to-air missiles. And the most damning of all is the Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency or ISI colluding with the Afghan Taliban. The Pakistan government’s “rumoured” collusion with the Afghan Taliban probably dates back as far as when Zia Ul-Haq ruled Pakistan deciding to solve the Kashmir problem by whatever means necessary.

Even if the authenticity of most of the leaked documents are yet to be confirmed, an overwhelming majority of the documents seems to be in congruence to the criticisms of those intimately involved with the Bush-era War on Terror. Add to that majority of the world’s population already fed up with their respective governments deciding what kind of information the masses supposedly can handle – and deciding what’s our best interest is. Maybe Julian Assange was right when he said: “Without the truth, no public policy is coherent”.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Are US Government Buildings Equipped With Self-destruct Mechanisms?

Given that the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing of 1995 and the Tower 7 collapse during the 9 / 11 terror attacks have “strange” forensic results, does this prove that US Government buildings have self-destruct mechanisms?

By: Ringo Bones

A lot of conspiracy theories had emerged in the wake of the September 11, 2001 Terror Attacks that range from the seriously anti-Semitic to the just plain silly. And like most levelheaded folks, I just tend to subscribe the ones that have withstood the scrutiny of Occam’s Razor. Strange as it may seem, but have you ever wondered if US Government buildings – like most of the US DoD’s strategically sensitive technologies – are equipped with self-destruct mechanism?

Let’s take a look back to that tragic Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City back in April 19, 1995. Back then, the reality is that Christian extremists – like in the movie Arlington Road – are the terrorists before being relegated to the footnote of history by Islamic extremists in the wake of the 9 / 11 attacks. The FBI soon after managed to capture the mastermind of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing, but the official findings of the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee produced high-level detractors.

Like Neutron Bomb inventor Sam Cohen and Brig. Gen. Benton Partin (ret.) who have serious doubts of the official findings after the actual forensics of the crime scene doesn’t seem to jibe with the investigation committee’s consensus. Like the seismographic evidence showing that there were more than one bomb that took down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building back in April 19, 1995 was inexplicably left out.

Another US Government building that collapsed under very strange circumstances was Tower 7, the third building that collapsed during the September 11, 2001 Terror Attacks – after the twin towers of the World Trade Center building. Inexplicably, Tower 7 was never mentioned in the 9 / 11 Commission. To conspiracy buffs, Tower 7 became the fodder for their political views because this US Government building is well known for storing key files about ENRON era corporate fraud. Stranger still, the thermal imaging-equipped NASA reconnaissance plane that flew over Ground Zero 5 days after the September 11 attacks shows that the ground where Tower 7 used to stand was still hot despite of the 5 days firefighters spraying water and other fire suppressants on that particular spot.

The Louizeaux family owned Controlled Demolitions Incorporated, headed by Mark Louizeaux unfortunately got embroiled in the Tower 7 conspiracy because they sided with the official – then Bush Administration era - US Government findings of the Tower 7 collapse. While remaining tight-lipped when asked by the anomalous forensic evidence surrounding the building’s collapse.

Given that Mark Louizeaux’s business is very dependent of the federal government, nobody will ever see him as an unbiased witness when it comes to the Tower 7-collapse issue. Conspiracy buffs even accuse him of receiving US Government contracts of rigging the top secret self-destruct mechanisms of their various buildings. Specifically the kind that protects the key files about corporate fraud stored in Tower 7 from falling into the hands of unauthorized persons. But is this undeniable proof that US Government buildings are equipped with self-destruct mechanisms so that their sensitive documents won’t fall into unauthorized hands?

Destruction of strategically sensitive US Government documents to prevent them from falling into enemy hands is reminiscent of Executive Order 11490 and Executive Order 11921 assigning the US Postal Service responsibility to burn stamps to prevent their falling into enemy hands. If explosive-type self-destruct mechanisms were indeed installed in US Government Buildings, shouldn’t they be made “bomb proof” to prevent accidental detonation in case of a terrorist bomb attack? Maybe their creators and installers forgot to, thus the anomalous forensic evidence that keeps cropping out of bombed US Government buildings.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

ADE 651: The Great Bomb Detector Swindle?

