Mysterious Death's
The Murder of Nick Berg
I have just conducted a thorough frame by frame analysis of the Nick Berg footage. I've paid particular attention to the editing. I've included a shot by shot breakdown. I've tried to remain totally objective through out, and limit my analysis to the evidence we can see, and others can hopefully come to the same conclusion. My apologies for the messy layout. For the sake of this discussion, I'll name the captors from 1 to 5 John Doe1 John Doe2 John Doe3 (reading the script) John Doe4 John Doe5 Video Breakdown Shot A video time 13:26:24 to 13:26:27 synced audio Nick sitting in a chair giving his details Shot B video time 02:18:33 to 02:18:43 synced audio Nick sitting in chair, giving his details, different angle
This is NOT a second angle on the first shot. Nick has clearly moved in between these two shots, as illustrated by the change in his voice tone while reciting his details, and the change in the pattern of folds and clothing position under his harms and on his chest. This clearly shows a careful edit has been made, and we cannot know how far apart these two shots were taken. It also shows that the editor has at least some basic editing skills. we also hear a door squeek at 2:18:41 we see the reflection of a horizontal light in the top left of screen. questions :- Why did they shoot the scene twice? Was nicks "performance" not up to scratch? Why did they go to such lengths to make it look like it was shot at the same time? Did they get him to replicate his hand position is that just coincidence? Shot C video time 02:40:33 to 02:44:37 (audio 5-10 seconds ahead (see below)) Nick is definitely alive and conscious though-out this section. He occasionally shrugs, as if he is aware of an impending issue regarding his neck. He sits tense for a moment, then forces his shoulders back down. He does remain very still. In this shot, the audio is 5-6 seconds in front of the picture. The fact the this audio is out of sync while the first section is in sync show that the slipped audio is part of the original master, and not due to later encoding/decoding issues of the whole video. How far out of sync? The person reading the speech coughs audibly at video time 02:42:33. We see him raise his hand at 2:42:38. So the audio appears to be 5 seconds ahead of the picture.. however... We hear a thump, which sounds like Nick hitting the ground, at 02:44:02, and then we see him hit the ground at 02:44:11. thats 10 seconds ahead, without any visible cut in the video. Therefore an audio edit has taken place, with five seconds of audio removed sometime before the thump. Also The screaming doesn't start unit a couple of seconds after the thump. Visually this shot lasts about 2 seconds after nick hits the ground. As he hits the ground the John Doe3 raises his knife, but we do not see him actually cutting with it. We also don't see any panic reaction from him or hear a noise, even taking into account any slippage of the audio. Some subjective observations. JohnDoe2 is staring straight at camera. 4 and 5 look nervous, and don't know what to do with their hands. JohnDoe4 in particular seems to nervously fiddle with his mask, often just after JohnDoe3 has shuffled his papers, I've had trouble following these paper moves, but they don't seem to coincided with the speech. None of them show the same body languages as other Iraqi kidnappers we've seen? Questions: Why leave the audio out of sync when the editor is clearly perfectly competent? What was the 5 seconds of audio they removed? Why did the cameraman cut away from this shot just before Nick is actually attacked? Why didn't Nick react or even make a noise has he was thrown to the ground? 
Shot D video time 13:45:47 to 13:45:52 inconclusive audio We now zoom in very close. the video is shaky and blurred. It is impossible to tell if nick is alive or dead at this point. Between shots D and E, we seem to get a period of accelerated time, where the video clock jumps forward to 13:45:59,. However we also see an intermediate frame or two, giving as a glimpse of 13:45:57. this appears to be intended to give continuity while removing around 3 seconds. questions: Why zoom in like that? is that the best footage they had (given they were supposed to have 2 cameras)? Why are we having seconds edited out, and yet returning to the same shot? Shot E video time 13:45:59 to 13:46:32 There is a slight jump cut with about half a second missing at 13:46:27, as shown by the video clock and the jump in JohnDoe3's arm position. At the end of this shot we see JohnDoe3 lift the knife away slightly and lay the head down, as if he's given up trying to get it off. Questions: Why the edit? Shot F 13:47:46 13:47:52 Having just jumped about 80 seconds of video time, the head is removed from the body and raised in the air. However it isn't JohnDoe3 who is hold the head and knife, it's JohnDoe2 ! MINUS HIS BOMB VEST!!! (unless it's JohnDoe3 and he's switched masks!!!) Questions Why has JohnDoe2 removed his bomb vest????!!!! Why is he now the the one to hold up the head? Where as JohnDoe3 gone? Why would JohnDoe3, as a terrorist leader, humiliate himself in front of the others by appearing incapable of removing the head?
Shot G 2:46:18 to 2:46:22 Back to the other camera/different time. another shot of the head being held up. This appears to have been shot at the same time as Shot F, but for reasons discussed earlier, we can't be sure of this. Shot H 13:48:29 to 13:48:49 lots of missed frames here, about 5-10 seconds worth. END Other observations. it's widely assumed that two cameras were used, because of the difference in the video clocks. If this is the case, both were set up exactly the same in terms of white point and aperture. Both exhibit the same edge of frame artifacts (dark pixels where the images doesn't make it to the end of the frame) Both may also be of the same model given the similarity of time clocks and image. The two clocks are roughly 11 hours and 8 minutes apart at the start of the film. The exact difference is impossible to judge since shots A and B were NOT shot at the same moment in time. (see above) At the end, they are roughly 11 hours and 2 minutes apart, although again it is hard to tell. the camera with timings around 2:40 appears to be on a tripod at all times. It is impossible to tell if there were two cameras or not. It seems likely, but I cannot be conclusive one way or the other. Ill leave it there for now. there is much more analysis to be done, an I don't want to get into guessing at potential scenarios until all the objective evidence is in.. In particular I'd like to know about the video tears across the bottom of the screen. Is this a digital or analog artifact? What was the likely signal path, from camera to web? The blurred images suggest an analogue stage. However the skip time edits suggest digital, at least at the editing process. Also can anyone identify the make of the camera? Do the time clocks look familiar? Things like this do differ from cam to cam, and the more I know the better. However I do have a theory pertaining to a possible connection between the abused Iraq Prisoners and the Nick Berg video. Could this video be a new form of propaganda in order to create a new 9/11, pro-patriotic, anti-Muslim state of mind within this country? Was Nick berg dead before the decapitation? Were these masked men paid to desecrate the already lifeless body of Nick Berg in order to usher in more support for this war? It's a dark world that we live in today, and this is the darkest war in history.
