Pat Shannan's MUSINGS
CONSPIRACIES AND STUFF
Nobody loves a good conspiracy better than I. The only people who don't believe in the conspiracy theory of history are those who haven't studied it. Franklin Roosevelt told us as much when he said, "Nothing happens in politics by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way." He's the Son of Baal who conspired with his cabinet members to allow the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in order to manipulate an isolationist America into World War II.
The facts about conspiracies have a way rising to the surface as time goes by, often a generation or two later, i.e. JFK, MLK, which are common knowledge today. Nobody knows how eleven bullets were fired from Sirhan Sirhan's 8-shot revolver the night Bobby Kennedy got it. And few people are even aware of the "magic gun" used in attempted murder of Gov. George Wallace in 1972. That day, Arthur Bremer had a 5-shot, .38 snub-nosed revolver. With this weapon, somehow this "lone nut" lodged four bullets in Wallace's chest and abdomen and also put one more each into a Secret Service agent, the governor's personal bodyguard, and a female campaign worker; for a total of seven. Not even Arlen Spector, of Magic Bullet fame, would attempt to tackle that mystery. Wallace miraculously survived but spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair, passing away last year.
Some conspiracy theories border on the fringes. You decide fringes of what. In July, somebody wrote that former astronaut Pete Conrad's demise was only made to look like a motorcycle accident and that he was murdered because he knew too much unpublished truth about the moonwalkers. This, of course, was in reference to former NASA Engineer Bill Kaysing's book, full of enticing but circumstantial evidence, entitled "We Never Went To The Moon." Is this on the fringes of truth or the fringes of lunacy? For those who believe the latter, I have but one question: How do you know? Please submit your evidence. (TIME Magazine, Associated Press, and network television reports will be rejected as unreliable.)
Now please understand, I am not saying that man has never walked on the moon. It's just that the jury on which I sit is still out, and my source of knowledge is no more than that of the public; and this whole subject makes delightful morsels for mastication. As far as I know, no one has convincingly explained those double shadows and reflections in the photos of Armstrong and Aldrin. And if a charade this massive was contrived in a studio and sold to the world public as fact, it would have to rank as one of the most masterful pieces of chicanery in all of history, but I assure you that this one does not keep me awake nights.
However, this current one has deprived me of a few hours. Something smells rotten about this JFK, Jr. crash, chronicled in this issue. Some of the biggest bugaboos are the early reports by ABC-TV and Boston radio & TV of what Victor Pribanic told them. According to an "insiders" report, the plane was finally pulled from the waters, with its tail section missing, in the area northeast of Noman's Land, from approximately the spot where the fisherman had indicated the explosion came. But "official" news reports say it was found some six miles to the northwest, with no mention of tail damage. Which is true? Why were there no news photos of the wrecked plane? Does this second question answer our first?
Always perplexing, from way back, were the plane's wheel, Lauren Bessette's suitcase, and official paperwork on the plane washing up on the southwest side of Martha's Vineyard beach. Again, if the plane was really found where they said it was, this debris should have come ashore at the northwest corner of the island, or at the Elizabeth Islands a few miles north, or even on the mainland coast. In such cases, we must always look at the early reports which emerged before the spin was spun.
The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night and the weather report called for 8-mile visibility, not the reported "3-miles" in later, reorganized stories. (The NTSB website to this day still says "six miles.") This is fortified by the weather radar image taken at 10:00 p.m. New York appears to be socked in but no clouds at all are evident at Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard. On the morning following the crash, CNN announced that weather could be ruled out as a factor in the crash. But these facts are deeply buried within the later news spins.
While visiting the offices of the Martha's Vineyard Times newspaper, I had a nice visit with the very congenial Nelson Siegelman, the reporter who broke the Victor Pribanic story. Siegelman was fishing that night at the west end, too, and confirms that the night was hazy, at least on the ground. After talking with him, I began to wonder if he might have been the reporter that was somehow confused with the one from the Martha's Vineyard Gazette who was supposed to have seen a "flash in the sky." However, Siegelman saw no such thing.
On this subject of visibility, it was amusingly ironic to see a letter to the editor in the same issue of the Times which headlined the Kennedy story and the finding of the aircraft. This letter, on the back pages of the July 22nd edition, was entitled "Too Much Light at New Airport" and was a complaint from a local resident about the airport being illuminated so brightly that his quiet little haven was beginning to look like "Orlando North. . . lit up as brightly as the Boston skyline!" Speaking his displeasure about the new lights, Peter Jones complained that ". . . these new lights are very bright and unshielded. Not only do they direct much of their light upwards, the glare from the bright, unshielded lights prevents you from seeing the grounds clearly." So much for light pollution on the ground, but how much more does this increase the likelihood of an airborne pilot being able to spot the airport?
These un-answered questions, this blatant suppression of evidence, and this contradiction of reports vs. facts leads us to but one confused conclusion: If JFK, Jr. et al. were murdered by persons and factions unknown, then those who did it are getting even better at what they do best. One thing we know for certain by now: they ain't above it!
Incidentally, John Jr.'s family nickname was never "John-John," and he detested it. The misnomer surfaced one day when President Kennedy was playing with his son in the Oval Office with newsmen present. The president called the lad's name without getting his attention and quickly repeated it. A reporter listening nearby grasped the wrong impression, wrote it up as "John-John," and the mistaken sobriquet was born.
Strange Accidents in September
Radio talk show host Alex Jones asserted in mid-September that he has confirmed that at least 3 of the 4 Delta Force members killed in training accidents on 2 successive days last week were at Waco during the siege that killed 86 Branch Davidians. The 3 dead Delta Force soldiers confirmed to have been at Waco were Lt. Col. Timothy A. Boyles, Sgt. Eric Ellingson, and Master Sgt. Gaetano Cutino. Cutino was the brother of Judge Fran Gull of Fort Wayne, Indiana. The presence at Waco of the 4th dead Delta Force member, Sgt. Jamey Dimase, 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga., has yet to be confirmed or denied.
A "DO NOT HIRE" RECOMMENDATION
To a few, this is ancient history, but history has a way of repeating itself. Jerome Zeifman was the general counsel and chief of staff to the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. This was during the time that this committee was considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon. As chief of staff it was Zeifman's responsibility to oversee the activities of the employees of the committee. One particular staffer evidently troubled Zeifman a great deal. This staffer recommended procedures to the committee, which Zeifman concluded, were "ethically flawed." Zeifman also states that this staffer violated committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons. We can now add lying to Zeifman's concerns about this particular committee staffer, who also wanted to deny Nixon his right to legal counsel. Zeifman was with the House Judiciary Committee for a period of 14 years, and during that time he had supervisory authority over hundreds of committee staff members. It has been reported that in all that time he only encountered three staff members whom he did not recommend for a future position of public and private trust. One of those three was the staffer described above. Her name was Hillary Rodham.