The FBI had already cast doubts with regards to the effectiveness of such devices as far back as 1995, was there a conspiracy to cover-up the ineffectiveness of the ADE 651 and related bomb detectors?

By: Ringo Bones

Despite Downing Street immediately slapping an export ban on UK-based companies selling the ADE 651 Bomb Detector, which costs 40 thousand US dollars each and related devices back in the beginning of February 2010. After their “ineffectiveness” has caused a diplomatic row not just in Iraq but in Thailand as well. Manufacturers of related devices – whom they claim works on the same principle on dowsing rods – claim that their “bomb detectors” can also be used to detect hidden narcotics and elephants. But how effective are these devices and was there a cover-up to hide their ineffectiveness?

The United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had found out as far back as 1995 that “dowsing rod-type bomb detectors” such as the Quadro Tracker by ATSC was proven to be fraudulent. Experts say about as effective as a plastic enclosure with a car aerial sticking out of it when it comes to bomb detection. But inexplicably the disparaging finding of a prestigious law enforcement agency – i.e. the FBI - was immediately hushed-up.

Fast forward to the March 2003 Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq supposedly part of the War on Terror to deny al-Qaeda access to WMDs. No WMDs were found yet the fraudulent bomb detectors – like the ADE 651 – were sold to the local Iraqi law enforcement as a means of detecting Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) with catastrophic results. But why do such devices have flown pass the scrutiny of tenured experts in the UK?

ADE 651 and related bomb sniffers supposedly work like water dowsing / dowsing rod. Dowsing for water – in theory – is based on the assumption that there is this natural resonant frequency inherent in all matter. This “resonance” supposedly interacts with the brain waves of the one holding or manipulating the dowsing rod in order to spot a hidden concentration of water or other material.

One of the UK’s finest minds – Professor Richard Dawkins – has long since disproved that dowsing rods were able to detect hidden deposits of water for about as long as he’s been debunking myths and dubious pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo being passed on as the latest discovery. It is not just Prof. Dawkins who had cast doubt whether such dowsing rod based detectors other UK based tenured experts had recently demonstrated the quackery behind the ADE 651 and related bomb detecting equipment.

Foremost UK-based explosives expert Dr. Sidney Alford was both surprised and appalled on why such devices flew past even the most casual of scrutiny by consumer watchdogs and their intended buyers and users. The “consumer watchdogs” only began their investigation on the dubious nature of the technology behind the ADE 651 Bomb Detector after a large number of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) has slipped passed patrols armed with such bomb detectors and managed to be set-off in supposedly safe zones in Iraq.

Another proof of the dubiousness of the technology behind dowsing rod type bomb detectors was uncovered by Professor Bruce Wood a cognitive scientists of Bristol Cognitive Development Centre. Prof. Wood also has doubts on whether dowsing rod type devices can work in real world applications. While Dr. Markus Kuhn of Cambridge Computer Labs reverse engineers he “different” cards that can supposedly detect different types of explosives and other types of contraband were found out to be nothing more than high-street shop anti-theft device. They are even bereft of micro-controller circuits that can be programmed to detect various explosives and other contraband.

The diplomatic row - that ensued a few years later - of the useless bomb detectors that cost the post 2003 invasion Iraq government 85 million US dollars. Only came after the high casualty rate of coordinated IED and suicide bombing attacks that were not stopped despite of the ADE 651 and related bomb detectors being widely used. Not surprisingly, Jim McCormic – chief executive of the company that manufactures the fraudulent bomb detectors was immediately arrested for fraud by the end of January 2010. But was there a concerted cover-up – a government conspiracy if you will - on why such dowsing rod type bomb detectors became widely used in Operation Iraqi Freedom despite of their ineffectiveness?