Click for video....
The Death of a Princess
Diana 'death plot' royal named
The senior member of the Royal family who Princess Diana believed was plotting to kill her in a car crash has been named.
Diana's allegation was made in a letter written 10 months before she died in a Paris car crash in 1997, and was included in a book by her former butler Paul Burrell last year.
Penguin, the book's publishers, and the Daily Mirror, which serialised A Royal Duty, blanked out the name at the time. The relevant passage read: "** ******* is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury..."
But the Daily Mirror has revealed what it claims is the identity of the person named by Diana in the letter. The newspaper said Mr Burrell is prepared to hand over the letter to Royal coroner Michael Burgess, who is opening inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi Fayed.
The newspaper said it had "decided to publish the blanked out name because it will inevitably appear in the public domain".
The inquests are the first official public hearings in Britain into the deaths of the couple in the Pont d'Alma underpass in Paris. They are being formally opened at separate venues today before being adjourned. The full hearings are not expected to take place for several months.
It is hoped the inquests could eventually shed light on the flurry of conspiracy theories surrounding the events of August 31, 1997. Speculation that the couple were murdered by MI6 has circulated for years with Dodi's father, Mohammed al Fayed, insisting they were assassinated by the British secret service.
Could this have something to do with the political fall out between Britan's Prime Minister, and Mohammed al Fayed? Or could it have been a response to the involvement of Fayed's and Saddam's terrorist connection's to French Nationalist's, and the unplanned pregnancy between Diana, and Dodi?)
The Harrods owner was due to attend both of today's hearings with his legal team, including barrister Michael Mansfield QC. Other conspiracy rumours centre on claims the princess was pregnant when she died, with a senior French police source recently speaking out in support of the theory.
Diana, 36, and 42-year-old Dodi were killed along with chauffeur Henri Paul when their Mercedes crashed in a tunnel on August 31, 1997. They were being pursued by photographers as they took the short trip from the Ritz Hotel to Mr Fayed's Paris apartment.
A two-year French investigation led by Judge Herve Stephan blamed Paul for losing control of the car while high on drink and drugs and driving too fast. Trevor Rees Jones, the princess's personal bodyguard, was the only survivor and can recall little of the crash.
Story filed: 08:03 Tuesday 6th January 2004
A current police report that was classified untill now show's that the break line to the car had been cut. There was also evidence showing that the driver was not drunk, but he had been under the influence of an unknown substance that had been administered by a needle in the back of the neck. Perhaps these events mixed with mind control led to the murder / coverup of Diana, and Dodi.
The Death of Vincent FosterEvidence of a cover-up
Because the photograph of Vincent Foster's hand does not show a single speck of blood anywhere in the image, more importantly Vincent is left handed, and the gun was discovered in his right hand. Not a drop of blood can be seen on the gun, hand, or white sleeve of Foster's shirt.
In addition, the FBI reported on page 10 of its may 9, 1994 report that chemical tests conducted on the gun failed to find blood. "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FOSTER TO HAVE FIRED THE GUN INTO HIS OWN MOUTH WITHOUT SPRAYING THE GUN, HAND, AND SLEEVE WITH BLOOD. THEREFORE, THE ABSENCE OF ANY BLOOD ON THE GUN, HAND AND SLEEVE PROVES THAT FOSTER DID NOT FIRE THE GUN INTO HIS OWN MOUTH."
Needless to say, the behavior of a high pressure cloud of proellent gases, blood and organic matter are governed by the laws of physics. Nevertheless, certain Clinton supporters have tried to insist that there is no reason to expect that a gunshot fired into the mouth would result in any splattering at all.
Medical texts and the descriptions from the French Revolution confirm that the heart will continue to beat after the brain is destroyed for as long as their is oxygenated blood to feed it. This is why head trauma victims are the primary source of donor hearts for transplants.
The lack of blood.
Was Foster already dead when the headshot was fired?One of the key pieces of information that argued against suicide was the lack of blood at the scene.When the brain is destroyed, the heart will continue to beat on its own, for as long as it has oxygenated blood to feed it. This is why head trauma victims provide most donor hearts. The heart remains alive as long as blood is still in the body.In the case of a gunshot into the mouth, the bullet has to pass through the sinus cavities. Any child who has been in a schoolyard fight knows how easy it is for the nose to start bleeding and how hard it can be to stop.
Had Foster really shot himself in the mouth, his heart would have continued to beat, pumping most of his blood out through the shattered sinus cavities and the entrance wound in his mouth, as well as out through the supposed exit wound. But this did not happen. Witnesses at the scene reported a "trickle" of blood from the mouth and nose (one of the tracks appeared to have flowed up hill).
THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF VINCENT FOSTER
On July 20, 1993, six months to the day after Bill Clinton took office as President of the United States, the White House Deputy Council, Vincent Foster, told his secretary Deborah Gorham, "I'll be right back". He then walked out of his office, after offering his co-worker Linda Tripp, the leftover M&Ms from his lunch tray. That was the last time Vincent Foster was seen alive.Contrary to the White House spin, Vincent Foster's connection to the Clinton's was primarily via Hillary, rather than Bill. Vincent and Hillary had been partners together at the rose law firm, and allegations of an ongoing affair had persisted from the Little Rock days to the White House itself.
Vincent Foster had been struggling with the Presidential Blind trust. Normally a trivial matter, the trust had been delayed for almost 6 months and the U.S. trustee's office was beginning to make noises about it. Foster was also the keeper of the files of the Clinton's Arkansas dealings and had indicated in a written memo that "Whitewater is a can of worms that you should NOT open!"
JFK Assassination
So what's the big deal? Kennedy's murder is important because it branded the consciousness of the Bill Clinton/Oliver Stone generation so deeply that we can expect it to disappear into the realm of historical trivia only when that generation is itself trundled off to the nursing homes. Everyone loves a mystery. Despite volumes of evidence and reams of writing speculating on who really killed the President, only two things are certain. Kennedy was definitely killed in Dallas by a high-powered rifle. His probable assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was definitely killed by Jack Ruby in the Dallas jail two days later.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a riddle wrapped in an enigma shrouded in mystery if ever there was one. Evidence of varying reliability has linked Oswald to virtually every group that had a reason to want Kennedy dead. In the years before Kennedy's death, Oswald worked as a radar operator at U-2 spy plane bases, defected to the Soviet Union and married the niece of a KGB colonel. On returning to the US, Oswald propagandized for Castro's Cuba out of a New Orleans building he shared with an ex--FBI agent trying to overthrow Castro. In the fall of 1963, Oswald moved to Dallas where he had FBI contacts, got a job in a Texas Book Depository and was accused of killing the president.
Questions abound. How did such a singular man just happen to get a job working at one of the best sniping points in Dallas, through which the President's open car motorcade just happened to pass? Why did this lone nut just happen to have ties to violent, subversive groups like the Cuban revolutionaries, the K.G.B. and F.B.I.? Wasn't it convenient that the future Mrs. Onassis was spared the anguish of a trial when Oswald was silenced the next day by Jack Ruby, a dachshund-toting strip-club owner with long-standing ties to the Mafia? And what was Richard Nixon doing in Dallas the morning of November 22?
Official answers to these questions can be found in the report of the Warren Commission set up by President Johnson. The Warren Report, completed in September, 1964, is quite ordered and readable for a government document summarizing such a convoluted event. The report makes it clear that the unstable Oswald did indeed commit the murder alone, out of misguided communist ideals and perverse desire to achieve fame in the only way he could imagine. It's only when one looks into the 26 volumes of evidence taken to research the one-volume report, as well as evidence and leads that were ignored, that problems with the commission's view arise.
Famous defects in the Warren report include the Commission's gloss-over of the shots most witnesses reported hearing from in front of the motorcade as "echoes", and that according to the Report, one of Oswald's bullets must have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and Gov. John Connally before being found as good as new on Connally's hospital stretcher. A few more obscure examples follow:
One Phillip Willis took a series of 12 photos of Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy was shot, in the minutes before and after the assassination. Mr. Willis' photos and testimony before the Commission appear in the report. He was not questioned about the eighth photo, a shot of the Book Depository entrance shortly after the shooting. As Willis later pointed out, one of the men in the photo "looks so much like (Jack Ruby), it's pitiful". F.B.I. agents questioning Willis agreed with him that the man bore a powerful resemblance to Ruby. When Willis mentioned this to the Commission, no interest was shown. When the photo was published in the Warren Report, a considerable part of the Ruby lookalike's face had been cropped away.
While the President's autopsy was underway at Bethesda Naval Hospital, federal agents removed the X-rays of the body from custody of the examining doctors. Though the X-rays undoubtedly would have been valuable in determining trajectories of the bullets hitting the President, and thus the shooter's location, they are neither published nor alluded to in the Warren Report. Thoughtfully, the Commission did provide in its report a dental chart made for Jack Ruby's mother 25 years before the assassination, as well as a detailed physical analysis of three of Oswald's pubic hairs.
According to New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, the Dallas Morning News for November 22 contained a map of the route President Kennedy's motorcade would take through the city that day. According to the map, the President was supposed to stay on Main Street while passing through Dealey Plaza, and would not have passed the Book Depository. In fact, the motorcade turned from Main onto Houston and then to Elm Street. This unplanned sharp turn not only brought the President into his assassin's sights, it also forced his car to slow down to ten miles per hour. Garrison says that a change in a parade route through such a large city would have required the acquiescence of the city police and government. The Mayor of Dallas, Earle Cabell, presumably signed off the change.
There are literally hundreds more oversights like those above contained in the Warren Report. The job of catching them has been done well by authors Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and others. The sheer volume of strange coincidences and connections has led some parties to suggest their own answers to questions posed by the Kennedy case. For every powerful group or figure with something to gain from Kennedy's death, there is a theorist ready to explain how that group arranged the murder. Of course, some of the explanations hold water better than others. The following are theories that have stood the test of time to become the staples of Kennedy assassination lore.
The Disapperance of Amelia Earhart
Some have theorized that she may have been engaged in espionage for the United States in an attempt to learn more about military activities in the Japanese Mandated Islands of Micronesia, particularly in the vicinity of Truk which was believed at the time to be the site of a Japanese naval base. The theory rests upon the last message ever received from Earhart by the U. S. Coast Guard Cutter Itasca and whether or not the information received was a compass heading or a sun line. She radioed, "We are on a position 157 degrees - 337 degrees, we will repeat this message on 6210 kilocycles.