There might be a document or two on the 92,000 Wikileaks documents highlighting not only the malfeasant nature of the Bush Administration era War on Terror. But also on why dowsing rod type bomb detectors flew past the muster of government procurement auditors despite of an FBI complaint back in 1995 casting doubt on the effectiveness of such devices. But until then, BBC, CNN and other major news providers have more than 90,000 documents to sort through, only time will tell.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Did John Wilkes Booth Remained at Large Decades After Assassinating Lincoln?

History has made us believe that he died in a shootout in some Virginia barn, but did that notorious assassin of President Abraham Lincoln named John Wilkes Booth managed to evade capture for decades?

By: Ringo Bones

The officially accepted historical events that happened after President Abraham Lincoln’s tragic assassination points out that John Wilkes Booth had died in a shootout twelve days after committing his heinous act in a Bowling Green, Virginia barn on April 26, 1865. Supposedly while trying to escape to the South, he was shot or was shot himself in that barn which had been set afire when he refused to emerge and surrender. But was there a remote possibility that Booth might have escaped and managed to live on the run decades after assassinating President Lincoln?

John Wilkes Booth came from a prominent theatrical family, which first came to prominence in England. His father, Junius Brutus Booth gained fame as a leading tragedian who later acted all over the United States - where his fiery and vehement portrayal of the heroes of Shakespeare made him popular. Junius Brutus Booth remained a favorite stateside Shakespearean actor in spite of his tendency to drink and his increasingly erratic behavior, which frequently prevented him from filling theatrical agreements. He died on fever on November 30, 1852 on the steamboat J.S. Chenoweth after returning from his California tour.

Junius Brutus Booth, Jr. was the eldest of the Booth brothers who then succeeded his father as a leading tragedian. He devoted his later years to theater management, notably in California and New York. Edwin Thomas Booth was probably the most successful Shakespearean actor of the Booth brothers after starring in a series of sumptuous Shakespearean productions. Most notably by appearing in 100 consecutive performances of Hamlet. In 1865, stunned on learning that his brother – John Wilkes Booth – had assassinated President Lincoln, Edwin Thomas Booth tried to retire from the stage but was recalled by his admiring public. In 1869, he built the handsome Booth Theatre in New York but was unable to carry the expense of it.

John Wilkes Booth was already a promising theatrical star when his sympathies with the Confederacy and his inherited “touch of insanity” caused him to assassinate Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., on April 14, 1865. After shooting Lincoln in the back of the head, John Wilkes Booth yelled the state of Virginia’s motto – Sic Semper Tyrannis (“Thus always to tyrants”) then leaped from the balcony in order to escape. The “accepted” historical account states than John Wilkes Booth was killed twelve days later – in April 26, 1865 at a shootout at a barn in Bowling Green, Virginia while trying to escape to the South. John Wilkes Booth’s brothers and the family physician later “supposedly” identified his badly burned body. Given the “iffy” circumstances surrounding the officiating of his death did John Wilkes Booth managed to escape and to remain at large decades after committing his heinous act?

Rumors and anecdotes later emerged that a Granbury, Texas Shakespeare buff named John St. Helen was actually the fugitive John Wilkes Booth hiding out in the Granbury Opera House remaining incognito while enjoying his favorite passions. Another anecdotal evidence of an incognito John Wilkes Booth living at large emerged in Enid, Oklahoma where a man named David E. George confessed to a priest that he was actually John Wilkes Booth – the famous Lincoln assassin - before committing suicide by drinking a bottle of strychnine back in 1903. Compelling anecdotes they may be, but is it even possible that John Wilkes Booth had remained at large for several decades after assassinating the president of the United States?

Given that the United States Secret Service – whose primary functions was to protect the President of the United States, members of his or her family, the president-elect, and the vice president and to stop counterfeiting of US currency – was only established after the Lincoln assassination back in July 5, 1865. There is a possibility that the US Secret Service – though never placed John Wilkes Booth under arrest – made the assassin as a case study on how a future “presidential assassin” plans to get away and lives incognito. It might also be possible that John Wilkes Booth’s other brothers – given their connections in the Shakespearean theatre business across the United States – knew too well about excellent hiding spots where their assassin brother can hide while still living out his Shakespearean passion. Making it a veritable Victorian Era version of The Fugitive.