We are running north and south." The entire theory rests on two of several radio messages transmitted from her aircraft that provided flight information to the Itasca. One message being a position fix 5 hours after her departure from Lae, New Guinea and a second message radioing either a heading on a compass or a sun line as she neared her destination. For over sixty years her disappearance has been a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Although it has been consistently denied by the United States Government, there must have been several high ranking officers within the American naval establishment who saw in Earhart's plan for a flight around the world a golden opportunity to reconnoiter the developments being carried out within the Truk Lagoon by the Imperial Japanese Navy.
The mysterious disappearance of Amelia Earhart (Mrs. George P. Putnam) and her navigator, Fred Noonan, (previously a Pan American Airways navigator), along with their Lockheed Electra -10 after the aircraft left Lae, the capital of the Australian Mandated Territory of New Guinea, is a puzzle that remains fascinating. It is not known if American intelligence officers ever bothered to read the annual reports the Japanese were required to submit to the League of Nations in the late thirties on their activities in the islands. If the United States authorities analyzed such reports they must have become curious as to the purpose of the imports of certain commodities listed in the statistical tables of the Annual Reports for 1936 -'37 which included 3.8 million tons of rice, (enough to feed a huge naval establishment).
Did knowledge of these increasing imports prompt General Henry "Hap" Arnold, Army Air Corps Chief, to attempt to find out what had been taking place within the Japanese Mandated Islands beyond their wall of secrecy by ordering the flight of two B -24's to reconnoiter the area barely two weeks before the outbreak of war in the Pacific and attempt to learn what Earhart failed to do 4 years and 5 months earlier? While the buildup of Truk as a great Gunko, (naval base) had been kept a
closely guarded secret, U. S. naval vessels were prohibited by the Japanese from entering the harbors of the Mandated Islands . By 1937, American naval authorities were becoming increasingly apprehensive of Japan's rearmament and the growing belligerency of its military.
So much so that on Thanksgiving Day in 1941, (two weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor) General Arnold ordered two B-24 aircraft stationed in San Francisco (1) to fly to Manila. While enroute they were ordered to fly over Jaluit in the Marshall Islands and Truk in the Eastern Caroline Islands to photograph the naval installations there and attempt to find out what had been taking place at these locations within the Japanese Mandated Islands. Did the American military's curiosity about these islands prompt an earlier (1937) request of Amelia Earhart to also attempt to fly over the same islands for the same purpose but from a different direction? Did she do so? The only serious problem with such a supposition is that a position report received from Earhart while in flight occurred at 5:20 p. m. (Lae time) and indicated her position at 04 degrees - 33 ' south latitude by 159 degrees - 06' east longitude, a fix which would place the aircraft in the vicinity of Nukumanu Island, northeast of Bougainville and in the area where it should have been assuming the original flight plan was being followed.
This fix would place the aircraft on a track from Lae to Howland Island some 742 nautical miles or about one third the distance between the two points which are separated by 2,227 nautical miles. This radioed position is far to the southeast of Truk and almost due south of Ponape (Senyavin Island, now Pohnpei) and north of Guadalcanal. That the transmission was picked up in Lae is strange indeed, since the Electra's radio range was said to be (although not confirmed by this esearcher) not much more than 400 miles. If this was in fact true - how is it that the signal was picked up from almost twice the distance? Was it a hoax? Was it a deceptive position directed to confuse any Japanese radioman at Truk who might have been monitoring the much publicized flight path (presumed to be from Lae to Howland) and the radio frequency of 6210 KHz? If so, the report was received at Truk only a short time before the aircraft could have roared over the encircling reef at Truk to carry out its assignment of aerial espionage before turning east to fly toward Jaluit and beyond the International Date Line thence south east to Howland .
To intentionally radio a false position with the objective of disguising one's true position is a classic technique of deception. Had a Japanese been monitoring the radio at Truk he could have plotted her position as a result of those coordinates and assumed she was outside the boundary of the Mandated Islands when in reality she could have been only an hour or so flying time south of Truk bearing down on the Japanese anchorage. Then zoom over the lagoon with enough light to observe the base before turning to fly east into the cover of the advancing evening darkness. On July 2,1937, Earhart departed Lae, New Guinea with Howland Island, as her destination 2,227 n. miles distant on an azimuth of 79.8 degrees - almost due east. The aircraft was to rendezvous with the U. S. Coast Guard Cutter Itasca which had been assigned by the U. S. Governmentto provide weather information and a directional beacon signal.
Howland is a low island with the highest point not ten feet above sea level. It is located at 00 degrees- 48' north latitude- 176 degrees - 38' west longitude, a mere dot on a Pacific chart. It is interesting to note that on May 11,1935, Fred Noonan replied to a letter from Navy Lt. Commander, P. V. H. Weems , an authority on aerial navigation , in which Noonan wrote about certain equipment for the planned flight. He stated, "For reasons which I am certain you can understand, we are not permitted to discuss the particulars of the flight for dissemination among the general public." (2) For some time the aircraft identified as King - How - Able - Queen - Queen had been trying to communicate by radio with the American vessel. However, some of the signals received by the Itasca , and there were several, were at times either inaudible or incomprehensible. As the ship waited at Howland its radio crackled shortly after 8 A. M , July 1st, with a women's voice. " We are on the line of position 157 degrees - 337 degrees -we will repeat this message on 6210 kilocycles wait listening on 6210 kilocycles - we are running north and south." This was the last message received by the Itasca from Earhart.
For sixteen days thereafter eight United States Navy ships and sixty four aircraft scanned 138,000 square miles of the Pacific for some evidence of the aircraft with the registry number 16020 and its crew of two. Nothing was found. Flying a heading of 79.8 (2) degrees in a northeasterly direction would result in approaching Howland from the southwest. Flying a heading of 157 degrees (if this was in fact a compass heading rather than a sun line) would result is approaching the island from a northwestern direction. The question to be posed being - what would one have to do to approach Howland on a heading of 157 from the northwest? Could it be possible that Earhart, on a secret mission for the U. S. military, flew north from Lae over the Truk Lagoon to observe the installations and then anticipate a change in heading over Eten Island in the lagoon which would take her east over Jaluit in the Marshall Islands and then continue to fly east and cross the International Date Line to approach Howland from the northwest on a compass course of 157 degrees ? If she did -then she was engaged in espionage - about that there can be no doubt. The distance in nautical miles from Lae to Truk is 888; from Truk to Jaluit - 1,063; and from Jaluit to Howland (via Great Circle) - 878 n. mi. The total distance is 2,829 n. mi. as compared with 2,227 n. mi. when flying direct from Lae.
The most direct route (Great Circle) from Jaluit to Howland is on a heading of 109.9 degrees for 878 n. miles. However, this route, while shorter, would require her to be in Japanese airspace and over several populated islands in the Marshalls for a longer period of time which would afford the Japanese more time for interception should the flight be discovered. Even so the cover of darkness would provide added safety. Did she maintain an easterly heading of 090 degrees after passing over Jaluit to reach a (critical) point for a turn on the "western" side of the Dateline then turn southwest on 157 degrees to reach Howland? The precise turning point on the U. S. side of the Dateline would be critical. If flying short - or flying beyond this critical point - a heading of 157 could still be flown - but the island would be missed in the empty expanse of the Pacific. One could indeed depart Lae for Howland on a heading of 79.8 degrees (the direct route), and without a functioning auto-pilot, drift off course either to the north or south of the intended tract and fly to a point southeast or northwest of Howland then turn the aircraft to 157 degrees or it reciprocal of 337 degrees either before or beyond the critical point in this area and miss the island.
It is also quite possible that the islands were not accurately plotted on the charts of the period which could account for a navigational error at the desired destination of the flight. She departed Lae at a time selected to result in arrival at Howland after sunrise for the obvious reason of being able to see the island and the crude, unlighted airstrip during daylight. The United States Government certainly will never admit she was engaged in espionage if in fact that was the case since the country was not at war at the time and the Japanese have nothing to gain by admitting any knowledge of the fate of the two aviators. The mystery is left to the interested reader to ponder. In the interest of objectivity it should be stated that professional navigators do not believe Earhart was involved in a reconnaissance flight over the Japanese Mandated Islands. This author bears full responsibility for any errors in the theory or calculations. However, one thing can be acknowledged, Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were two courageous pioneers in the true American spirit.
Forty years after the disappearance of Amelia Earhart , four Chamorro women were interviewed on Saipan by a Catholic Priest in November 1977. Their names have been intentionally omitted from this brief summary for obvious reasons. Their comments and recollections of the late thirties were provided to a U. S. Navy Admiral on Guam for forwarding to Washington. Summarizing the interviews, one woman stated that when she was a young girl , sometime around 1937 a foreign woman, thin in stature with brown hair - cut short similar to that of a man, would sometimes pass her house and on one occasion, looked sickly with one side of her body and one hand burned. The foreign woman, with whom the Chamorro lady could not communicate as she did not speak English at the time, was believed to be staying in a nearby building referred to by the local people as a hotel. This woman gave a ring with a white stone in it along with some pleasant smelling balsam to the young Chamorro girl.
Later, two Chamorro girls were asked to make two wreaths and, when asked why - the girls were told that the Americans had died of amoeba (dysentery or diarrhea). The Chamorro woman related that when the foreign woman was alive she was guarded. The other Chamorro woman recalled that as a child she remembered hearing that a plane had crashed southwest of us and the pilot was a woman. The Chamorro recalled that the Japanese were very startled because she was piloting the plane. Still another Chamorro woman, when interviewed stated, it could be 1939 or something like that when I first heard there was a woman spy who came to Saipan but they said she was most likely killed. But I did hear that an American woman was caught spying. Still another Chamorro woman when interviewed recalled, hearing about a plane that crashed, the topic of conversation in Saipan. I remembered going to church, I wanted to light a candle for my husband because a battleship was scheduled to come into port about ten o'clock in the morning. The plane was exhibited and that was when the Japanese made an announcement to all the people that those who wanted to see an airplane may come and see it. That was the year 1937 or 1938.
There were talks (sic.) about the plane having fallen down (sic.) in the island south of us in Micronesia. I know of a ring that belonged to that
woman. I dont know what ever happened to it. If the signals heard by Radio Nauru, Wake, Midway and Makapu Point originated from the Electra then it could be assumed that Earhart did not crash in the sea but on an island since sea water would have rendered the Electra's radio inoperable. Being on land and having been heard by Radio Nauru it may be surmised that she survived a crash landing and was alive, and with the aircraft, until 0948 (GMT) July 5, 1937. If so, this was the last signal ever received. The possibility cannot be ignored that Earhart flew off course, strayed into air space over the Japanese Mandated Islands , ran out of fuel and was picked up by the Japanese and taken to Saipan. If, on a heading from Lae of 79.8 degrees, it is possible that position report of 157 - 337 degrees is a navigation sun line . If so, the Truk theory may be incorrect. Since the departure from Lae, Amelia Earhart was in flight 20 hours and 15 minutes with 30 minutes of fuel remaining. It is not known for certain if she flew the Lae - Truk - Jaluit route , (2,829 n. miles) or the direct Lae - Howland route, (2,227 n. miles).
The difference between the two is 602 n. miles. The former route would require an average ground speed (g. s.) of 140 n.m.p.h. while the latter would require an average ground speed of 110 n.m.p.h. The take-off weight of the aircraft, length of the runway at Lae and fuel capacity of the Electra are also critical factors to consider. Many bizarre stories have been advanced surrounding her disappearance. Among the strangest stories includes that of a United States soldier stationed on Saipan in 1944-45 who claims to have seen the Lockheed Electra destroyed by American military in a damaged Japanese aircraft hanger at As Lito Field. Still another intriguing story concerns that of a bottle with its cork sealed with wax which washed ashore on the coast of France in October, 1938 with a note inside. The French language message stated that the writer had been a prisoner of the Japanese on Jaluit where he claims to have seen Amelia Earhart and a male individual, both of whom were being held on the atoll for alleged spying on Japanese installations. The writer of the note stated he had been placed on a Japanese vessel bound for Europe and would throw the bottle overboard when the ship neared port. This message is in the U. S. National Archives in Washington after having been given to American authorities at the U. S. Embassy in Paris. Earhart's position report at 0720 hours GMT of 04 degrees - 33 minutes south by 159 degrees 06 minutes east results in an approximate estimated time of arrival in the vicinity of Howland at approximately 2005 hours GMT
or two hours later than originally anticipated.
One might ask the reason for the continued interest in the Earhart saga. She was married to George P. Putman a public relations specialist (founder of Putman Publishing Co.) who saw in the flight an opportunity to capitalize on the adventure which was widely followed throughout the world. He actively promoted the attempt of an around the world flight in the news media. Amelia Earhart might be also recognized as being in the vanguard of what would later become known as the women's liberation movement. These factors have kept the issue before us through the years. The possibility cannot be ignored that Earhart flew off course, strayed into air space over the Japanese Mandated Islands, ran out of fuel and was picked up by the Japanese and taken to Saipan. (1) The order to fly over Truk was a result of communication dated 26
November, 1941, from General Adams, Adjutant General to General Walter C. Short and the memorandum from Brig. General Leonard T. Gerow to General George C. Marshall concerning the 27 November meeting in the Office of Secretary of War, Henry L. Stinson. One Liberator arrived at Hickam Field in Hawaii on December 5, 1941 and was destroyed on December 7th during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The mission of the second aircraft which had not arrived on Oahu was canceled. (2) Source: Popular Aviation, May 1, 1938, - Courses and distances are Great Circle calculations based on the International Ellipsoid courtesy of the National Geographic Society. Compensation has been made for a minus 9 degree east magnetic variation in the Howland area.
Other sources: U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 1971, April 1993, December 1993
The Lincoln Conspiracy
After Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865, questions arose almost immediately. Was Booth solely responsible for the assassination? Or was Booth simply a tool in a much larger conspiracy? Just who may or may not have been involved with Booth has been the subject of profound speculation among writers, historians, and others for over 130 years now. With the publication of new books and articles in the 1980's, 1990's, and beyond, the quest to find what really happened has continued. This page will attempt to outline the major conspiracy theories (in no particular order) that have been promulgated since 1865.
Approximately 7 hours before shooting the President, Booth dropped by the Washington hotel which was Vice-President Andrew Johnson's residence. Upon learning from the desk clerk that neither Johnson nor his private secretary, William A. Browning, was in the hotel, Booth wrote the following note: "Don't wish to disturb you Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth." Browning testified before the military court that he found the note in his box later that afternoon. Did Johnson and Booth know each other? In the 1997 publication "Right or Wrong, God Judge Me": The Writings of John Wilkes Booth edited by John Rhodehamel and Louise Taper it is stated on p. 146 that Booth had previously met Johnson in Nashville in February, 1864. At the time Booth was appearing in the newly opened Wood's Theatre. Also, author Hamilton Howard in Civil War Echoes (1907) made the claim that while Johnson was military governor of Tennessee, he and Booth kept a couple of sisters as mistresses and oftentimes were seen in each other's company. Lincoln had essentially ignored Johnson after Johnson's embarrassing behavior on Inauguration Day. Mary Todd Lincoln felt Johnson was involved. On March 15, 1866, she wrote to her friend, Sally Orne:
"...that, that miserable inebriate Johnson, had cognizance of my husband's death - Why, was that card of Booth's, found in his box, some acquaintance certainly existed - I have been deeply impressed, with the harrowing thought, that he, had an understanding with the conspirators & they knew their man... As sure, as you & I live, Johnson, had some hand, in all this..." Some members of Congress also thought Johnson was involved and a special Assassination Committee was established to investigate any evidence linking Johnson to Lincoln's death. Nothing suspicious was ever found by the committee; yet a belief by some Americans that Johnson was somehow involved with Booth continued for many years.
THEORY #2: LINCOLN DIED BY WAY OF A SIMPLE CONSPIRACY ORGANIZED BY JOHN WILKES BOOTH
This theory has John Wilkes Booth as the mastermind and that all remaining conspirators, with the one exception of John Surratt, were either hanged or sent to prison at Ft. Jefferson. Among the books that have supported this theory are Clara Laughlin's The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plot, His Deed, and the Penalty, David M. DeWitt's The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and Its Expiation, and George S. Bryan's The Great American Myth. The simple conspiracy theory paints Booth as a Southern patriot and racist who originally planned to kidnap the President, take him to Richmond, and hold him in exchange for Southern prisoners of war. When the kidnapping plans fell through, Booth turned to assassination as his means for revenge. The entire plot consisted simply of John Wilkes Booth as the leader of a small band of co-conspirators. No other people were involved.
THEORY #3: LINCOLN'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONFEDERATE PLOT
The idea that Lincoln was killed as part of a grand conspiracy of Confederates arose almost immediately after the assassination. Coded letters found in Booth's trunk back at the National Hotel tied him to the Confederacy. This theory has undergone a marked revival in the past 20 years. In 1977 a statement conspirator George Atzerodt made before the trial in 1865 was uncovered. In it Atzerodt told of Booth's knowledge of a Confederate plot to blow up the White House. The hypothesis of a Confederate grand conspiracy was detailed in 1988 by William A. Tidwell, James O. Hall, and David Winfred Gaddy in Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln. Further evidence was supplied by Tidwell in 1995 with the publication of April '65: Confederate Covert Action in the American Civil War. (Another work which stresses Confederate involvement, but lacks the detail of the aforementioned books, is Larry Starkey's Wilkes Booth Came to Washington). Proponents of the Confederate grand conspiracy point out that as the Confederacy's situation deteriorated, more daring and reckless planning was needed. Lincoln was viewed as a legitimate wartime target. This was especially true after the Union's failed Dahlgren raid on Richmond that had been approved by Lincoln himself and was evidence of Lincoln's increasing determination to take whatever steps were necessary to end the war. Colonel Ulrich Dahlgren was killed in the raid, and on his person several documents were found, one of which said, "The men must be kept together, and well in hand, and once in the city, it must be destroyed and Jeff Davis and his cabinet killed." Lincoln had hand-picked Dahlgren for the raid, and the Confederate government now believed the Union President had ordered Davis's death.
Confederate grand conspiracy theorists feel Judah Benjamin, the Confederate Secretary of State, was deeply involved in the plot to kidnap/kill Abraham Lincoln. He burned all of his records before Richmond was evacuated. Benjamin escaped to England, and he was the only member of the Confederate government never to return to the United States. He practiced law in England until 1883 and died in Paris on May 6, 1884.
The theory of a Confederate grand conspiracy portrays Booth as a rebel agent working to organize a band of men to kidnap Lincoln. When Richmond fell, the plans turned to assassination. First, there was the failed effort to blow up the White House followed by the successful effort to kill Lincoln at the theater. Just as Lincoln may have ordered the killing of Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet by Ulrich Dahlgren and his men, Judah Benjamin and Jefferson Davis were involved in the plans to kidnap and later assassinate Abraham Lincoln. The theory of Confederate complicity in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is accepted by many of the current Lincoln assassination historians, scholars, researchers, and writers. The actual trigger for Booth's actions was the April 10th capture of explosives expert Thomas F. Harney who was on his way to Washington to bomb the White House. Booth, knowing Harney's mission had failed, tried to make up for Harney's disaster by taking matters into his own hands and killing the President at Ford's Theatre. For the latest on this theory see the articles entitled "Who Ordered Lincoln's Death?" by James E.T. Lange and Katherine DeWitt in the June, 1998, edition of North & South magazine and "The Lincoln Assassination Revisited" by William Hanchett and "Risking the Wrath of God" by Edward Steers, Jr. in the September, 2000, issue of North & South. Confederate plans to blow up the White House seem to be confirmed by George Atzerodt's Lost Confession.
THEORY #4: LINCOLN'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY OF POWERFUL INTERNATIONAL BANKERS
This theory is that Abraham Lincoln was killed as a result of his monetary policies. John Wilkes Booth would be seen as a 'hired gun.' In its simplest terms, the theory is that Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War. He was offered loans at high interest rates by bankers in Europe led by the Rothschilds. Rather than accept the loans, Lincoln found other means to fund the war effort. More importantly, the British bankers opposed Lincoln's protectionist policies. Some Englishmen in the 1860's believed that "British free trade, industrial monopoly and human slavery travel together." Lincoln's policies after the Civil War would have destroyed the Rothschilds' commodity speculations. After the war, Lincoln planned a mild Reconstruction policy which would have enabled a resumption of agriculture production. The Rothschilds were betting the other way on high prices caused by a tough Reconstruction policy toward the South. Lincoln was viewed as a threat to the established order of things, and he was assassinated as a result. The goal was to weaken the United States so the Rothschilds could takeover its economy. An article titled "The Rothschilds' International Plot to Kill Lincoln" was published October 29, 1976, in New Solidarity.
THEORY #5: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS BEHIND LINCOLN'S ASSASSINATION
In 1886 an ex-priest by the name of Charles Chiniquy (pictured to the left) wrote a book titled Fifty Years in the Church of Rome which portrayed the assassination of Lincoln as a Catholic grand conspiracy. Chiniquy maintained that Jefferson Davis had offered $1,000,000 if someone would "kill the author of the bloodshed." Chiniquy wrote that the money could be offered, but that "...the Jesuits alone could select the assassins, train them, and show them a crown of glory in heaven..." Booth was the tool of the Jesuits. He was corrupted and directed by the Vatican. In 1906 Chiniquy said that "the President, Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated by the priests and the Jesuits of Rome." In 1856 Chiniquy had been defended in court by Lincoln. Chiniquy had quarreled with his bishop and then was sued for slander by one of the bishop's friends (the bishop himself having nothing to do with the complaint). A morals charge was also involved. The case was heard May 20-22, 1856, in Urbana, Illinois. Lincoln arranged for a compromise settlement, but Chiniquy interpreted the settlement as a victory over the church. He felt some Jesuits held Lincoln responsible for the settlement. In 1897 Thomas M. Harris, a member of the 1865 military commission, wrote a book entitled Rome's Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Other books that involve the Roman Catholic Church in Lincoln's assassination include DEMOCRACY UNDER SIEGE The Jesuits' Attempt to Destroy the Popular Government of the United States: The True Story of Abraham Lincoln's Death by C.T. Wilcox and The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Burke McCarty (1924). McCarty's opening sentence was, "In all the bloody history of the Papacy, perhaps in no one man, as in Abraham Lincoln, was there concentrated such a multitude of reasons for his annihilation by that system." An Inquiry into the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Emmett McLoughlin was published in 1963. Among other points, McLoughlin maintained that the majority of American Catholics were in favor of slavery and opposed to Lincoln. The author said the totalitarian Papacy considered Lincoln a major enemy, and that the Church for centuries had "been involved in numerous instances of the forcible removal of heads of state whom it condemned."
THEORY #6: SECRETARY OF WAR EDWIN STANTON WAS THE MASTERMIND BEHIND LINCOLN'S ASSASSINATION
In 1937 Otto Eisenschiml's Why Was Lincoln Murdered was published. The book espoused the hypothesis that Edwin Stanton was directly involved in Lincoln's death. It alleged that Stanton was against Lincoln's mild Reconstruction policies and wanted him out of office so more radical Reconstructionist policy could be employed. On the day of the assassination Ulysses S. Grant was expected to attend Our American Cousin with the Lincolns. Eisenschiml argued that had Grant attended, the military guards who protected him would never have allowed Booth to enter the State Box at Ford's Theatre. Eisenschiml further argued that Grant's refusal of the Lincolns' theater invitation was due to an order by Stanton to change his plans for the evening. Eisenschiml's theory was that Grant's absence left Lincoln vulnerable. Stanton was also alleged to have known that conspirators were meeting at the Surratt boardinghouse, and that he refused to release from duty the powerful Major Thomas T. Eckert after Lincoln asked for him as a bodyguard (falsely stating that Eckert had vital work to do at the War Department's Telegraph Office). Eisenschiml continued from there to make a case against Stanton by examining an entire series of events following Booth's shot. Nearly every move Stanton made is seen as suspicious and containing an ulterior motive. Among these behaviors and events were not alerting the security at the Navy Yard Bridge (over which Booth escaped), the mysterious interruption of telegraph communications, secretly arranging to have Booth killed before being brought to trial, and the suppression of evidence by removing pages from Booth's diary. Between the publication of Why Was Lincoln Murdered and the late 1970's, other books were published which supported and amplified Eisenschiml's hypothesis. For example, Theodore Roscoe's The Web of Conspiracy (1959) found Stanton's behavior very suspect. Other high government officials were also implicated.
Further evidence against Stanton was discovered by chemist Ray Neff who found cipher messages allegedly written in 1868 by Lafayette Baker, head of the National Detective Police, which implicated himself, the Secretary of War, and many others including Congressmen. David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier's 1977 publication, The Lincoln Conspiracy, was made into a major motion picture. However, during the past 20 years, research has clearly tended to vindicate Edwin Stanton. In hindsight, behavior by Stanton that appears to be linked to a conspiracy has been shown to be innocent and in some cases, fabricated. Current scholarship indicates plausible explanations for the actions Eisenschiml and other authors of the 1937-1977 era found suspicious. One good source for those wishing to read about the vindication of Edwin Stanton is Section 3 of Part Five (pp. 170-177) of Stephen B. Oates' Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths.
Dr. William Hanchett's closing sentences in The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies are as follows: "Lincoln would not have enjoyed the extravagant and pseudoreligious praise being offered in his name by so many Americans. Possibly he would have been reminded of some anecdote by which to deflate the absurdities of such exaggerations. But one suspects that if he could learn of the slush written about the suggested involvement of his secretary of war in his own death he would simply become angry."
Other groups and individuals that have at times been implicated in Lincoln's assassination include domestic bankers, financiers and businessmen, Copperheads, certain Radical Republicans (either on their own or in concert with Edwin Stanton), the B'nai B'rith, and the Knights of the Golden Circle. Major Henry R. Rathbone, John F. Parker, and Mary Todd Lincoln have not totally escaped suspicion. Speculation that Booth's motivation was to avenge the hanging of Confederate John Yates Beall is not proven (for details please see the November, 2000, edition of the Surratt Courier). Although it's been over 130 years since the assassination, any kind of closure on all of the circumstances surrounding the event still seems a long way in the distance. Judging simply by e-mail messages to me over the past two years, the general public favors theories 2 and 6 mentioned above. However, the preponderance of recent published material by scholars and writers supports number 3. The simple conspiracy theory has some very knowledgeable adherents, too. Some experts would combine the two saying that, although JWB had strong ties to the Confederacy, the actual events of April 14, 1865, were planned by JWB, not Richmond. Most everyone admits there is circumstantial evidence that ties the Confederacy to the assassination; the difference comes in the interpretation of this evidence. It seems certain that the controversy will continue well into the new century. Future studies and interpretations are a surety. Perhaps all the answers will never be known. In his 1999 publication entitled The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Professor Thomas Reed Turner (author of Beware the People Weeping: Public Opinion and the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln) notes the recent trend of professional historians who have been researching and writing about the assassination. On p. 78, Turner says:
Although this trend is a very positive one, those who continue to hope that the assassination may be "solved," in the same manner as a murder mystery may be solved, are destined to be disappointed. The century which has passed, makes any new and definitive solution to the crime doubtful. It is unlikely that a smoking gun will surface even though there may still be new sources which will be discovered.
For the full text of Mary Todd Lincoln's letter to Sally Orne, see p. 345 of Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters by Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner. For a detailed examination of many of the theories surrounding Lincoln's assassination, see Dr. William Hanchett's The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies. Also, Dr. Hanchett's article titled "Persistent Myths of the Lincoln Assassination" in the Winter, 1997, edition of The Lincoln Herald (published by the Lincoln Memorial University Press) is an excellent source. Thomas Reed Turner's Beware the People Weeping: Public Opinion and the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln is very good. For more on the life of Judah Philip Benjamin, see the August, 2000, issue of Frederick Hatch's Journal of the Lincoln Assassination.